The question we absolutely MUST ask anti-impeachment dems

[Recursion]

Every single chance we get:

If you are a priori against impeaching George Bush on the charges of:
* Illegally surveiling US citizens
* Rendering persons to countries that use torture
* Lying to Congress and the nation on causes for a war
* Holding US citizens without trial, arraignment, bond, or access to counsel,
* Gross incompetence and cronyism that led pretty directly to the deaths of hundreds of US citizens and the waste of billions of dollars

what would a President have to do to get impeached? What are suitable grounds for impeachment, if not these?

[Philosoraptor]

1. It's not like they haven't heard this question.

And after what they put Clinton through, the question becomes almost moot by spinning.

If anyone ever qualified, it's monkey man. And what they impeached Clinton for didn't EVEN qualify.

[Bluebear]

2. Futher. They would be saying that lying about sex rises to the level...

...of impeachment whereas the crimes you list do not.

[liberal N proud]

3. Evidently, a blow job

The country wanted to prosecute Clinton for lying about getting a Blow Job. What married man wouldn't?
But the country wants to forgive and forget Treason and War Crimes.

So would some one please give bu$h a blow job so we can impeach the bastard without worrying about whose vote we are going to loose.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

4. What's Monica doing?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HornBuckler]

10. If that's what it takes tell Bush to unzip

I'll suck his member if that's what it takes.


I'm a red blooded meat eating liberal, but I'll blow him for the team.

:)

[DainBramaged]

5. Answer this question.

We impeach the stupid turd. Who takes over?

Think about that.

[Roland99]

18. That's why we must impeach both offices: President and Vice President

Hastert embroiled in turmoil won't function so well. Who's next? Sen. Fristian? He'd be the uber lame-duck.

[mopinko]

21. nuremberg-style impeachment

nuremberg-style impeachment
nuremberg-style impeachment
nuremberg-style impeachment
nuremberg-style impeachment

i have had this conversation with a couple of dems that know that they ought to be working to impeach these criminals. and the order of succession makes them shake their heads. i think norm minetta is the first dem in the order, at about #5. but there is no doubt that the crimes are serious enough to round up a whole courtroom full of these psychos.
so, i am trying to plant this idea-
nuremberg-style impeachment

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. I saw a bumper sticker: IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST

:evilgrin:

[Minnesota Libra]

6. People Calm down - Breath in/Breath out, them remember............

.....there could be a whole lot of changes depending on the results of the November elections.:yoiks: Who in their right mind would even consider opening themselves up for an all out neocon/fundie slaughter now while the neocons/fundies have complete control of every branch of government?:think:

[izzie]

12. Who really think that a Congressmen meant what he said?

Lets see what the election brings. We all know a lot of people are all for this police state run by their love one in the WH who can do no wrong so Congress may end up just like it is now. Maybe Churchill will turn out right and the American voters will do the right thing?

[Minnesota Libra]

16. There's something to be said for coming back to fight another day. nt

[DainBramaged]

33. I AM TIRED OF FIGHTING FOR ANOTHER DAY

Six fucking years, six, and all I hear is another day? Fuck that, we take one branch away in November (House or Senate) or I'm done and fuck politics. And I'm not the only one. I'll block every news channel, leave here and smash my XM radio. I mean it. NO MORE 'NOTHER DAYS. It ENDS in November.I will not go into my twilight years fighting these scumbags or listening to 'nother day weiners.

[cassiepriam]

7. For repugs there are no grounds for impeachment.

But a Dem prez who sneezes will be impeached...

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. By the rationale that...

the president negligently risked the health of fellow U.S. citizens. And my God, what if it had been Avian Flu? IMPEACH!

[cassiepriam]

11. I agree, impeachment should begin immediately.

To protect the country, not just to punish a president who has
committed so many crimes.

[Philosoraptor]

13. Right, it's not about revenge, but saving the nation now.

If we don't at least try to stop these crazies, we've failed to do our duties.

[cassiepriam]

39. Isn't the real purpose of impeachment to protect the American people

from someone who is incompetent?

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. That's an excellent question to ask when....

the Dems are in the majority in Congress and in a position to impeach both Bush and Cheney so we aren't left with simply another neocon criminal in the White House.

[90-percent]

14. Impeachment vs???

I'd prefer a trial for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!

Has more teeth than a mere impeachment, which is kind of meaningless these days unless we can get the bastard to quit.

-85% Jimy

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. I will not argue with you there.

I'd very much like to see him in the docket at The Hague.

[katinmn]

15. Greenwald says acquiescing Dems won't stop Bush - ever.

Democratic Weakness Confirmed
By Glenn Greenwald, AlterNet. Posted May 24, 2006.

http://www.alternet.org/story/36639/

After November 2006, the presidential elections are not far away. The same paralyzing, stagnating, fatally passive Democratic voices who always counsel against standing up to the administration aren't going anywhere. It is not hard to imagine what they will be saying:

President Bush is a lame duck who is out in 2008, and so it doesn't matter what he got away with or what he did. Conducting investigations into these intelligence and "anti-terrorist" scandals will be depicted as obstructionist and weak on national security, and will jeopardize our chances to retake the White House and will cost us House and Senate seats. It is best to look forward, not to the past, and not be seen as conducting vendettas against the lame duck president. What matters is taking the White House in 2008, and so there is no reason to attack the president on these matters of the past.

Is there any doubt that the likes of Sens. Feinstein, Rockefeller, Levin, etc., are going to follow that thinking, as they always do? I don't see how that can be doubted. I think congressional Democrats will be more cautious and passive, not less so, if they take over one of the congressional houses in 2006. People who operate from a place of fear and excess caution become even more timid and fearful when they have something to lose. The Democratic congressional chairs are going to be desperate not to lose that newfound power, and they will be very, very vulnerable to the whiny whispers of the consultant class that they should not spend their time and energy investigating this administration or vigorously opposing them on national security matters.

John Cole is absolutely right that Democrats have managed to change virtually nothing as a result of the collapse of the Bush presidency. That's because they think the same and behave the same as they did when they were getting pushed around by Bush as a highly popular "war president." As a result, there is no reason to believe they will be any better than they are now (and have been for the past four years) if and when they take over one or both congressional houses. One could make a compelling case that they will be even worse.

Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional law attorney and chief blogger at Unclaimed Territory

[MsTryska]

19. I'm an anti-impeachment liberal.

Not because I believe Bush hasn't screwed badly enough and violated enough statutes to warrant an impeachment.

I'm anti-impeachment because the line of succession horrifies me.

Who would I rather have assuming "commander-in-chief" duties? Dubya or Dick? or Condi.

Granted either way, it's still more of the same, however i'd rather not legitimize a power grab for anyone else in BushCo's cabal.

So considering those are the facts, i'd much rather wait out dubya's term, let him fuck things up all to hell and back, and guarantee the Conservative are back out in the wilderness for another 40 years.

[El Fuego]

20. Cheney is already the real president, what's the difference?

[MsTryska]

24. Cheney doesn't have legitimate right's

to act as Commander-In-Chief.


altho i suppose a case could be made that impeaching dubya and installing dick with his 19% (if that) approval rating would really dial it in for the Dems in the next pres election.

[El Fuego]

28. I say, impeach Cheney too.

But, I actually think having Cheney in office as president might help the Democratic presidential candidate with swing voters, because it would give the gop more of a negative aura overall. Cheney has a zero likability factor.

[MsTryska]

29. Re: Impeaching Cheney too...

well then we'd be looking at Dennis Hastert, then Condi, and then Rummy I believe for the line of succession.


We'd have to impeach something like 6 levels down before we got to soemone even remotely acceptable.

And that's fantasy-land.

[El Fuego]

30. They've only got a year and a half left to do damage

I say have an impeachment party right down the line leading into the 2008 election!!

[MsTryska]

31. The problem with an impeachment party of that

magnitude is that it brings government to a standstill.

(which granted with this current admin - is not a bad thing)


But i think it would damage dems, especially the new dems far more to be bogged down with impeachment proceedings than working on setting things to rights.

and honestly your argument for impeaching and installing soemone else, is also my argument for leaving dubya there.

[Ganja Ninja]

35. If the Dem's control Congress then Hastert will not be the Speaker.

Do we really want to set the precedent of replacing a sitting and (arguably) elected President and VP with an un-elected President from his opposition? It's a bad move and a bad historical precedent.

[MsTryska]

37. and only works on TV.

and that the TV president is female and an independent.

and even then the damn show gets cancelled. ;-)

[pooja]

36. i believe it would go dick and then to the senate majority leader

[cascadiance]

22. Another question to ask of them after 2006 elections...

Those of you who think it's not right to impeach the president, look around at the new Dems that were just elected this time. How many of them are against impeachment? How many of them ran on being against impeachment?

We don't know the answer to that question yet, but I suspect that most of them getting newly elected this time around won't be running on a campaign that doesn't want to impeach the president. That should send a message to those incumbents that have this attitude that they are out of step with America now if they maintain that old attitude.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Your questions are right. Your basic premis is wrong

Who,**exactly** are the 'anti-impeachment Dems'?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2646124

[Hamlette]

26. for those of you who favor impeachment, a question

would you rather impeach Bush or win in 2008?

I have three reasons not to impeach right now:

1. I was not a big Clinton fan until they impeached him. It brought out the worst of the GOP (if there is anything left of the GOP that is not horrid, its hard to see these last 10 years) so what you saw, 24/7 was insane rants from crazed republicans. Clinton's approval went up in large part because of that. People thought he was being unfairly treated, felt sorry for him and saw the most insane partisan republicans take center stage for 2 years. I'm terrified of that reaction for Bush. With a corporate owned media I have no faith they won't help Bush look sympathetic. I would rather have the spotlight on the group of dems pushing my 2nd point, not impeachment.

2. We have much to do to undo the damage caused during the last 6 years. If we win in 2006, we will have some policial capital to spend during the next 2 years and I'd rather spend it doing something about the environment, cleaning it up, protecting it and becoming independent of oil asap. I want to see health care for all, and a pushback of the Reagan agenda. Reagan turned this country against government and education. We need to fix that attitude, both can do good. If we don't we won't be competitive in the world. I want a higher minimum wage, a tax code which doesn't favor the wealthy (let THEM eat cake) and civil rights for everyone (read: gays). I want the crazy religious freaks out of my life and out of my government. I want Congress to work towards those goals and would hate to spend the next 2 years fighting about impeachment only to end up with Hastert!

3. We need the evidence, not just speculation. I want to see, while #2 is going on, an investigation into everything the Bush admin has done that has harmed us. If there is overwhelming evidence of high crimes, let it be a bipartisan impeachment. Right now you'd get a few republicans to back impeaching Bush if the issue was immigration maybe. Who cares. Bush is more right about immigration than anything else in 6 years. The Nixon impeachment worked because the smoking gun convinced the GOP he had to go. Find Bush's smoking gun on an issue that matters and impeachment will be the only course. Right now we don't have sufficent legally competent evidence to impeach. When we do, the GOP will tell him to resign. That would be better for the country than what they did to Clinton.

(edited to fix typo)

[Ganja Ninja]

32. Impeachment will probably take at least 6 months.

Besides that it would be unprecedented to remove a sitting President from one party and replace him with an un-elected President from the opposition party which, is what you'll be doing if we control congress and both Bush and Cheney go.

And what good could the incoming administration accomplish in the remaining 18 months?

Wouldn't it be better to give Bush and the GOP the same treatment Bill Clinton got by investigating them until they're blue in the face? Forcing him to resign in disgrace is much more preferable than impeachment. There will be plenty of time to impeach Bush once he out of office. I'd much rather see them in the hot seat for the next 2 years than give the GOP a rallying call for 2008.

[Hamlette]

38. agree, but you can't impeach Bush once he's out of office

I want to see us dig up so much dirt, quietly, until the GOP screams "uncle" and makes the bastards resign in disgrace.

President Pelosi? (Although I'm not wild about Nancy, she's better than Bush or Cheney or Hastert and we'd get our first woman president.)

[Sir Jeffrey]

27. I agree with the OP

And I'll add another point:

Is this really the precedent we want to set for impeachment? That if you are so awful and break so many laws we won't impeach you because, as Edwards said last weekend, we need to spend our time fixing those problems instead of impeaching the guilty party?

If there is no personal responsibility for an ass like Bush who consistently and repeatedly violates the law and trashes the separation of powers doctrine, when will there ever be impeachable grounds?

And if you were in danger of being impeached, this position actually encourages and rewards those who would act to make things so bad that they become impeachment-proof.

I understand and respect why the anti-impeachment Dems feel the way they do, but think about the precedent you are advocating. We'll fix our problems, and then another Bush will come along and f--- it all up again without fear of retribution. We need to draw a line in the sand and make it clear that no matter how bad you are, you cannot escape the rule of law.

[lonestarnot]

34. sssssshhh Impeachment is a secret until after the elections in November.