Why Aren't DLCers Worried That Bush Can Launch Nukes?

[MannyGoldstein]

The DLCers (and, disturbingly, my own Congressman Barney Frank) think impeachment is a bad idea. How will they feel if Bush nukes Iran?

We know Bush is crazy, evil, and stupid - and he has nukes. Shouldn't we remove him from the position where he can blow up the world if he's having a bad day?

[illinoisprogressive]

1. The DLCers would applaud if Bush did that. They agree with Bush alot

[paulk]

2. this has got to be about the dumbest thread I've ever seen

on DU.

and that's sayin' something.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Why?

Are nuclear weapons no longer a concern?

[cali]

4. DLCers? Is that simply a name you use to slam people

who don't agree with you?

I'm pro-impeachment, but let me ask you: What on earth makes you think that impeachment would stop him from using nukes. His powers as president aren't abbrogated in any way by impeachment proceedings. Who knows? It might just make him crazier and rasher. The introduction of articles of impeachment would definitely not be a good day for bush, and if you're so concerned about his using nukes on a bad day, why aren't you worried about that?

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Impeachment Sets Into Motion Removal

And removal lessens the chance that he can use nukes by, oh, say, 100%.

I am worried about your scenario. However, I expect that it would be clear to the military that Bush's authority was in question. Now it is not.

[cali]

6. Not so. It wasn't at all clear to the military that Clinton's

authority was in question- because constitutionally and practically it wasn't, and Clinton ordered bombings while he was being impeached.

And while you're correct that REMOVAL lessons the chance, to say that there's no guarantee of removal, or even of impeachment, is to put it mildly.

How is it you can envision 67 Senators voting to convict?

[RoyGBiv]

8. This is my problem ...

Time and time again we hear the refrain that it doesn't matter if impeachment succeeds; it's the right thing to do. I happen to agree with that, but one reason it is such a hard sell is the other side of the coin expressed by your assumptions, to wit the notion that impeachment equals removal from office. It does not.

At least three major steps are involved in this process. The first is bringing articles of impeachment to the House floor. That, by the way, is the easiest of the steps and the one currently, in the real world, that does not have enough support by those in power to go through a committee. The second step is to pass the articles of impeachment. (And there could be a number of smaller steps in that.) Finally, we have the third step, which is the trial in the Senate, which requires a 2/3rds majority. Now even *if* we can gather together all Democrats to vote for conviction in the Senate (which won't happen) and encourage the four or five Republicans who might be willing to offer their own political necks to the wolves, we still don't have that. Thus, we have no removal from office.

I'll take this bet any day of the week. George Bush might be impeached, but he will not be removed from office. No one I have seen has ever offered a realistic scenario based on current known facts in which removal is the eventual outcome. That does not mean he doesn't deserve it. It does not mean he has not committed crimes which *should* remove him from office. But that's not how politics in Washington work, and everyone who has been awake from the last 20 years should know it. Hell, Congress couldn't even convict Johnson, and pretty much everyone hated him for one reason or another.

If you want to argue that impeachment is the right thing to do, go ahead. I'll be right there with ya. But, I refuse to be so blind as even to suggest that it will result in the removal of Bush from office. Impeachment, under the present circumstances, would be, at best, a moral victory and, sadly, one with potential dire outcomes as the insanity that is the Emperor becomes backed into that corner.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. There's A Difference Between Being For It And Initiating It

If the Democrats were to say "Yes, he should be impeached - but we don't yet have the votes", that would be a tenable position to my mind. But to say that he should not be impeached is something else - and when taken within the context of the Democrats acceding to warrantless wiretapping, continuation of the Iraq War, etc, - well, I guess some of us feel that it's pretty obvious as to what's going on here.

[RoyGBiv]

10. Focus ...

Your position is based on impeachment equaling removal from office. As explained -- and as Frank noted obliquely, yet in such a way some are willing to throw him out as well or lump him with the DLC -- that isn't happening.

Furthermore, it isn't even a matter of "yet." It's a matter of "ever." By the time the votes *might* be there, Bush will be out of office anyway. The most optimistic scenario based on a realistic assessment of the situation is that Bush is impeached and acquitted, and his reputation suffers (as if that matters) with little to no fallout for those who push impeachment. Again, that's the *best* scenario.

A more likely scenario is a further hardening of Republicans to the point that no cooperation can be achieved, backlash in conservative districts occurs resulting in many of the House seats the Democrats gained in the midterms reverting back to Republican control, and it becomes an issue in the Presidential campaign. This gives Republican strategists and their lapdog media outlets a virtual cornucopia of ammunition to paint Democrats as vindictive malcontents who ignored the dire issues that face the nation while they focused on trying (and failing) to bring down the head of the political opposition. (And, yes, I know that whole thing is preposterous, but we're talking about perception and media spin, and, again, anyone who has been paying any attention at all the last few years should know that's how it will go down.) The Democrats would have the moral victory of knowing they tried, and nothing would change.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Who Tossed Nixon? Democrats Or Republicans?

There may well come a time when a number of Republicans determine that Bush is so much of a liability that he has to go. That may already be the case. In Nixon's case, when that happened, they knew that the Democrats would back them so only a small number of Republicans backing the impeachment process were needed.

Today's "Democrats" would not back a small group of Republicans who'd want to start the process, and thus it's very, very unlikely that any Republicans will back the process openly. Today's "Democrats" seem to have made the cynical calculation that Bush-in-office is politically better for them than Bush-out-of-office. The fact that Bush has access to nuclear weapons, is violating treaties right and left, and is causing a hemorrhage of blood and treasure doesn't seem to matter to them. Or to you.

[onenote]

18. both

The vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry (the first step in the process) was 410-4. When the Judiciary Committee eventually voted to recommend articles of impeachment, as many as 1/3 of the repubs on the committee supported the articles (it varied article to article) and after the final smoking gun revelation came out a week after the articles were voted, virtually every repub on the judiciary committee indicated that they would now support impeachment,even those that had voted against the articles.

But the key point to recall is that overwhlemingly bipartisan vote just to start the process. Without some measure of repub support, the House will never vote along partisan lines to direct the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry/consider articles of impeachment. Even when Clinton was impeached, there were 31 Democrats at the start who voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee's inquiry.

[RoyGBiv]

21. Wrong ...

No "small number" of Republicans were needed for Nixon. See onenote's explanation for details.

And if you want to go to the removal portion of this equation, which you still have yet to address, you're going to find Republicans as an absolutely essential part of that process. Nixon, as you may or may not know, was not actually removed from office and was *not* actually impeached. Members of his own party convinced him to resign.

Two questions.

1) How many Republicans in positions of major authority are in any way seeming to support the position that Bush should resign?

2) How likely do you think it would be for Bush to listen to anyone who did try to convince him to resign? Be honest, now.

Getting back to the original point you were trying to make and are now wandering around for some reason, the bottom line is no impeachment proceeding removes Bush from office.

Your last paragraph is utter nonsense.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. How Disngenuous

So a handful of Republicans convinced Nixon to resign simply because it was the right thing to do. Yow!

If you care to absorb reality, there was only one reason that Nixon resigned - and it wasn't because he simply thought it was the right thing to do. Use your head.

As to my "wandering around" - check into reading comprehension courses. Or perhaps Ritalin or another stimulant can help with your problem.

[RoyGBiv]

26. In other words ...

You have no argument.

As I thought.

I have no idea what you're even saying here.

Nixon resigned because enough members of his own party (more than a "handful," whatever that really means) convinced him to do it to try to salvage the party itself.

Now, you can either try to answer my questions or continue with this silly, childish game of insults you chose to begin. I've asked several and presented information. You've yet to address any of it.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. You're Totally Ignoring Reality

Nixon resigned because otherwise he'd be tossed. Virtually everyone agrees with that, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#_note-6 .

I'm done with this thread. There's no point dealing with a person who can't acknowledge a simple, obvious, and well-documented truth.

[RoyGBiv]

30. Ergo ...

You have no argument.

Nothing I said in any way disagrees with what is commonly reported about the meeting of Congressional Republicans with Nixon, to wit, "Goldwater averred that there were not more than fifteen votes left in his support in the Senate."

Precisely. Bush has far more than 15 votes in his support in the Senate, especially on a matter like impeachment. So, we come full circle. Your original premise, as originally stated by myself and others, is wrong. The circumstances that removed Nixon from office are not present now, which means neither impeachment nor the threat of it removes Bush from office.

[BootinUp]

22. Your wishful thinking that even one Republican

wants to impeach a President from his/her won party (but its the dems who back it) is laughable. Its so laughable that its a waste of my time to spend anymore on it.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. You Probably Would Have Said That Under Nixon As Well nt

Yeah, I know, "everything's different this time", right! :rofl:

[BootinUp]

25. So let me get this straight please

you are suggesting that Republicans called for impeachment of Nixon before Democrats did? I was young at the time, maybe its true as hard as it is to believe.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. No. Where Did I Suggest That?

Quite the opposite.

[BootinUp]

29. From your post above

"There may well come a time when a number of Republicans determine that Bush is so much of a liability that he has to go. That may already be the case. In Nixon's case, when that happened, they knew that the Democrats would back them so only a small number of Republicans backing the impeachment process were needed."


Let me suggest an alternate scenario. The Dems told the Repubs we are going to start impeachment proceedings and according to the polls we are going to destroy your party if you don't go along.

[partylessinOhio]

7. Why are so many Dems defending Bush? It seems they have stepped

through the looking glass.

He should have been impeached in his first term.

[unkachuck]

11. impeachment....

....demands strong patriotic leaders who find the new criminal bush-world-order unacceptable, who are willing to fight and defend our Constitution from all attacks, foreign and domestic, confident in the righteousness of their purpose and cause....

....certain of their ability, heroic at heart, sure-footed in their pursuit of fairness and justice, unwavering under relentless attack, until their historic mission is accomplished....

....we don't have any....

[cali]

12. No one, and I do mean no one

in the dem Congressional Caucus- least of all Barney Frank, is supporting bushco.

Make stuff up much?

[MannyGoldstein]

17. But Many Support His Actions

War. Torture. Outsourcing America.

We actually have Democratic candidates for President who support these positions.

[ShortnFiery]

13. Because the individual members of the DLC are "one and all" INVESTORS in the illustrious

corporations who comprise The Military Industrial Complex.

They've got a Win-Win situation here: Their wealth accumulations continues to skyrocket with either a DLC or a republican president.

Oh, and don't get me started what "perpetual war" will do for THOSE STOCKS! :crazy:

[JTFrog]

14. FTDLC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. What Are The Chances A President, Even A President As Crazy As Bush, Is Going To Nuke A Country Out

Of The Blue?

And why couldn't he do it while the impeachment process is under way?

[onenote]

19. so is Barney Frank a "DLCer" now?

[Echo In Light]

20. Because most posters are beyond an age that allows...

...them to approach such a grave postulation - and one that is certainly worthy of scrutiny - with clear perceptions as to the various what ifs that they've long been instructed by the their daily round of life to see as impossible "conspiracy theories."

Ever wonder why the notion of conspiracy, a criminal charge tried in courts all the time, has such a deeply ingrained bias against it?

Rational, well educated people will routinely dismiss the idea that powerful people beholden to enormously wealthy organizations/corporations/institutes, often unaccountable to the public, work together in convergent interests to carve the planet up into pieces that suit their vested interests ... yet that does happen all the time ... yet people deny it. Why?

To your point though, by now we've all seen how the many checks and balances of our govt are basically illusory, fail to prevent catastrophe, and are largely part of the smoke and mirrors "democracy" in that each branch serves the greater aim of the military-industrial complex, and not the will of the people. By now it should be obvious to most that the sociopathic Bush/Cheney regime, with its suicidal, apocalyptic policies, have passed the point of no return, and, well, I could go on and on, but yes, you're correct: it's only through mass deception, media disinformation, and denial that our populace hasn't stood up and demanded that these fascists be held accountable. In a representative democracy, what the "elected" officials do they do in ALL of our names...so whatever happens from here on out...