Hillary Clinton Against Impeaching Bush

[Ethelk2044]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23803


Clinton then told the story of a woman named Lilly Ledbetter working as a supervisor at a Firestone plant, who was paid less then men doing the same work. She sued and won. Firestone appealed to the Supreme Court, which recently ruled against her, with the votes of two Bush appointees. Clinton used this as an argument against the idea - which she said she hears all the time - that politics doesn't matter and the politicians are all the same.

[demnan]

1. I'm for impeachment

but I know for a fact, you have to take Swanson with a grain of salt. We just learned that recently.

I'll wait for a more credible source before I post this on my impeachment forum.

[William769]

6. Funny, nowhere in the article did i see

"Hillary Clinton Against Impeaching Bush".

ON EDIT: Also in the other four threads today on this same subject did I see "Hillary Clinton Against Impeaching Bush".

[onehandle]

2. Which Presidential candidates are for it?

Other than Kucinich.

[demnan]

4. Exactly

none

[NoPasaran]

41. Kucinich has only filed articles against Cheney

[Fridays Child]

3. Friday's Child Against Hillary Clinton...

...and Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, and anyone else who takes a public stand in favor of shitting on the Constitution.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Purveyor]

7. To hell with impeachment, I want to know what candidate would extradite

Bush & Klan to an International Criminal Court to be tried for war crimes/crimes against humanity.

Pfffft to this silly nonsense of 'impeachment'.

These bastards belong behind bars at the very least...

[whistle]

8. Well all I have to say is lead, follow or get out of the way!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. How many threads do we need to point out that JE and HRC also do not favor impeachment?

The reason a thread was posted about BO's view on the situation is because it was in the news, not to single him out on this issue. It is sad, but not surprising, that JE and HRC also do not favor impeachment, although their reasoning is more sound than Obama's reasoning that what * and Cheney did is not "grave" enough.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Hillary's hubby is pals with the Bushes and is in cahoots with the House of Saud

so it follows that Hillary will oppose impeaching Junior.

[AZBlue]

11. Wow! What a blatant and obvious Attack Hillary, Inc. thread!

I mean, some of them have some semblance of validity, but this is just so transparent.

'Cause she's not the only candidate to be against it, but you've conveniently forgotten that, huh?

[earthlover]

12. impeaching clinton hurt the reps, impeaching bush might hurt the dems

it would be so sad to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. just when we have a very important election, one where we could turn the tide and make real changes, get meaningful change in this country...what are we supposed to do, get a backlash of people against us so we lose?

OK,,,,predicted responses: everyone loves dems, defeat is impossible, everyone will love the idea of trying to remove a president, the tooth fairy exists, santa comes down the chimney...

[sampsonblk]

16. You conveniently left out Nixon

Nixon was wrong, and during the process, everyone came to understand that. And his party suffered.
Bill Clinton got a blowjob. The whole thing was ridiculous. During the process, everyone came to understand that. The GOP suffered.

GW Bush is a criminal. We need to start the process - immediately. And let the chips fall where they may.

[PBass]

17. Pardon me??? Impeaching Clinton hurt the Reps, you say?

I haven't got a clue what you could be referring to.

Was it the 2000 or 2004 GOP presidential win, or maybe the GOP Congressional wins in 2002 and 2004 where you think they were "hurt"?

The GOP lost elections in 2006 but it had absolutely nothing to do with impeaching Clinton.

So what in the blue blazes are you referring to? The GOP going after Clinton was an unqualified win for his detractors, IMO. It certainly wasn't a win for Democrats, by any stretch of the imagination.

[earthlover]

19. No, the polls at the time said! I report, you decide

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

In the wake of the impeachment, Clinton's approval ratings went UP 10 points. In the wake of the impeachment, the Republicans' DISAPPROVAL also went UP 10 points.


I would say, that is not an outcome that would help us going into 08.

But maybe it's just me. I want us to win a landslide in 08.

Impeachment is not gonna happen. And if we tried, there is not guarantee it won't backlash against Democrats. People already don't like Bush, but they aren't that thrilled with partisan politics or Congress either. Unless there is some sort of smoking gun issue such as Watergate with Nixon that people will view as impeachable, I am afraid, especially with the media's lack of focus, that people would just view it as partisan politics. And, voila, it backfires, and we turn a tremendous opportunity to win and win big in 08 into a nightmare. Short sighted in my view.

[realbluesky]

24. Worried about votes?

That's exactly why congress is polling at such low numbers. They are afraid to do anything because they're worried about votes. You are more concerned with votes and winning than doing the right thing.

I would that you were hot or cold but because you are lukewarm I will spew you out of my mouth.

This makes me so sick I want to puke.

Just let the criminals run free so we can win an election. How base. How immoral. How loserish.

[earthlover]

20. No, the polls at the time said! I report, you decide

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

In the wake of the impeachment, Clinton's approval ratings went UP 10 points. In the wake of the impeachment, the Republicans' DISAPPROVAL also went UP 10 points.


I would say, that is not an outcome that would help us going into 08.

But maybe it's just me. I want us to win a landslide in 08.

Impeachment is not gonna happen. And if we tried, there is not guarantee it won't backlash against Democrats. People already don't like Bush, but they aren't that thrilled with partisan politics or Congress either. Unless there is some sort of smoking gun issue such as Watergate with Nixon that people will view as impeachable, I am afraid, especially with the media's lack of focus, that people would just view it as partisan politics. And, voila, it backfires, and we turn a tremendous opportunity to win and win big in 08 into a nightmare. Short sighted in my view.

[ProudDad]

52. Impeaching for a blow job may have hurt the pukes

Impeaching for war crimes and crimes against the Constitution and serial flagrant violations of the Letter and Spirit of the Constitution -- which can ALL BE PROVEN if Pelosi would allow Conyers to begin -- are a different kettle of fish...

The MSM would HAVE to carry the hearings or their result.

The people would eventually "get it" as they did in '74.

It's only the cowardice of the corporate owned Dem "leadership" that is holding back what MUST BE DONE!

[hatrack]

13. Well, there's a shocker . . .

:eyes:

[elocs]

14. I am not a Senator Clinton supporter, but for all of those who are condemning her

please show me your long list of prominent Democrats who DO favor impeachment. Wow, that long? No Gore, or Obama, or Edwards, and not even my own Senator Feingold. If impeachment is your big and deciding issue, then I guess you will not be voting for the Democratic candidate in 2008.

[realbluesky]

29. You are correct...I will not vote for a democrat who does not support impeachment

It is the duty of congress to impeach criminals.
No true American democrat should vote for any politician who will not do their duty.
We need to hold their feet to the fire on this point.
If that means losing an election, then so be it.
Impeachment is the most important issue facing this nation.
Impeachment is everything. Without impeachment we are saying bush and his gang of thugs are above the law. We are telling him he can do anything he pleases and there will be no consequences to him.

AND WE ARE TELLING THE NATION THAT DEMOCRATS ARE WEAK AND COWARDLY...WE'RE TO AFRAID OF THE REPUBLICANS TO DO THE RIGHT THING

[elocs]

30. Looks like you won't be voting for our nominee, but I think you are a minority.

You can rant, rave, scream, and howl all you like, but most likely there will be no impeachment because most members of Congress do not support it. My own Senator Feingold says that Congress is not obligated to impeach and I guess I'll trust his judgement over any anonymous internet poster. Not supporting the Democratic nominee only gives the Republicans a better chance to hold the White House and from what I read if it is Romney, then he will make Bush look like an amateur. But then impeachment cries could continue. Like it or not, we have a 2 party system here and it will be either the Democrats or Republicans who will govern. The odds are that neither one will do it exactly the way that everybody likes them to do it.

[realbluesky]

31. What a crock

First of all, I don't rant, rave, scream, and howl.
And, yes, I am in the minority but that makes my opinion no less valid.

You want to vote for people who do not represent you just because it's the lesser of two evils.
I will not do that. I do not feel that is responsible.
If that let's the repubs keep power, then that's the democrats fault for not doing their job, not mine.

If you want to find out about impeachment, read the Constitution. It's really not a big document.

I guess you are saying it's okay to let criminals go unpunished if it's politically expedient. That is absolute immorality.

[Silent3]

32. This analogy is a stretch, but...

Imagine you have just enough money to build either a hospital or a prison, and the prison would be so poorly built the inmates will probably escape anyway. You can howl all you like that what's really needed is more money to do both projects properly, but reality is what it is, and you're stuck with those constraints.

Me, I'd build the hospital given those unappealing limits.

As it stands now, impeachment is a very expensive option -- expensive in terms of opportunity cost -- with little chance of conviction. I don't see how it's "absolutely immoral" to avoid an very expensive option with little chance of success. I don't value symbolic gestures that highly, I'm afraid.

Adding more complication to the mess is the need to impeach Cheney before Bush... God knows we wouldn't be doing our country any favor by granting Cheney the real Presidency to go along with his shadow presidency. So, to pull off impeachment and truly call it a success, you have to successfully impeach and convict Cheney, then shortly after impeach and convict Bush. That's a pretty tall order -- one that's not going to magically happen simply because Democrats "stand up and do what's right!".

I'd dearly love to seem both of these bastards impeached, convicted, and imprisoned at Gitmo for that matter. I'm sorry if being realistic about it doesn't satisfy your rightful anger at the situation. I think the best we can hope is that either (A) ongoing investigations produce such a bombshell that both Cheney and Bush could be rapidly and successfully impeached and convicted, or (B) Democrats do their best (and that could certainly be better than what we've seen so far) to minimize the damage Bush and Cheney can cause over the next 18 months.

[realbluesky]

33. It is a duty to impeach...

Can you imagine a prosecutor running for re-election telling the electorate he will not prosecute known criminals because it is not politically expedient?

You have a very good way of expressing yourself, but it still does not change the fact that if democrats do not impeach, then they are saying what's happening in Washington is okay.

Why do you think the approval rating of congress is so low? Democrats won't stand up.

They caved in and gave the imbecile all the money he wanted for Iraq with no strings attached.
They are so full of bluster, but act like cowards when confronted. They will speak the truth one day and then apologize the next. They keep talking about how bad things are, but aren't doing one damn thing about it.
I'm tired of talk. Where is the courage, the backbone, the strength of character. How about standing up for what is right.

I'm only one vote, so I'm not going to matter at all, but I will not give my one vote to anyone who will not do their duty and impeach. It doesn't matter that they don't have any votes. It doesn't mater what the media says. Nothing matters except bringing the criminals to justice for history.
If the democrats do not impeach, which they obviously won't, the history won't be about how bad Bush was, but about how the democrats let him get away with it and stood by and did nothing.

[MGKrebs]

34. Senators don't even get a say until it goes through the House.

And if enough of us have not convinced our Reps to do this thing, then it damn well IS our own fault. Even my Rep., John Lewis, hasn't signed on yet.

Don't pass the buck. So far, you and I have failed. Keep working.

[realbluesky]

35. Correct

About the Senators...
However, it is not my fault the reps will not do anything. They should be doing what is right, and that is bringing charges against criminals.
They should not have to be told by their constituents what is right and wrong.

History will judge this bunch of democrats.

[Silent3]

38. "Duty" is a complex thing

The point of my analogy is that by not building the prison, you're giving up on the "duty" to lock up criminals and keep the public safe. But if the prison isn't going to hold the prisoners anyway, and the whole thing is merely a symbolic observance of "duty", and sick people don't get treated because you're pouring your resources into a hopeless symbolic act... you're missing the bigger duty you have for doing the most you can to better people's lives.

I think more public good will be done by spending congressional time and effort finding the few good things we'll be able to do over the next year and a half for getting out of Iraq (Dems are dropping the ball there so far), health care, tax equity, budget sanity, education, etc., in a cloture-vote obtaining, veto-proof way (which won't be much, I'm afraid), and using the investigative and subpoena power of Congress to dig up as much dirt as we can -- we know the dirt is there! -- which should at least snag some low-hanging fruit and help us put more Dems in power in '08.

I don't think we need an impeachment in the next 18 months to ensure history looks badly upon Bush. The dirt will come out, and impeachment or not, I think history will look back at the Bush years as a major low point in American democracy.

Perhaps someone else can answer this: Is there any reason an out-of-office President, and members of his administration, can't be convicted of treason or other crimes after they're out of office?

[realbluesky]

39. Hopeless and symbolic act?

First of all, impeachment is not symbolic.
I'll grant you that it may be hopeless, but it is surely not symbolic.

If we believe in the rule of law and there are lawbreakers thumbing their noses at the lawmakers, then impeachment is not an option, it is a requirement.

History will sugar coat this administration, just as it did the Reagan administration.

The most glaring and most outrageous aspect of this period of time will be the weakness of the democrats to stand by and fiddle while "Rome" burns...

It doesn't matter one whit whether or not charges can be brought against an out-of-office president. It just won't happen. Once he's out, everybody will forget about him and he will laugh and receive his pension all the way to his grave.

[Silent3]

61. My point is if there's practically no chance to convict...

...then it is only a symbolic act. Obviously I'm not saying any impeachment is only symbolic.

But cheer up... over this past week, it's beginning to look like the White House is doing its very best to bring on impeachment. They're beginning to make impeachment the only way to get around all of the stonewalling, the only mechanism left to get around the bizarre mix of claims of executive privilege and Cheney not being a part of the executive branch at all.

[realbluesky]

68. I understand your point, but Pelosi took it off the table

Democrats must say to the world that what the bushies have done is not right.
The only way the dems can do that is bringing impeachment charges.
If they do not, the history will judge them more for their inaction than it will the bushies for their criminal activity.

[Silent3]

71. I recommend this response from another DUer in a different thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3346121&mesg_id=3346337

Further, there's nothing about Pelosi saying that impeachment was "off the table" that constitutes a promise not to impeach no matter what. I think that was said simply to make sure Dems didn't look like they were on an impeachment crusade from day one, so that now, if (and I hope it's more like when) they've finally uncovered enough evidence to build a strong case that it will be clear that the awful truth of the circumstances, not a mere political vendetta, forced the need for impeachment.

[realbluesky]

72. I truly hope what you believe is true

I read your recommended thread. The individual made some very good points and I truly hope those things happen.
But I very seriously doubt the dems will have the courage to do anything. I know it's been a short time, but so far they have shown no signs of stepping up. All I hear is talk and bluster. Speak the truth one day and apologize for saying it the next. Oh, how I yearn for some strong leadership from the dems. We need a new Huey Long.

[ProudDad]

54. A little off topic

But this is NOT TRUE in real life: "lock up criminals and keep the public safe"

The current system of criminal training centers fed by an overzealous criminal-injustice system is making the public LESS SAFE.

Ok, back to our regularly scheduled thread...

[Silent3]

60. That I'll agree with.

"Punishism" -- and unfortunately it's hard for candidates of either party to win if they don't play up the "tough on crime" act, which ends up giving us more of the same.

In the case of Bush and Cheney, however, I'm pretty sure the public would be much safer with those two behind bars.

[realbluesky]

67. Thanks for the break

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not so foolish to think impeachment would be complete and bush would be kicked out of office. But if impeachment charges are not brought then history will show that the democrats sat back and did nothing while the repubs destroyed the country. It may be a hopeless act, but it is an act that needs to be done. The democratic congress cannot get much lower in the polls. And the reason is that they won't take any risks to do anything right because they're afraid of losing power. Well, if they keep it up, they will lose power and won't see it for quite some time. This is sad for me. I hate the repubs and everything they stand for. In my mind there is not one redeemable quality in the conservative thought process. The repubs have raped the country and looted the treasury. My great-grandchildren will be paying for bush's criminal activity. History must record that the democrats said to the world, "THIS IS NOT WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT."

[NoPasaran]

42. It's actually prettty common for prosecuters

To not prosecute cases they know they aren't likely to win.

[realbluesky]

47. That's true If they don't have the evidence...

If they have the evidence and do not prosecute they are guilty of dereliction of duty.

[MGKrebs]

50. How about if they already know who the jury is and they know how they will vote?

[realbluesky]

66. Doesn't matter one whit

History will judge the democrats of this era for sitting back and doing nothing. Oh, they can have their hearings and investigations and talk and bluster, but in the end, impeachment is off the table. They will either whitewash the bushies or tell the American people they don't have the votes. This is immorality. This is brazen lunacy. This is being done by a bunch of bought and paid for politicians, who, in effect, are no different than repubs in respect to being beholden to big money.

[ProudDad]

55. Right

They're usually too busy over-prosocuting cases they can win easily.

They ARE lazy fucks.

[ProudDad]

53. You miss the point

Nixon wasn't impeached and THEN his crimes exposed.

His CRIMES WERE EXPOSED during the process of hearings collecting the evidence and testimony of his CRIMES and THEN he was impeached.

Not even allowing Conyers to begin the process of hearings is a NEW CRIME to add to the list of crimes the bushies have perpetrated.

[realbluesky]

63. No, I think YOU miss the point

You speak as if the evidence is not already in.
It is. The democrats are now just going through the motions having hearings and playing politics and when it's all said and done, they will do nothing.
There is enough evidence to bring impeachment charges.
I agree they probably don't have a chance of following through, but to sit back and do nothing while these criminals ruin the country is unconscionable.

[elocs]

43. X

[earthlover]

62. you are turning impeachment into an issue to divided Democrats against Democrats

Meanwhile, we have a wonderful opportunity to win the presidency in 08,take control of Congress, and get some supreme court justices that may balance some of the rep nominees.

Meanwhile there are important issues facing us, like getting out of Iraq, health care, the economy, the environment.

So everything is supposed to grind to a halt while we pursue impeachment? Knowing we don't have the votes?

Impeachment could very easily backlash. It did recently for the Republicans. It would be criminal to do something that would let the republicans stay in power given the fact that right now we are in such a good position.

Sad thing is, if the reps stay in power in 08, the new president will keep on doing things we don't like and all those noble goals, none of them will be served by the new administration.

People say don't vote for a Democrat who doesn't support impeachment. Well, since chances are we are going to nominate someone who doesn't support impeachment, what you are saying is we should not vote? Gees, the Republicans will be overjoyed to hear you say that!!!!

[BenDavid]

15. OK...Get Polosi to

begin the impeachment process in the House and it will go down to defeat...BIG TIME! Even if it were to pass the House then go to the Senate there are not 60 votes to bring against Bush.....You cannot wish for payback for the silly ass impeachment of clinton....It would be nonsense and the media would side with bush and we would not be able to get the message out and thus the dems lose......NO to impeachment....

I do thank you
Ben David

[realbluesky]

23. There's something to be said for doing the right thing

That's the whole problem. You guys are so afraid of doing what is right because of what someone might say, that you won't do anything at all. It doesn't matter whether there are votes or not. What matters is doing their duty. It is their duty to impeach criminals. It is not just a political thing to do. It just doesn't matter what the press says, or FOX propaganda, or anyone else. That's why the democrats are failing. They won't take a stand against evil.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

[MGKrebs]

45. No! This is a democracy, and we have a Constitution.

You are mixing some made-up morality with democratic politics.

The Constitution clearly lays out the process, and there is no obligation to proceed without a consensus. If the consensus doesn't exist, the process does not move forward. We are working toward that consensus but we are not there yet. The fruit is not ripe, so to speak. Hopefully, we will get there soon, but if they pull the trigger too soon they will effectively kill any chance of trying again.

[realbluesky]

48. There is no process when you take impeachment off the table

Made-up morality?

I guess it's okay with you that known criminals go free.
Just let little dick and georgie do anything they damn well please and we'll clean up his mess.

My grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for their crimes.

The evidence is clear. Impeachment is in order NOW!

[MGKrebs]

49. "Impeachment off the table" is not any legal or Constitutional

definition. It is just rhetoric that occurred at one moment in time. In any case, I am confident that the reason impeachment was 'off the table" at that moment was that Congress wanted to proceed with their investigations without the glare of impending 'IMPEACHMENT" threatening to undermine the credibility of the investigations.

It doesn't matter whether it is OK with me or not (and it is not).

[realbluesky]

64. Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense at all

Either impeachment is on the table or it is not.
There's no rhetoric about those words.
When Polosi said impeachment was off the table she took all the pressure off the bushies to even think they needed to curb their criminal activity.

I would love for someone to persuade me that impeachment charges should not be brought, but so far, my conviction has only been strengthened. I would love to be able to say I will support the democratic nominee, but I can't with good conscience. In my opinion, if the democrats do not impeach, they are hopeless losers who will never do anything positive for the nation.

[MGKrebs]

70. The only candidate who can bring impeachment charges has.

Kucinich has a bill that is slowly collecting signatures. Pelosi may have some influence, but if the House brings impeachment charges, I think she will be compelled to hear them. Holding Senators accountable for something that is not their responsibility or even within their authority is ludicrous.

[realbluesky]

73. Democrats need leaders, not followers

I am confused about your comment about Senators.
I know they have nothing to do about impeachment in the primary stages, but they could speak up.
Also, both of my Senators voted to continue funding the war. So I have other bones to pick with them.
I just haven't seen one little spark, one little flicker of hope, that any democrat is a leader.
All I have seen is a timidity that makes me sick to my stomach.
They talk and bluster and then do nothing. They speak the truth one day and apologize for doing it the next.
They have presented no new ideas. And, in the case of one of my senators, they are sweeping many of the crimes of the bushies under the rug.
I'm losing hope. It's nearly gone. I guess I'm getting too old, and have seen too many things to think anything will change. The criminals will go free. Dickie and Georgie will laugh and collect their pensions all the way to their graves. And history will record that the dems did nothing.

[MGKrebs]

75. I can certainly agree with that.

You got the senators comment. I think some of them prefer not to speak up since they may be required to sit in judgment someday. The process loses credibility if they appear to have their minds made up before they even get the evidence.

Voting to fund the war is, I think, a legitimate concern, We all have to decide how much to weigh what candidates say versus what they do and how much we trust each of them.

"Impeachment is off the table" was uttered before the election, and presumably was perceived as the responsible position to run on at the time. If you choose to choose to believe that it means forever, and to hold leadership eternally accountable for failing to meet some arbitrary deadline, that is your prerogative.

[ProudDad]

56. Were you there in '73-74?

I was. I watched it like a hawk.

In '73 nixon was untouchable.

By '74 he was toast.

BECAUSE the process worked -- his crimes were exposed in the House and he had no choice but to resign...

[PBass]

18. It's not really Hillary Clinton's decision to make. I can understand her

being gun shy and wouldn't expect her to lead the way on impeachment (she would be ripped to shreds, for "seeking revenge"). Hillary can never ever lead the way on impeachment because of how it would be portrayed.

But it's not up to her, anyway. It's not any one person's decision to make. It's kind of predicated on the legal circumstances, and then if there is enough of a public demand.

[realbluesky]

28. Worried about how it would be portrayed?

There you go. Quality leaders do not worry about how doing the right thing would be portrayed. Real leaders take a stand against injustice. Real leaders lead their constituents to understand why they are taking action.

Weak leaders go with every way the wind blows. Weak and indecisive leaders (leader is a bad choice of words) wait for others to vote to determine how they should do it and then try to hide their votes.

You support weakness. Cowardice.

Democrats need leaders who will stand up to the media, the opposition, and sometimes even their own party and do the right thing.

[ProudDad]

57. Wrong

"It's not any one person's decision to make."

At this point it's Nancy Pelosi's call.

Conyers is ready to go.

[benny05]

21. Mrs. Clinton will be against it after what happened to Bill

Actually, except for Dennis and Mike Gravel (possibly), most are against impeachment, but do favor oversight. Edwards supported Feingold in censure of Bush.

[realbluesky]

22. Impeachment is the most important issue of the year

If democrats do not impeach they are not doing their duty.

If they do not do their duty, they do not deserve to be re-elected or elected to new office.

Democrats must just say "NO" to these politicians who refuse to do their job.

[polichick]

25. Any candidate who does not support impeachment...

Is putting his or her agenda above what's best for the country imo.

Dems better get their act together, people on the right are beginning to talk about impeachment. (Keith's show last night.)

[realbluesky]

26. Agenda before country...sounds like the republicans

I guess the dems are following their example.
More concerned with power and winning than doing the right thing.
For those who think winning is everything, I feel sorry for you, because noting you really want will ever get done.
Power truly belongs to those who will stand up against all odds and do what is right.

Bringing criminals to justice is the right thing to do.

Impeachment is a duty, not an option.

[polichick]

27. Yes, how ironic it will be...

If Reps have enough of this administration before Dems ~ and they're the ones to do the right thing. Then we really will be irrelevant.

[ValiantBlue]

58. Irony of ironies

this is my worst fear. Republicans stand up and turn against their own. Which earns them instant credibility with about 80% of the American public unhappy with the direction of this country. As a result Democrats would have blundered a situation to stand up and do what is right.

September will be interesting. I hope that by September the Dems come out fighting or else their passive approach to dealing with this adminstration may end up backfiring.

[polichick]

65. Perfect example of...

...ya snooze, ya lose!

John Dean was saying on Olbermann's show that there's talk about impeachment on the right, and some Reps believe there's a clear case against Cheney, where the action should begin. They could take back their party and, like you say, earn instant credibility with the public at the same time.

And on the war Dems are waiting for September, but Lugar and others Reps are forcing the issue now. I sure hope Dems don't prove themselves irrelevant on both issues!!

[ChiciB1]

36. I'm Not One Of Her Supporters Either... But I Myself Am UNDECIDED When

it comes to Impeachment! As much as I would LOVE to run these "evil people" out of office, just think of what the Democrats will have to take on??

Does anyone think that the Repukes won't reload those high powered guns and start shooting back the minute they think they have any hint of a negative issue, or if they see an opening as to why the Democrats don't get us out of the war IMMEDIATELY??

While these are two things I want done, I just don't think the WHOLE country will look favorably on it! And that's really sick too because these people really need a come-uppence! Slime balls who have ruined this country need some real PAY BACK!!

But this country just isn't capable of getting off the dime yet, IMO!!

[realbluesky]

37. That's the whole problem...dems are afraid of doing what's right

That's why the favorability rating of congress is so low. The dems have no backbone. They speak the truth one day and apologize for it the next. The talk big and then cave in. Do you think the country respects that kind of behavior?

This is so outrageous, every American should be on the warpath. It is absolutely immoral to allow these criminals to go free without bringing impeachment charges.

Impeachment is a duty.

[ChiciB1]

40. Personally I've Been Talking REVOLUTION For Much Longer Than

I like to remember. I just can't get a following! But I do agree with what you say... just tell me HOW we get this message across to everyone and I'm ready to sign on the dotted line!

But we get NOWHERE when we get NO HELP!!

[ProudDad]

59. The reason for beginning the process

is to make sure that the bush crime family and their fellow traveler cheney's crimes are exposed for all to see.

We know all about them. We know the full list from warentless wiretaps to contempt of Congress to International War Crimes -- we know them all.

But most of the sheeple don't...just as they didn't know of nixon's crimes in '73 -- but they sure as hell knew all about them by '74 and demanded his impeachment and removal.

Impeachment proceedings are not only Constitutionally DEMANDED if we want to continue trying to build a Democracy in this country but would also be good PR...

[WHAT]

44. What's with more replies than views? 43>39

It seems a reply could also be considered a view. Is there a distinction between posters and viewers where, if a poster falls into a category such as "friend of DU" s/he supersedes viewer status?

I guess I'm obsessing on this...

[BringBigDogBack]

46. So what.

I think most are, except for DK.

[AX10]

51. I also oppose ousting Cheney.

Oust Cheney, in comes VP Fred Thompson! :scared:
This is the way that the GOP could keep the Presidency!
Let Cheney stay and sink the GOP!

[w4rma]

69. Of course she is. (nt)

[bigdarryl]

74. So shes against impeachment shes against pulling troops out of Iraq my question is

why the fuck do we have all these DU'ers who supposed to be progressives supporting her. shes a Bush in a dress plain and simple

[benld74]

76. At least she has a real reason not to have the BALLS to be for impeachment