Impeachment Now!

[H2O Man]

Here is a quote for the reading pleasure of the progressive democrats on DU who believe in the Constitution of the United States:

"Through its broad influence beyond the borders of the United States, the Constitution crafted by Madison and Morris would off the protection and promise of impeachment to people around the world who, in their borrowings from what would become a defining document for nation builders, have made impeachment a vital part of politics, from Brazil (where a president was impeached in 1992) to Lithuania (where a president was impeached in 2004) to Paraguay (where a president was impeached in 1999) to the Philippines (where a president was impeached in 2000) to South Korea (where a president was impeached in 2004) to Venezuela (where a president was impeached in 1993) to Vanuatu (where a president was impeached in 2004)."
--John Nichols; The Genius of Impeachment: The Founder’s Cure for Royalism; p 36

[babylonsister]

1. And the grand democracy that is (supposedly) the US won't even consider it.

What's wrong with this picture?

[H2O Man]

2. Right.

We have people, even in the democratic party, that do not understand the wisdom and the power of our Constitution.

[robinlynne]

103. Well the people certainly consider it. but our representatives are not representing.

[bobthedrummer]

3. K&R

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST

[H2O Man]

4. Impeach Dick Cheney.

It's the thing to do.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Ditto that! After watching "Cheney's Law" on Frontline last night, I cannot

believe the man hasn't been Impeached! Everyone in power, from the State Department to the DOJ, KNOW the man has committed crimes and he's still the VP? Something is seriously wrong.

[H2O Man]

15. Exactly.

If the democrats pushed it in congress, he would either resign in disgrace, or be impeached in the Senate.

[snappyturtle]

56. Yes, I saw Frontline too and after the president's press conference/speech

today I would say he's over ripe for impeachment and a white jacket! K&R

Bush is so out of touch he's scaring me with his unmeasured words to the world.

[bdamomma]

97. I just finished watching tonite, Cheney lives in the shadows

he is no American, he is a evil man, who for years wants revenge against Congress, he does not respect the 3 branches of gov no checks and balances, his ass should be out of there. He believes in no laws and executive unitary power for the president, and he's got his puppet.

[in_cog_ni_to]

146. Yes. He and the neo-cons waited for the perfect puppet so they could use him to further their agenda

The psycho was their pick. What I don't understand is why CONGRESS is so willing to give up their power?! One would think that alone would encourage them to get rid of Cheney. They know what he's done, yet they continue to let him take MORE powers away from them! WTF? I just don't get.

[H2O Man]

152. Right.

He is wildly unpopular. Even though they might not come out and advocate impeaching him, very few republicans are going to come to his defense once the process starts.

[Baby Snooks]

57. But if you impeach him first then who becomes vice-president?

Unless I have missed something, Nancy Pelosi would become vice-president. Which certainly would at least rid of us Cheney. But then if we impeached Bush, she would become president.

And that would upset Miss Hillary. And we all know we mustn't upset Miss Hillary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Ford was just a member chosen by the house back in 1973

becuase of that little problem after the resignation of the VEEP under under Nixon for IRS troubles

I am sure we could see a similar arrangment.

The line of succession is a modern thing, not in the Constution

[Just-plain-Kathy]

111. Wow, I never thought of that. ...You could be on to something. ..n/t

[bdamomma]

141. that would be something to see, a cat fight!!

[Raksha]

182. But if Al Gore declares his candidacy, Miss Hillary becomes irrelevant

almost immediately, removing that particular obstacle to impeachment, assuming it exists. Which is another excellent reason why he should declare ASAP.

Re Unless I have missed something, Nancy Pelosi would become vice-president. Which certainly would at least rid of us Cheney. But then if we impeached Bush, she would become president.

And that would upset Miss Hillary. And we all know we mustn't upset Miss Hillary.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

5. Ramen and Ramen :)

IMPEACH NOW!

:patriot: :kick:

:hi: :pals:

[H2O Man]

10. Honor the Constitution.

It's a darned shame that there are American citizens, especially those who have taken an oath to uphold it, who fail to respect it.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

18. The deliberacy of it all, the enabling done by an army

of willing parrots, the sheer shamelessness of the twisting of Law and Order into Screw the Law, We Don't Take Orders is both frightening and maddening.

EVERYTHING they do reeks of it.

Everything.

"It's just a goddamn piece of paper."

IMPEACH. NOW.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Can we drop the parrot analogies

The sun conure is snoozing over here, and the tiel is seating on his perch

They don't behave that way

:-)

[SalmonChantedEvening]

43. How about "Echo Canyonheads"

My apologies to the winged. :hi: :hug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. That works

just taht I think we need to find a new frame for the lemmings

And lemming is a poor frame too

[lynnertic]

180. That's right. Real parrots speak for themselves

and are quite intelligent.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. It's absurd

to think that people who think impeachment is unwise don't believe in the constitution.

[Flubadubya]

39. Wow... you must be on a lot of people's ignore list...

no one even bothered to reply. :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

68. I have no idea

but it's easier to spout rhetoric like that than actually respond to arguments.

[Usrename]

117. It's absurd to argue that these criminals don't deserve impeachment.

Ridiculous, really. Only someone with a gross misunderstanding of our Constitution would make that argument.

[kenfrequed]

139. What arguments?

All I ever seem to see you post is that it is "unwise" or that it "can't work" or sometimes that it is "Bad Strategy."

You never actually address the criminal behavoir. You never seem to suggest why it is a bad idea or unwise.

I cannot imagine how things could get worse. Does a congress that FAILS to stand up to the administration in a bold and meaningful way inspire voters to back democrats? Do you really think that we can just putter until election-time with the same-old hide and wait tactics? I mean seriously this safe crap gives the repugs and the Neocons the news cycle every day.

Control of the newscycle IS control of public opinion.

[Catshrink]

7. Cute photo -- who are those beautiful people?

[H2O Man]

12. John Nichols

is the author of the book quoted in the OP, and H2O Girl is standing with him. Mr. Nichols was impressed that an 8th grader knows more about the Constitution than many, many adults.

[Catshrink]

20. your daughter is adorable...

Good for her holding the DU banner!

[Blackhatjack]

29. Seeing H2O Girl reminds us her Generation will pay the price for Bush's mayhem....

Makes me sad to think our kids will have to bear these burdens, and proud to see that our kids are taking their responsibilities seriously.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. There are days I want to just throw my hands in the air

then I turn to the photo of my nephews...

My spine goes straight once again

Yes, it is the kids we do this for

as well as an undying love for this document...

[H2O Man]

63. Interesting.

I think that there is a difference between the way the progressive, pro-impeachment folks view this topic, and how the more conservative, anti-impeachment folks do. I think the progressives reflect have family values that translate into wanting to see our Constitution protected not just for ourselves, but for future generations. From my point of view, I see more of our conservative friends as approaching this more like a job where they mass produce bumper sticker talking points that gloss over the important issues. Of course, I know that they disagree with me to the exact extent I disagree with them.

[cali]

8. It would be the right thing to do. I'm all for it

though under no illusions about its success. The reason I want them to impeach is that by not doing so Congress is sending a message that a president can committ high crimes and misdemeaners they won't even try to hold him/her accountable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. And right now being added to the Mexican Consitution

:-)

I was down there readying the papers on it... fascinating discusion

[H2O Man]

21. Our history shows

that when a president who is attempting to grab power through war, that when the House begins the process of impeachment, the "imperial" president begins to express a willingness to cut back on the war. Certainly, it is not the only option that a congress has. But I am convinced that in the present case, it is the only action that will begin to change the course that Bush is leading us on in Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. I am convinced of same

that is why it is so critical to do it

[bonito]

13. K&R!

[jpgray]

14. Everything necessary for a successful impeachment can be won through strong investigation

Premature impeachment will cause the GOP to simply entrench and obstruct more than they already have. Congress needs to attack the bogus executive privilege defense all the way to the SCOTUS, as was done in Nixon's time. This will provide the necessary evidence to destroy the administration, as Nixon's was destroyed, through regular Congressional investigation.

Impeachment hearings confer zero extra powers to Congress. Subpoenas will still be ignored as they have been in our current investigations. We need to crush the executive privilege cheat, and the best way to do it is with a more aggressive approach to regular investigation. Why not during impeachment? Aside from the fact that administration stonewalling was broken pre-impeachment with Nixon, the difference is, if you attack the administration's refusal to comply in the midst of the highest stakes attack on a president possible, wherein the GOP will see their most visible party symbol under attack, they will resist at every turn. And if impeachment fails, the GOP can hold up a not guilty verdict for a guilty man, as the GOP's refusal to show or judge evidence will result in fewer than 67 votes to convict.

Destroying the executive privilege escape is paramount. We are better equipped to do so in a regular investigation, since the procedure won't be as heavily politicized. When this president or his administration is in serious trouble, SCOTUS has regularly bailed him out. In the atmosphere of impeachment, it's my contention they will be more likely to do so again. Once we get our true power of subpoena back, impeachment will be far more effective.

[countingbluecars]

16. Meanwhile

Bush takes us into another war and we lose more rights. Too risky-impeach now!

[jpgray]

22. But why support a failed impeachment when a stronger investigation would be more effective?

As long as their obstruction tools are still unchallenged, impeachment will just result in a party-line vote, and this will embolden the GOP and seal over the divisions in their party as they defend Bush. Once the major symbol of their party is impeached yet receives a "not guilty" verdict from the Senate, all accusations of malfeasance can be answered simply by saying "the president was found not guilty." How does that benefit anyone?

[cuke]

40. Because calling for a failed impeachment allows them to call others names

Calling for investigations means they can't whine about how dems aren't doing anything because the dems ARE investigating

[jpgray]

45. You can absolutely argue, however, that the Democrats aren't pushing investigation enough

But people apparently have a lot invested emotionally in the idea that impeachment will magically cut through all the admin obstruction, reveal the truth somehow, that it will be honestly reported on in the media, and that GOP senators will be forced to convict. To my mind, none of these are particularly likely to happen if we can't force the issue with stronger investigation.

[cuke]

71. Definitely

I'm not going to argue that the dems are perfect. Heck, I'm not even going to say they've done an excellent job. But I am mindful of the incredible obstacles that have been placed in their way

[countingbluecars]

48. Who is "them"?

[Me.]

59. Failed Impeachment?

Did it happen and we missed it? Or os this a crystal ball moment?

[jpgray]

61. Where are the votes? How will immediate impeachment provide more votes?

You will not find enough GOP senators to oppose this administration unless we remove their tools of obstruction and get the evidence necessary to embarrass the entire party. Impeachment hearings are not necessary to do this, and starting impeachment before we do this has a far greater likelihood of failure. But no, I don't know for sure that it will fail, but Bernie Sanders and Al Gore see it my way. And I trust those two gentlemen.

[Me.]

69. I Wonder If Talk Of WWIII

Might be changing votes. Preconception of failure when the world is in flux gives this administration a license to kill for the assumption is that they can't be stopped.

[jpgray]

72. There's no question building up Iran as a threat has some intention to distract

However it is my belief along with Bernie Sanders that a failed impeachment would be a Karl Rove wet dream. It immediately invalidates all investigation against this administration ("they tried him, he was found not guilty, moving on"), it unites the GOP because it attacks the most visible symbol of their party, and it will raise the stakes for them in such a way that their obstruction will become -more- defiant and solidified. We need to first remove those obstacles via a stronger investigation effort--going into impeachment with all of them intact will make for a confused and ineffective impeachment in which examination of the evidence will be clouded by GOP stonewalling and "balanced" media coverage that will love to crow "political theater! Meaningless symbolic gesture!"

Now I don't know for a fact this will happen, but everything I've seen and the opposition of some of the most liberal folks (Sanders and Gore) convinces me that the risk is very real. Why not destroy or mitigate that risk before we embark on such a crucial undertaking?

[Me.]

78. Good Excuses For Doing Nothing

'We don't have the votes', 'I have a calculator in one hand and a copy of the constitution in the other' (Conyers) 'It will take too long', 'Are the crimes even provable', 'Impeachment is off the table' and on and on into the sunset... while the Constitution is shredded and democracy destroyed, and the urging will be to go along to get along, the nation is too fragile, and in the end 'the Good Germans' will swear they didn't know.

[jpgray]

81. We need to examine the risks. Not just spout "we will be greeted as liberators" wishful thinking

I suppose Al Gore and Bernie Sanders are too stupid to understand that there are no risks to a botched failure of an impeachment? Why do you suppose so many very smart liberals don't agree that we should immediately attempt impeachment before we set the stage to succeed? Going into a risky situation with no plan for success or to defend against a dangerous backlash in the aftermath--you don't support that approach in foreign policy, do you?

[Me.]

98. That Was Iraq

and I'm betting lying a nation into war is an impeachable offense. The most dangerous backlash we face is not upholding the rule of law and nothing you or anyone else says can change that.

[jpgray]

105. Well, are the risks acceptable to you? Would a "not guilty" result be okay by you?

Would a failure to get the evidence out there or to get fair coverage of the hearings be okay by you? Would a GOP PR victory wherein they paint Bush as the victim of "evil partisanship" be okay by you? Would partial repair of the greatly fractured GOP base be okay to you? These are all likely risks of a failed or premature impeachment proceeding. There's no question it -should- be done, but we need to take account of the risks. There should be a democracy in Iraq that respects human rights, but there are methods to achieve that which are by their nature extremely risky and dangerous, as we've seen. Obviously the two situations are different, but do you see how the same logic is used? Just because I think impeachment at this time is extremely risky doesn't mean I think Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached. No more than my opposition to the Iraq war indicated my support for Saddam Hussein's crimes.

[Me.]

112. Oh, Look Up In The Sky, No Look Over There

Oh, wait, not there, here, let's distract the eye.

[kenfrequed]

143. Wrong.

I talk to many republicans that are angered with Bush. Why do you think their base is fractured anyhow? We have to make the news cycle about Bush and his crimes every chance we get. Or the republicans will just trot out another general Petraeus to hide behind.

By sitting idle we surrender the news cycle and let people get away with talkign about Obamas pin, or Edwards Haircut, or any other triviality they can summon up.

[jpgray]

168. We shouldn't sit idle. And I doubt many Republicans support impeaching Bush

But everything we need to do we can do with investigation. The impeachment process at this time adds additional risk without any additional benefit. If we get Bush to the point where impeachment will lead to a conviction, he'll likely go the Nixon route. Happily we can do all this with vanilla investigation.

[kenfrequed]

174. No

There is only gain from impeachment proceedings. Investigations without direction or intent do not capture the public attention span. I think you need to use the 'I' word with Investigations. We need to say Impeachment Investigations or Possible Impeachment Investigations to underline this and make things clear.

Investigations otherwise get relagated to the Daily show and CSPAN.

[Raksha]

181. There isn't going to BE any goddamn "failed impeachment"!!!

I am so sick of hearing that bogus argument. Any impeachment of Bush or Cheney or both of them would be SUCCESSFUL and would result in their removal from office. And that's precisely why there isn't going to be any impeachment. That's why Nancy Pelosi said impeachment is "off the table" and why she still insists on keeping it off the table.

I don't know what is the basis for the Democrats' acquiescence in BushCo's crimes, whether it's threats or blackmail or bribery or what, and I'm not sure it even matters at this point. What is becoming more and more obvious every day is that it's THERE...something is there, and that's the important thing. And that "something" is what's preventing impeachment and apparently it's MORE important than their political careers, whatever it is.

Keeping impeachment off the table and "supporting the president" are clearly NOT helping the Democrats in Congress politically! Have they helped the Republicans, fer cryin' out loud? Bush's approval rating is at 24% and he's radioactive politically. NOBODY is riding on his coattails because he doesn't HAVE any goddamn coattails! There is nothing worse for any politician of either party than to be seen as a collaborator with the Bush administration in lying us into the Iraq war, eroding our constitutional rights and subverting and destoying the Justice Department (just for starters).

The whole "political strategy" argument is just beyond ridiculous to me and it seems that a lot of effort is being expended in certain quarters to make it sound plausible when it isn't. I can't think of any better talking point for any candidate's re-election campaign than spearheading Bush/Cheney's impeachment.

[kenfrequed]

151. This is silly

I mean seriously, this uses the Clinton impeachment and assumes it to be the prime and only example of what happens during an impeachment hearing. With Clinton the absurdity of impeaching over a sex scandel annoyed the American electorate a great deal.

Do you really think the charges would even remotely be comparable? I mean honestly if the news had to sit down and list the offences that the Democrats could be impeaching him on do you really think the American public are somehow going to rally behind him? Or that the Republicans in the house or senate are somehow going to magically become even more partisan and obstructionistic? As far as I know they are already pretty bad that way.

Oh yes and since the majority of Americans now favor impeaching one or both of them, a number that would increase no doubt with a public airing of his crimes, unless you have reason to believe that repeating the wrongs of the administration would somehow magically make people that are in favor of impeachment suddenly decide against it.

So explain it to me, tell me how impeachment is bad.

[freebrew]

129. I thought that

Executive Privilidge was null and void during an impeachment hearing...

[redqueen]

140. No... Nixon tried to use executive privilege to avoid

turning over the tapes after subpoenaed to do so... he directed Cox to drop the subpoena. Cox refused, and the rest is history.

Clinton also tried to use it to avoid handing over documents related to Whitewater, IIRC.

[kenfrequed]

167. This is nonsense

The walls are not moving.

There is no way to politicize an investigation into the the most politicized administration in recent memory.

There is no way to completely 'destroy' executive privelage waiting for that wall to fall down is like waiting for the starts to fall from the sky.

These all seem like excuses and rationalizations for doing nothing.

[jpgray]

171. It all happened in the Nixon era. If I were you, I would read up on that time

All the grunt work of bringing his administration down was done through regular Congressional investigations. They struck down his executive privilege defense before the first impeachment hearing.

[Gregorian]

17. It's a vital component to our democracy which should not be trivialized.

Are we supposed to guess that Speaker Pelosi has some ingenious plan that only a few insiders can know about? Is she waiting until Bush invades Iran before springing the impeachment option on him? Or Cheney?

I seriously am confused by Speaker Pelosi. She speaks with such conviction and clarity about ending the war before Bush's term expires. But she turns a blind eye to enforcing the Constitution in a case that even a blind person could see.

We're all exasperated. A serious series of smallish twists have led to an overall picture of disaster. There should be an uproar, but the average American is uneducated in the goings on of their own representatives.

It's vital. It should be used. And there is time. Making time for impeachment is the most important way to slow this wreck down.

And your daughter looks like a very secure girls. How nice.

[H2O Man]

28. An aide to a

democratic member of the House of Representatives told the audience that not only does Speaker Pelosi not support impeachment, but she is pressuring those who do to drop the issue. I support her on many, many issues. And I'm not questioning her motivation on this. But I can say that she is definitely wrong on this. Very, very wrong, and her error creates a danger for our Constitution.

[Blackhatjack]

32. That's my take as well... the longer we let the Constitutional violations continue the more danger

.... for us all.

What is politically expedient is not always what is best for the country.

It is at that point that 'statesmanship' enters into the equation.....

[malaise]

19. Maybe we should send the PBS Frontline link

from last night to all the men and women in Congress.

[H2O Man]

31. Good idea.

I know of a lady from a village near me who sent a copy of John Nichols' book to every member of congress. And the best part is that many have read and appreciated it.

[gateley]

96. If they've read and appreciated it, I wish they'd move on it. nt

[Rageneau]

23. Can we impeach Pelosi if she won't impeach Bush?

I wish there was SOME damn way to light a fire under her/them.

In 1998, the pukes needed a plurality of only eight votes to pass Articles of Impeachment. We Dems not only have a larger House plurality than that, we have 1000 better reasons to impeach.

Seemingly, only Pelosi stands in the way, and I'm beginning to wonder where her loyalties really lie.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. No, but she could be recalled

California has that option

Impeachment is reserved for members of the executive

[Rageneau]

34. OK, a recall threat then -- ANYthing to make her do her sworn duty.

[Baby Snooks]

66. Should have happened in January

She should have been recalled when the new Congress convened in January and she continued to maintain that impeachment "was off the table." At this point, by the time she would be recalled, there would be no time left to impeach Cheney and then Bush. Which she knows.

I hope those who supported her decision and supported her don't end up regretting it if one of the Supreme Court justices drops dead. They will be responsible as much as she will be for a court that will serve no one but a few who simply do not believe in the Constitution and for a court that will quickly strike down the majority of our civil rights laws and allow further dissolution of our constitutional protections and rights that existed under those laws as well as previous court rulings. Not a pleasant thought. But one that quite a few should have thought about and didn't. Sharing her supposed belief that keeping Bush in office would guarantee Democratic victory. Although some believe the reason she continues to maintain that impeachment is "off the table" is far more than just that and that she simply serves the same masters that Bush does.

[onenote]

109. The widely held and almost certainly correct view is that members of congress can't be recalled

State laws notwithstanding. Here's a Congressional Research Service report on the issue:

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf

[tomp]

114. and scotus, i believe. nt

[H2O Man]

35. I'm in favor

of using those powers defined by Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights to convince those around her, and then Speaker Pelosi. I'm confident that it can be done. Impeachment is always an organix process, that starts at the grass roots, when properly done.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Very true

which reminds me to send her my weekly note on the subject

Been thinking of sending Wolf's book

Or at least a copy

[porphyrian]

24. It would be a good start. - n/t

[H2O Man]

49. Yep.

It would be a good start. There will still be a lot of important work to do.

[DemReadingDU]

26. Impeach Cheney Now

Lots of good info in these links about Cheney

There is a series of articles in the Washington Post to read...
Dick Cheney is the most influential and powerful man ever to hold the office of vice president. This series examines Cheney's largely hidden and little-understood role in crafting policies for the War on Terror, the economy and the environment.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

and the recent PBS Frontline program to watch...
Introduction
For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review.

Lots more at this link...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/etc/synopsis.html

[H2O Man]

46. Very important!

Thank you for posting this information. I really appreciate it.

[rosesaylavee]

30. That's your daughter, yes?

She is quite the beauty!

[H2O Man]

44. Yep.

Both John and Elizabeth de la Vega were impressed with her grasp of our nation's history and current events. here is a picture of her and Elizabeth:

[rosesaylavee]

87. With you as her dad,

how could she be otherwise. What a great education she is getting. The Constitution won't ever just be a piece of paper to her ... it is a living breathing document because of you.

[gateley]

33. I'm newly on-board with this (as of this afternoon!) so I have a couple impeachment

questions:

1. Once someone is impeached, what is the next step? I know Clinton was impeached, but then nothing "happened".

2. What about criminal charges? Are those automatic or are additional steps required? I'd like to see these guys in prison, I really would.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Ok the impeachmet is

the equivalent of conviction by a grand jury

Then the trial comes in the Senate

If convicted the person is removed from office and can be remanded to the DOJ for trial

Article two, section four is pretty clear on this

coonviction means the removal of officers of the Executive from office

[cuke]

42. Grand juries don't convict. They indict

[gateley]

92. Thanks and I like your new avatar! :-) nt

[gateley]

91. Thanks for making it easily understandable! nt

[H2O Man]

41. Impeachment

is a process of civil law. The House starts the process, and the Senate then tries it. Clinton was impeached, but the republican effort to convict him failed in the Senate.

Impeachment has civil penalties, including the removal from office and the lose of the right to hold office in the future.

Criminal charges can take place, and in theory can be closely related to the charges which bring about impeachment. However, it should be noted that a president or vice president do not have to commit a crime per say in order to be impeached. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an archaic phrase from English law; it means an abuse of power, and in terms of executive branch members, the idea is that they overstepped their Constitutional authority.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. If I may, this is one of the problems we have today

High Crimes is present in the Constitition, but the Ameircan branch of British Imperial law went in a slightly different direction

Why I sometimes quip our reps should go to the House of Commons and ask a couple of the Legal experts there, what the hell does that mean?

Perhaps then they'll get a clue

Impeachment as a tool was used, commonly, earlier in our history as well

:-)

[gateley]

94. Thanks again! nt

[gateley]

93. Very interesting. And thanks to you too for contributing to my education! nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Article Two Section four

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

It is pretty clear, for those who need it

[H2O Man]

52. Yes.

For those who understand it, the Constitution is a very important document.

[pacalo]

51. There's no excuse for not impeaching the worst president in U.S. history.

Whether the impeachment were to fail or pass is less important to me than for Congress to stand up on principle on behalf of the people.

[H2O Man]

54. When people take

an oath to uphold the Constitution, they should do exactly that.

[bleever]

58. Impeachment is essential.

The Constitution and the republic are weakened if the duty to impeach is abrogated.

Questions of political practicality are secondary to protecting and defending the Constitution. Congress members don't take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution "when convenient or expedient".

And removal from office, as critical as it is, is secondary to the process of truth and reconciliation, a process that can and should continue if needed beyond the end of Bush's term.

[H2O Man]

64. Oh, that

is so true! So well said! Thank you.

[hisownpetard]

86. Huzzah! I have been saying this for a long time, but not as succinctly as you did, here.

It's so frustrating that people just don't seem to get the point: we can't just do what's expedient.
The Constitution must be protected, or we will have to bear witness to its complete destruction.

Thanks for that great post.

[tomp]

115. yes!!! nt

[me b zola]

60. Here's who's supporting impeachment:

<1> House Res. 635 called for the establishment of a select committee to "investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." Former state senator Vern Cook, a Gresham attorney and District Leader was the MCDCC resolution's original sponsor.



<2> State Legislatures

Vermont Senate, 4/20/07







Statewide & National Political Committees

Alaska Democratic Party 5/21/06

California Democratic Party (1.28/06)

CA Democratic Council Statewide Convention (2005)

CA Democratic Party Convention, April 2006

CA Democratic Party Convention, April 2007

California Green Party 6/25/2006

California Green Party County Officials 3/08/2006

Colorado Democratic Party 5/20/06

Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee 07/07/07, 09/26/07

Democrats Abroad France 1/15/06

Green Party of the United States 7/21/03

Hawaii Democratic Party 6/4/06

Maine Democratic Party State Convention 6/3/06

Massachusetts Democratic Party 05/18/07

Nevada Democratic Party 5/3/04

New Hampshire Democratic Party 6/4/06

New Mexico Democratic Party 3/21/06

North Carolina Democratic Party Executive Committee (1/28/06

North Carolina Democratic Party 6/24/06

Oklahoma Democratic Party 05/19/07

Oregon Democratic Party 7/16/05, 3/10/07

Vermont Democratic Party 4/9/06

Vermont Progressive Party 05/19/07

Washington State Democratic Central Committee 4/28/07

Washington State Democratic Party 9/30/06

Wisconsin Democratic Party 6/12/05



State Legislative Districts

Minnesota: 5th 6/18/07

Washington: 1st

Washington: 11th

Washington: 32nd

Washington: 34th

Washington: 36th

Washington: 37th

Washington: 41st

Washington: 43rd

Washington: 44th

Washington: 45th

Washington: 48th

Wisconsin: 2nd 6/30/07

Wisconsin: 3rd 6/30/07

Wisconsin: 4th 6/30/07

Wisconsin: 5th 6/30/07

Wisconsin: 6th 6/30/07



Cities/Towns/Counties

Amherst (MA) 11/1/2006

Arcata (CA) City Council 1/7/06

Ashfield (MA) 5/24/07

Berkeley (CA) 6/27/06

Brattleboro (VT) Town Hall 3/21/06

Bristol (VT) 3/5/2007

Brookfield (VT) Town Hall 3/8/06

Brookline (MA) 5/30/2006

Buckland (MA) 5/9/07

Burke (VT) 3/5/07

Calais (VT) 3/5/07

Cambridge (MA) 4/24/06

Carrboro (NC) 3/14/06

Colrain (MA) 5/14/07

Craftsbury (VT) 3/5/07

Chapel Hill (NC) 5/8/06

Charlemont (MA) 5/7/07

Dane County (WI) 8/16/07

Detroit (MI) 05/16/07

Dummerston (VT) Town Hall 3/5/07

East Montpelier (VT) 3/5/07

Fairfax (CA) 7/6/2006

Ferndale (MI) 5/29/07

Grafton (VT) 3/5/07

Great Barrington (MA) 5/14/07

Greensboro (VT) 3/5/07

Guilford (VT) 3/5/07

Hanover (NH) 5/9/06

Hartland (VT) 3/5/07

Heath (MA) 5/13/07

Ithaca (NY) 06/06/07

Jamaica (VT) 3/5/07

Jericho (VT) 3/5/07

Johnson (VT) 3/5/07

Lanesborough (MA) 5/8/07

Leverett (MA) 4/28/07

Leyden (MA) 5/19/07

Marlboro (VT) Town Hall 3/8/06, 3/5/07, 3/8/06

Middlebury (VT) 3/5/07

Middletown (NY) 6/11/07

Montague (MA) 6/2/07

Montpelier (VT) 9/27/06

Montgomery (VT) 3/5/07

Morristown (VT) 3/5/07

Newbury (VT) 3/5/07

Newfane (VT) 3/8/06, 3/5/07,

New Paltz (NY) 7/2006

Nyack (NY) 04/12/0

Oberlin (OH) 5/21/07

Pelham (MA) 6/13/07

Peru (VT) 3/5/07

Plainfield (VT) 3/5/07

Plattsburg (NY) 4/7/06

Putney (VT) 3/8/06, 3/5/07

Richmond (VT) 3/5/07

Rochester (VT) 3/5/07)

Rockingham (VT) 4/7/06

Rowe (MA) 5/24/07

Roxbury (VT) 3/5/07

San Fernando (CA) 8/20/07

San Francisco (CA) 2/28/2006

Santa Cruz (CA) 6/8/04

Sebastopol (CA) 5/19/06

Shutesbury (MA) 5/11/07

Springfield (VT) 3/5/07

Stannard (VT) 3/5/07

St. Johnsbury (VT)

Stockbridge (MA) 5/21/07

Sunderland (VT) 3/5/07

Takoma Park (MD) 7/23/07

Telluride (CO) 7/17/07

Tompkins County (NY) 6/5/07

Town of Ithaca (NY) 7/9/07

Townshend (VT) 3/5/07

Tunbridge (VT) 3/5/07

Urbana, IL 2006

Vershire (VT) 3/5/07

Warwick (MA) 5/24/07

Wendell (MA) 12/6/06

West Hollywood (CA) 07/16/07

Westminster (VT) 3/5/07

Whately (MA) 4/27/07

Wilmington (VT) 3/5/07

Woodbury (VT) 3/5/07



Local Political Groups/Parties/Jurisdictions

Amherst (MA) Democratic Town Committee 3/23/06

Ann Arbor Democratic Committee (MI) 3/11/06

Beaverhead County (MT) Democrats 9/11/07

Bennington County Democratic Committee (VT) 3/14/06

Berks County Democratic Committee (PA) 4/20/07

Bolton (MA) Democratic Town Committee 3/24/06

Cunningham Township (IL) 11/8/06

Delaware County (NY) Democratic Committee 6/12/07

Finger Lakes Progressives (NY&PA) 3/26/06

Franklin County Democratic Committee (VT) - 3/14/06

Franklin Roosevelt Legacy Democratic Club USA 04/19/07

Grant County Democratic Party (NM) 2/7/07

Grays Harbor Democratic Club, Aberdeen, WA 4/5/07

Hebron CT Democratic Town Committee 8/21/07

Humboldt Co.(CA) Democratic Central Committee 3/27/06, 8/7/07,

Jackson County (IA) Democratic Party 2006

Josephine (OR) Democratic Central Committee 3/26/06

Kennebec Co. (ME) Democratic Central Committee 4/20/06

King County Democrats (WA) 5/06/06, 4/07

Los Angeles (CA) Democratic Central Committee 3/14/06

Marin (CA) Democratic Central Committee

Marion (OR) County Democratic Central Committee

Mecklenburg County (NC) Democratic Convention 4/1/06

Multnomah County (OR) Democratic Central Committee (2/10/06

Norwell (MA) Democratic Town Committee 3/23/06

Orange County Democratic Party (NC) 4/8/06

Orleans County Democratic Committee (VT) - 3/14/06

Otsego County Democratic Committee (NY) 7/23/07

Princeton (NJ) Community Democratic Organization 6/10/07

Pueblo (CO) County Democratic Precinct 48 3/23/06

Rutland (VT) County Democratic Committee 2/28/06

San Diego (CA) Progressive Democrats 3/30/06

San Juan County (WA) Democrats 4/8/06

San Miguel (CO) Democrats 4/7/06

Santa Clara Green Party (CA) 3/7/06

Seattle (West) 34th District Democrats 3/6/06

Snohomish County (WA) Democratic Central Committee 5/20/07

Sonoma County Democrats (CA) 3/14/06

Vassalboro Democratic Committee (ME)

Waldo Co. (ME) Democratic Central Committee 5/7/06

Waltham (MA) Democratic Central 5/10/07

Walworth (WI) Democratic Party 2/27/06, 5/18/07

Washington (CT) Democratic Town Committee 10/30/06

Washtenaw County (MI) Democratic Party 8/2006

West Hartford (CT) Democratic Town Committee 6/29/07



Organizations

United for Peace and Justice National Steering Committee 4/11/07

United States Social Forum 6/29/07

Veterans for Peace 7/4/0



Unions

AFSCME Local 2083, Seattle Public Library Union 6/23/06Greater Seattle Local, American Postal Workers Union 5/07

United Teachers Los Angeles 5/07




...and me!

[H2O Man]

65. Thank you!

Impeachment is an organic grass roots process.

[robinlynne]

104. nicely done!

[antigop]

62. kick for impeachment now n/t

[H2O Man]

74. Yep.

Progressive democrats understand that impeachment is an organic grass roots process that protects the Constitution.

[spanone]

67. i agree, impeachment now! duty calls

after watching the frontline program on pbs last evening exposing the disregard cheney has for the constitution, if congress does not impeach, they are complicit in this coup d'etat

[H2O Man]

76. Exactly right.

We do well to listen to our Elder Statesmen who express our traditional democratic values. One of my favorites is Governor Mario Cuomo, who said that the Constitution is the supreme law of our land. If the congress fails to uphold their oath to honor the Constitution, that Constitution is still the spreme law of the land. Those who betray their oath are part of the problem.

[lonestarnot]

73. Hell yeah!

:applause:

[H2O Man]

82. I think it is

the most important thing that our generation can do to protect our Constitutional democracy.

[lonestarnot]

85. And I think you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

:applause:

[lonestarnot]

136. And I think the same thing today!

[midnight]

75. I come here every day for this. Thanks....

[H2O Man]

90. Thank you.

I think that DU has a lot to offer. In the past couple of days, we've had some interesting debates between the progressive grass roots democrats who believe in the principles which require impeachment, and the more conservative democrats who are opposed to impeaching Bush and Cheney for bringing us into a war in Iraq based upon absolute lies. One does not find this type of debate in the corporate media.

[antigop]

77. Hey, folks -- we got another co-sponsor of H.Res.333--Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 10/16/2007

That makes 21.

Current co-sponsors:

Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 8/1/2007
Rep Brady, Robert A. - 7/24/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. - 6/6/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 5/1/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve - 8/4/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith - 6/28/2007
Rep Farr, Sam - 7/12/2007
Rep Filner, Bob - 7/12/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 8/4/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. - 6/28/2007
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. - 9/7/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara - 6/7/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim - 7/10/2007
Rep Moran, James P. - 7/10/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. - 8/1/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 5/1/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus - 9/27/2007
Rep Waters, Maxine - 6/12/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. - 10/16/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 6/7/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 5/10/2007

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. I need to put pressure on mine again

COOL for him

[Gregorian]

89. !!!!

Yes!

[Perry Logan]

79. We had a shot, till the progressives screwed it up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. ??????????????????????

[Jim Sagle]

113. Oh yeah, yer the guy who makes those fucked-up videos.

Thanks to ewe, every freeper in America can visit youtube and guffaw at the funny Democrat.

[hisownpetard]

83. Yes, please.

[H2O Man]

126. "Yes"

It's a good word, "yes." It's far more positive. There is so much more good energy associated with "yes," than with "no." Those who say "yes" to impeachment smile, while those who say "no" frown.

[hisownpetard]

160. Yes, yes, yes! I feel that it's our duty to impeach. We cannot let all the insane excesses and

illegalities stand, because in so doing we'd be giving our tacit approval to every destructive thing that Bush has done.
It amazes me that there are so many arguments against this position.
What if we lose, what if we don't have the votes, what if, what if...
Sometimes you just have to do what's right! Right?

[H2O Man]

161. Yes! n/t

[L0oniX]

84. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

- Mark Twain, a Biography

[H2O Man]

127. Impeachment proceedings

could spark real leadership in congress.

[Xenotime]

95. Yes. Impeach now...where can I get one of those stickers?

[EFerrari]

99. Kick

[earth mom]

100. Impeach em both! And read the Constitution people! It ROCKS!

:kick:

[H2O Man]

128. Read the Constitution.

I like that!

[earth mom]

138. Me too!

:kick:

[bigtree]

101. Our own political system of elections is not as corrupted as these countries listed

There are myriads of other levers of accountability in our political system which aren't available or integral to these other countries. It's not all that surprising that their remedies for their broken systems often lead to a complete upheaval rather than any process of investigation resembling our own national legislature's.

Unless we determine that our national legislature's elections are somehow a fraud, or that there is some criminal obstruction being engineered by our legislature, they retain whatever authority is inherent in our constitution to exercise the many other constitutional remedies for crimes and abuses of the Executive which may well fall short of an impeachment. There is a democratic process of accountability underway. The fact that the process hasn't been able to garner enough support to enact impeachment in this Congress is more of a reflection of the balance of power than a collapse of the Legislature. I continue to believe that the attitude toward impeachment among legislators would be more favorable if they had enough of a majority to sustain that action to a conviction -- instead of the almost certain prospect of an acquittal in this Congress along party lines, given the present balance of power.

There is still as much of an opportunity for the congressional process of investigation to produce the type of justice these other countries sought with their upheavals of their governments through normal prosecution as there is behind the initiation of an impeachment which leads to the political judgment of a handful of senators.

[H2O Man]

124. "complete upheaval"

"Complete upheaval" is what we will have if the congress refuses to impeach Bush or Cheney."Law and order" is the result of impeachment.

All investigations necessary are complete. It is a fiction, at best, that there is a need for further investigations.

[TahitiNut]

102. I can only imagine how much H20 Girl must mean to you.

"Photogenic" just doesn't explain the quality of character that comes though in abundance. To paraphrase something from my youth, "the lights are on and somebody's really at home!" She's got something rare and wonderful there, my friend. Good on her.

[H2O Man]

131. Thank you.

She is what they used to call a "Changeling" on the Old Sod.

[Joe Fields]

106. Damned right, impeachment now. And for those who are against it,

I sure as hell don't want to hear any bitching about losing anymore rights.

[H2O Man]

132. Great point.

It seems curious to complain about the lose of Constitutional rights when one refuses to take a stand to protect the Constitution.

[Swamp Rat]

107. IMPEACH!!!

[H2O Man]

133. It's the American

thing to do!

[me b zola]

108. kick

[bridgit]

110. agreed...

[byronius]

116. Kickin' for the Water Man.

I certainly do agree.

[H2O Man]

153. Thank you.

Very few Americans think it is okay for a president and vice president to lie the country into a war. When such a thing happens, the Founding Fathers were very clear on the response: impeachment.

[EFerrari]

118. Kick

[democrank]

119. Impeach.

I`ve had it up to here with royalism.

[H2O Man]

154. I agree .....

Seems pretty clear to me. Those with doubts might want to read John Nichols' book.

[apex nerd]

120. Listen up all you passionate pro-impeachment DU members.

I need you to all to drop some balloons.

Because this is the millionth time since September 11, 2001, that someone has called my patriotism into question for not agreeing with their politics.

Congratulations.

I hope you are proud of yourselves.

"Do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks! I am not trying to rob you. I am trying to help you. I am your friend..." Gandalf the Grey, Fellowship of the Ring.

[H2O Man]

125. Gosh.

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-- Douglass Adams

[Binka]

172. WTF?

:wtf: Enjoy your stay.

Hi H20 Man I love this thread.

[H2O Man]

175. Hi, Binka!

Nice to see you! How are things your way?

[lame54]

121. There is no TIME!!!

Lou Reed says it best!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fCutvXccFlA

[SlingBlade]

122. Sorry the number you have dialed

Has been changed.



No Impeachment for YOU

[Hubert Flottz]

123. It's what I've said since the next day after we won back the majority

IMPEACH THE BASTIDS!

We can't pay for the wars they have already started...so how can we Afford WW III?

[Joanne98]

130. Amen! K&R!

[SlowDownFast]

134. K&R!

[lonestarnot]

135. That is a fantastic picture!

[EnviroBat]

137. May be a dumb question but...

Why couldn't "We The People" invoke Article 2 section 4 of the constitution and impeach these bastards ourselves. Seems to me that we could all collectively take an oath to uphold the constitution, and start the impeachment proceedings ourselves. This would take organization and legal representation the like of which the world has never seen, but I fear the future of the world depends on it. If more and more cities across the US would follow suit with those that have already begun the process, couldn't we effectively "flip congress the bird" on this one? We are no longer being represented, and now is the time for us to take the law into our own hands.

[H2O Man]

142. As Malcolm X used

to say, "The only dumb question is the one that remains unasked."

Impeachment is, when done correctly, an organic grass roots process. And so it is extremely important to have organized grass roots activists coordinating efforts in the towns and cities across the nation. As more groups and individuals get more town boards, city councils, and county legislatures to pass resolutions in favor of impeachment, more elected representatives in the congress will respond appropriately.

The process of impeachment is part of the supreme law of the land -- Constitutional law. We need to do our part, and then congress will do its part.

[sce56]

144. K & R

Got Fascism?

Fascism Accomplished

[redqueen]

145. When this session started, I thought... 'investigations first... those will lead to impeachment'

But that is not what is happening. A few people are resigning and going on to get more incestuous beltway jobs. Fewer still have been convicted.

This is not leading to impeachment. This is only leading to slap-on-the-wrist-to-a-fall-guy bullshit.

[H2O Man]

148. Exactly right.

There is enough evidence on record right now to impeach Bush and Cheney. It would not require a single additional subpoena.

I note that some of our DU friends have said we need to investigate the actions of others before impeaching Bush and/or Cheney. That seems a rather weak position. Bush and Cheney should be the focus.

[crickets]

164. I was thinking that at the time also

It hasn't happened.

This is only leading to slap-on-the-wrist-to-a-fall-guy bullshit.

Exactly! Congress needs to step up, but they don't seem to be willing. It's very frustrating.

IMPEACH!

[rockybelt]

147. IMPEACHMENT

I saw "Cheney's Law" and I just watched the video by Naomi Wolf. That video is a MUST watch for everyone in the country, ESPECIALLY all members of both houses!Impeachment is now mandatory if this country is going to survive as a democracy.

[redqueen]

149. Hi rockybelt...

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Cha]

150. The people in Power in the USA,

now, are going down in history as the most corrupt, self-promoting and in a lot of cases..perverted bunch of traitors to ever hit the big time.

And they got the corporatewhoremedia tryin' to cover up as much as possible but these criminals can't even hide behind the stenographer's skirts.

If the bushits have something on nancy pelosi that she can't consider Impeachment then she shouldn't be in our Government. If not then she needs to reconsider how her Table is SET!

IMPEACHMENT NOW!!

[robertpaulsen]

155. K&R. Impeachment is a health food that should always be on the table.

:kick:

[H2O Man]

157. Yes, indeed.

It seems to be no coincidence that many of the DUers from the Plame Threads are in agreement on this issue.

[RoccoR5955]

156. As far as I am concerned...

They should throw the lot of Bushco, Inc. in jail, and throw away the key!!!

[The_Casual_Observer]

158. I prefer "chimpeachment" but impeachment will do as well.

[lonestarnot]

159. kick

[Vilis Veritas]

162. I agree wholeheartedly, but is there a will?

Yesterday, in another of your threads I lightly touched on 'people's will' vs. the 'corporate will' and I would like to expand that a little here and discuss this is terms of the 'Will' of Congress.

What is that will? Is it the 'People's Will' (as it should be) or has it now become the 'Corporate Will'? Impeaching a president who has bolstered the floundering Military Industrial Complex and infused that Corporate Master with Billions of taxpayer dollars would be like cutting off your own left (or in this case, Right) foot.

The corporate oligarchs that rule the day in Washington have fully seized control. I am almost certain of it. We see a complete meltdown of the 'people's will' as structured in the Constitution and the masterful rise of the 'Corporate Will'. It has taken Americans by surprise. We all knew that corporations were bad if they were un-regulated and given free reign to wield the power of their monetary might to squash competition, however, we seem to have overlooked how deleterious to the very Constitution (which gave them the power they sought) the Corporate Masters were - for without fail, once Corporations garnered the protection of the Constitution, they have sought to enslave and remove that very protection from the people.

We can see evidence of this in the arrogance of the large corporate masters when they are responsible for disasters, i.e. Bhopal, Exxon Valdez, Love Canal...etc, etc.

The lack of the will in congress to seek impeachment is extremely difficult to wrap my head around, unless I put it into these terms - then it becomes crystal as to why Nancy has said that it is off the table - Nancy Pelosi and most of Congress, are exercising the 'Corporate Will' and not the 'People's Will' as stated in the Constitution.

The people need to rise up and shout in unison and take back the 'Will' of the nation and make it, once again, The People's Will.

Once the nation has been taken back, the first order of business would be to remove the protection of the Constitution from Corporations and the abolishment of all laws enacted to protect the Corporate Will...only then will we be able to adequately protect the Constitution for another 200 years.

Peace.

[T.Ruth2power]

163. Yes

[H2O Man]

165. Center for Constitutional Rights.

My good friends. Everyone should be signing their petition on impeachment.

[lonestarnot]

169. Have.

[TahitiNut]

183. I have. I was one of the "early birds."

If the reasons were grains of sand, all of D.C. would be a beach.

[spanone]

166. Sooner

[0007]

170. Great post! Where have I've seen that sticker? LOL!

[Pastiche423]

173. We must impeach cheney 1st

He, more than anyone, is the destructor of our Constitution. Would that or would it not remove the power of David Addington?

You are so lucky to have a daughter like Chloe and she is lucky to have a father like you.

P.S. Are you feeling better?

[acmavm]

176. Pelosi's shown her true worth by 'taking impeachment off the table'.

She is the epitome of all men have ever said in regard to why women should never have positions of power and influence. People got all pissy when someone called Sheehan an attention whore (which I didn't see by the way) but this woman is the worst kind of whore, a self-serving corporate pandering whore. She sold out the people who had faith in her to do the right thing, who expected her to stand up to this administration of criminals. Instead, she does everything she can to make sure that they go on their merry way raping and pillaging this country and Iraq and Afganistan without any impediments, without and opposition, without any difficulties.

And don't anyone here bother to pull that 'we don't have the votes' shit on me. It does not matter if we do or not. Once the investigations start into impeachment and the dirt comes out, the kind of dirt that people cannot ignore, then it will make on hell of a difference as to what those bastards can get away with in the future. She does have the power to start the investigations rolling, so don't say she doesn't. But then again, the dems have been holding investigations for a while now. And what has come of any of them? A laughable NOTHING. Not one damn thing. And what the fuck, today they give this bunch of clowns everything they could possibly want by passing the FISA legislation. THANK GOD FOR CHRIS DODD. Apparently we are down to one man who understands that this criminal shit has got to stop. And that the telecom companies should not, must not, be given blanket immunity for what they've done to enable this administration and allow them to invade our privacy and take away our rights.

We are at a very dangerous time in this country. We have more to fear from our own government that we do any foreign government. And that includes the people that WE elected to represent us, to do everything they could to make sure that we don't have to go in fear of our own countrymen, of our own leaders. And they are our biggest betrayers.

[H2O Man]

178. I certainly understand

people's frustrations with Speaker Pelosi. I think she is making a very serious error on the issue of impeachment, and I think her error puts our Constitution at risk. But I also can say that I tend to like her on most other issues. She's wrong on a big one, and I will do everything I can to try to convince her that she is wrong on this.

Cindy Sheehan is my type of patriot. I may not agree with her on everything -- I'm a democrat, and believe in working for change within the party -- but I will always respect and admire her.

Chris Dodd is our friend. In his contribution to the House Select Committee Report on Assassinations, he said that the evidence showed there was a gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas. That's a level of honesty and integrity that I think is rare in Washington these days.

[Raksha]

184. So you're saying Pelosi doesn't have the BALLS

(and I used that word deliberately) to hold Bush/Cheney accountable because she's a WOMAN??? I truly hope I misunderstood you, because that's a pretty damn sexist attitude!

Re She is the epitome of all men have ever said in regard to why women should never have positions of power and influence. People got all pissy when someone called Sheehan an attention whore (which I didn't see by the way) but this woman is the worst kind of whore, a self-serving corporate pandering whore.

I agree that if Pelosi isn't "a self-serving corporate pandering whore" she's doing a damn convincing imitation of one. But it's NOT like there aren't a lot of males in Congress who also fit that description. What does that have to do with her being a woman?

[acmavm]

185. I said she's made a mockery of being the first woman speaker in

the history of this country. She acted like the stereotype of what women have always had to live down throughout history.

I don't care what you understand. I don't have any idea of why she keeps enabling and supporting that pointy-earred fuckwit in OUR White House. But everytime I see her pathetic face anymore I hear the words to 'Stand By Your Man' in the background.

[Raksha]

186. Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Re I said she's made a mockery of being the first woman speaker in the history of this country. She acted like the stereotype of what women have always had to live down throughout history.

I'm glad you didn't mean what I thought you meant at first. I agree that she's been a huge disappointment as the first woman Speaker of the House.

[H2O Man]

187. I think she

is good at what she does. But she is doing the wrong thing. If she put as much energy into promoting impeachment, as she invests in stopping it, Dick Cheney would be out of office, the US occupation of Iraq would be ending, and we might actually be making progress in diplomatic relations with Iran.

[spanone]

177. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[roxnev]

179. Just in case you.

Needed my permission, you have it. signed roxnev

[PA Democrat]

188. I couldn't agree more, H2O Man! And the photo of your beautiful daughter reminds me of why

I too feel so passionately about impeachment. If we fail to take action, we are robbing our children's generation of the freedoms and democracy that we were given by our ancestors.

Impeachment proceedings would also be given much more coverage in the press and media than are the current congressional hearings and investigations. I think as more Americans are made aware of what Cheney and Bush have been doing, they will jump on the impeachment wagon. If the MSM covered the information contained in the Frontline program on Cheney on a daily basis, I cannot help believe that the outrage among the American people would grow to the point where few Republicans would dare to stand with this criminal administration. But sadly, MOST Americans are unaware of the details of their heinous acts.

Impeachment now!