Do You Think Nancy Pelosi Is Correct About Opposing Impeachment For Bu$h

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Poll question: Do You Think Nancy Pelosi Is Correct About Opposing Impeachment For Bu$h

Poll result (355 votes)
Yes	(149 votes, 42%)	Vote
No	(206 votes, 58%)	Vote

[Kolesar]

1. Some context, please

When was Nancy Pelosi asked that question? How was it framed? Was there a follow up question? Was it on evening Tee Vee (the altar of American culture).

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. A couple weeks ago

She said no, they wouldn't impeach dubya.

[Uben]

2. No

We need to impeach his ass so he can't pardon all the repukes for their crimes like his worthless ass daddy did.

[Vidar]

6. Exactly.

[bowens43]

47. Talk about impeachment now and we won't get control of Congress.

[dmosh42]

51. I agree

For now, I think she's giving the right answer. We all know that if we have control, investigations will go forward anyway, and if crimes are documented, then there will be a vote to impeach.

[Drifter]

65. Exactly ...

We promise not to imeach until after we have control of both houses.

Impeachment is nothing without conviction and removal from office.

Cheers
Drifter

[Hepburn]

88. I agree.

Now is NOT the time, IMO, to turn off some Repub and Indep voters who are undecided about making the swing over to the Dem party for the mid-term elections. Those who wish to have Prez Jerk impeached already are not about to vote Repub this November. But....those who truly are on the fence and most likely voted for Repukes in the last one or two elections could be turned off and continue to vote Repub or maybe even stay home. The Dems do not need that right now with a couple of close races going on that could mean the difference between controlling one or both of the houses. We need EVERY vote we can get and there is no reason to turn off those who would or possibly could vote for Dems but who do not feel impeachment is warranted and would not give the Dem candidate the vote because of a concern over this.

There is always time after Nov 2006 for the Dems to find another "smoking gun" and then call for impeachment. But...let us win first!

Edit for typo

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. From A Practical Point Of View It's Futile

Not enough time...

Not enough votes...

Not enough public support...

[RapidCreek]

5. uh huh

BULLCRAP

RC

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. We Will Have A Slim Majority In The House With Thirty Five Or So Blue Dog

Democrats...

No way can you get to 218...

[hfojvt]

103. Even if we get to 218

It takes a 2/3 majority to convict. A party-line non-conviction would be seen and publicized as exoneration and the impeachment as pure partisanship, even more so if 5 or 6 Democrats like Johnson, the Nelson brothers, etc. vote not to convict.

[RapidCreek]

139. Uh yea?

So the fuck what? It'ii be viewed as partisanship? Gee I hope so! I pay Congressmen and Senators to do a job, THEIR JOB.....and protecting the Constitution is part of that job. THEY TAKE A PLEDGE TO THAT EFFECT. I don't quite frankly give a damn how it's portrayed or seen or publisized. I care even less how morons like Johnson vote....and I would guess most Americans would feel the same. Democrat OR Rethuglican.

What is important is that the effort is made...THEY ARE DUTYBOUND TO MAKE IT. Laws have been broken, PERIOD. There is no Monday Morning Quaterbacking to be done. There is no, "people will think", or "it will look like" or "it will be portrayed as", no sir.

RC

[stella]

149. is being realistic.

Bush is not going to be impeached.

[Connie_Corleone]

8. There might not be enough time...

but if the investigations that the Democrats conduct bring up more dirt on Bush/Cheney, then public support for impeachment might rise.

There is also the option of censuring Bush. Can the vice-president be censured too?

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. I disagree

Clinton's approval ratings were in the high 70s the day his impeachment hearings began. dubya's are half that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Clinton Wasn't Convicted

A total waste of time...

[WinkyDink]

23. He hadn't demolished the Constitution, either.

[exlrrp]

25. We need 2/3 of the Senate to impeach

Without that, and all 2/3ds of them committed to removing ( not a sure bet) we're just spinning our wheels.
There's many more fruitful endeavors to take and easier to achieve

[longship]

73. Majority of House to impeach; 2/3 of Senate to convict.

Impeachment happens in the House, not the Senate.

[WinkyDink]

26. Nixon had won by a landslide, and had to resign to escape.

Don't be a wimp.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Not Wimp... A Realist... If My Politics Were Faith Based I'd Be A Pug

eom

[WinkyDink]

32. Didn't say he WOULD be, now did I? The opinions asked are OURS.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Do I Think Bu$h Should Be Impeached.

Probably...

But if wishes were candy we would all be fat.

[BootinUp]

37. He resigned when it was clear

there were enough votes to actually impeach and convict.

[WinkyDink]

119. What I said. :-)

[OzarkDem]

41. Agree

If we don't stand up for the Constitution this time, it will make it much easier for the next GOP crook to do much, much worse.

[Bucky]

141. The difference is the kind of Republicans that existed in 1974.

There were many Republicans in Congress back then who thought enforcing the law and abiding by the country's founding principles were more important than loyalty to their political faction. Ah, the good ol' days.

[BootinUp]

34. Doesn't it require 2/3 of the Senate

to convict?


I agree, never gonna happen.

[tavalon]

67. Nope

Not enough time... Bu

Not enough votes... ll

Not enough public support... shit!

That said, it's right that she says this now. If she says it after we have the House and Senate, it will be time to take Nancy out to the woodshed.

[TahitiNut]

91. I hope I never have to share a foxhole with anyone having such a view.

There can be no excuse for a failure to pursue justice at the highest levels.

[Justice Is Comin]

98. I bet you would be kicking yourself if she took your advice and

it provided enough stimulus for the toothless Bud drinkers to come out and vote and in the end, we lose the House.

The big bad wolf wore Granny's clothing until he was in the hen house. Shhhh, it's a secret.

[TahitiNut]

99. Not at all. See ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


The rationalization of cowardice and corruption for the PURPORTED sake of 'winning' is, imho, one of the best reasons many people have for NOT supporting alternative candidates to the Reich.

The ONLY legitimate alternative to an 'evil' (lesser OR greater) is 'good.'
The ONLY legitimate alternative to injustice is justice, NOT a 'lesser injustice.'
The ONLY legitimate alternative to corruption is integrity, NOT 'not as corrupt.'

[DemocratSinceBirth]

134. I Work For Democratic Candidates And Give Them My Hard Earned Money

But Whatever...

[Waya]

4. If Bush is impeached - then we have Cheney.......

....no difference there, except maybe for the worse if that is possible. Besides it takes forever, we'd still have to put up with his ass for quite some time.
Nah, when the Dems take the House, just block his crap left and right and start investigations for warcrimes, treason et all..........

[RapidCreek]

9. Right

Impeach both the motherfuckers....It can be done....ESPECIALLY with Cheney!

RC

[liberal N proud]

14. I honestly believe that is the only reason no one has shot at bu$h

They fear it would be worse with a Dick in the white house.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. I see both of them going down

Remember Agnew?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Agnew Resigned Before Nixon Resigned

We got Ford...

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. Exactly

Agnew saw the writing on the wall.

[Hepburn]

106. Agnew would have had to have been blind...

...to not see the writing on that wall. He had been criminally indicted in Maryland for taking brides....and ~~ this is what got him ~~ not paying taxes on the bribe money! He pled out on a "nolo" to tax evasion and money laundering.

Too bad someone does not take a loooooong hard look at the tax returns of George and Dick. Maybe that would be a way to get those assholes out of office.

Just a thought....

[WinkyDink]

30. Impeachment proceedings will block him very nicely. Not to

mention accelerate Bush's psychotic breakdown.

[trof]

7. She is until Nov. 8.

The repugs really wanted that to latch onto.
She was smart not to give it to them.
There are many graceful and justifiable ways to put it back on the table later.

[demnan]

10. I voted no

but I think you gave the better answer.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

68. Agreed. Plenty of time to discuss impeachment after the elections

BTW, Nixon fell because of the investigative reporting in the Washington Post and because of the Senate Watergate hearings.

After the revelations about Nixon became public, Nixon's party turned on him in order to survive politically.

This is a similar situation, despite the fact that the Washington Post is now useless. There is widespread criminal activity in an administration run amok.

If we win either chamber of congress and investigate the criminal activity of this WASP mafia now running the country, the country and the GOP senate will be ready to convict W by spring of 2007.

The GOP senators will turn on W in order to survive; to do anything else would be political suicide.

[greeneyedboy]

110. EXACTLY. she never said "never". in pol-speak, it's still a possibility.

[zulchzulu]

113. Precisely

Impeachment is "off the table". It's "in the computer". Ready to be deployed after John Conyers says so...

[Janice325]

12. I voted "No," but will the bastard be able to keep doing his

godawful signing statements (and get away with it)if the Democrats take over both Houses?

[Warren Stupidity]

16. No but a qualified no.

I'll accept her position as long as she intends to investigate what exactly has happened over the last 6-12 years, and allows those investigations to take their natural course, which course I am convinced will lead directly to very serious criminal charges against many top members of the cabal. I view her 'no' as a tactical 'no'.

[SouthernBelle82]

18. I'm really mixed

I think on the one hand if she does say she is for impeachment she will fall right into the rightwingers hands. I listen to Stephanie Miller's show and she has played rightwingers talking about impeaching Bush and "putting him through hell" (like they did Clinton? Nah that was patriotic according to their minds) so I think for right now she is doing the right thing. On the other hand I wish she would stand up and say it's our duty as a country to impeach all these bastards and throw them in jail for their war crimes. They lied to the American public and they have killed thousands of Iraqi's and our own citizen's and have stolen everything right from under the Iraqi's without their say so. I'm very into WWII history for whatever reason and I was watching this weekend a special on the Numeberg trials and at the end they were saying the reason why the trials happened was to make sure another country never invaded another and earlier this year a guy who was a prosecutor at these trials called for Bush to be tried (and Hussein as well). We shouldn't be afraid to take on the rightwingers and make them feel ashamed for what they have done. People always get onto me for comparing Bush to Hitler but the evidence and facts are there. So just my opinion of Nancy's stance. I think she's playing it too safe. I haven't heard her ruiling out hearings and John Conyers would be in control of that anyways (he's going to be yet again a busy guy).

[newyawker99]

89. Hi SouthernBelle82!!

Welcome to DU!!

[exlrrp]

19. Not unles we win the Senate AND House

And we have to win the Senate by 2/3ds. Other than that, its as much a waste of time and taxpayers money as the Clinton impeachment was.
We should be concentrating on rooting out all the Republican corruption.
This does not mean I don't want impeachment, I really do. but without 2/3ds of the Senate, removing Bush is an impossibility

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. There's A Reason There's Never Been A Successful Impeachment In American

History At The Presidential Level.

[WinkyDink]

35. A Nixonian resignation works for me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Nixon Resigned Because He Didn't Have 34 Votes In the Senate

eom

[WinkyDink]

120. Hope springs eternal.

[RapidCreek]

70. God your funny

It's the same damn reason 2700 of my fellow soldiers were KILLED in Iraq, pal. It's the same reason that 680,000 Iraqis were killed there as well. And I could go on and on but I've got to write a letter to my Senators and Congresswoman. It's because Democrats are chickenshits or perhaps better stated, have turned into chickenshits. It's not about winning or loosing, Mr. Cosell...it's about making a damn statement...or is that lost on you?

RC, a disabled veteran and a VERY pissed off ex-Democrat

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. Well

There's a different between the emperical , the way things are, and the normative, the way things ought to be.

Bu$h ought to be impeached but unless you have sixty seven senators willing to convict you waste time that can be spent

-on extricating ourselves from Iraq

-reparing the social safety net

-and not putting wingnuts on the Supreme Court.

[RapidCreek]

132. Yea, I guess that's a REALLY full dance card...

for a bunch of panty waist nerds who make a mere $167,000 for a whole 90 days worth of work. You'll have to forgive me, I'm used to working 8 to 12 hour shifts, 5 to 7 days a week, 345 days a year, for the whopping sum of $35,000.

RC

[sendero]

20. Yes...

.... FOR NOW. Anything can happen in the next 2 years though.

[DemReadingDU]

22. doesn't it take 2/3 of Senate to impeach?

I don't think 2/3 of the Senate will vote to impeach. It would be a waste of time to go thru impeachment hearings.

The time would be more wisely spent in repealing those things that the repubs implemented, raise the minimum wage, etc.

[NoPasaran]

50. Impeachment happens in the House

The Senate then conducts a trial which requires 2/3 to convict and remove from office.

Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached, but not convicted.

In 1974, Nixon resigned while the House Judiciary Committee was coducting hearings on Articles of Impeachment. It was quite likely that, had impeachment gone forward, he would have been removed from office.

My feeling is that while impeachment of Bush is justified, it's useless unless we have the votes in the Senate, and I just don't think that's in the cards.

[DemReadingDU]

66. Thank you for the clarification!

I'm with you, impeachement of Bush is justified, but I doubt we'd get the 2/3 votes in the Senate to convict.

[ClassWarrior]

24. She hasn't.

NGU.

[porkrind]

28. Impeachment is important

because it brings all the corruption to the surface. If not, just like Iran-Contra, we'll have a whole group of unprosecuted criminals still in government that will cause us problems in the future.

This is not about letting the past be the past and moving on, it's about finding and cutting out the cancer in government before it gets worse and causes us more problems in the future.

[Pharaoh]

31. She only "says" she's opposed to impeachment

She understands these are very very dangerous cornered animals who are capable of anything and she wants them to think they are safe...............that is all.

Once we are in power she will hang them by their balls, mark my words, Pelosi is one tough cookie.

[WinkyDink]

38. Exactly. All it takes is something like, "I've learned of new

information...."

[Alamom]

101. Exactly & it would be

very dumb to give away any future battle plans before you are in a position to defeat the enemy, "COMPLETELY & ABSOLUTELY".


AND She ain't dumb.

[TheCowsCameHome]

36. The Dems must show they can make America better, not just impeach.

I'd personally love to see Bush in prison for life, but it's vital the Democrats show they can run this country properly if we want to win the big prize in '08, and not just get stuck on the impeachment issue.

[WinkyDink]

39. Not either-or. Where is today's Tom Paine? Let alone Thomas

Jefferson?

[Truthy Nessy]

42. No to Impeachments

A far better way to put in the new congress' time is INVESTIGATIONS on ALL the corruption of congress and intelligence leading the nation into fighting the Iraq war, recall of laws on secrecy, torture and some things in the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the rich and the big corporation. What is needed it for Congress to work on getting universal health care established for all citizens, lower college tuition rates, establish universal election rules and procedures to prevent election fraud. Laws are needed for immigration, border and shipping security. The No Child Behind law is not working while America's education system is causing our children to fall behind compared to the rest of the world.

A new congress should show the nation and the world that there is no time for revenge but for reform and accountability.

I can only dream of a massive landslide for the Democrats to enable a 2/3 majority to prevent Bush from vetoing any of the laws put through by the new Congress.

[tomp]

53. bringing this criminal administration to justice...

...is the single most important issue facing america today. otherwise it's business as usual and america learns nothing. part of the reason we're here today is because we did not sum up and learn the lessons of vietnam and nixon. i really don't care which route is chosen, impeachment first or investigations first, but if the dems take congress and don't act on this, forget the dems.

[Vinca]

43. I've changed my opinion on this.

If we focus on impeachment it will energize the Republicans for 2008 and we won't have a prayer of electing a Democratic president. History will be the judge of Dear Leader and it won't be kind to him. In addition, he should be afraid of the next president who will have the powers to disappear him.

[TheCowsCameHome]

56. You're right. First we must prove Dems are better at governing.

[hedgehog]

44. Impeachment's too good for him!

I'm holding out for a criminal trial.

[HereSince1628]

45. She must swear to protect and defend the Constitution...

which includes impeachment when it is required.

If you believe in our system, you must believe in the possibility of impeachment. It needn't be the goal of campaigns, but it shouldn't be taken off the table.

[magellan]

54. Yep

This isn't optional. If crimes are suspected, impeachment hearings must be undertaken to preserve the rule of law.

But I have little hope at this juncture that the majority of either party cares more for this country than for their own political success...even though it's precisely that party-/career-serving mentality that's got us into this multi-faceted Constitutional crisis.

[bowens43]

46. Of course she's correct...for now.

It would be stupid of her to talk about supporting impeachment until we have the votes to do it. Saying that she supports impeachment would lose far more votes then it would gain.

Look at the numbers. The Democrats have been doing everything right. They had a 50 state plan. They stuck to it and now it may result in the republicans losing both the house and the Senate. I say that they should continue to execute this plan. They know what they're doing.

[Norquist Nemesis]

62. Agreed. Besides, when oversight hearings begin

which the Cons have failed to hold, it will become undeniably clear what needs to be done. Bush/Cheney won't just be lame ducks...they'll be cooked geese! And the voters will hold the rest of the crew accountable.

[pat_k]

48. Morally reprehensible and politically suicidal

Her pledge effectively exonerates the fascists.

She is bending over backwards to give the Fascists an unassailable argument -- i.e., "If we were destroying the Constitution, members of Congress, who are sworn to defend it, would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Not only are they NOT calling for impeachment, they are pledging NOT to impeach. With their pledge, we are exonerated of the charges coming from the "looney left."

Members of Congress have a sworn duty to defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to fulfull their oath. They can take up the fight to impeach and remove, or betray their oath.

If her goal is to rise above "partisanship" she must to confront truth and reality head on and take 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 mollify them -- something I have heard repeatedly from folks on our side.)

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

Even if you ignore the moral imperative, it is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crims (as one would think the Dems would have learned from the high price they -- and more importantly the nation -- are paying for their morally reprehensible and politically suicidal vote for the authorization to use force.)

From "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism," John Nichols

"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.". . .

More on David Swanson's blog<.div>

[RapidCreek]

82. THANK YOU!!!

I didn't feel like investing the time you just did, in writing this post....I sure am glad you did. YES it is here DUTY to protect the constitution. It's really that simple....in her failuring to do so she will fail to do her job.....and in fact, should probably be removed from office herself, for this failure.

Thanks Again,

RC

[RapidCreek]

84. THANK YOU!!!

I didn't feel like investing the time you just did, in writing this post....I sure am glad you did. YES it is here DUTY to protect the Constitution. It's really that simple....in her failing to do so she will fail to do her job.....and in fact, should probably be removed from office for this failure.

This ain't a political game, folks. This is YOUR Constitution.

Thanks Again,

RC

[Keepontruking]

144. impeachment

I vote we Impeach Bush , Cheney, Rice and all of
Congress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Circus Girl  Just get er done

[GreenArrow]

49. If you or I,

on a more mundane level, had pulled the kind of stuff that BushCo. has pulled, I think impeachment would be the least of our worries. But they will get away with it, free and clear.

[Preening Fop]

52. For the Historians, Bust Open The Bloody Bush Secret Society..!

[BobRossi]

55. 2008 demands NO IMPEACHMENT.

Following the November 06 elections, however they turn out, Democrats need to get to work. Impeachment of a lame-duck POTUS is a waste of time. As sweet as the taste of revenge may be, for Dems to become their enemy is not a reward worthy of pursuit.

Democrats need to show America that they are both capable and worthy of regaining control in 2008. We need to win elections because we are the right choice, not because 'pukes are the wrong choice.

[mmonk]

74. Defending and protecting the constitution is not a waste of time.

People are being illegally held. People are being illegally tortured. People are illegally being spied on. You may be against defending your rights but count me out. I cannot accept such a breach of trust. A government whereby it's leaders do not adhere to it's laws is a lawless country. Rule is thus arbitrary.

[seemslikeadream]

78. Waste of time for......

a wasted life

[A wise Man]

57. If we get the House and Senate

It wouldn't be up to Nancy to implement impeachment, that would come from any member of congress requesting a hearing. Once agreed to a hearing then all of the Dems should agree to impeach, which I think they would agree. Nancy should not let the rethugs know what their intents are.

[cyclezealot]

58. could impeach cheney and bush?

but, the queation. Would it be productive. First we need to stop things like our erosion of our liberties, restore financial stablility, and investigate. First get out the truth about subjects like the Downing Street Memos, Abrahamof,Iraq war spin in 2002.When we get the truth out that the American people need, let the chips fall where they may.
A rush to impeachment to the uninformed will seem rash. To the uneducated, they demand a demeanor of non-partisan-ship. Too much controversy and they freak out.

[EFerrari]

61. Yes, we could. And there's no rush if Bush started to illegally

wiretap us in January of 2001 which he did.

And there is no such thing as nonpartisanship these days. There won't be until we hold the Right accountable for their vast, corrupt conspiracy against the Constitution.

That being said, Nancy sometimes draws fire away from what the leadership is planning -- like when she publicly backed Chuck Schumer for Chairman. She gave Howard a few weeks of peace while the Right started to go off on Schumer . . . something to consider.

[cyclezealot]

93. Just give us a little truth.

that alone would be doing the country a great service. Then let the chips fall as they may.

[cyclezealot]

94. we must be coy.

to the uninformed Americans , anything sounding like a witch hunt makes them think one is being partisan. Yet, the Repugs get away with it. Life is unfair.

[EFerrari]

117. When the wingers do it, they're defending Democracy.

When we do it, it's a witch hunt.

It's the media.

[cyclezealot]

121. agreed/

but our mindset is not how the media works and how the public perceives Democratic intentions.

[seemslikeadream]

59. Ultimately a genuine leader is not of consensus but a molder of consensus.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[jmowreader]

60. At this point, a facade of bipartisanship is the best route to take

YES, if the Democrats take control of Congress there will be investigations.

YES, if there are investigations Shrub will be impeached and so will Cheney, hopefully both at the same time.

And YES, if there are impeachments George Walker Bush will wind up either shanked in prison or sitting in a cell on death row next to the medicine chest they keep the lethal injection drugs in. That man has committed so many capital crimes--most of them detailed in the War Crimes Act--they really can't pursue justice without at least considering executing him.

Or he'll be like Michael Dewayne Johnson, who committed suicide on Texas' death row on October 19, 2006, fifteen hours before he was scheduled to be injected in the death chamber.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/10/texas-dea...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/20/national/main...

Is that the right message to campaign on? Shrub in a noose? I think not. A "we're going to move this country forward" message sells better than a "we're going to spend all our time looking for the tallest tree in Texas" one.

[izzybeans]

63. I'd rather dems vote in progessive reform after progressive reform.

Force him to veto everything and beat him to death with his own disdain for working people. The conservative agenda can finally be laid bare for what it is. Pushing for impeachement will only confirm what 67.677777% of Americans already know. He's a liar and war criminal. The remaining backwash needs to be shown their own reflection. Standing up for reform (health care, union expansion, workplace, wages, debt relief, community, voting rights, etc) seems more productive. Besides any of the alternatives should Bush step down because of impeachement are even worse.

If they do pursue impeachment I'd support it, but they better have their ducks in a row when it comes to the issues that we must face in the long term.

[mmonk]

64. She is not correct. If leaders aren't operating under the law and system

then we are in a dictatorship. So she is incorrect or wrong. The question should be reworded to ask if you agree with her that acts against the constitution by the executive branch should go unchecked and unpunished.

[underpants]

69. No they should just do it in an afternoon and get it over with

So that he has officially been impeached and to show how open and shut it was and to illustrate that they just went on and kept working.

[Stephanie]

72. Do it in an afterrnoon for crimes against the Constitution

Then send them off to the Hague to answer for their war crimes.

[PATRICK]

71. It would be nice if

they found some blunt way of leveling with America and say that impeachment is impossible with he current level of protection Bush enjoys from his entrenched party and the likely balance even with Democratic majorities. The process would be ruinous and so dragged out that nothing would come of it while Bush's term peters out.

That does NOT forestall major discoveries of clearer evidence for impeachment and the NEED to do so with such clarity the will and means would materialize. Presumably a video of Bush burning an American flag might do the trick where assuming dictatorial banana republic powers of rendition and spying illegally on all Americans, etc. etc. etc. etc. has not. Maybe the guys with the straight jackets will quietly whisk W away.

The real thing Bush fears is the aftermath of his presidency and having a rear guard of court cronies and
flaccid illegal legislation also discouraging the pursuit of justice. The real punishments can have their way. it all comes down to getting the truth out, the evidence liberated and the justice system functional and set in motion. That may simply take a Democratic presidency with substance. if it takes fifty years to grind down the Bushes and their corporate pirates and cronies into legal dust and economic ruin it might be an educational counterpoint to the restoration and reform needed to keep this nero-fascism from ever happening again.

Impeachment is about removing the immediate danger and continued criminality of Bush. It is not justice nor about the full truth. It would be better to have the latter in the long run, as Nixon's resignation taught us. As dramatic as impeachment may be it is only about the nation stopping banging its head against the wall. Maybe we should skip the temptation of that perhaps futile quest- until it becomes a momentous certainty- and get quickly to the business of restoring justice and investigation itself as a groundwork for the whole enchilada. A bitter, anti-Bush GOP survivor group may be more than willing to seize bi-partisanship for mutual benefit to wrest the whole system away from the mad tyranny of the Bushes. If the GOP can save itself in that case it will have to earn it, even if they come to wish it were possible to sacrifice Junior to impeachment instead.

[KansDem]

75. Impeachment would bring out a lot of truth and information...

I see impeachment as a mechanism to:

1) find out the truth about 9/11 at last;
2) uncover all the corruption in the White House;
3) hold Bush accountable;
4) show what hypocrites the GOP senate is (voted to remove Clinton but not Bush)
5) "ratf**k" the GOP

They won't remove him from office, but with subpoena power and televised hearings, a lot could be learned!

[mmonk]

77. Wow. 44% so far think its ok to let a republican administration that has

operated in breach of our laws and system go unaddressed when there is a remedy provided by the constitution to protect us all. It's hard to fathom here at DU of all places.

[pat_k]

79. WHAT??!! As many DUer's say "should not impeach" as the NATION???

Unbelievable.

Mind-Boggling.

As many DU'ers -- 44% -- say "Should not impeach" as the Newsweek NATIONAL poll???!!

I feel ill.

Say it ain't so!!

Please tell me the poll has been freeped.

I don't think I can take it if the folks here are so ready to leave the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of Bush and Cheney -- Un-American authoritarians who have occupied the executive branch and are destroying the fabric of our nation to amass Unconstitutional power and wield it in the service of their tiny faction.

Press and detailed results

[TahitiNut]

85. I can't think of anything that lowers my respect for DUers as much as this

It's obscene. The mere fact that over 50% of the electorate comprehends the justification for impeachment given the appalling state of information that reaches the average voter speaks to how richly deserving of impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" the people in this regime are. If these people aren't impeached, then absolutely no elected official should EVER be impeached. Nobody could be more deserving - not only of impeachment but of imprisonment.

[onenote]

102. actually, the inability of some DUers to discern differences in the polls

is what lowers my respect for those DUers.

The Newsweek poll was more nuanced, asking whether respondents would make impeachment a top priority, a lower priority or should not be done at all. THe DU poll asked whether Nancy Pelosi is "correct in opposing" impeachment -- a rather vague and somewhat inaccurate representation of Pelosi's views imo.

In any event, if you asked DUers the same questions that Newsweek asked, I suspect you'd see a different set of results than those obtained in response to the question asked.

[stevietheman]

80. From her 60 Minutes interview, I have an idea of what she is planning.

I think she's going to drown this administration in investigations, while refusing to impeach. She's out to destroy the GOP for a generation (and is fully justified, I might add). She wants Bush to be the lamest of ducks. She wants to punish via the highest degree of humiliation, to the point of making Bush and Cheney almost want to resign.

That's my take. If it's true, it sounds like a valid approach.

[Nite Owl]

81. It's all a mute point right now

but if they do the investigations that are needed the dem leadership may have their decision made for them by a public that demands he be impeached. There was a poll here yesterday that 51% want him impeached and for the most part people know little of what he has really done to the Constitution. People have yet to be educated on this. They may have no choice and there might be quite a few Republicans in Congress who start agreeing once they feel that they too would lose office if they do not vote for impeachment. That may be as far as it goes though, once it gets to trial in the Senate he has too many entrenched people there to decide no and won't Roberts be the judge at that trial?

[alfredo]

83. First order of business is correcting the damage done by

bush and congress. Then investigate wrong-doing. Taking away his dictatorial power will be sufficient punishment. The first and most important job is to protect our constitution, and to undo the damage done.

Impeachment is self defense. If we want him punished, turn him over to the coming war crimes tribunals.

There's a good reason in this political season not to push impeachment. We want to set ourselves apart from the vicious partisanship of the Republicans. That doesn't mean we should play nice all the time.

[On the Road]

86. I Voted "Yes"

assuming a slim Democratic majority over the next two years in the house and a closely divided Senate. I would want to pursue impeachment only if Bush could be removed from office, and that is very unlikely.

Now, I do support Pelosi conducting as many many investigations as there is evidence to support. And *if* something new comes out of them that further turns the public against Bush, that could change.

[Marr]

87. I want Bush impeached, but I think Pelosi is taking the correct stance.

You don't just come out and shout "let's impeach the bastard!" before you've had investigations. Yes, the truth of the situation is clear enough, and Bush himself has admitted to crimes (NSA spying, for instance). But if you want to the charges to have any legitimacy at all, you have to investigate first. Investigations also allow you to slowly bring out new revelations, and convince the general public.

So yes, I think she's taking the proper stance right now. That said, if they haven't moved to impeach by 2009, I'll be pissed.

[nickinSTL]

90. I'm fine with it...

as long as they start some serious investigating once she's Speaker...THEN, once all the investigations show the impeachable offenses we expect...THEN IMPEACH!

But, to say we'll impeach now...I'd say the investigations should come first (though I'd love to see impeachment now, of course)

[eppur_se_muova]

92. If voters insist, Congress will insist, and Pelosi will back down.

Which I'm sure she knew when she said it. She can do a Pontius Pilate ("I wash my hands") and let the Will of the People take its course.

[tabasco]

95. If you don't get impeached for lying the Nation into war ...

what do you get impeached for??

GETTING A BLOW JOB ??

[porphyrian]

97. We disregard all law if we don't impeach him and his administration.

We cannot be a nation of laws that disregards those laws. We cannot allow someone to hold the highest position in our government and disregard the very Constitution they swore to uphold. If we were a religion, it would be blasphemy to even suggest that we don't impeach. Why in the fuck is this confusing for anyone? There is no question of whether or not we should impeach.

[onenote]

100. in theory, you may be right. In practice, impeachment is a political act

Just sayin' how it is, not how it should be. And the reality is that we can't change that.

Moreover, because impeachment ultimately is a political act, it has to be assessed in terms of its political ramification. The statements made by Russ Feingold and Paul Wellstone about impeachment are worth considering -- if nothing else to keep in mind that if the Democrats were to aggressively pursue an impeachment agenda (as opposed to conducting oversight hearings to uncover more information about the run up to and conduct of the war), you'll be seeing the repubs blanket the country with these ads, forcing the Democrats to play defense at a time when they can and should be playing offense:


Statement of Senator Paul Wellstone, February 12, 1999 -- "Let us resolve to learn the lessons of this long, sad year. Let us learn now, having come this far, the wisdom of the founders that impeachment is and must be a high barricade, not to be mounted lightly. Let us learn that because it requires the overwhelming support of the Senate to succeed, it cannot and should not proceed on a merely partisan basis. Let us learn that the desire to impeach and remove must be shared broadly, or it is illegitimate."

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, February 12, 1999 --"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people. Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

"I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery."

[porphyrian]

104. "I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution..."

If she doesn't impeach, she is disregarding the Constitution she claims to be concerned about. There is no question here. It is her fucking job to impeach. If she says she chooses not to do it, she's saying she refuses to do her job. If she doesn't impeach for blatant disregard of our laws by this president and administration, what body of laws does she imagine she's saving from destruction? This is insanity people. There are traitors to the Constitution among us.

[noonwitch]

105. Yes, unless there is a really good new reason

People are not going to vote for democrats in congress if they think all that's going to happen is impeachment hearings if the dems end up with control of one or both houses.

There are potential unforseen circumstances, however, especially if it were to be something so awful the GOP would also be calling for him to resign or be impeached. I don't see that happening-it would take the "dead girl or live boy in bed" standard for that to happen.

[chill_wind]

107. No Amnesty! A Banana Republic of Dems who would violate their sworn

oaths and grant political amnesty to War Criminals for the purposes of political expediency-- for partisan preservation of power-- still constitutes a Banana Republic.


We The People say screw that!

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Yes and No. At the minimum, you'd have to have investigations.

Start turning over rocks with this administration, and you're going to uncover all kinds of crap, I'd suspect.

Investigations lead to documented impeachable offenses (as opposed to the ones we already know about, like violating FISA with unconstitutional spying, etc) which lead to impeachment.

None of that can happen without control of congress.

Saying "We need congress so we can impeach the president" is not an election platform. We need congress so we can fix the problems this president and his party have caused.

Impeachment may (may- I don't hold out a ton of hope, honestly) be the icing on the cake, but it can't be the agenda.

[B Calm]

109. It's congress duty to put things right again. It's their duty to repair

our relationship with the rest of the world.

The whole world knows this administration’s word is no good. In fact, Bush is probably the first American President to be scorned, looked down upon and viewed with distrust and suspicion by the entire free world. Think how the world use to look up to America as a bastion of truth. How sad for America right now and how humiliating for us.

We deserve better and we’re going to get better!

[gully]

111. She's not opposed to impeachment. She has said "we'll see where the

evidence takes us." HUGE difference.

[Beacho]

112. I vote yes

It's not just about getting Bush.

As has been noted by others, there's not enough time to make any real difference via impeachment AND conviction in the Senate. Go after the the corrupt a-holes who put Goerge in there in the first place.

Clean up the corrupt mess on K Street and give average americans a break after being ground down economically by these callous greed heads. Start putting these lying theiving bastards behind bars.

Besides, you don't need impeachment AFTER Bush leaves office and he is still under jeopardy of being brought to trial without the dust up of impeachment hearings. Besides he will be the most loathed ex president in the history of the republic. That's good enough for me.

We need to focus more on making sure this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN!

[Cleita]

114. They need to be charged with their crimes, put on trial and

sentenced. Otherwise, it sends a message that they can get away with their crimes and they will all be back in some office in twenty years, just like the criminals from Nixon's and Reagan's administrations all came back.

[BlueStater]

115. If we can't hold him accountable for what he's done then as a country...

...we're through

It's as simple as that.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

116. is there a HELL NO option?

[CabalPowered]

118. I think a more pertinent questinon would be

Do you expect Pelosi to reverse her stance on Impeachment following the election?

[Swamp Rat]

122. I hope she plans to impeach Bushler no matter what she says publicly right now

She can always change her mind later on.

[BelgianMadCow]

123. Hard one - voted no though

I do not understand how one could put it off the table when you do not yet know which atrocities subpoena power could unearth.

Why you SAY so, politically speaking, is understandable.

[trashcanistanista]

124. Her first priority is supeona power

She has made this statement over and over. This is code for investigate, impeach, indict, imprison. before 2008.
It is only a matter of time before enough dirt is uncovered and exposed. I suspect it already is in the works. When it is made public, 2/3 of the senate will be forced and shamed into impeachment. Minority or majority, doesn't make a difference.
I think she can do it. I think it will happen before 2008. She is under no obligation to announce it now. She scares the sh$t out of them all. I hope she has a bodyguard.

[BelgianMadCow]

127. "She is under no obligation to announce it now" - agreed

I voted what I find should be the belief of a dem in his heart. How and when to say it, is politics. Saying very clearly now that it is not on the table disarms the pubs that would want to smear the dems with being only after politically motivated impeachment (where would they get THAT, the "wag the dog don't bomb Osama" suckers?).

[Tiggeroshii]

125. I think that whether or not she intends to impeach the president, or

plans on doing as much, the result of the man investigations that will take place shortly after the Democrats take back congress may or may not force an impeachment hearing to take place. If the evidence supports impeachment, she will go for it, if it does not, she won't. I think if the evidence supports impeachment(if there is evidence), then we will have no choice but to impeach the president, whether Democrats be in control or Republicans.`

[BelgianMadCow]

129. "then we will have no choice but to impeach the president" EXACTLY

I can already see the sad eyes of Dem leaders as they regretfully inform the public impeachment is unavoidable as the facts discovered are of such gravitas that they have the solemn duty to impeach the pResident.

[Imagevision]

126. I prefer that Bush be exposed for ALL illegal White House deeds

that is a much bigger picture then an easy resignation if he's impeached like Nixon who is his idol!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

128. They will impeach Bush when the people of this country are behind it.

We need to get people to see the light. The media also needs to get their heads out of their asses.

[Generic Other]

130. I can remember a time NOT ONE person on DU would have

opposed impeaching Bush. I am shocked and disheartened.

[Individualist]

131. Same here

I'm sickened by it.

[RapidCreek]

133. So can I...This board has changed....looks like we have a

lot of fans of dictatorship here now. I've been away (medical problems) for about two years....I notice many of the fine old posters that used to post here are gone now. Does anyone know where they are? PM me if you want.

RC

[hedgehog]

135. It might have been worthwhile two years ago, but at this point,

impeaching Bush just muddies the water. The 2008 election cycle starts November 8 and we don't need an impeachment controversy helping the Republicans. The damage has been done. Let him get out of office and then we'll indict and convict his ass.

[Generic Other]

136. It's not about fucking politics

That criminal POS does not deserve to walk free, arrogant ass head held high.

[hedgehog]

137. I'm afraid he may walk free from an impeachment.

Nixon never served a day, nor did anyone associated with Iran-Contra. I want to see Bush's ass in jail.

[Generic Other]

138. Lack of action implies tacit approval. We need to document his crimes

We should sue him in civil court, charge him in criminal court, try him as a war criminal at the Hague. Extradite him to face charges. Even if he beats the rap every time, the knowledge that he was charged never go away.

I just want acknowledgment that someone like Bush can't get away with destroying our country as he so far seems to have done.

[Hippo_Tron]

143. He didn't deserve to be inaugurated either, but he was

The fact is that we'll never have 67 votes to convict unless we can uncover something like the Watergate tapes. Justice can't always be served. The next best thing is to start repairing the damage and make sure that another war criminal isn't "elected" in 2008.

[Old and In the Way]

140. If it's ok for Republicans to lie about their true intentions, I'll cut Ms. Pelosi some slack.

I susopect that it ultimately won't be her decision, anyway.

[mnhtnbb]

142. What's the point of taking the House if they're not going to hold Bush

accountable?

[madmusic]

145. Another way to ask it:

Should Pelosi threaten impeachment and energize the BushCo base?

[barbtries]

146. absolutely not

the entire administration cannot be gone too soon. i can't imagine she doesn't feel the urgency

[AtomicKitten]

147. I understand the strategy

in not giving the GOP a talking point before the election to rally their base. But it made we wince in pain when she said it. She WILL have oversight and investigations, and it's hard to imagine that once the ugly truth surfaces that enough support won't also surface for impeachment. Impeachment, censure, exposure, embarrassing the crap out of them; it's all good. Eyes on the prize, kids. If saying what she said helps in taking back the House, I'm down with it.

On edit: Or, alternatively, maybe she won't be Speaker and her promise doesn't mean squat.

[stella]

148. Pelosi is serious

about not impeaching dimwit bush and i agree with her.

Is better to mend the house and senate and get ready to win in 2008 instead of waisting time with the impeachment that is never going to happen anyway.

[The Brethren]

150. I like Pelosi

but I don't agree with her on this issue. I believe it will not hurt our chances in 2008, instead will help us. I think if anything, it will show that as a party, we will not tolerate his behavior any longer. And that regardless of your party each politician is accountable.

And as far as I'm concerned, whether it helps us or it doesn't regarding the 2008 elections, he should be impeached, as well as held accountable legally outside of impeachment for his actions along with cheney and rummy because they deserve it. This should not be about playing politics and which party is best serves. It should be about all of us addressing corruption and abuse of power in our government and it is long over due.

[leesa]

151. It doesn't hurt for her to say that. It's just her opinion. She may not be the Speaker

and when Conyers gets rolling on the Judiciary stuff, there will probably be full impetus for impeachment. Remember Waxman has a huge stack of letters he's been saving too.

[NaturalHigh]

152. There is no chance in hell he'll be impeached.

To even bother to talk about it is a waste of time.