Just let them investigate, would you?

[last1standing]

For three weeks, every day, every hour, practically every minute, someone posts yet another "Let's Impeach!" post or a "Why We Shouldn't Impeach!" post, or even a "Should We Censure Instead of Impeach?" post. Well, I have another idea. Why don't we let the new congress actually be seated and see what they do with their promised investigations before screaming about how ineffectual they are for not doing exactly what we want them to do to bush*? As much as we may want revenge for what's been done over the last six years, congress can't initiate impeachment or censure until they have the facts provided from papers, investigations and hearings. Then, and only then, we'll see what kind of people we've voted into office.

Until then, why don't we stop eating our own and actually act like adults by getting proof before we move forward?

[Monkeyman]

1. I agree big time

[magellan]

2. You do know that investigations are part of the impeachment process

...right?

I've given up on the Dems using the word "impeachment". As long as investigations are done, no matter what they call them, it will lead to impeachment and criminal trials.

[last1standing]

5. You can investigate without it being for the expressed purpose of impeachment.

It happens all the time. Even the repubs did a half-assed investigation and held hearing on rising oil prices. That said, I hope to Hell these investigations do lead to impeachment, but we need to let them do their jobs before that can happen.

[onenote]

13. exactly right!!

[Zhade]

39. Oh, good! So you DO hope that investigations will lead to impeachment.

All these posts of yours wherein you almost gleefully repeated the whole "off the table" meme - you weren't suggesting that you'd prefer to not hold these criminals accountable.

Whew!

[onenote]

71. I've been arguing for investigations for some time

If you want me to list the dozen or more posts in which I've said Investigate first, I'd be happy to.

edited to remove snarkiness.

[elocs]

16. You are right--a voice crying in the wilderness here though.

The Watergate hearings led to the potential impeachment of Nixon and there was already an ongoing investigation that aided the Clinton impeachment. You gather your evidence and then indict, not the other way around. Accusations are not proof.

[LeftCoast]

3. Well said!

:toast:

[porphyrian]

4. Are we "eating our own" or debating an important issue?

If you don't want to read them, you can ignore both threads and individual posters.

[last1standing]

6. We're not debating anything other than fantasy at this point.

And it would be very difficult to put every thread and/or poster on ignore. In fact it would take up more time than I have to spend here.

But you're welcome to ignore me or my thread if you like. It wouldn't take long at all. :)

[porphyrian]

7. It's not fantasy at all, it's the future of our country and the world.

Tough shit if it takes you all day to ignore everything and everyone - I have to do it all the time with the hundreds of redundant threads obsessing about something stupid a right wing pundit said on corporate media.

I don't feel the need to ignore this thread or you, I'm simply disagreeing with you, which is part of the debate you want to ignore now.

[last1standing]

9. So you tell me to use ignore and it's a debate, I suggest it and it's censorship. LOL

I think I'll use this as a quick lesson into the meaning of the word "hypocrisy". :crazy:

[porphyrian]

14. Apparently you aren't reading what I wrote, you're reading what you want into it.

But feel free to do whatever you want.

[last1standing]

15. Ok. Thanks.

:hi:

[Zhade]

41. It's not like these people are going to be able to shut us up.

They can't.

But I'd love to see those who don't want to hold these criminals accountable try - then we could see exactly who favors justice and who favors acting out of cowardice.

We're not shutting up.

[last1standing]

49. Who here doesn't want to hold them accountable?

I, and everyone I've seen, just want to be thorough and gather as much evidence as possible so that when we do impeach there's enough to bring the rest of the country with us.

And no one wants to shut you up, we just want our voices heard as well.

[catmandu57]

8. This is like sex, it's better when it's slow and satisfying

People calling for impeachment now want a wham bam thank you maam, christ, let's get the damn thing out of our pants first.

[last1standing]

10. That's hilarious! And yet so true!

Thanks for a great new analogy. :rofl:

[Monkeyman]

12. oh what you said LOL

[elocs]

18. Yes, there are so many with a hard-on for Impeachment Now

that they will likely have a premature ejaculation if impeachment does not happen when and how they demand it to happen.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Sounds like a plan to me.

[jaysunb]

17. Death by a thousand cuts.....

Let's not go for the quick & easy, let's expose of the entire madness and corruption the entire cabal methodically and thoroughly.
The loony 30% that support these criminals need to see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears what they have abetted....not that it'll matter to a lot of them. :evilfrown:

K&R

[G_Leo_Criley]

77. yes - expose it all!

"The loony 30% that support these criminals need to see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears what they have abetted....not that it'll matter to a lot of them."

It's important for them to see it. To use another Nixon era analogy -- There were people then who couldn't believe that Nixon could've conceivably been dishonest! He was the president for crying out loud!

Most of them finally saw the truth of it all.

I think most will feel terrible and very ripped off when they finally figure out what Bushco has wrought.

glc

[Nikki Stone1]

19. Sound advice

The next two years are crucial for a lot of issues.

[Drum]

20. I agree with the OP...

for as my math teachers used to tell frustrated-Me: "It isn't enough that you know the right answer...you have to show your work."
In other words: prove it.
When proof is out there for all to see, impeachment/censure/prosecution won't be partisan or factional but the indisputable and necessary conclusion.
(fingers Xed)

[William769]

21. There are some here that will not be pleased no matter what the Democratic Congress does.

I have learned to ignore them. They are the minority and shall stay that way.

[last1standing]

22. Yep. We have our "backwash" too.

Nothing will ever be enough for them. If we investigate, they'll scream for impeachment. If we impeach, they'll cry for removal. If we remove, they'll demand imprisonment. And if we imprison, they'll whine for execution. Then if they get all of that, they'll flood message boards with comments about how ineffectual the Democrats are.

Facts mean nothing to this group, just their momentary desires.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. It's good to see that there is a "superior " group here though. You know, the ones

who can see how the other group is bad, and actually take the high ground and do some thing about it.

When you run for president of DU, let me know!!!

[last1standing]

25. Good to know I have your vote. LOL

Seriously though, I'm not saying there are as many extremists at DU as there are in freeperville, but we definitely have some here who will post a hundred threads complaining about how bad Democrats are and not one supporting their current actions, whatever they may be at the time. They can never see the good in anything and wander around the Internets tubes moaning and groaning like Eeyore on a bender. They are the backwash.

[Joanne98]

23. I agree. Investigate, have hearings, put people under oath, then impeach!

[last1standing]

26. What other order could there possibly be?

I would hate to be tried by a judge who rendered a verdict before the evidence was even produced.

[Joanne98]

28. lol

[Zhade]

27. What makes you think they will if we don't pressure them?

Feingold of all people said he doesn't want to impeach even if (if?) b*s* has committed impeachable offenses.

Hell, he said he doesn't even want INVESTIGATIONS.

So no, we won't be silent - I'm not yet sure I can trust them to hold these criminals accountable.

[last1standing]

30. By all means, pressure them for investigations.

I wouldn't want anyone to be silent about the matter, I'm just stunned that so many so-called "rational" people want to put the cart before the horse here. Let's investigate, call hearing, collect evidence, then impeach the fucker. Anything else is not only unAmerican, it's indecent.

[Zhade]

56. Um, I hate to have to tell you this, but the ones calling for impeachment...

...are well aware of the fact that the process begins with investigations.

Those bitching most about people calling for impeachment seem to be those who are the LEAST informed about the process (present company excepted, of course).

[last1standing]

67. I can only speak for myself, of course. :)

I've seen the gamut run on this. Everything from let's impeach today to let's keep it off the table and just try to get along with the repubs. My point is that we need to let the new congress at least open session and see what they plan to do with it all before calling them traitors. That doesn't mean we should all just shut up and let them do whatever they want, it just means give them a chance to do something then judge it.

Thanks for being decent about your disagreements with me. I have a solid rule that if I get a disrespectful response I give one in return. You've provided some well thought out discussion. I wish more could do that.

[Minnesota_Lib]

29. Agreed. Many seem to want to put the cart before the donkey (intentional pun).

[understandinglife]

31. Those paying attention to the facts have had 'the proof' since well before ...

... March, 2003.

And, then, there's a little book by John Conyers entitled THE CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS.

And, now, little tidbits like the Melbourne Minutes.

Proof.

Investigate.

knock yourself out ... those paying attention since well before March, 2003; those informed of Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter; those informed of what the US Constitution has to say about violating treaties; ... mostly anyone whose either not brain-dead or sniffing sand through their deeply buried nostrils ALREADY KNOW THAT BUSH, CHENEY, and ALL their neoconster minions and corporate fat-cat enablers ARE criminals awaiting indictments and prosecutions.

OK?

Clear enough.

[last1standing]

34. No, it's not clear enough.

What you've mentioned are all allegations or pieces of evidence that need to be collected and assembled during an investigation then hearing need to be held to fill out the picture.

Why is it so difficult to understand that congress can't just being impeachment proceedings on the first day of the new session? You wouldn't want to walk into a courtroom and have the judge immediately issue a guilty verdict regardless of the allegations. You'd want your attorney and the prosecution to gather evidence, question witnesses, THEN come to court to debate your guilt. You wouldn't want to be picked up on the street and thrown in jail without due process.

We have a system in this country that needs to be followed. Just because the criminals have subverted it, doesn't mean we should. I don't want a dictatorship from the left or the right.

[understandinglife]

36. Bull shit. Go to Iraq. Replace a troop so that they can come home. And, await your investigation.

Go for it.

[last1standing]

40. That was silly.

What does the investigation have to do with bringing the troops home? Congress can do that without impeachment.

Someone just called you a well respected member of DU. That was a very respectful response. :crazy:

[understandinglife]

45. Not silly. Factual.

What's silly is your 'wait and see' while folk die OP.

Read Conyers' book.

Read the Nuremberg Charter.

Think about it before you post another silly comment.

[last1standing]

47. What a nonsensical post.

I never said anything like that, but in your mind you must have read something completely different. Please reread what I typed then we can talk.

[understandinglife]

50. You're self-referencing again ... interesting. Get a mirror. Take a look.

And, .... for, yet another dose of facts ...

[last1standing]

53. No, you are!

I don't think I want to play with you any more. WAHHH!!!!!!!!

[understandinglife]

57. Launching add to "ignore list" and "hide thread" ... bye ....

... bye ...

[last1standing]

60. Bye bye. I'll miss you.

n/t

[Zhade]

58. The beginning of impeachment proceedings IS investigations.

Maybe you are unaware of the way the process works after all - your judge analogy doesn't hold water.

Impeachment starts with investigations. Always has, always will.

[last1standing]

62. Filling a bucket starts with a drop of water but the bucket doesn't always get filled.

Is your disagreement with me in semantics? From what I'm reading we both want investigations and we both support impeachment - in that order. Is this not correct?

[puebloknot]

35. They'll think we're in collusion!

I just got through posting a link to your excellent article about Conyers' 14 impeachable offenses.

Actually, *we* are in collusion -- all of us who will not yield our democracy to criminals.

No, we're *not* going to be satisfied with anything this new Congress does that does not uphold the Constitution!

And we're not going to be silenced -- here, or elsewhere!

[understandinglife]

43. "No, we're *not* going to be satisfied with anything this new Congress does that does not uphold ...

... the Constitution!"

Yes.

And, Judy, as you well know, Conyers has spent more than two years investigating all the crimes against America, against humanity that characterize Bush and his neoconster minions and corporate enablers.

It's not a matter of whether more investigating is needed ... it is a matter of bringing a halt to the slaughter, to the torture, to the destruction of our Constitution, to the US Code, to the very essence of humanity.

And, while we may need to investigate all kinds of crimes, we already know that indictments and prosecutions are more than amply papered with facts.

Thank you my friend,
Bob


BE AMERICA. ---

[puebloknot]

59. "...slaughter, to the torture, to the destruction ..."

All the reasons that some of us are not willing to wait and see what our esteemed leaders decide to do.

I am deeply disturbed at how complaisant some of my fellow citizens seem to be. While they ruminate, others die in Iraq, and on the streets and byways of the United States of America.

We the People are not crying "Wolf." As you so often say, "This is the real deal."

[puebloknot]

32. One of DU's most respected *adults*...

just posted this message in the last few days:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/understandinglife/789

UnderstandingLife's post reveals that John Conyers has *already* compiled mounds of evidence of impeachable offenses through *investigations*. What remains is people under oath, testifying officially to those facts, not starting from scratch and taking years to administer justice.

We who are talking about impeachment *now* are quite aware that impeachment cannot legally go forward without investigations first. "It's elementary, my dear..."

It is not a thirst for revenge, but a determination to see that justice is done, that drives us to talk about impeachment right now. We need to *not* wait and see what kind of people we've voted into office, but shape the acts of those people by keeping pressure on them to act quickly once they are seated to bring the Bush regime to justice. We need to constantly remind them that We the People have a voice in what is "on the table."

Open, uncensored discussion is what DU is about, if I understand correctly. And it's *very* democratic!

[last1standing]

37. It's not elementary to some here.

And those are the ones I was talking about as I think my OP made clear. Yes there is some evidence, but there is much more needed and now we have the ability to get it. We agree that investigations need to be done and that impeachment should probably follow, so I don't see an argument here.

I also agree that uncensored discussion is what DU is about. That's why I submitted this thread, to make my opinion known and to try and bring a discussion point foward that hasn't been seen very much. And yes, it is VERY democratic. :)

[sandyd921]

46. Yes there is much more to learn.

The * regime is up to their necks in far, far more muck than has been uncovered until now by Conyers and others. It's only through thorough investigations and hearings that all of this will come to the surface. I want to see the light of sunshine on all the nooks and crannies of their corruption and criminal acts. I for one am going to enjoy watching all of this unfold on C-SPAN.

[puebloknot]

55. I hope you're right...

...and that we'll see investigations being brought up from the basement to the transparent light of C-SPAN!

I think that pressure from the People is needed to see that those investigations, wherever held, don't turn into another Iran/Contra whitewash!

[last1standing]

61. I couldn't agree more.

That's what most of us are looking for.

[last1standing]

64. Exactly. And why waste all of what's been collected by acting too soon?

If we move to impeach or censure immediately we get tagged as just out for revenge. The average voter will question our motives and be less likely to support impeachment then if we gather evidence, publicly, first. When people hear what's been going on in their name, with their tax dollars, they'll join with us. Until then there's no chance of anything happening, there are too many repubs and blue dogs in congress.

[G_Leo_Criley]

81. excellent points

Very important that people hear the evidence for themselves and aren't misled into thinking this is simply political revenge.

glc

[puebloknot]

48. "...stop eating our own and actually act like adults."

Your discussion point *has* been seen...*very much.* There has been a veritable symphony of voices here suggesting that the impeachment topic be put to rest for the comfort of those who have already decided it's a moot point!

History shows us that without the squeaky wheel, little grease gets applied to the collective wheels of government!

[last1standing]

52. I never said don't impeach, I said gather the evidence to do it.

Conyers doesn't have enough, yet, to get the repub minority to vote with the Dems on impeachment and the blue dogs won't go along with it unless the American people demand it. The only way for that to happen is with public investigations.

I'm all for speaking up, I'm just saying let's scream for the right thing.

[understandinglife]

38. Excellent. As always.

BE AMERICA. ---

[Harper_is_Bush]

33. The "IMPEACH!" croud is the one that needs to settle, IMO.

:tinfoilhat:

[puebloknot]

42. "The impeach croud" (sic)...

is a *crowd* that has bothered to notice every attempt to bring down our democracy since Bush, Jr. was installed by a rogue Supreme Court. It is a *crowd* that does not intend to *settle* until justice is done.

What is "tinfoilhat" about that, my fellow citizen?

[last1standing]

44. When losing a debate, correct your opponent's spelling.

That made the difference for me. :eyes:

[puebloknot]

51. Your OP set the adversarial tone of this thread! nt

[last1standing]

54. Did I correct your spelling when I posted it?

Unless I did, I don't see the point.

[Harper_is_Bush]

73. Ah, and by that you assume the non-Impeach croud have not

noticed all the things the Impeach croud has noticed, which of course is just not true.

[Minnesota_Lib]

68. Agreed. Reading some of these posts, I think "lynching" crowd is more appropriate.

And a partisan political lynching is how the public (with lots of help for the corporate MSM) is going to view it unless open and transparent investigations and hearings are held. All our ducks need to be neatly in a row. Everything needs to be undeniable and above reproach. The final vote needs to be bipartisan and if the case is made correctly it will be (many republicans will be forced to vote for impeachment in the face of overwhelming evidence).

We want to win the White House in 08, not lose it in 07. :)

[Road Scholar]

63. Relax. Adjust. Have a nice day. Enjoy it.

:toast:

[H2O Man]

65. Impeach Dick Cheney.

Do it. Do it now. Do it now and like it. Repeat after me ....

[last1standing]

70. LOL!

I'd prefer to run him out of town on a rail, but impeachment will do, I suppose. :)

[puebloknot]

83. What *would* the Founders (note capital F) say? :) nt

[puebloknot]

82. Do it. Do it now. Do it now. Now. Now. NOW. NOW. NOW!

And impeach his wife, too. NOW!

Kidding! (Not kidding!)

And while we're taking away Dubya's brain, let's take away his wire, too. We won't even have to impeach George. He'll just go back to Crawford and whack weeds and pout!

On a serious note: Some say that would leave GW with the opportunity to appoint another keeper as VP (McCain?) who could then be in a strong position to run for Pres in 2008 -- not to mention pardon George of any and all criminal charges.

Impeach Cheney, and convict. George resigns. Or the threat causes them *both* to resign (in our wildest dreams). That leaves Pelosi as interim Prez until Election 2008.

The return of Baker already tells me they intend to keep power. Leaving George intact seems a bad idea to me.

Your thoughts? (Because I've come to respect them.)

[Stinky The Clown]

66. I'm an impeachment hawk and take issue with what you said ....

.... not arguing ... just taking issue with some of the framing.

You're, of course, spot on about the process. You're also strategically correct in saying that the word 'impeachment' is best 'left off the table'. It can only serve to inflame.

What concerns me in your post is that none of the other **rational** impeachment hawks around here see it very much differently than, apparantly, you do. Invesitgate. Show the nation what's been done in our name, and the call for impeachment will grow from that. Our only job now is to keep the ember ready, tending and feeding it, until it is time for the political conflagration.

My other concern is that you frame impeachment as revenge. Again, the *rational* impeachment hawks see it a bit differently. Revenge is the completely **wrong** reason to impeach. To do it for that alone is little more than schoolyard antics destined to fail. The issue is that (yes, I know, no legal proof ... yet) real crimes were committed by the cabal. Serious crimes. Crimes that *more* than rise to the Framer's 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'. Things like looting the Treasury (Cheney's oil policy meetings with maps of Iraq on the table, all neatly divided among the Big Oil attendees, and the implicit cost to fight a war - at the expense of the nation - to accomplish their self-enriching ends), like lying a nation into a war of agression and imperialism, like abject **failure** to act appropriately on 9/11 and theyby to have failed to 'protect and defend', like crimes against humanity in the killing of Iraqi civilians, like international war crimes in the hunting and attempted murder of the head of a soverign nation (no matter **how** bad a guy he is). The list goes on from there.

Reagan should have been impeached, or at least charged with similar crimes when he left office. Poppy, too. We failed then and the result is what we have today. We can NOT allow these crimes to go unpunished. To do so is to say to the country that its okay to do this. To allow them to get away with it is to also tell the rest of the world that we condone and allow such actions.

If the evidence is there (and who has any doubt it is?) then we have no choice. We are DUTY and HONOR **bound** to impeach.

And that's why I'm an impeachment hawk.

[last1standing]

69. "Rational" is the key word there. :)

And I agree that many of the "pro-impeachment" hawks want investigation first. You can consider me one of them. I'm just sick of the silly "Let's Impeach Now!" posts from people who don't seem to understand that the new congress isn't even in session, yet. I thought it was time someone posted a thread that said "Let's Do This Rationally!"

Really, I can't find a word I disagree with in your entire post. Some of what I said was wrong like saying it was for revenge, and maybe I could have used better words to get my effect. But I've also found that unless there's something in a post to motivate people, it'll drop like a stone around here.

So from one impeachment hawk to another, let's nail the bastards! After a thorough investigation, of course. :)

[puebloknot]

78. "Bring them home now!"

I've made this point in these impeachment threads: Many people are calling for bringing the troops home *now*, knowing full well that they won't be coming home tomorrow. By keeping the topic front and center, pressure stays on the PTB to end the war.

It would take someone truly delusional (not anyone I am or anyone I know) to think that using that phrase "Impeach Now" means we'll see George, et al. in the docket on January 3. And I've said, ad nauseum, impeachment cannot take place *without* investigations and *evidence*!

It would probably save a lot of bandwidth here if that were understood by everyone who weighs in on the subject of impeachment.

1) Impeachment is a process of indicting, not guaranteed to lead to conviction. It documents a crime or a series of crimes.

2) Impeachment cannot begin without evidence gleaned from investigations.

3) The investigations don't have to take place after January 1.

4) Some investigations have already taken place which have produced evidence which now needs to be introduced in a formal impeachment process (and, with any luck, in criminal courts, as well).

I think it doesn't help the debate along (and debate is important) to call people who are lobbying for impeachment "delusional" or to say they are not adults.

[last1standing]

85. See post #75 for an example of what I'm talking about.

As for the rest of your points, I'll take them in order (not by your numbers as you made points before that).

1. No, a rational person doesn't think "Impeach Now" means right this second, but as I pointed out in the subject, some do. The OP was directed at them. It was also directed at those who say we should do nothing and let it all just go away, but no one seems to have noticed that.

2. Pressure is good, but in yelling for impeachment before the facts are known (and all the facts are not known as yet) we look like we just want revenge. That doesn't play well with the people who will make these decisions. By yelling for investigations we look like we just want to know the facts, which is true. After we know the facts, other actions might (will) be called for.

3. I don't dispute your facts about impeachment leading to indictment, but before we vote on impeachment we need to have a majority of congresspeople willing to vote for it. We don't have that and won't have it until investigations prove how criminal these guys are (I don't think we disagree there).

4. We both agree that impeachment must come from the evidence obtained by investigations (again, we're on the same page).

5. Until the new congress convenes Dems have no subpoena power to gather evidence. I'm not saying we can't investigate, just that it will be much more effective come January (also newsworthy).

6. The investigations that have taken place so far have been very helpful, but they're not enough. If they were the chimp would already have been forced out of office and into a jail cell. We need more investigations.

7. I'm not calling all people who want impeachment delusional (I want impeachment). I'm calling those who want to start proceedings before the new congress even opens delusional - it just isn't going to happen. I also didn't say they weren't adults, I said they weren't acting like adults. When you continue to cry for something that just isn't going to happen you're not acting like an adult. I'm going to stick with that (I never included you in that reference as you have a logical, mature opinion).

8. This is a point you didn't make but I want to mention. I appreciate your positions. I also appreciate your discussion when you make one without denigrating mine. If we can continue along this vein, I'd love to do so. As I see it we only disagree on the framing not the substance. That's not a far bridge to cross so why don't we do it together without the viciousness? I do respect your opinions, I just didn't like the way you were stating them at times.

[puebloknot]

86. Thank you for this thoughtful post!

In all this talk about impeachment, I've felt that a lot of people don't really understand the process. I had to look it up again, myself, even though I started out with a pretty good understanding of the procedure. A lot of the "impeachment now" rhetoric seems to come from frustration, without an appreciation for the built in investigative process.

I think there's generally a "finger in the wind" activity going on all the time with politicos, and that just waking up to a whole new day on January 3 isn't going to do it. I think that the activities that are going on now to demand impeachment are going to let the new Congress know that people are angry and that their futures in Congress depend on their taking action. I hope that last sentence is really true. If not, we've lost the country.

I agree with you that investigations up to now are not enough. I think a lot of this head of steam that has built up is because of the comments by Pelosi and Conyers. Of particular concern to me is the feeling of betrayal if Conyers really does leave it at the takeover of Congress, with no followup on the work he's done. It's sounding terribly like that.

Before I saw this message from you, I was saying to myself that it's barely over a month before the new Congress is seated. Ordinarily, speaking for myself here, I have a fairly reasonable attention span. I think we've all been so traumatized by the last six years that it's hard to wait, swinging between hope and despair, finding it hard to make plans.

I think a cordial exchange about this subject is invaluable. I, for one, want to know more about the process of criminal charges, whether or not impeachment becomes a reality. And I want to know that with regard to our own courts, and how we would proceed to see charges brought at The Hague.

My appreciation to anyone who weighs in on these questions -- as long as they really know what they're talking about and are not speculating!

In my family album, there's a picture of me and my brother at ages 14 and 10, respectively, standing on the steps of the Peace Palace in The Hague. Back then, that city was a place that figured largely in seeing that justice was done to *other* countries. I never imagined that the day would come when it was being discussed as a remedy to criminality in my own!

[last1standing]

89. I know it's an unpopular stance here but I don't think the Hague is a good idea.

At least not politically. Personally, I love the idea of bush* rotting away in a European jail for the rest of his life with cheney a few cells down, but if it was ever honestly proposed the backlash in this country would keep the right wing in power for the next 50 years regardless of what's found out about these two. I think the best we can hope for is locking them both away in a good old American jail. But look on the bright side, we have the death penalty - and bush* LOVES the death penalty. Maybe one day we'll all be able to do whiny impressions of him crying that he doesn't want to die a la Carla Fay Tucker.

On another note, any chance of posting those Hague pics? Nothing says we can't dream about the possibilities. :)

[puebloknot]

90. I agree

There's something about the idea of America being in the position that Germany was after WWII, where the rest of the world is judging not just our rogue Prez and VP, but us! I think The Hague will never happen.

I also fear that we'll never see Bush, et al. in jail here. But your cheery note has given a good start to my week.

The pictures are in a box somewhere. If I find them in due time, I'll post them!

Judy

[zreosumgame]

72. my favorites have been the 'you BETTER IMPEACH RIGHT THIS SECOND

or I will KICK my widdle feetsies and post something nasty on DU!' ones LOL

:eyes:

[puebloknot]

80. That's odd. I haven't seen any posts like that.

Got any links?

[Founders Know Best]

74. You know what bugs me?

There was no good reason for Pelosi or Conyers to come out against impeachment, "and take it off the table".
They weren't vague statements either... like maybe after investigations.

Pelosi said "it's a promise" and Conyers said that the elections were accountability enough. They both should loudly hear the demands of the people, because that is unacceptable!

[puebloknot]

79. It bugs me, too! nt

[savemefromdumbya]

75. wasting all that time investigating and not getting on with the business?

I thought it was extremely clear that the Bush administration members

are already

1. war criminals

2. guilty of killing American citizens on 9/11

3. guilty of conspiring to cover up many many wrongdoings, including Val Plame case

4. guilty of arms, drugs smuggling, money laundering

so why investigate. Just put them behind bars and get on with runningthe country!

[G_Leo_Criley]

76. investigations will lead to criminal charges

I truly believe that investigations into a number of avenues pursued by Bushco will lead to criminal charges.

One of the biggest fears that I've encountered is the fear that quick impeachment will somehow lead to a quick pardon by one or the other of the top two, as happened in Watergate.

Though much is known about Watergate, the pardon of Nixon, "for the good of the country" - so that the nation wouldn't "have to go through a trial" - has in itself covered up a lot. I'd hate to see that happen this time out.

No! Let's take this slowly. Let's allow the various committees in the 110th congress to investigate thoroughly and show Bushco for the craven vultures that they are. (No offense to vultures.) Let's hear about every little detail of how they sold this country out.

Quick impeachment is like raw meat. Investigations leading to criminal charges are more like a fine medium-rare filet mignon, my friends. We deserve this treat of finally hearing and knowing the entire truth about the hijacking of our country.

glc

[Subdivisions]

84. You can't impeach until you know what you're impeaching for.

Any post abdicating impeachment from the jump is a waste of everyone's time simply because investigation is a given. But it only takes investigation of just ONE impeachable charge to get the ball rolling towards the Hague. And every one of you mark my words today, there WILL BE a Hague.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague

Why am I so sure? I'm sure because Bush admitted to secret CIA prisons and torture and then there's Abu Ghraib. Once Bush ( & Co. ) are impeached on charges here in the US and having been found guilty of violations of US laws that correlate to intenational laws, The Hague will want their turn. Iraq? Pah! Bet on The Hague in Vegas, baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

[DemReadingDU]

87. morning kick

[LWolf]

88. Who is stopping them? n/t