Only Impeachment. Only Impeachment...

[Senator]

Only Impeachment...

...can even begin to set America back on the path of truth and light. We all know it's true.

And even that must be followed by "harder things" -- like consensus about the reality of the 2 Stolen Elections, full prosecution of any and all war criminals and crimes, reversal of every act and appointment of the never-elected, never-legitimate regime possible, making public amends and reparations for non-reversible acts.

Anything less is simply shuffling along in dishonesty and disgrace -- sweeping ever more dirt under the same, now tattered, rug -- refusing to take the first of the "12 Steps" to recovery and possible redemption.

Only Impeachment can be our first step on the path back to honesty.

It is far easier to defend a great nation from those who would attack it than it is to rescue a once-great nation from a pit of its own creation -- especially while it insists on continuing to dig. Yes it is a dark pit -- but it only gets deeper and darker with each passing day.

I see the best of my fellows refusing to even put our core problems on the table -- obsessing over tip sheets for the next horserace in '08 -- elbowing each other for the opportunity to have their laundry list of wishes be the wallpaper that merely covers the cracks in our foundation.

Only Impeachment can reawaken the nation to the reality of the here and now.

Our Euphemedia has given up describing reality for the more lucrative and leisurely profession of covering political celebrities. Gossip passes for narrative, speculation passes for analysis, and complaint/argument passes for reasoned debate. No wonder the chattering class has been dumbed down far below the public -- who at least has the word-of-mouth of the internet to embrace. No wonder they're continually surprised by poll results.

Only Impeachment can return media attention to substantive acts by substantive actors.

America is now literally a War Criminal Nation and one that spies on its own citizens -- citizens who have had their sovereign power set aside by "Stalinist Elections." We are now worse than either Nazi Germany or The Evil Empire because we have combined the worst elements of both. What did our "Greatest Generation" fight and die for then? Or our Founders for that matter?

Only Impeachment can restore the Legacy of Virtue of which we are mere stewards.

As stewards we cannot escape the hard work necessary. There are no half measures, or back doors, or easy access strategies for coming to terms with what must be done. We must be strict with ourselves and our fellows in banishing even a modicum of pretense, inattention, and non-productive endeavor.

Because sadly, those types of failures are the hallmarks of our current national character. They are the proximate causes of our current condition. They have led to a state of affairs where The American People can be held morally liable. They can be reasonably charged with arrogance, with subjugation, with depraved indifference.

Only Impeachment can get the American People off the hook for that which they never gave consent.

This is not a dream, nor is a time for dreamers. We cannot save, feed, or grant peace to the World -- nor is that our duty. We can only put our own house back in order. Then hope to be forgiven and allowed to resume our role as a force for good. Someday.

I don't know if America -- the idea of it -- can survive this condition. I hope it can. And I hope enough of us still have hope.

Only Impeachment can restore that hope in those who have lost it.

But hope is useless without action. And only Impeachment is a word of action. Investigation of is a word of of uncertainty. Strategy is a word of thought. Persuation is a word of manipulation. Only Impeachment Acts.

Only Impeachment.

--

[mike_c]

1. followed by indictment, conviction, and imprisonment....

Preferably at The Hague.

[Patsy Stone]

8. Hear, hear!

[TahitiNut]

12. Rinse. Repeat. (Ubetcha!)

[frankly_fedup2]

74. Only if hanging within 30 days is an option (nt)

[Gregorian]

2. "reversal of every act and appointment"

I applaud this post so hard my hands are bleeding. This is exactly the same wording that I have been saying to myself for the longest time. I didn't dare speak it publicly for fear of criticism.


I totally and completely agree and recommend this.


PS- Are you really a senator? Come on, tell us!

[Senator]

7. Sorry, not a "real" Senator

Though I think we'd all be a lot better off if an actual Senator did spend some time here at DU.

--

[chknltl]

88. Ding Ding Ding WINNER WINNER Ding Ding Ding

Next to impeachment this is the best idea I have heard in a long time! I know for a fact that there are Senators out there who are desperate for a microphone to the people! I know for a fact that the members of DU would love a little one on one with our Representatives. Sounds like a match made in heaven to me. Why couldn't we have the occasional scheduled event where a guest speaker comes here, posts a speech and answers a few of our questions?

btw great post and I agree, impeachment is the best first step to getting our planet back on the road to recovery.

[Golden Raisin]

3. Bravo! Bravo!

Now we need to get Pelosi to put it back on the table.

[MazeRat7]

4. Do you actually believe that ?

Wow...

MZr7

[Senator]

15. Of course

I don't see any other way to redeem ourselves -- to each other, to the world, to our ancestors, and most importantly to our children.

It's the only way to even begin. To admit that we have that big a problem.

--

[Irreverend IX]

132. You're welcome to join the reality-based community any time you like.

Tell me, honestly, how you expect the American people and media to react to impeachment proceedings. Keep in mind that no major scandal involving Dubya has aired in the national media and average Americans know much less about Bush's corruption than we do. Impeachment will tie up Congress and prevent any real progress from being made on things like stopping the Iraq war, raising minimum wage, strengthening workers' protections and other issues that actually motivated people to vote for Democrats. And keep in mind that impeachment will NOT send Bush to prison, the Hague, or anywhere but out of office. There'll be plenty of time to bring him up on criminal charges after he leaves and the incoming president gets access to all his records. But I'd like to hear a coherent argument as to why an impeachment effort would inspire Joe Sixpack to vote for Democrats.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Got to to, got to go n/t

[Raskolnik]

6. Only impeachment can give us President Cheney

And only impeachment can give us an incumbent Republican Vice-President running for President in 2008.

[Senator]

11. Even if that were not even more unlikely than impeachment itself

We need to stop basing our actions on such fears.

But there is no practical way to impeach only one or the other of them. And nothing to stop the impeachment of both. Either concurrently or one at a time.

It only requires the will of our "leadership."

--

[Raskolnik]

26. Unlikely? Who do you think becomes President if Bush is removed?

Dick Cheney. There is 0% chance that both Bush and Cheney can be impeached before 2008. That means that if the Democrats impeach either Bush or Cheney, they are handing the Republicans a chance to run an incumbent in 2008. That would not be beneficial to the country.

That's not basing an action on fear, that's basing an action on common sense.

[pat_k]

33. "There is 0% chance. . .

. . . that both Bush and Cheney can be impeached."

Most people on "our side" (anti-fascists, Democrats, progressives, liberals, whatever label you like) pride themselves on being rational and realistic, but it is NOT rational to believe we are omniscient.

Outcomes are never assured until events are behind us. There are many stages, composed of innumerable actions. The possibilities are infinite.

All too often, I hear people on "our side" declare action to be futile in one breath, and then, after telling others not to act because it's hopeless, they castigate "the public" for their apathy and inaction -- inaction they nearly guaranteed with their self-defeating prophesies.

To see the real possibilities before us, we must resist predictions of futility, declare the BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals), and then focus on achieving the step on the road that is immediately before us. Whether or not we achieve the ultimate goal, there are ALWAYS benefits and victories along the way.

Conventional wisdom assured us (even mockingly) that we would never get a Senator to stand up and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th. No mainstream good government entity even considered fighting to make it happen. They were too busy whipping themselves for losing, when Kerry had in fact won. Citizen lobbyists took up the fight. Mainstream folks didn't jump on board until it was clear that the effort itself was energizing people in a way they might well capitalize on.

Had those mainstream groups allowed themselves to be open to the possibility and acted sooner, who knows? We might have inaugurated President Kerry on January 20th, 2005. And acting "sooner" could have been as early as December 12, 2000. Who knows? We might have inaugurated President Gore on January 20th, 2001.

There are so many other examples.

Suppose Mr. Peabody with his "wayback" (WABAC) machine could take the DC Dems back to one of the countless critical junctures in our history and show them how our collective destiny would be changed if leaders had chosen the heroes path instead of the "safe" path or the path of least resistance.

Suppose we could go all the way back to when we established the Constitution for the United States of America.

What if. . .

those who claimed to oppose slavery drew a line in the sand and unequivocally rejected any "compromise" that would allow their fellow human beings to be enslaved within the borders of our fledgling nation?

Or, if our "way back" machine could only give us a "do over" on more recent events,

what if. . .

instead of being derelict in their duty to defend the Constitution against Reagan's abuses, Congress had taken up the Articles of Impeachment introduced by Representative Henry B. Gonzalez in March 1987 and impeached Reagan for Iran Contra?

Or what if. . .

instead of submitting to the treasonous Bush v. Gore edict and thereby betraying their Constitutional duty to "preseve the Government" (see tag line), they had:

1. Introduced resolutions to impeach Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Conner, and Kennedy acting as "a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law." (None Dare Call it Treason);


2. Declared that
   
   
   • the principle of consent demands that the State of Florida give Floridians confidence in their election by counting every vote,
   
   
   • to allow the state the time required to provide a believable election, Congress could accept their electoral votes if those votes were conveyed to Congress by January 6th;
   
   
   • if the State of Florida failed in it's duty by allowing cynical misuse of the courts and legal technicality to obscure the will of the voters, Congress had a duty to reject their electors on January 6th, 2001.

Or what if. . .

more members of Congress had heeded Senator Byrd's warning (below) and fought tooth and nail against Bush's Authorization to Military Force?

. . .the abdication by Congress of its constitutional power to declare war is a dangerous step toward a government in which one man holds in his hands the power to use the world's most powerful military force in whatever manner he chooses, whenever and wherever he perceives a threat against national security. and refused to abdicate their power to drawn a line in the sand and fought tooth and nail against Bush's Authorization to Use Military Force.

In the world as we know it, we cannot take our leaders back and show them the path not taken. But perhaps we can take them on a hypothetical "trip" to take a hard look at the rationalizations and fears that have stopped leaders from standing and fighting in the past, and compare the feared consequences of the time with the very real and dire consequences that resulted when fear lead to half-measures, empty gestures, and appeasement.

It is time to stand up and fight the good fights on principle. Even when we don't think anything will work, we must figure out some way to get one step closer and do what we can to get there.

The step before us now is to fight for the principle of consent by impeaching Bush and Cheney and demanding believable elections. As we do that, we can publicly declare our more distant goals (like turning them over to The Hague; like impeaching the members of the court who abused the power entrusted to them; like seeking to undo their illegitimate actions).

[Raskolnik]

36. 0% chance

Q: How many votes for conviction will it be possible to get in the next Senate?
A: 51

Q: How many votes in the senate are needed for removal?
A: 66

Q: How much chance is there to remove either Bush or Cheney from office?
A: 0%

[pat_k]

39. Can't know how many will choose to defend the indefensible until. . .

. . .the accusation is "on the table." At that point, every Member of the House must choose: defend, stay mute, or join the accusers.

The ONLY way to find out how many, or how few, will actually attempt to defend the indefensible is to accuse; to impeach.

IF it gets to the Senate (and there is reason to believe it won't even get there) there are many reasons to believe that those willing to "stand up for Bush" will be too few.

From http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12

Republicans are likely to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy."

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements to nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

Bush and Cheney are an albatross that many Republicans would be happy to get rid of.

Whatever our fears or hopes, defending the Constitution against the destruction requires demands that we fight to remove the destroyers. The Congressional oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend." They have a choice: Duty or Dereliction. Those who choose Duty will be in the right side of history, win or lose.

[Raskolnik]

40. No, we really *can* know.

The "R" next to a Senator's name let's us know with a very high degree of certainty.

0% chance of success.

[pat_k]

41. Q: Are humans omniscient? A: No

Q: When we claim to "know" an outcome, are we irrationally asserting that we are omniscient?
A: Yes.

[Raskolnik]

45. The sun will come up tomorrow, kittens will remain adorable

And there is no chance of getting enough votes in the senate to remove either Bush or Cheney (let along both) from office.

These statements are not claims of omniscience, they are merely very, very safe bets based on all the available evidence.

[pat_k]

47. Predictions on scientific theory don't require omniscience. . .

. . . "knowing" the outcome of human events does.

[Raskolnik]

54. Applying common sense, logic, and past experience is not claiming "omniscience"

And in my opinion, when logic, common sense, and past experience are applied, there is no chance of removing Bush or Cheney from office.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. No; Republican lawmakers want to appeal to Republican voters most.

Breaking ranks and supporting the impeachment of a Republican president would be political suicide for a Republican senator - they'd be branded a traitor, and they'd never make it through their next primary. This would be even truer if they voted to impeach without having previously supported it, so anyone who was going to do so would publicise that there was at least a possibility of it before hand, so the claim that we can't know whether they will or not until it comes to a vote is simply false.

Moreover, a succesful impeachment of Bush would be an admission by the Republicans that they as a party had massively screwed up; it would tarnish every one of them. They're far, far better of trying to make the best of a bad job and defend Bush's and their legacy until it stops being an issue - remember that 45% of the electorate voted for them even now.

We can, and do, know that the Republicans will (or rather would, because thankfully the Democratic leadership have better sense than most DUers) not break ranks to support impeachment.

[H2O Man]

59. Actually you are very wrong.

One need only look to the one case in recent history of a republican president in a similar situation. At first, republicans were supportive of Nixon. Once the process got underway, they turned on him. It's interesting that the only example we have proves you wrong.

More, your position demands speculation that ignores all evidence. The "bump-on-a-log" theory only makes sense to those who refuse to recognize that change is inevitable. If your "theory" were correct, then President Bush and Vice President Cheney would have the same high polling among republicans and others that they had a few years ago. The war in Iraq would still be popular. There are fewer and fewer sticks in the mud who don't grasp that the tides have turned.

[GOTV]

63. Nixon was not impeached.

So no impeachment is necessary to get Republican Senators to turn.

Nixon proves that.

So, go get your 67 Senators, then talk impeachment.

It worked against Nixon.

[conscious evolution]

75. Once the investigations start

once the truth is revealed,once bushco are exposed for what they are,what they REALLY stand for and what they have done to this country and tto the world at large there will be no problem getting 67 votes.It will be political suicide for anyone who opposes it.
Even the brainwashed sheeple freepers will be caqlling for his haed on a pike.

Once the investigations start.

[GOTV]

119. Perhaps. I hope so. But you're right that investigations, not impeachment, is the first step.

[H2O Man]

76. Clown. n/t

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

80. I call Bullshit

Nixon wasn't guilty of any crimes as serious as those of Bush and Cheney.

He resigned because there were about 70 or more Senators ready to vote for his impeachment.

Just start the fucking investigations before you weenie out.

If we have thorough, honest investigations by Conyers and Company, impeachment is inevitable. Republican senators will vote to remove him to save their political skins if for no other reason.

[GOTV]

57. No, it requires 67 Senators willing to convict... name them.

If you can't we're not ready for impeachment.

I am definitely against doing only half of the job.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

81. Just start investigating. 67 will appear

Just like Nixon.

Read a history book once in a while.

[GOTV]

120. I think you're right. Investigations are where we start. Not impeachment.

[Maraya1969]

21. So let him run. WHO is going to vote for him?

[Raskolnik]

24. You want to run against an incumbent in '08?

Cheney would become President if there were an impeachment. Republicans would put their front-runner in as Vice-President. Democrats would then have to run against an incumbent.

[Patchuli]

83. What makes you so sure

that Cheney wouldn't go along with * since they are *both* complicit in lying us into war? (Among other things...) I was young at the time but I remember both Agnew and Nixon stepping down. If * goes for war crimes, Deadeye is right there with him.

[Lowell]

35. So what

Cheney's approval rating is even lower than *. He might be an incumbant, but he'd have no chance to be nominated, much less elected.

[Raskolnik]

37. You misunderstand.

If Bush is removed from office, Cheney would become President (a wonderful scenario, no?). He would be able to choose his own VP, who would inevitably become (or already be) the Republican front-runner for President in 2008.

[chknltl]

89. Not to worry...

Any impeachment process which brings down bush will also bring down the dick...those two are joined at the hip and will share fates. Interim President Pelosi has a nice ring to it though.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Only Impeachment, Indeed!

Bravo!

[leftofthedial]

10. fialure to pursue impeachment

is complicity IMHO

[Fridays Child]

13. k/r

[pat_k]

14. Kick and Rec!! Only impeachment can break their bonds of complicity

It is time. It has been time for years.

Unlike Watergate, there is no cover up to uncover. Bush and Cheney are violating Geneva and conducting their criminal surveillance program in plain sight.

When an accusation is "on the table," every Member of the House must choose: defend, stay mute, or join the accusers.

The ONLY way to find out how many, or how few, will actually attempt to defend the indefensible is to accuse; to impeach.

Articles of Impeachment: "You just write them on a piece of paper"
. . .

Silence is complicity. . .

Any Member of Congress can break their own bonds of complicity by writing Articles of Impeachment on a piece of paper and introducing the resolution. They can offer their colleagues the opportunity to do the same by co-sponsoring.

Some Democrats are claiming that the leadership's continued silence and complicity is necessary -- that they must "set the stage" that they must continue to investigate and dig (never divulging what more they could possibly need, or what offenses could possibly be more egregious than those that are already proven).

Strangely, each and every one of these complicated and multistage plans comes to a common conclusion -- i.e., keep the leadership's self-imposed "impeachment is off limits" edict in place.

It reminds me of Bush v. Gore -- a conclusion (Bush must win) in search of a rationale (complex and indefensible opinion).

Any proposed plan or process or strategy that does not challenge each and every member to "go public" is a morally indefensible justification for staying on the path of complicity -- a path the Congressional leadership just "happens" to be on.

I have no doubt that if the "conclusion" changed and the leadership introduced articles of impeachment, all those rationales for silence would be dropped like hot potatoes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Oh Cool! Another 'Think Exactly As I Do Or You're Pond Scum' Thread!

Just what we need round these parts!

More narrow-minded closed conversation non-starters! Alright!

[Ani Yun Wiya]

20. A couple of questions for ya...

Do you doubt that the actions of this Administration are worthy of impeachment as a bare minimum?
Do you doubt that the actions of this Administration are worthy of criminal proceedings?
Do you doubt that the actions of this Administration are worthy of actions against it in the Hague?


If not, then why do you doubt that strong action must be taken, and the sooner the better?

America remains in the dirt until * and his criminal crew are removed and jailed.

[GOTV]

58. But you're not for strong action are you? You are for impeachment...

... which is just shooting guns in the air until you have 67 Senators ready to convict.

If you want strong action, build the popular support that will force 67 Senators to convict.

Don't talk about impeachment - talk about Bush's crimes.

I come to bury caesar... and all that. You know?

> America remains in the dirt until * and his criminal crew are removed and jailed.

You realize impeachment neither removes nor jails Bush right?

[omega minimo]

69. "for impeachment which is just shooting guns in the air until you have 67 Senators ready to convict"

This is the sort of post that seems (seems) to show confusion about impeachment and stumble over the word without understanding the process.

"If you want strong action, build the popular support that will force 67 Senators to convict."

"Don't talk about impeachment - talk about Bush's crimes."

These statements just obstruct what we agree on-- and pretend that the word impeachment presents a roadblock of some sort. As if "talking about Bush's crimes" is different from the process that may lead to impeachment.

This is just shooting yourself in the foot.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

85. Impeachment is where strong action merely begins.

And should end in a great many in orange jumpsuits and shackles.

The offenses, crimes and violations are known.
Investigations continue.

Impeachment just gets the ball rolling.
After hearings do you really think conviction and removal are impossible?

[GOTV]

122. No, the real work starts before impeachment.

> After hearings do you really think conviction and removal are impossible?

No, but they are less likely since few in this thread are willing to do their homework and want to run right to the impeachment party.

You want impeachment? Then line up your 67 Senators willing to convict.
You don't have 67 Senators? Then work on getting the people to push their Senators.
The people don't support impeachment in large enough numbers? Then you need to convince them with new information.
You don't have new information? Then you need investigations.

That's where the hard work starts.

Impeachment is where the hard work ends - if you want to be successful.

[cali]

60. Yep.

More of the same smug self-righteou pontificating, replete with the delusion that the U.S. was once this shining beacon, and that the only way to restore it is to do as I say.

[omega minimo]

70. That is truly sad.

[Swamp Rat]

17. k&r

[OneBlueSky]

18. the overriding problem we face is that our crises are so severe that . . .

nothing but radical approaches will create even the possibility of real solutions . . . not only impeachment, but a thorough re-thinking of corporate capitalism as it exists today, and reclaiming citizen authority over corporations . . .

also universal healthcare, a return to progressive taxation, a commitment to world peace, abandonment of "free trade" in favor of fair trade, penalties for corporations moving jobs offshore to pay less for labor, and a whole bunch of other things that until recently would have seemed thoroughly radical . . .

but now they're absolutely essential if we want to even make a dent in the mess that BushCo and their corporate partners have created -- not only here, but all over the planet . . . band-aids will only prolong the problems and allow them to worsen -- and quite likely become permanently unsolvable (this is particularly true when it comes to the environment and global warming) . . .

[pat_k]

29. We reclaim our authority over Corps by reclaiming our sovereignty thru impeachment.

. . .not only impeachment, but a thorough re-thinking of corporate capitalism as it exists today, and reclaiming citizen authority over corporations . . .

You are absolutely right. We must reclaim "citizen authority over corporations" but I don't think we need to do much "rethinking" to do it.

WE created corporate entities solely to participate in, and profit from, the "market." They are entities created under the rules that "We the People" lay down to serve a purpose within the structure of our economy. Reclaiming our authority over corporations is simply a matter of reclaiming our authority over our government -- the institutions we established to turn our collective will into reality.

Step One is to challenge the beliefs that keep so many of us on the sidelines.

Breaking down the barriers to citizen action can transform the landscape in ways we can't imagine.

The biggest barriers are not "Out There" somewhere. The biggest barriers to action are in our own heads.

A vast majority of Americans believe that "politics in not for people like me," "corporations have all the power," "there's nothing I can do," and similar dysfunctional and self-defeating beliefs.

When so many believe they are powerless to shape their government, it is not surprising that the public often appears to be willfully ignorant of the dire problems we face as a nation -- people always look away from pain and "unpleasantness" they can't do anything about.

The nation has been trapped a vicious cycle of hopelessness and immobility that cuts us off from even trying to figure out how we can exert our power to see that our will is done.

That vicious cycle turns around when people see ways they CAN participate; ways that are within their reach; ways that other "people like me" are exerting their power.

Impeachment is all about re-connecting to the power of "We the People" in our constitutional democracy. It is about saying NO to tyrants (whether they be tyrants who torture in our name, or tyrants who declare impeachment of the torturers is "off the table").

The president and vice pres and members of Congress are all elected officials who are DIRECTLY answerable to us. We ARE the government. Impeachment is how we assert our power and prove our authority.

Impeachment directly challenges the self-defeating beliefs. Impeachment says "We have the power" and "there's something I can do" and "We have a place in politics"

The people we elect to serve us are contemptuously refusing to hear the public's outrage, accusations, and demands for impeachment. In the face of that contempt we can express our outrage and demand to be heard, or we can fall victim to immobilizing messages like "impeachment will never happen" and, yet again, feed the belief in our powerlessness.

The fight for impeachment, win or lose, is engaging people in ways they've never been engaged. It provides a concrete example of HOW we as individuals, and as a nation, can assert our will.

It is through confidence/faith in our power, and the group and individual actions that are born of that confidence/faith, that we connect with each other and reclaim our authority.

It all comes back to Impeachment.

Only Impeachment.

----------------------

For those who don't think ordinary people can compete with the interests of the powerful and solve our common problems, consider the following:

• A vast majority of us have a common vision of what a True America should be. There are countless things that at least 75% of us are in 100% agreement on:
  • We want Americans to have their promised retirement income, but we are having our retirements stolen from us.
  • We want Americans to have a right to see a doctor, but that right is denied to hundreds of thousands more each year.
  • We want every American child to be offered a quality education, but there is NO comparison between the overcrowded, chaotic educational environment offered to children who live in working class neighborhoods and the higher standard of public education offered to children in upper middle class and wealthy neighborhoods.
  • The list goes on and on. . .


• As we fight for impeachment and challenge the rationalizations that are immobilizing our leaders, we are challenging the dysfunctional beliefs that are keeping Us out of the fight for ALL the things they want.


• There are approximately 65 registered lobbyists per Congressman. A few of them are lobbying for the interests of ordinary Americans (unions, associations, election reform groups, etc.) but a vast majority are lobbying for government action that increases the short-term bottom line for greedy CEOs.)


• A lobbyist must register if they spend 20% or more of their time on lobbying activities (includes research, preparing materials, and so on). Assuming the average is 20 hours per week, about 10,000 "professional" hours per week are spent to represent all the competing interests of oil, pharma, health care, banking, HMOs, insurance, wall street, airlines, auto industry, etc.


• There are about 220,000,000 voting age Americans -- about 500,000 per Congressional District.


• If 1 in 100 spent 2 hours per week to lobby for the things that the people of the district want, they'd match the 10,000 hours spent by all the various industries combined.


• If 1 in 100 contributed 10 dollars a month, the people of the district would have 1.2 million to build the infrastructure necessary to help the various communities in the district to make the things they want a reality.

Related topic

The Big Lie -- Equating Associations of People with Corporate Industry

[Bullwinkle925]

19. Very eloquently stated.

I hunger for justice. I hope to live long enough to see it.
Thanks for your post.

[H2O Man]

22. There does not appear

to be any other "recommendation" made in the Constitution that better fits the problems of today. It offers the best hope for ending the war in Iraq, too.

[rosesaylavee]

23. Agreed. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. Impeach. Indict. Imprison........

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Not going to happen when people like Conyers and Kucinich oppose it

[Senator]

56. Perhaps, but opposition can be dropped in an instant

And as for the "not going to happen" rationalization, please see my post #49 below.

(Sorry, I should have probably responded to your post prior to the later one.)

--

[seize the time]

28. Thank God for one brave lady...

Cynthia McKinney is NOT backing down and it's STILL ON THE TABLE as far as she's concerned. Seriously, Rep. Pelosi and Rep. Conyers need to grow a spine and proceed with what the voters elected them to do!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Face the facts: impeachment is not a possibility.

No matter how loudly you demand it, the Democrats are not going to be able to cast more that 51 votes in favour of impeachment in the Senate.

The decision they have to make is *not* "whether or not to impeach Bush", it's "whether or not to open impeachment procedings against Bush".

If they *do* open such procedings, it's completely inevitable that they will fail - there is no possibility whatsoever of 16 Republicans turning on their own party and being willing to fight the next election with the label of "traitor" tied around their neck - remember that the people Republicans care most about attracting support from are Republicans.

Calling for impeachment from the Democrats is like a child screaming at its parents "you MUST make it stop raining" - it won't do any good, and it will make people take you less seriously on other issues.

[nam78_two]

32. I agree with you

I too often wonder why people don't listen more respectfully to me, when I talk down to them and condescendingly address them as "hysterical children who use hyperbole and whine" and so on ? You would think they would be more open-minded if I am really slighting and obnoxious over and over and over again right ? Thats human nature right? We tend to open our minds to people who treat us like we are ignorant idiots don't we?

I sometimes do think that there is a possibility that if I were to try to have actual discourse with people who have opposing view-points, instead of talking to them as though they are drooling idiots, they might be able to see some of the points I am making and we could find some common ground, but the urge to show off my superior knowledge, pragmatism etc.,gets in the way of my desire to actually find a solution to any of this.

[Patchuli]

87. Thank you!!

[pat_k]

43. See Reply #39

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

[omega minimo]

48. you are repeating opinions as fact that were challenged elsewhere and unanswered by you

repeating it doesn't make it true. rather tantrum-like really.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. I can only explain the back so many layers.

I've gone back another layer in post 50, but frankly "the Republicans will not break ranks to impeach Bush" is sufficiently obvious that I'm surpised it *needs* any explanation, any more than "the Republicans are not going to resign en masse and hand the country over to the Democrats" - it would be wonderful if the Republican party did decide to commit political suicide and implode, which turning on Bush would be, but we can't expect them to see it that way.

[omega minimo]

52. Your faith-based negative prognosticating has no guarantee of coming true

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

No one knows what will happen, no one knows how many votes there will be, no one knows how many Republicans will wake up with some integrity (that tide has already started to shift)-- John Dean has commented on the surprises in store during this process (no one knew about the Nixon Tapes ahead of time) if you care to check the links in the OP.

Impeachment occurs in the House. A trial occurs in the Senate. Removal from office is not "impeachment."

Strategery and strategerists hand over responsiblity and integrity for their actions by saying "ach, tis gonna 'appen anyway, why raise a ruckus, such a bother 'n all." The logic of basing decisions on what one pretends is an inevitable outcome is rather childish and silly, isn't it? Life doesn't work like that. We are talking about a PROCESS here. No one knows how it will turn out but it is necessary.

None of this can you possibly know for sure. It is opinion and soothsaying-- maybe right, maybe wrong:

*The Democrats do not, and will not until 2009 at the earliest, have the option of impeaching Bush.
*They have the option of opening impeachment procedings, but there is no chance whatsoever of enough Republicans breaking ranks for them to succeed.
*Impeachment procedings would do no good whatsoever, and a great deal of harm
*they'd hand the 2008 elections to the Republicans on a plate.



Like your post, others have painted the call for impeachment as childish. A comparison was made to a toddler throwing a tantrum for candy and a parent smugly withholding satisfaction--

This is more like the child trying to tell the parent there is a home invasion robbery occurring and a fire was set in the basement, while the smug parents are "stuffing your fingers in your ears and demanding that all the wicked" "children" stop begging for candy-colored, fantasy confections.


The refusal of some to look at the facts and engage in the process seems petulant. The "adults" here are aware of the history of non/impeachment over the past 40 years and much of the solid info provided in the OP links.

[rinsd]

53. LOL. Hey pot the kettle is calling

"you are repeating opinions as fact that were challenged elsewhere and unanswered by yourepeating it doesn't make it true. rather tantrum-like really"

[omega minimo]

55. please let us know when you have something to contribute beyond nonsense personal attacks.

[nam78_two]

31. I agree with you in theory

It seems like we might not have enough votes to pull that off though :-/...

However, its dispiriting to think that without drastic action of that sort, this same crew will be slinking back in like all the rats associated with Iran Contra are doing right now (How do people like Robert Gates, Ollie North etc. have any credibility left ? Its just amazing).

I think it might be worth trying and failing rather than going back to the same old same old. Worth trying not as some act of revenge etc. (as some seem to think), but because its time this corrupt cabal dating all the way back to Reagan (the new right) is rooted out of govt. once and for all. Does anyone want this network coming right back in 10 years?

Its such a pity that the books were closed on BCCI, Contragate etc. and I can see that happening very easily with Iraq and the rest of this mess as well :-/.
We need surgery, not a bandaid.

[noonwitch]

34. It's not going to happen

It's not even practical, at this point. Bush is a lame duck at this point and the time it would take to impeach him would be time that could be spent on other projects.

Unless there is some new situation, or new evidence of something really henious that can be proven, I don't see it happening. He will leave office in two years and hopefully, we'll have a democratic president to take his place.

[pat_k]

44. What could possibly more egregious than . .

. . .the war crimes committed in plain sight?

[Senator]

49. We've heard that before

But first, your assessment of "practicality" is really not justified by the facts.

Two things "really heinous" have already been "proven" in as much as they have been admitted to by the regime. On the matters of illegal spying, and more importantly Geneva violations (torture), they admit the acts but merely "defend" them with specious (to be kind, theoretical/rhetorical) claims of justification and/or lawful authority.

This means there is nothing to "investigate" and no "case to be made." It also means an impeachment on these charges would take far less time that even the Clinton farce (3 months). It could be done in days -- certainly not months.

But it's the "not going to happen" objection that is more troubling. (And I don't mean to single you out on this comment, as it is very prevalent among people on the left.)

This is not about "outcome" or even really about "punishing" the regime itself (let alone vengence). It's about our own self respect, our duty to stand against wrong doing, our moral obligation to defend the Constitution and the good name of the American People. We need to fight that battles that need fighting, not just the ones we think we can win.

Oh, and when we've "heard that before" was after the Second Stolen Election, when we were told by the vast majority of our friends tha "you'll never get a Senator" to join in the formal objection to the unlawful Ohio electors -- on January 6th, 2001. Well, we got one -- Senator Boxer stood up. And while it didn't result in President Kerry taking office, it did in fact (historically) "change the result" in that for the first time in over 100 years such an objection was recorded.

Merely a moral victory? Sure, if you like. But far better than nothing at all. And something to tell one's children about when they ask what you did to oppose the never-elected, never-legitimate, war criminal bush regime.

You see it's really about us, not about them.

--

[novalib]

38. Impeachment MUST Happen!!!!!!

Wonderful Post!!!

Impeachement MUST -- SIMPLY MUST -- HAPPEN!!!

The American People have spoken, and by refusing to hear what they said, * only makes the case STRONGER FOR IMPEACHMENT!!!!

IMPEACHMENT!!! NOW!!!

[Raskolnik]

46. What do you think will happen if Bush is impeached?

Give me your best-case scenario.

[porphyrian]

42. I'll kick that. - n/t

[Zhade]

61. No, silly. Everyone knows letting criminals slide so we can win in '08...

...is the right thing to do!



(You're right, of course.)

[Jim Sagle]

84. Why not - it's always worked before.

[Initech]

62. Once we unearth the true horrors of this administration...

then we can begin impeachment. I honestly dont think letting that insane maniac sit idly by is an option.

[GOTV]

66. You are correct to realize that there are steps that must precede impeachment

Luckily, the Dems in congress likewise realize that we are not prepared to make a successful case against the president.

[Patchuli]

86. And how do you know that for a fact?

I believe we are under Constitutional obligation to remove a criminal from office who is in a position to continue committing crimes. The VP in this case is also complicit so I don't see him slipping under the radar either. But I am really curious as to why you are so sure of what you state? I watched the fall of Tricky Dick and wonders never ceased back then.

[Senator]

68. They have been "unearthed"

When it comes to the war crimes and illegal spying they admit them but "defend" them.

There really is no reason not to impeach to try to stop the torture right now.

That is our duty under Geneva.

---

[Initech]

77. I honestly dont think everything has been revealed.

This administration has skeletons that have yet to be unearthed. I think once the hearings begin, it will unfold like the Nuremberg Trials. Or like after Stalin was killed and we saw the true horrors of Soviet Russia.

[Senator]

79. Plenty of time for more after we've removed the sharp knives

But we have more than enough to defend the nation from further damage and to stop the ongoing war crimes being committed in all our names.

--

[RestoreGore]

64. Eloquent and truthful

Thank you. America must see justice. Only impeachment can bring that to us.

[GOTV]

65. What can a non-impeached prez do that an impeached prez cannot?

Nothing. An impeached president has all the abilities of a non-impeached president.

An impeached president can break laws, ruin the economy, get soldiers killed, break treaties, deny rights, alienate allies and ignore the constitution for the full remainder of his term.

Yet, many feel they would be better off having an impeached president doing these things than a convicted president who is NOT able to do these things. And thus, the mad rush to an easy impeachment rather than do the hard work to set us up for a successful conviction.

[Senator]

71. Claim complicity/approval from and exoneration by...

... those who refuse to stand against his war crimes.

---

[omega minimo]

72. Ya mean like Reagan/Bush1 and Iran/Contra?..............

[GOTV]

121. No exoneration until acquittal...

... and no one claims others are complicit in crimes they will not acknowledge themselves.

"I didn't kill that guy and besides the Dems helped me do it!"

Come on. That just doesn't make sense.

[volstork]

67. Standing ovation! n/t

[mzmolly]

73. We need two thirds of the Senate to remove the Bushista from office.

Impeachment may not be much of an "act" without the investigations necessary to garner mass support?

[Senator]

91. No, not necessarily

The political reality is that it only takes a few GOP impeachers to render their option to "defend the indefensible" untenable. The "partisan witch hunt" mantra fades quickly. Once ranks are broken, it's pretty much every one for themselves.

Warner, McCain, and Graham have already stood publicly against the "War Criminals Protection Act." Collins stood with them, albeit without their more obvious gravitas. Arlen Specter has already publicly scoffed at the "defenses" offered to the illegal spying. Now we have Senator Smith saying the Iraq adventure may be "criminal" and Senator Hagel used the word "intolerable" about it today.

None of these people sound like they'd be too eager to defend the regime against war crime charges. Particularly since they've already been investigated and documented by the UN and even adjudicated by the USSC in Hamdan.

And beyond that, they and the rest have the future of their party to consider. Unlike our pessimists they see that impeachment already has the "massive support" of more than half the country. And that's completely on their own, in the face of direct opposition from "leadership" on the matter.

In fact, now with the snub of Baker/Hamilton and the "uh, oh" news from the Saudis, I think it may be more likely that the GOP will impeach bushcheney themselves rather than waiting for the DC Dems to find the backbone to do it. But they don't even need to impeach. They only need to help bushcheney "see the wisdom" of going quietly. The Dems will roll easily on approving moderate, caretaker Repubs to placehold until '08.

It may already be too late for the DC Dems, as the "off the table" comment was a slap in the face to a cautiously-hopeful electorate and a finally-energized Dem Party base. If they don't "get it" that this was about "get bush" and not about "get your lame wish list filled" it could easily be their/our Waterloo.

--

[mzmolly]

93. Your post denotes the NEED for formal investigations.

The political reality is that it only takes a few GOP impeachers to render their option to "defend the indefensible" untenable. The "partisan witch hunt" mantra fades quickly. Once ranks are broken, it's pretty much every one for themselves. Shedding a spotlight on the Bush criminal empire is a necessary step in this direction.

However, we'll still need two thirds of the Senate to remove * from office.

[Senator]

94. Not at all

The "spotlight" already exists outside of the US Euphemedia bubble. The UN has investigated and the USSC has ruled in Hamdan. The reality of the Hamdan ruling -- that 3 years of war crimes had already been committed -- was (as usual) avoided by the distraction of "tribunal tinkering talk."

As I said-- Warner, McCain, Graham, and Collins have already publicly refused to allow the Geneva violations (torture) to be put in their names. They changed the "War Criminals Protection Act" to keep the onus entirely on bushcheney.

If a single article of impeachment based on the war crimes were to be voted out of the House, those Senators could only oppose it by defending the WH and in effect (and quite literally) becoming war criminals themselves.

And as much of the rest of the GOP Senators defer to these military experts on such matters (particularly Graham as a former JAG officer), those 67 Senators may not be a particularly tall order at all. Right now. Today.

--

[mzmolly]

95. You've mentioned 4 Senators, now show me how we will gain the remaining 20

or so needed to remove Bush from office? The only way to burst the "euphoria bubble" is to shed a light so bright nobody can deny (or at least no more than a few.) In fact, we had a judicial ruling recently that bolstered Bush's "emergency interrogation" position.

We can't remove Bush from office without the overwhelming majority of Americans demanding such. Last I heard we had 51% of the public on board. I say if you want a feel good "show" let's impeach now. If you want something with a chance of ousting the cabal, we have to hold investigative hearings.

[omega minimo]

96. then INVESTIGATE, hold HEARINGS, then IMPEACH

what is this stupid non-argument even about?

[mzmolly]

99. Some don't like the "investigate" part. They feel it's unnecesary.

The OP has said as much.

[omega minimo]

100. Let's move on with what we agree on

[mzmolly]

104. I'll do that when others quit chastising the position that we need to hold

hearings and investigate.

[omega minimo]

111. We need to investigate/impeach Bushco and yer worried about being "chastised"?!

[mzmolly]

113. Oh puleeze.

I'm having a discussion about something the OP said, uhm - that's what we do here.

[Senator]

97. Well, you misstate the math and the objective

67 needed minus 51 Dems equals 16 remaining. Minus the 4 I mentioned leaves 12 (not 20). But as I said, other GOP Senators look to Warner/McCain/Graham as leaders on military/war crime matters. So it's certainly possible that another dozen would defer to what they've "already decided" about defending war crimes by the regime.

As to the objective, successfully "ousting" bushcheney is largely beside the point because this decision is about us, not them. Standing on principle to fight the battles that need fighting (not simply those you know you can win) is far more than a "feel good show." It's what their oaths of office demand that they do.

And not so incidently, failure to do so on the matter of war crimes is a war crime itself. Yes, inaction also has its own risks.

But it also does "feel good." Because it is good. It's also good strategy in that it garners long-term support for the display of moral courage. This one thing alone could reverse the decades-old perception of Dems as a weak and morally bankrupt party.

It might even be a death blow to the warped monster that the Republican party has become.

But only if we persuade them to do what they know is right.

--

[mzmolly]

98. I was speaking about REPUBLICAN Senators.

Obviously we have 51 Democrats, and we need 67 total with the four you noted, so we have about 16 to go. I said 20 to be safe as Democrats never agree about everything, and I was simply attempting to make a point.

However, ousting this cabal is not "beside the point," it IS the point. Unless one is only interested in "making a point?" Further, anything less than removal from office will be viewed as a dog and pony show, a political ploy, if you will and I'm not interested in a good show, I'm interested in an ethical, methodic, thorough investigation. I want to know everything, I want the public to know everything. I want the taste of Republican slime to be so bitter that this nation will never swallow their sh*t again.

By the way, I never suggested inaction, I suggested we need to investigate before we can proceed in the direction justice. And, it seems to me that regardless of the goal - "make a point" or "convict the bast*rds" investigations are the best avenue to proceed.

[omega minimo]

102. these negative assumptions so many are making are false, misleading and impossible to predict!!

Rather than:

"...anything less than removal from office will be viewed as a dog and pony show, a political ploy, if you will and I'm not interested in a good show, I'm interested in an ethical, methodic, thorough investigation."


Consider this:

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

[mzmolly]

103. I'm not opposed to impeachment.

I'm opposed to the idea that we should proceed without investigations.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

105. Thank You MzMolly For Your Defense Of Many Of Our's Position.

[mzmolly]

106. Awe shucks,

yer welcome! Thanks for the "thanks."

[omega minimo]

108. It is unecessary to keep arguing that sticking point against allies. Time to agree and act.

This fultile and unrealistic argument is divisive and unecessary.

[mzmolly]

109. Are you speaking to me or the person who said "we don't need to investigate?"

Read the OP in full, and get back to me ey?

I say in order to "act" we need to investigate, some wish to usurp that step while critiquing those who don't. Also, I resent your desire to lecture me, I'm responding to a post which belittled my position.

[omega minimo]

110. Are you aware of the investigations and articles of impeachment that already exist?

(note: I do not speak for Senator nor Senator for OM)

Did you look at the link I sent you, or the other threads with more info about impeachment than the DU circular firing sqaud bubble?

You're right. We NEED to investigate, via the Congress-- we need hearings, via the Congress. Others are right. Articles of Impeachment may be introduced and ALREADY HAVE BEEN at the local, State and Congressional level

It is ALSO TRUE (! ambiguity ! OMG ) that there have ALREADY been investigations, hearings, public forums, documentation, discussions on the Hill and bills of impeachment in various states,cities and by Congress members.

So-- it is arguable that A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT CAN BE MADE WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS and in fact That Has Already Happened!!!!! One might say: "We don't need investigations."

AND -- it is arguable that the Congress must act in its power to investigate, convene hearing and, if necessary, impeach those in this administration who have committed crimes against the nation. One might say: "We need investigations."

SO LET'S STOP ARGUING.

The arguments about which comes first the chicken or the egg are ridiculous to the extreme. People need to deal in reality and not these digitized word games. We need to go through the process-- whether articles of impeachment are drawn and presented (based on years of work as noted above) in the House, or Congressional investigations and hearings begin.

Sheesh.

Please look at the link-- it's quite interesting.

[mzmolly]

115. Of course I am. Uhm, I'm on John Conyers mailing list for one thing.

He alone has plenty of "documentation."

Also, I never said a case couldn't be made. The case HAS been made to people like you and me. However, you need to go back and read my posts, because you remain confused on my position and the position of others who share my view.

[omega minimo]

127. The arguments I've seen seem to be over word usage rather than concepts

most are in agreement on the points that matter and the arguments go in circles.

[mzmolly]

130. Not so.

I feel the discussion is important as Nancy Pelosi has said herself, she is not going to begin impeachment hearings in January. She said "let's see where the evidence takes us" - I agree.

[omega minimo]

131. Did you read my posts or the link at all?

[mzmolly]

134. Yep.

Have you read mine?

[Senator]

112. So was I -- and the math was wrong on them

But whatever the precise number is, it's not too remote a possibility that very few Senators would choose to become war criminals themselves. And that is the choice they'd be presented with. Just like the Clinton farce presented them with the choice of declaring that lying about nookie was somehow a high crime or misdemeanor. The Repubs broke rank on that as well.

But investigation is inaction. An impeachment hearing is not. It's just that simple. One gets on TV, the other only interests political junkies. The public learns very little, not that they want to know very much anyway, let alone the "everything" you imagine is still out there to discover.

Just remember that torture is ongoing while this search plods along.

--

[mzmolly]

116. Considering my point about the judiciary and people like Gonzalez

disagreeing with the war criminal charge, I don't think your position is "cut and dry." Further, investigating this administration (on the record) will make the evening news every night. And, when we hold hearings on impeachment, I want all the I's dotted and the T's crossed and damned near every American on the band wagon.

As for torture, that brings me to my point about priorities, we need to end this war, first and foremost.

[Senator]

118. It isn't "my" point on war crimes

It's the supreme court's ruling in Hamdan. And Gonzalez's defending the regime belongs in a Senate trial. Even he knows there's nothing else to investigate. They'll hear from him and Alberto Mora, then decide.

But you'll have to explain more about why torture must continue until the war is stopped.

--

[mzmolly]

129. Ah, the desperate strawman.

Who said torture must continue? Absurd.

It is apparent that war crimes were committed, and the supposed high level criminal and resident fall guy, "Rummy" just resigned.

What we need is testimony, under oath, that Bush authorized torture - which brings us back to ....... "hearings."

[Senator]

137. Yes, you used it

Who said the war must continue?

And no, there's no testimony needed. They admit the acts that violated Geneva. The duty to have prevented them is affirmative. Claimed ignorance of the actions of "fall guys" is not a defense.

But as they publicly admit and "defend" the actions, there is no accusation or confirmation required from co-conspirators to establish culpability. Cheney incriminated himself with a single word: "dunking."

The war crimes are way beyond "apparent." But it's good to see you moving from "investigations" to "hearings." Just add that dreaded I-word and we're in business. Go on, try it - "Impeachment Hearings" - see it's not so hard, is it?

The simple word is all we need. Only Impeachment.

--

[mzmolly]

138. No, I didn't use it, you did. You mentioned "torture" as if the fact that I don't

support your way of doing things means I support IT. Read the thread, you'll see who brought it up and in what context.

Further, "they" dismiss the Geneva Conventions as not related to "todays world of terrorism" and have judges that have backed them up in this regard. Also, your "hearings" versus "investigations" language is parsing words, and I'm certain you're aware of that? Hearings are the avenue in which the house/senate investigate. Does the term "Investigative hearings," sound familiar? If not, feel free to "familiarize" yourself here >>>

"The Dems' New Power: Investigative Hearings Done Right"

In addition, I suggest you read this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... for a perspective from John Dean.

I think we've beat this horse long enough and are talking in circles. I'm out unless you wish to continue?

[Senator]

139. No, "impeachment hearings" vs. "investigations" is not parsing

(And I said unwarranted delay allows torture, not supports it.)

But it's not parsing to use the word impeachment or not. If it were, it wouldn't be so hard to do, would it? It is the difference between acting and not acting. The difference between power and powerless.

I can understand why you feel this is talking in circles. In one sentence you admit that the regime dismisses the Geneva conventions, then claim there's something to investigate about that. There isn't. One can either act to stop them or become complicit with the acts that violate Geneva.

The parsing -- or rather rationalizng for inaction -- is claiming (mainly to oneself) that investigative hearings are something more than their entire history have demonstrated them to be. The public already knows all they want and need to know about the regime. They already support impeachment as a priority. There is no point to open-ended investigative hearings.

And the articles you link demonstrate that reality. One ends up asking its readers to try to figure out just what's supposed to be found out and Dean's article merely attempts to salvage some half measure of action out of his, perhaps sadly correct, assessment that all the investigative hearings in the world won't effect a spine transplant in the DC Dems.

--

[mzmolly]

141. Enter yet another straw-man. Who said "impeachment" hearings VS. investigations?"

I didn't, you did. You said we don't need to investigate. I said they should be part of the same process. Nancy Pelosi has said regarding impeachment "let's see where the investigations take us" and I agree. And currently, SHE is the "decider."

Further, you are the one who rationalizes inaction by suggesting we impeach with the intent to make a point. You said removal from office is really secondary and in your mind we should simply go through the process no matter the outcome. Though, you said it thusly > "As to the objective, successfully "ousting" bushcheney is largely beside the point because this decision is about us, not them."

Beside the point!? The end result matters not? THAT seems contrary to the pursuit of justice for a war criminal, no? Was that the attitude at Nuremberg? And you claim I'm talking in circles?

*In one sentence you admit that the regime dismisses the Geneva conventions, then claim that it doesn't matter if they face actual consequences for their crime. It does. One can either act to remove them and their minions from office and discourage future "Bush's" from similar crimes, or we can become complicit with - the acts that violate Geneva, the mass theft of American tax dollars, lying about the rationale for war, etc.

Also, this decision is not about "US," it's about justice for the people of Iraq as well as the United States.

You go ahead and promote the let's "go through the feel good motions" position, and I'll stick to the "justice demands real consequences" position.

[Senator]

142. No, Pelosi said "off the table"

And making the accusation is not "contrary to the pursuit of justice," it is the first step. Without it nothing else follows.

And yes, that was the "attitude" at Nuremberg. Those who failed to stop the atrocities, like Nazi judges (also self-described "deciders") were prosecuted for their complicity. That's how war crimes are treated. If we fail to do what we can to end it, we are complicit (accessories after the fact) and culpable as war criminals ourselves.

That's why it's "about us." We are not responsible for the final "outcome," but only the moral justification for our current action or failure to act. That's what justice requires. Which is why it's etched in stone on the (formerly) Supreme Courthouse: "Fiat iustitia, ruat caelum" (Let justice be done, though the heavens fall). Note the lack of concern for your "end result."

I'll will go ahead and promote duty to J'Accuse. You can stick to "someday, somehow" position.

---

[mzmolly]

144. Again, who said making the accusation is "contrary to the pursuit of justice?"

Apparently we are entering Straw-man # 4?

You are becoming both exhausting and illogical, which means we are done with this particular conversation.

Peace ~ in whatever you desire.

[Senator]

145. Apparently you didn't realize that you had

More's the pity. But then again you'd fit right in on a congressional staff.

Too often, I get the same responses from them.

--