Do you think it's possible that Dem leadership PROMISED GOP not to impeach Bush?

[defendandprotect]

Poll question: Do you think it's possible that Dem leadership PROMISED GOP not to impeach Bush?

Randi Rhodes the other day was having this conversation with Turley . . .

Turley suggests that the Dem Leadership -- Pelosi, included --- made a PROMISE to the
Repug leadership that they would not impeach Bush ---

And, Turley further states that this also means that they cannot carry thru with
investigations which would put Bush in a position of having to be impeached ---

Do you believe this or not?

[gateley]

1. Before I decide to believe, how would the Dems benefit from such an agreement?

Does he say?

[Moochy]

3. Which party got those dry powder envelopes again?

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

16. hmmmmm... an Anthrax free session may be one benefit .. . ???

[defendandprotect]

14. Didn't hear the end of the conversation so I can't say if he gave a reason/benefit ---

or not --

Perhaps someone else here was listening to this conversation ---

Actually, I think I'll try to see if Randi has the program or a transcript and listen/read it ---

But --- how did Clinton benefit from cancelling the Iran-Contra investigations --- and
other investigations of GOP --- ???

I don't get it --- I think it isn't healthy for the nation ---

But, to answer your question with yet one more question . . .

HOW did the Dems benefit from Pelosi's statement that "impeachment was off the table" --- ????

What did that do for Democrats --- ???

As far as I can see it hurt support for Dem leadership --- ????

[defendandprotect]

21. Turley seemed to suggest that the leadership of both parties see themselves as

having more in common --- leadership to leadership --- than they do with the masses . . .

I do have to look up Randi Rhodes' records and see if the program is available on tape --
or transcript.

[gateley]

29. Well, he's probably correct in that assumption. They're all the big guys, after all

and we are the little people.

[JDPriestly]

35. They view us as not understanding "how things work."

[gateley]

28. I just don't see either side 'giving away' anything without getting something in

return. I'm not sure how Clinton benefitted from the examples you cite, but I'm fairly confident he got something.

And I agree -- if it is true (about the deal between Bush and the Dems) it would only hurt the Dem leadership.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. The whole point Turley was trying

to make is that there are no "sides." They're all dancing to the same corporate masters and we, the American people, are not invited to the party. It's actually the ONLY explanation for the Democrats complete inaction.

"We don't have choice, we have the illusion of choice." -George Carlin

[gateley]

48. I finally got that after I actually READ the piece (which I didn't do before my

knee-jerk response). I do think there are a couple of hold-outs, but not many. Heartbreaking.

[JDPriestly]

34. From the point of view of negotiation technique, Nancy is a total naive.

You don't throw away your aces for nothing. And the Democrats have gotten nothing -- maybe the slight rise in the minimum wage, but that has little value since labor is not in much demand and the rise in the minimum wage is insufficient to improve very many lives. I really can't think of anything else important that the Republican have cooperated on. Not one thing.

[defendandprotect]

41. I keep feeling that we're right in our expectations about what . . .

should be happening --- and isn't ---

Only corruption would be the answer . . .

There are so many interconnections between people in Congress and profits made from war and
privatizing government now that there's no way I can have an overview of this ---
there are just too many pieces of the puzzle missing ---

I'm concerned that the DLC still exists in the party ---
That causes a lot of mistrust for me ---

I trusted Pelosi in the beginning --- and now I feel entirely stupid and naive about that!!!

Congress is too comfortable --- they have no fear --- that's obvious.

Outrageous things keep happening --- without remedy.

[Maddy McCall]

2. Why on earth would the party in power promise ANYTHING?

:shrug:

To which Republicans would they have made this promise?
What would the benefit of making such a promise be?

[defendandprotect]

17. Why on earth would Pelosi say that "impeachment is off the table" . .??

And, supposedly they made the PROMISE to Repug leadership ---

[me b zola]

39. Indeed. There is no rational explanation for that

Impeachment is off the table. There has never been a rational or believable explanation given for that "policy" statement.

[Mass]

4. They may have made a promise, but I do not think that it is to the GOP. I think it is to the DLC

and some Presidential candidates who did not want to hear about that.

[Kutjara]

5. And in return, the Repugs presumably promised...

...not to release the records of all the Dem leaders' phones they've been tapping for the past six years.

Or they promised none of the Dem leaders' families would suffer unfortunate accidents.

Or that no large quantities of drugs would be found in Dem leaders' childrens' school lockers.

[Maddy McCall]

7. Oh Good Lord.

Can we have a response that's somewhere within the realm of reality?

[Kutjara]

12. Can you think of a good reason why Democratic leadership...

...has seemingly given BushCo a complete pass on any crimes they may commit? Do you think the GOP would return the favor if the tables were turned?

What are the alternatives? Just saying the Dem leadership is spineless simply begs the question. Why are they spineless? What's in it for them to let this sorry situation continue?

OK, if you don't believe they're being blackmailed, would you believe they've been bought? Is that real enough?

[madeline_con]

6. YES, because the Chimp would squeal like a

stuck pig, and all the players would be exposed!

OR the Dems exploited the fact that we genuinely wanted change, and are really gutless worms underneath their suits!

:popcorn:

[Maddy McCall]

11. "The players."

Such as? Specifically about what?

The latter is the much more realistic possibility.

[madeline_con]

18. The PNAC crowd and their backers.

Specifically.

[opihimoimoi]

8. This is GOP CRAP.......fuck Turkey

[NC_Nurse]

9. I thought it said PROMISED GOD not to impeach...

Ha! Too many Friday night drinks...:P

[madeline_con]

22. No, God was the one who called DUH-bya and said "Run!"....

but he thought he meant for President.

He's been so sneaky since, that the almighty can't hit him with a lightning bolt. He keeps trying to get him to fall off a bike and be mortally wounded, but the devil protects his own!

[IntravenousDemilo]

10. If the Democratic leadership made such a promise, they can just as easily break it.

The GOP break promises all the time, so there's plenty of precedent.

That being said, it sure smells like there was some sort of agreement, anyway. Are there any other possible explanations?

I like your poppy, by the way. For remembrance?

[defendandprotect]

23. My "Poppy" is for color and because I love flowers --- and so I can recognize my posts faster ....

I like to paint --- and I've frequently noticed that the Poppy seems to be the
most often reproduced flower --- must have made everyone really, really happy!!!


Btw, I recently heard .... and never thought about this before... that
"Poppy" Bush was named that not for his fatherly attitudes or senior
positions in authority, but some suggest for his involvement in drug
activities!!!

[TahitiNut]

26. That's pretty much the rationale for my sig graphic.

... besides liking the neologism. :party:

[defendandprotect]

37. Interesting . . .

Lot of colorful energy in yours ---

Not even going to ask how you do it 'cause . . .

I can't even figure out how to use the "quotes" on this website --- !!!!

[IntravenousDemilo]

33. Well, it's definitely recognizable, and showy too!

I imagine poppies are popular for painters because they're easier to do than roses and irises, less detailed, and if you had to paint an entire field of them, well...

The reason I asked whether it was for remembrance is that when I was on TV two days before Remembrance Day, I wore a bright red R.D. poppy in my lapel to honour the service of our armed forces in past wars, and also to distinguish myself from the rest of the pack who were Americans -- a little shout-out to Canadian viewers, as it were.

That's a neat theory about Poppy Bush. Where did you hear this, and have you read about it as well? It might be an interesting thing to investigate and publicize, as it puts a new and hypocritical spin on Republican involvement in that whole "War on Drugs" thing.

[defendandprotect]

36. The "Poppy" Bush story I read recently on the internet . . ..

as best I recall, but not where ---
If I come by it again, I'll post it --

I'm a really big reader of books and internet --- but I'm way behind right now --
for two reasons: one, DU provides a vast amount of info and opinion I'm trying to
catch up with and understand in my months here ---

and --

Two -- oddly enough they closed my town library for more than four months for
renovations and so I'm not really sure what happened over that period of time
in non-fiction ---


The Poppy I think is more idolized than we appreciate now . . .
I should kinda research that some time --- but it does appear in a vast amount of older
art works -- and I think it was an important symbol universally understood.
The colors vary --- though many are in the red family -- usually bright and eye-catching as
though this is something nature really wants us to notice!

Long, long ago, when I was a Catholic school girl --- they used to sell poppies outside
of church for remembrance during Veteran's holiday.

[rucky]

13. At this stage in the game, I'd rather see an indictment in 2009, anyways. n/t

[brazos121200]

19. I got the sense several months ago that this is what happened.

The Democratic leadership in Congress somehow pledged to the administration that there would be no impeachments in return for the administration allowing the election to go forward. I know this sounds far fetched, but the Repubs knew months beforehand that a Democratic win in the House was likely and were very worried about investigations, then suddenly, for no apparent reason, the administration seemed to no longer be concerned over possible investigations. Put two and two together and get...?

[defendandprotect]

24. The GOP sure look happy and relaxed to me while investigations go NOWHERE --- !!!!

I agree with your assessment --- sadly!

[TahitiNut]

15. That I am ABLE to believe it indicates how corrupt I believe our goverment has become ...

... that "opposing" parties would/could make such agreements, keep them secret from the people they purportedly REPRESENT, for purposes that can only be regarded as patronizing, elitist, and anti-democratic. There is absolutely NOTHING consistent between such secrecy/subterfuge and democratic self-governance. The single exception of a very limited and rigidly bounded domain of national security information cannot and must not be the anchovy on the pizza of democracy. ("Put just one anchovy on a pizza and it infiltrates the entire pizza.")

[defendandprotect]

25. I was really heartsick when I heard this --- and I'm amazed at the responses!!!

Unfortunately, I do believe it ---

And, when I think of how hopeful Democrats were that we had a female Speaker . . .
it's even sadder.

[PATRICK]

20. They deal all the time

and give the GOP a lot of benefit and postpone their own- which the GOP ensures never happens. The Dems, even after constant betrayals and trickery are extremely reluctant to break the deals even after they are mockingly voided. This signals what the GOP knows and which the GOp takes easy advantage of. They are primarily reluctant to do any of those things anyway. When the other side- which is ruthless and desperate- senses this it makes it easy to make fools of them.

There is no oath or promise(or Constitution) or paper or anything that hampers them pursuing impeachment. It all comes back to not wanting to and if that means hampering their own righteous investigators, that will happen, but all done in a more polite, reluctant manner than the GOP would do in any similar circumstances.

Now outside observers of government, media, corporate influence start demonizing this revolting mess an extra step or two beyond what is necessary. Maybe, just maybe they are right. The evidence clearly out in the open however is more than enough without having to inject some reason into this dysfunctional breakdown at the top. The Dems don't know how to deal with sociopaths and can't recognize their 'club members" as such. the first barrier is not OUR awareness of hidden knowledge and conspiracy but THEIR lack of awareness of open criminal activities and gangsterism and awful judgment about what to do about it.

That was a fundamental problem of the self-moderating Social Democrats facing the Nazis in the 1930's and our people have let more of the big moneyroots of the RW in to poison the well.

In the end, there is a great concern to let the entire administration of the hook except to expose and nail small cases, restore things away from future abuse. Weakness in one area more than guarantees weakness in reform. The fear of being driven to "extremes"- such as defending, enforcing and restoring the rule of law is way more than enough evident to condemn without seeking more shocking" or hidden explanations that get us even more nowhere. Only nuttier.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. If that is true, all I can say is that the Dems are looking less trustworthy by the second. nt

[havocmom]

30. Seems more likely they are being threatened and/or blackmailed

You think wire taps are really for terrorists? :rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

31. They openly announced it wouldn't happen.

They were bragging about their lack of intent even before the election. However, so what? By which I mean, so what if they swore on a stack of 10,000 $100 bills that they wouldn't impeach? What exactly would prevent them from doing so anyway?

[defendandprotect]

38. I don't know what to make of this -- except it's obvious there's no real push for the ...

investigations ---

that seems clear ---

I think we need some insiders --- Jonathan Turley being one --- to explain more of this
to us ---

I think the fastest way is to ask Randi Rhodes to explain more of this to us ---

I checked her website and didn't see the program for the 28th which is when I think
I heard all of this ---

[AndyTiedye]

32. I Think Bush** Promised a "Night of the Long Knives" if They Impeach Him

[cali]

40. linkless at DU

i don't want paraphrased Jonathan Turley. I want to see a transcript or link.

[Joe Fields]

42. I think it's possible that Nancy Fucking Pelosi is a traitor.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. No we have been told that isn't possible.

So it cannot be. Look elsewhere. Probably the Venezuelan referendum is the reason.

[H2O Man]

44. It's possible.

If you lived in a town where two people were known to have robbed the local bank, but the chief of police and the DA refused to press any charges, you might wonder if there was some unspoken agreement between them. And if the chief of police and the DA hung out with the two bank robbers, you might think there was a spoken agreement.

[tom_paine]

45. Absolutely. 95% certainty. After all, we have all seen what the promises

of Democratic Leadership mean to us Filthy Little Nobodies who walk their precincts and make their calls.

Broken scarcely after they have left their lips, ESPECIALLY if it involves taking risks with their prestige and power, against ruthless bastards like the Bushies.

Kind of reminiscent of that old saw about the biggest monkey kicking the smaller monkey who kicks the smaller monkey who kicks the smallest monkey who kicks the sand in frustration.

The Royal Bushies are the biggest monkeys who regularly threaten them with witch-slappings from their Might Wurlitzer, scandals from the Total Information awareness Files, or if worst comes to worst, the occasion Fake Terrorist Attack like with the Bushies mailing anthrax to Dems then tanking the investigation (what investigation?).

Naturally, the Dems quail in fear now. Skinner's (not the DU version :evilgrin: ) behavior modification at it's finest. Another form of Shock Therapy.

So they kick US, the last remaining truly Loyal Americans (along with our brethren from the Right, such as Bruce Fein and Paul Craig Roberts, to name a notable few...we might disagree with them about economics or other things, but we ALL love the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Old American Republic) because we have no support from 99% of the population and because they can.

It's primate nature.

I don't know if this has happened or not, the direct making of promises, but it is certainly high possible and highly probable, given observations of the reality of exposed Multiple Felonies with a side-order of Puzzling Lack of Prosecutions and Grand Juries.

Does this apply also to the next Bushie Emperor 9/11ani? We are about to find out, since a Class E Felony (for which Hevesi was fired, prosecuted, and convicted while it ruined his reelection campaign) should cause 9/11ani to fall faster that Gary Hart.

But I predict it will not, though I hope it will. Even as I type that prediction my "good sense" which if followed would have been wrong on all counts (we'd never torture, we'd never suspend habeaus corpus, we'd never allow blanket warrants and warantless searches, etc. etc. etc., that was all what my "good sense" told me as :tinfoilhat: was shrieking alarm bells, 90% of which turned out to be true) strains at my fingers to make me not want to say it, because like when I predicted in 2003 that oil would go up to $2.00 shortly but wanted to say higher...my "good sense" pulled me back from this wildly overstated tinfoilerry. Oil couldn't double to $3.00 in so short a period...could it?

:rofl:

Anyway, because of that I am going to say it. 9/11ani might be slightly damaged, but because he is now under Bushie Protection, there will be NO prosecution (or a prefunctory bullshit that results in 9/11ani walking, his reputation undamaged) certainly NO conviction, and no real discernable damage to his campaign.

Once there is no prosecution, the story will inevitably die out, like the dozens of openly performed Bushie Felonies we've seen these past seven years.

[sampsonblk]

47. It makes sense to me . What other excuse can there be?

This has been a pattern with this current Dem leadership.

Its probable that they made such a deal, expecting something in return - which they will never get, of course.