Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What has prompted these "impeachment off the table" comments? Were

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:11 PM
Original message
What has prompted these "impeachment off the table" comments? Were
the lawmakers being pressed for an answer on this by reporters?

Why not be noncommittal and say "nothing is off the table, we'll investigate what needs investigating and go where that leads us"?

Even if there were no attempt to impeach, whether legitimately or not, why remove that pressure? Was it necessary to comment on this?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Off the table" is an interesting phrase.
Presumably, anything that's off the table can be put back on. Kinda like the potroast over on the sideboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well, when a legislator "tables" a motion, it's killed.
:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. ...or at least put into a deep coma.
Isn't it possible to vote to "untable" a motion?

Anyway, taking something off the table ought to have the opposite meaning from tabling it.
But what the hell do I know? I'm a shrink, not a parliamentarian or a lawyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
29. Since the GOP has never lied and always played nice...
why wouldn't they expect to be showered with rose petals and extra large hershey bars in January when the new congress gets to town?

If the GOP, Cheney and Bush have done "NOTHING WRONG" and they have "NOTHING TO HIDE, OR TO BE ASHAMED OF" then why would they worry about adult minded investigations and oversight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. When the "sunshine" of Democratic majority...
lights up the Bush administration, it's going to reveal just how many vampires have been in our midst for the last six years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Or bush's plans to go to war
Remember that, "I have no war plans on my desk," statement that bush made? I keep feeling like this is the Dems way of playing word games with him now and keeping him nervous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. That's what I've been thinking.
Off the table = not presently ON the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Yeah--whatever THAT means.
Spin, Georgie, spin. Thou art skr00n
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niallmac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. Agreed. Why is it at all necessary to "take it off the table?"
it is so on the table it's in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. My hopeful impression is that...
it doesn't give the Administration any chance at negotiating the issue, or for Rove to take any actions over the next two months with the excuse that Dems are coming after them with a vengeance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
42. Impeachment is "off the table" because...
impeachment is dessert. What is on the table right now is the main course: hearings and investigations with liberal amounts of blue sauce. When those dishes have been served and cleared away, then it will be time to put dessert "on the table."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niallmac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Yummmm!!!
:9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Yes...
it's making my mouth water, too. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. Well put.
I'm saving room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sagan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. From a political gamesmanship standpoint, I don't want impeachment (yet)

What the Dems need to do is to reinforce the Bush / Republican fatigue that many Americans feel. If they go through with impeaching and removing Chimpy, there will be some backlash (who knows how much) and then the GOP can go with the "clean slate" message.

I'd rather have investigations and get Chimpy and Dick in front of Congress, sworn in to boot. That would guarantee pickups of seats and the presidency for the Dems in 2008.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Even if they didn't intend to impeach, why remove that potential threat right off the bat?
Why not let them sweat that possibility?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KSU Wildcat Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. IMHO the best way to hand 2008
to the Republicans is to pursue this impeachment noise. There are much more important issues to tackle. More than likely impeachment would turn the on the fence voters against us. The country is pretty evenly divided and impeachment will tip the balance toward the Republicans. Once again that is MHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Not "pursuing" impeachment is not the same as saying you will not do it right off
the bat.

To not pursue it does not require you to rule out the possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. I'm sure Karl Rove would advise Pelosi to do nothing lest she jeopardize 2008.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Exactly, would Rove want the Democrats to pursue impeachment?

I highly doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KSU Wildcat Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Look what impeachment did for Clinton.
It made him more popular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. A BLOW JOB isn't a WAR CRIME.
Get it? :eyes: (Sheesh!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KSU Wildcat Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. I never said it was any kind of crime.
I just said impeachment made Clinton more popular and it is liable to do the same for Bush. There are things that need to get accomplished and wasting time with impeachment hearings will not get it done. Impeachment hearings put on by the Democrats more than likely will be interpreted as revenge for impeaching Clinton. I think Pelosi and Reed realize that and won't let it happen.....Again IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Wrong again, grasshopper!! (Too much Faux News???)
Edited on Sun Nov-12-06 11:10 PM by TahitiNut

Clue: Impeachment did NOT "make Clinton MORE popular" nor did it "make Clinton (materially) LESS popular"!!

Clinton's popularity (i.e. job approval rating) wasn't affected ... because it didn't have ANYTHING to do with his job!

Again, a BLOW JOB isn't a WAR CRIME. It has nothing to do with impeachment, per se. It has to do with the High Crimes and Misdemeanors ... and a blow job doesn't qualify. War Crimes do!







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KSU Wildcat Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. You are right--I am wrong
Lets go get the bastard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. Unfortunately, lying about it under oath is a crime. That's what did it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. INVESTIGATE anyway - Bush will RESIGN rather than face the truth of his regime.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spangle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. has to be about breaking the law.
By saying right off the bat, that it's about impeachment, that sounds like revenge. JR is the first GOP president after Clinton. Clinton's impeachment trial was payback because of Nixion. It was groundless, and revenge motivated. When the investigations start, there will be some GOP doing 'face saving PR' work by claiming that we are going after JR out of revenge.

We need to investigate. Granted, it's not hard to see a few things that he has done that IS an impeachable offense. But I don't know about you, but I want the whole mess exposed. If we just go on the 'limited' stuff, then only he will be 'touched' by it. But by investigating, it gets everyone who was involved.

This needs to be focused totally on breaking the law. If the investigations show that there are grounds for impeachment, then so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Why is refusing to say impeachment is off the table the same as saying it's ABOUT
impeachment?

I don't think they are the same thing at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. Seems to be a decision behind closed doors by someone.
We'll see where this goes and where my conscience takes me (what I think is worthwhile fighting for in my life). I will have disillusionment at no remedies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. Why do you think Rummy got fired so quickly?
No one has said there will be no investigations...no one said that. They may be after other stuff, and made a deal...for now.

That's what I'm hearing around some blogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
19. Impeachment Will Be a Bipartisan Effort. Just as It Was for Nixon!
Impeachment will occur (or more likely they will resign)
when enough Republicans turn on them so that impeachment
would pass. That is how it happend with Nixon. We could
never have removed Nixon from office on Democratic votes
alone, and he knew that. Once the damning evidence was
out before the public (and widely reported), even the
Republicans could no longer support him.

That is how impeachment works. That is how it is supposed
to work. That is why it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict.

It can still happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pyrzqxgl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. We Didn't Impeach Nixon
we just made things so tough for him, and before him Agnew, that they both resigned, Doesn't that sound like a plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Nixon Would Have Been Impeached if He Didn't Resign
Nixon resigned because he knew there were enough votes to impeach him and remove him from office.
Members of his own party told him they would vote to impeach him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. Um, "it's off the table" IS noncommittal....
That statement says NOTHING about what WILL be on the table in the future.

OTOH, if you're talking about that talk on DU, it's just cowardice, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cookie wookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
24. I'm thinking it's a strategic move
Get some wins by Democrats for the American people, like stopping the rewarding of corporations outsourcing our jobs overseas, stop tax cuts for the rich, raise the minimum wage, etc. Carry on investigations and (try to) get the truth out to the people. Once that's done they may get a groundswell for impeachment without the Democrats having to overtly make the move themselves. They need early and fast wins first.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Right.. but they could do everything you just said, WITHOUT having said
that impeachment is off the table immediately upon winning the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. Xactree!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
31. Criminal investigations better not be "off the table"
If we let the most criminal administration in the history of the US get off without being prosecuted, we don't deserve to be in power ourselves. I do not want to support those who would be accessories to a crime. I want the criminals brought to justice.

It is a matter of restoring honor and the rule of law to our government institutions. Ignore the need and the problem will only grow larger. We will run against GOP candidates in 08 who are patting themselves on the back for having gotten away with it. They will be bolder than ever.

It isn't easy to be a Restoration government, but it will be damn near impossible if we let the same old crooks continue to govern. Time for the GOP to face the consequences of their actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
32. I intend to get the meaning.
I'm contacting David Price, 4th district, North Carolina. When I get an answer, I'll post it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
33.  I wondered myself about that and how quickly
Nancy Pelosi came out and made that statement... Why take anything off the table, and why take it off the table within 24 hours of the election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matriot Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
34. To me in means
that Bush has to do what Congress wants or it will be put on the table. It's so time consuming to do an impeachment that just having the threat hanging over his head we can get some progress done on pulling troops, healthcare, etc. Then when we get what we want then we impeach him. Better yet, I think we should force his hand in ratifying the ICC (International Criminal Courts) and let Bush be the first defendent for war crimes. That way we don't have to spend all of our money for investigations, the UN can do it. After he's convicted it's just a matter of a vote that he's impeached on the basis of him being guilty through the ICC. Then we let the ICC put on trial all the corporations and politicians that pissed us off. Ok, so maybe I'm building up a little fantasy land, but wouldn't it be cool if it came true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crappyjazz Donating Member (886 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
38. She said it's "off the table"
the rest of the sentence is "and on my lap keeping cozy until it's time to get it back up there" ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
39. It is a not-so-subtle message to the base: "We want your votes & $$$, not your input."
That is how I take it. Another way to put it is "The Democratic base is clearly out of step with congress."

Arguments about strategy aside- perhaps impeachment talk is arguably not the best strategy, but the overall message is "my way or the highway" and "our crazy base is great for getting us elected, not so great when it comes to how we plan on governing."

Whether impeachment is the answer or not, this is my take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
40. Certainly not moi!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
45. Rep. Jan Schakowsky got it right. . .
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/85997,CST-EDT-HUNT06.articleprint">Dem denials don't end talk of impeachment
October 6, 2006

. . .this response from Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who as chief deputy whip occupies a leadership position for Democrats:

"Whether the president has committed acts that meet the standard for 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' which constitute an impeachable offense, is not defined in the Constitution or in a statute. It is a determination made by the House of Representatives. To that end, I am a co-sponsor of . . . Conyers' resolution to authorize an investigation into whether grounds exist for the impeachment of President Bush based on his manipulation of pre-war intelligence and use of torture."

"Impeachment proceedings are very serious and must never be used for political purposes," Schakowsky wrote. "However, that does not mean that they should never be used. They may be warranted in the case of President Bush in light of the extreme seriousness of the issues involved." She complained the GOP-controlled Congress has been derelict in conducting oversight of "an unprecedented expansion of presidential powers.". . .


"Pelosi's Pledge" Must Not Stand!

It is impossible to carry out their duty to defend the Constitution if the only mechanism by which certain types of threats can be eliminated is "off the table." It is effectively a violation of her congressional oath to say impeachment is "off the table."

It is like answering questions about whether the use of military force is off the table -- the answer to that one is ALWAYS "nothing is off the table." Use of force is a weapon of last resort, but leaders never take the weapons we have made available for our defense "off the table." All she had to do was point that out and take the same stand that Jan Schakowski did.

Revised Oath (Changes Mandated by Pelosi's Pledge)

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and be derelict in my duty to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear foreswear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will fail to take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully negligently and faithlessly discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
47. There's a powerful lot of Independent voters out there...
Impeachment talk without the hard evidence (yes, we know it's there but it hasn't been really pushed in the media) will scare people who swing... and we're trying to win in 2008 as well. Given time I think it may creep back up on the table, once Bush's war crimes are made public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Not pursuing "impeachment talk" is not the same as saying "it's off the table".
Why not say nothing of it, and if brought up by a reporter, just be noncommital?

My point, and OP, is, why was it necessary to say this?

None of the posts have answered it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. I'm sorry but, in my house, "off the table" means exactly what you
don't think it means. Last year I told my daughter that talk of a cell phone was "off the table"... This year, we revisited it and she got a cell phone.

I think the posts aren't answering it because your definition doesn't fit with mine. I answered the question based on my understanding of the term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC