When does the Bush impeachment begin?

[Copperred]

Simply PUT...unless the DEMOCRATIC BASE lights and stokes this fire...the DLC, D-Hawks, and others less free will try to stop this. If there is to be a restoring of this country to a level of credibility that allows for progress, it begins with the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

-----------------------------------------

Read full article here: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11222006.html

Defeating the Bill of Rights
Bush's Lone Victory
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

(SNIP)

American liberties are the result of an 800 year struggle by the English people to make law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of government. For centuries English speaking peoples have understood that governments cannot be trusted with unaccountable power. If the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary to tie down a very weak and limited central government with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, these protections are certainly more necessary now that our government has grown in size, scope and power beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers.

But, alas, "law and order conservatives" have been brainwashed for decades that civil liberties are unnecessary interferences with the ability of police to protect us from criminals. Americans have forgot that we need protection from government more than we need protection from criminals. Once we cut down civil liberty so that police may better pursue criminals and terrorists, where do we stand when government turns on us?

(SNIP)

Mark my words, the future of civil liberty in the US depends on the impeachment and conviction of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales.

---------
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. As soon as pragmatic ,get along shit ends .Impeachment or Bust!!!

[elocs]

3. Bust--Pelosi says it's off the table and Conyers agrees. n/t

[elocs]

2. Wow! An Impeachment Now post without a greatest recommendation. Inconceivable!

Guess what? Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales are never going to be convicted. Deal with it and get on with the Democratic agenda for which the American people voted for earlier this month because Democrats were not running on an impeachment now platform unless they were being dishonest with the voters in not mentioning such an important issue in every speech they gave.

[BeFree]

4. No more coddling of the criminals

America must wash her lands free of the criminals now in DC. To do anything less would be a miserable failure. As far as I know, every Democrat running was running on a platform of change, and the best change America can go through is to impeach.

[porphyrian]

5. Impeachment is a Constitutional imperative. - n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Ummm, No It Isn't. Not By Any Means. It's A Political Decision Used With The Voluntary Discretion

of politicians. There is nothing imperative about it whatsoever. Not sure why you believe that to be the case.

[porphyrian]

9. I just love to have you contradict and dismiss me, man.

It's just not the same without your attention.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Don't Flatter Yourself. It Ain't About You. It Is About Accuracy And Fact.

Instead of getting personal, please just open your mind and recognize that what I said was correct and what you said quite simply wasn't.

Or, you can try and prove your case here by supplying what exactly in the Constitution exists that makes impeachment imperative.

Don't take it personally. I couldn't care less whether it was you or anyone else who posted it. What I do care about is that blunt declarations stated as fact at least, ya know, contain facts.

I know. Bad bad bad OMC, for such desire to expect accuracy.

[porphyrian]

12. See?

Let me spell it out for you, since you apparently missed the other billion times I've explained it. If we are indeed a nation of laws, we cannot allow the highest ranking officials in our government to flagrantly disregard those laws and the Constitution which they have sworn to uphold. Impeachment is the Constitutionally-defined method of keeping these officials from abusing their power. If we do not impeach, we render our laws, our Constitution and the authority of our nation meaningless. The only reason there isn't unanimous support for it yet is that most people have no idea how incredibly guilty this administration is yet, but this will change in short order, as investigations produce more and more evidence. When the people demand impeachment, the representatives will represent. Impeachment is coming, friend. But, believe whatever you need to.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. You Just Described Why You Believe There To Be Cause For Impeachment. That's A Far Cry From It

being a constitutional imperative, or in other words something the constitution mandates as no choice but to undergo. You couldn't be more wrong with saying it is a constitutional imperative. It quite simply isn't, period. It is a choice made by politicians at their own discretion at any time they want. All the constitution does is give them the mechanism for doing so. There is NOTHING mandatory about it whatsoever.

Sorry, accuracy counts.

[porphyrian]

15. If you deny it enough, it may cover your refusal to understand what I've said.

We can fight all day over my choice of vocabulary and your insistence on believing your position defines accuracy, but, really, what's the point?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. "We can fight all day over my choice of vocabulary"

It wasn't just your vocabulary that was wrong, it was the entire premise. Deal with it and get over it please.

It wasn't the word that was faulty, it was your entire declarative premise that the constitution demands such action be taken. All I did was correct that blatant inaccuracy by stating that it wasn't even close to being the case.

There was never any reason to argue further to begin with. The points are amazingly clear. You should've simply responded, if at all, with an acknowledgment that your statement wasn't in fact accurate and that you'd edit it so that it wouldn't continue to reflect complete constitutional ignorance.

Sorry my intent to correct your faulty premise has offended you so.

Goodnight. :hi:

[porphyrian]

18. Take care. - n/t

[petgoat]

25. Defense of the Constitution demands impeachment.

If Bush is allowed to trample it, every president in the future can
claim the same right and it will be nothing but a piece of paper.

That's what makes impeachment a Constitutional imperative.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. "That's what makes impeachment a Constitutional imperative"

No, no it's not.

Sorry.

[petgoat]

33. Is so. Bush's actions stand as precedents until they are

overturned by the courts or through impeachment.

We can either let them stand until some president in the future
chooses to follow Bush's course and the case gets to court--where
we can only hope it is outlawed.

Or we can impeach and get the judgement in 2007 that these actions
are illegal.

The former case reduces the Constitution to a set of idealistic
guidelines, while the latter retains its force as the law of the land.

Defense of the Constitution from its domestic enemies requires impeachment.

[conscious evolution]

34. Sorry but it is a Constitutional imperative.

'I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. No, It 100% Isn't. You Declaring It Such Doesn't Make It So.

Furthermore, what you copied merely gives cause to why politicians could choose to impeach, if impeachable offenses were found. However NOWHERE in the constitution or otherwise, is it MANDATED to undertake such action. It is ALWAYS simply a political tool used by politicians by CHOICE, PERIOD.

Say it as many times as you want. It just simply isn't true. Impeachment, in this circumstance or any other, is not nor ever will be a constitutional imperative. If you can't accept that, than you will have to lobby all the members of congress that you can to offer a constitutional amendment that after being ratified would deem that there is a such thing as an imperative for impeachment. But until that time, one simply does not exist; whether you want it to or not.

[conscious evolution]

36. Do you know what the word oath means?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/oath
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oath
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861634267

And if you are still having trouble with the word oath here are some more links for you read
http://www.onelook.com/?w=oath&ls=a

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Nice Try. Your Point Is Still Irrelevant And Your Argument Still Refuted.

Don't twist this into an argument as to whether or not I believe there are grounds for his impeachment. Of course there are. I find it extremely weak that your return argument could only consist of putting me down as if I don't understand the concepts.

Let it be made clear: You refuted nothing and your assessment that there is a constitutional imperative to impeach is completely 100% wrong. Now you can go on saying otherwise, but that just continues to show your lack of constitutional understanding. You can continue to throw condescension at me, but that does nothing whatsoever to bolster your argument. You can continue to have animosity at my pointing out that the constitution does not in any way, shape or form mandate impeachment ever, but that's not going to reverse the reality.

Defending the Constitution does not mean being FORCED to impeach. It means not willfully allowing laws from being passed or actions performed that are contrary to the constitution. But that in no way equates to impeachment. It equates to legislation and the handling of such legislation. If there is such flagrant abuse of power that serves to destroy the constitution, there is also the mechanism of impeachment that can be used by choice. But it is not a mandatory practice. The constitution can be defended by Congress merely with appropriate checks and balances, which hopefully we now have.

I'm not sure what part of this concept you are failing to grasp, but I'll try to once again clarify for you or anyone else that thinks there is something in the constitution that MANDATES congress impeaching for any reason: It does not exist. There is no such declaration within the constitution. There is no such requirement therein. I challenge you, instead of being snarky and dismissive, to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Impeachment is a political tool and political mechanism. Its only purpose is to give congress the ability to impeach. The ABILITY to impeach, not the mandatory REQUIREMENT to impeach. It is ALWAYS left up to the CHOICE of Congress to pursue such avenues. It is designed that way and implemented that way. There is NO dereliction of duty by choosing not to impeach and it is nothing more than a mechanism to be called upon whenever and however Congress chooses. Now granted, in this circumstance, it is all but certain that * has committed impeachable offenses. But that does not mean Congress is OBLIGATED or under constitutional REQUIREMENT to initiate such proceedings. It is simply up to them. It is their choice. If it is in fact reality that it is a choice, than that reality is COMPLETELY CONTRARY to your and the other posters' notion that it is a constitutional imperative or that there would be some dereliction of duty by not exercising that power. Choice means dereliction of duty is not applicable. Choice means that imperative is not accurate. The fact it is a congressional choice means your and the others argument is completely inaccurate and false.

I'm sorry this upsets you, but like I said, that doesn't change anything. But don't get bitter at me for it, as I am not the one who wrote the constitution. All I did was point out that when a poster said it was a 'constitutional imperative' in such a way to deem it as fact, that in reality the declaration was quite simply wrong: And it was.

So unless you can point me to any part of the constitution or any reference of constitutional law that bolsters an argument that such action is a constitutional requirement, this argument is done.

[conscious evolution]

39. This is getting interesting

After doing som e research on the matter it seems to be case where it depends on the meaning ,in a legal sense,what the word is is,I mean shall is!




shall
v. 1) an imperative command as in "you shall not kill." 2) in some statutes, "shall" is a direction but does not mean mandatory, depending on the context.
sworn commitment of allegiance, as to one's country.

[conscious evolution]

43. I just noticed

something in your reply:'constitution that MANDATES congress impeaching'
While the issue of a 'mandate' is debatable(depending on the definition of Shall,imo).The whole basis of whether or not we are a nation of laws makes it imperative that impeachment proceedings occur.

In post 10 you used the words 'Constitutional imperative'.Was that intentional or a slip of the tongue,so to speak.Either way I think you may have confused some of us,resulting in this little flame war that has erupted.

[lonestarnot]

50. Yes it does! But I thought we had to vestigate first :>>>>)

[petgoat]

51. Investigate to confirm what's obvious on its face from the facts. nt

[bahrbearian]

21. Exactly, why have laws ,

if the rich and powerful aren't subject to them.

[pat_k]

28. Impeach (accuse) or dismiss the charges. Anything less is dereliction of duty.

When the Constitution is under attack, Members of Congress are sworn to defend it. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend against threats that come from within the halls of power. The question before each and every Member of Congress in the current crisis is this: "Is there a legitimate case that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution?

Numerous charges against Bush and Cheney are well known to the public. Elected bodies, good government organizations, citizens' groups, and countless individuals have examined the evidence and judged Bush and Cheney to be an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy.

Their duty demands that they be "on the lookout" for threats. Each and every Member of Congress who claims ignorance of the charges against Bush and Cheney and the evidence that has been put before them is willfully turning a blind eye and is thus derelict in their duty to support and defend.

Each and every Members of Congress who is aware of charges that an official is abusing the power of their office to subvert the Constitution or for personal gain is duty-bound to judge the charges as having merit or to dismiss them as baseless.

The power to formally accuse lies with the House. Each and every member of that body who has concluded that there is a legitimate case that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat is duty-bound to act (e.g., introduce articles of impeachment). They're oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend." Even if they believe it will be "the charge of the light brigade" they are bound by oath to take up the fight.

If they believe they need something more to make a judgment, they are duty-bound to actively seek it. If what they seek is out of reach, they must render judgment on the information at hand. If they find they are unable to dismiss the charges, then the charges have merit and they are duty-bound to move forward and call on their colleagues to impeach and put the charges before the Senate for final judgment.

Calls for investigation say one thing: "We don't have enough information." With regard to the charges against Bush and Cheney, all the information required to make a judgment is in the public record (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">link). The limbo of "I don't know" is not an escape. Vague claims to "need more information" are no better than the limbo of "I don't know."

Their oath is an individual oath. They bear personal responsibility for the damage done each day that they betray their oath by unnecessarily putting off their duty to judge.

Every day that they do nothing they betray their oath and demonstrate contempt for the concerned citizens who are calling on them to act. They do so at their peril. The citizens who are taking up the fight for impeachment are a very active bunch who will not quietly accept the dismissive contempt of their elected officials for long.

Every day that they do nothing they effectively exonerate Bush and Cheney. If exoneration is their intent they should do it honestly and tell the nation the reasons that they have concluded that the public's accusations are baseless -- a conclusion that is at odds with the majority of Americans who want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress (http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">link).

Dereliction through inaction is bad enough, but those who are mindlessly balking with claims that the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is "it's off the table" (no reason or justification, it's just off, period) are declaring their intent to betray their oath. (Throwing away the only weapon they have to defend against presidential abuse of power is "pre-emptive" surrender.)

If Speaker-Elect Pelosi does not withdraw her "impeachment is off the table" pledge, the oath she administers to the 110th Congress will require revision:

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.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. This Is So Over The Top, Over Zealous And Quite Simply Incorrect.

As kindly as I can say it, but as matter of factly as well, I would wager that there isn't a legal constitutional scholar around that wouldn't laugh hysterically at some of your assertions there.

Listen, I understand the passion surrounding the impeachment issue and I've been immensely disturbed by the acts I've seen bushco pull off as well. But that doesn't mean I'm going to make things up or issue over the top melodramatic declarations that have no basis in reality.

And for the record, Nancy's oath will be just fine. Your revision to it just shows how truly over the top and melodramatic your assessments actually are. No one is in dereliction of duty if they choose to not bring impeachment charges, and I'd challenge you to find anywhere in the constitution that claims otherwise. Nancy and the Dems role in protecting the constitution is not allowing laws, bills or otherwise that undermine the constitution to go forward. They can far more do that now. But they are not in dereliction of duty if they choose to not bring impeachment charges. To make that claim is beyond absurd and makes our whole plight look ridiculously silly.

[petgoat]

40. Dems role in protecting the constitution

"is not allowing laws, bills or otherwise that undermine the constitution to go forward."

Sez you. The oath of office taken by the members of Congress does not limit their role
in this way.

Article VI provides that members of Congress "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to
support this Constitution" but no text for the oath is provided.

The oath comes from section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22). 5 U.S.C. 3331 has the text:

I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

So while you may have a technical case here in that the imperative is not Constitutional but
statutory, it is no less an imperative, particularly if you construe the enemy of the Constitution
to be not George W. Bush but the despotic president in the future who will seek to expand W's
precedents into areas we can not imagine.

Simply overturning W's statutes legislatively is not sufficient because it is only through
judicial action or impeachment or constitituional amendment that they can be declared beyond
the pale.

If we only hide W's expanded powers toys through legislative action some despot in the future
can take them down off the top shelf and enact them again.

[Freeusfromthechurch]

23. I love to hear the Truth, thanks porphyrian

[porphyrian]

46. Well, don't consider me a reliable source, but you're welcome.

I, like many here, tend to believe I'm always right. Unlike the others, though, I always am, but I often find the need to radically change my position in order to be more right.
;)

[pat_k]

31. Members are bound by oath to act. The power to impeach is the weapon . . .

. . .we gave them in the Constitution to fulfull that oath when the attack comes from within the halls of power.

Unlike the Presidential oath, which is dictated by the Constitution, the Congressional oath is dictated by statute (established under the Constitution). Whether Members of Congress are duty-bound to impeach Bush and Cheney by Constitutional dictate or statutory oath is a distinction without a difference -- in either case http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/11">they are duty-bound.

[buddysmellgood]

6. It started November 7. Patience.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. It Doesn't.

Hope I'm not the first to break it to ya.

The only way it's gonna come close to happening is if the congressional investigations turn up such indisputable evidence that stirs up such a public outcry that impeachment becomes a mandatory proceeding in order to satisfy the overwhelming majority of public sentiment. That could happen, but I'd honestly consider it to be quite a long shot.

But even regardless, asking when impeachment will begin at this point in time is extremely ass-backwards , inappropriate and unprofessional in my opinion. Right now the question isn't "when will impeachment start", the question is either "when will the investigations start?" or "Do you think the investigations will produce enough facts of impeachable behavior to warrant true impeachment proceedings?". You can't talk about a serious intent to impeach prior to even beginning real investigations. To do so is as disrespectful and unethical as them already having the war in iraq determined (see the DSM) while still trying to convince the public they were doing everything they could do to avoid the conflict. You can't start out with the pre-determined endgame of impeachment while then just going through the motions of investigations knowing you're just doing it for sake of formality and at the end of them you're going to impeach no matter what anyway.

Investigations first. Only after thorough and legitimate investigations should the topic of impeachment even be brought up.

[Theduckno2]

16. Yes, investigations first. We, the people, must be armed with truth.

Too many of the terrible things done in our name were based on untruths and presumption. Should the evidence amassed lead to public support for accountability for those actions then impeachment is warranted.

I do expect that those investigations will occur, people will be agitated and then something like a foreign indictment for war crimes could set the whole thing in motion.

I believe I am quoting Orwell: "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it." I think the same thing applies in regards to impeachment, that is, if the moneyed classes find it profitable to throw George W. Bush on to the political scrap heap then he will be gone so quickly our heads would spin.

I suspect that as we communicate here, those type of political calculations are being considered throughout the country and the world.

[man4allcats]

11. In fact, there IS an impeachment effort under way.

See "Democrats.com Launches ImpeachForChange Mobilization for Impeachment" in Bob Fertik's blog. They are circulating an online petition (please sign) in an effort to convince soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi that impeachment should be "on the table."

[Yukari Yakumo]

14. Never.

Nothing good will come of it.

First, we need actual evidence. By the time all the inquiries and investigations are over, Chimpy would already be on his way out.

Plus this would only backfire if done too soon.

[petgoat]

26. "we need actual evidence."

Oh, stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, abrogation of habeas corpus,
the Downing Street Memos, secret wiretaps, the NSA in AT&T, intimidation of
journalists, obstruction of the 9/11 investigation, and ignoring warnings
of imminent terrorist attacks aren't evidence?

[alittlelark]

19. Copperred....where are you? You've been here since 2003

and have a few over 500 posts? Where have you been?



This just seems kinda...well divisive. Infighting can be created.

[Copperred]

20. Ark, I travel allot and post selectively...

Without impeachment, I assure you (for what it's worth and I recognize you can't objectively know that), the *entire world* will be set back many generations.

It's up to the base, not the politicians.

[catmandu57]

22. Patience my pretty

Enjoy the show, we've got these bastards by the short hairs, they've been defanged let's play a little bit.
Savor the taste of fear and the odor of soiled pants, investigations followed by indictments, criminal charges, resignation in dishonor, jail time, relax enjoy the process. Payback is a mother.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. You need to insist on it

and me, and over forty million other people

It is a poltiical act, less you forget that. They will NOT go down that route unless they know they have the political cover to do that. We are their cover

[Cleita]

27. First there will be committees set up for investigations of

the various questionable actions of the Bush administration. If the investigations point to a need for hearings, then there will be hearings. Only after that will there be impeachment, however, there is only two years left in Bush's term and most likely he will be out of office then. However, that doesn't mean that he could be put on trial outside of Congress for criminal activities, even maybe even being sent to the Hague for war crimes.

[baby_mouse]

29. My guess?

IF it happens, about a year from now.

Otherwise, something far, far worse will happen to the whole greasy edifice...

[onenote]

38. not any time soon, if ever

As I've pointed out before, we just completed 468 campaigns for senate and house seats. And impeachment was not an issue, or even part of a candidate's platform in the vast vast majority of those cases and, as best I can tell, only one candidate that advocated impeachment as a campaign position won election. Under the circumstances, it is unlikely in the extreme to think that there will be an impeachment effort any time soon. Investigations/oversight: sure, but as an end unto themselves. Impeachment can, if ever, become the goal only if a bi-partisan upsurge in public support for the idea as a high priority develops. Given the amount of time left in this administration, seems unlikely to happen

[petgoat]

41. You seem to be taking the fact that the Democratic poobahs

put the kibosh on any talk of impeachment as indication that it is not politically
feasible.

That W has only two more years to serve is an issue of expedience; that impeachment
is necessary is an issue of principle. W must be removed from office even if it's
January 19, 2009 before it happens.

[onenote]

44. whatever the reason, impeachment wasn't an issue in the elections

while oversight and investigations were. That is why investigations and oversight should be pursued, but as ends unto themselves, at least until public support grows for making impeachment a high priority, which is clearly is not for most of the public. If the clock runs out, the clock runs out.

[petgoat]

45. The public did not swear to defend the Constitution. The

legislators did. Their duty to do so goes far beyond merely
carrying out the wishes of the public and matters of political
convenience.

Leaders should lead: explain, educate, inspire.

[onenote]

47. And if you don't like how the legislature operates, vote them out

The Constitution doesn't mandate impeachment. ULtimately, it is discretionary action taken by politicians. If their actions please or displease the electorate, the electorate has the means to respond. In our representative system of government, running for election on a particular platform that doesn't include impeachment and then making impeachment a top priority would be fundamentally stupid.

[petgoat]

49. Sometimes leaders have to do what's right even when it's

unpopular.

And polls show that impeachment is by no means an unpopular proposition.
When the truth about 9/11 becomes widely known, it will be a VERY popular
proposition.

That impeachment was off the screen in the elections was simply because the
Dems didn't want to turn every race nationwide into a "Pelosi for President?"
referendum.

[onenote]

52. so you acknowledge, in effect, that the public isn't ready for impeachment

If they weren't ready for "Pelosi for Preisdent" three weeks ago, they aren't ready now. The issue isn't investigations. They should move forward. It is that those investigations should be discussed as an end in and of themselves, not as a route to impeachment. If public sentiment for impeachment grows as a result of investigations, the nature of the discussion will also change.

[petgoat]

54. I acknowledge nothing of the sort.

The poll shows that the public IS ready for impeachment IF Bush lied.
Anybody who's paid attention to the Downing Street Memos knows he lied.
Most of the public has not yet seen the DSM. The will is there. It's
just a question of presenting the proof that's in the public record.

I didn't say they weren't ready for "Pelosi for President". I said
the Dem Poo-bahs didn't want to cloud the local races with a referendum
on Pelosi for President.

[onenote]

56. and why didn't the "poo-bahs" want to "cloud" local races with that referndum

They were more than willing to make it a referndum on such non-local matters as the war, corruption, and in virtually every instance, George W. Bush. Yet they wouldn't/couldn't pull the trigger to go so far as to say: George W. Bush should be removed from office and if you will elect us we'll do that.

[petgoat]

57. You'd have to ask them. I'd suggest it would have been a

bad move because the war, corruption, and W were well known to the
voters and the voters were against them, while Ms. Pelosi was not
well known to the voters and so would have required a lot of
expensive education, she could easily have been attacked as
un-Middle-American, and she would have taken attention away from
the winning issues the voters were already educated about.

[Seabiscuit]

42. Answer: Unfortunately, when hell freezes over. With Feingold and

Pelosi making uncalled-for remarks that impeachment is "off the table", well, we may as well fuggeddabouddit.

[earth mom]

48. It's up to the people to push for Impeachment.

We can NOT let this matter go because of a few vocal and obnoxious naysayers here on DU say so!

Some previous threads:

Impeachment Call Echoes Near Independence Hall
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2611282

Cindy Sheehan: To Pelosi & Conyers: We the People Are Setting The Table Now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2707344

Send 500,000 Impeachment letters to Pelosi by her first day as Speaker Jan 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2697215

Impeaching Bush to Preserve the Constitution-by Elizabeth Holtzman
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2694132

Impeach Bush: Do it Youself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2662784

This Is Not About Impeachment-This Is About Civic Responsibility
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2753497

CALLING NANCY PELOSI-The People's Case for Impeaching Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2722364#2752497

Regarding Impeachment and Ending the War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2723350#2724094

On Impeachment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2659066

[Founders Know Best]

53. great links- thanks!

The best argument they've got- just because it states in the constitution that we impeach criminal presidents doesn't mean congress has to- it's their choice. Shall we just toss the oath of office they take too? How about no one has to testify under oath anymore- they are already doing that one in congress with the oil executives. :wtf:

[Bucky]

55. Hate to break it to ya, but you can hardly muster a majority on DU to support immediate impeachment

Damn those turncoats and their "results-oriented" thinking!