Would censure be a better option than impeachment in the

[Road Scholar]

shadow of the '08 elections? I know many, including Pelosi, says impeachment is off the table, I assume because it would make us look the bad guys and have a negative impact on the elections.
I believe oversight investigations are going to expose so much that it is going to be shocking and repulsive.
Just wondering.
:shrug:

[porphyrian]

1. No. Don't listen to the cowards. We try for everything we can get. - n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Impeachment is a Duty

Bush has overtly tried to destroy the Constitution, and there is no reason to believe that he will not continue to try.

He must be stopped.

[Monkeyman]

3. Your right the investigations will leave no one standing

The 08 elections will be won due to these investigations. No longer will they be able to hide what they have done to America

[Road Scholar]

4. I agree with you all. It is hard to get the mistreatment of Clinton

outta my craw. I'm still pissed about that.But we have to use our heads
and not get sucked into emotional decisions.

[porphyrian]

10. It's not an emotional decision. It's the thing to do, as outlined in the Constitution.

People like to debate as to whether or not it is optional, but ultimately, when it's the will of the people (and I'm thinking it won't take longer than next year), it will be the will of our representatives in Congress. Sure, there's emotion surrounding a subject, but that doesn't mean it's the REASON for calling for it, and I wouldn't trust anyone who says it is.

[bobbolink]

14. How can the theft of our democracy not be "emotional"?

I want to see a HELL OF A LOT MORE "emotional"!!

The outrage should be not only audible, but inescapable!!

[Stargleamer]

5. Do you mean censure rather than censor?

n/t

[Oleladylib]

6. I think it is "censure"..basically wrist slapping.

[Road Scholar]

7. Opps, yes. Sorry, LOL

:blush:

[smoogatz]

8. The threat of impeachment is the most powerful weapon the 110th

Congress will have at its disposal. They may talk about impeachment being "off the table," but the subtext is always "pending various investigations." Censure is nothing. Impeachment would be the ultimate humiliation for Bush--an excellent stick to use in trying to get things done over his public objections.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. I was hoping to see a column of "No"s. Plain and simple.

[bobbolink]

11. Do you want the thief who broke into your house

"censored" or charged???

[Road Scholar]

12. Very good point. Thanks

[EdwardM]

13. Only in America...

can someone get impeached for getting a blowjob but not for starting an illegal war on false reasons, outing a CIA agent, commiting illegal acts of torture and condoning rape, trying to illegally gather everyone's Google records illegal and showing total incompetence in capturing the 9/11 terrorists. Will someone give this man a blowjob please?

[jannyk]

15. No!!! nt

[elocs]

16. No, there must be impeachment

otherwise there will be exploding heads all over the place. Forget conviction, impeachment is evidently enough. I wonder in this polarized government that the Impeachment Now crowd think they might find 16 Republican Senators who will vote for the conviction of their president? Why would they think that every Democratic Senator would vote to convict (think: Lieberman)? That is why impeachment is evidently enough for them.

[Rageneau]

17. Why should Democrats be soft on crime??

Let's be Republican about this. They're the 'law and order' party. So let's do what they'd do in the exact same situation. Let's uphold our oath to protect and defend the Constitution by doing the sad but unavoidable duty of impeaching the president.

If lying about an unauthorized BJ is impeachable, isn't lying about everything else?

[Road Scholar]

18. I totally agree. I just don't want to "blow" the '08 elections. I prefer

impeachment though.

[focusfan]

19. i just can;t wait to see what all comes out

with the investigation on Bush

[Road Scholar]

20. Meeee toooooooo! LOL

:toast: :toast: :toast:

[shimmergal]

21. Impeachment is too good for Bush and Cheney.

No, I'm not just being sarcastic. Well, maybe a little. But consider. . .

In the two actual presidential impeachments, the Senate didn't convict. The President was left in power. In the other cases of impeachment that I've heard much about, it didn't disqualify the person from further office, even if they were convicted. It's apparently not the disgrace that we've been brought up to believe, and would seem a fairly ineffective way of getting the #@%*&s to leave office before their terms are out.

I'd say just investigate--we all know there are multiple crimes that can come to light, and then--and only then--if there's a massive public outcry for impeachment should our Reps do anything about it.