I was wrong--so wrong--and I apologize!

[ncteechur]

Shortly after the democrats won the November elections and regained control of both houses of Congress, I said that I didn't think they should impeach *. I listed reasons that at that time I thought were sound, primary of which was that impeachment would occupy the House so much that other important initiatives couldn't be tackled and that even though the American people did not like what * was doing, they did not want to go down the impeachment road again as was done with Clinton.

I was wrong.

The Congress needs to begin impeachment hearings post haste. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Impeach these crooked, murderous, treasonous thugs right NOW!!!

I apologize to those who called for impeachment then.


I don't care about sending messages to the WH--they will just fall on deaf ears. They (* and Vader) must be impeached.

[Stinky The Clown]

1. Consider yourself part of an ever growing wave .........

.... and we impeachment hawks welcome you.

[Monkeyman]

6. After Walter Reed and seeing more and more homeless veterans

Count me in

[NovaNardis]

36. I am a convert too...

Impeach now because it is the right thing to do. To hell with political expediency. If ever there was a president that deserved to be thrown out of office, Shrub is the one.

[PresidentObama]

2. K&R

:kick:

[iamjoy]

3. Impeachment Would Be Foolish

currently, the Republicans have no clearly defined front runner for 2008.

If we impeach Dubya, Cheney becomes President and picks a VP. He will almost assuredly pick a top tier candidate, and there is no reason for the Senate NOT to confirm him. When we then impeach Cheney, well, look at that. We have a sitting President using AirForce One as his campaign plane and all the power of the incumbency as he seeks election. And, mind you, he'd be eligible to run again in 2012.

If we impeach Cheney first, same thing, only Dubya hand picks a successor.

But let's say somehow Congress manages to do them at the same time or so closely together that there is no time to appoint a new VP. President Pelosi...hmmmm...I could get used to that!

I suppose I am concerned that any outcome of impeachment will only harm our chances in 2008.

[Prophet 451]

5. You assume there will be an election in 2008

Unless those two are impeached fast, there may not be.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. 4 yrs ago, people would have scoffed at you + your post.

no longer.

Insights like yours have to be timed right, though. Kucinich has been right a hell of a lot more than wrong, yet he is still laughed at and ignored.

I have feared exactly what you describe since we invaded IraqNam. It will only get worse.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. That's what people said about 2004 and 2006

Yet somehow we still had an election both times. One of them even turned out bad for the Republic Party.

[Prophet 451]

29. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong

I'll be happy to be wrong but the price of liberty and all that...

[tbyg52]

32. The only reason 2006 turned out bad for the Republicks

Is that they underestimated the anger of the people. They won't make that mistake again, I'm afraid.

[hootinholler]

14. I'm more concerned about the foriegn relations impact of not impeaching. n/t

[roody]

35. Impeach Cheney first! I write it on every outgoing

piece of mail from my home, usually in a bubble coming from the mouth of a cute puppie on the return address label.

[Mz Pip]

4. My take on Impeachment

And God knows I wish we really could do this.

But...

Maybe, just maybe we have a shot at undoing some of the wrongs of the past 6 years. This won't happen if our government is ties up with a trial.

I seriously believe that if the RW hadn't been so focused on getting Clinton for ANYTHING THEY COULD we might have been able to focus on real terror threats.

Besides - pick a battle you can win. We would never get enough crossover votes for conviction.

Let history be the judge.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Vincardog]

16. The RW did not focus on terrorist threats because they NEED terrorist threats

They have to have an enemy to continue stealing our treasure and liberty.

[Senator]

22. Take another take

There is no reason for a long procedure. The Clinton farce took only 3 months and this impeachment requires no fact witnesses, no investigation, nothing but a brief hearing of what's already on the public record. The reality is that the regime admits the acts, but merely "defends" (rationalizes) them as legal and non-impeachable. We're talking weeks, not months.

If you pick no battles, you win no battles. The House's (and our) duty is to level charges. Concern about "conviction" is a luxury the founders did not afford them/us.

History will judge the DC Dems (and us) on our failure to act, on our complicity with torture, illegal spying, and "rule by signing statement."

History will note the refusal to let the American People back in the loop, after 2 stolen elections. The failure to even seek their redemption.

Without impeachment, the verdict can only be a harsh one.

--

[mtnsnake]

7. Thank you!

Impeachment is a MUST.

:toast:

[waiting for hope]

8. I am right there with you....

I thought too that after November things would calm down a bit and reason would prevail but damn it, for a lame fucking duck, he's out to do what ever the hell he wants, and doesn't give a damn about the will of the people, the people whom he is supposed to serve. He batshit nuts and if something doesn't happen soon, he'll take this country down a path that might take generations to get out of.

IMPEACH NOW !!

[zulchzulu]

9. Congress is not doing its duty if it does not impeach Bush

Bush has clearly committed impeachable offenses and it is the Congress' duty to uphold the Constitution and not allow presidents to appear to be above the law.

If you respect the laws of this country, impeachment is the only path to maintaining respect for what our Founding Fathers and Mothers fought and died for.

[mtnsnake]

11. I hereby recommend your post to GP

Well I wish I could, anyway.

[AzDar]

12. Well-put, zulchzulu. Sums it up nicely...if not NOW, WHEN?

If the acts of this cabal do not warrant impeachment, what will the next corrupt Administration (and there WILL be one) be able to get away with?

[AshevilleGuy]

10. Wait until the Escalation fails,

and repukes are rebelling in droves, because right now we would not have the 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict. If we could not pass the nonbinding resolution last week, there is no way we could get the votes needed for a conviction.

Another problem is that a president and VP can't be impeached at the same time, due to some difficulty there with the War Powers Act. Thus, we would wind up with Cheney and, say, Guliani, who would then be set up automatically for next year.

Impeaching Georgie, and then Uncle Dickie would take up so much time nothing else would get done, and the voters would not be appreciative. So, as justifiable (and entertaining) as all this would be, it might not be a good idea.

[NastyRiffraff]

13. All those are good, sensible arguments, AshevilleGuy

And my head tells me you're right. My heart, and my fears for my country, are urging impeachment.

My biggest fear, though, is Cheney as President. After impeachment, if in fact the Senate does vote him out, what is he capable of?

No easy answers, folks. I wish there were.

[calimary]

19. Welcome to DU! It doesn't matter if we don't have the votes in the

Senate to convict. What matters is getting it through THE HOUSE OF REPS. THERE, we DO have the votes, and it would indeed go down in the record books and in history as having IMPEACHED george w. bush. The vote in the Senate would be to convict on the charges of IMPEACHMENT - which would lead to removal from office - which would, of course, be fine with me, too. But if it stops short of there, so be it. AT THE VERY LEAST, let's get it INTO THE RECORD BOOKS!!! There wasn't a vote in the Senate to convict on Clinton's impeachment, but he remains impeached for the record, for all of history. There hasn't even been a move so far to censure this bastard, and look what he's done, compared to lying about a silly little blowjob between consenting adults. Plus, most of America correctly saw that as ridiculous - on the face of it. Lying about a silly little blowjob between consenting adults. Lying about sending us to war, costing the lives of more than THREE THOUSAND of our citizens, and how many arms and legs and eyes and ears and gastro-intestinal tracts and mental health and the rest of it - um - well, I think THAT'S a LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, and I think most of America would agree with that assessment. The "case" against Clinton was frivolous persecution, pure and simple. THIS is NO such thing. NOT AT ALL.

IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY OPTION at this point. Twenty or thirty years from now, people will look back at this blighted, shameful period in our history and ask those of us who were around for it - WHY THE FUCK WE DIDN'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT HIM???????

[AshevilleGuy]

23. I know, that is a good point

I just wonder how the public would respond to it in 2008. Of course, when the war gets even more horrible, and if that same public demands impeachment it will all seem more appropriate. I just do not think it quite time yet, but fairly soon it might be.

And it is possible that we get an Agnew-type solution to the Cheney problem; Agnew was as evil and dark as Uncle Dickie, and we had no idea he would be gone so soon, until the IRS got down on him and he was gone in DAYS. Serendipity! Of course I am alluding obliquely to what might come out of the Libby trial. But then, should Cheney have to go, would the Senate have the guts to refuse to confirm Georgie's new VP? If not we could be stuck with Rudy or the odious McCain, or worse, some repuke with real likability. There are just so many variables here.

There are many herds of persons out there who actually think that a BJ in the Oval Office was WORSE than this abominable war. That just blows my mind, and strikes me with dread when I realize that they VOTE. And you are right: if we let this historic crime go unpunished some real president down the line will be tempted to do even worse. Just as with Iraq, there are no easy choices here.

[caligirl]

15. 5 gen's or admirals will resign if * orders an attack on Iran, and dems won't impeach?

[Daylin Byak]

17. Here we go again on a ride with the impeachment train

51 Dems do not = 67 votes to convict.

I like to see impeachment done but the votes aren't there and will never be.

Nuff said.

[caligirl]

18. point taken. the strong desire to see him reined in is shared by millions but we seem

powerless still to do this. guess we will stand around and watch this chimp run over the country.


but I would question the repugs loyalty to the military brass if they fail to support them as they resign in protest. repugs might think about impeachment when they are the ones screaming about supporting the military.

[OneBlueSky]

21. we need to impeach to re-establish any semblence of credibility in the world . . .

maybe -- just maybe -- other nations will stop viewing the US as an imperialist pariah if we, the people, and our representatives correct the error of the past six years and impeach Bush, Cheney, and their entire crew . . .

impeachment might also prevent these psychopaths from starting World War III in Iraq (to help bring about Armageddon, dont'cha know) . . .

[Imagevision]

24. So, Pelosi is getting basically nothing accomplished and Bush isn't being talked about...?

[Eurobabe]

26. These two fuckers are on a collision course with Iran

and I think they are STOOPID enough to believe they can take the Iranians out. We need to impeach them and stop their goddamn WAR GAMES NOW!!

[Kurovski]

27. K&R.(nt)

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. As an act of contrition, maybe you should adopt a peach for an

avatar.

[truedelphi]

30. In this case, it is never too late to be right! n/t

[KalicoKitty]

31. IMPEACH!

Indict, and put in prison!


:kick:

[Daylin Byak]

33. Man people don't listen

Yes The Democrats have the votes in the house to impeach Bush but don't have the necessary 67 votes in the Senate to convict, you can't serve punishment to Bush by not convicting him your going to need a supermajority to convict Bush and WE DON'T HAVE IT

I'll say it again

51 dosen't = 67 votes

51 dosen't = 67 votes

51 dosen't = 67 votes

51 dosen't = 67 votes

And no Republican senator(not even the most moderate one) will turn there back on onw of there own.

Yes I would LOVE to see Bush in jail but without a 2/3's majority he won't be covicted he'll be aquitted and where the losers with egg on our face because we couldn't go all the way on this

[WinstonSmith4740]

37. I dunno Daylin...

The common wisdom of the day was that there weren't enough votes to get Nixon either, but as the evidence mounted even his most stalwart supporters started to peel off to save their own skin. He resigned before formal charges could be brought, because he could see the writing on the wall...Junior will go down swinging. I'd like to think it can still happen, even at this late date in his majesty's tenure. If the saber-rattling at Iran continues, and enough of the "moderate" Republicans begin to develop a spine, the mere possibility that enough votes COULD be lined up might be enough to tip the balance.

And maybe I'm being hopelessly naive, but I really think the American public will know the difference between the impeachment procedings brought against Clinton, and those brought against Junior, if it ever happens. They know the difference between lying about an extra-marital affair, and lying about why our citizens are being sent to war. What Clinton did was just plain stupid, and we all know it. But, according to the RW, he was being impeached over LYING about the affair. Any of you know someone who wouldn't lie about an affair? Especially when it had nothing to do about anything that he was supposedly under oath to testify about?

But I'm preaching to the choir here. Of course Junior's lie was worse...much, much worse. Throw the bums out. It may be rocky for a couple of years, but hell, if we could survive the last six, we can survive anything.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. Even my Republican nephew supports impeachment

Granted, he's a moderate Repub, not one of the 30-something percent who'd support Bush if they were shown photos of him raping little boys.

But my nephew knows we were lied (he'd probably prefer "purposely misled") into Iraq and is not real happy about any number of other issues. He wants the president held accountable. And he takes it all very seriously, probably because he's a Gulf War vet -- a former Coast Guard officer who served with the Navy in the Persian Gulf.

Point is, it's no longer just liberal Democrats who want impeachment.

I happen to think we don't have enough people who support impeachment to actually get it... YET. But let the investigations continue. Mount a smart PR campaign to leak the results to the media as they become known, tantalize them with bits and pieces before we follow up with documentation, drag it out for months, even a year, and before too very long, we'll have a strong majority of American voters with us. Enough to convince even Republican senators that they'd better vote the facts and not their partisan cronyism. And if they don't, they'll pay for it in 2008, which is also good. If the GOP wants a "slow bleed" we can give it to them. We only need the will and a little leadership.

[caligirl]

38. alittle side benny of that is that * will be the most hated man on the planet x 40 years,

[mw]

39. CHIMPEACH!!!!

If for no other reason, to show the world, and mark for history, that Bush is not what America stands for.

We need to correct the record. By chimpeaching the bastard. So what if Darth Cheney ends up as Prez. He's prez anyway...and the message will be sent.