Democrats were not elected to "Impeach" we were elected to change direction in Iraq

[mzmolly]

and at home. In fact Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and the same people bitching about that clear remark claim she was elected to Impeach?

"Impeachment now" will not remove Bush from office as we don't have the votes to send * packing. Yeah, it would be fun and all, and I'd applaud it, and I'd even make some popcorn to watch the hearings etc. but I know it would not result in anything tangible AT.THIS.TIME.

However, we ARE close to having enough votes to effectively end the war as Republicans can no longer deny the reality of the quagmire in Iraq, especially after a disastrous report this week on the lack of progress in Iraq after the "Hail Mary/surge."

So, the threats against Pelosi and sit ins at Conyers office by those who claim to wish to see an end to the war, are contrary to actually ending the war at this time IMHO.

If we see enough Republican support for Impeachment to oust *, I'll QUICKLY change my mind. But, until that time I'm not on board.

In this order.

1. End the war/set a deadline/cut funds
2. Investigate/air the laundry
3. Impeach

Sorry, that's my take at this time, but I'm not opposed to reasoned opinion on this.

[BuyingThyme]

1. How exactly do protests act contrary to ending the war again?

[mzmolly]

2. The protest is about impeachment, not ending the war. Or am I mistaken?

:shrug:

[BuyingThyme]

4. It's your post; you tell me.

[mzmolly]

12. "Sit in for impeachment" is the title of the flyer/press release.

So I'm gonna go with impeachment.

[BuyingThyme]

13. I don't know what you're referring to.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. You are mistaken. Her voters voted 60% to 40 % for impeachment!

Do you believe they were just kidding?

The Dem controlled congress public approval ratings have fallen from 46% to 23%. If you consider that succesful, then, hey, you should be in the political consultant business.

[mzmolly]

11. Her voters didn't listen to her?

Pity that. However, do you have the stats on the number of voters that wish to end the war?

As for the approval numbers, it's because of the war that we've sunk, but because we haven't impeached.

[John Q. Citizen]

55. It's the lack of change, period, and the cautious almost rabbit like approach to

both the war and impeachment.

Here's the real problem. The Dems don't want to unilaterally do anything. If they were to stop funding by not scheduling a vote, for instance, and then some event in Iraq turned bad they are afraid they would be blamed. Also, they calculate that if the war continues and bush and Chaney stay in office that it will help them in 08.

However, the genral public sees this timid and cynical approach as, well, timid and cynical, not exactly what people want in thier leaders. Hence the 23% approval ratings.

[mzmolly]

59. I think a continued presence in Iraq hurts Dems more than Republicans.

MUCH more.

[John Q. Citizen]

77. Yes, because the Dems control congress and people expect results. However,

the Dems aren't too excited about forcing results because should they go bad, they will be blamed exclusively.

If they would kust admit that the war/occupation is illegal and therfore funding the war/occupation is illegal and that that under the constitution they have no choice but to impeach they would do much better.

[mzmolly]

81. I don't think so John. It will go badly and it is going badly.

I think calling the war illegal will be lost on most Americans. However, I'm not opposed to legislation ending the authority for war.

[John Q. Citizen]

119. It's only lost when it isn't found, and I haven't found it many places in the

Dem Caucas.

[EFerrari]

111. Here in Nancy's district, we have passed resolutions to end the war

and to impeach. I don't know what could be clearer than that.

Nancy is in a difficult position but, imho, she's a little too attuned to the Beltway and a little to distant from her district. :(

[mzmolly]

126. Interesting to note.

Thanks for sharing. :hi:

I'm out for a bit. See ya soon Sfexpat.

[EFerrari]

131. See you, sweetie. We'll get through this flap.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

144. I think so too Sfexpat!

:hug:

[onenote]

48. she's one out of 435

I have no doubt that if a vote was forced on the issue that Pelosi would support the commencement of the impeachment inquiry. The reason she said it was "off the table" before the election was to neutralize any attempt by the repubs to rally their base by claiming that the Democrats were planning impeachment proceedings. In fact, as Pelosi (and anyone else paying attention, which should include folks here on DU), virtually no Democratic candidates for the House and Senate were advocating impeachment as part of their campaign platforms, so Pelosi was simply giving away ice in the wintertime to neutralize the issue.

Now that the Democrats are in control, having not campaigned for impeachment, there is understanably considerable reluctance on the part of a lot of members of the House to go down that road unless, as was the case in both the Clinton and Nixon impeachment situations, the vote to commence the process has at least a modicum of bi-partisan support.

It doesn't as yet, and therefore whether or not Pelosi's constituents support impeachment or not doesn't matter when it comes to deciding whether to schedule a vote -- Pelosi can and does count votes and she knows that her own caucus doesn't want to vote on this unless/until some repubs jump ship.

[LittleClarkie]

195. Well, when the stated objective is impeachment that means that the protest is not for ending the war

And in fact if Cindy doesn't react to the current vote to end the war I'm going to wonder why she's changed her focus from her stated objective to end the war, which no longer seems to interest her, to impeachment, which we don't have the votes for either.

And why do some consider the vote to end the war a "useless gesture" because we don't have the votes but they don't consider insisting on impeachment to be a "useless gesture" when there too we don't have the votes?

[ananda]

3. I didn't elect anybody to impeach..

.. I elected people to represent me and the majority
of my fellow Americans who want the USA to get out
of the ME.

However.. since Bushinc has committed so many high
crimes, and even treason.. and refuses to listen to the
people.. impeachment and conviction appear to be the
only option available to do the right thing by America
and Americans.

Impeach now!
Get out of the ME now!

Sue

[MrMickeysMom]

127. Neither did I

And the suggested list of what we should do shouldn't have an order to it.

The fact is, we elect legislators to represent the people and if we pay attention and have the means, we drive the discussion - if this leads to impeachment hears, then so be it.

These thins are not mutually exclusive and in no particular order!

[LittleClarkie]

196. That's fine, but when folks say the Dems were elected to impeach

well, I didn't notice that on anyone's position list in 2006.

It might be the focus of some of the people running in 2008 though, considering the speeches I heard at our state convention.

As for NOW, that word is becoming meaningless. It's easy to just shout NOW and not suggest how we will accomplish this NOW.

[Virginia Dare]

6. Agreed..

The Democrats have three choices as I see it, they can get bogged down in a year long partisan war over impeachment proceedings which would probably ultimately result in a complete shutdown of Congress somewhere along the line and most likely would be unsuccessful, or they can continue to work on putting together a bipartisan veto proof coalition to set deadlines for troop withdrawals, thus taking any control the chimp has over the war.

Third, if they are unsuccessful at putting this coalition together (which I don't think will happen), I believe we will see the funds cut during the next session.

[mzmolly]

41. Agree fully.

Thanks again Virginia Dare! :hi:

[OzarkDem]

7. Little left to do

My party's leaders in Congress have done a poor job on #1 and #3.

Do they plan to just sit back and twiddle their thumbs until 2008? Sorry, that's not leadership, its not even good political strategy. Jeez, I've seen city councils come up with better legislative strategies.

But hey, that's DC Dems for you.

[damntexdem]

8. Congresspersons are not elected to impeach. But they are elected to do their duty.

That includes impeaching when there is evidence of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Pelosi and company are not doing their duty.

[mzmolly]

20. "Evidence" is subjective to the jury.

A portion of the jury is currently tainted.

[John Q. Citizen]

That's about the worst defense of the Dems I can think of. "Well, uh, we know that

crimes have been committed, but because others fail to acknoweldge it we are just going to take impeachment off the table" isn't doing your duty. It's capitulating to corruption.

[mzmolly]

82. I never suggested we ignore crimes.

However we do need half of the Senate Republicans to remove Bush regardless. And, as you know the word "crime" is relative. Bill Clinton is referred to as a criminal in some circles.

[John Q. Citizen]

89. We don't need to remove anybody. We need to put impeachment on the table.

We need to move to impeach, which means public hearings, public criminal hearings, which aren't subject to claims of exec. privledge.

If the Repos in the Senate won't do their duty, fine. The voters can and will vote them out.

The same will happen to the Dems if they fail to do their duty. 23%

[mzmolly]

91. I agree, which is why I listed impeachment as # 3 in my OP.

I just want the troops (effectively) home first.

[atreides1]

9. This is funny

"However, we ARE close to having enough votes to effectively end the war as Republicans can no longer deny the reality of the quagmire in Iraq, especially after a disasterous report this week on the lack of progress in Iraq after the "Hail Mary/surge."

And where are those votes going to come from? Yesterday the die hards along with the traitor Lieberman voted against a bill that would have given time to troops returning home to train and to spend time with their families. Yes 7 Republicans crossed over and voted with the Democrats, but 6 of those 7 are up for re-election next year.

Do you mean the report that Bush just revamped this morning? Who do you think those die hard Republicans in congress are going to believe, the truth or the man they support?

Even if General Petraeus reports in September that the surge isn't working, the die hard supporters of this administration will still support Bush.

As far as cutting the funding, I believe they tried that approach, it didn't work, and it won't work this time either.

Any attack on this administration has to be multiple, not just from one direction, they have shown that they can handle single objective assaults, but when they are hit from different sides at the same time they are not as fast on their feet and it will force them to make a mistake.

[mzmolly]

16. "And where are those votes going to come from?"

Republican dissent which is happening. Two more sharks jumped ship this week.

A troop rest is not the same as a troop funding bill. Republicans are tired of funding this war, and they're saying so. They dont like to "spend" you know.

Even if General Petraeus reports in September that the surge isn't working, the die hard supporters of this administration will still support Bush.

The die hards are a "dying breed."

[jgraz]

10. Speak for yourself

The majority of Democrats favor impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. Impeachment IS a method toward ending the war, because impeachment proceedings trump any executive privilege claims that Bush can use to stall investigations.


PS: Sorry, that's my take at this time, but I'm opposing/reasoned opinion on this.

Are you missing a couple of words here?

[mzmolly]

22. How does impeachment end the war without the votes?

Also, I did speak for myself.

Further, I've corrected my freudian slip, thanks for the heads up!

[jgraz]

28. This is my problem with Pelosi -- when you don't HAVE the votes, you go GET the votes

Pelosi isn't interested in getting the votes. She signaled her intentions while she was still minority leader.

And how do you get those votes? You start impeachment investigations, which will turn over all the rocks the Bushies have been trying to hide. You weaken the president with revelation after revelation and you weaken the Congressional Rethugs who support him.

Then you start sending him bill after bill and daring him to veto it. And if he vetos it, you pull another revelation out of the closet and send the bill back to him.

Rethugs aren't stupid. We all know the evidence is out there to scare them shitless about continuing to oppose impeachment. It just takes courage. It takes determination. It just takes leadership. So far, Pelosi hasn't shown any of that.

[mzmolly]

38. Well you've asserted one of my points.

She signaled her intentions while she was still minority leader.

[jgraz]

47. No, I've stipulated one of the facts

Your point was this: because Pelosi said this before the election, people who put the Democrats into power don't want them to impeach. This is a fallacious claim. To put it in different terms, you're saying that if people wanted impeachment, they would have elected a Republican to replace Pelosi based on that one statement. How does this make sense?

[mzmolly]

53. That's not what I said.

Read what I said again. When you understand my OP, we'll have something to discuss.

[jgraz]

68. Here's what you said

In fact Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and the same people bitching about that clear remark claim she was elected to Impeach?

What was that remark supposed to mean, other than that her election was a tacit approval of keeping impeachment off the table?

[mzmolly]

75. That is what I said, and here's what you said I said

Your point was this: because Pelosi said this before the election, people who put the Democrats into power don't want them to impeach.

Which is not the same as In fact Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and the same people bitching about that clear remark claim she was "elected" to Impeach?

[jgraz]

79. Yes, I didn't use the exact same words

I showed you my interpretation of what you said. If my interpretation is incorrect, you should explain how I got it wrong. Pointing out that I did not repeat your words verbatim is of no help here.

[mzmolly]

83. I think the word "elected" should clear it up.

If not, I can't help you.

[jgraz]

132. Apparently not

Once again, you seem to be pretending that you didn't say exactly what you just said. It makes perfect sense that people who are bitching about her remark are EXACTLY the ones who voted for Dems in the hopes that they would start impeachment. It's fallacious to suggest that Pelosi gets any cover from the fact that she made this remark before the election.

[mzmolly]

141. Again, not what I said.

It makes perfect sense that people who are bitching about her remark are EXACTLY the ones who voted for Dems in the hopes that they would start impeachment.

It's doesn't make much sense to suggest that a person gets elected to do the opposite of what they say they intend to do does it? It DOES makes sense that those who voted to end the war, actually see that goal pursued, however.

Here is what I said - again.

Democrats were not elected to "Impeach" we were elected to change direction in Iraq and at home. In fact Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and the same people bitching about that clear remark claim she was "elected" to Impeach?

I think you're continued strawmen will have to find a taker in another thread perhaps?

[Atman]

14. The ONLY sure-fire way to end this war is to IMPEACH...it should be FIRST on the list

Not last. BushCo has demonstrated over and over again that it will simply not comply with any other legal remedy. Hell, I don't even think they'd actually vacate the office if they WERE impeached. They've put themselves completely above the law, and you want to just keep on the same tack.

Remember, IMPEACHMENT is just the "trial." It brings the evidence out for all to see, and documents it. More people, including Republicans, WILL fall into line once you start the process. Why the hell would they sign up for it now when Pelosi says it's off the table? They're just biding their time, waiting us out, calling our bluff. And you're falling for it and tossing all your chips into the pile.

IMPEACH FIRST. And you've ended the war at the same time. Otherwise, Bush will just keep on keepin' on.

.

[mzmolly]

18. I'm sorry but impeachment wont end the war sans the votes.

If we see some evidence of the votes to Impeach, I'm there!

[Atman]

23. Again, you've got it all backwards.

You don't reveal your evidence BEFORE the trial...you go to trial and lay your case on the table. By your logic, no legal cases would ever go to court unless the prosecutor could guarantee a conviction. You may think the defendant is perfectly innocent at the BEGINNING of the trial, until you heard the evidence. You don't seem to even want the evidence heard. How will people decide if they should vote to impeach if they haven't even held the trial yet?

.

[sandnsea]

29. Impeachment is political

Not legal. You can't impeach if the opposition party isn't somewhat on your side. They DO know the evidence beforehand. They know whether the votes are there or not. The Republicans impeached Clinton as payback over Nixon. Henry Hyde said so. They didn't care about the final result. They just wanted to have a counter to Nixon.

[Atman]

42. Yes you can. Impeachment is the PROCESS, not the end result.

Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED, but not convicted.

You have to lay the case out in order to gain the votes needed for conviction.

So the Republicans played some tit for tat re: Nixon. But now we have a real crime which should be investigated. NOT impeaching simply codifies the criminal behavior and sets the precedent that no abuse of power ever warrants impeachment. Unless of course you've already got the opposition party promising to go along with you, just like the republicans did. Whoops, they didn't do that, did they? And they didn't win conviction because they had no case. But we have a case, and people WILL vote for conviction once the case is laid before them. They have absolutely no incentive to do anything but say "I won't vote for it" as long as we're playing our usual roles as spineless pussies afraid to take him on. But the congress critters care more about their own votes than about Bush's hide. When the case is laid out before the American people (70% of whom seem to pretty familiar with the charges), those pols will have to go home and explain to their constituency why they voted not to remove the criminal. That's how it works.

Do you think we have a case against Bush? If so, why don't you think he should be forced to answer for his crimes? Just because "the usual suspects" in Bush's back pocket won't promise you they'll convict first? What the hell kind of system is that?

.

[Virginia Dare]

96. So what's your ideal scenario?..

because this is pretty much how it will go as I see it:

Nancy Pelosi puts impeachment back on the table, they spend a few months or six going back and forth negotiating, arm twisting, etc. and by some miracle they get the votes to bring it to the floor, so they bring it to the floor and they spend a few weeks or a month debating it, back and forth, more arm twisting finagling and debating, so Bushy resigns in humiliation or whatever and we've got President Cheney and Vice President (fill in the blank). Cheney pardons chimp. Then we go through the whole process again with Cheney and V.P. (fill in the blank) pardons Cheney, blah blah blah. Meanwhile NOTHING else gets done. NOTHING. The press eviscerates the Democrats for political theatre and partisan legislative obstructionism. Meanwhile, soldiers and Iraqi citizens continue to die. Well, at least they're not spineless pussies.

[sandnsea]

102. For political purposes

If you want to impeach just for the politics of it, then that's one thing.

But you're not going to change political votes based on precarious evidence. If Democrats had any facts that didn't have a reasonable explanation, they'd have impeached already. It's just not that simple, especially in today's media climate.

Impeachment would be perceived as political if Democrats went forward with it and that's what the debate would be - the Democrats playing politics instead of ending the war like they promised. And you know what, there are those on the left who would be saying that if Democrats were impeaching. There are those on the left whose entire existence depends upon beating up Democrats.

The only way we'll get rid of Bush is if there is irrefutable evidence of intentional crimes, and then there won't be an impeachment, there will be a resignation, just like with Nixon.

[Virginia Dare]

105. And then there will be a pardon and we'll have President Cheney..

that's not a satisfactory ending in my book. I'd rather see them build a veto proof coalition, go after Cheney big time and leave Bush to twist in the wind until January.

[sandnsea]

130. Either they both resign in shame

or we continue to humiliate them publicly. Cheney is such an embarrassment to the Republican Party, I think it would be politically stupid to let them blame the last 8 years on him.

[Virginia Dare]

173. He deserves a large share of the blame though..

and I think they'll do more than shame him, I think they'll get him on criminal charges, perhaps even treason if they get a deep throat.

[sandnsea]

179. Meh, it's Republicanism

In its pure raw form. That's what I think. I think Reagan and Poppy just wrapped it in a shinier package.

[mzmolly]

40. I did not say never impeach. What I said was end the war first.

Read my OP again.

[Toots]

164. It takes the same number of votes to overturn a Bush* veto as to Impeach

:shrug:

[Phredicles]

19. Exactly. Commander Guy has made it clear he'll never get out of Iraq.

So to deal with the problem at its source, we have to work on dislodging Commander Guy. Impeachment hearings, bringing all the blood-and corruption-stained laundry out into the open, will bring public pressure and destroy his support in congress.

[sandnsea]

24. Oh I'll solve your damn problem right this fucking minute

Voila. I'm Nancy Pelosi.

Voila. I put impeachment on the table.

Voila. It didn't get any votes.

Voila. Bush is still President.

Now what.

Oh yeah. We just gave Republicans an issue to kick the shit out of us in 2008.

[Atman]

31. What didn't get any votes?

You haven't done anything yet. "Putting impeachment on the table" is NOT impeachment. It is a threat..."Don't eat those cookies before dinner or you're grounded" as opposed to "Don't eat those cookies before dinner, but if you do I promise I won't punish you in any way." The latter is Nancy's approach (and yours, apparently). Sit around and wait for the Republicans do go against their leader and sign on to convict before the impeachment has even begun.

Gosh...I wonder why that approach won't bring about your guaranteed conviction?

Now what? Just keep letting the war criminal kills thousands of innocents and more of our own soldiers. All because you want a PROMISE before you even hold a trial.

:crazy:

.

[sandnsea]

35. You're just stirring up shit

You know full well what I meant. I don't know what your game is, but it isn't to be honest about the impeachment process.

[Atman]

46. What my game is?

I do know full well what you meant, and as I pointed out, your logic (if you can call it that) is seriously flawed.

I'm entitled to my opinion, you know. It isn't a game at all. Maybe that's why you don't want to impeach. To you it's just a game.

To me, it's about the constitution and the future of the presidency and the very dangerous precedent we're setting by letting Bush's crimes go without so much as a hint of redress.

.

[Virginia Dare]

98. Chimp doesn't respond to threats..

he is totally divorced from and devoid of reality. A bipartisan veto proof coalition on ending the war is the only thing that will get us out of this before January 2009. The Republicans will have to do it before he drags them all down with him.

[AndyA]

34. How do you know there won't be enough votes?

The Republicans are already putting space between them and Bush. He's not helping them any at this point, and they know it. To continue to support him during impeachment will be political suicide for all of them.

Plus, impeachment is the RIGHT THING TO DO. Whatever happened to doing something just because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO?

The Republicans will not be in a position to kick the shit out of us in 2008 once all their dirt becomes exposed. After all, the Republican led Congress over the past few years gave Bush a blank check with no oversight. That's their baby to nurse, and if the Dems frame it right, they'll be the ones getting the shit kicked out of them, by their constituents.

I still believe most Americans know the difference between right and wrong.

[sandnsea]

36. I can count n/t

[AndyA]

45. You can't predict the future.

Things will change dramatically for the GOP between now and the election.

[sandnsea]

108. Change Minds, Change Votes

Exactly. We need to focus on the issues at hand. If we can't change the votes for impeachment before the next election, at least we can change enough minds to get a few more Democrats in office. Keep hammering away at the Bush crimes and the failings of Republican ideology.

We shouldn't be hounding John Conyers, we should be hounding Dan Abrams and asking him why he has broken water mains on TV instead of congressional hearings.

[Atman]

51. Count what? No one has held the trial yet.

The case hasn't been made, the evidence has not been presented, the players have not had to face their angry constituents. You're working off of a snapshot of today, right now, and applying it to a future events. Great trick!

What's your game, anyway? Oh, wait, it's MY game. Or something like that.

:eyes:

.

[mzmolly]

61. Yes, but we'd need half the Rs in the Senate.

I dont see it happening yet.

[Atman]

64. YET is the key word. It will be NEVER if we don't even start the process.

That's the weird part of the argument I just don't understand. We can't start the trial and lay out the evidence because the jury hasn't predetermined the outcome? Huh?

.

[mzmolly]

67. I believe we have started the process via continued investigations.

:hi:

[Atman]

71. You can believe that, but you'd be wrong

The impeachment IS the process. Everything else is just talking about it. It's just a trial. How many defense attorney's have you heard say they were confident of a victory before the trial even started, only to find their client tossed in the pokey after the case has been presented to the jury?

All we have now is stonewalling and grandstanding. Why on earth would ANY republican say in advance that they'd vote to remove the head of their party from office? What's in for them to do that BEFORE the impeachment has even begun if we're standing here telling the we won't bother to impeach unless you first promise us you'll go along with it?

It's freakin' cuckoo.

.

[mzmolly]

78. Investigations lead to the impeachment process.

"Lets see where investigations take us." ~ Nancy Pelosi (when pressed on the table comment)

Also this is not about what "Republicans" said, it's about what exit polls indicated at the time of the election. Further, I wonder why the goal of the vocal "anti-war" movement has changed so drastically. ARE we more concerned with ending the war or dead end "impeachment proceedings?"

My first priority is an end to the war, if that differs from yours, fine. But to say that Democrats were elected to impeach is bullshit regardless.

Edited for spelling.

[Atman]

84. Who wants a "dead end impeachment proceeding?" Why use Fox News tactics?

I haven't heard anyone say they wanted a "dead end impeachment proceeding." That is a Fox News tactic of putting words in other's mouths and framing the debate. I never actually said democrats were elected to impeach, btw. I just believe the should. They MUST. It is their constitutional duty.

And stop this nonsense of claiming your priorities are somehow better and/or different than mine. My #1 priority is to stop this war, as you stated yours was. Why do you make the false assertion that that is not my #1 priority, when I clearly stated it in more than one post? Come on, please be honest. You don't need to make stuff up to make your case, if you have one it will stand on its own.

My #1 priority, I'll state again, is to stop this war. I believe BushCo had very clearly demonstrated that they have no intention of heeding any calls to do so, and will stonewall and delay and escalate until he is forced to stop, or he leaves office. We can wait until January 20, 2009 or attempt to do something about him NOW. In my view, impeaching him will be the ONLY way to stop him.

.

[mzmolly]

90. No the fox tactic is claiming Pelosi was elected to do something she contradicted in her

campaign.

In my view, impeaching him will be the ONLY way to stop him.

Can you list the 50% of Republicans in the Senate who you feel will share in this agenda?

[Atman]

93. So is this just going to be a pissing match?

Cuz I won't bother.

AGAIN (notice how sometimes you'd swear people aren't reading your posts before responding to them?), I did not claim Pelosi was elected to impeach Bush. Got that? Remember it, so you'll stop saying it, at least in relation to my posts. I NEVER SAID THAT.

Now, can I name the 50% of Republicans who will vote to convict should impeachment actually take place? No, I can't. No one can. The impeachment hasn't taken place yet, and not even republicans are stupid enough to promise to convict before they've even heard the case.

Only democrats are stupid enough, apparently, to lay their cards on the table before the hand has even been played out.

.

[mzmolly]

95. Oh I think you're very wrong here.

Only democrats are stupid enough, apparently, to lay their cards on the table before the hand has even been played out.

I dont think our cards are on the table.

As for my comment about reading the OP, unfortunately it pertains quite often in this conversation. However, I don't recall saying it in the post you just responded to?

[Atman]

101. Further up the thread you're in a similar "misunderstanding" with another poster

Hmmm...one wonders who is a bit confused? You seem to have a penchant for applying your own interpretation to others' words, then telling the op's they're wrong when they try to set you straight.

So, even though I never once stated that Pelosi was elected to impeach Bush, you've decided you're going to stick with it and keep accusing me of it because you believe it "pertains."

To hell with it, mzmolly. I don't like your bullshit game.

.

[mzmolly]

106. Perhaps you can show me where I was confused if you make the claim that I am?

You see, when one responds to several reactionaries who don't bother to read what they respond to, one might see the same "read my post" response.

Note where I said I support impeachment after the troops are cared for, for example?

So, even though I never once stated that Pelosi was elected to impeach Bush, you've decided you're going to stick with it and keep accusing me of it because you believe it "pertains."

Uhm, the reason it pertains is because it's germain to the OP.

[VP505]

66. Your RIGHT, Bush keeps telling

us he WILL not end this Iraq occupation as long as he is President, we know he is a liar but I have no reason to believe he is lying about that. Impeachment will get his attention and stop his arrogant stubbornness, whatever we can do to stop him, we MUST do, the Constitution DEMANDS IT and we the people demand it..

[ginnyinWI]

15. the priority should indeed be ending the occupation.

I think that's what's driving a lot of the calls for impeachment. But if Bushco could be forced to end the occupation of Iraq a lot of people would be at least partially satisfied. If the Dems had enough votes, they probably would impeach, but they don't yet. So they should spend their energy on what they can do legislatively to end the occupation of Iraq.

[mzmolly]

49. Take it in stages...

That's what I say too ginny. :hi:

[acmavm]

17. Impeachment is what happens when a high government official

commits high crimes and misdemeanors. It's just the way it is. Or should be.

And who says the dems weren't elected to impeach? You? You have it on good authority that the people in this country don't expect them to do something about the criminal element that is running this country? I know I damn sure voted to have them start proceedings to kick this bastards out of office. When the biggest criminals on this planet are in the White House, I damn well expect something more than worthless 'hearings' and threats to do 'something someday, maybe'.

We voted to send people to Washington to do what was right. And what is right is to get the murderers, liars, theives, sneaks, and perverts out of Washington. Any more whining about

<snip>
"Impeachment now" will not remove Bush from office as we don't have the votes to send * packing."
<snip>

just makes them braver and bolder, and is as good as giving them permission to keep on doing this shit.

Don't get on board, who cares? You like the situation the way it is now and can live with it until 2008, fine. Some of us want to see something done about it.

[chaska]

21. The election polling clearly indicates that corruption was the no. 1 reason...

voters chose Dems. It was clearly not - as the networks spun it - the war.

What's more, the numbers weren't there for Nixon either in the beginning. They never are in such circumstances.

That said, there are enough Dems in the House, with no Republican votes at all, to impeach. Conviction would come easily after the huge list of offenses are rolled out before the public.

Regardless, Bushco's offenses cannot be allowed to polute the future actions of the office from this point on. He must be punished so that others won't be tempted to try this shit. It is absolutely our duty to see to it that he is punished.

[mzmolly]

33. My point is impeachment will not guarantee removal and/or an end to the war.

He must be punished so that others won't be tempted to try this shit. It is absolutely our duty to see to it that he is punished.

Indeed, after we end the war. As to why we were elected, corruption was one of the issues, the war was another "impeachment" was not indicated as a factor in exit polls and is a subjective word in terms of corruption.

[DearAbby]

184. When in trial, the evidence is brought forth

and documented. Then the jury reviews the evidence and votes to convict based on it...Are you stating there is no evidence in which to convict *?

Its going to take a lot of guts to try to get re-elected in 08, after voting not to convict and remove, when the evidence of all the CRIMES, we have been discussing for the last 4 yrs, has been laid bare for all to see.

Name the Senators who would support this traitor, then ask for your vote?

It is playing the Miss Cleo game here, counting votes for impeachment that has not even happened...do you use tea leaves?

How do you know how these people will vote, dont we have to begin the process first?

[blues90]

25. It seems to me to Impeach is the only way to change the

direction in Iraq , bush won't budge and we know this .

[AndyA]

26. The Dems were elected to put an end to corruption.

If I remember correctly, that was as important as ending the war.

Putting an end to the corruption means holding those who are corrupt accountable for their actions.

How does ending the war deal with the corruption issue?

The Dems were put in office to change the status quo. That means ending the war, bringing the troops home, returning some fiscal responsibility to government, and putting a stop to the erosion of our Constitutional rights and liberties.

And it's pretty obvious that in order to do any of that, they're going to have to impeach. The Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch are going to stand in their way, block, veto, or whatever they must do to bring about failure for the Democrats.

Impeachment is the only solution at this point, they won't be able to make ANYTHING happen without it. Just look at the last six months.

Also, the votes WILL be there when they finally get around to voting. The Republicans know when to abandon ship, and Bush isn't doing them any favors right now.

[KharmaTrain]

27. Well Said...

Impeaching boooshie without a conviction would energize Repugnicans and demoralize Democrats. It wouldn't force him to end the Iraq invasion and could even embolden him to attack Iran or some other misadventure. 17 Repugnicans protect him and the rest of his cabal.

Meanwhile, only 5 Senate votes separate us from starting to push anti-war bills and defunding into an up or down house vote...a lot more doable and it could force boooshie to start bringing troops home or tie his hands in playing "commander in thief".

Those so hungry for an impeachment should push for ones that will be effective...like removing Gonzo, and with it, restore some sanity and credibility in the Justice Deparment.

Yes...people voted for change...to end the Iraq mess. They didn't vote to impeach. A long and failed impeachment is not what people want.

Cheers...

:toast:

[TreasonousBastard]

30. Such clear thought is good. Actually, less than 10%...

of the House was newly elected to do anything-- and it was not made specific what they were to do, although ending the war seemed pretty high on the list. The other 400 or so House members were sent back to office, presumably to do what they've been doing for years. In the Senate, it is telling to note that our favorite Independant was returned to office soundly defeating an anti-war/anti-Bush, candidate, leaving us to wonder just what the message of the voters actually is.

Nowhere during last year's election did I hear anyone campaigning on impeachment, nor did I hear this was high on voters' minds.

So, yes, all this screaming over impeachment is a red herring diverting us from getting anything serious done-- like getting out of Iraq.

I personally would love to see the whole crew impeached and thrown in irons then left destitute, but that is not to happen today.

We have had only four Presidential impeachments in the entire history of this country, and only one of them led to the ouster of a President. Successful impeachment can only happen when conditions are just right.

[Nunyabiz]

32. and they ONLY way that change is going to happen is IMPEACHMENT

[LynneSin]

37. How DARE you post something with common sense

Great post btw :D

[mzmolly]

43. Thanks Lynne!

:hi:

[LynneSin]

54. I adore Nancy Pelosi and I think she's doing a great job

She's not interferring with the great work that Conyers, Waxman, & Rangell are doing and she's trying to get a bill passed that can get this war ended (Seems Bush learned how to use the veto feature). I appreciate all that Cindy Sheehan has done but if she runs for congress as an independant then I have no desire to support her. I'm a democrat and that's why I've been posting at DU for years.

Personally, I think if Cindy really wants to change things in DC she should run against Pelosi in the primaries. I think Cindy's run as an Independant is a chicken-shit way out. That way if Cindy loses she can point out that "Well I was the independant but look how many votes we did get".

[mzmolly]

65. I agree FULLY!

:)

[mdmc]

39. eyes

:eyes:

Dems won cause the sheep are sick of Iraq.
The sheep know that the corporations own it all.
The sheep don't expect anything from congress.
The sheep will keep on keepin on - they supported or were silent - the invasion. It was popular. Now they want to cut and run - it is popular.

All I want from Congress is to contain Bush and keep him out of Iran.

[mzmolly]

44. "contain Bush and keep him out of Iran"

Excellent point that I had momentarilly forgotten! :hi:

[mdmc]

56. Radicals protesting Dems make Dems look "strong on security"

Trust me, my friend - President Hillary Clinton will be more than comfortable being protested by code pink or any other anti war group. It make her look strong on defense and not part of the "wackos".

:hi: and peace and low stress.

[mzmolly]

62. I was thinking along these lines well.

:hi:

[mdmc]

193. Peace and low stress

On to victory in 2008

[mmonk]

50. Sorry but my constitution and freedom and that of my children

come first. That will always and forever be the case. No politician from any country or any planet will put anything else above that for me.

[mzmolly]

57. How does impeaching someone sans the votes protect your freedom?

The Constitution is set up in such a way that we need a 2/3 Senate vote to remove a President.

And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

[Phredicles]

72. So we shouldn't prosecute anyone for any crimes unless we know the jury will convict?

And was OJ Simpson "energized" by his acquittal?

[mzmolly]

86. No, we shouldn't claim to support ending the war if our actions

are counter to that goal.

[mmonk]

97. So defunding and deauthorizing this war/occupation

runs counter to that goal? It can all be done without sending a bill to be filibustered in the Senate and vetoed by the chimp or waiting indefinitely for republicans to join in and go against their party. Don't send them anymore of these bills. All we've done so far is send more money and troops. That seems to run counter to ending it.

[mzmolly]

99. Sorry, but what are you talking about?

I suggested we deauthorize/defund, and I suggested we're close to doing so in my OP.

[mmonk]

117. I did not see it that clearly.

I thought it was saying we needed republican support to do so. We don't really, just democratic support to not send another bill through and/or vote to deauthorize. We have the same goals.

[mzmolly]

123. Okay.

I'll settle for that. :hi:

[Sapere aude]

52. Impeachment hearings will get the whole record of this administration out in the open.

It matters less that he get convicted of something but more that the truth about the passed six years gets to the people. To finally get the record straight without the media right wing spin.

[DesEtoiles]

58. let's do both

[mzmolly]

63. Indeed. I'm all for that. But FIRST we need to get our troops

taken care of.

Peace

[mmonk]

60. And as far as a change in direction goes.....

You're going in the wrong direction.

[mzmolly]

69. Ending the war

is a good destination.

[mmonk]

70. Look, I've thought those positions over.

The best way to deal with an outlaw executive is not to impeach.
The best way to end the occupation of Iraq is to send more money and troops.

No matter how much I try, my mind keeps rejecting that strategy.

[Atman]

74. BINGO.

Nailed it.

.

[endarkenment]

76. You and I are too stupid to get it. nt.

[mzmolly]

88. Where did I say don't impeach. I believe that is number 3 on my priority list above?

Also, my OP deals specifically with funding. I'm not sure what your post is in response to frankly.

[mmonk]

121. We are in agreement on the issue.

Just maybe not on the need to wait. We're on the same side. I'm just the more impatient. 600 more of our people dead and 60 billion more dollars since January.

[DearAbby]

186. Correct me if I am wrong..

are you saying that impeachment will totally place congress into a grinding hault? All other business of Congress will cease?


can they walk and chew gum at the same time?

[mzmolly]

189. I'm saying impeachment will essentially do that, and it will halt the media exposure/pressure

regarding the continued war disaster. Though if we had a shot at the votes for removal, I'd be fine with that scenario.

[endarkenment]

73. "However, we ARE close to having enough votes to effectively end the war"

As demonstrated by yesterday's vote on the Webb amendment, legislation to in any way change the direction of this war is not going to happen. The only effective course of actions is to vote no on funding, and that is not happening, it is as off the table as impeachment. Our leadership does not appear to be interested in effective action to end the war or bring this administration to account.

[mzmolly]

92. The Webb amendment is not indicative of public opinion on the war,

sorry.

[endarkenment]

135. Public opinion is not voting in congress.

Congress people are voting and they are not voting as our representatives it seems. Public opinion is hugely in favor of ending this war as soon as possible. Public opinion would have supported the Webb amendment probably by 9-1 or more. Public opinion supports impeachment. What on earth at this point does public opinion have to do with the problem in Congress?

[mzmolly]

142. I'm in favor of ending the war too, thus my OP.

:hi:

[endarkenment]

136. Public opinion is not voting in congress.

Congress people are voting and they are not voting as our representatives it seems. Public opinion is hugely in favor of ending this war as soon as possible. Public opinion would have supported the Webb amendment probably by 9-1 or more. Public opinion supports impeachment. What on earth at this point does public opinion have to do with the problem in Congress?

[mzmolly]

143. Opinion drives the machine. If congress wishes to be re-elected they must represent us.

However, while polls on the war are clear stating "end it" polls on impeachment tend to vary.

[EFerrari]

80. Who is claiming she was elected to impeach? God, I miss a lot. n/t

[BringEmOn]

85. The whole world is watching! Impeach now!

[martymar64]

178. The world is laughing at us

A dictator that openly breaks the law and a congress that sits by paralyzed by fear and a speaker that openly kisses the dictators ass all over the media. That's what we have right now. Nancy needs to resign as speaker and get a REAL patriot in there. Waxman or McDermott or Maxine Waters wouldn't be afraid to face down the junta.

Nancy's just a big fucking chicken!

[LeftHander]

87. Can't change anything as long a Bush/Cheney in power.

Can't you see that?

Sheezzaaahhs.....

[mzmolly]

150. Well Pelosi thinks the problem goes beyond Bush and Cheney.

She feels the entire Party needs to be exposed?

[Freddie Stubbs]

94. What about all the Demcorats who were elected to Congress on a platform supporting impeachment?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

100. Again, for me it's a matter of when, not if.

:hi:

[leftchick]

103. Are You Suggesting Congress can not walk and chew gum at the same time?

They could if they wanted to but they are choosing the cowards/easiest path. This is an excellent post from Emillereid on the subject and Hits The Nail On the HEAD!....

:applause: Emillereid!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1284499&mesg_id=1284818

I believe impeachment is critical to restoring a semblance of our

constitutional democracy. We cannot allow Bush/Cheney's crimes against our constitution to go unpunished. Impeachment and conviction would serve notice to future executives that the people through their agents in congress will hold them accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.

After they are impeached and convicted, they should be tried for crimes against humanity and locked up in jail for the rest of their sorry lives.

The congress should certainly be able to walk and chew gum at the same time -- certainly they can de-fund the war, allowing only the funds necessary to bring our soldiers and contractors home. If congress wants to end the war -- they can do it anytime. They have the power to end this rogue state NOW!

The constitutional crisis we have been in for the last 6 years indicates we are well overdo for a constitutional convention. There has to be a way to put teeth into the separation and oversight protections. The constitution is only as good as the men and women who swear to uphold it. There should never be another abdication of duty of congress to give up its declaration of war responsibility. We also need to take a long look at the need for the huge so-called defense establishment. Our forefathers warned us about the dangers of standing, all volunteer armies -- we should take heed.

[NotGivingUp]

159. Exactly! nt

[H2O Man]

104. Respectfully

those who are elected to the House and Senate are elected first and foremost to carry out their constitutional duties. All partisan loyalties and responsibilities are, at very best, secondary. One does not find any mention of these political parties in the Constitution's description of issues such as war powers and impeachment.

It is each elected officials' obligation to represent the interests of their state or district. That includes representing democrats, republicans, independents, non-voters, and everyone else.

Issues involving impeachment should not be viewed in terms of political party. Nor should issues of war and peace. Doing so results in foolish abuses such as the nonsense with Clinton.

Impeachment is what the Constitution prescribes when one or more members of the executive or judicial branch abuse their powers of office. By allowing anyone to frame it in terms of "democrats vs republicans" or to define the issue in terms of what someone was elected to do, distracts from the serious issues that both democrats and republicans should be addressing today.

As it now stands, I can say with little chance of being wrong that without a move towards impeaching VP Cheney, there will be no significant change in the course of the madness in Iraq. There will be "troop reductions" that "moderate republicans" will get more credit from the corporate media than any democrat, and the executive office's trampling of the Constitution will continue while congress focuses on (re)elections.

[Swamp Rat]

107. "Impeachment is what the Constitution prescribes" - It is the American thing to do.

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

110. Right.

I'm a democrat, but I am advocating impeachment because it is required to safeguard that document for all Americans. This should not be viewed as a democratic issue. We are putting handcuffs on our minds when we limit ourselves to seeing things in such terms.

[EFerrari]

109. And beyond this current crime, not impeaching these felons

will set the bar for future erosions of our Constitution.

[Swamp Rat]

112. Exactly!

:hi: :hug:

[EFerrari]

113. Blessed be the rabblerousers for they will carve out a future for our children."

(Okay, I made that up.)

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

152. "Stirring up the shit ..."

"... makes it easier to flush it."

(I made that up, too.) :silly:

[EFerrari]

176. LOL.

:)

[H2O Man]

114. Yes, certainly.

I've talked before about a story I learned as a little boy. It's an Iroquois story, and it really is true:

A young man had a path to follow. He had other things to do, and he kept putting off the walk on that path. Soon, the path was overgrown, and he could no longer find his way. The path was lost.

We really can't assume that the paths created by the Constitution are always going to be available. We need to take the path that the Constitution intends us to at a time like this. It isn't a democratic path, or a republican path. It's a Constiitutional path, and it can become overgrown and lost to us.

[EFerrari]

118. It is usually upsetting and uncomfortable to fight for justice in the short term.

You have to be willing to disagree with friends.

You have to be willing to be misunderstood and vilified.

You have to be willing not to take all that personally and to just place one foot, then the other foot on that path that you are trying to travel and to keep clear at the same time.

But the alternative is unacceptable, even if more comfortable and familiar, even if more immediately seductive for stressed out, real people. The alternative is to cede, one bit at a time, the values that make our people different from other people: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is how one person put it.

[TahitiNut]

116. I agree. The partisan 'calculus' is itself a violation of the oath of office, imho.

Of particular bemusement (to me) is the 'calculus' that assumes that the Democrats should somehow benefit from the rapacious behavior of the GOP ... as though injury to the nation and the world has a "silver lining" of partisan advantage. I personally regard that viewpoint as every bit as corrupt as the GOP grasp for power. (It's the kind of partisan seduction that compels me to be an independent liberal.)

It seems to me that the poorly-founded fear of some partisan disadvantage resulting from any principled assertion of grounds for impeachment and promulgation of relevant articles of impeachment is of the same moral and ethical kind. Corrupt.

[mzmolly]

124. I'm not sure where I suggested partisan calculation?

Did I?

I'm out for a while, will check in later. It's a lovely day and my ass is sore. :hi:

[TahitiNut]

148. I observe that frequently on DU, not specifically with your OP.

It's not my impression that there's any vast gulf between what you and I believe. (I don't keep track that much.) I *do* however think the phrase "what they were elected to do" is often more narrowly drawn than how I'd like to believe it means. I'd LIKE to believe that "they were elected" to support and defend the Constitution with honesty and integrity for ALL of the People rather than merely for the partisan elite or the corporate elite. I DO NOT believe that Smirk and Sneer are acting in the best interests of Republicans ... but in the interests of a small minority of wealthy and powerful interests for whom party affiliation has NOTHING to do with ideology and everything to do with accumulating more power and wealth for themselves at the cost of the People, irrespective of party affiliation.

It IS a lovely day -- bright sunshine, breezes, scudding fluffy clouds, low humidity, temperatures in the 70s - awesome. The soreness in my ass (and legs) - sciatica - is far easier to bear on a beautiful day like this.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

151. I agree.

I stepped outside for a while and "played" in the yard, it's amazing. It's down right "sinful" to sit here on my tired backside bitching at my fellow progressives. ;)

Peace

[TahitiNut]

I did grocery shopping and watered my flowers (impatiens, begonias, geraniums, petunias) and basked

... in the sunshine. It makes it easier to bitch at my fellow liberals. :evilgrin:

[mzmolly]

160. Dont you dare come back here refreshed and bitch at me!

Enjoy the rest of the day TahitiNut. :hi:

[H2O Man]

154. Right.

They might be a rather silent group now, but there is a growing number of republicans who find this administration to be a danger to our Constitutional democracy. As a republican relative said to me recently, "If you wanted to destroy everything good about this country, you couldn't come up with a better plan than to put Bush and Cheney in power." It might sound like an insignificant point to some, but I think it is vital that we push for impeachment as Americans first, and who happen to be democrats.

[TahitiNut]

156. Partisanshiip can be like rooting for a professional sports team ... whose owner ...

... is raising ticket prices, peddling steroids, raising concession prices, giving free access to luxury boxes to politicians, and making the general admission seats smaller and smaller and smaller. "Winning" is sure not everything ... it's not even the most important thing.

[mzmolly]

122. I don't disagree with anything you've said H20Man.

And, I don't feel what you've noted is contrary to what I've indicated in my OP? My post is directed at those who wish to end the war and have a public platform designated for that very purpose. Many of these people have claimed "Democrats were elected to ...." I'm responding to assertions in this regard.

Impeachment is what the Constitution prescribes when one or more members of the executive or judicial branch abuse their powers of office.

Agreed, but we don't agree as a nation on what "abuse of power" entails, unfortunately. And the definition does seem to be drawn down party lines.

By allowing anyone to frame it in terms of "democrats vs republicans" or to define the issue in terms of what someone was elected to do, distracts from the serious issues that both democrats and republicans should be addressing today.

I attempted to respond to this type of framing by others. I would never suggest we usurp our constitutional duty to serve the will of the people. However, it is my believe that polls help to determine what that will is? And, exit polls indicated that "frustration with the war" was a factor in our winning a majority.

However, unfortunately, no matter what Bush has done, our Constitution dictates that a 2/3 majority in the Senate is necessary in order to remove a President from office. In other words we need an overwhelming "will of the people" behind any such action.

I am viewing it in terms of priority not Party. It's not about if, but when for me.

I deeply respect you and am inclined to believe I must be mistaken if we disagree. So, as I've said, I'm all ears.

One question. Do you think we can end the war while we are in the process of impeachment? If so, I'm open to hearing how this can be achieved while keeping our troops safe.

Peace and thanks for taking the time to reply.

On edit, I'm out for a while, I'll check back later. :hi:

[H2O Man]

129. I have very

serious doubts if the congress can make significant steps towards ending the war without impeaching VP Cheney.

I do not think there is any big difference between what each of us thinks on the topic. There are some differences, perhaps, but there should be. And this is the type of thread that allows people to engage in a rational discussion of those differences.

There are many problems in congress today. Partisan differences have become uglier in the past 20 years than they had been in the past century. But both parties really do know what defines abuse of power -- the issue there is that people from both parties are intimidated by this administration and the forces it fronts for.

[mzmolly]

133. Caught your reply before leaving the PC.

serious doubts if the congress can make significant steps towards ending the war without impeaching VP Cheney.

Hmmm, well worth consideration.

There are many problems in congress today. Partisan differences have become uglier in the past 20 years than they had been in the past century. But both parties really do know what defines abuse of power -- the issue there is that people from both parties are intimidated by this administration and the forces it fronts for.

That could very well be. I do think we need a public airing of this abuse regardless, as America needs a voice in this matter, and we need information in order to have access to that voice.

I do not think there is any big difference between what each of us thinks on the topic. There are some differences, perhaps, but there should be. And this is the type of thread that allows people to engage in a rational discussion of those differences.

I agree the differences are not that great, thank you for your kind/reasoned perspective. :hug:

Ok, really out now. Have a nice day kind sir.

[Behind the Aegis]

115. BRAVA!

:applause:

Priorities, priorities, priorities!

:thumbsup: :toast:

[Name removed]

120. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pyrzqxgl]

125. You know we're on the verge of dividing our party to the point where

someone who is unelectable in Nov. might be nominated. One of the issues that
divides us so much seems to be Impeachment. While it'd be nice to be rid of
these bastards now, I think I'd rather concentrate on getting us out of the war
and getting a candidate who is strong on a national single payer health care system,
who can win. It'd take from now to 2008 to Impeach and try them anyway and it
would be sort of hard for Democrats to run Impeachment hearings and an election at
the same time. It would be particularly hard on those in Congress running for reelection.
I don't imagine that is something either party wants to do.

[Javaman]

128. Oh so now they are the one trick pony huh? just great.

no thinking outside the fucking box here folks, please move along, nothing to see but your rights being taken away.

[Amonester]

134. 'xactly. And for 17.5 more months... (or, forever). - eom

[NotGivingUp]

137. If it's too much to ask that Dems hold up our constitution, then we don't need them...AND

they haven't ended the frigging war EITHER!!!!!!

[mzmolly]

145. No we haven't because we need enough Republicans on board to

override a veto, which is far less than we need to impeach. As I've said, we're getting there.

[NotGivingUp]

138. and gee...i didn't know they only do ONE thing...and they HAVEN'T ENDED THE WAR!!!

[mzmolly]

146. I didn't say to do one thing. I said to prioritize.

:hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

139. I can't identify with any politicians ("we") as you do

Democrat or Republican they will always be "them" to me.

Left alone they will leave things as they are or make them worse. It is their nature. They are the ruling class and have more in common across the aisle than they do with their constituents. A world in which there are two teams, one led by Bush going down to the humblest NASCAR dad, one led by Pelosi going down to the lowliest tree-hugger, is the myth the ruling class wants you to believe in. The truth is, they are working together against us more often and more effectively than they work against each other.

I applaud anyone from the real world who is exerting direct pressure on them for any good cause, be it impeachment, investigations, or ending the war.

[mzmolly]

147. I agree

I applaud anyone from the real world who is exerting direct pressure on them for any good cause, be it impeachment, investigations, or ending the war.

I just don't think "we" should claim that ending the war is the goal, while we're pressing for impeachment. That said, I do understand the argument that impeachment is a means to end the war, if we have the votes.

[MissWaverly]

140. we must impeach/bush is out of control

he takes monies all the time from other budgets for Iraq, what makes you think he would not do this, he ate the post office
surplus for Iraq, levee money went to Iraq, why do you think he will change, becuz congress says NO, ain't gonna happen,
or he can just leave them there w/o money.

[mzmolly]

149. I understand this perspective.

The only thing I can suggest if Bush doesn't adhere to a deadline is a deauthorization bill?

[walldude]

153. I understand your perspective, and respect it

and if it weren't for the fact that people will die because Bush got himself some more time then I'd be with you, but I can't subscribe to any "deadlines" anymore, everyone keeps talking about time. Are you going to explain to the family's of the soldiers who died while waiting for the deadline to come and go that your sorry but these things take time?

[mzmolly]

162. I just dont see how impeachment speeds up the end is all?

Thanks for your polite discussion on the matter walldude. Either way, it does take time to end the war, it's tough to "explain" that to be sure.

[walldude]

172. True, but the only way to end the war before 1/20/09 is Impeach

Bush will veto any legislation that comes across his desk that attempts to end the war. The only way to stop it is to get rid of him. If it takes 6 months or a year to impeach then it's still 6 months or a year of deaths avoided. If it doesn't work then we can say at least we gave it our best shot. And I'm not so sure it will fail, if we start it it may snowball. At least it will give us some hope.

[mzmolly]

174. Or get 67 Senators to sign on to the measure.

And it think we're inching closer to that number? September is the month to watch. That said if this fall the end of the war is not in our sight, then I feel we have to go for it. :hi:

[MissWaverly]

169. I think this would work with a normal prez not Bush

[Madspirit]

155. k&r...n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

157. So far they've failed at both.

Or, was that $80bn they gave to Bush to "end the war"?

[mzmolly]

161. You have a point there.

I can't argue with you on that.

[mzmolly]

165. Some good news.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1318343&mesg_id=1318343

[Taverner]

158. I agree.

As much as I would love to see Impeachment, that will not further the goal of getting out of Iraq. By the time all the hearings are over, Bush would be long out of office.

[Toots]

163. You need the exact same amount of votes to overturn a Bush* veto as to Impeach

So your whole argument is baseless.

[mzmolly]

170. They are two seperate issues.

So my argument stands.

[GeorgeGist]

166. If we see enough Republican support for Impeachment ...

It's safe to assume that

"we" means DLC.

[Turn CO Blue]

167. De-fund this war.

If they impeach, then impeach Cheney, not Bush.

If the goal is to end the war, then let's focus there (de-fund) instead of impeachment.

[WinkyDink]

168. Impeachment would so tie this little psycho up in legal s**t, he'd be

incapable of thinking of anything else.

[EFerrari]

177. That's what I'm thinkin'

:)

[leftofthedial]

171. Despite the wa in which it has been dishonored by repukes,

impeachment is not a political option. It is a Constitutional mandate when the executive commits high crimes and misdemeanors.

If the long list of bush cabal crimes do not warrant impeachment, nothing ever will.

It is not a matter of choice or political gamesmanship. I supercedes even the moral necessity of ending the illegal occupation of Iraq because a totalitarian corporatist regime with control of the US military means the end of the world.

[mzmolly]

181. Indeed, but unfortunately Americans don't all agree that Bushco. has committed "high crimes."

At least not ... yet.

[leftofthedial]

183. it doesn't require 100% agreement by all Americans.

nothing does.

[mzmolly]

188. No but it does consider 66 plus % of the Senate to agree.

:(

[leftofthedial]

194. only to actually remove from office

which also is not the requirement to bring proceedings to the floor of the House.

[mzmolly]

197. True. We can impeach without counting on removal.

And I expect we will at some point.

[Ghost in the Machine]

175. Democrats were not elected to "Impeach" we were elected to change direction in Iraq

ummm, yeah...

Please don't ever assume that you know the reason for my vote, or anyone else's. My whole family voted to get rid of this criminal cabal that is occupying our White House, shredding our Constitution and staining the image and reputation of our Country.

What you, and every other anti impeachment advocater fail to realize is the very simple fact that this war WILL NOT END until Bush and Cheney are removed. Sorry to be the one to have to feed you a dose of reality, but that's the way it is. We will never be able to move forward until we move that which is blocking our path. They can write all the legislation they want, and even get some of it passed, but it will only be vetoed or rendered moot with a signing statement, then we're right back to the starting line.

Writing legislation is like giving a choking person oxygen - it ain't gonna help until you remove the blockage.

[mzmolly]

180. I am referring to what exit polls indicated and what Nancy Pelosi stated.

As for your vote to impeach or bust, that's your business.

"this war WILL NOT END until Bush and Cheney are removed."

That is a matter of opinion.

[ClassWarrior]

182. As I said to you the other day, Mol...

...Bush/Cheney** itself has said that we're not leaving Iraq as long as it's in office. So the only way we CAN get out of Iraq is to remove it from our White House.

NGU.

[mzmolly]

198. Or to have the votes to over ride a veto right?

Unless they have some other evil plan up their sleeves?

[Senator]

185. FWIW, Even Your Thread Title Claim Is Simply False

I see you've already been contradicted on many levels, and with many cogent arguments, but I'd just like to add that your intitial premise is not factually correct.

The Euphemedia did a "heckuva job" promoting the propaganda meme that the election was "All About Iraq ... squawk ... All About Iraq." But this simply was not the case. That is, according to Curtis Gans, Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate:

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

And according to the pre-election Newsweek poll:


They damn well were "elected to impeach." It's only inside the beltway, among the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy that everything was "All About Iraq." Because that's what was easiest for them to deal with. It still is. They are loathe to face the reality that an occupant of the White House is a war criminal and dangerously incompetent. Worse, that they might have to actually DO SOMETHING about it.

The American People are not so limited. They don't need to "find out" any more -- or to "air laundry." Nor do they care much about "deadlines" and "fund cutting games". They want decisive action and they've wanted it for quite some time now. As 58% told Newsweek in January, "they wish the Bush presidency were simply over."

And they're not stupid. They understand that removal may be unlikely. They watched the Clinton farce. They just want their objection to this Anti-American-Values regime to be recorded for history. For someone to at least make their case. It's why people like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore become so popular.

The DC Dems have failed to respond. And the newer polls clearly display the result. Without impeachment, not much will change and the '08 elections will be close enough for them to steal it again. That's what failure to impeach will bring -- and not surprisingly -- as the only message it sends is one of weakness and complicity.

----

[mzmolly]

191. Very nice try.

First of all this is what I essentially stated:

clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

The rest of this quote asserts that the American people no longer approve of Bush's handling of the Presidency which goes without saying.

On edit - Did you note WHY Americans are unhappy with the congress as per your link?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi12jun12,0,7184922.story

Although some Democratic initiatives have passed the House, few have won passage in the Senate, where the party has held the majority by one vote.

Bush and his Capitol Hill allies have thus far managed to block every Democratic attempt to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, much to the chagrin of Democrats around the country.

"They just haven't seemed to have gathered things together the way they should," said Martha Wilde, 81, a Democrat from Remer, Minn., who said she had been particularly disappointed in congressional Democrats' lack of progress confronting the Bush administration over the war.

"I think they should force them more," Wilde said.

To semi-quote Bill Clinton: It's the WAR stupid.

Regarding the Newsweek poll - one poll showing 47% of DEMOCRATS alone wanting impeachment does not contradict my assertion. In fact, you assisted me, so I thank you.

1. 47% is not a majority even within our party. In fact 48% of Democrats ALONE said that impeachment should either be a LOW PRIORITY or NO PRIORITY and if you add the 5% of those who did not give a rip, that number increases to 53%.

2. Of Independents only 27% said impeachment should be a top priority. 70% did not agree.

3. Nancy Pelosi addressed this issue CLEARLY with her "off the table" comment time and time again, so asserting she was "elected" to impeach is odd to say the least.

4. The majority of Americans felt that impeachment should be a low or no priority.

At best your post indicates that a minority of Democrats alone thought Impeachment should be a top priority. I am among that minority but I want the troops home first and America appears to agree?

Lastly, if we are unable to do bring the R's into the "stop the war" fold by this fall, then we'll have no choice but to reexamine the avenue we choose to end the war. So, perhaps Impeachment will find it's way to our tables just in time for Thanksgiving? ;)

[Senator]

199. I might try again when you stop spinning

Not that I'm suggesting that you're being disingenuous. I'm certain you believe what you say -- that it's "All About Iraq."

But your response provides a good illustration of how Euphemedia spin operates, often to great success.

The form of the pre-election Newsweek poll -- and the purpose of using such a form -- speaks for itself. The unnecesary level of complexity used -- setting up a conflict between "top priority" and "lower priority" (an oxymoron) -- was used to obfuscate, not clarify the results. Consequently, the firmest number is the 44% "not at all."

It's certainly, as intended, open to interpretation. For the purpose of this response I would only add that these results were obtained in the face of direct confrontation to the DC Dem leadership's impeachophobia, thus depressing the Dem response by the number of those willing to follow the strategery from above. And I'd also note that you completely ignore the later 58% "simply over" number.

The quote you pull from the LA Times piece is a bit more interesting. And yes, I did note "why."

What Mrs. Wilde (bless her heart) actually said was, "They just haven't seemed to have gathered things together the way they should. I think they should force them more."

Things? Mrs. Wilde has multiple concerns. And wants her representatives to be more forceful. I would guess that we would not find her in the mere 44% that oppose impeachment. Especially if that's what it would take to get a result on those "gathered things."

The rest of the quote -- what you're basing your claim on -- was inserted by the reporter. It's part of the Euphemedia spin. Mrs. Wilde's comments were shoe-horned into a pre-existing narrative. One that included nothing but "It's All About Iraq." I'm sure Mrs. Wilde expressed dismay about the war, possibly when directly asked -- who wouldn't?

But what she actually said was "they should force them more."

She can't be expected to know, like most of us political junkies do, that impeachment is the only lever of force available in the face of "Rule By Signing Statement." Maybe she does. And said so. We don't know what the reporter didn't include. But she still made her demands -- her "why" -- quite clear.

Lastly, the number of R's is irrelevant. There's no reason to believe that the regime will bend to them in any way. It's just another dead end in this DemocRat's Maze. It's what "gumming it to death" looks like. Sadly, unless and until impeachment gets back on the table, that phrase will remain literally true.

And we'll have no cause to celebrate this Thanksgiving, once again.

---

[mzmolly]

200. That was some amazing spin yourself, frankly.

Look, I support impeachment, but it's not a means to end the war, and we should not confuse the two. Impeachment is a means to restore balance and it is becoming clear to me that have an obligation to do that. However, it is also clear that the electorate wants an end to the war. And impeachment, as you know, does nothing to force an end unless it results in removal from office. Might it be an beginning? Perhaps, but that's not known at this time.

That said, we are close to making progress on a deadline and I do expect we'll see clear signs of impeachment by the holidays. I hope I'm right on that. ;)

Peace

[Senator]

201. Just in the direction of reality

And impeachment is the ONLY means to "end the war." Which is a phrase that has very little concrete meaning anyway. Because impeachment is the only way to reject the concept of a US-imposed Global Police State. That said, there are things more important than "ending this war."

First and foremost on the list is acknowledging and stopping the torture and war crimes -- then prosecuting to the fullest extent. If we do not -- as a nation -- publicly reject and redress these atrocities, then we've got far bigger problems than this so-called war on puppet-show terrorist zealots. And that means bushcheney & minions on the hook, in disgrace, perhaps even literally bundled off to The Hague for trial and punishment. Impeachment is a necessary component of this redress.

Each day of failure to impeach is another day of torture "sanctioned" by the American People.

Until the Dems were given the power in January we had the "rogue regime" to blame. There was the anomoly of a cabal that stole their way to power and implemented an illegitimate agenda through secrecy and lawlessness. We were able to claim that it was not really "America Herself" that had become such an ugly actor on the world stage.

But then the clock started ticking on the possible redemption of Our National Soul. The power to formally object (impeach) in the name of the People is the only real power the electorate was able to wrest away from the neofascists. As time passes without that objection, the cement hardens on our "new image" in the world.

Impeachment -- even without removal -- sends the urgent message that this is not who we are. That Americans intend to return to their place as exemplars of the power of freedom, courage, and hope.

Without it, we will continue to become -- like China and Russia and Iran -- another faux-democratic power player. One that can no longer be accurately assessed as an honest peace broker, trusted trading partner, or safe investment environment. Because the power of US public opinion -- as an object of respect/fear and a court of last resort -- is quickly washing away. The resulting damage to both our security and our economic health will be unimaginable.

----

[mzmolly]

202. I'm sorry, I'm not understanding how impeachment ends the war. Can you be more specific?

Impeachment -- even without removal -- sends the urgent message that this is not who we are. That Americans intend to return to their place as exemplars of the power of freedom, courage, and hope.

I agree fully, but I don't think we can confuse this issue as the means to end the war, at this stage.

You've indicated that you feel there are things more important than "ending this war." You're entitled to your feelings in this regard. I, on the other hand think that ending the war and impeachment are equally important. And, I am hopeful we can accomplish both.

[Senator]

203. To the degree that "ends the war" has any meaning...

...the largest obstacle to immediate change in military strategy and credible diplomacy is the existence of bushcheney at the levers of power. In essence, the inmates remain in charge of the asylum. So, by what mechanism can healing occur?

These "two issues" you imagine are, in reality, inseparable. This war cannot "end" without some level of acceptance, agreement, and/or co-operation from the regional powers. Even better would be, in addition, an international coalition to share the burdens of resolving the chaos that exists there now -- with a long-term commitment to provide security and mediation support as needed.

This regime is literally impotent to pursue either of these possible/necessary conditions or any other forms of "progress."

Even if by some miracle this regime suddenly admitted that every step they've taken thus far has been an abject failure -- expressed a willingness to forgo any and all US interests in favor of UN mediation between parties -- and began rotating military forces out of theater to be replaced by UN peacekeepers -- nothing would happen. They simply would not be believed, let alone trusted.

Other nations do not live under the same form of Euphemedia-imposed insanity we do here. They see our naked little emperor boy. They know that every word out of his mouth is a lie (including "and" and "the"). They have no incentive to risks their lives and treasure on the escapades of these incompetent imperialists. And the regime no longer has the means to coerce them. (Though the "Kissinger Kontingent" may have started panhandling for help in desperation.)

A similar predicament exist domestically. Notwithstanding all the DC bloviation about "racheting," "pressuring," "forcing," "restoring," "deauthorizing," "defunding," -- none of these euphemistic phrases even confront the reality of "Rule By Signing Statement." They are expression of (at best) hope, not power. There is no "or else" attached to any of it.

Impeachment is the only "or else" available. Nothing happens without impeachment. Least of all, "ending this war."

And FWIW, "who we are" is far more important than what any of our temporary stewards (even these squatting war criminals) are doing at at any given time. Which is why stopping/rejecting the torture/war crimes and impeaching the treasonous war criminals leaves settling Iraq as a distant third.

--

[mzmolly]

204. You appear to suggest that impeachment = removal?

At this point it does not. Might it some day? Perhaps. However, what we need NOW is 17 Republicans to vote with us to end this war. Republicans can either end it with Democrats, or own it right along with Bush. And, I'm if they're smart, they'll end it.

All the other mumbo jumbo is speculation, sorry. That said, once again I support impeachment.

[Senator]

205. No, I suggest failure to impeach = dereliction of duty...

...to protect and defend the Constitution, to discharge our treaty obligations, and to voice the objection of the American People to that which has been done in their names, but without their proper consent.

Unless and until this happens, the DC Dems "own it right along" with the rest of the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy. And they display the depraved indifference to ongoing torture that can earn one a trip to The Hague.

The "mumbo jumbo speculation" (again by the Euphemedia spinners) is that anything at all will happen should 17 (or 37) Republicans "vote with us to end this war." There is no tangible reason to believe this. In fact, the opposite is already known to be true. The bushkid's already said that unless Laura and/or Barney turn on him, he's the deciderer. The regime explicitly and publicly rejects any claim that congress or the courts have a say in their war-making capacity.

But what we need "NOW" is to put our own moral, constitutional house in order.

Trying to foist the responsibility to act onto Repubs alone, presuming defeat (non-removal) for any potential effort, then telling oneself that you "support impeachment" is just continued irresponsibility.

Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration of the regime.

We dare not risk that outcome.

---

[mzmolly]

206. On this we agree.

Peace.

[Senator]

207. Agreement is of little value...

...without action.

--

[yurbud]

209. you picked the poll with the lowest numbers for impeachment

[deacon]

187. Things change. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

190. Well Said And You Are 100% Right. It's Refreshing To Finally See Something Reasoned And Rational.

Great post!

:toast:

[mzmolly]

192. Thank you. Not so sure I'm rational, but I'll take it!

:hi:

[yurbud]

208. if they had moved decisively on ending the war, they would have been forgiven for holding off on

impeachment.

They have not.

And they are essentially nibbling around the edges of the investigations instead of going to the heart like vote suppression and the Cheney Energy Task Force and what it had to do with the Iraq War.

[JI7]

210. after the disaster in Iraq, Katrina and all the other things Bush fucked up on

the Republicans are STILL sticking with him and some people actually think these assholes will support us on impeachment ? HAHAHHAHA

these fools wont even vote for any little change in Iraq after all that has happened.