It is IMPERATIVE that we IMPEACH ...

[cool user name]

The House has a duty to investigate and impeach the Bush/Cheney administration. If found guilty, the Senate has an obligation to remove them.

To learn more about impeachment, please click here:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/

To learn more about Bush's/Cheney's crimes, please click here:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html

It's a national imperative being called for by both conservatives and liberals. To not impeach is to set a dangerous precedent regarding the consolidation of power within the Executive (known as The Unitary Executive). An egregious trampeling of our fundamental principals of separation of powers. It is important to call on our Congress to initiate their Constitutional powers to hold this President/Vice President accountable for the crimes that they have committed. To not do this, is to strengthen and power the Executive and to further weaken our Constitution.


It is IMPERATIVE.

[npincus]

1. President Pelosi will bring our troops home.

[Tellurian]

2. That is the FIRST order of BUSINESS!

STOP THE KILLING OF US TROOPS for control of oil!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

11. Aaack.. what did I miss???

was it potty mouth?
was it a nasty nellie?

was it personal petty?
forgetit, I don't want to know-

but thanks to whoever for removing the frothy swamp dweller...

[mzmolly]

13. I like the sound of that. She did say it was her first priority.

So all we need is two thirds of the senate. ;) I think we can get there once we fully air what this administration has done.

[wildbilln864]

3. I think it's more imperative...

to investigate the actions and behavior of the present administration! Then impeachment will become mandatory along with procecution and imprisonment!
IMHO!

[MrCoffee]

4. where do you get your "Senate has an obligation to remove them" idea?

there's no "obligation" to do anything.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Until Legitimate & Thorough Congressional Investigations Take Place Impeachment Can't Be Imperative.

It is illogical on its face to declare impeachment to be imperative before legitimate and thorough congressional investigation into what the impeachment would be for have even taken place.

I'm also going to try and avoid responding to any heated return replies, since as far as I see it my statement above is factually correct and concise and I'm not sure there's much more I need to clarify with it within a subthread.

[wildbilln864]

6. I agree OP...

investigate the shit out of em. The truth will set us free!

[cool user name]

7. Except that you completely ignored my call for investigations.

It's self-evident that investigations are needed before impeachment.

However, Pelosi has said that impeachment is off the table. How can she categorically utter such nonsense without any conclusion to any investigations?

I might add also, that one impeachable offense has been committed and admitted to; the domestic surveillance operations.

But again, to address your point, I never said to blindly impeach without investigations. To me, the two go hand in hand.

:shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. I Ignored It Because That Wasn't The Part I Found Err In.

It was the repeated declaration of impeachment being imperative that I found err in, so that is what I chose to respond in context towards.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. This is like a child screaming "you MUST make it stop raining".

The Democrats don't have the *ability* to impeach. They can open impeachment procedings, but there is no possibility of enough Republicans breaking ranks for those procedings to succeed.

The Democrats only have a duty to impeach Bush in the same sense that they have a duty to cure AIDS, bring about world peace or feed the 5000 - it would be deeply immoral to pass up an opportunity to do so, but no such opportunity exists.

The question we should be asking is not "Should we impeach Bush?" but "Should we initiate inevitably-doomed impeachment proceedings?"; the answer is clearly "no". It's a central principal of the legal system that you only bring a prosecution when there's at least some chance of a conviction.

The only court in which the Democrats are going to be able to convict Bush is the court of public opinion. If and when they find proof or evidence of wrongdoing, they should present it to the electorate, to persuade *them* to remove the Republicans from office in 08.

[cigsandcoffee]

12. It would take almost 20 Republicans....

...to vote for removing him.

Who reckons that will happen?

[pacalo]

15. Who could have predicted that Rep. Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones &,

just recently, Sen. Gordon Smith would have public epiphanies against Bush's Iraq fiasco? Who knows how many others in the now-Democratic majorities of the two legislative branches will be speaking more freely & frankly against this administration -- especially when the public hearings take place. Testimony that would never have been allowed in Republican-run committee hearings will be aired by C-Span; I think it will be very difficult for the Republicans to continue to protect this administration while knowing that the world is watching & listening to the shameful facts.

[Cocoa]

14. no mattter how often this is repeated

it will never be true that impeachment is imperative.

Repeating it over and over, and putting it in capital letters, won't make it true.

[Guaranteed]

16. I'm fucking sick of this, actually.

The "conviction" of these fucking people is about three inches deep.