Why can't people understand that IMPEACHMENT is a WASTE OF TIME!?

[ddbaj]

Yes, our system sucks. We're not a parliamentary democracy, where you can take a vote of no-confidence and boot out the Prime Minister.

Impeachment would NOT bring GW Bush to justice. It's a waste of fucking time and can only hurt the dems in 08.

We need 16 Republicans in the senate to remove (Assuming Joe Lieberman, Bernie and all 49 dems are on board). Without that, impeachment is literally the equivalent of CENSURE. The only way 16 republicans will be on board, is if there's a massive outcry for impeachment, FUCKING MASSIVE! Until then, any talk of impeachment is 100% worthless.

There would be zero, zip, nada justice done to GW Bush if he is impeached. He would serve out his term in office. He would still get to be commander-in-chief of our troops. The war in Iraq would go on.

SO WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT? All I hear is "We need justice" and the like, what justice? If you want to slap the president on the wrist (which is what impeachment does), then push for CENSURE!

Yes, the American system sucks that way, lets make sure we boot the GOP out of the white house in 08.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Impeachment preceds war crimes charges.

You think we want to stop at impeachment?

Furthermore: How the fuck is censure better than impeachment?!

[ddbaj]

2. Censure is the same as impeachment.

It just says the congress thinks the president is doing something very wrong. Impeachment WOULD be better WITH removal, but without removal they're the same in practice.

[MUAD_DIB]

9. HAH! Murder is worthy of censure?

[ddbaj]

13. IMPEACHMENT DOES NOTHING!

Seriously, how is it different? Name one way?

Did Clinton lose office? He was impeached. It was a slap on the wrist.

[MUAD_DIB]

22. Bush is a criminal. I won't suffer criminals.

[Stand and Fight]

24. You confuse the impeachment process...

Furthermore, while impeachment can lead directly to removal from office, censure cannot.... That is the fundatmental difference.

Turn off your Caps Lock and start acting like an adult...

[davidwparker]

10. Censure was recommended by Feingold, but the senate repubs

ignored him. Censure was on the table once.

[Stand and Fight]

14. You're wrong.

They are not the same thing. If the impeachment process is succesful, Bush is thrown out of office. Get a grip.

[davidwparker]

3. because the Constitution demands impeachment for high crimes

and misdemeanors. That's why. It's needed for history.

Welcome to DU.

[ddbaj]

4. Thanks for the welcome.

I agree it would be constitutionally correct, but a waste of time still. No real world effect.

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. I guess the Constitution is a dead letter then n/t

[MUAD_DIB]

5. How many thousands dead: Iraqi and American?

What do you say to that?

[ddbaj]

8. How does impeachment help?

The war in Iraq goes on even if we impeach. He remains preisdent even if we impeach. HOW DOES IT HELP AT ALL?

[MUAD_DIB]

16. Because it is demanded. High Crime is not something that can

easily brushed aside for the sake of being good sports.

[Bake]

55. Just exactly where is it "demanded?"

Because I'm looking at Article 2, Sec. 4 of the Constitution and it doesn't demand anything. Here's what it says:

""The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

But ... but ... but ... its says "shall be removed!!!!!"

Yes it does. It says "shall be removed ON IMPEACHMENT ... AND CONVICTION." The only thing that is demanded is that once the Officer has been impeached AND convicted, THEN that Officer SHALL BE (i.e., mandatory) removed from Office.

Nowhere does the Constitution DEMAND the impeachment process. It provides for it. There were 200 years ago, and are today, political realities to the process and I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers recognized this.

I posit that Pelosi et al. were smart to "take it off the table." Let the subpoenas fly. Let the hearings begin. And then let the chips fall where they may. Demanding impeachment now is, to say the least, premature.

Bake, Esq.

[davidwparker]

25. If we impeach a president each time he/she commits a high crime

and misdemeanor, then future presidents may think twice.

If we don't, then it erodes the power of the Constitution. But since this America, or will be again in Jan 2007, we do have evidence gathering and a trial.

* signed away habeus corpus for Americans. I insist for him that a body of evidence be gathered and that he have his day in court (senate).

[ddbaj]

29. Okay...

What would that do, though? Impeachment, again, does NOTHING! Without removal it's as good as censure. Removal, like it or not, is a political remedy, not a legal one (even though we call it a trial).

If you honestly think 67 senators would vote to remove GW Bush, then go ahead. But if not, what's the damn point? Investigate first, THEN let the chips fall where they may.

[MUAD_DIB]

33. Why are you being obtuse?

[MUAD_DIB]

30. ^^^He Gets It!^^^

[Atman]

6. Why can't you understand that some people disagree with you?

I didn't even read your post, nor have I read one single "impeachment" post today.

But obviously there are a couple of different camps on this matter. And one thing I've learned after a few years here is that most DUers are pretty damned smart. So, either a lot of them suddenly became stupid, or maybe there is merit to both your position and to the other sides'. When I'm done doing the happy dance that we actually WON, I'll go back and catch up. But don't be so smug as to assume people don't "understand" your point of view, as opposed to merely "disagreeing" with it.

:hi:

We freakin' WON!

;)

:patriot:

.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Impeach Bush! Email Pelosi that we want the Swamp Drained!

email Pelosi at: [e-mail]

[e-mail]

or use the form on her page:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html
---------------

[newscott]

11. Even though we can't win we must.

Nixon got off scot-free. We need to make sure that that mistake is made up for. Never again. Then we send him to the Hague.

[Stand and Fight]

12. You're completely wrong about what impeachment does...

It opens the door to wider things. It is removal from office and eventually real criminal charges, which Bush would surely face. Stranger things have happened.

People said we would not take the Senate, we took it.

People said we would not take the House, we took it.

Public opinion is against the war in Iraq, and most people believe that it has not been worth it. How mad do you think those people would be if it became widely known after investigations that we had been LIED into war and, worst yet, Americans and Iraqis had lost their lives on account of the deception?

Maybe you need to check your tone, because most people will not grant you civil discussion if you don't know how to initiate one yourself, ddbaj...

And yeah... Welcome to DU.

[ddbaj]

17. Charges can still be brought.

Without impeachment. I am for INVESTIGATIONS, not impeachment right off the bat.

[Stand and Fight]

27. Get a clue...

You CANNOT impeach without investigations! What planet are you from? In

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a high official of government for conduct committed in office. The trial or removal of an official is separate from the act of impeachment. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.

Before charges can be brought against Bush there would have to be investigations.

[Iwasthere]

21. Well said

[Iwasthere]

15. It appears to me that a majority feel you are wrong about it hurtin Dems in 08

the country wants desperately to heal. The madman needs to be held accountable for his crimes. TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE CRIMES! You want him to get away with them cause it MIGHT hurt dems in 08?

[ddbaj]

20. He still gets away with them if impeached.

How is impeachment justice? What happens if he is impeached... NOTHING!

I want investigations and maybe CRIMINAL charges in the future. Impeachment will do nothing.

[brentspeak]

18. Agreed. 100%.

[Individualist]

19. Why can't some people understand it's a Constitutional DUTY?

:banghead:

[ddbaj]

23. I am not saying otherwise.

I am just saying it would be a waste of time.

Name ONE concrete benefit to impeachment? Just one. He stays in office, Iraq war goes on, etc.

Criminal charges DO NOT REQUIRE IMPEACHMENT, at all. Seems pointless.

[Individualist]

26. High crimes and misdemeanors REQUIRE IMPEACHMENT,

and people who piss on the Constitution go on my ignore list.

Buh bye.

[Hosnon]

34. The Constitution doesn't require that charges be brought. nt

[Iwasthere]

28. Thats right !!!!!!!!

Don't hold back... It will pay off... and it won't hurt Dems 08, it will help. He is still doing terrible things to our country and to the world, we cannot let him to continue unchecked.

[ddbaj]

32. Who said unchecked?

INVESTIGATE THE CRAP OUT OF HIM!

If people begin to call for impeachment, impeach the fucker! But to call for impeachment NOW is a waste of time!

[mmonk]

45. Politics

and loyalty to the party chiefs.

[Ptah]

31. If he was to be found guilty in the Senate trial, the penalty would be

more than 'serve out his tem of office'.

Section 3, Clause 7: Impeachment judgments

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further
than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and
enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States;
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject
to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[ddbaj]

35. I said impeachment, not removal

My whole argument is that IMPEACHMENT is a waste of time due to our current inability to remove.

Re-read the OP before you attack my position.

[MUAD_DIB]

36. Is the constitution a waste of time?

[ddbaj]

37. Nope.

Again, the same question, without the right ammount of votes in the Senate, what's the point of impeachment? Why not begin to INVESTIGATE and let The People demand impeachment, if they desire?

Without a huge outcry, no way 16 Pubs + Lieberman + 49 dems vote to remove Bush from office.

[lapfog_1]

38. Your assumptions are just so flawed..

We will not lose support or the 2008 elections if we find out that Bush and/or Cheney committed impeachable offenses and then we impeached them. It's what the constitution demands.

We should NOT impeach simply because they impeached Clinton for a blowjob. or for lying about a blowjob.

But we MUST investigate.

And if the investigation turns up what most of us here think it will, we are obligated to impeach.

Censure is silly and will look like a political cheap shot.

Investigate. Impeach. Convict and remove. Then they can be turned over for war crimes.

First we Investigate.

(Suppose, for example, the investigation turns up proof that 9/11 was a false flag LIHOP or MIHOP operation? Would you still oppose impeachment? Really? How about if we can prove that WMDs was a known false pretense to war in Iraq and the Congress and the people were lied to about the intelligence? Suppose Powell were to testify that he was told to make his speech to the UN but that he and Dick and W all knew it was false? Would you oppose impeachment? Really?)

[ddbaj]

41. Agree!

I am against those who want to begin impeachment right away, with the support we currently have! I am sure many of us and many Americans would be with us, but sadly we need a large chunk of the GOP to be with us, meaning a large chunk of the GOP BASE needs to be with us.

Until then, I say it's a waste of time. I agree with you that to get to that point, we have to investigate stuff like 9/11, the run up to Iraq, etc.

You seem to think I am against all impeachment... I said I was against it ONLY because we lack the votes. If we can remove the bastard, FULL SPEED AHEAD! :thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Better yet. Change the corrupt system that favors the powerful.

[ddbaj]

42. Land and freedom!

Love the name, and in 100% agreement. The system is FUCKED.

[aein]

40. Agreed. Impeachment is a purely political decision. It would be political suicide. n/t

[baby_mouse]

43. They want a big symbolic gesture. NT

[David__77]

44. First, let's build public opinion against Bush.

When you have masses of ordinary, non-activist people grumbling that they want him taken out, then maybe. But really, it's only two years. Much more critical tasks are at hand.

[mmonk]

46. Then remove it from the constitution. Let's all agree violating

the constitution is ok. Throw it in the trashcan. Waste of time. Party rule, calculations and decorum are all we need to protect us.

[NNN0LHI]

47. Try telling that to the 600,000+ murdered Iraqi men, women and children

And don't forget their friends and relatives too. Tell them it is a waste of time bringing to justice the person who is responsible for all those deaths.

Good luck.

Don

[ddbaj]

52. How does impeachment without removal...

How does impeachment without removal bring him to justice? Explain please.

[porphyrian]

48. Because we're being rational?

The only waste of time our Congress can pursue is to continue to ignore the will of the people.

If you believe in our Constitution, then impeachment is an imperative, not an option.

[stepnw1f]

49. Oh Brother... give me a F*ckin' Break

You want more criminals like Bush to be president... because if we don't impeach the bastard it will be a dangerous precedent for this country. Maybe that's exactly what you want...

[bigwillq]

50. They need to investigate though.

And if there is enough evidence and enough support.......

[Gloria]

51. It's better to get all the facts out first....then

with the Presidential race beginning in about a year, it may be better to skip impeachment and just hammer the facts. That will be political as it is and the GOP will whine like crazy. Add impeachment and they'll whine so much the FACTS will be forgotten....and the media will help them. We'll never get a "bipartisan" impeachment from this crowd like during the Nixon era. Impeaching Clinton didn't help the GOP, so we have to be careful not to be perceived as doing a revenge thing....

[Vidar]

53. Nice of you to wander in & post this gem. Onto ignore you go,

though i suspect your stay will be short.

[Orsino]

56. *Not* impeaching is asking for more of the same.

If * isn't impeached, impeachment really doesn't mean anything.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. Because emotion trumps reason every time.

The people hollering for impeachment are, by and large, so angry at George Bush (perfectly reasonably) that they are not thinking rationally, and indeed regard thinking rationally as a cowardly concession.

The questions to ask yourself if you favour impeachment are:

:-Do enough Republicans currently favour impeachment to produce the necessary majority?

:-Do you think that evidence sufficiently stronger than what is already available is going to be found to convince enough of them to change their minds?

I submit that the answer to this is, very clearly indeed, no: the Republicans are not going to break ranks to impeach a Republican president, no matter what evidence is presented.

:-If you agree with this, do you think that a failed impeachment attempt would be in America's interest?

Again, I submit that the answer is clearly no - it would make it much harder for the Democrats to pass good legislation for the next two years, and cost them (and hence America) dearly in 2008.

[LWolf]

58. Lack of agreement is not lack of understanding.

People can understand your pov without agreeing with you.