Bad news and harsh reality on impeaching George and Dick.

[WilliamPitt]

This is only my opinion.

The moral, ethical and legal arguments in favor of impeaching Bush and Cheney need hardly be made. They are as self-evident as sunshine. Should no impeachment come to pass, history will look at these past years in awe. They impeached Clinton for what? They failed to impeach Bush for what??

No President I can think of deserves impeachment more, but I don't think it will happen any time soon. These are my reasons for this belief, and I look forward to hearing from anyone who can convince me otherwise.

1. The presidential campaign season has already started, which is bad news for this movement. The Senate is pretty much made up of 100 people who think they should be, or want to be, president. Several are running already. This already cautious body is now being super-cautious (read: pretty damned chicken-ass), and won't have the courage to get going on an impeachment drive.

2. Corrollary to above - 67 Senators needed. 51 votes in the Dem caucus, and we won't get all of those. We'll need at least 20 Republicans. See above.

3. The Senate was unable last week to get out of its own way long enough to have a debate on a non-binding Iraq resolution. And we expect them to take up impeachment? I just don't see it. If John Warner can torpedo a simple debate on a resolution that has no binding force of law, if the Democrats can't get organized and motivated enough to avoid getting outmaneuvered like this, I can't imagine they're able to deal with an impeachment proceeding.

"We have to do it" and "It's the right thing to do" and "It's the law" are all absolutely correct, but it doesn't matter.

We can't even have an Iraq debate on a powerless measure in the Senate. Getting impeachment going in there would be like trying to pick a lock with a wet herring.

Tell me I'm wrong, and why.

[itsmesgd]

1. will/ would things change after an attack on Iran?

I dont know, but I agree with the rest of your post completely.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Maybe

but I don't want to have an attack on Iran so we can maybe have the chance.

[itsmesgd]

21. I dont want an attack or war, but I fear it and I fear that there would be no Congressional response

[In Truth We Trust]

104. Will, Just what is the purpose of your post? What message are you trying to convey here? Sincerely.

NGU! Impeach NOW!!!

[Done]

54. What if we work a deal with the other side...

Nancy steps down as speaker...a rational republican is made speaker...bush and dick are quickly impeached...nancy is returned to her job as speaker.

Maybe we can avoid WW-III.

[itsmesgd]

59. NO, we won it for the dems, We get to run things when they are run out of town for their sins

I give nothing to the pukes. Have you listened to the house debate, They are swine. I am even contemplating running against my R-Rep from GA's 1st District Jack Kingston

[ooglymoogly]

66. the vote rigging in ga is a BIG hurdle

by hook or by crook the gop owns the vote in ga

[itsmesgd]

75. I helped get John Barrow elected as a Dem in Ga down here.

We let it be known that Moveon and Video the Vote were ready to show up if there were irregularities. His opponent made them take a recount and Barrow still one. And unlike the other GA dem, Barrow spoke against shrub and for the resolution. I live in Barrow's district, but if I change my address to my mother's I can run against Kingston (Repuke) He would crush me, but I could make it interesting. I am now researching the different parties that are out there before I decide to file papers with the state. The state Dem party wants too much money from me to file. Plus I'd rather register as a 3rd party and caucus with the dems in the house. I am dead serious and with two years to make it interesting. I know some people in the local media so I know that I could make a spectacle of myself.

[ooglymoogly]

109. well good on ya

you can never be too thin or have too many democrats

[me b zola]

99. "rational republican"

:rofl: ha-ha, you made a funny :rofl:

[Ian David]

2. I hate it when you're right.

What they need to do is investigate and indict without impeachment.

[John Q. Citizen]

49. Damn straight, they need to make them vote on it! n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

122. WE need to make them vote on it! eom

[Mr Rabble]

4. Government of, by, and for the people, right?

This is what drives people away from politics in droves. Makes me sick.

And of course, you are correct.

[Phredicles]

5. Isn't it the House rather than the Senate that brings articles of

impeachment, and then the Senate deliberates and votes whether to convict/remove from office? As such, I think your analysis of why conviction is unlikely is spot on. But I think Gaius Caligula Shrub needs the blot of impeachment on his record even if an actual conviction is not feasible. And I think the House might actually be persuadible to take such a step.

[WilliamPitt]

8. And when it fails in the Senate,

what happens?

Ask Newt, who has been out of work since the last failed impeachment.

[Phredicles]

15. Sure, the last impeachment blew up in The Newt's fat face, but

that's becuase everyone knew it was a joke. I believe Clinton's popularity actually improved as a result. But here, a lot of polls suggest a majority of the public regard impeachment as justified. So an acquittal would damage the Publicans rather than the Democrats in the Senate.

[WI_DEM]

20. don't be too sure about that.

[Phredicles]

24. Nevertheless, I am sure;

I believe the consequences of not even trying to impeach are worse than letting it slide. Do you think the public is cynical about our government now? Do you think the rest of the world fears and loathes us now? What happens if no one even fucking TRIES to hold Bush accountable?

[lyonn]

65. Agree, the public is cynical and want some real governing.

No one has attempted to hold bush accountable. This is mind boggling.

[mikelgb]

35. I agree.

I think it is a must. He cannot go down in history as letting something like this go unchecked. Shame.

[Raksha]

107. A small correction there: **WE** cannot go down in history

as allowing BushCo's crimes to go unchecked. I want it to happen for that reason more than anything, and I don't care if it happens on his LAST day in office! That's right, I would want to see Bush and Cheney impeached even if the vote happens on January 19, 2009. I can't stand the thought of the precedent it would set for future criminals if we allow the traitors a normal exit from office.

[GOTV]

42. A failed impeachment will be Bush's green light...

... it will be proven that his crimes were not really crimes but manufactured hysteria from the left.

That's how it will be played in the media.

[lyonn]

67. bush already has a green light. No one has been able to

stop him. We are now shuddering about the idiot going into Iran. Is this not reason enough to at least show bush that many think he is a seriously radical, my way or the hiway type person that will go to war with anyone that he and Cheney feel is necessary? They have both clearly stated that they will do what they "think", "feel" is right??

[GOTV]

72. Think so? Wait until he's cleared of all wrong doing by the Senate...

... when Bush finds he hasn't yet stepped over the line, he will run that much faster.

Right now he's in a mine field and he doesn't know which step will be too far. He's still walking but he's trying to be careful.

Senate acquittal will be telling him the field is now cleared of mines.

Impeachment would be a bad thing until we can also get conviction.

[lyonn]

92. What the Senate might do would depend on what info

was established during the impeachment hearing. Can you think of any charge the Dems might bring against bush that wouldn't hold up? Well, I'm being a bit too radical, but you get the picture. Just the process bush used for going to war in Iraq is damning starting with his first 6 months in office where he was even then looking for ways to invade per first person declarations in many books and comments made during hearings on the Hill, then the Downing Street Memo, Curveball, etc. We need answers under oath.

[wryter2000]

70. Ding, ding, ding, ding

We have a winner.

This is a guy who called a 51% "win" with clear evidence of tampering a "mandate" that gave him "political capital." If we failed to convict him, he'd declare that he's been proven innocent. Trust the compliant media to nod and agree with him.

[gilpo]

32. Yes, but Congress has to get on the record here....

This is a precedent that must be squashed. I think many in the house understand that (Conyers, Waxman come to mind).

[LSK]

48. what was Clintons approval rating? What is Bushes approval rating?

The public wants this impeachment and if it fails the blame will fall on the GOP.

[pat_k]

123. "The notion that impeachment is 'bad politics'. . .simply isn't grounded in reality" -- John Nichols

Washington Monthey
Be Bipartisan: Impeach Bush
by John Nichols
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0612.nichols.html">6-Nov-2007

. . .
Over the past 200 years, members of the House have proposed articles of impeachment against nine presidents. None of these initiatives reached the ultimate conclusion of a Senate vote convicting the president, and a resulting removal from office. Yet in most instances, the threat of impeachment effectively checked lawbreaking, irresponsible, or incompetent executives. When the Founders devised the impeachment process, they created a deliberately broad standard, which has been accepted through history by successive Congresses and the American people. To prove that an executive official is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors,"; would-be impeachers make not a classic legal case, but rather a moral, practical--and yes, political--case that a member of the executive branch ought not be allowed to continue behaving badly. As such, when a president or vice president who is threatened with impeachment quits his office, or simply quits abusing it, the process has, for all practical purposes, succeeded.

Presidents John Tyler, James K. Polk, Andrew Johnson, and Harry Truman all forfeited opportunities to seek new terms after members of the House proposed impeachment or censure. Many factors entered into each man's calculus. But the fact that congressional discussions of impeachment attracted serious media coverage cannot be discounted. Nor should we underestimate the influence of an impeachment debate on actors in other branches of government. . .

The notion that impeachment is "bad politics"; for an opposition party simply isn't grounded in reality. Of the nine instances when impeachment resolutions were filed against presidents, the opposition party secured the presidency in the next election seven times--most recently when Bush succeeded Clinton. After members of an opposition party pressed for impeachment in Congress, that party has almost always maintained or improved its position in the House at the next general election. After conservative Republicans proposed Truman's impeachment in the fall of 1952, their party took control of both the House and the presidency.

Democrats who moved to impeach Nixon in the summer of 1974 dramatically increased their presence in the House that fall. Even after Republicans bungled their impeachment of Clinton, their party retained control of the House--losing just five seats in the 1998 election that preceded the impeachment vote, and just two in the 2000 election that followed it. And, of course, they also captured the White House.

However, Democratic strategists have rewritten the history of the Clinton debacle to argue that impeachment is an electoral suicide pact. This notion that an opposition party must pull its punches rather than aggressively oppose a lawless presidency is the biggest mistake in politics.

In fact, impeachment is almost always smart politics for an opposition party, particularly one that is struggling to define itself

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0612.nichols.html">More. . .

[Cleita]

6. You are not wrong. The senators are preserving their own

self interest. Taking Bush and Cheney down us going to be up to others, maybe the military, maybe, we the people, with a referendum or a civil action, or maybe we will have to wait for the election to be rid of Republic neo-cons once and for all.

I hope there is a way to put them on trial for their crimes regardless, if not through constitutional law, some other legal path.

[Vincardog]

38. The senators are preserving their own self interest. WE have to force them to stand with us

or go down with the shrub.
They will not willingly go down the impeachment road.
It is up to us to force them to do it.

When we have open hearings and expose the fetid corrupt disgusting actions of the Mis-aDministration the choice will be clear.


They can vote to convince in their own self interest or vote to climb into the slime pit with the corrupt NeoConvicts.

[k_jerome]

7. you're right. nt.

[Rainscents]

9. Will, I'm afraid, you're right.

It's sad that, our government has been paid and bought by Corporate and Pharma whores!

[Lautremont]

10. How undeniably pro-impeachment would public opinion have to be

in order to convince Dems and even some replicants to get behind it? Can it reach that level, if there even is such a level? I don't know, but public opinion has been known to sway politicians plumping for re-election before.

[WilliamPitt]

16. Well

how anti-Iraq is the public right now? I'd say hugely so. Yet the Senate can't debate a non-binding resolution.

So.

[Lautremont]

23. Good point.

We need the Mysterious Congressman right about now.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/mysterious_congressman_announces

[WI_DEM]

25. And yet I'd bet if a poll went out asking if Bush should be impeached over Iraq

that there would probably be more people who say "No" than "Yes".

[GOTV]

43. Well, that was the case through most of 2006 n/t

[SemperEadem]

41. I agree.. it's a glaring slap in the face of the american people

that their Senators are ignoring the people who sent them there. It's not like they weren't put on notice in November---it's that THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK. As far as they are concerned, the American people are stupid and don't understand how politics work. We can write all the letters we want, but they're not going to read a one of them. Their office assistants are going to send out form letters thanking you for taking the time to write.

If they cared about what the people thought, they would call bush and cheney out on their lies--it's not like they're not capable of doing it: they did it to Clinton and he lied about a gotdamn blow job. He didn't lie about destructive weapons; he didn't pretty much say that he's not interested in finding OBL---the fact that we're not concentrated in Afghanistan right now pretty much bears that out and the Senate is really OK with that. The minority leader in the Congress went as far as issuing a memo, which was intercepted by Hoyer's people saying not to debate the Iraq war because they would lose the argument---to keep it on anything but the Iraq war. IMO, that righ there should launch recall votes on those congress members who wrote that and those who went along with it. It's not like there's no record of it--it's been running on C-SPAN all week.

It's a shame that this country's legislative body has that much hubris that they believe it's fine to proceed in the manner in which they have since January. Also, the fact that the Dems are pussyfooting with the thugs is nauseating.

[lyonn]

77. Thanks, I am able to rant along with your version of

what is really happening in Congress. What the hell is going on in the Democratic party? Why do we think we have lost far more Presidential campaigns and elections than the repubs? The Dems allow those damn repubs to lie and get by with it, for as long as I have been voting. if Dems show some guts it just might surprise the hell out of them that so many people will agree with them! Duh? Since I have been voting since John Kennedy ran and won and later I made some really stupid decisions in my voting for Pres., it is so important to me that the Dems make it real clear where they stand. That is my excuse for voting over the years for some repubs. The Dems seemed weak. They had a good platform but were not convincing. Daja Vue (sp?)

[pat_k]

125. Little risk to opposing the Resolution. But defending the indefensible? Not so easy.

Sure, Americans are overwhelmingly "against" the war, but they are rightfully ambivalent about how to extract ourselves. That's the definition of a quagmire: No good way out.

For the Dems, impeachment carries less risk and more benefits than their empty resolutions (which confirm their impotence) or cutting funding. (Veto will demonstrate more impotence. The incessent protestations that "we support the troops" they've connected to cutting the funding bolsters the notion that maybe they don't support the troops -- i.e., it's saying "don't think of an elephant.")

For the Repubs, given the electorate's ambivilence and the impotence resolution, opposing it carries little or no political risk. The same goes for opposing requirements or funding cuts that Bush will veto anyway. What risk there is to Repubs is their failure to distance themselves from Bush. "Standing with Bush" is not very appealing.

One the other hand, a serious threat of impeachment forces the Repubs to defend Bush's actions -- actions that have outraged the electorate. A very risky endeavor.

Contrary to what the pundits would have us believe, the outrage expressed in the election, and still seething, is not "all about" the war. The war is in the mix, but as Curtis Gans, Center for the Study of the American Electorate, points out it's "a gestalt around George Bush":

Curtis Gans
Director
http://spa.american.edu/csae">Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender
(http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">MP# -- Interview start time approx 18:30)
[br />Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .

Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program. . .

Unlike the ambivalence about how to extract ourselves from Iraq, there is consensus that there is no hope of extracting ourselves with the dictatorial "decider" in charge. There is also consensus on the desire for Bush presidency to end right now:

Newsweek Poll
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-27-2007/0004514285&EDATE=">27-Jan-07

"At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?
58% Yes, wish it was over

37% No, do not

5% Don't know/refused

Note: The question, "do you personally want it over" strips out all the impeachophobic rationalizations, and thus captures the actual level of support for impeachment.

[sandnsea]

11. Republicans block progress

Yeah, we're pretty sucky at getting our own message out. Amazed we were able to stay on message long enough to squeak out the wins in November.

Reid is still trying to bring that Iraq vote to the floor, made an appearance about it today. Will the netroots stand up for him??

[conscious evolution]

12. I'm hoping

the coming hearings and investigations will reveal such blatant and heinous criminality by bushco and his supporters that we will be able to get enough votes for conviction.
That enough repubs will,in attempt to save their own ass's or for whatever reason,will see the light and cross over.
I hope
If not,this country is doomed.

[radfringe]

13. Step 1.

1. stuff the herring with a lead brick

2. freeze the herring overnight

3. beat the freaking lock with the now frozen and loaded herring

or

cut the door down - lock and all


ok enough of my sick humor - point is there's more than one way to pick a lock with a wet herring

Yes, I agree the campaign season has sent reason out the window with congress. But impeachment doesn't begin with congress - it begins with the people

people writing letters, calling, e-mailing etc all demanding impeachment be put back on the table

it means going to campaign meet and greets - and not just the ones for presidential candidates, it means going to you rep or senator who is thinking of running for re-selection in '08 and asking them if they would vote for impeachment/conviction -- put them on the spot

we the people have to stop standing on the sidewalk and watching the parade - we have to become the parade

meanwhile :evilgrin: if you are trying to pick a lock with a wet herring - you really need to call a locksmith

[katsy]

14. You're not wrong.

Would this change if more States file their own Artcles of Impeachment (like Vermont) and submit them to Congress?

[Blackhatjack]

17. You are right at the present, however....

It will be the Republicans that initiate any such action, and only after they have gone to the WH to tell Bush it is time to go (just like they did Nixon in the Watergate scandal).

So what does it take to get to that point?

Once Republicans 'believe' Bush is going to open a new war with Iran and Syria, turn the Middle East into a conflagration, and mire us down there indefinitely at what appears to be indefinite costs and loss of life -- then it will happen.

Republicans had a long stay in the minority column and they did not like it one bit. Plus, they really liked being in the Majority --and now they see it slipping away for a very long time.

Reality still has some affect on Republicans on the Hill, and they know Bush's days are numbered, so it really comes down to survival for Republicans. How to regain lost ground and not be exiled to minority status for years to come is their conundrum. Only by 'helping' to get rid of Bush can they gain any foothold, and they know the Bush/Cheney NeoCons are never going to change.

I agree we are not there yet, but in quiet conversation you can bet this scenario is playing itself out even as we speak. For every blue conservative Republican like Walter Jones, there are bound to be dozens quietly considering taking the same tack.

Soon something must be done. Repubs know it. The question is when?

[lyonn]

83. Do agree that repubs will eventually get the picture

but, it will take too long at the rate we are going. There are obviously so many repubs that are pure stupid that it would take an impeachment, or, at the least, hearings, subpoenas, to draw them a picture. We don't have enough time to be Mr. Nice Guy Again, and wait for the arrogant, stupid repubs to figure out the "people" don't like them. We, the Dems, have been there and done that to our detriment before.

[WI_DEM]

18. your reasons and logic are irrefutable and it's a damn shame.

[Nite Owl]

19. I agree with you

and what we need to learn from this is we need to elect dems but not just any dems they must be people who really will fight for us, for the constitution. The primaries are indeed very important, we had better work for the people that will will work for us.

[keepCAblue]

22. Impeachment by Congress will not happen

We, the people, have been screaming loud and clear for years now. If the Dems in Congress were going to act, they'd have done so by now (save for Conyers, bless his heart), starting with the DSM. The current Democratic Congress knows they are hamstrung by their rethuglican counterparts, many of whom are in too deep with this corrupt administration to ever support impeachment. And, to be candid, the Dems have their hands too full right now with redeploying troops out of Iraq and thwarting an invasion of Iran. Impeachment would tie up the legislative process so completely, as it did with Clinton, that nothing else would be accomplished. Perhaps the Dems have opted to pick their battle wisely--impeachment or Iraq/Iran? As much as I want the bastards Bush and Cheney impeached, I want our troops home even more.

[Phredicles]

26. Surely you realize troops are never coming home while The Decider

and Deadeye Dick are in office.

[keepCAblue]

40. I realize that and you realize that...but I think our congressional leaders

...believe that this was a *choice* they had to make. The November 2006 mandate by the voters has been painted as one based soley on Iraq and the growing American dissent with Bush' war. Thus, the newly elected and re-elected are focusing the bulk of their time and efforts on this single issue, when in reality the November 2006 mandate bore multiple tentacles: Iraq, corruption, healthcare, jobs, minimum wage, environment...

I'm just submitting this as a rationale for why Congress is not likely to pursue impeachment.

[alfredo]

27. Mitch McConnell is the money man. If anyone defies him by

voting for removal, they will see two things: a well financed opponent in their next primary, and no funds from the party. Loyalty to bush and to the party trumps all other considerations.


BTW us Kentuckians are keeping record of his votes for the war and for a Unitary Executive. We will trot them out when he is up for reelection.

[Bake]

61. As a former Kentuckian, I dream of McConnell's defeat.

He is a total embarassment to the Commonwealth!

Bake

[alfredo]

78. Well, he is up for reelection soon, so if you want to help

defeat him, click on the Change For Kentucky link below and volunteer if you can, or help in other ways. Change for Kentucky is part of DFA. Our chapter here in Lexington has been very successful at putting progressives in office.


Mitch is vermin.

[gilpo]

28. I disagree... Here's why..

It is true that the Senate is made up of people who all think they should be president (or at least think they'd do a better job at it). However, the decision to impeach is not in the hands of the Senate. The House is much more likely to go down that road (no filibuster and a much larger majority.

So, I can see impeachment w/o removal as a result. This would be MUCH better than nothing at all, IMO. At least the congress would be on record as denouncing the executive power grab.

[Individualist]

31. Agreed.

The OP has confused impeachment with conviction. As you pointed out, the House impeaches, and as you say, that would be much better than nothing at all. Senate failure to convict does not negate impeachment.

[GOTV]

44. Impeachment is an accuasation only - it does not actuall indicate wrong doing...

... without a conviction an impeachment means nothing.

The house accuses, the Senate tries. If the Senate acquits the House's accusation is without merit.

Same with a court proceeding. If you are accused of murder, but the jury acquits, you are not guilt of murder.

If the house accuses W of High Crimes and misdemeanors, and the Senate acquits, W is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.\\

[gilpo]

58. I'm not sure that is 100% accurate....

I think a better analogy is to compare impeachment to the conviction and removal to the punishment.

In any case, to reign in future presidents, the Congress needs to go on record. Even a failed impeachment vote would allow for a "minority report", so to speak, to be on the Congressional record.

[GOTV]

76. How would a failed impeachment reign anyone in?

Suppose the House impeaches Bush for not going to the FISA court but the Senate says it's actually OK.

Now further suppose I am the next president and I want to tap your phone but I don't have a very good reason.

Given that no one stopped Bush, and he was acquitted of it even being worthy of removal, what will stop me?

I would support what you are saying if an impeachment without conviction carried any kind of penalty whatsoever. but it doesn't

[gilpo]

93. Good point.

I guess my thinking here is that even if the House impeached and the Senate failed to convict and remove, there would still be a body of opinion that future Presidents and their council would have to respect. Not quite a legal precedent, but it would have weight.

[GOTV]

117. But the opinion that would be respected would be the verdict....

... as handed down by the Senate - not guilty.

[Jagger69]

101. The truth is

Impeachment is tantamount to an indictment. A trial resulting in either conviction or acquittal is then executed by the Senate.

[lyonn]

86. Impeachment is better than nothing at all, yeah!

Impeachment would get facts and evidence out there for all to see. No more hiding behind lies. If we lose, so be it, as it stands now bush and cheney are right and have the "right" to take us into any war they declare is in the interest of our country and our freedoms - - -BS

I want bush's smirking face to show some real compassion and we will only see it when we put his tail in the ringer.

[endarkenment]

29. You are right it isn't going to happen.

And for sure the senate is a lost cause.

On the other hand a simple majority in the house alone can kill funding for the war.

[rinsd]

30. I think #3 is an important point (nt)

[hyphenate]

33. One of my favorite movie quotes is

Mel Brooks as the governor in Blazing Saddles saying, "We've gotta protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen!"

And while we can't help but think that Mel Brooks was prescient, one gets the true impression that what was relevant in the 1880s is even more so in the present.

Politics will always be politics. And even our founding fathers, despite their largesse, were wealthy men for the most part--wealthy white men. No women, no people of color. No surprise.

While other countries in the European area went through devastating wars, revolutions and coups, they emerged changed forever to the point where countries not only accepted women as potential rulers, but minorities also got to have a say in the long run. The U.S., being somewhat apart from such overwhelming circumstances braved the waves of change only to become even more isolated and remote. In fact, it was this remoteness which encourages the radical religious right to believe they have the ear of the administration.

Frankly, in 1998, Congress was held by the GOP, and many of them were arrogant enough to vote for impeachment because they could. It wasn't because of the flimsy joke of a charge against Clinton, it was simple payback for what we "did" to Richard Nixon, and because the GOP was able to show the Democrats what the GOP could do when they put their mind to it. It was a warning.

While I would give almost anything to see Impeachment for both Cheney and Bush, I can understand the need NOT to. I think that the countless scandals, corruption and lies will scare off most voters for some time to come, and that the arrogance and sheer chutzpah of the radical right will be the evidence we will need to keep them from ever again getting so powerful that they almost (and yet, still might!) destroyed our country as a result.

Many are already looking at Cheney and Bush as lame ducks, even now, two years before a new president is put into office. On the other hand, the bastards in the wh now are like little children refusing to go to bed on time. With a new congress in place, citizens are now more aware than ever about the dangerous place the GOP has placed us in, and the population is able to make effective choices on their own. Many are no longer able to trust network news, no longer able to read most newspapers with a straight face, and even people like O'Reilly and Limbaugh are beginning to look like $20 hookers instead of trustworthy frontmen.

If vigilance alone has been the only result of the past 6 years, I think it's been worth it in the end, where only a small percentage will stick with the rotten and decomposing corpse of the rightwing as it currently exists.

[porphyrian]

34. I can pick a lock with a wet herring.

However, I can't get Congress to impeach by myself.

[keepCAblue]

36. Impeachment under House Rule 603?

Whatever happened with this? Vermont, Illinois and California legislatures all introduced impeachment under House Rule 603 some six months ago. But, since then, there's been no noise regarding this...

California is the third state to consider initiating impeachment based on Rule 603. Representatives in Illinois and Vermont also have asked their legislatures to pass resolutions calling for the president’s impeachment.

snip...

Six towns in Vermont--along with communities across the country--have brought impeachment resolutions forward even though they don’t have anything with the apparent force of Rule 603 to demand that the House initiate impeachment.

On May 1, a bookstore owner from Vermont hand-delivered copies of resolutions adopted by three local communities to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois. She also took copies to Representative John Conyers Jr., D-Michigan.

Not a single journalist from the mainstream media turned out to report on the handover.

Conyers, who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, also has introduced a resolution to create a select committee to investigate the administration’s actions in regard to the war in Iraq, torture and retaliation against critics, “to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” As of April 28, the resolution had attracted 35 co-sponsors, but the House has taken no action on the legislation.

Koretz is frustrated by the apathetic reception that his own resolution in the California Legislature has received from California’s press. His office sent press releases to major newspapers and broadcast media up and down the state: “Mainstream media, I have to say, quite intentionally are choosing not to cover it.”

more ... http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A56818

Apathy. Not just of the media but, by and large, of the collective American conscience. If enough people screamed it loud enough and long enough, to the point of marches, demonstrations, sit-ins, and sick-ins, maybe then our national leaders, including those in Congress, might sit up and take notice.

[GOTV]

37. I can't tell you you're wrong... because you're right, as I've been saying for some time here

The only thing that will change the equation is a substantial move in the polls in support of impeachment.

The Senators will be cautious of course and the only thing that will get them to move is the fear that they are not doing the will of a large number of their voting constituents.

[mopinko]

39. more moves on iran might break the log jam of stupidity

at least i hope so. several dem senators have expressed their determination to force a constitutional showdown should they set foot in iran.
i cannot argue with your logic. but, if impeachment resolutions continue to bubble op from cities and states, i think they may reach critical mass.

[Martin Eden]

45. What about impeaching just Dick?

Cheney was a lot more hands-on with the lies that misled us into Iraq. It's apparent to anyone following the Libby trial that the Vice President's office was behind the outing of Plame and also was complicit in the Office of Special Plans (with co-conspirator Feith in the news lately).

Dick's poll numbers are even lower than chimpy's, and as a rule it is a lot more difficult to bring down the president. Additionally, impeaching both at the same time would put Pelosi in office -- something the rethugs are extremely unlikely to do regardless of the level of public outrage.

Speaking of which, public outarge has to be a lot higher than it is now. Impeachable offenses by Cheney have to be more than public record -- they must be repeated on the front page of papers and featured on the network news in order for impeachment to become an omperative in the public mind.

And for all that to happen, we're going to need some very successful investigations by Conyers & Waxman and/or a real bombshell dropped by an inside whistle-blower.

Not vey likely perhaps, but within the realm of possibility.

[mmonk]

46. You're not wrong and I'm not giving up.

And that's the way it is, February the 15th, 2007.

[LSK]

47. you are wrong for one simple reason: Impeachment starts in the House

The Senate trys the Impeachment, not starts it.

Now a successful impeachment is another story.

:D

[WI_DEM]

51. I think he understands that which is why he said in his post that getting

67 votes to convict would be very difficult and we would need at least 20 GOP Senators because not all members of the Democratic caucus would vote for conviction.

[WilliamPitt]

82. That's a given

The rest isn't.

[Ganja Ninja]

50. We can't blame the Democrats for not impeaching these guys.

What good is trying to impeach them if if they don't have the votes to pull it off? It's a waste of time. All the Dem's can do is investigate and try to make it clear just how criminal this bunch is.

Meanwhile the Bush's know the GOP is finished and the next election is going to be a landslide for the Democrats. They're setting them up in Iraq and Iran running up the debt and wearing out the military at the same time. They're killing future social programs by forcing us to increase military spending for the next decade and beyond. The war in Iraq and Iran is now a war on social spending and the PNAC plan is only a memory.

[mmonk]

115. I most certainly can blame them. No other political

party whether republican now, or democrats of the past, would let these things slide. I can and will place blame.

[opusprime]

52. Hey Will... a couple points

First, the House Impeaches the President, the Senate runs the trial.

67 votes are needed to convict, but the House only needs a majority to Impeach.

Nixon resigned under the simple threat of Impeachment, because he knew the case against him would be overwhelming.

Second, the Presidential campaign may actually work in favor of Impeachment.

Why, because the campaign is the one place where us voters actually get to ask our representatives about their position on certain issues. Look at the play the "Iraq vote" question for Hillary got last week.

If I am ever allowed to ask Hillary a question, it will go something like this:

"Senator, President Bill Clinton was impeached over his testimony in a civil suit. Our current President has admitted to violating several federal statutes related to FISA, as well as blatently violating the Bill of Rights of American citizens. The administration has also authorized kidnapping, torture, and possibly murder, in direct violation of US law.

As Senator, you have taken an oath to protect the US Constitution. Yet you have failed to hold anyone in the current administration accountable for violating the law.

If you cannot uphold your oath of office as a Senator, why should we trust that you will hold your oath as a US President?"

I could go on...

[In Truth We Trust]

85. That is a great post and hits the proverbial nail on the head!!! Impeach NOW!!!

[lyonn]

88. Here's a recommend for your post! n/t

[WilliamPitt]

110. Again...

"The moral, ethical and legal arguments in favor of impeaching Bush and Cheney need hardly be made. They are as self-evident as sunshine. Should no impeachment come to pass, history will look at these past years in awe. They impeached Clinton for what? They failed to impeach Bush for what??"

Your arguments on the morals of the thing are exactly right.

It doesn't get us to 67.

[opusprime]

111. Thanks for the reply Will...

I guess to me its about more than just getting the conviction.

It's about being principled and demanding accountability. I feel the our Constitution is really in jeopardy, and I think our elected officials have an obligation to protect it. After all, that is the oath they took. I took the same oath when I had a position as a public servant.

Granted, I'm an idealist. I think if we put enough pressure on our elected officials, we may get some people to actually stand up to this administration and hold them accountable.

I'm not concerned about the next election, I'm concerned about the future of our country.

Thanks again for the reply. I always enjoy reading your stuff. You always give me lots to think about.

[proud patriot]

53. the only way you are wrong is if

The American People make it politically impossible
not to impeach.

As with almost all good changes that have happened in America,
This will have to come from the Masses .

We the people must force the change . Until then I believe
you are correct .

[ninkasi]

55. This is what I don't understand, Will

First, let me say that I believe you're right. What I don't understand, though, is that with so many Americans sick of the war in Iraq, opposed to war with Iran, and sick to death of Bush and Cheney, why do those who are running for, or want to run for, president, believe that impeaching them will hurt their chances of being elected? Wouldn't the hearings associated with impeachment bring even more illegal activities by this administration to the public's attention?

If Bush were popular, and the majority of the country were in favor of the war, and the passing out of no-bid contracts to cronies, and more tax cuts for the rich, I can see where Senators might hesitate to convict. This is not the case, though, so why are the politicians afraid that doing something that the public is in favor of will hurt their future chances?

I guess I just don't understand their reasoning on the issue, and would like somebody to explain to me why they are being so timid, when the people are in favor of action.

[bigtree]

56. I'd like to hear how they could have avoided 'getting outmaneuvered'

seriously.

There are the weak-willed ones, to be sure. But, given that, what could the presumably sensible majority have done on the resolution to outmaneuver a Senator's right to demand the 60 vote requirement . . . especially when the effort was designed to peel off as many republicans as possible, and couldn't be a strident effort if it was meant to succeed?

I just don't know what the point is in knocking the Democratic majority at this point for lacking enough 'courage' to initiate impeachment. All of the actions they are exercising now are certainly to be thoroughly ignored by Bush, even if he signs something or other. But, every successful action will serve as the basis for which Congress (hopefully in a bipartisan voice) will seek to reign in Bush as he gives them no alternative. This is the first time he's been presented with any legislative rebuke from Congress. It will be the first time that legislation which confronts him will be allowed to be debated and (hopefully) voted on on the floor.

I'm just not convinced by the 'brave' critics that Congress will be able to resist moving toward impeachment after the lame-duck losers in the WH defy every legislative move they make. It shouldn't take long after this resolution is passed for the floodgates to open with more confrontational Iraq legislation attached to every possible vehicle, and action from every associated committee.

That's how they work: Slowly, but, sometimes, with deliberation. I expect that either impeachment will evolve naturally out of the regular disregard Bush has already demonstrated for anything Congress does, or it will come out of the earnest efforts of our leadership and from the certain revelations which will come out of committee hearings. At that point, courage will be more of an opportunity for Congressfolk than the mere posture it is now.

[lyonn]

57. Another view:

Campaign season is a reason for impeachement in my opinion. Impeachement proceedings could or would bring out the real facts about the bush administration and how they have dismissed what the CIA and other Intell. Agencies were telling them about Iraq's WMD, etc.

Impeachment could prove, put intel work products out there for all to see and decide, what has really been going on with this bush govt/repub. govt.

bush has trashed our Constitution by ignoring what they don't like with his signing statement, among a jillion other Decisions he has made. How can we sit by and allow this to go un-noticed? Dems need to make clear that a president does not have absolute power. bush has used absolute power.

And yes, the Senate is not showing any guts. Reid is a swell guy but seems to buckle under pressure, and at the moment short one Senator due to illness. Of course he must consider the whole Senate, but Pelosi has laid out where and what she feels is important for her party and is showing, right or wrong, a sense of direction for the Democrats. And yes, she has taken impeachment off the table - - - for now. If Conyers or any committee have an investigation which proves derelection of duty on the part of our Pres. then impeachement should be on the table.

The upcoming elections seems to be the real problem, everyone seems to be running for office and not protecting the American people for fear of losing.

Meanwhile, back in middle/middle class America we are being ignored.

To go along to get along doesn't make me feel good when nearly a hundred of our troops are dying each month and the image of America is is the crapper.

[Poiuyt]

60. Personally, I would be happy if just the House voted to impeach him

I know the Senate will never convict him, but I think it's important to see the "i" after his name. It will show other countries and future generations of America that we did not let Bush's fascist behavior go unpunished. If we're going to be a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world, the least we can do is to do something to let our leaders know when they step over the line. Even if he isn't removed from office (which only the Senate can do) we will at least have sent a message. Yes, it's symbolic, but it's a message that the rest of the world would appreciate.

And for those of you who say that impeachment without conviction will only give Bush a green light to do whatever he wants, I say he does that anyway.

[lyonn]

90. Agree, impeachment will show other countries and the repubs

that we will stand for what we believe. Yes, the message sent by impeachment is critical.

[sinkingfeeling]

62. Articles of Impeachment must begin in the House and I think that still might happen.

I believe Conyers said investigations and impeachment articles would take too long. Again, I don't buy it. There are several sets of articles of impeachment already written. If one of the states actually passed a resolution requesting it, I think the House would act.

Now on to the Senate, even in the campaign '08 mode, if impeachment was filed, the Senate has no choice but to take action. I believe that there are millions of Americans wanting this to happen, and a strong grass roots campaign might be able to convince those Senators up for re-election to get serious.

I don't care if it doesn't happen until after the 2008 election. I believe the lack of impeachment threats, proceedings, and argument, will lead to a Constitutional crisis like we've never seen.

[WI_DEM]

63. Question: Given the Libby trial, do you think it is more likely that VP Cheney

could be impeached and convicted than Bush?

[In Truth We Trust]

64. It Matters! It is fundamental as to how are children and grandchildren will live their lives.

Will they live in a fascist state as we are now. Or will the rule of law and constitutional integrity be restored? This is the fundamental question and challenge we face today. It will not come unless we force it through massive citizen repudiation of the usurpation of democracy.

I agree with your post in general as I interpret it more as a statement of the facts or more likely the political reality. We must change the reality. We must insist on rule of law. No justice- no peace! Every complicit politico; be they dem or repug, must feel the wrath of the people. When elections can be stolen via source code they feel insulated against said wrath. Therefore we must take back the ballot. We must insist on clean and transparent elections. A constitutional amendment requiring Hand Counted paper ballots should be a grass roots non partisan movement to peacefully restore representative democracy. Nothing more and nothing less.

You write the following Will: ""We have to do it" and "It's the right thing to do" and "It's the law" are all absolutely correct, but it doesn't matter.". My response is that it does matter as I know you feel the same but were referring more to the reality of the corruption we face.

I can not tell you you are wrong as I fear in fact that you are right but giving up is not an option.
Impeach NOW!!!

[Holly_Hobby]

68. I'll go even further

The entire gov't should be impeached. Our elected leaders aren't following the will of the people, as plainly presented to them per the November elections. I believe that's taxation without representation. *This is only my opinion.

On edit, I agree with you. Impeachment won't happen.

[RiverStone]

69. As an advocate of impeachment...I reluctantly

agree.

It's all too easy for the rethugs to stall or implement procedural delays. By the time we would ever get there, it would be well into 08 or later.

I believe the best chance now is for investigations to reveal such epic lies and manipulations which led us into a needless war, that Shrub & Shooter pull a Nixon and resign in shame. Now that could happen much quicker then impeachment proceedings!

[hvn_nbr_2]

71. A couple additional points re: time and motivation

1. Time
It took two years to get to the verge of impeaching Nixon, when he resigned. And that was with an active, non-compliant, not-totally-propagandized press and with a House and Senate in which the Republicans were not 90% lockstep fascists. Bush only has two years left. Even if they started today, final removal from office wouldn't happen more than a couple months before he'd be leaving office anyway, and that's if it went as fast as possible.


2. Motivation
Republicans in Congress today are 90% lockstep fascists. If Bush and Cheney both removed their disguises on live TV to reveal that they have horns, tails, red skin, cloven hooves, and pitchforks, no more than two or three of today's Republicans would have anything negative to say about them. That 67% in the Senate requires more than two or three Republicans.

I think that Democrats in Congress don't generally want to impeach them either. Recognizing the time factor, I think they're quite content to run against Bush in the 2008 elections. If he's impeached and removed before the election, they can't really run against him. With him still there, no matter who the Republican candidate is, the Dems can run against Bush and call the candidate Bush-McCain or Bush-Rudy or Bush-Romney or whatever.

[redqueen]

73. I think you're wrong because we can impeach.

We may not get a conviction, but having Dems fail to uphold the law would reinforce the cowardly, weak, spineless stigma.

[onenote]

102. only if the Democrats in the House show more unanimity than is realistic to expect

Obviously, if investigations, hearings, etc. produce a public, and at least to some extent, bi-partisan, groundswell for impeachment, then impeachment in the House becomes possible (as does conviction by the Senate).

But right now, I doubt that there is a majority in the House who, if they had to vote up or down on articles of impeachment tomorrow, would vote aye. I say this because House Democrats don't vote in lockstep to the degree that repubs do. So you'd probably see a virtually unanimous vote by repubs in opposition, and there would be defections in the Democratic ranks sufficient to defeat the articles (it would only take 16 Democratic defections to shift the vote, assuming that a repub replaces Norwood).

Keep in mind that two of the four articles of impeachment against Clinton were defeated in the House. The two that passed were approved along largely (but not entirely) party lines. But, as I said, the difference is that I don't see the all Democrats in the House, particularly the Blue Dogs, jumping on the impeachment bandwagon unless and until there is broader, bi-partisan demand for it from back home.

[redqueen]

103. We see it differently then.

I see the impeachment as much more likely than you do.

[Ganja Ninja]

74. The only way we are going to impeach these guys is to do it ...

after January 1st 2009 and before January 20th 2009. After the new congress is sworn in and before the next presidential inauguration. It would only be a symbolic gesture but it needs to be done.

[Hawkowl]

79. IMPEACHMENT IS INEVITABLE

Conviction by the Senate? Impossible. I agree with what you're saying, but I would also argue that it is morally imperative that the House vote for impeachment. Just because it looks like there is a snowball's chance in hell of the Senate voting to convict and remove is irrelevant. An impeachment vote by the House sends a message to the rethuglicans that their actions are criminal. It sends a message to the world that the American people are responsible world citizens, and that we are trying to hold our pretzledent accountable. It also writes into history, for all of posterity, that we the people, did not fall asleep at the wheel, but did our utmost to stop this criminal.

Just because we are almost certain to fail doesn't mean that our attempt is not a moral success. And it may set the tone, the stage, and bring to light evidence that can be used in criminally trying administration members after they are out of office.

[lyonn]

91. Yup, our "moral imperative that ..... vote for impeachment. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

80. I don't care if they're impeached or not

just so long as somebody stands up to them and stops them from causing any more damage, and just so long as they are held accountable for their crimes after they're out of office. NO PARDONS, or future presidents sweeping things under the rug for the sake of "healing the country" and "putting the past behind us." These guys have to pay for what they've done.

[The Backlash Cometh]

81. Excuse me, but when IS there a convenient time for impeachment?

I'm so sick of this. It's the reason why Florida's Ethics Commission is totatlly useless. They figure that the dirty politician will just step down from office once the bad publicity begins and that's the end of the investigation. But it's not the end. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER IRAN-CONTRA! If you don't show these white male elites that there are consequences to using the public office for private gain, then it will never stop. They can get away with murder!

Ratchet up the media for the mainstream press, now is the time to get this country on the same page. We have TWO Americas because we don't all have access to the same news. So this CAN bring the country together if you get through the right-wing filters.

[WilliamPitt]

84. What on earth does "convenience" have to do with my argument?

The concept of whether any of this is "convenient" is so off the point, you'd need the Hubbell telescope to find it.

Your re-charachterization of my post is a shortcut to thinking about the points I've raised here, I think.

[byronius]

87. We're a nation with a terrible cancer.

We got chemo and radiation in November, and some of the bad cells have been cut out and sent to jail, but the most malignant mass is in a spot we can't reach by surgery, and although the chemo helped, it's not enough by a long shot.

We're still in ICU. Beep. Beep. Beep.

[Cleita]

89. Good analogy and the surgeons who could remove the

cancer don't want to do it.

[blues90]

94. I agree 100 %

All I see so far is the rock star jolt of many senators running for president , the ones who are not are are protecting their position for 2008 . We have now a political manufacturing plant ramped up for a few new models for future release .

As you stated if the senate can't get even a vote on a none binding resolution then going through with an impeachment of not only bush but cheney as well , it is like an ant climbing up an elephants leg with rape in mind .

I am still trying to get the vision of bush in his press conference yesterday while he ran off at high noon with the back of his head looking like a block with a chipped corner .

Now we have more bush today bantering about troops for Afghanistan and I suspect we will see much more of bush soon enough .

[lyonn]

95. Well Will, after reading this intire post and adding my 2 cents

and after taking an Alka Seltzer, I have decided we are damned if we do and damned if we don't - impeach.

And my hurting gut still tells me we can't let these destroyers of our Constitution get by with telling us they are going to do what their gut tells them and the hell with the rest. They need to stand in front of the people, under oath, and do some real explaining. If they can explain, for instance, why and how they legally, illegally took this country to war in Iraq then so be it. Explaining themselves Under Oath is critical. How else do we get them under oath?

[theboss]

96. There are more reasons why it won't happen in the House

But it's a pointless political argument right now.

[Raine]

97. I can't tell you that you're wrong

cause I believe you're correct.

[MessiahRp]

98. I hate your point.

I agree that it's true, but I hate every inch of it. Good stuff once again Mr. Pitt.

Rp

[onenote]

100. You're right, and its not just the Senate that would be a hurdle

Yes, there is a solid Democratic majority in the House. But that doesn't mean that its solid on every issue. While there likely is near unanimous support among Democrats in their opposition to the "surge" that doesn't necessarily translate into support for impeachment. Blue Dog Democrats in particular are likely to be reluctant to support impeachment. Obviously, if hearings, investigations etc. produce a groundswell of public support for impeachment that crosses partisan lines to a sufficient degree, then the situation may change. But at the moment, I doubt that if you put articles of impeachment in front of the House and asked them to vote today that they'd pass.

[mzmolly]

105. Any move toward impeachment will have to come from the people.

And a solid majority of "the people," will not cry out for impeachment unless they are presented irrefutable evidence in our tabloid media.

[Guaranteed]

106. Well, yeah, that's the stark reality of the situation.

To put it into two words: it's impossible.

There's a lot more behind not impeaching that isn't simply a matter of not having a choice, though.

[Quixote1818]

108. What if New Mexico passes legislation to impeach?

Last I heard New Mexico was having some good progress on that.

[Senator]

112. How Wrong Are You? Let Me Count the Ways...

... a Belated Valentine.

(Note: I responded to your shorter post, so I'll just link to that here.)

The Countdown (with all moral, ethical, and legal arguments redacted):

One. As others have noted, you mistake the Senate for the place where the impetus for impeachment must come. This is not only wrong, but antithetic to an impeachment argument. As their role is constitutionally circumscribed to begin only after articles have been approved by the House -- and even then to be one of individual jurors, only acting as a body on procedure -- their motivations and/or organizational ability is nearly entirely irrelevant.

(You'll have to ask yourself what motivates you to assert these rather pointless points.)

Two. Your claim that the campaign season is "bad news" is a virtual nonsequitur. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that the campaign season -- particularly the insanely early onset -- could be a great help to impeachment.

Unlike office holders, primary candidates are in competition for constituencies and eager to take popular positions. A call for impeachment could easily catapult a candidacy to frontrunner status nearly overnight. And the extra time outside the beltway will go a long way toward educating the candidates (and their staffs) to just how strong the impeachment demand is among the rank and file party activists and primary voters.

Three. You employ a double standard when you use a "result based" guage (67 votes/removal) to dismiss the option of impeachment. You fail to apply the same standard to judge your proposed alternative. What result can be expected from failure to impeach? What exactly gets past the veto pen, the signing statements, the unitary executive, the criminality?

Non-impeachment proposes that we achieve virtually no results for 2 years. That somehow this will impress the electorate in some way. That requires explanation (outside the beltway at least).

Four. Also noted by others, you completely ignore the very real benefits of even a "futile" impeachment effort. It could well do as much for our side as the (arguably futile) anti-abortion effort does for the right. Impeachment has the potential to slay the "Weak Dems" dragon, and in so doing consign the Republicans to generational, if not permanent minority status. Even if that potential with swing and moderate voters is not realized, impeachment is the mother lode of "base activation."

Your "Don't fight if we can't win." conclusion is not simply a moral/ethical lapse. It make no logical sense either. Fighting deters future attacks. It improves your performance for future battles. Retreat is bad for morale, endorses the status quo ante, and encourages future assault. (Sometimes people's sig lines reflect this obvious notion.)

Enough.

The real bottom line is that you're wrong because your "concerns" are irrelevantly premature. The obstacles impeachment must overcome are not many, but the one posed by resistance from people like you is a far more urgent and important one than what you're fretting about.

---

[Usrename]

113. you are wrong on so many levels

The House would impeach, not the Senate, and it wouldn't take very long, but it would be very dangerous.

As for the 67 votes to convict in the Senate, I don't know where do you get your political insights from. If Republicans won't get on-board with this, they WILL create a filibuster-proof majority for the Dems in 08.

This is all just common sense, and it's why there is a real problem for the leadership in both parties.

Turning a blind eye to their crimes makes a person complicit. This is not a very deep concept.

The people may be stupid, but we are no where near as stupid as you insinuate we are.

[Decruiter]

114. ummmm, I don't know, "WE THE PEOPLE", just maybe? It's a dream,

I know, but without dreams and hope what have we got? Not much.

I have a dream, Will, .........someone way more famous than I said it.

[PATRICK]

116. Believing in the impossible

The Dems believed the support of the common person in organizing, activism and especially money donation was impossible. The DLC was a product of smart despair and the purpose of turning big money for the service of the common man created an ironical distance.

The Democratic survivors of Reagan mania and sweet surrenders of going soft on Nixon, the truth and reform believed liberalism was impossible. Strangely, their moral opposites in their constant abuse of the center of America thought no radicalism was too extreme so long as power fell into their shrinking laps.

The Democrats under the red-eyed scrutiny of corporate news media accepted the judgment of that estate as
a strict substitute for the common opinion it strove mightily to form. Now that the divide is like night and day between media and truth, media and the people the democrats still face the media with backs turned against the commons in a strange twilit no-man's-land.

In the realm of politics it is all in the mind. A decision, a perspective, a leadership of other minds, a conversation about reality. The reason that the reasonable, in fact obligatory duty, is impossible is because so many lies, so many impossible contradictions and bad judgments, so much fear and despair and empty ambition have been surrendered to.

Impeachment. A charismatic Democratic president. A mass movement. Some snap of the collective fingers to wake up from this plodding nightmare. It certainly is not going to be that easy and the demands for it that claw against the slippery slope have as their most real hope the slow, massive groundswell of a greater and greater turning of the whole, all the irritations and impediments and scourges intact with a frustrating arrogance and absolute- impossible- denial.

Instead of a sudden and easy dawn we have the agony of a long Arctic night where the sun dances at the horizon and does not yet come up. It is all too natural, but in seeing this one does not give up the hopeless, because even by this forlorn process hope will have its day.

A day when one will see beyond impeachment to the Hague, to the exile of the worst from the most important posts of service, to the fundamental change of human history whether any group or individual wills it otherwise to a world where the survival of the spiritually fit holds impossible sway.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

118. Not wrong but IMO you're only half right

Start with the presidential campaign season. Now turn your eyes from the Senate and gaze across the country. Why are so many voters interested in what amounts to Christmas shopping in July? They want to put the imposter and the war behind them. They don't want to be reminded of their previous support for both. It's become the American way to just pretend mistakes never happened. That's why the majority will not demand impeachment and will not support impeachment. We're all attendees at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, and it's simply time to move on to clean cups.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. Because even if you know you're not going to win, you still have to speak up

Silence implies consent.

[pat_k]

120. Your confidence in Democratic cowardice is heartwarming. . .

. . .(to the fascists, that is).

Yep. The impeachophobics in the beltway sure "know" the score.

But listen closely. Between the squawks of "Impossible!" and certainty that Democratic cowardice will win the day, the chattering class is letting bits of the reality that so frightens them slip out:

A.B. Stoddard ("The Hill") on http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904772/">'Tucker' for Jan. 30

STODDARD: And last May, he—there was some discussion about impeachment. And someone asked, I think, Nancy Pelosi, and she said, oh, no, it‘s not going to happen. And literally within 13 days there was a John Conyers editorial in “The Washington Post” saying, I‘m not going to push for impeachment because blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And I think that...

CARLSON: So she cracks the whip.

STODDARD: I think the whip is then cracked. But, you know, I know Republicans who voted—sane, grownup, respectable people who voted for Bush...

CARLSON: Right?

STODDARD: ... who would like him to not be in office tomorrow.
. . .

STODDARD: . . .the Republicans, what they would do is they wouldn‘t so much defend Bush, as they would say, look, the Democrats are power hungry, we, too, oppose the war.

CARLSON: Right.

STODDARD: We, too, think it‘s a disaster.

CARLSON: Of course. No, of course.

STODDARD: Please, let us ride it out.
. . .

STODDARD:. . .the point being made about impeaching both of them, the fact that you couldn‘t just impeach Bush, is obviously a salient point. I mean, you just really couldn‘t look at what Cheney has, you know, practically admitted at this point.

I think the whole thing is just impossible

CARLSON: No, but wait a second.'

STODDARD: It‘s just impossible.
. . .
STODDARD:. . .This discussion will go on and on. It will not stop. And it might—John Conyers might start talking about it again, but are they actually going to proceed? I mean, no.

CARLSON: Of course not. It would be interesting.

STODDARD: So I think we‘re back to Democrats are cowards.
. . .

Fortunately for the nation, the created "reality" of the impeachophobics comes tumbling down in the face of challenge.

While by no means sure, conviction in the U.S. Senate is not only possible, there are compelling reasons to believe it would be likely. If it gets there at all. A BIG If. When the House leadership gets serious about impeachment, Republicans will be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy" to ensure the WH stays in Repub hands.

When push comes to shove, far fewer Republicans may be willing to defend the indefensible than the parrots of the chattering class can possibly imagine.

When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped the Republican caucus in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements to nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

This White House; this illegitimate Commander in Chief, has cried wolf so many times that no one believes a word they say. All their "proof" is rejected simply because they are the source of it. They've rendered themselves incapable of defending the nation. That alone is more than enough.

The Repubs will certainly try the "partisan coup" counter-accusation, but that's (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">easy to turn against them). They'll try the "Un-Patriotic to distract/attack the President in War time" bit too, but that's not likely to go far these days either. Without a scintilla of legitimacy, rationality, or trust, nothing "the decider" does will "work" and Americans know it. Better to hamstring this WH in an impeachment battle than to allow him to force more of his "help" on the people of the Middle East.

Unless the leadership stops complaining, and formally accuses in articles of impeach, the Repubs won't be forced to mount a defense -- and we won't find out how many, or how few, will be willing to join that defense. In all likelihood, the 'defense' of Bush and Cheney would look a lot like Libby's -- lots of hot air, stonewalling, and final surrender to the inevitable.

[earth mom]

121. FYI-Impeachment is up to THE PEOPLE.

Please stop the disinfo campaign.

[PhilipShore]

124. I propose we impeach the entire government...

our government has become inpractical to the governed, so therefore -- the only reasonable thing to do is throw the bums out; burn the Constitution and by non-violent anarchist means -- write a new constitution, that addresses every day realities, and the process of transormation shall
be done by non-violent anarchist means -- to bring order in our democracy.

[BobTheSubgenius]

126. Sad to say....

...you're not. Your analysis is as unassailable as usual.

I only wish you were wrong.