When I state my objection to capital punishment - under any circumstances

[question everything]

yes, including Saddam Hussein - I state that killing that person will not bring back the victim(s) to life, will not prevent future crimes, and does not even bring comfort to the family of the victim(s). All it does is satisfies a sense of revenge which is not part of the penal code.

I am thinking of this rationale when I state my opposition to impeachment proceedings:

They will not bring back to life the dead Americans and Iraqis and members of the coalition; will not regenerate new limbs; they will not even hasten the withdrawal from Iraq. They will not bring back all the jobs that were lost, will not reverse the deficit. They will not provide health care to the millions without insurance, will not insure the safety of penions funds.

They will, however, keep Congress busy in these proceedings instead of moving ahead with more precious needs. There are many new members of Congress and they have their own ideas of what they hope to accomplish in two years and I doubt that impeachment proceedings is on the top of their agenda.

These two years will pass quickly. The older I get the faster the years fly. And before the proceedings get concluded, Bush will end his tenure and all members of Congress will have to start campaigning again, will have to explain to their constituents whether they accomplished something, compared to the "do nothing" 109th Congress.

We took control over the House because we chose a pragmatic way. We accepted to our tent people who are against women's right to privacy, who do not see gay's right as topping their agenda, who are not necessarily concerned about separation of Church and State, who do not even want to start an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Thus, even if Pelosi does put impeachment proceedings on the top of her agenda, I doubt that many Democratic members would go along with her. Do we even have a roll call of who would?

How do you think we would appear if the issue of impeachments just fizzles away?

Yes, many, especially in DU taste the sense of revenge, of taking over Bush and Cheney. But revenge is not part of the mission of Congress.

If it makes DUers feel better by venting on these pages, by emailing or snail mailing Pelosi and other representatives, fine. But the reality is that now that the Democrats have control of the house, they are not going to squander it on issues that are not going to improve the life of the average American.

OK, flame away.

[AndyTiedye]

1. INVESTIGATE! Impeach When the Weight Of the Evidence Produces the Votes

There is much that must be investigated. We will finally have the power to do that.

Impeachment will likely be a product of those investigations, when enough people
in both parties demand it.

[TheMadMonk]

2. Yes and No mate.

Impeachment for the sake of impeachment is futile and self defeating.

However, in order to begin repairing the damage done by the current administration and the outgoing rubber stamp congress, it is necessary to know exactly how that damage came (or was brought) about. Which means inquiries, deep probing inquiries. And what will come out of those inquiries, if they are honest ones, is evidence which will demand impeachment as an absolute constitutional imperative.

IF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO BE PROPERLY RESTORED THEN IMPEACHMENT MUST HAPPEN.

The law of the land demands it.

One mistake you and several others seem to be making is that each and every one of George & Dick's malefactions must be discovered, investigated and nailed down before he is impeached. Thus bogging congress down in non-productive activity.

Why? Why not pick one (any one of a hundred) impeachable offense, that can be pinned to both men, bust them on that, and if the Senate plays along show them the door. Either way it becomes a civil matter (even if we have to wait for the end of the term for further action). Hand one copy of the file to the FBI (or whoever handles treason and suchlike) and another to the Hague.

How does cherry picking a single crime meet the demands of that "Constitutional Imperative" I spoke of earlier? Well if I read it correctly, the constitution does not demand an itemised list of an office holder's crimes. It merely demands that if a person is unfit for office then he must be removed from that office. Beyond that, it's up to the law, not the legislature.


One thing that is essential is that they not be allowed to skate on this, else at some later stage a moral successor to George and Co. claims precedent and that Congress, by failing to prosecute once, has/had informally surrendered it's power to impeach.

[question everything]

7. Thank you for a well reasoned and written post

OK, I agree that we need to investigate. As we will be debating troops withdrawal from Iraq; as we will be debating the security of our ports and cargo - such investigations should uncover the nefarious reasons that the White House used to start the war while neglecting the real war on terror.

Because, when it comes down to it, it is not only the Bush White House but the rubber stamp Congress. Thus, investigating the vents without concentrating on "getting Bush" will help us a lot to retain control for the next elections, perhaps even capture the White House - if we are smart in selecting our candidate and right now I don't have any preferences.

[OneBlueSky]

3. well said . . . I agree with your reasoning . . . yes, we should investigate . . .

and build the case against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest . . . and then present it to the appropriate US and international courts after they're out of office . . .

impeachment has nothing to do with justice . . . it's a political action that results only in removal from office -- IF the Senate convicts . . . justice is for the courts, and that's where we should take the very substantial cases against BushCo . . .

[TheMadMonk]

4. The removal of an unfit person from office. nt

[aquart]

6. Hmm. I actually like that.

Treat them like the criminals they are.

JUSTICE.

[aquart]

5. True, BUT...

One of the reasons the Republicans were booted was the lack of consequences to their crimes, the belief that corruption was so endemic that justice was impossible.

If Bush is allowed to get away with his crimes, ALL impeachable offenses, and some hanging ones, we send the message that criminals are welcome to do business. It also means that the next president, of either party, walks in the door with all Bush's power unchallenged. What part of any of that seems like a good idea to you?

Justice matters. So far as I'm concerned, Nixon's pardon was the worst thing that ever happened to this nation.

That said, I would not pursue impeachment. I would investigate and expose. Put Bush in the position of being the obstruction. I would stop or roll back every Bush initiative, and I would do everything possible on the planet to force the media to expose the crimes. Hearings, hearings, hearings. God bless YouTube.

Nixon was forced out by Republicans. So, too, must Bush be. So put the pressure on and see what happens.

And you know what? I don't give a damn if we impeach him on January 19, 2008.

[question everything]

8. I agree. See my response, above (#7) (nt)