Impeachment is "off the table"?

[The Sushi Bandit]

I hear that Nancy Pilosi said Impeachment was "off the table"?

How can a group of people who have lied ever day in office get a free pass??

If this statement is true... then am I supporting the wrong party?

Is there no fucking justice?

[amitten]

1. Well, I hardly want Cheney for president. n/t

[nashville_brook]

3. there's a diff between impeachment and removal

that cheney would take the helm is QUITE a leap, given that he'd be implicated in the crimes as well.

[jayctravis]

71. It's like saying...

"Don't worry baby, I'll pull out."

[The Sushi Bandit]

4. He is just as Impeachable as Bush

they both must stand trial in the Senate

[MrCoffee]

52. Why? So they can be exonerated?

It takes a 2/3 vote to convict in the Senate. The same number as it takes to override. We do not have the votes to convict.

Do you really want the House to impeach this bunch of crooks, only to have a Senate vote we cannot hope to win?

Exoneration is the last thing they deserve.

[elocs]

66. You know, I've said that until I am blue in the face, or fingers.

So many people seem to think that impeachment is a ticket to hell, the Hague, or being removed from office. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted by the Senate? Was that so long ago that people cannot remember? How can it be that we looked at Clinton not being convicted by the Senate as being an exoneration or at least that the accusations were overblown, but not see that the Republicans and others will look at Bush's lack of conviction after being impeached the same way?
There is such a bloodlust now to go after Bush and all of the other Republicans that I don't think it would be quenched if he was drawn and quartered. I don't see the same cry by the majority of the Democratic leadership and so many are disappointed with them.

[loyalsister]

81. Perceptions of Clinton were actually elevated

It's one thing for people to be mad him now and change their attitude from here on out, but for people to support impeachment is for them admit that they made a serious error in judgement in 2000, 2001 when they got behind him after the attack, and then 2004 years ago. People don't like to be "retroactively wrong."
It would backfire as many people would defend him to defend themselves in a sense. I am not convinced that even the constituencies of Democrats- especially the all elusive middle would respond well to it.
You have to remember that people have been complicit in Bushes crimes. That wasn't part of the Clinton impeachment, Democrats gained election seats during his impeachment, and his approval ratings were high.
We have to try to see this from other perspectives.

[LiberalFighter]

77. It would be nice but not worth spending the next 2 years

We need to set the stage for 2008 elections.

[formernaderite]

37. me neither...but

this sort of shit is the typical win at all costs strategy that always backfires.

[Burma Jones]

2. Unless there are 68 Senators willing to convict

an impeachment will only garner sympathy for the Chimp.....

[nashville_brook]

6. sympathy? not after Conyers hearings, my friend.

[The Sushi Bandit]

11. Sympathy?

I guess there is always a small group of people who sympathize with criminals or even Hitler. Some women even want to marry them.

I'm sorry but that can not be a valid reason not to Impeach.

Wrong is Wrong

[wryter2000]

24. Ding, ding, ding

We have a winner.

First, one of their big campaign pushes is "if we lose Congress, they'll impeach the President." Pelosi may have just taken that off the table. Personally, I don't want to turn this into a game of you-impeach-our-guy-we-impeach-yours. IMHO, talking about impeachment (except among ourselves) is putting the cart way ahead of the horse. What we need is investigations. After all the dirty laundry comes out, the whole country will be screaming to get them the hell out.

[nashville_brook]

76. ahhhhhhh! INVESTIGATIONS. a word we aren't hearing from pelosi, et al

good point.

impeachment IS putting the cart before the horse. you are right. i think in my mind, i've been equating impeachment with investigations and assuming that FEW would fail to impeach with all the facts out in the open.

but, investigations is where this happens. right you are.

[SmokingJacket]

5. "Off the table" is a negotiating term.

What are they negotiating? What are they getting in exchange for keeping impeachment off the table??

[MrCoffee]

21. They get to "keep their powder dry" n/t

[MontanaMaven]

22. Exactly. Plus don't they need to hear from us?

This election is about Bush. This election is about impeachment. That's what it is all about. Pelosi has no business saying anything right now. This is the same old losing tactic.
Go for the jugular.

[MADem]

7. Well, I'd take it off the fucking table too, before an election that we

have a good shot of taking, not just one legislative branch, but two.

Jesus, what, ya want every Republican to be motivated to get out and vote? Great way to do that is to threaten to impeach their boy....

Sheesh.

[calimary]

35. I'm leaning toward this view myself. Possibly just a tactical maneuver

because there's a recent article I found here called "Pelosi's Moment" (don't have a link at the moment) wherein she was asked, among other things, what the most important thing about being the majority party was. Her answer: "subpoena power." Then and there my heart perked back up, I'll tellya! I'd probably be cagey, too, before the fact. AFTERWARDS is when we should pin her down and get a commitment on this.

Meantime, I'd suggest calling her office to let her know how important IMPEACHMENT and accountability in general are to you - AND call John Conyers' office about it, too. He'd be the lead shepherd on this anyway, as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Make sure these people know what you want!

[MADem]

36. And that anecdotal moment you cite does say it all.

You can't start an investigation without a subpoena. And you can't get to a trial and conviction without an investigation.

After all, we're not the "Let the wheel of justice spin, bring the guilty bastard in" party...we actually investigate before we try and acquit or convict.

[The Sushi Bandit]

79. .

[ShortnFiery]

8. Just wait and see ... an increasing number of Executive Branch CRIMES

are being committed each and every DAMN day this Torture and Detainment Bill remains law.

Wait for it? Our time will come soon enough. ;)

[onenote]

9. "am I supporting the wrong party"

So do you think the repubs would be more aggressive in investigating chimpy?

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Yes! We Must Vote For Whoever Sucks Less!

sigh.

[onenote]

19. beats voting for whoever sucks more

[Bake]

54. Jebus! It's just TACTICS. Being smart.

No, we have to be ideological purists who announce sanctimoniously up-front that we're going to impeach their boy.

I'd like to WIN an election for a change.

Bake

[elocs]

67. I agree and I've said it before.

There has been so much chest beating over what is going to be done to Bush and his cohorts and this started long before the upcoming election seemed to be a sure thing for the Democrats. It's been so much about how the Republicans are going to pay, pay, pay! If this last Congress was a do-nothing Congress, the next one will be the spend-the-next-two-years-getting-revenge (oops, "justice")-on-Bush. Can we at least wait until the election is won?

[beaconess]

69. Yes - and that's one of the things that makes us different from them

And that's why I'm a Democrat. If I wanted to be like them, I'd be one of them.

[maxsolomon]

10. off the table, on the table

those are just words.

for the record, i never 'heard' pelosi say that.

[The Sushi Bandit]

12. Thanks for catching my grammar..

I get finger tied when I am mad!

[maxsolomon]

34. i wasn't catching anything

far as i know you used it correctly!

i was just saying that who cares what she says now? if this prevarication (if it is that) turns one more sleepwalking reagan democrat against bush, and they pull the lever that tips the house to the dems, then it was worth it.

pombo must be destroyed!

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Who Else You Gonna Vote For?

You're not gonna vote for someone who's "unelectable" now, are ya?

Sucker.

[The Sushi Bandit]

40. Sucker??

who is that directed at?

[nradisic]

14. Let the GOP wallow in their own feces

I say we keep the Shrub around, through all of the investigations, only so much as to entrench the idea that Republicans are corrupt and morally bankrupt. Then we can also take back the White House in 2008.

[Tom Joad]

16. For her Impeachment is "off the table" war with Iran is on the table.

Thanks for nothin' nance!

[State the Obvious]

17. No, she just doesn't want to give the Republicans...

...another talking point BEFORE the election.

(What she said is not written in stone.)

[greeneyedboy]

20. exactly. things can mysteriously come back onto the table later.

[MontanaMaven]

23. Like a signing statement?

I'll back Pelosi if she is doing a signing statement saying she doesn't have to stick to anything she says prior to Nov 7 or she has her fingers crossed behind her back. But not if she means it.

[greeneyedboy]

26. how often do successful high-level pols actually mean anything they say?

she's not going to stand there and wink, but IMO this sentence gives her as much wiggle room.

imagine contract negotiations. for a while, changes to health benefits are off the table. then the dynamic changes, and voila! they're on the table. she didn't paint herself into a corner.

[wryter2000]

25. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[greeneyedboy]

18. i'd settle for running them out of town on a rail. (Paraguay?)

it is wise for Pelosi to take away the wingnuts' sensational GOTV talking points. GWB and co. certainly deserve impeachment and removal (at the very least), but now is not the time to be putting forward positions that are considered "fringe".

again, the steps go in the following order:
1) obtain power.
2) implement your agenda.

and even if impeachment never happens, there are other tools in the workshop--IF your party, as the majority, can appoint committee chairs, hold hearings and embarrass every corrupt appointee and "elected" official in their administration until the GOP is the laughingstock they should be, etc.

[Parche]

27. pelosi

She is just baiting them, you know how they say "We need bipartisanship" crap and they
never do.....................

They will, and it will be both Cheney and Bush

[Imagevision]

28. Pelosi knows what she's doing, why impeach Bush when we can legally

hold him accountable for A-L-L the illegalities he's guilty of and show to the world how illegal and corrupt this president was/is which would show the world we took care of our short-comings and now have a viable government controlling the proper path the "americans" can now share with world leaders.

Impeachment is too good/easy for this punk!

[jayctravis]

72. Or just declare him an enemy combatant

for bringing about the death of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in other parts of the world.

We may not *need* to impeach him.

[AtomicKitten]

29. relax

Ms. Pelosi has stated clearly they intend to do the oversight this Republican Congress has failed to do with investigations and if that leads to impeachment, in her words, so be it.

Screaming impeachment now will be giving the GOP a talking point they are dying for in rallying their base to get out their vote.

[Imagevision]

31. relax? --> exactly...

[Phredicles]

30. My hope is that it will be back ON the table after the election.

If we see a Democratic Hose and Senate and I'm still wrong, then this truly is a party of dickless, gutless, spineless, heartless wonders.

[demo dutch]

32. Impeachment is off, but investigations are on, one may lead to the other!

[Flavin]

33. kinda off topic but...

where did you get the Disney font?

Flavin

[The Sushi Bandit]

41. Just Google it..

from a free download site

[pat_k]

38. Taking impeachment off the table is devastating and counter-productive. .

. . .insanity. (To any who doubt this, see the discussion below). But, despite their mistaken and tragic failure we can still enthusiastically fight to see them beat their Republican opponents.

Why?

One reason: Most Democratic candidates and elected officials still believe in our constitutional democracy (which is about more than the collective will of the majority, it is about limits on power and protecting individual rights).

This is a BIG deal.

They are not failing to defend the Constitution because they don't believe in it. They are failing because they are trapped behind a wall of irrational rationalization. We can chip away at that wall. As long as their self-image is rooted in the notion that they believe in our our constitutional democracy, they are reachable. Citizens can lobby them and can have an impact.

Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated their belief that their small and righteous faction can and should force their will on everyone else, and they have proven that they will not hesitate to destroy our most treasured institutions and principles to do it. They have shown us that they view top-down authoritarian rule as the natural order and are oblivious to how Unconstitutional and Un-American that "natural order" is.

Of course, we must continue find strong primary candidates to run against the Dems who repeatedly fail us. But when it's Dem v Repub we can support Democratic candidates without reservation because when we do we are fighting to keep ourselves in the game.

This is the only thing that keeps me from tearing my hair out and opting out. The knowledge that however they fail or anger us we can't let it just be about them. Ultimately, it is about figuring out how to use our power to see that our will is done. Our immediate goals are clear: Impeach Bush and Cheney and reject the results of suspect elections. Actions large and small will make these goals a reality. As long as we believe in ourselves, we can keep hope alive and stay in the fight.

What we are contending with

We can never forget that our elected officials are just people -- people vulnerable to the same social influences we all are.

The inhabitants of the insular beltway social/political world (and the social is inseparable from the political) are trapped in a closed feedback system that breeds increasingly wrong-headed assumptions and nonsensical "conventional wisdom."

Rather than employing a rational process in which the range of possible consequences, both pro and con, are weighed, we see them focus exclusively on the risks of acting (e.g., imagined/assumed bad things "they" will do). It is rare that the very real benefits of action and the very real risks of failing to act are considered. And when a principle they claim to be committed to demands action, they seem to be completely blind to the fact that their failure to act is a cynical betrayal of that principle.

For people who pride themselves on being reasonable, rational, and principled such irrational and one-sided thinking can only be explained if you understand that any closed system tends to give rise to idiosyncratic assumptions and habits of thought.

The nonsense infects folks "out here" too, and in the "reality-based" community, rationalization disguised as "realism" is currently dominant. (See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2302569">this post for a discussion of the key losing tendencies our side must resist if we are to effectively fight to create a more perfect union.)

To inject reality into their insular world more of us need to enter that world as citizen lobbyists

1. We aren't limited to one-way communications (calls, FAXs, email, protest).
   
   Like many of us, I write letters, shown up at protests, call, write letters to the editor, talk to friends and acquaintances, and perhaps above all, do a lot of complaining about "them." But, until December of 2004 when I joined with others to lobby members of the Senate to stand up on January 6th, I had never sat down with a member of Congress or staffer.


2. The bizzaro-world "conventional wisdom" of the beltway is powerful, but not impenetrable.
   
   When we took that next step and actually confronted them in person, we came up against a powerful system of rationalizations for inaction. As soon as you knock down one, they try to escape behind another one. We heard the same rationalizations over and over ("It's futile. Can't win. Won't try" or "The mythical backlash beast will get us" or "Americans want civility and bipartisanship above all else. We shouldn't 'go negative.'")
   
   It became clear that the 1000s of calls for action they got via phone, fax, and email did little to chip away at the rationalizations they cling to. But, when we asked pointed questions -- questions that force them to speak their rationalizations to someone who doesn't share the absurd assumptions they have adopted -- we saw shifts.

There is a reason lobbyists are paid to lobby in person. The most effective way to "get through" is face-to-face, where you can elicit and directly challenge their reasons for inaction.

Our weapons: Simple truths and moral principles

When a cop pulls over a drunk driver ("Turn off the engine. Get out of the car.") he is protecting the public from an out-of-control menace by taking away his power to do harm. He is fulfilling his first and foremost duty, to protect the public he is sworn to protect.

The executive branch is being driven by an out of control President and Vice President hell-bent on grabbing evermore Unconstitutional power to themselves and nullifying the legitimate actions of our judiciary and Congress. Just as a police force is sworn to protect the public, members of Congress are sworn to defend the Constitution.

The oath they take is an individual oath. The choice is an individual choice. Each one faces the decision. Speak out, tell the truth about Bush and Cheney, and call on their colleagues to use the weapon we gave them to defend us from destruction from within.

The choice is inescapable: Duty or Complicity.

As Nichols points out in "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" (cited in http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14567">David Swanson's blog)

. . .
When the congressional Democrats failed to pursue impeachment as the necessary response to the Iran-Contra revelations of rampant illegality in the Reagan White House – rejecting the advice of Henry B. Gonzalez, the wily Texas congressman who alone introduced the appropriate articles in 1987 – they thought they were positioning the party for victory in the coming presidential election. Instead, Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, having recovered from the gentle slap on the wrist he received from Congress for his own involvement in the scandal, was elected to the presidency in 1988 by a landslide, and expected Democratic advances in Congress failed to materialize.

Pulling punches in a political battle usually results in a knockout, with the party that holds back collapsing to the mat and struggling, often for a very long time, to finally get up again. And the Democratic Party of the George Herbert Walker Bush years, with its inexplicable penchant for pulling punches, runs the very real risk of being flattened not once but repeatedly if it fails to confront the issue of rampant wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration."

The number 1 problem Democratic candidates face is the perception that they are weak. By failing to run on impeachment they have once again condemned themselves to sounding like morally-confused wimps.

As long as they are unwilling to take up the fight to impeach and remove -- the only moral option they have if they tell the truth about the Bush administration -- they must choose between two extremely damaging options:

• Speak in weak euphemisms and double-talk that is consistent with the notion that Bush and Cheney have not subverted the Constitution, and thereby support the Bush as "strong man" propaganda (rather than Bush as Un-American and Unconstitutional unitary authoritarian executive) or


• Tell the truth and accuse and then sound like wimps because they are unwilling to back their words with action.

There is no upside. Since they can't deliver on anything they promise unless they have some magical way to overcome "rule by signing statement, there is no upside to taking impeachment off the agenda.

Americans are desperate for strong leaders. Americans respect leaders who stand on principle in the face of risk. As President Clinton has pointed out, Americans will choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right" (and I would add, strong and right is unbeatable).

The problems created when they failed to run on impeachment cannot be ignored

The impulse on "our side" is to "move forward" from here and sweep past mistakes under the rug, but we cannot move forward with honesty if we don't confront them with opportunities missed, and the problems they created for themselves when they failed to run on impeachment.

The risk -- perhaps real, perhaps not -- that the mythical backlash beast would have risen up if they stood up is more than offset by a guaranteed negative consequence. If they win back the House and then wake up and stand up for impeachment, they will be perceived as hypocritical partisans who kept quiet until it was "safe" to stand up. Americans take a dim view of people who claim to stand on principle, but do so only when risks associated with standing up are behind them. Had they run on impeachment (e.g., offering Republicans the choice of swearing in Hastert now or Pelosi in 2007) they would have proven that their commitment to defending the Constitution trumps partisan concerns (as it should).

Whether or not they win one or both houses of Congress, taking up the fight to see Bush and Cheney impeached and removed remains a moral imperative. It is tragic that they have failed to inoculate themselves against charges of engaging in a partisan impeachment, but they will just have to take their lumps. And we must keep pushing them to face reality and fulfill their sworn duty to defend the constitution.

The antidote to "poisonous partisanship" is NOT "bipartisanship" it is REALITY

There is nothing partisan about accusing War Criminals of their crimes. There is nothing partisan about defending the treasured principles and institutions we established in our constitution from systematic destruction.

[TrogL]

39. You do realize tarring and feathering is torture, right?

[The Sushi Bandit]

42. LOL ... I thought it was "All American"!

OK ... how bout locked up in the stocks in the public square??

[Infinite Hope]

43. There isn't time to impeach...

even if we take Congress unless it's rushed. And her statement is probably also partly a ploy to calm conservatives and keep them at home on election day.

[pat_k]

48. I do not find the notion that they are cynically mouthing platitudes. . .

. . .to molify people who oppose them comforting.

As I pointed out above, the antidote to so-called "poisonous partisanship" is confronting truth and reality head on and taking the actions demanded by the facts.

The only way any elected official or candidate can prove commitment to our founding principles over party is to fight for those principles regardless of partisan concerns.

Instead of recognizing this and actually rising above partisanship by fighting for core principles, the so-called Democratic strategists think the antidote can be found in cynically "going along to get along" and saying they seek bipartisanship, which people across the spectrum assume is insincere (as demonstrated the assertion that Pelosi is just mouthing what the right wants to hear to molify them -- something I have heard repeatedly from folks on our side.)

Nothing could be more wrong-headed than attempting to "rise above" poisonous partisanship by playing more partisan games.

By failing to run on impeachment, Democratic candidates have condemned themselves to looking like partisan hypocrites who are only willing to fight for their principles when it is "safe" -- which is a form of cowardice and faithlessness that Americans take a dim view of.

When our commitment to principle demands that we fight to defend it, failure to take up the fight (even if you think it will be a charge of the light brigade) is a betrayal of that principle.

Each and every member of Congrss is sworn to defend the Constitution. Democratic candidates and office holders are missing the boat and they will pay a high price. They would have proven to the nation that for them, defending the Constitution trumps party if they had they offered the Republicans the choice: impeach and remove Bush and Cheney to rescue the Constitution now and swear in Hastert, or swear in the Democratic Speaker in 2007.

Perhaps the most tragic part of this missed opportunity is that running on impeachment was not just the RIGHT thing to do, it was the WINNING thing to do.

Charges have been leveled against Bush and Cheney. Failure to formally accuse in articles of impeachment is tantamount to exoneration. By essentially exonerating them the members of Congress are feeding the Bush as "strong leader" propaganda when they could be exposing Bush and Cheney as Un-American authoritarians who are destroying fabric of our nation to amass and wield Unconstitutional power to serve themselves and their cronies.

The magnitude of the error is painful to behold.

We can only hope that in the coming months we find a big enough cluestick to wake them up to their duty. They missed the boat on proving their commitment to principle, but if they confess their error, and seek to make it right by taking up the fight, they can perhaps redeem themselves.

Americans have a soft spot for confession and redemption. If they try to "finesse" and escape admission of error, they will have to contend with the negative reaction.

[MGD]

44. how about we leave it under the table for a while? nt

[pat_k]

49. Because doing so is tragically counter-productive.

For reasons, see my post above
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2889225&mesg_id=2891132

[MGD]

57. I'm afraid it would be more counter-productive to start impeachment

proceedings before we've actually wona few seats here and there. It's called counting your chickens before they've hatched. It's also called turning off a lot of moderate voters who aren't as hate filled as you and I when it comes to GWB. Wait until after the elections.

[pat_k]

58. The choice: Accuse and call for impeachment OR be complicit. .

. . .It's straightforward.

A person who keeps silent in the face of injustice is complicit. Whether or not the person thinks they can "win" the fight against the injustice it is a moral imperative to speak out.

The oath they take is an individual oath. The choice an individual choice. Each member must choosefor themselves: tell the truth and be willing to take the action the truth demands of them, or keep mum and betray their oath to defend the Constitution.

It is never good politics to be complicit in crime. You would think the Democratic leadership would have learned this after the price they have been paying for their "go along to get along" vote to authorize the use of force.

[MGD]

60. Your black and white philosophy is as impractical as Bush's

Any good tactician knows there is a proper time and place for every battle. IMHO, now does not seem to be the right time for this fight as all the pieces are not yet in their proper places. Patience and guile will trump over-eagerness and inflexibility every time.

[pat_k]

63. Complicity with crime is never good politics -- both practically. . .

. . .and morally.

Even if a leader can live with their rationalizations for choosing complicity, there are no practical or political reasons to choose complicity over duty.

The risks of failing to speak the truth (Bush and Cheney are systematically nullifying the Constitution) and being willing to take the action demanded by the truth (fight to impeach and remove) are known. For example, confirming the wimpy Democrat image; feeding the "Bush as strong leader" propaganda because they are unwilling to call him what he is, a despot; condemning Democrats to being viewed as cowardly partisans who never fight for principle until there is no risk; sounding like morally-confused morons as they try to "use strong language" (euphemisms) to condemn Bush's actions in one breath and then in the next say "But don't worry, we don't intend to do anything about it!!")

There is no reason to believe that taking up the fight long before we believed we could "win" wouldn't have been the decisive factor in making the ultimate victory a reality.

Assertions that the political consequences of running on impeachment would have been more dire than the consequences of failing to run on impeachment are unsupportable. There is little or no evidence that the much feared "backlash beast" would strike. (Opposition forces aren't listening to Pelosi's denials, they believe the Dems are going to impeach. Nothing the dems do will affect their behavior.) As noted above, even if there are potential negative consequences, there is no reason to believe that those consequences wouldn't have been more than offset by the known consequences of failing to run on impeachment.

The boat may have sailed on running on impeachment, but we cannot move forward effectively if we do not come to grips with past mistakes.

BTW, I am always mystified when I hear the propaganda spouted by the likes of Rove and Paul Weyrich adopted by the Democratic leadership (e.g., "the mythical backlash beast is gonna get you if you actually DO anything!"

[MGD]

64. Whatever but I'm with the leadership on this one.

I can appreciate your position though.

[The Sushi Bandit]

78. I will never be silent!!

good words Pat_K!

[Fire Walk With Me]

45. "I'm Osama Bin Laden, and I approve this message."

:sarcasm:

[Hippo_Tron]

46. With the evidence we have now it's off the table

When Conyers puts these clowns under oath, we'll see if that changes.

[yellowdogmi]

47. I can live with that, for the moment.

After the investigations we can put it back on the table. First we need to impeach every member of the Supreme court that took part in the 2000 debacle and everyone * has appointed. Otherwise they will get away with their crimes.


PS. Who is bringing the Tar?

[pat_k]

50. Yep. SCOTUS impeachments are up there, but 1st priorty is to impeach. . .

. . .and remove Bush and Cheney.

Rescuing the Constitution from "rule by signing statement" is job One. Every day we leave the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of despots the harm is compounded.

No investigation required. Each time Bush and Cheney publicly invoke the Unconstitutional and Un-American fig leaf of Bush as unitary authoritarian executive as cover for their war crimes and lawlessness, they are confessing to high crime against our constitutional democracy. The case is a simple prima fascia case. In fact, Feingold already made it.

Impeachment and removal is a defensive act. The Constitution is under attack and losing ground every day. Members of Congress have a sworn duty to take up the fight to defend it.

Impeaching for joining the majority in the Bush v. Gore edict are not the only SCOTUS impeachments on the agenda. Once the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive is exposed through the impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney, Alito, a key proponent of that Un-American and Unconstitutional fiction must go. Any high official that advocates that fascist principle is poses a clear and present danger to our constitutional democracy.

And, Robert's role in the theft of the 2000 Presidential election bears scrutiny -- and probable impeachment. He was in the thick of it and was probably a party to the conspiracy.

BTW, we get out the "tar" (i.e., bring to justice and punish) after impeachment. Impeachment is a defensive political process that must be followed up by the judicial processes (Criminal indictment, prosecution, judgment, and punishment)

[The Sushi Bandit]

62. Very good points!

Impeachment and removal is a defensive act

[Radical Activist]

51. I sincerely hope there are investigations.

The public must know the truth of how criminal this administration is.

[jrandom421]

53. Here's the problem with impeachment

It sucks up all the time and attention of the House and Senate until a verdict is rendered. Remember 1998-99? How much got done in Congress during the Clinton Impeachment? Nada.

So the choice of the next two years is impeachment or:
Investigation of DSM
Investigation of War Profiteering
Investigation of Diebold
Investigation of Jack Abrahamoff
Investigation of Warrantless Wiretapping
Repeal of Patriot Act
Repeal of Military Commissions Act
Full funding for VA
Full Funding for NCLB
Raising Min Wage
Changes to Medicare Part D
Investigation of Conduct of Iraq Adventure
Final Smackdown of John Bolton
Lobbyist Reform
Changes to Clean Air Act
Changes to Clean Water Act
Changes to Help America Vote Act

Bush and Co. ain't gonna get off scot free. We would have the power to compel them to testify under oath and hold contempt of Congress and lying to Congress over their heads.

[McCamy Taylor]

55. Shhhh! We have an election to win! Then we can talk.

[pat_k]

59. They've muzzled themselves too long and they're going to pay a price

Democratic candidates and office holders missed the boat and they will pay a high price. Had they run on impeachment, they would have demonstrated that, for them, their commitment to defending the Constitution trumps political risk or partisan concerns.

The would have proven themselves to be above "poisonous partisanship" -- something they will never do by mouthing platitudes about "bipartisanship."

Ironically, had more members set aside partisan strategizing and taken up the fight they would demonstrated the strength and fortitude Americans across the political spectrum respect and given the Party a massive boost by challenging the "weak Dem" image. (And the perception that Dems are wimps is the BIGGEST problem the Party faces.)

The magnitude of the error is painful to behold.

Charges have been leveled against Bush and Cheney by countless citizens and public figures. Failure to demand that the charges be formalized in articles of impeachment is tantamount to exoneration. By essentially exonerating Bush and Cheney they are feeding the Bush as "strong leader" propaganda when they could be exposing Bush and Cheney as Un-American authoritarians who are destroying fabric of our nation to amass and wield Unconstitutional power to serve themselves and their cronies.

We can only hope that in the coming months we find a big enough cluestick to wake them up to their duty.

Fortunately, Americans also have a soft spot for confession and redemption.

If members of Congress wake up confess their mistake (i.e., admit they failed the nation and were derilect in their duty when they failed to take up the fight for impeachment and removal long before now) and seek to make it right by giving the fight everything they've got, they could redeem themselves.

If they wake up and take up the fight to impeach, but try to "finesse it" and escape admitting their failure, they will have to contend with being viewed as partisans who are so cynical and unprincipled that they won't fight for the principles they claim to be committed to until there is no risk involved.

[MasonJar]

56. I think that the dems will investigate and subpoena instead and

get it all out there for the Hague. It might take too much time at this late date to impeach Bush and Cheney both when the dems can publicize their atrocities instead.

[osaMABUSh]

61. Shhh! Shut up about impeachment....

until Jan 2007. Let's shutup for now then win the House then damn right we are going to investigate and possibly impeach.

My repuke friends rarely talk about the mid-term elections (for some reason they like to talk about the 'myth' of global warming) and I NEVER mention the "I" word in their presence - don't won't to get them all fired up and then they might actually vote.

[MGD]

65. Thank you.

[yurbud]

83. I hope you are right. On the other hand...

Democrats have a nasty habit of turning the other cheek: in the 2000 election, after the impeachment of Clinton, after Iran-Contra, after the October Surprise in '80, and after Watergate.

In each case, the GOP was on the floor, and instead of driving a stake through their heart, they gave them a slap on the wrist (and a light one at that). If they had followed through on what their investigations found, even in Iran-Contra, with say criminal charges against Papa Bush, there would be no Baby Bush in office right now.

They are doing the equivalent of kicking a pit bull. You either pet that dog or kill it, but if you kick it and he's still alive, you'll end up far more hurt than the dog.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Pelosi is wrong if she thinks she can keep impeachment off the table

We are going to ram impeachment up her ass until she either allows hearings to take place, or she is ousted in an insurrection.

[Imagevision]

70. Prediction, when pelosi gets thru with Bush he'll want to resign...

[vixengrl]

73. Perhaps, and I hope, *just perhaps*,

impeachment is off the table in the way dessert is off the table until one has eaten one's vegetables. There is a great deal of business to attend to in re: the actual war on terror (following the 9/11 Commission guidelines)--hey we could even see if something could be done to get Osama! (What the heck! draft a resolution that he *is* that important to us, see what happens), and a number of actual, non-White House-related ethics violations (*not* bipartisan, I'll tell you what), still miles to go before we sleep on campaign reform, reversing the stupid tax cuts, shoring up Social Security, and passing something like a real bill in immigration reform (like, what would do better than the landscaping efforts of ye old 60-seconde-volken). If I could dream, I'd see a "contract with America" Democratic-style, that would raise the minimum wage, the tax base for social security, a campaign to eliminate the stupid term "death tax" and replace it with something more like the "Trustafarian Endangerment Act" to restore it to the trivial area it belongs, and slowly, but surely, give the American people faith that we know what the hell we are doing. Start singling out Our Outstanding People--like Kerry. Recruit Gore, if he's willing. Send Wesley Clark around, if he wants to be a part of it. And the ever-present Dean. Get Hillary to be more Clinton. And all in all, figure out how to do what we do best. Then, once the faces are out and about for '08, and we know they can't bring anyone up hard-

(McCain, last seen humping Bush's leg for comfort--gone. Jeb Bush--still in a supply closet--they shouldn't have anyone. And Condi, disqualifies herself daily. And Guiliani--please. Not Mr. Right, not even Mr. Right Now.)

We slip in the blade. The only question is exactly which high crimes and misdemeanors we feel like citing.

Like I said--If I could dream.

(Edit because I do know how to "speel"--honestly.)

[LynneSin]

74. Who has been the one central democrat leading the impeachment charge?

If you say Nancy Pelosi you've hardly been following anything related to politics.

Pelosi is a smart tactician - bring up impeachment and suddeenly it'll be front burning story for the next three weaks with the right-wing screeds screaming at how dems what to bottleneck congress for their own revenge.

Pelosi has never had anything to do with the impeachment - that'll be the house judiciary committee

And as far as I know - John Conyers has neither agreed to or dismissed what Ms. Pelosi has said.

We'd be dumbasses to talk impeachment now. We haven't won shit yet so how can we say what we're doing before we even have control? Right-wing screeds wanted Pelosi to commit to an impeachment with a democratic lead house but she was smart enough to know better!

[The Sushi Bandit]

75. If we wait too long...

It will be too late!

[Rowdyboy]

80. Impeachment with no possibility of conviction by the senate is a sick joke

Who gives a damn if the house votes to impeach. It takes 67 senators to convict. At best, there'll be 51 Democrats. Name me 16 Republican senators who'll vote to convict. Okay, name me 5. Okay, name me 1. You can't do it. there isn't even one Republican with the backbone to stand up to Bush, much less 16.

Let us allow a disgraced and discredited Bush serve out his final two years in shame as congress investigates war profiteering by Haliburton, domestic wiretapping, a corporate/congressional culture of corruption and Mark foley's "Masturb-gate".

When people vote in 2008, I want George Bush and Dick Cheney to be the face of the Republican party. Let them rot in the swamp they've built.

[curiousdemo]

82. Look like A French Revolution

to me. Goodbye King Louie...er...King George.:nuke: :nuke:

[Mojekearthe]

84. IMPEACHMENT WILL HAPPEN...SAM DONALDSON SAYS IT WILL!

From "This Week with George Stephanopoulos": Stephanopoulos, Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts, and token thug George Will. Here is the telling segment:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats, to a person, they've been unwilling to look at all about cutting off funding for this war.

DONALDSON: What we'll see is subpoenas if they take control and these subpoenas will delve into every nook and cranny of the Republican administration.

ROBERTS: Now you're doing the Republican talking points, because that is exactly what the administration is making people think --

DONALDSON: Why do you think I'm saying it's a bad thing?

ROBERTS: Well, no, I'm saying -- I understand --

DONALDSON: It's a good thing.

ROBERTS: I understand you think it's a good thing but a lot of people don't think it's a good thing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to hear talk like that.

(c) ABC News Division
___________________

In a nutshell, impeachment, investigations, and impeachment is ON THE TABLE.

[ACK]

85. Fellow pissed liberals get a grip!

Where in the hell are we going to go with impeachment hearings?

They got the Supreme Court. They got the Executive branch.

And by a thin margin they will probably retain the Senate.

So hearings I can understand.

Accountability for the war profiteers?

Oh hell yes.

Impeachment? Its a waste of time. It won't happen.