GAWD I'm Tired Of This Impeachment Fight - So Here Is MY $.02

[matcom]

Here is how I see this playing out (maybe the ONLY way).

1st: The DEMS HAVE TO PUSH OUT AGENDA IMMEDIATELY! We only have 24 months (less really - say 14 months). Impeachment would take LONGER THAN THAT. Bet on it.

2nd: IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT THE EXTENT OF THE CORRUPTION, we will HAVE to SUBPOENA (because MUCH of the policies of these criminals are SEALED). We cannot FULLY FIX the issues WITHOUT SUBPOENA'S. For example: Cheney's Energy Policy needs to be REVERSED. Once we have OPEN TESTIMONY (based on the subpoena) we can rewrite this asshole's oil give-aways. But it won't happen before.

3rd: Once the PEOPLE find out the EXTENT of the corruption/lies/crimes THROUGH THE SUBPOENA PROCESS they will DEMAND the heads of these pricks! If all the MSM are talking about is Impeachment, the REAL CRIMES won't be reported on. Now, before you bash the MSM, and I often do, MY bet is that they instinctively back winners. Watch for the media whores to start "reporting" things (maybe wishful thinking I know). Point is if we have hearings that bring BOMBSHELLS on a daily basis, it IS likely middle-america will be awake.

Summary: The DEMS PUSH through the agenda (minimum wage, energy policy, Iraq lies/withdrawal, veteran's benefits, Patriot Act, etc...) USING the subpoena process to find out the extent of the damage done. AS THEY ARE DOING THIS, the PEOPLE will be fully exposed to what you and I KNOW is/has happening/happened. The outrage will be HUGH!!!111 It is QUITE POSSIBLE that enough will be exposed to bring CHARGES against these fuckers but even if NOT, it will ENSURE a DEM VICTORY IN '08 FOR ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT! Even if charges are NOT brought, this could literally sink the NEOCONS FOREVER (which is about 10 years in political years but you get the idea).

Add in the FBI/CIA investigations because do NOT forget - THOSE 2 AGENCIES ARE FUCKING BULLSHIT THEY HAVE BEEN SCAPEGOATED!!! NEVER forget that little issue. They are now unleashed on the Bush Crime Family.

Folks I want revenge maybe even more than you do. We can get REAL CHANGE DONE while simultaneously letting the SYSTEM HANG THESE BASTARDS!

Keep it cool. Keep it real. Keep together.

Peace.

Happy Veteran's Day

Thanks for letting me say my peace.

on edit: if you think I am against Impeachment you are correct. I AM FOR JAIL TIME!! Impeachment doesn't give me that option.

[JuniperLea]

1. That's what I'm saying!

Excellent rant.

During the course of taking care of the top priority business, all hell is going to bust out. It will be apparent that we MUST impeach.

If at that point the crimes are ignored, they will only be ignored by yet other criminals.

[niallmac]

2. When's the last time we argued about how to prepare roast beast?

The sight and sound of DU'er setting fire to each others hair is
music to my ears. Do not fret. One way or the other we will smite him
and his like. Despite the accusations, I know of noone on this side of the
planet who has said "forgive and forget."

[POAS]

3. The investigation must come first

I agree with you completely.

Amass a body of irrefutable facts until the body politic must take action.

As with Nixon the evidence drove the process to its inevitable conclusion and the Republicans finally told Nixon of the inevitable and he stepped down.

[bunny planet]

4. And a very sensible .02 cents it was Matcom

[porphyrian]

5. Yep, we should just quit before we try.

No sense in following the Constitutionally outlined procedure for impeachment at all. It'll take too long. Fuck justice. Fuck our laws. Fuck the victims of the crimes.

[matcom]

6. right. Fuck Reality

did you even READ my edit?

[FogerRox]

10. I read your entire post including the edit, well done. see my sig?

[porphyrian]

12. You said we shouldn't bother impeaching because it takes too long.

Then you went on with a bunch of rationalizations for why we shouldn't do it. I addressed that directly. Now you're accusing me of being unrealistic and of not reading your two cents. Whatever.

[matcom]

14. and I also gave you reasons why it WON'T MATTER

because through the subpoena, we can GET OUR AGENDA PASSED AND GET THESE FUCKERS

what is so hard to understand? we DON'T have the time. if we had 4 years, my thoughts might be different

[porphyrian]

16. You're entitled to your opinion. - n/t

[matcom]

18. do you think we can Impeach in LESS than 14 months?

in case you hadn't noticed the '08 Presidential election started this past Wednesday

[havocmom]

24. Jus open up some o that IMPEACHMENT HELPER and nuke in microwave

Guess that is what the DEMS on the Hill are supposed to do to provide Instant Gratification for the attention-span challenged

fellow reality based person.

Much talk about laws and justice around here, but the mob has a rope. The last two things they are REALLY interested in is laws and justice

[porphyrian]

25. No, I think we should kill the idea before we try it.

I have no idea how long it would take, and really neither do you. I'm sure it would be longer than a week.

The thing about impeachment is that in many of the cases it was used, it never had to be carried out in its entirety, so the length of time is moot. It is also moot if we quit before we try. You are in favor of quitting. I'm not.

[matcom]

33. where in my OP did I say QUIT?

i said we can do this and STILL pass an agenda. did you miss the word "Subpoena"? I used it multiple times.

[porphyrian]

38. You know what quit means, right?

The reason I didn't put quotes around the word "quit" was that I wasn't quoting you verbatim. Surely you can understand how someone like myself can read your original post, where you start off saying we shouldn't bother with impeachment because it will take too long (again, not a quote, a paraphrase), then follow up with your further rationalizations for not doing so, though they could likely be done in conjunction with impeachment, but whatever. You got all defensive, as you probably should have, at my response, which you either don't understand or don't agree with. Now we're playing tag, which in itself does little but indirectly is keeping your original post kicked so more people can see it, read it and reply to it. What don't you get now?

Edit: means, not mean

[matcom]

48. I don't get your grasp of words, the English language OR complete sentences

sorry

[porphyrian]

50. I don't require you to. -n/t

[matcom]

53. well THANK GAWD

because I was SO hoping to live up to your lofty expectations! *WHEW*

YOU are obviously very knowledgeable about Congressional processes and the constitution. I bow down to you for guidance Grasshopper.

[porphyrian]

Well, you're wrong. -n/t

[matcom]

55. no shit

[tavalon]

67. Point, set and match to matcom

Golf clap.

[havocmom]

7. Where was THAT in the OP?

Not jumping onto the INSTANT GRATIFYING REVENGE bandwagon is NOT the same as Fucking justice, laws, or victims of crimes. It IS dealing with reality.

There is life beyond the Terrible Twos.

[porphyrian]

13. Yeah, thanks for being insulting while condescending.

He said impeachment would take too long, so we shouldn't bother. I called bullshit. Now people like yourself want to take issue with how I did it. OK.

[havocmom]

15. Since you dished out, I figured you could take it

Edited to add, you aren't the sole person I refered to in my reply. There are too many here who just aren't dealing with the reality of the situation.

We don't always get what we want or even have coming QUITE as fast as some would insist and going all vulger about it, while also misrepresenting the OP is just not productive.

Act like a kid, get treated same. Complain to somebody who isn't prone to laugh at tantrums

[porphyrian]

17. Oh I can take it, that doesn't mean I won't call it out.

What, you wanna scrap?

[Me.]

23. Maybe You Need To Be Told

to have a blessed day....kidding

*shadow government*

[porphyrian]

26. Ooo, that was mean.

[havocmom]

27. LOL

Tantrums... get ingnored.

When you want to talk in a reasonable manner and deal with the realities, we will engage.

Scrap? Have a cold biscuit.

[porphyrian]

35. Hey, you decided to jump in on my comment and insult me.

I wasn't talking to you until then. Your obsession with maturity aside, while I may have exaggerated in this thread, I have not been unreasonable. In the end, I don't require your acceptance or your understanding, so do whatever the fuck you want.

[havocmom]

36. Where did MATCOM suggest 'Fuck Justice'

or any of the other things you equated his OP to?

[porphyrian]

41. The part where we shouldn't bother with impeachment because it will take too long?

Look, when I have to explain every single nuance of something that's obvious to me, it makes me impatient and cranky. So let me ask you a question - why are you OK with not impeaching because MATCOM says it will take too long?

[conscious evolution]

65. I saw no such thing.

What I am reading is that we should HOLD OFF on impeachment for now.That we should 1.push through our agenda and 2.Investigate the hell out of bfee.
Done right this can do two things.
The first is that we can reverse some of the damage done by their actions.
The most important thing,however, is exposing the bfee.
Most people are absolutely clueless aboutthe reach of this criminal organization.And they need to know about them.Having live televised testimony everyday will show everyone just how corrupt they are.
While impeachment would be nice,I am afraid that all that would do is ruin w and darth alone.We need to go after the whole gang.Otherwise we will end up having to go through all this bullshit again down the road.

[tavalon]

66. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

Try focusing in on just the last few sentences.

[FogerRox]

76. I remember the Watergate hearings, they captivated America

Most Americans didn't understand the full implications of what had happened, Every afternoon this was on TV, the Watergate hearings opened a lot of eyes. Once Americans understand what the Bush Crime Family has done, they will demand impeachment, they will demand they are removed from office, maybe even jailed.

At that point impeachment & removal from office is a slam dunk.

But If Conyers steps out front on January 21st, and announces an impeachment effort, the odds are it will fail in a heartbeat. I get it, Matcom gets it.

[The Straight Story]

8. My two replies to that:

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

and

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

[stillcool]

37. great posts...

[immoderate]

9. Matcom, you are sooo right! Do it by the numbers....

and let nature take it's course. That's how we got Nixon. It was a Watergate investigation not an impeachment proceeding.

Only two presidents have been impeached, and it failed both times!

--IMM

[FogerRox]

11. Jail time, baby

[Disturbed]

30. If there are Investigations Cheney wll resign. Heart problems.

Also, Busholini might become ill and step down. Illness would be a better excuse for Busholini than simply resigning. I think Bushoini has some sort of brain damage. I doubt that he would fight an Impeachment (Trial). His ego is to large to go through with that.

[immoderate]

46. Yeah! And nobody ever claimed that Bush is not a quitter.

--IMM

[tomp]

87. will his claim to executive privilege survive his resignation? nt

[libnnc]

19. AND remember, gentle grasshoppers...

What has Speaker Pelosi said she intends to do re: Committee meetings? Open them up to the media! All in good time, friends...

The repercussions of exposing, via completely open governing, the corruption and fraud that has taken place over the last 6 years, go waaayyy beyond "impeachment". The GOP will never, ever recover.

There will be so much coverage, CSPAN won't know where to start.

Brian Lamb had better start eating his Wheaties and taking his Geritol.

[txindy]

45. I like the way you've phrased that and I agree with you.

Plus, Mama scares me when she points, so I'm rushing to agree!

[AntiFascist]

20. The only way to get really strong investigations is for the people...

to call for impeachment. I think the peoples' voices should be heard, of course this Congress is not going to immediately call for impeachment, they've already made that very clear. We need to have the people rise up and call upon their Representatives for justice.

[tavalon]

68. The peoples voices will be heard in spades

Some of us will call for impeachment now, some in a few months but by about 8 months from now, everyone will be screaming for it and then it will happen and happen rapidly.

That's why I have stayed out of this argument mostly. As long as Pelosi doesn't say we're tabling the investigations, I'm happy. The rest will follow organically.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Priorities are: 1.) Reverse the Damage 2.) Find the Truth THEN...

3.) Punish the Guilty

And, as for the latter, I want the REAL culprits. Not the errand boys. Not the managers. I want the guys who planned and directed this abomination.

[havocmom]

32. YES! People are suffering NOW. Reversing the damage is Job 1

and punishing the guilty BEFORE taking the time to find truth is called a lynching!

Your agenda is spot on, thank you for sane remarks, Junkdrawer!

[Junkdrawer]

42. See also: French Revolution....

Rolling out the Guillotine as a first priotity was a great idea, right?

[havocmom]

69. They lost a lot of good heads

you are on to something

[OzarkDem]

44. One important modification

1) Reverse the damage 2) Fix the system (ie get the money out of govt, lobbying reform, campaign finance reform) 3) Find the Truth, etc. etc.

[Junkdrawer]

49. That's cool, but I specifically want to get at the mega-wealth...

that's funding the rogue CIA and this far-right campaign that's trying to kill our democracy and have us fight wars to secure their wealth.

They are the terrorists.

I want to know who they are and how they organize their evil.

[MoonRiver]

22. Thanks for the sanity!

Personally, I believe the investigations will force Cheney and *, in that order, to resign, possibly before the investigations even begin. I also think Cheney will resign so * can put McCain in the VP slot. Then * will resign, with the hope that McCain will have a shoe-in to the presidency. Don't know if the taint will wash off McCain though. But it is the Repukes' only shot at keeping one branch of government.

[loyalsister]

64. Good points

That's one wat to try to recover the advantage of incumbancy for the 08 elections.

[Gregorian]

28. BTW, impeachment can happen AFTER Bush leaves office.

That's all I'm going to say on this issue. I just don't think it's worth the time to discuss. We have too many things to do, in potentially very short time.

I don't think people realize impeachment can happen later. I don't recall where I heard this. But I think it was the impeachment forum on Cspan a year ago. The source was reliable.

[Lars39]

31. There was a person stating that yesterday.

fwiw, they live in Great Britain.

[barbtries]

29. you said,

I AM FOR JAIL TIME!! Impeachment doesn't give me that option.

nor does it preclude it.

my 02 cents: impeach, indict, imprison. not just bush and cheney the whole lot of the murderous mofos

[Jim Warren]

34. Stop the bleeding

I just do not want bushco do any MORE damage in the next two years,
signing statements, executive orders etc. ad naseum.

There is a constitutional process, and it will prevail.....grinding slowly along.

There is a possible wild card in all this though....and probably wishful thinking on my part but some recent polling data suggests (entirely too early to tell right now of course)....and that is if there is a pent-up public outcry heard across the country calling for bush's head........despite what Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid have to say.

[stop the bleeding]

43. yes

you rang?

[Jim Warren]

56. To be used only in life threatening cases

[stop the bleeding]

61. Hence I felt it is appropriate to use this name -

It symbolizes what function DU serves in the Democratic process.

[klook]

39. Impeachment: A Practical Guide

Just heard one of the authors of this book being interviewed on Democracy Now!. She says the pressure must come from the people. Even with both houses in the hands of Democrats in 1973, the Democrats didn't want to impeach Nixon. Only after the Saturday Night Massacre, in which Nixon fired his special prosecutor, did they get outraged enough to do something about it.

So let's keep the heat on them!

[Swamp Rat]

40. IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

[AussieDave]

47. He might be impeached, but he'll never be convicted by the Senate

Face it - he's there until January 20, 2009.

Try him after he leaves office.

[immoderate]

52. Not necessarily!

Bush is done, but the Senators want to be re-elected. Would they toss him under the bus to look good to their constituents?

In a New York minute!

--IMM

[AussieDave]

98. If the investigations show up the stuff so heinous it can't be ignored,

then fine, by all means impeach.

However not all the screaming hard-Right Senators were defeated on Tuesday. And not all the Senators from Red states up for re-election in 2008 and 2010 will be vulnerable - look at Tennessee. An open seat with a clearly inferior candidate who won beacause the majority of voters were shit-scared to vote for a black man.

[DearAbby]

73. With results of the investigations

I dont see how the GOP can not but to convict/impeach...or do you think Bush covered his tracks so well there is no evidence for any of his crimes?

I also dont believe the GOP are going to want to endear themselves to this administration, they have to think about life AFTER BUSH. (having that dead weight around your neck)...imagine the ads...THEY VOTED TO KEEP THE WAR CRIMINAL in office...that would really go well with the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Just who do these people work for? Themselves or the AMERICAN PEOPLE? And who do they think will vote for them, when all the dirty laundry is aired for all to see, and they still didnt vote to convict/impeach?

my two cents worth

[davidwparker]

51. Yes, agenda, subpoena and investigations, get the people behind it,

and then follow the Constitution based on the EVIDENCE for articles of impeachment and send it over to the senate.

"I've not come to praise Caesar, but to bury him." A pivotal speech.

[Senator]

54. Just More Rationalizing for Inaction

NOTE: It is not my intent to single this poster out personally. This OP is simply illustrative of pervasive attitudes many display.

One of the underlying problem of this post is a simple false presumption. There is no "prince charming" coming -- no cargo plane on the way. The reality is that we ARE "the system" the poster is relying on to "hang these bastards" somehow. Our public servants will only (possibly) provide what we demand of them. There is no substitute for our failure to make our demands as loud and clear as possible.

The same goes for the "huge outrage" many assume is just around the corner -- with just one more bit of information, once they learn the truth we all know. It's not coming. People are not that ignorant. They see the reality. But they also see the "leaders of the opposition" unwilling to actually DO SOMETHING about it. They see accomplices, not champions.

There is also a pervasive "shortage mentality." As if there's a clock ticking and we have to sneak all our agenda goodies through some closing window. As though there's some predetermined limit to political capital that must be spend before we're found out and chased away.

As to the specifics of impeachment, there is no "time issue," as the charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated. They have admitted violating FISA -- and have tried to "defend" it (mutually exclusively) by claiming inherent authority and congressional approval. GOP Senator Specter himself has already scoffed at the defense.

The (formerly) Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applies to Gitmo. Behind the Euphemedia smokescreen of tribunal tinkering lies the reality of the decision: Three Years of War Crimes had already been committed. Similarly, the lies about WMD that terrorized the nation into war are already "old news." There is no fig leaf left.

There is nothing to "investigate."

The articles of impeachment are already written. There is no hearing necessary. They can be brought up for vote on Jan 4th (though I'd prefer Jan 6th to commemorate the 2 Stolen Elections). Should they not resign and demand a Senate trial, it need not take more than a week. There are no "fact witnesses" required.

There's also no reason to think impeachment would effect '08 in a negative way. The neofascists forced a failed impeachment, over nothing, against the wishes of 70% of the nation from Dec '98 to Feb '99 and still "won" the White House in 2000. This one would likely garner 70% support and the display of backbone could swing as much as 10% of the white male vote to the Dems permanently, out of respect for the principled action (as opposed to decades of empty rhetoric).

And speaking of empty rhetoric, that's pretty much all "push out agenda" amounts to -- even with a shiny new non-veto-proof majority. Unless someone's come up with the magic potion to circumvent "rule by signing statement," what DC Dems are realistically looking at is 2 years of no tangible results and a further erosion of public trust in "both sides" due to the "tone in DC."

And they'd be right. Endless hearings with no real accountability or punishment imposed is pretty much the defintion of partisan hackery. It's a great way to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of beltway lawyers, consultants, lobbyists, and strategists. But it does very little for the millions who demanded change on Tuesday.

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[Jim Warren]

58. Lucid post

More light than heat

[immoderate]

70. Two presidents have been impeached. Both attempts failed.

Nixon and Agnew, however were never impeached, and both were gotten rid of. They were merely under investigation.

If you impeach, they can defend. If you investigate, it's the death of a thousand cuts.

--IMM

[Senator]

71. Well, Nixon chose resignation over impeachment

The articles were already voted out of committee with Republican support. Agnew was long gone by then, having resigned the previous year for an unrelated reason.

And as I said above, there's really nothing that needs investigating.

But the notion that the duty to impeach when warranted should be avoided because it might not result in removal is just a self-defeating prophesy. And a dereliction of that sworn duty.

--

[immoderate]

74. I think the case has to be built in public.

We are aware, but there is no document that summarizes Bush transgressions that can be sent to committee. Where is the testimony that links Bush to Abu Ghraib, eavesdropping, lying about WMDs, etc.?

--IMM

[Senator]

77. Already done. 51% already want it as a priority, only 44% oppose

And that's in the face of direct opposition by DC Dem "leaders" and zero euphemedia attention.

But documents and proving come in the Senate trial. Impeachment in the House is simply an accusation.

And as I said, these violations have already been adjudicated. The USSC and the FISA court have already weighed the "defense case."

--

[immoderate]

82. I'd like to see over 60% for "strong priority."

If this is not a wildly popular move, the effects of backlash will hurt us down the road. As you say, impeachment is just bringing up charges. Conviction, in the Senate requires two thirds. Without priming the action, it diverts the Congress to useless ceremony, and leads to predictable (however irrational) resentment.

I'd like the fix to be in before we even start, or else we risk looking as moronic as the Republicans did when they went after Clinton. Remember how silly Henry Hyde and the other "managers" looked when they solemnly marched the charges of impeachment over to the Senate? They had nothing. We must have an overwhelming charge. Investigations will bring the public to our side.

--IMM

[Senator]

83. If we need "the fix to be in" ...

... then we ARE the Republicans.

And their failed impeachment looked silly because it WAS silly. This is the opposite.

--

[immoderate]

84. Please don't misunderstand the turn of phrase...

It doesn't refer, in this case, to any tawdry maneuver. It's like the lawyer's dictum, in court, to not ask any question unless you know what the answer will be. Before we go down this path, our case should be overwhelming, and not just to we who are already believers. The right wing should be screaming for impeachment along with us. To remove Bush and his administration would leave structures in place that can regrow. We must implement a radical Bushectomy, which cuts their power to the bone. That's one of the reasons for this discovery process. It's to expose the anti-democratic structures which allow a Bush regime to exist and to inoculate our society against them.

Their impeachment looked silly to us. We should not afford them that luxury. When I say "put the fix in" I mean that when the process begins we should be assured of inevitability of the outcome, not that we should use underhanded means.

--IMM

[Senator]

92. Sounds more like the "Powell Doctrine"...

...which I can never quite differentiate from "fomalized cowardice."

One can always make a "rational" case for waiting -- for keeping the powder dry. Trouble is, that case is still easily made long past the point of no return. Inaction carries risk too. Nearly always hidden, but often far more consequential. In fact, it is the reason we find ourselves in this current nightmare.

Politics is not law. And relying on the ostensible parallels is often the surest way to failure. We on the left are often busily playing by the rules only to find that not only have the rules been changed, but the game has been moved to another arena. The legal adage that the case is won before you enter court simply does not track. Most of politics occurs on the fly -- in a constantly changing environment.

While it's enticing to imagine a scenario that allows us to root out our problems, the mechanism by which this might occur is far from tangible. These "structures in place that can regrow" are not in the government, or even in the wider political environment. They are in human nature and will always be available to manipulation and exploitation by those of ill will and ambition for power. The luxury we should not afford them is any concern about their reactionary attitude. That is the effective method of innoculation.

Happily, the vast majority of Americans are not among them. They can be trusted with the truth. They don't need to be "sold" on reality.

That just another form of manipulation.

--

[immoderate]

93. I'm not saying impeachment shouldn't be our goal.

But first we establish the running game. And while I maintain that analogies are odious, even as I use them, and that I am loathe to associate myself with anything "Powellish," I think it works here.

You're right that we cannot change human nature, but we can move a critical mass to our side of the court. To immediately go to impeachment proceedings is like tossing a "hail Mary" when the clock is not a factor. Investigations will distract and cripple them. I think that if we "look" at collecting the facts, our position is unassailable, and we can press toward the goal in rather short order. Impeachment is controversial, while discovery is less so, if not benign. I think to declare impeachment now could be characterized as reckless, shoot from the hip, and vengeful. Let's take that away from them. I think the path is short and direct.

--IMM

[Senator]

99. Then what's wrong with simply saying so?

There's certainly plenty wrong with not saying it.

And as I keep saying, there is nothing "immediate" about it. The "running game" has already been over-established as minority opposition. The "critical mass" has already moved. As Jack Murtha says about Iraq, the public is way ahead of Washington on this.

As far as the clock not being a factor, impeachment is the only "priority" whose shelf life ends with the next terrorist attack.

Moreover, "investigations" of the type many seem to be proposing could just as easily (I would bet more likely) errode support for impeachment as build it. An investigation sends the message that there is something unknown still to be determined (the opposite of the truth). It is in essence a step backward.

The path may well be "short and direct" but not on the heading you presume.

The recommendation appears to be that Dems be "{less} controversial," "benign," and not yet in possesion of the goods. Does that sound like a prescription for building support? Or does it sound like the familiar cliche that has doomed them to the minority until Tuesday, when the public decided on its own to take a punitive trip to the polls?

But even if calling for impeachment were known to be politically damaging. Does that relieve them from their oath to "support and defend" what's left of the Constitution? Should they remain in silent complicity with the perpetrators?

Impeachment is still the only moral, patriotic option.

--

[immoderate]

102. The Republicans have to be in on it for it to work.

They are still in denial. A round of hearings and investigations would put them on the spot. They have to be confronted with the evidence in view of their constituents. An impeachment that is seen to be partisan will damage us. The Republicans have to kick him out. That's how it worked with Nixon.

--IMM

[Senator]

103. No, they really don't

They already know they're "on the spot." Warner, McCain, Graham, and Specter are already in public, active revolt. Any concern about "them" or "their constituents" is just a form of Stockholm Syndrome. All we need do is trust the public. Admittedly a tall order for a culture of manipulation, but we really are at "off the pot" time.

It's our side's aversion to even drawing a line in the sand that has enabled from the start. They cannot be "brought within the law" (Feingold). The statement itself is stunningly cynical.

And while I think it would have been far better to have run the campaign on impeachment as a principled stand, any damage we sustain from charges of a "partisan stunt" is both self-inflicted and far outweighed by finally being able to cast our side as champions of the Constitution.

--

[barbtries]

72. wonderfully put

and i so, sooooo agree

[Ani Yun Wiya]

86. Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda.

Exactly.

[tomp]

90. compelling argument! thanks. nt

[AntiFascist]

100. Very well stated!

and I had no idea it was that easy! So WTF is holding up our Reps? This is where we really need to gear up and scream at our reps. Ignore what the DLCers are trying to ram down our throats!

[mom cat]

57. I do not want revenge. I want to stop WW III.

[Tatiana]

59. This is EXACTLY how I see it playing out.

I wouldn't even shoot for impeachment of Bush. I want Cheney. I want every aspect of the office of the vice president investigated. I want public hearings that pre-empt regularly scheduled programming because the networks finally realize they can't hide the Republican corruption any longer. I want the media whipped up into a frenzy when they sense blood in the proverbial water.

And then, to show the public Dems have no choice but to do what is required under the Constitution, I want Congress to impeach Cheney. I'll freely admit, it's not really a justice thing for me. It's purely political, which is what the impeachment process is. Cheney will never allow himself to be removed from office. He'll resign. And then, at that point -- with the stench of guilt hanging over him and all of his cohorts, the justice system can take over. By this time ('cause Matcom is right, this will go way beyond a mere 24 months), the thought of electing another Republican President will make the majority of Americans want to regurgitate and we'll have a Democratic President in 2008, along with a competent ATTORNEY GENERAL.

The Department of Justice can take over from there. I don't expect to see true justice served before 2009. But if this whole nightmare that began in 2000 has taught me anything, it has taught me patience. The purpose impeachment will serve is to prevent the election of any additional right-wing evildoers for the forseeable future.

Think of it as a gift we owe to our children and the next generation. We need to be the majority to fix this gigantic mess Bush & co. have made and it's going to take at least a good decade of Democratic governing and leadership before we are back on track.

[Virginia Dare]

60. Couldn't agree more with any of it...n/t

[Parche]

62. subpoena?

Subpenis?????

[bullwinkle428]

63. The only reason impeachment became feasible back in the 70s with Nixon

was that a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS had turned against Nixon!!! Of course, the "Republican Revolution" ushered in enough of the creeps to allow them to do it to Clinton for completely bullshit political purposes. The only way it even has a chance against * is to bring enough evidence out into the open, such that a real chunk of the general populace is calling for his head, forcing their Republican representatives to echo their sentiments. In short...total agreement with your original post, bro!!

[tandot]

75. Thanks, Matcom. As much as I want to see that criminal impeached

our main focus must be reversing the devastating policies of this administration and getting our agenda through.

We'll have investigations that will show how corrupt and incompetent this administration really was/is. The truth will come out.

However, 2008 is just two years away. We have to focus on showing some results to keep the congress. We have to show that we are the right party for America and that we work for the people.

[bridgit]

78. agreed, k&r'd; too many people are conducting themselves as though...

impeachment is the only thing in town, i'm finding it quite amusing to watch bush & cheney both sauntering round DC with blue ties, all of a sudden shaking dem hands while slapping dem backs trying to belly up to dems knowing they've played every dirty card in their pissy little deck, "heh-heh, well you know guys & gals; there's always room for jello, 'sides it's never too late for a little bipartisanship...right?"

riiiiiiight whatever you think you just said, bow-ies

i agree that time is of the essence, and acknowledge your list thoughtful; though i'd like to see their no-bid crony contract & black water war profiteering machinery disassembled before the lying neocon eyes as well e-fucking-mediately

agenda first & impeachment by & by...there's always room for jello

[Starlight]

79. Skip impeachment and go straight to the trials? Sounds good to me.

[Tigress DEM]

80. It isn't revenge. It's justice. But it does take time. I agree.

However, the FIRST step is blocking their parting shots.

Keeping the spy bill from passing.

Getting Habeus Corpus back.

Demanding transperancy.

Taking back the media.

[lonestarnot]

81. Now those are two shiney new pennies with a minting flaw!

Priceless 2 cents! K & R

[Canuckistanian]

85. So, you're saying that subpoenas are needed?

I wasn't quite clear on that point.

[Blue_Roses]

88. thank-you and well said

[graywarrior]

89. Bookmarking this, because Matcom, you are so right on and I want to come back to this 2 years

from now.

[tomp]

91. k&r for SENATOR (see post #54)

[Katzenjammer]

94. There will be no significant changes at all, much less any justice.

There will be a lot of talk about bipartisanship and how the Dems have to work with the GOP "for the good of the country". And when the 2008 season ramps up, the bankruptcy bill will still be law, the patriot act will still be law, habeas corpus will still be dead, people will still be being killed and torn apart in Iraq & Afghanistan, we'll still be forbidden to go to Cuba, the telcos will still be snooping, et lengthy, nauseating cetera.

There will be an increase in minimum wage, however. Not enough to make up for the years of no increase, but an increase. And it will be trumpeted to the skies, so that people don't get time to think about what isn't being done.

Remember: you read it here first.

[Katzenjammer]

97. And as an example...

During the campaign, the Democrats had promised that they would reform the drug bill to allow Medicare to offer its own drug plan. On NPR this morning, it was reported that the Democrats now are just planning to remove the gratuitous clause prohibiting Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug industry, while not allowing Medicare to offer its own plan.

[Imagevision]

95. Without the required 60 votes needed for impeachment? Bush is going nowhere...

[Individualist]

101. The House impeaches with a simple majority, the Senate convicts

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=sh...

[Ellipsis]

96. kick