This is what impeachment hearings in the House means

[Horse with no Name]

Regardless of CURRENT Senate support.
Paraphrasing John Dean.
Impeachment is valuable BECAUSE Bush CANNOT assert executive privilege over ANY ITEMS needed in the investigation AGAINST HIM.
All the records regarding the energy policy, the Plame leak, etc...everything loses it's cover and becomes property of the investigating body (The House). This also means that all the people that REFUSE to acknowledge the subpoenas...Rove, Rice, Miers, etc. HAVE to testify in an impeachment hearing and there is NO getting around that.
The media can ignore Congressional hearings. The media can ignore parliamentary procedure BUT the media CANNOT ignore an impeachment hearing.
SO, if you think pulling the media cover and executive privilege cover off of this administration wouldn't net the support in the Senate (because it sure as hell would get the attention of the people who aren't being told exactly what is going on)...then I am sorry that you simply do not understand the reason we NEED impeachment proceedings.

[AndyA]

1. THANK YOU!

Impeachment. It's a good thing for democracy and America.

[aquart]

3. Shorten it. Impeachment. It's good for democracy.

Now let's see the artwork.

[Kikosexy2]

120. SO NANCY!!...

IMPEACH AWAY...DAMMIT!!!!!!!......

[Mme. Defarge]

2. MERCI MILLES FOIS!

Utterly to the point.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Horse with no Name.

P.S. Not trying to change the subject, but if you haven't read "The Man Who Listens to Horses", I would highly recommend it.

[katsy]

5. Not to mention...

expanding the war to Pakistan and/or Iran may be averted.

* is going to veto every piece of legislation the Democrats pass unless it fits his ideology anyway.

Shut Congress down and impeach.

[juajen]

6. Stupid of me, but I hadn't looked at it this way.

Thanks for the post.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. We're waaay overdue for this!

K&R

:yourock:

[leftchick]

8. then why are the Democrats shielding him?

It makes no sense. :(

[Horse with no Name]

13. I've actually thought about this

and perhaps the answer would shake the roots of this country.
Maybe we have already passed the point of no return and Congress knows it and is covering it up.

[Mr Rabble]

66. Hammer. Nail. Head.

Thats the reason right there. If they impeach, it lays bare a rotted wound of a crumbling empire.

The questions that we all want asked, have dreadful answers.

[MsMagnificent]

104. if the government is rotted

it is in the interests of the People to rebuild it.
We have the numbers, and the right, if not duty.

It is in the interests of the corrupted politicians to keep the status quo
But they already have the power

which we gave them
and which they won't give up

Quite a conundrum. The answer, if it will be a positive one for our country, is fraught with danger, high emotion, and social turmoil.

In this case, Freedom isn't free -- and those are the costs.

Are we ready for all this?
Of course it's worth fighting for, but it requires courage, dedication, tenaciousness,
and much more than tapping on a computer keyboard -- action.


As much as I hate to say it, we have some serious problems in our own party;
not all of our politicians are aiding & abetting those White House crooks, but many more than I would have thought 8 months ago.
Their actions cannot be explained by mere complaisance or cowardice -- but collusion.
So where do we start?
Is the key a grassroots movement to impeach both of the top executives? Can it be done without our Democratic politicians?
Or do we try to correct these certain members of the Democratic Party so they finally will address this?

Or is there another way?
Any road, something must be done.


edit: Typo, cat on the keyboard :/

[Harry Monroe]

123. I'm ready to kick in the whole rotten foundation and start over!!!!

That's what it will take. Take a sledgehammer to the whole rotted termite infested mess and start fresh!!!!!

[Mr Rabble]

135. You are spot on here.

Our "freedom" is no longer free as it now sits. Obtaining real freedom well exact it's toll, and frankly- much like you- i am not sure it is a price that many of our fellow citizens are willing to pay.

I think it is fairly clear, that at this point things are too far gone to be "saved" it the current form. The required, radical change is going to come, but not as a result of democratic institutions working as they were intended; rather they will be the result of a collapse which we have not seen in almost 80 years.

The actions of our elected Democrats are indeed systematic. They are just slightly less cruel, bigoted, ignorant, pompous and craven than the Republicans. The lesser of two real evils.

I also think that the issue of impeachment of one or more senior Bush Crime Family official is now inevitable. And, it will perhaps be done without the help of many Democrats. Much like in 1974, we will soon see Republicans up for re-election in 2008 calling for at least the ouster of Fredo or Cheney.

But the band will play on. The distraction often spoken of that will occur during the impeachment process will not be "lawmakers too busy to pass legislation". no, it will serve as just the latest distraction of us, the taxpaying public, while the Treasury is further looted. It will serve to distract us from the real issues we face.

Always the optimist!

[defendandprotect]

73. What do you mean, specifically . . . ???? ?????????? ?????

And next poster's comment to you . . .
Thats the reason right there. If they impeach, it lays bare a rotted wound of a crumbling empire.

The questions that we all want asked, have dreadful answers.

Hi -- actually I don't understand what you mean?
Specifically what are you saying -- ?
Are you talking about corruption?
Global Warming?
Power shift?
What?

[superkia]

39. It makes plenty of sense

I dont think that only one side of the government has been purchased, I would have to say most are. All I hear about going for impeachment is " it will tie up congress so they dont want to do it " So what exactly is it they seem to get done for us the average citizen, I dont mean big business because we all know they get things done for them. Oh thats because we dont funnel them millions and if you go after one side for these financial wrong doings, they would also be hurting their own pocket. Neither side wants to end the monies coming in from the corporations. Lets see, help make America better like we are supposed to or fuck America and take care of you and your own families!

[radfringe]

101. if you agree with the inherent powers and precidents

are valid - then the expanded powers which bush has assumed and congress has allowed will go to the next president

also assuming the 2008 (s)elections are allowed, and are "fair" - the next president could be a dem and the unilateral powers inherented from bush/cheney would be his/hers to wield

basically - by not impeaching, by not stopping bush/cheney, congress has abdicated it's powers and established an imperial presidency.

there are many countries in the world which claim to be a democracy, they have a president, legislative body and elections - but when you really look at their government you see that the legislative body are props, and elections are window dressing for a dictatorship.

considering the animosity the republics have against the Clintons - they should be very concerned about the possibility of Hillary Clinton assuming the bush/cheney powers

[TwilightGardener]

9. Excellent point! Chimpy has proven that he or Shooter will just

claim executive privelege (or whatever bullshit they try to make up, like "I'm not part of the exec branch") to get around any real dig for the truth. Impeachment is the natural next step for an administration that arrogantly obstructs any and all investigations against it. It's really quite clear that ChimpCo has left us no choice.

[bonito]

10. Thanks n/t

[Zodiak]

11. Yup

And while impeachment goes on, everyone under suspicion in that hearing is effectively removed from the levers of power. Gonzo will be toothless. Cheney, toothless. Bush....effectively toothless.

But until something as serious as impeachment comes along, Bush and his cronies can use the levers of power to manipulate the outcomes of political events. Impeachment attacks the foundations of their legitimacy to power, and thus, their power is removed from them. For as long as many anti-impeachment people state it takes for impeachment to occur, that would effectively mean that Bush and his cronies have no power for well-over a year as everythnig they do comes under suspicion.

With the election-stealing (for which there is a good case built), some of the impeachment process could include their original claim to power. That would set the stage for undermining the legitamacy of his judicial appointments.

But we have to have the guts to follow through.

[rateyes]

71. Where did he say that?

I'd love to read the whole thing.

[Zodiak]

131. He didn't say that

I did.

It was clear that the government of the U.S. was practically shut down and Clinton was able to get nothing accomplished while his impeachment inquiry was underway. The same would happen to Bush, and it would be far more effective because part of said impeachment hearing should concern his legitimacy to power in the first place.

To me, it is a logical argument based on anecdotal evidence we have seen in a similiar situation.

[leftofthedial]

12. that's why his allies had to take impeachment off the table

[walldude]

14. K&R, not that it will do any good

Great post Horse... we wait much longer and we're going to need to overthrow and stage a coup instead of impeaching...

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?

Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer -

Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!!

[Harry Monroe]

124. Ha, Ha!!!! Great one!!!

Except you should have edited as follows:

Bush: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when Saddam brought down the World Trade Center? Hell no!

Congress: Saddam?

Neocons: Forget it, let's roll!!!!

The American People: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... the tough get goin'! Congress, are you with me? Let's go! What the fuck happened to the government I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you America, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Bush, impeach his ass! Cheney, impeach! Gonzales -

(Democrats in Congress - when they finally grow a set of balls): Impeached! The American citizens are right. Apathetic at times, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires impeachment hearings to begin soon before we lose our democracy.

The American People: We're just the guys to do it.
Congress: Let's do it.
The American People: LET'S DO IT!!

[babylonsister]

15. Thank you! nt

[ThomWV]

16. K&R With Pleasure

[bigtree]

17. the matter of the loss of Executive Privilege is the most attractive component

the rest has been debated, and there are several points of argument against them.

*There can still be obstruction in those hearings, and the targets and witnesses can still lie their asses off. Throughout, and at the end, they will be advantaged by a cabal of republican supporters and defenders who hold numerical sway over a conviction. We can reasonably measure the outcome by the opposition's reactions to the charges so far. So, we're left with the argument that the impeachment process itself, regardless of a conviction, is paramount.

Question. Can't that discovery of records, documents, testimony, etc., be accomplished outside of such a polarizing hearing with enough focus and pressure? At the very least, we should be able to force a clear and prosecutable obstruction of justice from the targets.

Right now, proponents of impeachment have been virtually invisible in supporting the ongoing committee investigations, except when some revelation provides something to confront the administration. If we put all of that energy into pressuring the administration behind these ongoing efforts it would lend more credibility to the notion that an immediate move to an impeachment is so necessary because all of the other remedies proscribed in the constitution to hold the Executive accountable have been explored and exhausted.

[Horse with no Name]

20. You are correct

Basically Bush has neutered Congress. We haven't been able to complete ONE investigation without obstruction. That should say everything.

[Disturbed]

24. Impeachment is even more important than the Iraq Occupation

because the Iraq Occupation will continue with Busholini & Darth in power. Also, any Bills that get sent by Congress will get a veto. Nothing gets accomplished with the Fascist Criminals still in power!

[Pastiche423]

33. Exactly!

All issues that affect our country can not be resolved, as long as the present administration is in power.

They have shown the world they WILL NOT honor the laws of our land.

[defendandprotect]

74. It's the string to pull on ending the wartime president -- !!!!

[bjobotts]

93. Also tie Cheney/Bush hands keeping them from attacking Iran

It would also weaken their support for continuing the Iraq occupation. As more of the overwhelming corruption surfaces no one will want to be seen supporting anything the WH supports. Thanks for this awesome eyeopener. Hope people copy it and post it everywhere.

[pinto]

18. Good points re: lack of executive privilege cover and media effect.

I don't know if that would result in a conviction... :shrug: ...but good points.

[Subdivisions]

19. Sheehan just came out of a 90 minute meeting with Conyers and

just before she was arrested she said that he said the only recourse is elections.

There's not going to be an impeachment. The only thing left on that note is...why?

[mzmolly]

30. Ahh, another "punish the Democrats" strategy. Worked so well in 2000.

:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

48. Yes, bush punished the Dem's voters and the Dems......folded. We still got

the black boxes counting our votes.

Why do you think it's going to work for us in 08?

Why do the Dem leadership stay quiet in the face of overwhelming evidence of election fraud?

That gives me a lot of confidence in them. They are quiet in the face of tyranny. It's like they are begging for a third party challenge, so they have an excuse, any excuse.

[mzmolly]

49. So many strawmen,

so little time. ;)

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. Thank you for clarifying that

:)

[Individualist]

22. K&R

[Old and In the Way]

23. Extremely germaine point to support impeachment.

Not to mention that what kind of precedent are we setting for future dictator-wanabees.....is this what we want from our Executive branch? If this is OK, how will the next Bush abuse his office? Time to push back and draw a line in the sand. Nothing's going to get accomplished with the Republican Congress filibustering every initiative that the Democrats propose, so lets focus on getting these bastards remopved before they do irreparable harm to our government.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Executive Privilege Cover, yes, but the corporate media won't do their job

If we had the same media that we had during the Nixon era, it would be a hell of a lot easier.

[MsMagnificent]

105. McClatchy is very good

and, difficult to believe, but The Washington Post is finally beginning to address some issues.
6, 7 years after the fact, true, but at least they're starting.

[DancingBear]

26. Thank you very much for this

It lays out the case for impeachment beautifully.

I expect the naysayers to chime in at any moment.

If they don't, it means you have effectively stymied them, and if that happens you get THIS: :yourock:


K&R, BTW.

[Hubert Flottz]

27. K&R

It would mean we're takin' the country back! It would mean the end of this nightmare from Texas!

[Lerkfish]

28. bravo! thank you

[mzmolly]

29. Indeed we need hearings, but we can't say "impeachment = end to war."

Is it a beginning? Perhaps...

[AntiFascist]

34. Bush and Cheney are the last holdouts for this failed war...

there is a good chance that impeachment = end to war.

unless Lieberman somehow becomes emporer:

[mzmolly]

41. Not without Republican support for conviction and removal.

eom

[bettyellen]

43. and we'll get that support as investigations bring the facts out to the public

there is no other way to get the word out.

[mzmolly]

46. I agree that it will "get the word out" but I don't see enough R's voting to remove.

That said, I support impeachment.

[bettyellen]

51. I think exposing and disgracing them is a whole shitload smarter than letting them get away with it

i can;t believe anyone thinks any potential dem president is going to do anything after being elected.
it'll be move along, nothing to see here..

[mzmolly]

52. I don't support "letting them get away with it."

I don't think anyone does. But, we should not assume that the cabal will be removed if we impeach now.

[bettyellen]

54. plenty of Dems are willing to let them get away with it, lots of DUers and the DLC too.

off the table, too much trouble, not enough votes,,,,,blah blah blah.

where you been?

to me, THEY are assuming alot.

[mzmolly]

56. Many Dems are waiting for the right moment IMHO.

Patience - is a virtue. ;)

[John Q. Citizen]

60. Keeping their powder dry, so to speak....

[mzmolly]

61. No, ending the war, so to speak...

:hi:

[bettyellen]

64. when will conditions be better? what more do they need? it feels like they are running out the clock

while soldiers die daily.
:hi:

[mzmolly]

69. What we need is enough R's on board to override a veto, and many expect

that may happen this fall after the latest "progress" report comes in.

[Ghost in the Machine]

83. Any legislation passed by veto proof majority will just be rendered moot

via signing statement. Then what?

:hi:

[mzmolly]

86. Well then we go for the big "I" Ghost,

we'll definately have the overwhelming support of the Nation should that happen. ;)

:hi:

[bettyellen]

110. so you're in favor of letting them get away with it unless we have a certain win

why didn;t you say so?
and the evalutaion is bing pushed bak frpom september till xmas season - if ever.
you go hold your breath till the powder dries.

[mzmolly]

128. No I'm in favor of impeachment, but I feel that ending the war s/b the FIRSTorder of the day.

78% of the American public wants an end to the war, 45% want Bush impeached.

[bettyellen]

134. except that the decider's patsy Petraeus is asying we're there till 09 now....

doesn;t that make you feel like the wait till september is silly? why are we leetting liars set fake deadlines- again?

[mzmolly]

136. No, it doesn't make me feel silly.

"The wheels of justice turn slowly" ring a bell? Today 78% of Americans want out of Iraq - Republicans gave Bush a shot at his "surge" strategy, he has until this fall to turn it around or they jump ship to save their collective "political ass."

[bettyellen]

137. i said the wait till septemer looks silly- and it does- because we both no there's not going to be

any report- they are alreasdy telling us we are there till 09 wheher we like it or not.
Pls explain why should the Dems still wait till Sept- isn't it now Dec? when this decision has been made? This renders Serptember / December meaningless.
Are the DEms going to do something now?

[mzmolly]

138. I think you'll have to turn on the news occasionally to understand my point?

:shrug:

[bettyellen]

139. u mean like today's headline: "U.S. Seen in Iraq Until at Least ’09" perhaps you skipped today?

Since you STILL think September is significant. But they've been saying for weeks now that Sept's report is going to be delayed till Decemeber. Missed that one too, did ya?
Maybe you're watching the wrong TV, huh?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2927669

[mzmolly]

141. No like this one: "Poll: Americans trust Congress over Bush on Iraq"

www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2339188020070724

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans see President George W. Bush as too inflexible on the war in Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-run Congress have the final word on when to withdraw U.S. forces, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed on Monday.

Nearly 80 percent of those polled said Bush is not willing enough to change policies over the unpopular war that has taken a huge toll on his approval ratings, the Post reported.

The poll was conducted last week, after Senate Democrats failed to advance a plan that would force Bush to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by April 2008.

More than six in 10 Americans -- 62 percent -- said Congress should have the final say on when to pull out U.S. forces, compared with 31 percent who said the decision should rest with Bush, the poll showed.

and this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301143.html

But when it comes to judging the president versus congressional Democrats on the issue of Iraq, the public stands with Congress. Fifty-five percent said they trust congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trust Bush. (Eleven percent of all respondents and 17 percent of independents said they trust "neither.") And by 2 to 1, Americans said Congress, rather than the president, should make the final decision about when to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. Nearly three in 10 Republicans side with Congress over the president on this question.

Washington Post-ABC News Poll

The Washington Post - ABC News Poll: Widespread Disapproval

President Bush and Democrats in Congress are both rated negatively on their handling of Iraq war policy, but head-to-head most trust Democrats on this issue and want Congress to decide when to pull out U.S. troops.

More than half of the respondents said they support legislation that would set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq in the first months of 2008.

I'm out for the night Bettyellen, have a nice evening. :hi:

PS regarding the "delay" rumors, you "missed this one" apparently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20policy.html

Friday, he issued a statement reiterating that he was not asking to delay the September assessment. "There is no intention to push our reporting requirement beyond September. Nothing I said yesterday should be interpreted to suggest otherwise," he said. "My reference to November was simply suggesting that as we go forward beyond September, we will gain more understanding of trends."

[bettyellen]

142. Again, how / why does waiting for Sept make sense? Sept is off the table.

THere;s no time like the present, and the article you posted sipports that also.

[mzmolly]

143. September is not off the table. I edited too late apparently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20policy.html

Friday, he issued a statement reiterating that he was not asking to delay the September assessment. "There is no intention to push our reporting requirement beyond September. Nothing I said yesterday should be interpreted to suggest otherwise," he said. "My reference to November was simply suggesting that as we go forward beyond September, we will gain more understanding of trends."

Again, checking out for the evening have a nice night. :hi:

[bettyellen]

144. Petraeus has said it's 2009 and we should not respond but wait till Sept/ Nov to hear the

same - why exactly?
we wait around our powder will blow away.
Don;t you get it by Sept the idea of 2009 is old news.
Again why wait for what we know NOW? You believe there's a new magic report in Septemeber that's worth waithning for?
Even you don;t belive that Bullshit. And they are still asking for a wait till Nov add ons to judge it. More BS.

And you pretend to belive it to upport the powder dry theory.
Nice, Trust their report to come out on time, hold your breath in fact.

[mzmolly]

145. You don't get that this is not about what *I* believe, it's about what the freaking

Republicans have indicated to Democrats. They've said they plan to jump ship when the inevitable September "failure" report comes in THIS FALL.

Sorry to be "testy" but I think you're smart enough to get it, no?

[John Q. Citizen]

65. Is that why they took the power of the purse off the table? So they could keep paying

for the occupation? You know, the one you claim they are ending?

[mzmolly]

68. They didn't take it off the table, they apparently considered that the MAJORITY of Americans

support an end to the war and DO NOT support cutting funds to do it?

[John Q. Citizen]

76. Oh, so when a majority of Americans support impeaching Cheney, that's different?

You know, I guess I'm not as flexible as you are.

I can't keep up with all the excuses for what they do and why they are doing it as well you can. You seem to pretty good at pretzel logic.

My bet is the Dems have finally figured out the war is a PR disaster, and what they want to do is to continue the occupation as long as it takes to control the oil and keep the bases. But they prefer to do it in a way that looks like they are doing it differently.

For example, except for Kucinich, Richardson, and Gravel, I don't know of any other Dem candidates who have suggested we need to completely withdraw from Iraq. I don't know of any others who have renounced control of the oil or permanant US bases in Iraq.

I can only assume that you agree that the US needs permanant bases in Iraq and also our multinationals need to control Iraq's oil.

Or have you renounced those goals as well?

[mzmolly]

79. No, I'm just good at "logic."

I understand that the political process is far from black and white and "simple."

Further, I don't think Democrats support controlling the oil, nor do I. I have said my FIRST priority is ending the war, second is impeachment. I make no apologies.

[John Q. Citizen]

90. Why won't our "leading" candidates just say that? Is stealing oil and getting

permanant bases popular with the public? If it were, I'd expect they would be touting it in their campaigns.

If it's unpopular, why not promise not to do it?

See, I'm just not that good at this stuff. My first guess when confronted with this conflicting information is to figure that the leading Dems want to steal the oil and to steal permanant bases, but to keep it a secret, at least until they get elected. That seems to fit the evidence.

Do you have any ideas about this?

[mzmolly]

91. John, this issue was discussed at tonights debate.

It was clear to me that everyone on that stage will end the war if elected.

[John Q. Citizen]

95. The war ended years ago. This is an occupation. The bill the house passed

and the Senate passed in April, the Iraq supplemental, contained clear unambigous language that the Iraqi government is expected to pass the hydrcarbon law, which turns control of Iraqi oil over to the multinationals. It's a joint production agreement.

Right now, there is a huge political battle raging in Iraq over this law, because most people want to keep the oil nationalized, not turn thier resource over to the oil companies.

I can't figure out why the Dems would pass a bill that demands Iraq give the multinationals control over Iraq's oil, unless they were in favor of that. Can you?

[Truth2Tell]

103. Thank you John Q.

Nail and Head. Wham.

[mzmolly]

107. You say potato, I say potatoooo - you say "occupation" I say WAR.

However, as to the vote you note:

http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/10618

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100206.html

I don't view this as a "democrat grab for oil" sorry JQ. ;)

[John Q. Citizen]

116. Oh, it's a non-partisan oil grab, clearly. Look at the votes in our congress.

One of the relevant aspects is that it would stand to reason that we intend to be in Iraq for decades to protect this oil grab.

I think our role as both occupier and contract enforcer is highly suspect and highly unethical.

These laws we are requiring the Iraqis to sign are very unpopular with many segments in Iraq. Iraq has had a nationalized oil industry for years and many Iraqis would like to keep it that way.

I blame the Repos and the Dems equally for this rip -off. It was concluded under a Dem controlled congress and a Repo controlled White House.

[mzmolly]

127. I just don't view it that way JohnQ.

I imagine people in Iraq disagree on "politics" as well, especially given the history.

[ProudDad]

77. While bush/cheney are in (imperial) power

the war will NOT end...

Once the facts are in the public eye and the People aroused, it would be a LOT easier to get 67 votes to remove in the Senate than to get the 284 votes in the House to override a veto...

That's why Impeachment Proceedings are imperative.

[mzmolly]

81. We need the same number of votes to overide Bush as we do to Impeach.

At least, that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong?

Also, Republicans are suddenly eager to distance themselves from the war, we'll give them a chance to do so in September. They'll have to own this war or vote with US to end it.

[ProudDad]

84. Nope

Need 213 in the House to Impeach, a simple majority -- need 2/3 or 284 votes to override a veto in the House.

In the Senate 67 to Remove, 67 to override a veto...

Easier to Impeach... It's the publicity value of the process that we need to get the votes in the Senate... or, if bush's numbers keep dropping his fellow repukes just might ask them to do what they asked nixon to do...

[mzmolly]

85. Interesting. What if we have 67 in the Senate and 213 in the house to end the war?

Can Bush veto simply because of the house shortage? It seems to me that the Senate alone could end this "thing?"

[John Q. Citizen]

92. It takes both houses to overide a veto. So it is much harder and much less likely

that we can pass legislation to stop the war than we could impeach and remove.

Of course, we could stop the war next month simply by not funding it. Pelosi or Reid could just not schedudle a vote on a funding bill for the war. No money, no war. And the largest contingent in Iraq is the mercenaries; they out number the troops, and they cost far and away more than the troops do.

[mzmolly]

94. 2/3 of BOTH houses?

:shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

96. Yeppers. 2/3 of both houses. It's in the constitution. Take a look.

Impeachment, on the other hand, takes a simple majority in the House (indictment) and 2/3 in the Senate to remove. The executive has no veto over impeachment. It's strictly the perview of the congress.

[Heathen57]

100. I hate to say it

but the Dems in office won't stop the war either. They will bluster about for a bit, maybe even send some legislation to Bush, but he will veto it and they will cave once again. Just like last time.

Starting impeachment would at least show the country that the Dems care about the form of government we had. What we are facing is a dictatorship, no matter who gets in the WH.

One final thought. If Pelosi and company are holding out for the 08 elections, they had better not count on that too soon. There is enough of a movement building for justice that people will be too disgusted with their ineffective track record that they just might lose the elections. If that happens, we might as well throw the Constitution away, and hide out until the other countries come to liberate us.

[King Coal]

31. Get thee off to the greatest page!

[wiggs]

32. All kinds of good things could happen from impeachment hearings in

addition to what you say.

Maybe debate would lead to impeachment or maybe just censure or maybe appointment of special prosecutor or maybe we would find out about more misdeeds or maybe the country would find out which republicans want to defend WH misdeeds or maybe republicans would ask officials to resign rather than face impeachment or maybe more people would be exposed to the truth or maybe the next president who wants to break laws would think twice about it or maybe it should be done because it is the duty of congress to do it or maybe journalists around the world would help investigate or maybe extensive public discourse in the media would help convince even more Americans of the necessity, or maybe other countries would see the rebellious effort and realize that all the insanity of the last 6 years is not reflective of our country....A LOT OF GOOD COULD COME FROM AT LEAST THE DEBATE.

[bunny planet]

35. Absofreakinlutely.

Please just do it already. Our country as we know (knew) it depends upon it. Cheney first.

[Swamp Rat]

36. k&r

[Canuckistanian]

37. There you go

Another good reason to impeach even if it doesn't succeed.

[porphyrian]

38. I'll kick this, though I think we're talking to ourselves.

I'm extremely close to believing there will be no political solution to our current problems.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

40. BRRRRAVO!!! BRAVO! BRAVO!!!!

:applause: :bounce: :applause:

[Maraya1969]

42. I don't know what excuse Pelosi would use after being confronted

by this information. This would take what is becoming a long drawn out situation and turn it into free fall.

[L. Coyote]

44. The Impeachment will be televised. The revolution already happened

on the Web! Remember the phrase, "The revolution will not be televised."
Think about that in terms of the Internet. The Web was/is the revolution of our times.

[cureautismnow]

45. Excellent. The umpire can clear the sand from his eyes.

Let's get the Plame outing REALLY out in the open and expose Cheney et al for the American traitors they truly are. K & R!



:kick:

[Senator]

47. K&R

[mmonk]

50. Well said.

Predicting the senate outcome once everything is laid out is folly.

[stimbox]

53. K&R

:bounce:

[paparush]

55. THIS is IT! THIS IS GOLDEN!! Keith..Keith O. needs THIS

(He may already have it. I don't have TV).

Horse, if its OK, I'm sending this as a Letter to the Editor of my local paper.

What does Bush have on Pelosi, Conyers, Reid? WHAT IN THE NAME OF THE UNIVERSE COULD BE HOLDING THEM BACK??????

[creeksneakers2]

57. Good point about overcoming executive privilege

But the same thing could be accomplished for torture, wiretapping and US Attorneys by impeaching Gonzalez. Democrats can only investigate so many things at once.

I don't think the public will go for Bush impeachment if it looks like its impeach first and figure out why second. There needs to be a solid case right off the bat.

Conyers is pushing contempt charges and that could easily lead to a constitutional showdown in which Bush will do something crazy and show everybody that he has to go. Just declaring that contempt won't be prosecuted by the executive branch is a wild move that could land Bush on TV in the role of Richard Nixon. The public must be certain that Bush both breaks the law and puts himself above it. Then there will be no other choice.

[Joe Fields]

58. What about Gonzalez? If he refuses to act? Then what happens?

[ProudDad]

78. This happens...

he's arrested...

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Capitol_Police.htm

And hire a bunch of returned Iraq Veterans Against the War to supplement them...

[shaniqua6392]

59. Set the table

and put IMPEACHMENT on it.

[puebloknot]

62. K&R This is so concise, and so needed. So many people here...

... and all over the country misunderstand what impeachment is.

Good on ya for posting this.

[tomp]

63. wow, that's (another) really good reaosn to impeach!!!!! nt

[Kurovski]

67. K&R. (nt)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

70. I phoned my congressman this morning

and told him we elect Congressmen to act on our behalf and he has to do what he is told by his constituents

[defendandprotect]

72. Presume that all of us are calling or e-mailing at every opportunity?

Just want to suggest that if we can DU should have a list of available Congressional toll #s and
whatever open e-mail addresses there may be --

It's criminal that you have to go in and out of websites to send messages to your own Senators and Reps --!!!!

We need open e-mail addresses --

[defendandprotect]

75. Can we get this into as many Democratic websites as possible?

I'd split a list with someone --

And we should feed it back to every progressive/liberal organizations that contacts us --

What about Edwards/Hillary/Kucinich -- ??
Has Kucinich ever mentioned this better end of the lollipop of impeachment -- ???

[AzDar]

80. IMPEACH!!

[whistle]

82. So impeach Bush and Cheney now and get our hands on that evidence

[Kurovski]

87. Kick. (nt)

[madfloridian]

88. Then shame all our good Dems like Conyers to get it done.

Right? Way to go.

We are ripping our own party apart in the middle and left parts....while the DLC is moving merrily along taking us where they want us to go.

[_Wayne_]

89. Pipe Dreams

Alas, the "impeachment" subject rears its head. I'd like to see Bush impeached, but most politicians know better, and would not risk losing their next election because of a controversial impeachment proceeding, especially if it goes nowhere, and spends much money. All Dem Presidential candidates oppose impeachment proceedings, correct? There's no support for impeachment, and most of America opposes impeachment, so the House Dems will follow. Nancy Pelosi even backed away from impeachment talk. There's no leadership in this instance, unlike Newt Gingrich/Rush Limbaugh/Trent Lott in 1998, major party leaders and big voices.

[PBass]

98. Wrong, I believe most Americans would support impeachment.

Look at this:

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

http://www.democrats.com/impeachpac-announced

I don't know if that is a perfect poll, but at least it's a poll. What data are you working off of?

Also, political strategizing in order to win an election over a year away, is the worst, most crass reason to oppose impeachment. Do you think consolidating the party's own power is more important than defending the Constitution? Blech...

If the Democrats won't stand up against Bush, they don't deserve to stay in office, IMO.

[mmonk]

97. I still have to pinch myself sometimes that on a progressive

democratic website, we're debating whether one of the most impeachable republican presidencies and vice presidents in U.S. history should be impeached.

[MissMarple]

99. Well, that would take some quite ...remarkable... internal fortitude.

Do you think Conyers and Pelosi have the... ummm... requirements?

And how quickly could an impeachment process be completed? Reasonably. Well... maybe not so reasonably.

[BR_Parkway]

102. One thing to add - Bush can't pardon anyone under impeachment

it's the only Constitutional restriction - so it would jerk Cheney (and everyone else's) Get Out Of Jail free card.

[sellitman]

106. I just copied this and sent it to My Congress woman Rosa DeLauro.

She is against Impeachment because she is joined at the hip to the DNC but I write to her almost daily with reason to Impeach. This is as good a argument as I have seen.

Thanks,
Kevin

[porphyrian]

108. I'll kick this again. - n/t

[SpiralHawk]

109. Yes, screw the Royal Privilege that these republicon cronies claim

They are just claiming Royal Republicon Privilege because they imagine they are better than the ordinary citizens of the USA, and because they want to cover up their heinous anti-American activities.

[malaise]

111. Great post n/t

[NotGivingUp]

112. Makes you ask yourself "WHY AREN'T THE DEMS IMPEACHING?" k&r! n/t

[WillyT]

113. EXACTLY !!! - And THANK YOU !!! - K & R !!!

:bounce::yourock::bounce:

:applause:

[debbierlus]

114. Excellent

Thank you.

[goclark]

115. Excellent points~ let's get the party started

[G_j]

117. right on! K&R

:applause:

[nradisic]

118. Amen!

Impeach now!

[debbierlus]

119. Meanwhile Bush CONTINUES to break the law...

This isn't one small incident, but unprecedented abuse of executive powers.

He has his sights on Iran.

[INdemo]

121. Impeachment ain't gonna happen

so why do we bother discussing it. There isn't enough time. By the time the Repukes go through all their political maneuvering *'s term would be over. And the media would turn this around and call it neglecting other issues for the sake of what they would call partisan politics.
From the post on main page:

Cindy Sheehan just left John Conyer's office and announced that Rep. Conyers is NOT going to move on impeachment.

The crowd is very uspet.

Rev. Yearwood announced that the government has failed the people and the people must act NOW. This needs to be spread everywhere.

PEOPLE MUST CALL.

The phone must NOT STOP RINGING. POST THIS EVERYWHERE!!

[MGKrebs]

122. What is the legal basis for this?

I don't think all that is in the Constitution; it must have been decided previously? Watergate? Is that the way things worked out? Didn't they have to consider every single piece of evidence separately? (I'm thinking of the tapes in particular.)

Just because John Dean says it doesn't make it so. I find it hard to believe that even one congressperson, even Dennis Kucinich, or Conyers, or any of the legions of legal staff people hovering around legislators haven't come forward with this previously.

As much as I hope it's true, I remain skeptical.

[milord]

125. impeachment

we have GOT to impeach bush/cheney, and now. For the president to order his minions to openly defy the DoJ is such an obvious violation of his oath of office, it leaves Congress no choice whatsoever about impeachment. The bastards MUST be impeached, and NOW!!!
What the hell is congress waiting for? Divine intervention?

[Hawkowl]

126. Brilliant!

We can sell it as an investigation! That is what the leadership has said there primary role is. Hold hearings, investigate etc. The inability of the House to get people to testify leaves the House no choice but to hold the ultimate investigation: IMPEACHMENT! Stuff that executive privilege up your ass shrub!

[lame54]

129. impeachment trumps

executive privilege

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tMACzBomDK4

[lonestarnot]

130. IMPEACH!

[flyarm]

132. NO NO NO NO NO..YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS MUCH SENSE!!...get the covers off now!

censure is like threatening a kid with soap in their mouth!!

if we can impeach over a blow job lie..than why the hell can we not impeach when thses fuckers have sent our kids to war based on manipulation of intelligence and nothing but fucking lies!!

enough..i have had enough!

and so have our soldiers! and their families!

and so have the Iraqi people who are now living in a hell hole seeing their families get murdered each and every day!

enough..impeach these mtf'ers!

fly

[liberal N proud]

133. We need impeachment NOW!

[Madspirit]

140. How did I miss this. I can no longer rec but I can kick...n/t