Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Biden says Bush could be impeached, but calls step impractical

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 08:53 PM
Original message
Biden says Bush could be impeached, but calls step impractical
Source: AP

DES MOINES, Iowa Delaware Senator Joe Biden says a case could be made to impeach President Bush. But he says that would be impractical and possibly create unintended consequences.
Biden is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and spoke at Drake University in Des Moines.

He says impeaching Bush would be bad politics -- and possible create the unintended consequence of creating President Cheney.

Biden also says the nation's reputation abroad would not be repaired until there is a new president and Bush policies are abolished or altered.

He says Bush has squandered the opportunity to unite and lead the world and has left the U-S less safe from tyranny and terrorism.

Read more: http://www.kwwl.com/global/story.asp?s=6322221&ClientTy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Tell that to the mothers of the Soldiers that will die because no-one...
had the courage to push for impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
40. explain how impeachment will help
the scenario you outline?

Will Cheney get us out of Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well just impeach Cheney too.
Duh. He's probably even more impeachable than Chimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. That President Cheney line is Bull$hit. The only unintended consequence would be
to return control of the US Government to the People.

Impeach Indict Convict and Imprison, then Bush's policies can be abolished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. That President Cheney line is Bull$hit. The only unintended consequence would be
to return control of the US Government to the People.

Impeach Indict Convict and Imprison, then Bush's policies can be abolished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. That President Cheney line is Bull$hit. The only unintended consequence would be
to return control of the US Government to the People.

Impeach Indict Convict and Imprison, then Bush's policies can be abolished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. There are sufficient grounds to impeach both of them
and make Pelosi president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. Yup. (Although resignations and Repub WH is more likely)
Edited on Wed Apr-04-07 04:27 PM by pat_k
See items 2 and 3 in the following reply to another post about Biden's statements:

[http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. "Bad Politics"? WTF??? It's not politics if a feasible case can be made
to impeach--it's your duty, Joe. High crimes and misdemeanors--if they exist, then draw up the articles. Where's the politics in that? Unless Joe only thinks that impeachment is a political weapon to be used in Congress rather than a means--the ONLY means--of sanctioning a sitting president for wrongdoing. Those hairplugs must be rooted down further than I thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
32. Impeachment is a duty AND an unprecedented political opportunity.
Edited on Wed Apr-04-07 05:07 PM by pat_k
As you point out, the moral imperative is the bottom line. Their inability to see this truth is a tragedy, but is perhaps understandable in a world where political gamesmanship and perception is everything.

What I find completely inexplicable is their failure to see that impeachment would tap into the motherlode of outrage, energy, and action that's just waiting to be tapped out here in the electorate. At any event, when a questioner utters the I-word, the crowd goes nuts. How can they be so politically deaf and dumb not to see the opportunity? The outrage is not limited to "the base" -- it spans the political spectrum and you'd have to live in a cave not to see it.

If Biden told the truth, accused Bush and Cheney in no uncertain terms, and called on the House to send up articles NOW, he would probably catapult to the front of the "pack" in a week. He'd pull in white males from the right who respect strength -- and who revel in accusation and punishment.

If he did stand up, his surge in the polls might not last. He could still capitalize on being "first," but others are likely to jump on the impeachment bandwagon pretty fast. Groupthink is a strange thing. As long as all the members of the group is in lock-step, it is VERY difficult to break through. But, if even just one Member, particularly one with some gravitas says "Hey, what are we doing? We have to . . . .!" the rationalizations, self-censorship, and denial can come tumbling down with amazing speed.

In any case:
It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime
AND
Standing and fighting for principle ALWAYS benefits those who do so,
not just morally, but politically


You'd think the so-called "leadership" would have learned these lessons from their support of the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).

The "losers" -- the 133 Representatives and 23 Senators -- who opposed the AUMP have reaped, and continue to reap, political benefits. (They undoubtedly cite that vote daily, as Obey did in his "caught on tape" "dust up" with Tina Richards).

When the Democratic leadership surrendered their power to declare war to Bush, they abdicated their duty to serve as the voice of the people in the most grave decision a nation can make: whether or not to go to war. ("It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war," Woodrow Wilson) The Members who voted for the AUMF are not the only ones paying the price. The failure of the leadership to fight stained the entire Party.

When Pelosi surrendered the ONLY weapon capable of defending the Constitution against the attacks Bush and Cheney are mounting, she abdicated her first duty -- the duty to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Every Member submitting to her "off the table" edict is currently complicit in the horrors committed by the outlaws in the WH. If they do not wake up to reality soon, like those who supported the AUMF they will ultimately pay an individual price and will staining the Party as a whole.

What's so heartbreaking is that by refusing to impeach, they are exacerbating the problems that are destroying the Democratic Party when they could be solving them:
  • Their Number 1 problem is the perception that they are weak. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would demonstrate commitment and fortitude. Limiting themselves to pea-shooter half-measures incapable of forcing Bush and Cheney to do anything they don't want to, when they have a gun in their pocket that IS capable of stopping them, just confirms the image that Democrats are weak.

  • Their Number 2 problem is their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. Impeaching Bush and Cheney allows them to define themselves as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution -- pretty heady stuff. As long as impeachment is "off the table," Democratic leaders can't accuse Bush and Cheney of their violations in strong terms because it would beg the question "If they are so bad, why aren't you impeaching?" They have trapped themselves in a world of doubletalk and euphemism, and there may be nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. And this is why Biden pisses me off...
Edited on Tue Apr-03-07 09:16 PM by MadMaddie
Impeachment would have unintened consequences...are you kidding me?


<snip>
Biden also says the nation's reputation abroad would not be repaired until there is a new president and Bush policies are abolished or altered.
<snip>

Then help me out folks...if we impeach the whole Cabal wouldn't Nancy Pelosi be next in line?

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. And the nation's reputation is better by keeping him?
I'll have a bag of what he's smoking.... :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. The whole thing about Cheney
taking over is ridiculous. All they have to do is be told they got the case against them and Cheney would resign due to poor health. * would appoint an R to replace him then resign. Same as Nixon. Our long national nightmare would be over again only this time they should not be pardoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Not those two.
I can see them holed up in the White House bunker, armed to the teeth, surrounded by their most loyal sycophants and making a new batch of Kool Aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ryanmuegge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. I'm with you there.
Cheney would never willingly relinquish his position. I just don't see that as part of the man's character.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madville Donating Member (743 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. He is correct that it's impractical
There aren't 16 (R) Senators (not even factoring in Joe L.) that will vote to convict either of them. They damn sure aren't going to hand the White House to Pelosi on a platter, their voters would never forgive them. Impeachment is possible but a conviction is impractical especially with only 19 months until the next election. It could backfire when the Senate fails to convict and they start pointing fingers at all the wasted time and money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. Sometimes I like you Joe, sometimes you dissapoint me.
You need to focus on this - the 2000 election? Remember that Joe? See, it kinda caused 'unintended consequences'. When you finish destroying the Constitution (Reagan did his best to kill it), the very next second and all seconds after that are 'unintended consequences. Lemme give you the brief notes, since I'm sure you won't talk about them in public;

1. 2000 election - started the constitutional crisis, seven years Joe.

2. The WTC/Pentagon attacks - still don't know shit about it, after all these years.

3. Afghanistan/Iraq - Getting worse by the day.

4. Katrina - Just said fuck it to an American city.

Those are the big 4 Joe. But yeah, impeachment is impractical. Let's see if he can get us into a war with Iran! I'm sure this will all blow over! Just hold your breath!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sueh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Right on, Rex!!
Hey! Biden!! Here's a new lesson for you. You and your pals in Congress who gage your actions and votes based on how you think it will affect YOU in your next campaign better start gaging your votes on what WE, the AMERICAN PEOPLE want. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. We are the information generation.
Can't lie to us. That works with the GOP zombies. Not here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. If we do not impeach, there will, at some future date, be a president who pushes
the envelope even further than this bunch of crooks has. We MUST impeach, and we must do it soon, before he starts a war with Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. i'm afraid that the iran business may already be too late. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
18. Hey Joe---where Bush goes Cheney goes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurtyboy Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
19. Biden, and countless others, get it wrong again
Edited on Wed Apr-04-07 09:33 AM by kurtyboy
The optics, the politics--THESE NO LONGER MATTER.

The Congress has a Constitutional responsibility for oversight. If while exercising this responsibility they find evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" they have a Consitutional option to impeach. I guess since impeachment is not Constitutionally required, folks like Biden think that they can kick the ball down the road to 2009.

However, I disagree. In a larger moral sense, Congress has an absolute obligation to investigate and if necessary, bring charges in the form of impeachment. This is the ONLY Constitutional barrier to imperial ambition by the executive (leaving aside the extra-constitutional impediments suggested by the Supreme Court in US v Nixon,--bad press, historical ridicule, etc.)

If we cannot trust the Congress to preserve the rule of law, what institution will we trust?

This Congress is bound by ethics to oversee, investigate, interrogate, impeach, and convict. It may cost some of them their jobs. Too bad--if they wanted an easy job, they ought to be selling espresso.

My primary vote consideration just got one candidate slimmer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
20. That's the most interesting thing to come out of Biden's mouth...well, ever.
And reported by AP no less (good gage of what's current--what's going on behind the scenes--among the corporate predators and war profiteers, if you know how to read between the lines).

"...a case could be made to impeach Bush."

Hm.

One of my theories about Pelosi is that she traded impeachment for Iran. Don't invade Iran, and we won't impeach you. (It would explain how she came right out of the starting block, with that "impeachment is off the table" popping right out of her mouth. I mean, WHAT table?)

Could Joe--who is often a bit behind the times--have let slip a bit of some conversation or deal that has ALREADY taken place?

I think that's the best possibility. They are holding impeachment over Bush's head in order to get certain vital things done (and it's a good bet that preventing an attack on Iran is one of them, or THE one.)

Now, if this is the case, then it doesn't matter that there don't seem to be enough votes for cloture. It is a strategy PREMISED upon that apparent lack of the 60 votes. And Bush/Cheney know that if it gets to that point, they're toast anyway. Even if the vote were to fail, half the Congress would have voted to impeach them. That may not be the rebuke they deserve, but it IS a serious rebuke. And, by not taking it to a vote, the Dems are avoiding a loss that could be spun (by our talented spinmeisters in the faux press) as some kind of "victory" for Bush and Bushism. They are accomplishing more by NOT impeaching--is what I'm trying to say.

Biden lets that slip, too--by saying that, despite there being a "case for impeachment"--a minority group will block it, and they can't overcome that. His statement about making Cheney president is probably just a red herring (--or it could reflect a Cheney coup situation, that they can get Bush out, but Cheney WILL NOT go--and that would put the US military in a very awkward position. Will not cooperate. Will not be subpoened. Will not testify. Will not answer interrogatoreis. And, if impeached, will not leave office. And the more I think about it, the more I think this is a good possibility. There is now some kind of divide between Bush and Cheney. Bush may be more into his "legacy." Cheney has dug in--to protect certain crimes and conspiracies, and, of course, the booty from them.)

I was worried for a while that the War Democrats were just biding their time on Iran--that, Bush having set it all up, it would be Hillary's war (and military Draft). Bush gets US troops ensconced some where, under fire, and we can never get them out. Permanent occupation of the Middle East oil fields is our fate, no matter how many of us oppose it (84%!). And, yeah, I am just that cynical about our War Democrats. That was Kerry's position ("I'll do a better war") and why we are all so irritated with him. But I'm not so sure about this any more--as to the current scene. You see, the problem for the "military-industial complex" is that Bush is giving war and corporate predation a bad name. (Look at South America, for instance--country after country rejecting global corporate piracy!) Also, there is the matter of federal bankruptcy. Not to mention the American people catching on, about the voting machines (that we have to outvote the machines--while we work on restoring vote counting that everybody can see and understand). Thus, the '06 "miracle." If the people can outvote the machines, look out! Democracy is not far behind.

So maybe all this has caused a re-thinking among Dem movers and shakers. Occupation of both Iraq and Iran is not feasible. The situation is threatening to blow out of control. (The Bush Junta has DRIVEN Iran to seek nuclear weapons, and the only way to stop them is, a) another heinous, illegal, unjust attack, or b) significant de-escalating of the tension. And the latter is what seems to be under way--with Pelosi's visit to Syria, and the release of the UK sailors.)

It's possible that talk of a "case for impeachment" being real--from Biden, reported by AP--contains the root of possible future action (that impeachment is being seriously considered). But I think it's more likely the above: That they think they are in a stronger position not doing it, than doing it. And, if Bush/Cheney, get out of control in some new way--Iran--they've got that "case for impeachment" waiting for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Kerry was not and is not a prowar Democrat
He spoke against rushing to war before it started, called it not a war of last resort, said "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" at least a million times. (Even the 2004 Daily show appearnance had this.) He also said in the first debate - before millions of people - that he was against permanent bases. (The debates were the highest profile time he had.)

But, the war was there - so he had to speak about what he would do with the war that was there. The plan articulated at NYU was a shift to diplomacy, bringing in the international community, rapidly training the Iraqis (using offered foreign help), giving Iraqis a stake in the suicces and getting out. He spoke of anticipating some trrops home in 2005. (fighting smarter was more on the WoT where he wanted it to be more law enforcement and intelligence.)

"Out Now" in 2004 wuld have led to a landslide for Bush - a majority of people who thought we should not have gone to war disagreed with that. More importantly, that was before elections and when there was some chance to avoid the civil war we had.

Kerry continued to give thoughtful plans in 2005 to the present. The ISG adopted many of his ideas. He is clearly on the forefront to getting out. He led the 13 Senators willing to brave the heat they got to vote for a binding bill that had a deadline.

Obama voted against Kerry/Feingold
Edwards was a co-sponsor of the IWR and was pro-war when it started
Hillary, Dodd, and Biden - voted for the IWR and DID NOT speak out when Bus broke his promises. They also all voted against Kerry/Feingold.

So, as most of the 2008 field are worse than Kerry, who is not running, why continue to distort the position of one of the people fighting hardest to get us out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. Exactly
Makes you wonder who is or isn't on our side sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
21. "unintended consequences"? Like they might be mean to us? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justyce Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
23. So the key to avoiding being impeached
is to pick a worse asshole than yourself as your VP...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. Worked for Bush I
The threat of Dan Quayle as president was Bush I's insurance policy.


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. So lying our country into a never ending war isnt enough
A republican congress would already have impeached were B*sh a dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 05:22 PM
Original message
and that isn't even the strongest case for impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
25. Hey Biben, Cheney is the mastermind. bush couldn't even pull out a C- on his own. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
27. <deleted misplaced>
Edited on Wed Apr-04-07 04:24 PM by pat_k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
30. I'm not afraid of Cheney
OMG. We'll get Cheney as President if Bush is impeached! is fear mongering and it's a lame excuse for not holding a criminal President accountable...more especially since both Bush and Cheney are criminal. Get'em both. They are both guilty. And if you're not going to hold them accountable, say as much using those exact words and leave off the lame excuses for why you're not.


and America's reputation will not be repaired until Bush and Cheney and all the rest are held accountable for their crimes





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Yep. . and BTW, we already HAVE Cheney (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
31. I've been saying the same exact thing for years - Biden has a valid point
Impeachment does NOT remove a president from office unless there are 67 senators that agree to removal. (2/3rds is the requirement). So if we get the majority to agree to impeachment but only 66 or less senators to agree on removal then we spent a shitload of time & money simply to slap Bush's hand and say "Bad Boy".

I truly believe that impeachment will happen but it won't be the democrats that start it but the republicans. As these investigations that the democrats expose the corruption of this administration, you're going to see republicans in congress realizing that if they don't do something about Bush they may not have a political career after 2008. And there is something like 20-21 republican senators up for re-election in 2008 - after what happened in 2006 you might see a few repukes jump on board with impeachment in order to save their careers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. 1) Irrelevant; 2) Removal is very possible; 3) Resignation is more likely than removal
Edited on Wed Apr-04-07 05:13 PM by pat_k
I don't mean to single you out. "Don't have the votes" is a pervasive rationalization for their immoral and politically insane "off the table" edict -- a rationalization that must be challenged whenever possible. Waiting for the Republicans to do it is political insanity. The Democrats would be handing the Republicans the mantle of defenders of the Constitution and the People's Government. Not to mention the fact that time is not on our side. Something could happen tomorrow that would put impeachment further out of reach (terrorist attack, new war, something unforseen).

In any case, whether or not we have the votes to convict in the Senate is:

  1. Irrelevant

    Failure to accuse is complicity. It gives Bush and Cheney cover ("If we were breaking the Constitution, Pelosi certainly wouldn't have taken impeachment "off the table.")

    While we cannot know the outcome, we do know that those who fight for impeachment will no longer be accomplices. The impeachers will be champions of the People's Government and the Constitution. They will be on the right side of history, a place I'm sure they all hope to be.

    A couple Analogies:

    • If the highway patrol refused to turn on their siren and attempt to pull over a driver that was barreling and weaving down the highway; a menace to everyone in their path, we would be appalled. Sure, perhaps the driver will somehow escape, but when they fail to even try, if that driver kills their refusal to act makes them party to the crime.

    • If a prosecutor had a town full of witnesses and a lynch mob that had confessed to their crimes, it would be morally reprehensible to refuse to prosecute because he believed a racist jury wouldn't convict. It is every bit as morally repressible for Members of the House to refuse to introduce or vote on articles of impeachment. Bush and Cheney are breaking the Constitution in plain sight. They confess their crimes every single time invoke the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive with unbounded power to "protect us."

  2. Removal is very possible

    We cannot know how impeachment would unfold until the events are behind us, but we have as much reason to believe there ARE enough votes in the Senate as otherwise. There may be very few Republicans willing to go on the record defending Bush and Cheney's attacks on the Constitition, particularly when those attacks effectively tell the Senators (both Republican and Democratic) to go to hell (e.g., abusing signing statemetns to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment, which passed the Senate 90-9).

    Whether or not there are enough votes, NO Republican Senator is going to be keen on having to choose between:
    • A vote to put Pelosi in the White House.
    • A vote to:
      • defend torture and the abuse of power to overrule the overwhelming will of the Senate to unequivocally ban torture;
      • defend Bush and Cheney -- pariah's they have been scrambling over each other to "distance" theselves from; or

    Which brings us to:

  3. Resignation is more likely than removal

    Republican Senators, whether or not they are willing to vote to defend Bush's high crimes (and become "accessory after the fact" war criminals themselves), will be EXTREMELY motivated to do everything in their power to force Bush and Cheney to resign to escape having to vote at all. Bush and Cheney could be out stunningly fast. Bush and Cheney are likely to find few Republicans willing to defend them publicly, and many who are pressuring them to resign "for the good of the Party" and to keep the WH in Republican hands.
In addition to the above:
  • Impeachment is not a one shot deal.

    After the House picks one of the many high crimes and votes out articles of impeachment, if Bush and Cheney refuse to resign and the articles get voted down in the Senate, the House can just vote out another set of charges. They have enough for at least a half-dozen impeachments. Even if the 110th Congress adjourns without removing Bush and Cheney or forcing them to resign, there is nothing to stop the 111th Congress from reintroducing any set of articles and calling for impeachment "in absentia." All that would be required is the political will.

    In other words, we can't "lose" the fight to impeach until we give up fighting.

  • Standing and fighting for principle ALWAYS benefits those who do so

    . . .not just morally, but politically.

    The "losers" -- the 133 Representatives and 23 Senators -- who opposed the Authorization to Use Military Force have reaped, and continue to reap, political benefits. (They undoubtedly cite that vote daily, as Obey did in his "caught on tape" "dust up" with Tina Richards).

    When the Democratic leadership surrendered their power to declare war to Bush, they abdicated their duty to serve as the voice of the people in the most grave decision a nation can make: whether or not to go to war. ("It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war," Woodrow Wilson) The Members who voted for the AUMF are not the only ones paying the price. The failure of the leadership to fight stained the entire Party.

    When Pelosi surrendered the ONLY weapon capable of defending the Constitution against the attacks Bush and Cheney are mounting, she abdicated her first duty -- the duty to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Every Member submitting to her "off the table" edict is currently complicit in the horrors committed by the outlaws in the WH. If they do not wake up to reality soon, like those who supported the AUMF they will ultimately pay an individual price and will staining the Party as a whole.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
36. Yeah... Bush is a consequence of not impeaching REAGAN!
I'm beginning to think the dems aren't all that different from the pugs, except the pugs have no problem impeaching a dem prez over nothing - and as a bonus, lots of congressional dems publicly condemned said dem prez. But it's too impractical for dems to impeach a repuke who's clearly guilty of very serious crimes and misdemeanors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Hear, Hear! And the price of refusal this time could be unimaginable.
Edited on Wed Apr-04-07 05:20 PM by pat_k
The big difference between the Dems and the Repubs is that a vast majority of the Dems still believe in Democracy -- i.e., they can be reached. The reactionary right is unreachable.

There are other basic differences. Sadly, many of the most basic differences are very things that immobilize the Dems.

http://january6th.org/saving-ourselves.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
38. They would have to be impeached at exactly the same time
Otherwise Cheney would be sworn in immediately, name a new vp and THAT person would become President after a Cheney impeachment. The fact is that even if you could get the house to impeach both Bush and Cheney at the same time the odds are just not there to get the senate to convict both at the same time. The 2nd in line clause if to protect the government in case they both die at the same time.

I am not saying I am not for impeachment, but I think that those who believe impeachment would lead to a Pelosi Presidency (god that sounds nice doesnt it..... run Nancy runnnnnnnn) are not thinking realistically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
39. Biden is a two face "gutless wonder" who loves the sound of his own voice. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pigpickle Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
41. Biden sez "I'M A WIMP! VOTE 4 ME 4 PREZ!!"
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC