For Those Still Queasy About Impeachment...

[WillyT]

Can you give me an idea of what it WOULD take to get you onboard???

How about the new U.S. Attorney General as a recess appointment, no confirmation.

How about an aerial strike on Iran?

How about extending tours of duty in Iraq once again?

Or is it ONLY a reinstatement of the draft? (And isn't THAT some selfish shit?)

:shrug:

[porphyrian]

1. Kick to get this answer. - n/t

[burrowowl]

2. Kick

[lonestarnot]

3. WillyT

You really aren't expecting an answer are you?

[WillyT]

5. Always Challenge The Cowards... ALWAYS !!!

Regardless of party!

[lonestarnot]

8. Carry on!

:patriot:

[Jack Bone]

4. I agree WillyT...I just read this in the Impeachment Group...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=401x265

I dunno, whether you've checked it out yet, or not...

it looks as if our battle isn't among ourselves...it's w/ Congress...and those sorry-ass "Blue-Dogs"....I'll give my own "Blue-Dog" an earful when I see him on Sunday...

[valerief]

6. Queasy about impeachment? Take the Constitutional Anti-Fascist tablet.

It will soothe your tummy with its right-to-an-attorney effervescence.
:beer:

[DemBones DemBones]

7. Everybody's for it, but how do we

get rid of Cheney and Bush together?

Is it allowed under the Constitution to impeach both at once? I would think it should be but it's been a long time since I studied the Constitution and I haven't read it lately, except for a couple of parts.

That's what would have to happen, both of them gone with Pelosi being president then.

Although, if Cheney were impeached, Bush might quit. Or he might bomb Iran.

Congress needs to mount a strong offensive against the administration and say no to extending tours again or cutting vet's benefits again as well as a big NO to bombing Iran, or any other country.

Congress also has to force the administration to begin withdrawing troops.

Getting Congress to do this isn't going to be easy.

[WillyT]

18. No... Not Everybody Is For It... Certainly Not In Congress, And Not Even Here...

We have a bunch of... Pragmatics... who think that all will be wine and roses as long as we wait until the 2008 election.

And what I see in my little corner of the country is political hemorrhaging, the conservatives are leaving the Republicans, and the liberals are leaving the Democrats. This... is... not... good.

Or... ya know what... maybe it is!

Maybe we should make a deal with as many Republican voters as we can find, to all go down and get all the pissed off people to register Independent before the primaries.

Now I'm not advocating for an Independent candidate, or the Independent Party here. But the other day on AAR's Ring Of Fire, the new host, Jon Morgan who is apparently wealthy, told a story of what he called a 'strident' conversation he had with Senator Chuck Schumer. He told Schumer that he was going on strike. No more donations to Democratic campaigns until he saw the Democrats actually DO SOMETHING to thwart the demise of this democracy. When he said that, I jumped up out of my chair, raised a fist and yelled, "Hell yes!!!" Everybody at work thought I was goony.

So why not, since BOTH parties are somewhat pissed at their own, call our own kind of strike, Register Independent, do not respond to any polls, do not donate a dime, and see if that gets anybody's attention inside the beltway.

Or is that just to simple to be true???

:shrug:

[DemBones DemBones]

21. Hey, I'm with you on this!!! When the DNC calls here,

we give the poor telemarketer an earful!

We're nice, though, we say, "Look, I know you're just making calls but here's what you need to tell the Party. . ."

They repeat their script and we say "NO! Not until the Democrats in Congress DO something."

We gave a lot of money to the DNC and the Kerry cmpaign in 2004. Not a dime is going to anyone but Kucinich this time unless there are some BIG changes in Congress. They need to get off their butts.

You're right that most Republicans seem to be as pissed off as we are.

Right after the Democratic primary, when I vote for Kucinich, I'm re-registering as an Independent.

I've suggested this before here and should have done it before but not getting around to it means I don't have to re-register before the primary.

Then again, we really ought to re-register as Independents BEFORE the primary to scare the DNC. We'd just have to be careful to re-re-register as Dems in time to be eligible to vote in the Dem primary.

THAT is the answer, if enough people will do it. We need a lot of radio hosts and bloggers, liberals and conservatives, encouraging everyone to re-register as Independents and set a time to do it. It will take some time to organize it. When is the first primary? And do any states have state primaries in November? If they do, and they have separate primaries for Dems and Reps, people need to be Dems then.

Unless people need to vote in a party primary in November, I like the idea of a nationwide mass re-registration on October 31. TRICK OR TREAT!!!

DO SOMETHING OR WE'RE VOTING YOU OUT!

EDIT: If you only read the bold print, I mean we all re-register as Independents to scare Congress into growing some cojones. We change our registration back to Democrats in time to be eligible to vote in the Dem primaries.

[Individualist]

33. DLC opposes impeachment,

and DLC supporters aren't honest enough to admit they support DLC.

[scarletwoman]

9. It ain't us, it's Congress. They're just plain not going to do it.

They have absolutely no intention of doing anything other than running the clock out on the bush administration.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

sw

[Hissyspit]

10. You don't have to apologize. That's the way it looks.

And it's a shame.

[scarletwoman]

14. Thanks. I only apologize because I'm an unregenerate cynic - ever since 11/22/1963 - and I fully

understand that most people would prefer to not share my worldview. It's not very comforting.

sw

[Hissyspit]

16. You're not alone: Since 9/25/1962!

:) (Or should that be :()

[yodermon]

11. Guaranteed pardon of bushco by republican successor (thompson)

that's why not.
I'd prefer to see bush/cheney arrested immediately after leaving office in 2009.
I prefer justice over theater.

[rucky]

15. thompson would arrest him, but he'd pardon him?

talk about theater

[yodermon]

36. Huh? not what I said.

Well, I am assuming that a Democrat would take over the Whitehouse in Jan 2009. Whoever that may be, I'm hoping that s/he'll have his/her justice department seek indictments immediately.

If bush/cheney were to resign prior to inauguration, thompson would be president for enough of a window to issue pardons.

That's all I meant.

[BootinUp]

12. I'm not queasy...

but I truly believe that its up to our representatives to gage public opinion and make the call.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. 67 votes in the Senate

I've never heard anybody here say these guys don't DESERVE to be impeached. We say that it'll be a wasted, futile effort if it fails to convict.

[scarletwoman]

17. Well, it will all be rendered moot anyway, once the war on Iran commences. (nt)

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Why? Do you feel OJ shouldn't have been indicted? Also, what's the proceedure for

voting to sustain impeachment before an impeachment takes place?

I've never read about that in the constitution?

[Senator]

24. So, you prefer exoneration of the regime?

Which is what failure to impeach amounts to.

Even a "wasted, futile" impeachment effort is an objection in the name of the American People. It is a message to the world, to history, to our children.

But apparently to some, one not worth sending.

---

[MonkeyFunk]

29. And what good

is an exoneration? That's what failure to convict would be.

[Senator]

30. As I said, objection is its own purpose/reward. And a simple "J'Accuse"...

...is the beginning of any process of accountability. Without it, there is tacit approval -- full exoneration.

That's why the founders split the function -- putting consideration of the result "above the pay grade" of House members. Impeachment can/should be based on suspicion alone. And we're way past that in that the regime "confesses" and defends their acts (rhetorically).

It is this "results-based" obsession that makes no sense -- "we should only fight battles we know we can win."

But even on these bizarre terms, failure to impeach is nonsensical. A Senate outcome would be seen for what it is -- even the "feared outcome" (30plus GOP Senators standing to defend war criminals) would be seen as their side putting partisanship ahead of war crimes, the Constitution, and the American People.

This notion that any of the 70% who already disapprove bushcheney's job performance and want them to stop killing our kids in far off lands is suddenly going to rally to his side is a delusion that could only be maintained in the beltway.

Even Republicans hate bush now.

----

[omega minimo]

43. All these votecounters who see "failure to convict" as "exoneration"..............

don't seem to understand the process
or history
or reality
or the dangers of inaction
or the ill logic of negative self-fulfilling prophecies
or the INSANITY of counting on the (supposed) existence of rights that they refuse to defend.

Spoiled, lazy, miseducated brats.

And I mean that in the best possible way. :evilgrin:

[WillyT]

44. LOL !!!

:bounce:

[omega minimo]

46. ;)

hey they suckered America into not impeaching Reagan/Bush, too.

'member?

[WillyT]

47. Oh I Do, I Do !!!

And we are paying for that now in spades!!!

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

48. .

:thumbsdown: those who do not remember history are doomed to............... uh, i fergit............ oh nebbermine, Factor of Ten is on............................

[onenote]

49. I'm curious about the "history" that suggests failure to convict doesn't = exoneration

My understanding of US history is that there have been five instances where someone was impeached but then acquitted:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. Following acquittal he remained on bench for six more years until his death. In 1941 a Naval Attack Transport was named for him.

Federal Judge James Peck. Following acquittal he remained on bench for six years until his death.

President Andrew Johnson. After acquittal he finished his term as president,later was elected to the Senate. Also had navy vessel named for him in the 20th Century.

Federal Judge Harold Louderback. Following acquittal, he remained on bench until his death 8 years later.

President William Clinton. Following his acquittal, he finished his term. He currently is one of the most highly sought after and compensated speakers and his wife is a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And that's just the folks who were actually impeached by the House. At this point, as Conyers has indicated, an attempt to start an impeachment process in the House almost certainly would fail to achieve the necessary majority.

What history am I missing?

[omega minimo]

50. see #39

and you ARE aware that the impeachment of Clinton was TOTALLY BOGUS, right? Might take that off the list.........

Where's NIXON?

:popcorn:

Where's the NONimpeachment of Reagan for Iran/Contra and the repercussions of that?



Do you believe that the laundry list of current impeachable offenses is just a yawn? :boring:

[onenote]

51. history not your strong suit

Nixon wasn't impeached and then acquitted. Articles of impeachment were voted out by the judiciary committee and it was clear that (a) the full House was going to approve the articles and (b) that his support in the Senate had evaporated. So, he resigned.

And yes I know Clinton's impeachment was bogus. But you were the one that suggested that history indicates acquittal doesn't end up equating to exoneration for the accused and I still am waiting for that history. And no, #39 doesn't provide it.

[WillyT]

53. Damn Onenote... You've Missed a Lot Of Really Good Articles...

Do a search and ya might get caught up.

:hi:

[onenote]

54. articles that show that officials impeached, but acquitted arent' viewed as exonerated?

I must be searching in the wrong places because I can't find them.

[omega minimo]

56. Maybe your view is the problem

:evilgrin:

"...articles that show that officials impeached, but acquitted arent' viewed as exonerated?"



If you are unwilling to consider that "acquitted" does not = "viewed as exonerated," then we're shouting in a wind tunnel.

If you are a student of history, then you may acknowledge that there is more to how past figures are "viewed."

Or do you assume that everyone "views" it as you do? That the official view is the only "right" one?

That assumption would cheer Dick, Dubya and the other Dick -- "If the President does it" -- or can't be convicted -- "it's not illegal"

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

55. I know a set up when I see one

Although I overlooked your limited perameter to the discussions:

"My understanding of US history is that there have been five instances where someone was impeached but then acquitted."

You are propping up your own (arguably false) assumptions with more of the same and criticizing those who don't buy into them. And where do you get the guarantee that there would be an acquittal?

You're in this subthread-- but ignoring the back and forth on whether "failure to convict" = "exoneration."

Also ignoring "the dangers of inaction" and the "the ill logic of negative self-fulfilling prophecies..." as well as the question of how much value you place on the laundry list of impeachable offenses.

Actually it was Senator who brought up the word "exoneration" and used it quite differently. You automatically "exonerate" this administration if you fail to impeach. And history will not "exonerate" the American people and Congress that refuse to demand ACCOUNTABILITY.

Reread all of Senator's posts here-- it might help you release your "results-based obsession." He has many fine OPs and posts elsewhere on this, also.


Senator (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-29-07 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. So, you prefer exoneration of the regime?

Which is what failure to impeach amounts to.

Even a "wasted, futile" impeachment effort is an objection in the name of the American People. It is a message to the world, to history, to our children.

But apparently to some, one not worth sending.

---
Those who can handle reality are the ones who know Impeachment and War Crime prosecutions are necessary to Redeem Our National Soul.

[mondo joe]

31. Seconded. Thanks MonkeyFunk.

[bcool]

19. Forget about impeachment...so says Conyers

Well, I hate to rain on everyone's parade (and mine, too), but I heard Rep. Conyers being interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now tonight and he pretty much said that impeachment is out of the question - not enough time to get it done before the elections. He said we couldn't go into the election season with the two highest members of the executive branch undergoing impeachment.

If he feels that way, why did he introduce the articles of impeachment against Cheney??

[RufusTFirefly]

20. How ironic! I still love Conyers but...

... in the same interview with Amy Goodman, he accused the Rethugs of running out the clock in regards to the contempt citations:

It’s very clear that they’re resisting the contempt citations for not honoring our process of requiring them to come before us. They’re trying to run the clock out on us.

Well, isn't this pretty much what the impeachment naysayers have been doing?

After all, people have been making a compelling case for impeachment for quite a while. Now Conyers seems to suggest that impeachment would be worth the effort but we no longer have the time!

Well, dammit, we need to make time. The Constitution and the country depend on it.

If we let these war criminals off, there will be no turning back. I can't imagine an administration more contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution than this one. Failing to initiate impeachment will send a strong signal to this administration and future ones: Go ahead. Lie to the American public. Torture and imprison with impunity. Spy on American citizens. Rob from the treasury to line the pockets of your cronies. Invade countries without provocation. No one's going to stop you.

The Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper!"

[Jack Rabbit]

22. First, Willy, you'd have to get thos who are squeemish about impeachment to come out

Many are ashamed to admit it.

Perhaps we need a twelve step program. You know, like Anti-Impeachment Anonymous.

First you have to make a confession. You know, like: Hello, my name is Nancy and I just can't bring myself to impeach Bush.

Take it from there.

[Senator]

26. Yes, 12 Steps: Impeachophobia is a Disease

But even before the healing begins, we need an intervention.

--

[Jack Rabbit]

32. Good essay

It will be difficult enough to get 30 Democratic senators to say that the tyrant is a war criminal, although it is blatently obvious.

[Senator]

34. I would have thought that too

That the sticky subject of war criminality might have remained the unspoken engine behind the eventual Dem-led impeachment. But it's possible that the game has changed a bit.

What with the Jane Mayer piece in the NYer, the spoon-feeding of that in the latest Hentoff piece, and even Tweety broaching the subject on Herdball today (more the fact of the votevets kid suddenly coming up with cogent talking points) -- it may be that a better-do-it-here-so-they-don't-do-it-(and more)-there, reality-based option is finally emerging.

Remember with war crimes it really is "if you hang together, you hang separately too -- eventually."

Heckuvan Albatross Bushies.

---

[Jacobin]

25. I'm for it

If you don't impeach Bush/Cheney, who the hell would you ever impeach?

Whether he's actually convicted in the Senate to me is not an issue. It would weaken the tyrants and PERHAPS stop them from attacking Iran/Syria.

[graywarrior]

27. Impeachment is too humane for this guys.

But I am for impeachment and have been since March 2002. Come to think of it, since Jan 20, 2000.

[DangerDave921]

28. election

I think if Bush tried to suspend the next election to install one of his own in office.

[Vidar]

35. K&R.

[Dark]

37. For someone to explain to me how impeachment would do a god-damned thing.

Or how we'd win the important vote in the senate to remove W.

[omega minimo]

40. see #39

[Dark]

52. Civic lessons?

That's how you'd get Bush removed from office? Educate 75% of the country in 502 days and expect that they will all agree with you

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

57. Hey, that's your strawman, not mine.

HOMEY DON'T PLAY DAT :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. I'd Say About 18-19 Republican Senators In Favor.

Get me that, and I'll be on board faster than you can say "fuck you OMC".

[omega minimo]

39. All it would take it CIVICS LESSONS

:hi:

[omega minimo]

41. "Queasy" or blase?

:boring:

[WillyT]

42. I'd Go For... Uniformed.... Or Maybe, Constitutionally Challenged

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

45. intellectually lazy

and some even published on the pages of "left" journals and editorial pages................................