Demanding Impeachment: -- We MUST get past "Can't happen, so don't try" !!

[pat_k]

There is No Escape from it: their abuses of power are unprecedented in number and magnitude.

It is a moral imperative to call on our representatives in the House and Senate to Impeach Bush & Cheney. They all need to hear from us, regardless of party affiliation.

Just as it is a moral imperative for us, it is a moral imperative for every elected official to take any steps available to them to make it happen -- even if the only action available is to open a mouth and DEMAND Impeachment.

Tragically, too many are immobilized by the rationalization that "It can't happen, so there is no reason to try," or "We aren't acting because it's futile," or some other variation.

We MUST challenge and get past this rationalization. The consequences of falling victim to it are catastrophic.

The notion that "it's futile, we can’t do anything" is perhaps the biggest barrier to action we face on the center/left. It is very deeply ingrained. Over and over we allow appeals to "practicality" and "realism" immobilizes us. One of the primary reasons Democrats are viewed as wimps is their failure to fight the good fights, come what may.

The Reactionary Right are not blocked in this way. They go for it and are perceived as strong. Public opinion is swayed by the strength, no matter how wrong-headed the goals are.

In our part of the spectrum, we get angry at people for being disengaged; even as we promote their immobility with pronouncements of futility and defeatism. We need to STOP IT !!

People have a need to be effective. They have a need to ACT. Action empowers and feeds action. No matter how small we think our chances for success are, we must take up the fights dictated by our principles and go for the BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals).

Even if the ultimate goal is not achieved, there are ALWAYS wins and benefits along the way, not the least of which is simply engaging people in a common endeavor. (If you want people to get hooked on action, just meet their need to be effective by celebrating the interim achievements -- e.g., tracking the number of previously disengaged people we are involving).

Some call it confidence; some call it faith. The label doesn't matter as long as we understand how powerful it is to act from the knowledge that anything is possible.

[Rocknrule]

1. I agree

The Republican party thinks they rule by divine right and are above the law. We at least have to show as much resistance as we can to prove them wrong

[helderheid]

2. Yes, let's quit repeating the self - defeating talk. Thank you.

[SoFlaJet]

3. Clearly

something must be done

[Warpy]

4. It'll happen when GOP Congressmen

realize they're being spied on, too, as the criminals in the White House collect damaging information on all of them to use against them should they ever object to a single thing the tantrum-throwing old drunk at the top wants.

That's what happened to rid us of Nixon. This time, people will have to be jailed. It's the only way to reassert the primacy of LAW.

The biggest mistake in politics in the last 50 years wasn't the election of Ronald Reagan. It was letting the Nixon gang skate.

[pat_k]

36. Spot on -- Punishing perpetrators is a critical component of justice!

The reactionary right revels in accusation and punishment; we avoid it like the plague. We find out what wrong-doers have been doing. We do reports. We "look ahead," proclaiming our intention to prevent future wrong-doing. No more half-measures. Punishing or demanding redress from wrong-doers is the POINT of finding out what they were up to.

When you combine this reluctance to punish with failure to act because it's futile, the feeble actions that remain are simply a masturbatory shadow play.

Impeachment is about more than removal from office; it is a prosecution. Crimes are exposed. Damages are defined. Crimes committed by people in positions of power have devastating and far reaching consequences that we cannot even begin to remedy or rectify until the crimes and the damages are publicly, and thoroughly, aired.

Punishing the perpetrators is a critical component of justice.

When someone is shooting into a crowd, the most urgent action is to disarm or stop them. Disarming is a necessary protective action, but justice demands more: investigation, prosecution, and punishment or redress.

For the Bush-Cheney syndicate, power is the gun. We must disarm them -- remove them from office -- but that is only the beginning. We must turn them over to the world court at the Hague. We must purge the rest of the syndicate from power.

[Cobalt Violet]

47. True, Impeachments not enough.

"We must turn them over to the world court at the Hague."

[Jawja]

44. The Nixon gang served

time in prison. Nixon skated. I believe the biggest mistake was letting the Iran-Contra criminals skate. They are the same people screwing us today.

[firefox]

5. I am for removing WarCriminal and every member of Congress that is not

Which basically means "Sweep Congress Clean."

[pat_k]

37. Yep -- Get on Impeachment or face a Primary Opponent who WILL!!

It they don't put it front and center, we must. Start now:

Get on the Impeachment bus or you will face a Primary Opponent who WILL!

[petgoat]

58. The Green Party Made Impeachment a Platform Plank in 7/03! nm

[pat_k]

74. A primary opponent is different sort of threat.

Good for the Greens!

I wish I could be keener about third party polictics, but until we have Instant Runoff Voting, my efforts will be focused on pushing the Dems to act.

I'm not sure how threatening Democratic candidates find the Greens at this point. I do know they DO NOT like primary opponents who can gin up the base -- the ones that vote in primaries -- against them.

[petgoat]

75. wish I could be keener about third party polictics

Greens go out and register voters who wouldn't otherwise vote for Dems. Once we've made
our point at the primaries, we can instruct our base to vote for the Dem.

But given that the Green platform is more in line with the wishes of America than is
that of any other party, the future looks Green.

[pat_k]

78. The future is Green if we implement IRV

Until we implement Instant run off, third parties will continue to have a tough time having a significant impact.

With Instant Runoff Voting, citizens can select the candidate and the party that best represents their wishes as their first choice, the candidate "next closest" as their second, and so on -- of course, a candidate or platform intolerable to the voter is not selected at all.

If the voter’s first choice candidate loses on the first count, that candidate’s votes are allocated to the voter’s second choice. In this way, no candidate can win with less than 50%, and the winning candidate knows EXACTLY how many voters preferred another candidate’s positions. This gives those voters leverage to push the winner to adopt those positions.

Until we implement instant runoff voting, I will only vote for a third party candidate when that vote does not put us in danger of electing a candidate whose positions I absolutely reject. Voting for a third party on so-called "principle", when doing so puts us in such terrible jeopardy, is not truly principled in my book. Principle demands that we carefully consider and take fully responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

[petgoat]

80. IRV is essential, I agree

But until we get that, we can make a similar show of force by running multiple Green
candidates in the primaries. Then we can say to the Dems "Look, we had x thousand votes
in the primary, but only x hundred in the election--those x thousand are Green votes we
delivered to you."

[pat_k]

81. Depends on the voting history for the race. There's another approach.

Where I live, Democratic candidates are competitive, but barely. Running Greens would virtually guarantee us a Republican Mayor, Town Council, Board of Ed... etc.

The consequences of running Greens here, or voting Green, are just too awful. Until we have implemented IRV, principle demands we do whatever we can to keep Republicans out of office. Purging them from positions of power is first and foremost.

In locations where you have a history of electing Democrats by a large margin, letting the Dems know the strength of the Greens makes sense. As long as it does not become clear that doing so gives the Republican Party greater power.

Rather than running Greens, I'm joining efforts to work on the State Democratic Party and the DNC to implement IRV Democratic primaries. How the state party runs their primaries is up to the state party. The DNC can influence the states. Republicans who are in favor of IRV can work on their party too. I firmly believe 1) IRV would give us stronger fields and better winners, 2) Once the public is exposed to IRV in highly visible, statewide races, it will take off. It just makes too much sense.

In the long run, I think widespread implementation of IRV will do far more to build third party politics than running third party candidates in winner take all general elections.

[Senator]

6. kick ('em in the balls) n/t

[Tom Joad]

7. Demand the "impossible"!

We should now call every politician to account who is not loudly calling for an investigation into possible criminal actions of the White House. Such things should not be relegated to "jokes" but a central theme.

[pat_k]

39. Call into account = Face primary opponent that demands Impeachment NOW!

[Democrats_win]

8. Given that bu$h is so out of touch, this is a good way to touch him.

[TahitiNut]

9. Defeatism is the only posture some on DU know.

"He's unelectable."

"She'll just mobilize the opposition."

"They'll just steal the election anyway. Why vote?"

Defeatism. The cowardly refuge of subscribers to teleological ethics.

[pat_k]

40. Need to challenge this terrible and counterproductive habit

Habits are hard to break, but we can help folks trapped in defeatism to escape their addiction.

Like any other addiction, this terrible habit reinforces itself. People don't fight for something because "it's futile." The something never happens because people aren't fighting, "proving" the futility.

You'll meet resistance, but we must challenge people when they hit us with the "futility" rationalization. (And, we must challenge it, whatever our chances of success).

The rationalization has been proven wrong over and over again.

Conventional wisdom assured us (even mockingly) that we would never get a Senator to stand up and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th. No mainstream good government entity even considered fighting to make it happen. They were too busy whipping themselves for losing, when Kerry had in fact won. Citizen lobbyists took up the fight. Mainstream folks didn't jump on board until it was clear that the effort itself was energizing people in a way they might well capitalize on.

Had they acted sooner, who knows? We might have inaugurated President Kerry on January 20th, 2004. And acting "sooner" could have been as early as December 12, 2000. Who knows? We might have inaugurated President Gore on January 20th, 2001.

There are so many other examples.

We like to think of ourselves as reasonable people, but it is not reasonable to guarantee failure with the notion "can't be done, so don't try." That only makes sense if you believe in your own omniscience.

It is time to be truly reasonable and spend our time acting. Even when we don't think anything will work, we must still act on principle.

[LSK]

10. ok, tell me what vote in the House we have won in recent memory??

An impeachment vote in the House would end 218-216 in defeat.

We must win in 2006 and then do it.

[pat_k]

41. First, No one can KNOW the future, Second, So What?

1) Unless you have are reliable crystal ball, you can't know the future.

There are many stages, composed of innumerable actions. The possibilities are infinite.

Even if your assessment of how things would play out in Congress were correct, much of the effort has nothing to do Congressional action. Citizen action and public reaction are critical components too.

Even if you narrow the focus to Congressional actions, it is impossible to predict the effects of the actions taken to make Impeachment happen. Sure, they could give it their all and hit a brick wall in the 109th. Which brings us to the second part.

2) So what? So what if we don't ultimately Impeach and Remove Bush?

How can possible failure be a reason not to act, particularly when the effort itself has so many benefits (e.g., engaging people and gathering an enormous amount of valuable information)? Evoking resistance can be an end in itself. Resistance to Impeachment exposes the hypocrisy of the reactionary right. You can't expose that hypocrisy sitting on your hands. If they hit a brick wall, it sends a message to the electorate. If you want to learn the truth, you must put the Dems in charge of the 110th Congress.

You can't know the outcome and there are benefits even if you hit a brick wall, but even if you put all that aside, YOU STILL MUST ACT.

Anyone who thinks Bush-Cheney has committed crimes, MUST ACT; must demand Impeachment. There is NO ESCAPE. There IS NO excuse for failing to do everything possible stop crimes in progress.

Postscript

Everyone said the Committee on International Relations would kill Hinchey's Resolution of Inquiry demanding the WH turn over all speech drafts and documents related to the inclusion of the 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union. A chorus of voices say "Why bother? They’ll kill it. No doubt about it." A few people didn't let that stop them.

And guess what? They couldn't kill it.

Everyone said we would never get a Senator to stand up and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th. Our efforts to lobby members of the Senate were mocked, even by staffers in the House that were working to expose what had happened in Ohio. Citizen lobbyists didn’t let the chorus of negativity stop them. They took up the fight. Mainstream folks didn't jump on board until it was clear that the effort itself was energizing people in a way they might well capitalize on.

And guess what? Citizen lobbyists got a Senator.

[tx_dem41]

11. Some of us would rather win the House and Senate in 2006.

And see the two efforts working at cross purposes. If you call that defeatism, so be it.

[soothsayer]

14. jeezus, so let them vote for alito, the patriot act, and everything

else * wants just so maybe they won't be mean to us in 2006. Is that a wise idea?

[tx_dem41]

16. Please don't put words in my mouth. Its disingenuous of you. n/t

[Cults4Bush]

20. Well there are some Dems who are saying it.

Im not sure if you are saying that if we start talking impeachment now we will lose 06 or not, but there are Dems getting ready to stick their necks out with the I word... now. Not after elections, that is beyond admirable in my book and I would hope that you would support them.

[tx_dem41]

21. I think it's admirable for the Democrats to win both houses of Congress.

n/t

[CornField]

24. Just a sec... you believe it is more important to put Dem butts in seats

than it is for us to DEMAND the butts already in the seats uphold their oath of office?

[tx_dem41]

25. I believe one leads to the other. And it is the only way it would...

happen.

[pat_k]

43. Please clarify. Are you saying our elected officials should sit on their

Please clarify. Are you saying our elected officials should sit on their hands until after the 2006 elections?

[...of J.Temperance]

26. The ONLY way we can do the Impeachment thing is to put MORE

Dem butts in seats as you term it. With the amount of Dem butts in seats that we currently have, we do NOT have the numbers to force an Impeachment, so yes, we NEED more Dem butts in seats...which is what will happen in 2006.

On current numbers, we'd lose any attempt to force Impeachment moves...so at the moment it'd be a futile exercise because we WOULDN'T get it through.

What part of this DON'T you understand?

[CornField]

27. The part that kinda gets stuck in my throat is

A few here seem to be willing to overlook the fact that the folks we are discussing are REPRESENTATIVES... that they are supposed to "represent" the people who elected them to office. They are sworn to uphold the laws of our nation. That goes for the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens, the Independents and even the Vegetarians.

Enough is enough. Laws have been broken. Trust has been voided (more than once). I not only expect for the House to call for impeachment, I expect it to be a bi-partisan effort because what's going on here has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the preservation of our nation and its laws. If the current members of the House Judiciary Committee are not willing to stand up for the laws they have sworn to protect and uphold, then the entire lot of them need to go in 2006.

As a final note, what part of no one being above the law don't you understand?

[tx_dem41]

28. Respectfully, its time to face reality. Impeachment is not a judicial..

process, its a political one. And, people see it that way, whether you think its right or not. The minute you bring up impeachment, you don't gain some moral high ground. In fact you lose it, because at that point, you become nothing but a partisan to a heckuva a lot of people. Being a partisan is all well and good, but you better be sure you can win that partisan fight. If you don't, you just become a failed partisan. No high ground gained, no justice served.

All anyone is proposing in the alternative is to not put the cart before the horse. To win this election, we need to rail against the actions of this administration, AND, more importantly we have to unify behind an alternative policy that outlines solutions to today's problems.

[CornField]

29. Let me try this from a different angle

If we don't stand up and demand that the President be held accountable for breaking the law he swore to uphold... if we don't demand our Representatives hold him accountable under the same laws they swore to uphold... then another damn election is worthless because we don't stand for anything anymore except elections.

[tx_dem41]

30. If you notice, we haven't done too good of a job at standing for

elections lately. Why don't we try that first. Its the first step to what you want.

[...of J.Temperance]

34. You're making sense...and you like Pavement...ah mean

Can ah ask for any more? :)

[CornField]

35. No, that isn't my primary objective

Although it does seem to be yours -- which I find distressing and sad.

[jsamuel]

46. If you haven't noticed, the reason why we got our asses kicked is because

we didn't stand up for our principles LOUD AND CLEAR.

So by advocating what you are advocating, you are hurting our chances to win back those seats while saying we should roll over and let them win today as well.

People don't like to vote for people who don't say "WTF?" when they need to say "WTF?".

If you don't stand up and fight when your principles demand you do, then when do you stand up and fight? Never.

[pat_k]

51. Hear, hear! -- It is the politically SMART thing, but even if it weren't,

...their oath to protect and defend dictates action.

They have an obligation to act, regardless of consequence, but if it will help get any of them off the stick, you'll find an outline of the positive effects in Item 2) of this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5638980&mesg_id=5643060

[pat_k]

50. Demanding Impeachment is not just right, it is POLITICALLY SMART!

1) It is their sworn duty to act.

They take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. In the face of evidence that Bush and Cheney are abusing the power entrusted to them by We the People, our elected officials have no choice but to demand an Impeachment inquiry. In the face of incontrovertable evidence, they have no choice but to do everything in their power to see the perpetrators Impeached and removed from power.

Any risks our elected officials perceive -- ridicule, political suicide -- are nothing compared to what the members of our armed services face.

We expect our soldiers, sailors, and marines to risk life and limb to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. We should expect no less from our candidates and elected officials.

Political consequences cannot be a consideration in deciding whether or not to do their duty, but if they were are valid consideration...(see 2)

2) Demanding Impeachment is not just a moral necessity dictated by their oath, it is the smart thing to do politically.

a) Standing up and demanding Impeachment will open flood gates of activism and energize people of principle in a way not seen in recent history.

b) The demonstration of strength inherent in accusation and demands for punishment will pull in a surprising number of white males (who revel in punishment) from across the political spectrum.

c) Impeachment is the only way to draw clear lines that produce simple and compelling positions. It is the only escape from the "muddled about Iraq" attacks that are already being mounted against the Democratic leadership.

Our elected officials must stop offering the Bush-Cheney syndicate plans for Iraq, or anything else for that matter. Saying "they should this," or "they should that," just supports the fantasy that the regime is legitimate and capable of anything but more damage. Supporting this fantasy is to be complicit with their crimes.

Their criminal mismanagement has limited our options in ways that are mind boggling. The act of prosecuting and removing them from office changes the landscape in ways we cannot predict. Instead of trying to figure out actions that might make sense in the restricted world this illegitimate regime has created, we must change that world by removing them from it. When they are gone, we can figure out the steps a legitimate (and remorseful) nation can, and should, take.

Dean almost had it right when he said "We Can't Win the War". It's too bad he failed to grasp the real problem with the assertion. Rather than retreating from it, he should have made a simple substitution.

The problem is not the "un-winnable" part, it is the "We" part. The most effective, and correct change is

from
"WE Can't Win"

to
"THEY Can't Win"
Where THEY = Bush syndicate

WE are not THEM. They are rogues, operating outside the bounds of our common contract: the Constitution for the United States of America that We the People established.

Calling them what they are, and demanding Impeachment, draws a bright line between us and them that allows us to shed the shame associated with the failures and abuses of the Bush regime. Many across the political spectrum currently employ denial to escape the shame. Demanding Impeachment offers them another way.

"They Can't Win" is an assertion firmly grounded in reality.

Good things do not grow out of the seeds of evil. Immoral and unlawful means will never result in moral and legitimate ends. We must dig up the rotten seeds and do our best to start anew. We must punish their actions, establish legitimate and moral leadership, and seek to repair the damage done in ways we can be proud of.

Demanding Impeachment is a moral imperative, and, as is frequently the case, doing the "right thing" clarifies and simplifies in a way that is incredibly powerful.

Impeachment NOW!

[pat_k]

49. No risk they perceive compares to what our armed services face.

Hear, hear!!

As you say, it is time for our leaders to see the truth -- that their oath to protect and defend the Constitution requires them to stand up and demand Impeachment and removal of this criminal regime.

Any risks our elected officials perceive -- ridicule, political suicide -- are nothing compared to what the members of our armed services face.

We expect our soldiers, sailors, and marines to risk life and limb to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. We should expect no less from our candidates and elected officials.

Re: "Not bothering" with Republican office holders

This drives me nuts too. It is a TERRIBLE mistake. When they don't hear a peep from us, they get to say things like "No one in my district wants fill in the blank."

It doesn't matter how insane your elected officials are, they need to hear from you, even if only to ensure they can't (honestly) say "No one in my district/state..."

[texpatriot2004]

12. Impeachment is NOT impossible and you are right that we must

push beyond this limited thinking and rhetoric.

[pat_k]

52. Every time we challenge the rationalizations, we are making a dent n/t

[pberq]

13. Agreed. - K&R

[Gregorian]

15. Demand RESIGNATION. We don't have time for impeachment.

We have been violated.

Resign. Now.

[Cleita]

22. I think this might be the route if Commander Bunnypants is scared enough.

We have to keep up the pressure and keep the issue out in front, no matter how hard the "librul" media try to bury it.

[pat_k]

53. Removing from power, however accomplished, is just the first step

Sure! Demanding resignation could go side-by-side with our demands for Impeachment.

But, we should keep this in mind: Impeachment is about more than removal from office. Whatever we do, we cannot stop at removal from office. Comprehensive investigation, punishing perpetrators, purging the corrupting people and processes... more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5638980&mesg_id=5640934

[leftupnorth]

17. even if we lose

by two votes, if we can prove the pResident actually admitted breaking the law on national television, the Republicans will have to vote for it or look like a bunch of tories backing King George.

Force them to actually crown him king or impeach his sorry arse.

Make a vote in '06 for a Dem a vote for impeachment.

We have to have a defining moment some time..........

[pat_k]

54. And, like any investigation, who knows what an Impeachment Inquiry ...

...will turn up.

We have NO IDEA what will start coming to light when a serious Impeachment Inquiry gets off the ground.

There are just too many variables in play to predict the outcome at ANY stage.

Even right now, Republicans are none-to-pleased with the way Bush's failures and abuses are dragging them down.

A couple more straws, and they could beat the Dems to the punch. The Repubs will be out there with torches looking for blood as soon as they decide it is the only way to cut off the anchor around their political necks. (Acting on principle wouldn't occur to most of them.)

[...of J.Temperance]

18. Impeachment is not possible unless we control the Congress

Somehow I can't imagine Hastert and Blunt even letting an Impeachment resolution get off the first block.

November 2006 is the mid-term elections, after that we very well could be in the right position.

[NightOwwl]

31. Then the Dems need to be drumming it into their heads every day...

Tell them:
"The President broke the law, and as the majority party you have the responsibility to impeach him."

Seriously...Dems MUST hammer this point into the ground.

[pat_k]

55. Proclamations like this are precisely what we need to nip in the bud.

Proclamations like this are precisely what we need to nip in the bud.

There are so many variables and so many stages to the process, it is impossible to predict the outcome. We have no idea what an Impeachment Inquiry will turn up. As I noted in the post just above, the Republicans could beat us to the punch if the revelations keep coming and Bush's approval falls below 25% ... and Demands for Impeachment are just the thing that could push the numbers down there.

And, even if we had a crystal ball that told us it would be impossible to vote Articles of Impeachment out of the 109th House of Representatives, it doesn't matter. We would still have to demand Impeachment, on principle.

If you fail to object -- loud and clear -- to the abuses of power you see, you become an accomplice.

I for one do not want to be an accomplice in the horrors committed by the Bush-Syndicate.

Bottom line: Our elected officials have sworn and oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If they fail to do everything in their power to investigate and punish abuses of power, they are violating their oath.

[CornField]

19. Totally agreed. Silence is not our friend.

We all need to contact the House Judiciary Committee and let each and every member know that we *expect* immediate impeachment proceedings. We need to place the call before Congress: "You were sworn to uphold the laws of this nation. If you refuse to keep your oath, you need to leave or be voted out of office (and possibly face criminal prosecution for your own inaction)."

[pat_k]

56. FAX too -- Greet them on Jan 3rd with a Mountain of FAXes n/t

[loyalsister]

23. My objection

is that it has to be technically the right thing to do, as well.
Not only was the Clinton investigation a stretch in principle, it technically not worthy of impeachment. As people here call for inpeachment, it should be remembered that these are not amatuers and they just observed an enemy go through one.
There is little doubt that * didn't come up to the edge of lying but remember they aren't amatuers, he has probably been insulated enough to have not told an actual impeachable lie.
As far as the NSA, it is wrong in principle and it would probably cost him the election if it were held today. But, it is quite possible that what he did could be technically legal. But, he's got his solemn face on and he's being "honest and forthright" about it now, and it gives him credibility with a lot of people. "At least he owned up to it, right away." is a comment I recently heard.
Impeaching him doesn't get rid of the cancer, anyway. It is an illusory solution. This entire administration is the real problem.
If we continue to allow impeachment to be used as a political tool, it will never be taken seriously in this country.

[pat_k]

60. There is no legalistic test for high crime.

At no point did the Impeachment of President Clinton reflect the will of the electorate. That was the problem.

There was never a widespread demand to investigate. A small cadre tried to push trumped up charges down our throats. To do it, they invoked a fascist view of the law, where the letter of the law can trump the will of the people. They were rebuffed. The will of the people won out.

Had the public as a whole been as hung up on controlling the private behavior of public figures as a tiny segment of that public is, it could have succeeded, even if no written law had been violated.

It's all about political will. And political will is driven by citizen action. It is up to us.

An Impeachment has stages and other aspects that are akin to a prosecution, but the crimes charged need not be found in any law book. What constitutes an Impeachable offense is defined by We the People, and expressed through our representatives. (The charging phase is given to the house because that is the body closest to the people).

If the public demanded Impeachment for "negligent, stupid, mismanagement of a war", then Bush and Cheney could be charged with that “high crime” in the Articles of Impeachment.

Our representatives can look to existing law for guidance, but they are not limited by the letter of the law. They can look to past Impeachments, but they are not bound by precedence. No "technical' interpretation of the law can trump the will of the people.

Demanding Impeachment is a short hand for demanding (1) Impeachment Inquiry - investigation of the crimes and abuses of power suspected (2) Articles of Impeachment (charges) dictated by the outcome of a comprehensive investigation, (3) Trial in the Senate, to serve as a test of the evidence, (4) Vote on each "charge"...

The threshold for opening an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney was passed a couple years ago. We have long had reason to suspect innumerable crimes.

Bush and Cheney have done things that are prohibited by law (malum prohibitum). For example, violating our laws against torture and laws against warrantless domestic spying. They have also committed offenses that are wrong on their face (malum in se). For example, "Lying a nation into war," “making boom threats” and "terrorizing the American people with threats of a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes.”

We have much to choose from.

We decide whether or not we have cause to move forward. There is no external test.

At least 30% of this country has no doubt that we have sufficient casue to move forward, even we look no farther than the information already in the public domain (e.g. see Hoodwinked). The job for the 30% who know is to make the case. Soon it will be 40, then 50... I wouldn't be surprised if numbers went over 75%.

[loyalsister]

69. Common sense

tells me that an impeachment should involve a crime that does meet a legalistic test. That was exactly the problem with the Clinton impeachment, and that was exactly why people knew it was about revenge.
The argument that has been laid out thus far is vague and not exactly direct. The plausible deniability and technical legal justifications influence the verdicts the most. Bush would gain strength if he survived an impeachment.
The thing overlooked is that the office of the presidency is traditionally run on advice and the president can easily be insulated. You've got people telling him here's how it works legally in one ear, and advisers in the other. Then of course there's his consultations with g*d.

The non=politicos read these messages---
Republicans have 1\2 the public convinced that he's a good hearted, patriotic, true believer.
We have the rest of them believing he's stupid.

I am not convinced about the numbers, yet. I prefer that they be convinced that it is not reasonable for this president to continue on because he has clearly committed a crime.
Otherwise you have a scenario, not unlike the Clinton impeachment, where revenge appears to be a motivator. There should be no room for that accusation, is all I am saying.
We should proceed with caution and a certain amount of level-headed broad minded view of how this would be received by the general public.

[onenote]

77. and the repubs lost ground for pushing impeachment

keep in mind that by getting ahead of the public on impeachment, the repubs hurt their own position -- the Democrats picked up 5 House seats in the 1998 elections. Getting ahead of the public runs the risk of doing the same thing to Democrats on the eve of the 2006 elections. While the mood of the public may yet change, at the moment, they are more interested in seeing government "work" than in seeing everything come to a crashing halt to pursue impeachment.

onenote

[McCamy Taylor]

32. Demanding impeachment ON SOLID GROUNDS is good for the Democratic Party.

If the GOP gets enough pressure and does it...well, that is just plain good for the world.

Assuming that they dont, the Dems will be allied with the majority of Americans who think that W. is an illegitimate loser who needs to go. They also lose their weak/spineless/do nothing image. They also bring out their base to vote this fall with the promise of impeachment should the House swing Dem.

The only risk is alienating the "nice, dont want to rock the boat" voters--who are going to vote for incumbents anyway, because that is how they vote. And mobilizing the Right Wing base---but the GOP is already going to be doing that with secret talk of how the Dems will impeach W. if they take power.

[pat_k]

61. And, we have VERY Solid grounds

The documents and analysis in the following book would support about a dozen articles of impeachment:

http://www.thenewpress.com/books/hoodwinked.htm

Ultimately, We the People decide what constitutes an Impeachable Offense. This is a critical point.

We cannot allow ourselves to be pulled into debates about whether or not something is "technically legal." There is no objective legalistic test of what constitutes an Impeachable offense. If the people conclude that an action is an intolerable abuse of power in their Constitutional Democracy, then it is an Impeachable offense.

And, as the Reactionary Right learned, the opposite is true. Something that might be considered "technically illegal" cannot constitute an Impeachable offense unless the people have concluded the act is an intolerable abuse of power.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5638980&mesg_id=5643787

[G_j]

33. three cheers for you!

absolutely right. The people need to express what they want and raise hell about it regardless of what a bunch of politicians are going to do. This is our government no theirs.

If you know a murder or rape won't be prosecuted, of course you should demand prosecution anyway. People saying don't bother to demand impeachment because the politicians will never do it are missing the fact that this about the people and the people have an absolute duty to demand justice.

[pat_k]

62. It's great to hear from people who "get it" ! -- n/t

[lonestarnot]

38. Am so past it!

:smoke:

[pat_k]

63. And working on the people around you I hope? n/t

[Seabiscuit]

42. Put a pair of balls in every Congressperson's Christmas stocking

Heard a variation of that on Air America today. :)

[pat_k]

64. Love it!

[bigtree]

45. I'm with ya on that

We have to push past our goal to come anywhere close to moving Bush. The power of the office is awesome in its scope and experience in crushing dissent. The only way to be effective is to all push at the same time so that some of our argument can break through the deliberate fog of the corporate compromised media spin.

[pat_k]

65. Once the ball starts rolling, things can move fast...

.. as we've seen recently. Finally, "everybody knows" he lied us into war.

People may soon understand he did more than lie, he TERRORIZED us with threats of a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes.

Impeachment could be closer than you think.

[tlsmith1963]

48. We Have No Choice

It doesn't matter if we have a chance of winning or not. Our backs are now against the wall. By spying on antiwar activists, Bush has proven what I have suspected--his real goal isn't to stop terrorism, it's to stop *us*. So we have no choice but to fight. The alternative is just too scary, & I don't want to be forced to run away to Canada. I'll go to Canada if I have to, but I would rather have the chance to stay here. So a part of me does get defeatist, but I also know that we have no alternative. We *must* fight.

Tammy

[pat_k]

67. Constitution be damned. A ticking bomb could be out there! Anything goes!

Yes. They are a very, scary bunch.

They've made it crystal clear that they believe 911 vested unlimited power in the Executive Branch -- Constitution be damned. A ticking bomb could be out there! Anything goes!

Actually, they've always believed that the righteousness of their small cadre justifies any action required to gain and wield power, 911 just enabled them to be more blatant about it. For them, "We the People" has always meant "We the 'Right' People; We the Powerful and Superior." As superior beings, great wealth is their natural reward. Since no law defined by others applies to them, any avenue that yields their rightful rewards is open for their exploitation.

[tinrobot]

57. Our mantra ; Democrats in '06, Impeach in '07.

I honestly think it needs to be the top campaign issue.

It will work.

[pat_k]

68. Get on the Impeachment bus OR face a Primary Opponent who will !!!

It absolutely must be front and center.

And we may need to threaten them with primary opponents to make it happen!

If you are interested, item 2 of the following post discusses some of the reasons it is not just the right thing to do, it is the politically SMART thing to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5638980&mesg_id=5643060

[petgoat]

59. Bush Step Down and Take Your Program With You!

March on DC in January. Tell your friends.

http://www.worldcantwait.org/

Your government, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights.

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Your government suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

[pat_k]

73. Saturday, after the State of the Union Address (Jan 28th?) n/t

The flyer doesn't have dates. Perhaps the SOTU hasn't been scheduled yet?

[petgoat]

76. SOTU hasn't been scheduled yet.

Wiley Buscists are trying to keep us off balance.

Traditionally it's on the Tuesday. 17th? 24th? 31st?

[donheld]

66. There really is no hope if

We refuse to fight. Never, NEVER give up.

[pat_k]

71. We hold these truths to be self-evident...

You can't win if you don't fight!

Talk about self-evident truths!

I continue to be mystified by how deeply ingrained the "Can't happen, don't try" rationalization is -- particularly in people who consider themselves practical, reasonable, realistic people.

[kick_them_hard]

70. I bet they spied on the Kerry campaign too n/t

[pat_k]

72. And meetups -- We the People, talking to each other, are a REAL threat !

"The Most Dangerous Thing We Do Is Talk to Our Neighbors."

[JuneInJax]

79. Agreed. I wrote to my reps

in Washington - my local congressman and both state senators - asking them to support an investigation into * using the NSA for domestic surveillance.

When Clinton was impeached, everyone was saying he was sure to be convicted and ousted because of the GOP majority in the Senate. As we know, that didn't happen. Enough in the GOP saw their way clear to do what was right. I think that can, should, and WILL happen again.

:)
Moni