Blowing a hole in the "WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES" excuse

[radfringe]

We've heard the "WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES" excuse used many times when it comes to the impeachment issue...

Well - Congress may have the votes to pass an Iraq Occupation funding bill with benchmarks/deadlines attached but they don't have the votes to override a veto - YET they continue to pass various versions of bill knowing this

Why aren't they whining they don't have the votes to override a veto? The blatherhead take on it is the Dems are making a political point - be it that bush doesn't listen, bush doesn't face reality or whatever...

Well doesn't bringing up impeachment (votes or not) do the same thing? It would make a political point, it would bring it into the national dialog/debate...

We the people voted for change back in November...if we don't see some MAJOR changes real soon, we'll be throwing them all out and making some big changes in Nov '08

[Lost4words]

1. correct you are! Impeach the little sissy!

8643!

[niceypoo]

112. wanna veto us Mr Bush? have a subpoena !!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. Good post -- the "we don't have the votes" cry is lame...

...They should just be honest and cry "We don't have the courage."

[StarryNite]

50. You nailed it!

They are cowards.

[wryter2000]

114. Fine

When he comes back with "The Democrat Congress gave it their best shot. Heh-heh. I'm still here. Heh-heh. I'm the survivor. Heh-heh. Bring it on, Democrats," you can celebrate your moral victory then.

[radfringe]

121. he's been doing that anyways

heh heh gonna veto anything them Demikratz send to me if'n it's not eggzakly what I want, then I may veto that too jist to show'em who's the commander-decidercation guy

[wryter2000]

122. True

But it's not playing so well in Peoria any longer.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

123. Huh?

[Robson]

3. Agreed - the smirk would make it all worthwhile

Bush & Cheney under oath about everything that we know they lied about. Just to see that smirk when they take the fifth would be worth it

[Maraya1969]

20. You know putting Bush under oath will give them the rest of the votes. You know

he'll purger himself. Or he'll just flat out lie, (or tell the truth) because he can't talk without notes or an ear piece telling him the answers.

[JPettus]

98. You think he's smirking now?

How do you think Georgie will smirk if you impeach and can't get the votes to remove? He will know he won.

How will he smirk if you impeach and the Dems lose votes and seats in Congress the way the Republicans did when they impeached Clinton?

You can impeach and put him under oath. He will play the victim and the Republican-owned corporate media will make him out as a martyr while Georgie and Dickie stall for time. Then, even if you catch him in lies (and not the lame "I don't remember" statements Gonzo is giving) and then show the proof of his lies, the Republicans still won't support removal of George. The Republicans showed that Clinton DID, indeed, lie under oath about Lewinsky and the Dems didn't vote to remove him because they saw impeachment for what it was: politics. Given that, the majority of the Republicans also won't vote to remove. History teaches that if they actually remove the President, the entire party gets swept even more out of seats in the next election. Republicans voting to remove Bush at this time is political suicide for themselves and their party and they know it.

I've said it before and I will say it again: the votes aren't there, and the votes wouldn't be there if we caught Georgie shooting Ted Kennedy on the floor of the senate, with an illegal assault rifle while raping a ten year old boy. If it were captured on video and shown 24x7 on every news channel but Faux Noise, it wouldn't change the votes. If you could prove that Georgie knew when and where 9/11 was going to happen and let it happen, you couldn't get impeachment from most of those clowns.

The vast majority of Republicans have no ethics, only party loyalty. Even now, with their representatives balanced on losing more seats for supporting Bush on Iraq, you still see that we can't get a veto proof majority on our bills. After the Tuesday night massacre in November, they still stand with Bush on Iraq. If we can't get a veto proof majority, where are the votes to impeach going to come from? And that's with the results being considered a mandate on Iraq by everyone but Georgie. However, the Tuesday night massacre was NOT a mandate on removing the President in time of war. That's not what the majority of people voted on when they cast their votes against the Republicans and gave control to the Democrats.

The current strategy of investigation after investigation and publicizing the Bush Admin's crimes hurts them more and it's harder for the media to cover up, also its' more frustrating for the GOP because THEY CAN'T STOP IT. Remember how Starr tortured and embarrassed Clinton in the press? It caused even a popular President to cost votes to the Democrats in 2000. You can't block it with a vote. They can't twist it into making George and his cronies martyrs. Pushing the bills back out there gets more and more polls showing that the majority of voters support a timeline and Bush and the Republicans look more self-serving and anti-American each time, except on hate radio. Each time, Bush looks worse than the time before. And it shows the American people that the Democratic Congress is doing everything it can short of regime change to stop the war.

Now, when polls show that 75-80% of the American people support impeachment, you can likely get that. Right now, its barely 50% and that won't fly to remove Bush with Republicans guarding their own.

The moderate Republicans also took George to task on Iraq, concerned that they will lose more seats in 2008 (and they will) and want action very soon. Yes, they will keep changing the time line. Publicize that change. Put it on billboards. Put it in all the media. Let everybody in America see what a criminal he is. Let the backlash of righteous indignation sweep them completely out of office but a handful of conservative districts that would elect Hitler if he had the big (R) next to his name.

This isn't showy, but it IS winning, and the Republicans know that this strategy in the long run will pay more dividends in terms of removing Republicans from office. Georgie and Dickie remain, but you remove everyone from around them, Gonzo, Harriet, Libby, Rove. Leave Georgie and Dickie as the face of the Republican Party.

Then, see what happens in November, despite the best swiftboat attempts and voter repression the Repugs can manage.

[wryter2000]

116. Welcome to DU

Well said.

And sadly, we're not going to get a veto proof majority until his term expires, anyway.

If I thought there was a snowball's chance in hell of getting enough votes in the Senate, I'd be screaming for impeachment, too. But there isn't.

[Rydz777]

4. The House has the votes to impeach. It only takes a simple

majority, and Democrats have that. Conviction in the Senate is another matter; it requires a two-thirds vote to remove him from office. Then we would get President Cheney. The ideal - very time consuming however -would be to oust Bush, Cheney, and Gonzo all at once.

[onenote]

62. have you counted the votes?

All it would take is 16 Democrats to defect from an impeachment vote. It is extremely naieve to think that the Democratic members of the House would vote in lockstep for impeachment articles, particularly if the vote was along strictly partisan lines. The fact that members voted for a withdrawal timeline doesn't mean that they are prepared to vote for impeachment or that their constituents are supportive. There are a large number of moderate/conservative Democratic members of the House who were elected in districts that are not particularly blue. These members likely believe that their constituents don't want them to pursue a partisan impeachment that almost certainly will result in an acquital of chimpy by the Senate.

[H2O Man]

5. Right.

It also indicates a lack of understanding of the simple fact that impeachment is a process. More, too many people have been fooled by the lie that impeachment is a political process, rather than a legal one. That is, of course, a lie. Impeachment is defined by the Constitution of the United States, which is a legal document. Note the US Supreme Court (a significant player in the judicial branch) decides Constitutional law. Note that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sits in on the process of impeachment.

In fact, the process of impeachment is a civil trial. In every sense, it follows civil -- rather than criminal -- law. And there are civil -- not criminal -- penalties. (And a person can be tried for criminal charges associated with the charges they are tried for.)

In any trial -- civil or criminal -- the jury does not render its decision before the evidence is heard. Those who say "we don't have the votes" are in exactly as much error as those who would say "we don't have the votes" to convict any common thug in a criminal court, before the trial began. Indeed, the "we don't have the votes" is a short-cut to rational thought, and reflects a sad lack of insight.

[BigRed1975]

6. I disagree...Impeachment is ludicrous

Impeachment is indeed a political process. Congress is not responsible for enforcing or interpreting the laws of this country. That duty falls to the judicial branch. Impeachment does not involve the judiciary until and unless the House votes impeachment. Even then, the decision is rendered by a political body..the US Senate. Impeachment provides a means of removing the President within a political and not a legal framework. Congress is a political body. The process clearly has political underpinnings.

Impeachment changes nothing in the conduct of this war. It will largely be viewed by the public as a "get even" move as payback for the Clinton debacle. The more I read this board the more I realize why the Democrats have lost so badly and that once they get a leg up are so anxious to shoot themselves in the foot in a race to obscurity.

Big Red

[H2O Man]

7. "Impeachment is ludicrous"

Thanks for the giggle.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi BigRed1975!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BigRed1975]

18. Thanks for the welcome...

Can I take a raincheck on the beer..a little early for me out here in California...LOL.

Big Red

P.S.--Do you know what is far above Cayuga's waters? (hint: upstate NewYawk)

[annabanana]

10. sure... if by "ludicrous" you mean "imperative". . . . . . .n/t

[BigRed1975]

19. Nope...I mean as in superfluous.....

Big Red

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. What is ludicrous is ignoring the criminal behavior

and the illegal war in Iraq while blathering on about politics.

[BigRed1975]

22. Why not censure instead of impeach?

If the behavior is criminal as you suggest it should be the subject of investigation by a special counsel. I am all for investigation and oversight hearings. Let the chips fall where they may, but the fact is you have nothing on Bush that will cause the American public to clamor for impeachment. It is a move that is at best a waste of time and at worst a political blunder subject to electorial backblash. I don't think the congressional ratings are low now because the public is pissed the Dems haven't impeached the President.

Big Red

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. I disagree

My Dem rep's office told me last week they are getting 100 calls a week about impeachment.

[BigRed1975]

27. Get back to me when a Republican rep gets the same kind of pressure..

Despite a low approval rating, Bush is still supported by a large majority of Republicans. It will take Republican outrage to remove him. If the pressure of public opinion is not causing the cons to vote to end the war, just what is it that makes you think that they'll be persuaded to vote for impeachment?

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. HE IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL!

I really don't care how many repukelicans still support el pretzeldente. Impeachment will bring all the evidence to the table. Once that happens, if some dumbass repukelicans still want to support him, how do you think that will look to the people who elect them?

On the other hand, if we don't insist on impeachment, think of all that criminal behavior that will never be brought to the public's attention.

Just think - if we had impeached Nixon AND Johnson, do you believe we would be invading innocent countries 30, 40 years later?

[BigRed1975]

34. You really more concerned about revenge than justice...

I still ask you...what good is impeachment if you can't remove the President?

Big Red

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. I wonder if the republicans asked that question

when they impeached Clinton?

[BigRed1975]

37. I am sure they didn't.....

But I'm also sure that Newt and Bob Livingston really wished they had of.

Big Red

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frogcycle]

95. read the definition

impeachment is followed by a trial. In the trial evidence is presented. There are currently 52 active investigations, any one of which MAY yield sufficient evidence to convict. If, faced with specific, convincing, public evidence of a crime more serious than lying under oath about a blow job, the republican senators all vote party line anyway, THEN you can say you don't have the votes - and you don't have a constitutional government. You have a food fight. Which is probably true. But getting that evidence properly presented is the fucking RESPONSIBILITY of the congress. I'd defer to Johnathan Turley - or John Dean - for advice on which of the several charges is the strongest.

[tomp]

103. while i absolutely support impeachment, it would be wrong...

...not to consider the vote tally in the senate, if only to be aware of what we are getting into. the evidence may be as plain as day (and it most certainly will be plain and voluminous, to the point that no citizen with a working brain sell could miss it) but that doesn't mean a rep senator will vote for conviction.

we must consider what underlies the recalcitrance of the rep senators currently vis a vis the votes on the war funding and timetables. one would think, all things being equal, that the reps would have seen the writing on the wall of the '06 elections: a clear slap at bush/cheney politics/government. yet they continue not to distance themselves from bush in their voting. why not? perhaps they think they have '08 sewn up via the usual methods and don't need to worry about re-election.

or perhaps their just a bunch of fascist assholes. but i repeat myself.

as much as i unequivocally support impeachment, i would truly hate to see a failure to convict. every step must take bush down one peg lower until he is crawling like the snake that he is. but miss a step and we couldt get bit.

[frogcycle]

105. agreed - to a point

if, in fact, we have 34 senators who have so gone over to the dark side that they would vote not to convict no matter what - then we are probably doomed. As I said, that means we do not have the form of government we think we do. While a failure to convict in the face of overwhelming evidence (note that I am supposing much more clear, incontrovertable evidence making an ironclad case) would be a political setback, it seems to me that if we are indeed that far into the abyss then we are NOT getting out. The political setback would not be "fatal," because we would already be dead.

We need to test the system and see just how broken it really is. If we not only have a fox in the henhouse, but over a third of the hens are actually foxes, then we could have an urgent and pressing need for change OUTSIDE the Constitution. The Constitution is designed to create a self-correcting system. If seditious activities have actually destroyed that, then loyalty to the Constitution demands that be exposed and corrected.

The continuing efforts to "play by the rules" and worry about public perception probably have the thugs laughing themselves silly. They see all this as just a bunch of ants scurrying about when their nest has been disturbed.

[EV_Ares]

107. Maybe we should at least try. It is better than what this congress

is doing and getting done (nothing).

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. We don't give a FUCK about what repug reps get pressured on.

They've been a rubberstamp congress for the past 7 years and they are complicit also. It's time to name the whole republican party what they are... an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Welcome to DU, but hey... every post of yours I've seen so far is only on the impeachment issue, and only trying to quash the idea. What's your agenda?

[BigRed1975]

47. IF you want to get into a profanity contest....

I assure you I can do a lot better than that. I am not any more impressed by your point or lack thereof by your profanity laced tirade.

I usually bitch slap somebody to bring them back to reality. Let me know when you're ready for treatment.

Big Red

[Ghost in the Machine]

48. Hoo Boy!! An internet tough guy!

You're gonna bitchslap me?? Hmm.. let me think about that one. I'm 6'3, 275 lbs., ex military, 8 years as a bouncer in a biker bar, 6 years as an enforcer with the Outlaws, 2 black belts & I've buried 2 idiots that wanted to pull guns on me.

Yeah, bring your bitch slap on, boy. :eyes:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

51. OK. I've got a 50. on you to rip Mr/Ms "Bitch-Slap's" head off.

I'm sure they'll be back just as soon as they put on clean undies.

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. LOL! Thanks for the vote of confidence. I just *love* keyboard commandos

pseudo-toughguys who run their mouths without knowing who someone is. Good thing I'm in a good mood or he'd be looking at buying a new computer already. :evilgrin:

[noiretextatique]

57. i want in on that action...$50.00 on GITM

:popcorn: let the bitchslapping begin...

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. LOL!! Didn't *you* start with the threats? I thought it was funny, but

I never back down from a good fight, online or otherwise. You see, I'm not a pacifist. But it's all good. Sometimes we can just work through our frustrations or, in my case, let them go and move on towards bigger and better things.

While it's true we may never meet in person, different paths apparently brought us to the same place here. Let's make the best of it, why don't we?

I hope you're wrong about having to wait until 2009 to end the war, sans impeachment, but it may be a possibility. In the mean time, I'll keep being the squeaky wheel looking for some grease, and maybe, just maybe you'll learn some critical thinking skills, logical thinking skills and debating skills. :hi:

PEACE!

Ghost

P.S. You never did answer my question. What's your agenda here? Why do you deride impeachment so much? Do you not understand how imperative it is to at least try and not be paralyzed by the fear of failure?

[d_b]

104. ..

[TankLV]

78. So what do you call the repuke's impeachment of Clinton? He had 60% approval during the whole thing

The repukes did what they wanted and were REWARDED for 8 more years of repuke control!!

They lost NOTHING!

Dems have to have the courage to fight and LOSE is necessary doing what's RIGHT!

What the repukes did was WRONG - what the Dems REFUSE to do is also WRONG!

"Far above Cayuga's waters
theres an awful smell...
Some say it's Cayuga's waters
others say Cornell!"

[zalinda]

87. The ONLY reason that the repubs were "rewarded"

was because they cheated. Well, I can think of another one, they own most of the media. If the Internet was as strong then as it is now, there would have been no way that the repubs would have impeached Clinton.

How is it that we, the searchers of truth and justice know so much of what is going on? Is it because of TV? How about radio? No, no must be the newspapers or magazines. You wonder why people aren't demanding impeachment, it's because they only know maybe 1/4 of what we know. And that 1/4 is so doused in spin that it would be hard to recognize where the truth lies. And then, of course you have people who could give a crap about what is happening, and there are those who are too tired and hungry to even think.

Sometimes I wonder how many people on this board live in the real world.

zalinda

[Toots]

14. "It will largely be viewed by the public"

Such an authority...you must be a pundit or something because they know everything as well and are always right as we all well know......:shrug:

[BigRed1975]

26. Not a pundit....

I stated that in the context of an opinion. Do you have an opinion? Are those banned from expression on this board? Can you tell me what good impeachment would do given you can't remove the President? Inquiring minds wanna know. If you can't remove the President, then the move will be viewed by many in the public as political grandstanding.

I view the move as a waste of time. Bush is all but gone. If we can expose wrong doing then so be it. If we can get some resignations and prosecutions of Bush officials, that's great. If that leads to grounds for impeachment, then go for it. So far we haven't got there and I don't think that should be the goal. The goal should be to solidify the control of the Democratic party over the government. That means focusing on passing good legislation and promoting responsible conduct of government. That means crawling up the behind of the Blue Dogs who are looking to backslide on the ethics legislation that was the cornerstone of the "most ethical Congress in History". Remember that? Once we have the Presidency and control of Congress, then we will be able to execute an orderly withdrawal from Iraq. Forcing that before the election is IMNSHO political suicide as it will give the cons a strong set of talking points and pin the disastrous consequences of the war on the Dems. I predict total chaos in Iraq if we pull out in total by years end. No responsible president will either do that nor promise that it is possible. I discredit any candidate that hints that it is possible.

Big Red

[Usrename]

36. Why do you think he can't be removed?

Do you think that the crimes that he has committed cannot be proven?

Do you think that once proven, the crimes he has committed will not carry any consequences?

Do you think that these guys are truly above the law?

Do you think that Treason and Bribery are not impeachable offenses?

[BigRed1975]

39. I'll answer each of your questions

1. Do I think that the crimes he has committed cannot be proven?

Proven to who and to what extent? You don't seem to need a trial and others don't care what the evidence would indicate. What crimes are we talking about? What evidence do we have that is so conclusive that it would force absolutely stubborn partisan individuals who will not stop this war to change their opinion.

2. Do you think that once proven, the crimes he has committed will not carry any consequences?

I don't believe much of this can be proven to an extent that it would convince the Senate that the president should be removed from office.

3. I don't believe anybody is above the law. The problem in dealing with the Presidency is that there are many areas of ambiguity that have never been subjected to a test to determine applicable law.

4. Treason and bribery are impeachable offenses.

[Usrename]

59. How about these things, for an example.

If the Chimp-in-Chief ordered the troops to stand-down and not provide defense for the UN Headquarters and the International Red Cross Headquarters (during the early occupation of Iraq) in order to prevent foreign interest from inserting themselves into the economic structure of the new government there, then that order would be considered an act of Treason, as it would seem to have given aid to the enemy.

I *WANT* to have that discussion, whether or not a conviction can ever be made.

Cheney has refused to tender his financial interests in Halliburton, as he promised the nation he would do. This fact is unchallenged, and could support a charge of bribery.

I *WANT* to have this discussion also, especially if he tries to defend his actions by claiming that he bought some "bribery insurance" to make it all a "legal" bribe.

What are you afraid of? Do you think the American people are really as stoopid as the media treats them?

[lonestarnot]

108. That's the pug side of impeachment inaction yes.

[onenote]

65. he can't be removed because the repubs will never vote to remove him

Its really that simple. It isn't going to happen. What will happen is that if a partisan effort in the House is launched to impeach, the repubs will use it to rally their base. Instead of a demoralized,divided repub party, you will have unified them and given them an issue.

It is barely six months since the Democrats captured the House and, narrowly, the Senate. Not one of those Senate candidates and virtually none of the Democratic candidates made impeachment an issue in their campaign. If they weren't willing to campaign on the issue as a way to distinguish themselves from their repub opponents six months ago, why do you think that they will embrace a partisan impeachment effort now.

[Usrename]

69. My analysis would be a little different than what you are saying.

The primary issue to voters during the midterm election was the corruption thing. This issue is not partisan. Neither is US Imperialism a partisan issue.

The problem is not with the opposition party rank-and-file, they would support cleaning up Washington once and for all.

I think the real problem is that many in the Democratic leadership, especially the DLC, support Empire and the whole Bush agenda, including the unitary executive crap.

The only way to get around this problem is to begin the discussion. Although that could be taboo, depending on where you are and who you are trying to have a discussion with.

[Independent_Liberal]

86. I disagree.

The Dems didn't have a 2/3 majority when Nixon was in power in either. Once the investigations dragged all the evidence out into the light, eventually Nixon's own Republican party turned against him. He resigned because he knew he'd be convicted by the Senate.

[onenote]

91. from the outset, there was broad bi-partisan support for a nixon impeachment inquiry

The investigations that gave impetus to (and generated bipartisan support for) the nixon impeachment process were not related to impeachment. The Senate Watergate Committee was established (by a 77-0, bi-partisan vote) in February 1973 and was not charged with any impeachment related duties -- nor could it be, since impeachment is a function of the House. It was the activities of that committee that was the source of revelations that created bipartisan support for an impeachment inquiry. That inquiry was not authorized until November 1973 (and expanded on in Feb 1974) by broad bi-partisan majorities. Indeed, it probably wasn't the actions of the investigations that led to the authorization of House hearings on impeachment, but the Saturday Night Massacre.

In short, the historical precedent of nixon's impeachment suggests that the appropriate step if for the Democrats to be pushing for inquiries regarding chimpy's actions without specifically raising the specter of impeachment. If the result of those inquiries is a bi-partisan demand for the commencement of impeachment-related proceedings, fine. But given the timetable, its unlikely.

[H2O Man]

56. "Opinion"

Opinions are best when based on facts, or the truth. They are of far less value when they are based on ignorance. A good example would be the "opinion" that impeachment is a political, rather than legal, process. That is evidence of one of three things. Let's look at them, shall we?

{1} A sincere but erroneous belief about the federal system, and separation of powers. The House, for example, has its greatest ability to subpoena witnesses and documentation in cases of impeachment, much the same as a federal grand jury. People who do not cooperate with congressional investigations can be held in contempt, and face civil penalties. Those who face impeachment hire constitutional attorneys to assist in their defense, rather than political operatives. Usually, when the person with sincere but erroneous beliefs is exposed to the facts, they will be happy to admit that impeachment is a legal process.

Often, their confusion is rooted in the fact that Bill Clinton was impeached for political reasons. Still, that was an abuse of the impeachment process, not unlike the abuse of the legal process when black Americans were denied Constitutional rights in decades past. The legal system has often been abused for political reasons. And that brings us to the second error in thinking.

{2} There are also folks who for a number of reasons like to try to confuse the issues by saying stupid and wrong things. Let's think of those republican folks who say, "Scooter Libby's trial was political." Nope. Sorry. Wrong. It was a legal case. It involved politics. Scooter is a convicted felon, not a loser in a political contest.

Those same folks will often try to frighten true democrats by saying, for example, that if the Congress were to impeach VP Cheney, that it would harm the democratic party .... because people would think it was merely "political." Please. Get that weak shit out of here. And weak shit brings us to the next error in thinking.

{3} There are those who take the Senator Joseph McCarthy approach to political debate. They believe that if they raise their voice after each alcoholic drink absorbed into their liver and brain, and be a very loud and stubborn rough, tough cream puff, that this makes them correct. It doesn't. It only makes them loud, drunk, and obnoxious. We think of guys like Bill O'Reilly. And really, who wants to be like them?

[Usrename]

63. Impeachment was designed to be a political process.

Yes, there are legal aspects to it, but for the most part it is political. As many people know, the standards for impeachment were changed for Clinton. The wanton violation of civil rights by the House, especially with the release of the Starr Report to the public, affected me pretty deeply, I think. They did not play fair. The course that should be taken now is to be fair, but also merciless.

Remember, they took photos of the President's penis, for chrissakes. We do need to take off the kid gloves here. Smash both their whole Ideology, and their Methods, down. Both are repugnant to liberty and justice. They must be fully discredited before any change can have room to grow. Just saying, the political side is every bit as important as the legal side. Maybe more so. No mercy now, maybe later when, and if, there is time.

As for my assesment of the Clinton impeachment, that whole case should have been thrown out by the Chief Justice on legal grounds when it reached the Senate. One, there were no perjurious statements identified in the complaint as has always been required by law, and two, he was not legally placed under oath during his grand jury testimony (a well established prerequisite for charging perjury, as decided in prior Supreme Court cases).

Neither of these two legal deficiencies were raised as a defense. Why not? It would have been political suicide - quick and speedy like. He was already viewed by many as "Slick Willy" and to skirt by on what the public would view as a technicality would have been foolish while the public was supporting him by a large majority.

But the technicalities really amounted to a long laundry list of civil rights violations perpetrated by the impeachers. I'm not suggesting that anyone engage in anything of the sort against this current threat. Unless you have seen some of my other posts regarding civil rights violations, you wouldn't know this, but I consider state sanctioned civil rights violations, perpetrated under a badge of authority, tantamount to a crime against God or Goddess. If torture can be a worse crime than murder, then this type of crime is worse than torture. (I believe it could be the real reason that torture is wrong in the first place). It is at the apex of my personal list of taboos.

The founders knew that removal of an executive would be political in nature. That's why it isn't under the purview of the courts. The House impeaches and the Senate tries these cases under the Chief Justice who presides and interprets the law (a duty that Rehnquist shunned). It is always political in a very large part though, it has to be, just by the very nature of the process.

If the House votes out Articles, that's all there is to it. They are expressing their political opinion, period. They have no legal or judicial requirement that they must adhere to in order to cast such a vote. It is their rules, interpreted solely by them. (As noted, the Clinton impeachment was entirely political, and not a good model to follow at all.)

So all that I am suggesting is that it's reasonable for someone to ask that everyone also try and pay very close attention to any political consequences here. All actions that have the same legal merit may not, and do not, have the same political repercussions. The torture thing is a good example. There is a lot of political support for it, regardless of the legality. A serious impeachment effort might want to focus more on illegal acts and abuses of power that fewer folks will support or try to justify.

Hopefully we can begin tearing down the entire fascist message, which again, many people are supporting, and that includes some members of both parties. If a trial can finally take place, then some of these political messages could be scrutinized front and center, in order that the public could finally have at least an opportunity to reject them.

Election theft could also be a topic of good impeachment fodder. Someone might even want to call for their own Constitutional Amendment to make this sort of behavior punishable as another type of treason.

See what I mean? I think it is politics.

[H2O Man]

71. While you are

certainly entitled to that view, it is incorrect. Plain and simple. What are people impeached for?

[Usrename]

126. I think it's the old "I'll know it when I see it" answer.

The reasons for impeachment seem to be intentionally sort of vague, if you ask me.

There seems to be a standard where some rationalization is required.

Littering would probably not be grounds (unless you are Al Gore) but other more serious crimes might be.

Or, there could be a case where no particular statute was behind it, like if the President insisted on painting the White House black, or something weird like that and he had the VP's support.

[upi402]

119. A legal tool to check politics gone amok

Sorta like what we have now.

[upi402]

120. A legal tool to check politics gone amok

Sorta like what we have now.

[TankLV]

80. We do know how to recognize trolls, however...

You continue to spew repuke talking points - very interesting...

[acmavm]

102. KKKarl, is that you?

[Joe Chi Minh]

110. They still don't get it, do they... They were looked on by the public as a

particularly pernicious cancer on the nation, even before they stole the 2000 election. And they have the nerve to preach what the American public doesn't like about the Democrats! It's too gross an inversion of the truth to even be risible. It's just dumb, dumb, dumb. They may convince themselves that little bit more by repeating such lunacy, but they sure don't con the American public.

Seeing a dog or a cat in a pet shop window may not catch the public's attention too dramatically, but put a crocodile or a cobra there, and people don't forget it in a hurry. That's your problem Secretariat, you've been gelded and your party's now on its way to the knacker's yard. The French like horse-meat. Now, that would be nice symmetry.

[rucky]

21. Last time there was an impeachment

it had support from 30% of the public. They went ahead with it and got the Congressional votes. Was it a "race to obscurity", when the GOP-controlled Congress stayed in control for nearly 10 years afterwards, with a 2-term Republican presidency behind it?

I'm not saying one had anything to do with the other. I'm saying that the "political blowback" excuse holds no water.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. It's about doing what is right

bush and cheney are criminals. It would be irresponsible NOT to impeach them.

[rucky]

25. It's a no-brainer

yet i hear some elaborate excuses for why we shouldn't

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. If I hear one more person say "it's about the numbers"

meaning the votes, I will scream some numbers back:

3400+ dead soldiers

650,000+ dead Iraqis

How do those numbers work for ya?

[Beam Me Up]

44. Don't forget the nearly 3,000 killed on 9/11 -- and how many dead in

Afghanistan? Do we even have a number for that?

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. I think they are included in the count

The numbers are broken down here: http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

[Phredicles]

92. Plus how many in New Orleans?

If the Insane Clown Posse cannot be called to account for themselves, preferably by impeachment but if not then by any other possible means, then it's time to admit that the United States has jumped the shark.

[Beam Me Up]

118. Right -- and, yes, we've "jumped the shark" in more ways than one. n/t

[Golden Raisin]

85. Yes! And I doubt they are accurate

given that the lying Bush cabal and their toadying propagandists in the MSM are supplying those numbers. The figures are probably significantly higher. Call me naive, call me quixotic, but we need to impeach even if we can't muster the votes, can't convict, and the whole process fails. If for no other reason (and there are plenty), History brutally condemns those Germans who stood by and did nothing while Hitler and the Nazi's rose to power. Frankly, I don't want that said of me or Americans. PNAC, BushCo, Neocons --- whatever you want to call it --- the cabal currently installed in the Executive branch are seriously trying to establish a form of fascism here, gut the Constitution and gradually extinguish our civil liberties. Even if we fail miserably at an impeachment attempt we need to try to stop them. We need to go on record for our own consciences and for posterity. What kind of example are we setting for our children and grandchildren?

[BigRed1975]

32. Actually the Cons did pay the price...

They lost seats in the 1998 Congress as a direct result. That was enough to allow us to control the Senate at least until Daschle lost in I believe 2002. We are sitting with a thin majority in the Senate and so far a poor public performance rating. What is a ludicrous impeachment proceeding going to do to improve that rating? Don't confuse a 2006 victory based on poor execution of a war with a public love fest for the Democratic party.

Yes, I believe if we allow the left wing of the party to have their way and initiate impeachment proceedings, it will be a recipe for disaster. Middle America thinks a whole lot different than many of the opinions regularly espoused on this board. They want rationale government, not reactionary government.

Whether the Clinton impeachment had merit or not the fact is that the Clinton scandals did damage our party, so much so that Gore chose to avoid the support of Clinton in his bid to be elected. Clinton was half assed anyway in his support of Dem candidates. He knew Hillary would be running. A Dem victory in either 2000 or 2004 would have put a damper on Hillary plans.

Big Red

[Senator]

38. Comparing with Clinton is Oxymoronic

(Note: And BTW, it's exactly what the Euphemedia is training people to think/fear. So it is not my intent to single out this poster. In fact, this post is a cut and paste -- including this note.)

It's not just apples and oranges, the circumstances are diametrically opposite.

Clinton was a popular, twice-elected president -- impeached for less-than-trivial reasons -- by a party in danger of being seen as extremists (since having been proven).

Bushcheney is an unpopular, never-elected, never-legitimate regime -- being impeached for torture/war crimes, spying on Americans, and/or terrorizing the nation into war -- by a party that might be in danger of being seen as conscious or vertebrate (currently being disproven).

Realistically, we can expect "Reverse Clinton" results. Perhaps even on conviction/removal.

--

[BigRed1975]

40. That is extremely tortured reasoning....

First, with regards to the Clinton impeachment, you state the obvious, so I'm not sure just who you're attempting to edify. We were also in a pre 9/11 world and in a relative state of peace worldwide. The Republican congress felt they could indulge in such frivolities.

Presently we are in the midst of a conflict/war that should be consuming the attention of our elected leaders. Poor popularity ratings do no translate into public support for impeachment, particularly during the conduct of war. You better have video of the President committing murder if you want to get any traction. Any proceeding such as impeachment that would defocus that attention would not IMNSHO be viewed in a favorable light by the general public. There will be no impeachment given the current state of affairs. The troops will get the money they need and the war will become the responsibility of the next President.

If the dems cut the funds..we own the results of the war as if Bush never started it.

Big Red

[Usrename]

58. Ummmm... we were at war when they voted to impeach Clinton.

There is no comparison to impeaching over a blowjob and impeaching for war crimes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. Welcome To DU BigRed!

Not sure I can agree with you 100% on all of this, but that's irrelevant to me. What I respect is your ability to debate intellectually and within context, without resorting to lesser tactics. I think you are handling yourself very well within this topic and that's especially true given your newcomer status and the challenges that creates when first participating in this forum.

I find your style of debate/intellect refreshing and look forward to seeing where you stand on other issues. As far as this impeachment topic goes though, I'm in agreement that doing it for sake of 'making a point' is a bit futile and probably political suicide. What I'm not sure I agree with you on is the seeming premise that this administration had not done enough things to warrant it or to enrage the public enough to gain their support. After all the things I've learned here and all the things I've seen, it is clear to me that this administration has done more than enough to warrant it and has done many things that would enrage the public if they knew the truth of. Unfortunately between the schlock of a media we have and the short attention span of the average viewer, these things have not seen the light of day as they should have. And god only knows how much else there is that we do not yet know.

So on that note, we probably don't see eye to eye but I may also be misreading you. I'm not sure if you know of all these things they've committed and just find them to not be as much cause for outrage as some of us do, or if you have not yet been exposed to the plethora of outrages this administration has committed. If the latter, then you are in for quite a ride with what you can learn here. If the former, then we'll agree to disagree.

But back to focus of my reply, welcome to DU!

:toast:

[TankLV]

82. ahh - "pre 911 mindset" - another repuke talking point...

ya sure listen to rush real good...that's for sure...

gotcha...

[Senator]

99. Extremely tortured? -- As opposed to what?

Normally I'd get more serious now, but the "relative state of peace worldwide" claim is just beyond the pale.

Early Aug. 1998 Serbian forces intensify their summer offensive, attack KLA and Kosovo Albanian villages in Drenica region, driving thousands into the hills.
5 Aug. 1998 Iraq ceases cooperation with UN inspectors.
7 Aug. 1998 Bombing of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, apparently by operatives working for Osama Bin Laden.

17 Aug. 1998 After completing four hours of grand jury testimony, Clinton offers nationally televised admission of his "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky.
20 Aug. 1998 US launches cruise missile attack on Afghanistan and Sudan in response to Bin Laden's embassy bombings. In polls, significant numbers of Americans say they believe the attacks were staged to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal.

5 Oct. 1998 House Judiciary Committee votes on party lines to recommend Clinton impeachment inquiry.
12 Oct. 1998 NATO approves an "activation order" (ACTORD) for Phased Air Operation and Limited Air Option, to begin in approximately 96 hours. Holbrooke returns from negotiations with Milosevic in Belgrade to brief North Atlantic Council.

17 Dec. 1998 US and Britain begin four days of limited airstrikes against Iraq.
19 Dec. 1998 President Clinton impeached by House of Representatives.

12 Feb. 1999 Impeachment effort fails, Clinton acquitted in the Senate.
13 Feb. 1999 The day after his impeachment drama ends, Clinton calls Congressional leaders to discuss Rambouillet, possible US role in NATO-led Kosovo force. In a radio address, Clinton notes his intention to send 4,000 U.S. peacekeepers to Kosovo after a cease-fire and a Serb withdrawal have been won.

Ah yes, those frivolous care-free days of worldwide peace. How could anyone forget them?

But the public support for impeachment is already here. No need for traction or translation. 51% wanted it as "a priority" before the election and 58% now want the bush regime "just over." (Oddly, those are the exact same words Bob Novak reported that the GOP congressmen used as the reason for their complaint meeting with bush and rove.)

And this notion that changing presidents is somehow going to cause soldiers to strip off their uniforms and run naked to the nearest border is another canard that only holds currency inside the confines of the DC beltway. The same goes for nonsense phrases like "own the results."

That is where you'll really find the tortured reasoning -- among the DC Dems strategerists who swallow these RNC talking points. The public/electorate pays virtually no attention to any of it. And even the DC Dems may soon come to the realization that they are caught in a DemocRat's Maze -- that they are literally impotent to do anything but impeach.

They could even "inadvertently" talk themselves into it. Murtha's alreadly mentioned it. Kucinich is gaining co-sponsors. Even Hagel has said it may come. And everybody knows it's the right thing to do, morally and patriotically.

It could be inevitable.

====

[TankLV]

81. ahh - now it's the "left wing" of the party...

must be hard trying not to say Democrat party for ya, huh?

Good repuke talking points all...

Let's see - last time I checked, AWOL bunkerboy had lower than 28% approval and the Dems had over 80% approval - hmmm - sounds like pretty "left wing" to me...

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. History lesson is in order

There have been three impeahcments, (truly two since Nixon was not technically impeached) in the history of the Republic

Two of them were used as pol;itical weapons and the party paid a price

1974, on the other hand, was a bumper crop for democrats.

Why? Imeapchment was going to happen and people wanted it

Also polls show that 9without the press explaining this or covering the crimes) it hovers around 51-55%.

Clinton, with all the press coverage, never came over 35%

You tell me, 51-55% last time I checked was not a fringe view.

We have a name actually, majority view, even if by a thread.

[Greyhound]

54. "I 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." From the http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm">site of the U.S. Senate.

So much for congress not being responsible for enforcing the laws of the country.
:think:

[Greyhound]

125. No reply to this or to magellan's reply? What a surprise. n/t

[Dawgs]

67. Thanks Big Red, and..

Go Obama!!

[ooglymoogly]

76. Vot a bonch off booolcheat

If a president is acting criminally and treasonous against the people of this country, the congress is honor bound and constitutionally bound to impeach him and the horse he rode in on, if for nothing more than the most important reason, to protect the constitution and this countries honor and integrity. Then the whole bunch should be tried under the RICO statutes in a criminal court, then sent to the Hague to stand trial for his and this entire cabals crimes against humanity.

[magellan]

77. "Congress is not responsible for enforcing or interpreting the laws of this country."

No. But they ARE responsible for policing the executive branch, and that's why Article II Section 4 of the Constitution gives them the power to impeach.

[frogcycle]

94. Welcome to DU

You are wrong.

Impeachment is NOT a political process as defined in the Constitution. The witch-hunting republicans politicized it - improperly - but that does not mean it is forever tainted. They did not amend the Constitution and change its definition - they just deluded shallow, uneducated, faux news zombies into THINKING it is a political move and "getting even" is what our elected officials are supposed to be all about.

[wryter2000]

115. I see NewYawker already welcomed you

I'll do it from the Left Coast. Howdy from Oaktown. :hi:

[klyon]

31. That is right. To serve justice we need to begin the process

KL

[onenote]

64. impeachment is both a legal process and a political process

And the fact is that the ultimate decision is political, not legal..it is a vote by elected politicians and that vote, at least in the Senate, almost certainly will result in acquittal of chimphy. If you truly believe it is simply a legal process, are you prepared to accept the consequence that chimpy will be "legally" innocent of the charges when the process is complete?

[H2O Man]

72. I was very willing

to accept the outcome of the Libby trial. Of course, anyone familiar with the law knows that no one is ever founf "innocent." Ever. And saying it tends to reflect a lack of familiarity with the law.

[onenote]

90. inartfully worded on my part

You are of course correct that no one is ever found "innocent". They are presumed innocent unless convicted. The bottom line is that the spin will be that, upon acquittal by the Senate, chimpy and his repub supporters will have been vindicated.

[stray cat]

8. I want the government to get something done constructive

Not concentrate on impeachment unless they can get the required republican support. If America wants impeachment they need to get the republicans behind it....

[radfringe]

11. bringing impeachment to the floor of the House

will open up the debate. House and Senate members will be falling all over themselves to get in front of the cameras and express their support or disapproval.

this in turn will bring about a national debate amongst ALL americans. Fer it or agin it - people will be calling, faxing, e-mailing, writing and/or visiting their congress critter

as far as the revenge spin goes - clinton got a blow job, but bush is screwing the country

[pberq]

33. Yes, let the national debate begin!

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Do you ever wonder if we would be where we are today

if we had impeached Nixon?

I do.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. we'd be right where we are now...

Nixon was about to be impeached. He resigned instead.

[elana i am]

15. IMO it's even more simple than that...

there is no excuse for not doing what is right.

i get that the dems are being pragmatic about things, but that's not getting them anywhere either.

i can count on one hand the number of dems who outright say that this war is illegal and that this entie administration is complicit in numerous war crimes and has broken many constitutional laws.

their job is to represent us, do right by the constiution by following the letter of the law and keep the administration in line.

instead they triangulate, manipulate, stall and play us, trying to garner the best results for 2008 no doubt. i get that's what they are trying to do, but i don't agree and i don't approve. i expect my elected officials to do right by me and to do what they swore an oath to do, and that's uphold the onstitution.

what they are doing now is undermining the constitution and allowing criminal behavior to go on unfettered and unpunished. you can't hold the upper hand, reside on the higher ground or be taken for a honest person if you are a hypocrite. they need to do what's right and let the chips fall.

[pat_k]

16. Because the "can't win; won't fight" excuse. . .

. . .only occurs to the chicken littles on the Hill when they have convinced themselves that the sky will fall if they stand and fight for principle.

Their fears are usually baseless. But even when the risks are real, the moral and political risks, and the consequences to the nation of NOT fighting are always far more devastating.

It sucks to be on the wrong side of history -- as those who voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force are reminded daily. Tragically, our so-called Democratic leaders have been compelled to pick the wrong side over, and over, and over.

They need to be saved from themselves. We may be able to do it this time. Our numbers are growing.

[Maraya1969]

17. AMEN!

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Here are the "numbers" our chicken shit Dems to be reminded of:

3415 US military dead

650,000+ Iraqis dead

They can take their votes and ram them where the sun don't shine. Spineless bastards.

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. Kicked and Recommended! It's NOT about the votes, or even if it's

sucessful. It's the PRINCIPLE of the matter. Fear of failure cannot stop us from moving forward. Ever.

[bonito]

45. All the while the world is watching IMPEACH NOW!

[EFerrari]

49. K&R

[Stinky The Clown]

52. I am an impeachment hawk. I K&R this thread.

[dave123williams]

55. 50% in the House is all you need to Impeach and send it to the Senate for trial.

Don't we have 50% + in the house? I think we do, yeah.

Who cares if there's no conviction in the Senate? The GOP sure didn't when they impeached Clinton.

Oh, yeah; this time it'd be for actual criminal cause.

[onenote]

66. I doubt we have the votes in the House

I don't doubt for a minute that there are at least 16 Blue Dog or other moderate/conservative Democratic members of the House who don't want to be involved in an impeachment proceeding. They didn't campaign on impeachment (nor did virtually anyone else) and the polls suggest that the public doesn't regard impeachment as a high priority. An impeachment debate would allow a divided and demoralized repub base to find a unifying issue -- the Democrats would end up on the defensive. The public already regards this administration as a failure, but apparently are willing to wait it out for another eighteen months.

[dave123williams]

128. Has it occurred to you that we might not have 18 months?

Just sayin'....

[watrwefitinfor]

60. There is one big reason to support impeachment of this regime that I never see mentioned anywhere.

It is that in the process of impeachment the people of this country will learn what a piece of crooked, slimy, mass murdering, fascistic crap this regime has been; how many times they have broken the law, lied to Congress, lied to the people. All of it.

An impeachment gets televised, gavel to gavel. It gets the attention of the media. It is EDUCATIONAL. People can hear the testimony, which will be televised, like nothing else has been, except for occasionally on c-span.

They may even rise up and demand the Senate THROW THE BUMS OUT once they are shown the enormity of their crimes.

Think about it - Clinton grew even more popular even as impeachment proceedings wore on. Why? Because people were being educated about the nature of his offense. They could see he was being impeached over nothing more than trying to cover up a sexual escapade.

Even if impeachment does not succeed in getting rid of this cabal, the people will have become immensely more aware of their crimes. For people to become educated can never be a bad thing.

And what will we have really lost? A poster above worried about the Dem Congress losing seats in '08? Don't look now, but what in the name of god is stopping Rove et al from stealing '08? Do you see all those political operatives who were put in place as US Attorneys to help steal '08 being replaced by good, honest lawyers? Do you see the past stolen elections being exposed? No, and you will not see it as long as the cabal remains in power.

This country needs an impeachment. We marched for one back in the day. Does anyone here remember how glorious it felt the day that bastard resigned? I remember. I still have the newspaper. We can do it again!

Wat

[Vincardog]

68. Right ya are "This country needs an impeachment" if after their crimes are exposed

anyone who wants to vote to lay down with the criminals instead of stand with the people; will be clearly identified for the next election.

[Poiuyt]

73. Not only will people today learn how evil and corrupt Bush has been, but also

it will put on record all of Bush's war crimes. Historians will be able to say unequivocally that Bush has been the worst president in history. No debate. The $500 million Bush library is all about building a think tank to write books about how wonderful he has been. It's important to have a record of what crimes Bush committed.

[TankLV]

84. Thank you. YOU get it. If for no other reasons THAT is the the reason we MUST do it...

To not try to confront a CRMININAL is in itself criminal...

No less than the aquiescence of the German people to Hitler.

No less...

[Phredicles]

93. YES! I wish I could make a separate recommendation for this post.

:applause:

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

96. I Agree! Very well stated.

Really great post!

Peace

[HowHasItComeToThis]

75. They say Impeachment would tear the country apart

LET US GET DOWN TO BRASS TACKS AND TEAR THE LID OFF THE REPUBLICAN TALIBAN.

IT IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER REVOLUTION.

THE FIRST TO GO SHOULD BE PATRICK McHENRY.

[leftchick]

83. best post and

question ever! Ever!

[Kurovski]

88. K&R. (nt)

[Time for change]

89. Absolutely

And furthermore, once this gets some real national attention and the American people learn more and more about the crimes of this administration, just watch those votes materialize. Republican Senators will be faced with deciding between their loyalty to Bush and their own careers. Wonder which one they'll pick?

[Norrin Radd]

97. k+r

[radfringe]

100. just asking.....

there's a call for a Vote of No Confidence regarding Gonzo...

do they have the votes to pass it? is the possibility of NOT having the votes going to stop it from coming to the floor?

Granted a vote of no confidence is basically a public expression of opinion and has no actionable consequences. It's symbolic - but it also brings the level of discussion into the public arena.

You could argue there is more republic support for Gonzo's removal than there would be for impeachment of bush/cheney. If the republics still drink the kool-aid and wave rubber stamps - why are so many of them expressing disapproval of Gonzo?

If the republics are still steadfast and resolute to stand by bush - why was Reagan's name invoked so many times during the 1st republic debate and bush's name was conspicuous by it's absence? Where was the GOPer stampede to the microphones to express blind support for Wolfowitz.. :insert crickets:

bush's immigration bill has the freepers up in arms and actually calling for impeachment. His approval numbers are setting new records in lows.

it may take a bit longer for a more public expression of disapproval by GOPers, but in their backrooms they have realized that bush is voting booth poison and the sooner they can distance themselves the better chance they have for re(s)election.

In a meeting of republics with bush two weeks ago - one republic said they were ready for defeat. He was not talking about defeat in Iraq - he was talking about the republics defeat at the voting booth in '08.

One other subtle warning to the republic party is emerging - it's not an outright condemnation of the republic party or of bush, but I'm hearing more and more people stating they are "CONSERVATIVES" and not republics. They may not be switching parties for the voting rolls, but they have switch allegiences.

[Jamastiene]

101. Also, it is ours to lose when it comes to the 2008 presidential election too.

With the vast majority agreeing that the country is headed in the wrong direction, it's ours to lose. The only way we can lose in 2008 with that kind of low approval rating is if we cave to their propaganda and don't stand up for what we believe in. It is as simple as that.

[WA98296]

106. How can we vote them out -- they are doing little/nothing about election fraud.

[Totally Committed]

109. As far as I'm concerned....

"We don't have the votes" = "We don't have the guts"

TC

[BlueJac]

111. Good Post

Impeachment is what's needed!

[wryter2000]

113. Because...

When Bush vetos one of those bills it means he doesn't get his damned money, so we win. If we try him in the Senate and don't get the votes, we lose, and he wins.

[sampsonblk]

117. Agreed. Investigate, then impeach.

The excuses are getting lamer and lamer. After investigating these crimes, and after educating the public about what's been going on, the only proper thing is to being impeachment proceedings.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. Becuase they get many shots at this

when it comes to indictment in the senate they have ONLY ONE CHANCE