Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Impeachment or ending the war?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:05 PM
Original message
Impeachment or ending the war?
Which one would you pick if you had choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. IMPEACHMENT
It needs to be DONE, and done completely. Those that let Nixon slide 30 years ago set us up for this black hole we're in now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. impeachment as the war's end would shortly follow. Bush and Cheney
need to be held accountable for their crimes or we are through as a republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. And every month that passes, more die. Impeachment isn't a two week process.
The GOP isn't going to totally roll over on Bush, not on that issue. They may break with him on the war, but not on impeachment.

To get an idea of how long an impeachment process might last, let's look at how long the LAST impeachment exercise, which, once it got rolling, moved at a decent clip, took:
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clint...


September 24, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee announces the committee will consider a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Clinton in an open session on October 5 or October 6. ...


October 2, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee releases another 4,610 pages of supporting material from Ken Starr's investigation, including transcripts of grand jury testimony and transcripts of the Linda Tripp-Monica Lewinsky tapes.


October 5, 1998: On a 21-16 vote, the House Judiciary Committee recommends a full impeachment inquiry. ....

November 19, 1998: In a marathon session, Independent Counsel Ken Starr outlines his case against President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee, saying Clinton repeatedly "chose deception." Democrats grill Starr about his investigative methods....

December 1, 1998: On a party-line vote, the House Judiciary Committee expands its impeachment inquiry to include alleged campaign finance abuses, approving subpoenas for Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI Director Louis Freeh and federal prosecutor Charles LaBella.

... December 18, 1998: The House of Representatives engages in a fierce, daylong debate whether to impeach President Clinton. A CNN survey suggests there are enough votes to approve one or more articles of impeachment.



December 19, 1998: After 13 1/2 hours of debate over two days, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment, charging President Clinton with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton vows to fill out his term and appeals for a bipartisan compromise in the Senate.



OK, we aren't even out of the HOUSE yet--gee, that was "only" four months and back-and-forth wrangling (and I am not even counting all of the investigatory actions and political wrangling that preceded this four month perios)...NOW, at long last, on to the SENATE:

January 5, 1999: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott announces President Clinton's trial will begin January 7, but senators continue to wrangle over how long the trial should be and whether to call witnesses.

January 7, 1999: With ceremonial flourishes, the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of President Bill Clinton begins in the Senate, with the swearing in of Chief Justice William Rehnquist to preside and the senators as jurors.


Blah, blah, blah...parliamentary wrangling, delaying tactics, aggressive defenses, justifications....


February 9, 1999: Senate begins closed-door deliberations on President Clinton's fate, after rejecting a "sunshine" proposal to open the proceedings to the public. .....

February 12, 1999: President Clinton is acquitted of the two articles of impeachment. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats vote "not guilty." On the charge of obstruction of justice, the Senate is split 50-50. Afterward, Clinton says he is "profoundly sorry" for the burden he imposed on the Congress and the American people.



Wow, how nice--just over a month for the Senate, faster than the House. But then, they knew damned well they weren't going to convict him for, in essence, a blow job. They knew the knives would be out by angry investigators everywhere, the Larry Flynts and others, seeking examples of GOP blowjobs to throw in their hypocritical faces.

They had to make it look as though they were actually deliberating--so they made it look good and spent a few brief (for the Senate) moments examining the evidence. Even at this relatively breakneck pace, this process isn't looking too "speedy" is it?

Five MONTHS between the first step, the Judiciary Committee announcement and the Senate aquittal. And a boatload of chatter before that first step, too.

A lot of young men and women could die in that time, for what?

To satisfy a revenge fantasy?











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
48. It will take the same number of votes to end the war as it will to Impeach
And just as long. Veto Veto Veto Veto Veto Veto Veto What don't you get about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. But YOU hold the magic wand, per the OP. This is a fantasy exercise, an "If YOU had the power"
choice. That's the way the OP was written. One or the other--YOU choose.

We aren't talking "from reality" in this thread. So votes aren't at issue--you can pick one of the choices and, voila, it happens. The only thing is, you can pick ONLY one.

So, your choice--impeachment or ending the war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Well you certainly are not going to do one without the other so it has to be Impeachment
Once Impeachment is accomplished there will be no end to the good that will follow. It won't even really take removal from office but I don't see where that can not happen as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. So, even if impeachment goes as swiftly as Clinton's did, from the
House Judiciary reporting out, to acquittal, was FIVE MONTHS. I posted the timeline elsewhere in this thread.

Now, will this Congress be able to move as quickly? I don't think so. I think the GOP will throw up EVERY roadblock they can to slow the process down to a crawl.

You're saying you can live with five months, minimum, of dead Americans coming home while impeachment plays out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Just how do you suggest they do anything other?
Anything they pass relating to the war will be vetoed. Congress is quite capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. They can vote on Impeachment and then after it goes to the Senate they are free to do other business. I don't understand your logic...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Look, you aren't operating within the construct provided by the OP
You can have--no vetos, now--in a fantasy world, one thing or the other.

You GET a wish, see? That's the construct here. It's a mind game. In this game, CONGRESS isn't in charge of what happens--YOU are. But you can only have ONE of the two choices.

You can get your impeachment, or you can get the war ended. Which do you prefer, removal from office/revenge or saving lives?

The OP has given you a choice--it is a FANTASY choice, but it's a choice. You hold the magic wand, see?

That said, you think the war would end just with impeachment? President Cheney would carry on smartly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. So, it's an either/or proposition?
As much as I'd like to see the Iraq war ended, I'd have to vote for impeachment. Maybe that would keep them too busy to move the troops from Iraq to IRAN for the NEXT war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. If I had to choose it'd be ending the war...
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 03:10 PM by cynatnite
As much as I'd like to see that gang of thugs impeached, the senate's time is better spent ending the bloodshed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. As if they're not going to simply switch to ANOTHER
source of bloodshed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I don't know...
I'm not totally convinced they're out to start a war with Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Are you convinced they'd LIKE to? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Yep...
I think they very much want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. In the OP's hypothetical, yes. NT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. False Dichotomy
Bush** and DarthCheney will keep the war going as long as they are in power.
The only way to end the war is to remove them from power through impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Is it possible to impeach both at the same time? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. ok if we continue to play by this Congress rules and they
keep on sending bills to lord pissypants for a timeline, and he huffs and puffs, and our Congress runs away each time to change it, impeachment is the only resolution, don't these senators get it yet? bang them against the ropes hard, apparently the Repigs have no problem doing that to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. If they are mutually exclusive, I would choose impeachment.
Ending the war stops this war. Impeaching George Bush may still stop this war but also will, at the very least, discourage future wars and may prevent them altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
11. Impeachment WILL end this illegal invasion/occupation.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
12. False dichotomy or untrue dichotomy?
You can only pick one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. Well, the question is a fantasy mind game. I imagine the goal is to establish
what's more important--extracting revenge, or bringing them back alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. impeachment is the first step the rest will take care of itself after that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. A false choice; Congress routinely does more than one thing at a time. (NT)
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 03:13 PM by Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
16. Impeachment.
If the Democrats don't act, history will view them as enablers, who cared more about consolidating personal power (2008 elections) than protecting the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
17. dichotomy: true or false. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
18. They are intertwined, far as I can tell.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
19. How anyone could pick impeahment in an either/or situation is beyond me.
Of course, these postulations aren't reality-based, but assuming we actually could pick just one, the one that will save lives--ending the war--is the appropriate one. The revenge fantasty is just absurd. If you impeach Bush, you get Cheney. And if you impeach Cheney, you get whosoever HE appoints as his VP--how about Senator "Losing It" McCain? And while impeachment grinds on, for a month or six, more kids die in the sandbox.

It has a side benefit that the war ending would completely destroy what shreds of credibility this administration has left. They like 'caging?' Well, they'd be caged, unable to prosecute any agenda at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. It's pretty simple...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. No it isn't--not in the construct of the OP. You can pick ONE.
Upthread I pointed out how long it took two lousy and simple Articles of Impeachment to get from the House to the Senate, and then to trial and aquittal.

Five months. Not counting the shenanigans and posturing that preceded the House announcement.

A lot of people can die in five months of war.

Keep in mind, the original question. You have the power, and YOU can only choose one.

I choose live soldiers over revenge fantasies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Out of Iraq and into Iran...
THERE'S a positive move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Hmmm. So what are you saying? Leave them over there so we won't have to fight them WAY over there?
Better they die hearing insults in Arabic than insults in Farsi?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. I want ALL of it to stop, not just THIS war.
I don't want them to be pulled out of Iraq just to be thrown into Iran. And that's the most likely result of leaving Iraq at this juncture without crippling the cabal that put them there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. You're assuming the pullout wouldn't have negative consequences with regard to the ability of the
administration to prosecute any future wars, though. No one's going to believe his justifications if his first war is rolled up and put away by the adults in charge, will they?

What's the Monkey's saying? "Fool me once, won't git fooled agin'?"

Near as I can tell, that Iran Scolding thing that Lieberman ginned up was NOT a war authorization. It was more on the lines of "Resolved, We know Iranians are coming over the border and shooting our guys" type thing.

Are you saying that the Congress would be conned...again? I'd be surprised if that were the case. And I'd think they'd snap the purse shut tight, too. You can't run a war without money.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. They wouldn't call it a "withdrawal."
They'd spin it the way they always do and call it an "emergency redeployment."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Well, in the construct of the OP's fantasy, you have the power, not "them"
And Congress would still have to be involved in any Iranian misadventures--that's unavoidable, because it is an act of war against a separate and distinct nation.

It's not a 'redeployment' when you're going into a separate, sovereign nation. And Iran isn't Cambodia. We can't "pretend" we were never there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. To me, it's a choice between ending this particular war or discouraging all future wars.
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 03:24 PM by MJDuncan1982
Assuming, that is, that impeachment and ending the war are mutually exclusive.

Edit: Grammar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. Hmmm. That's actually an interesting view. You're saying that it's likely that we will have
another idiot as bad as Bush anytime real soon?

The unfortunate reality is that we don't retain those lessons of war. Look at Vietnam. That wasn't that long ago, but you'd swear all these assholes have complete amnesia. If that didn't discourage us from going on foolish adventures, what will? 58K dead, and here we are again...

This mess we are in now is Vietnam without bar girls, easy sex, an abundance of drugs, good food, and of course, the draft, and with turbans, body armor, plenty of casualties but fewer deaths, and a different style battlefield alltogether.

And the Congress voted to let Bush start that war. If he's impeached, it won't be for any of that war stuff. Because they went along with the program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Good point. Between the two choices, I would choose impeachment
only if it was for starting this war. Impeachment for other purposes would not act to deter future war prone Presidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
20. I'm with the "false dichotomy" folks
...but being as we are murdering tons of Iraqis every single day and every single day an American youth is sent home in a box, I would have to say...End the War. ...but Bush would just start another one. Being president is a sociopath's wet dream.

I want both.

Lee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
22. Both are essential!
Absolutely necessary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
25. Impeachment will lead to the end of Bush's war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
28. Fummy but impeachment would lead to the end of the war
and yep, the '74 legislature could chew gum and walk at the same time, why can't these guys do that? Or rather, why don't they want to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
30. Bushler will never let the troops come home, unless they're in a pine box.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
31. Impeachment. It would do both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
32. Which would you choose: dying of hunger or thirst?
???????

We really are capable of multi-tasking.

Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nunyabiz Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
34. IMPEACHMENT every time
The reason is simple, without Impeachment of these treasonous war criminals the war will never end anyway.
The ONLY way to have a chance of ending this war and also stopping the next one with Iran is to stop these bastards and do it NOW!.

Don't mistake Impeachment for the disease, its the cure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
37. Impeachment doesn't seem feasible to me...
If george is impeached, then cheney becomes president. So then comes impeaching cheney. For as much time as both would take and the votes needed to make both happen it seems to me that we've got a better chance at ending the war rather than impeachment of both a president and vice-president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
41. YOU CAN'T END THE WAR WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT.
The question is fallacious. They have refused for fucking years to end the war.

That is why there must be impeachment. There is no alternative.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. BINGO! This is SPOT ON, THE REASON.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. I really don't think impeachment will end the war...
to me it seems naive to think that if by some miracle that both Cheney and Bush are impeached that the war will end. Sure there might be a gradual drawdown, but troops will remain in Iraq for some time, IMO. I don't like it, but let's face reality. It will take anywhere from 12 to 18 months to pull our troops out safely and responsibly.

As I said before, we have a far better chance of ending the war with elections not far off than we do of impeaching both bush and cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #47
54. If impeached, then they run the risk of criminal liability for any number of acts, so if you don't
think that it would change the Iraq policy, then I am not sure what to say to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
43. It's a false binary. I choose both. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
51. In geek language: impeach=>endofwar holds true, but endofwar=>impeachment is false
So I would prefer impeachment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
53. Impeach and then you can end the war. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
56. Impeach
Ending the war would follow -- hopefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwyjibo Donating Member (612 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
57. Every current and future politician needs to know that they can't get away with this kind of shit.
Impeachment first, then we'll end the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 21st 2014, 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC