IMPEACHMENT... without it we're a nation of cowards and outlaws.

[TahitiNut]

July 7, 2007

New Poll: Majority Favor Impeachment
(and BTW, Independents are not all "middle of the road")

By Dave Lindorff


The latest poll by American Research Group (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/), showing that 54 percent of Americans favor impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney, and that 46 percent favor impeaching President Bush, is encouraging news for impeachment advocates. Despite a corporate media blackout on impeachment that means almost nobody in the country knows that there is already a Cheney impeachment bill in the House with 14 co-sponsors (HR 333), over half the country nonetheless wants Cheney to get the boot.

And despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s insistence that “impeachment is off the table,” almost half the people in the country say they want the president impeached.

But other information in this scientific poll, which was conducted by random telephone calls to 1100 Americans during July 2-3, should have Democrats like Pelosi and other party leaders rethinking their obstructive position on impeachment.

The Democratic leadership has been opposed to impeachment based on the absurd that while it is clearly popular among Democrats, an impeachment effort in Congress could “turn off” independent voters.

In fact the opposite appears to be true.

The American Research Group poll also reports that 50 percent of independents favored the impeachment of Bush while 51 percent of them favored impeaching Cheney. Hard to see how taking that position could be hurting Democrats with independents. Moreover, the poll found that 13 percent of Republicans wanted to see Bush impeached, while 17 percent wanted Cheney impeached. That is, roughly one in six Republicans would look favorably on a House impeachment effort, whichever member of the administration was the target!

And Pelosi is against the idea for fear of alienating voters on the right.

<more>

Nancy Pelosi and the Low Bar Democrats
Friday, July 06, 2007

In a fascinating interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , reporters Mike Stark and Dave Johnson get Pelosi to admit that she had decided "at least a year ago," before Democrats had even taken control of the House and Senate, "that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and short-comings."

She then goes on to say, "The President isn't worth it ... he's not worth impeaching. We've got important work to do."

Stark then says, "Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it," to which Pelosi responds, "Well, yeah, the constitution is worth it if you can succeed."

That the leading Democrat in the House, and one of the most powerful people in the Democratic Party leadership, could be so dismissive of the Constitution, so seemingly ignorant of the workings of the impeachment clause, and so openly pessimistic and negative about the power of her opposition party, is simply astonishing.

Pelosi is admitting here that back in early 2006, before the off-year election campaign had even gotten fully underway, she had already concluded that Democrats could never hope to obtain a majority vote in the House for impeachment!

If Democrats in 1974 had adopted such a defeatist attitude in confronting the crimes of Richard Nixon (who after all was midway through his second term, after having won a landslide victory over George McGovern in 1972), he would have slid through his second term like Bush and Cheney are hoping to do. Remember, when bills of impeachment were first filed against Nixon, only some 25 members of Congress supported the idea of impeachment, and no one thought that the idea had a chance.

The whole point of impeachment hearings is to investigate and make the case for impeachment. Until that is done, it is simply nonsense to say the process "could not be successful."

This is especially true when one considers that this president, unlike Nixon, has actually already admitted to major crimes. There is no question that he has seriously abused power by refusing to enact laws passed by the Congress. Furthermore, in the case of his ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without obtaining court orders--in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- a federal district judge trying that activity has ruled that it was a serial Class A felony. And even after that August 2006 decision, the president continued with the illegal program for another six months.

Not to impeach the president for these high crimes against law and the Constitution is a dereliction of duty on the part of Pelosi and the rest of Congress or major proportions. It is not as though she has a choice. We objectively have a president who is willfully violating the law and undermining the Constitution. How can Congress, all of whose members take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not initiate impeachment proceedings?

<snip>

July 6, 2007

Forget a Senate Trial, Impeachment is its own Punishment

By Dave Lindorff

I’m getting sick and tired of hearing Democrats afraid of impeachment claim that it can’t be done because the Senate, where Democrats hold a precarious one-seat edge, would never vote to convict and remove, which would require 67 votes.

Let’s get something straight:

Impeachment is not about conviction and removal in the Senate. Impeachment is a stand-alone action of the House of Representatives, and requires a simple majority.

Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate.

When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment. Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.

Under the Constitution, after investigating the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president or other federal officer in an impeachment panel composed of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, which would then approve articles of impeachment, the House would vote on whether to impeach the executive.

If they concluded that Bush or Cheney, in this case, had abused their power, or had damaged the nation, or committed treason or bribery, they could then vote to impeach.

At that point the president and/or vice president would stand impeached.

For all time, they would be known as defilers of the Constitution--or perhaps as traitors, depending upon the nature of the articles approved by a House majority.

Their nefarious actions—the lying to Congress and American people, the violation of international laws, the violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments, the subversion of elections, the obstruction of justice, the criminal negligence, the war crimes, the usurping of the power of the Congress and the Courts—would all stand publicly condemned by the People’s Body.

Whether they resigned, went on to a Senate trial, or just ran out their remaining terms of office, Bush and Cheney would leave Washington with a big red “I” emblazoned on their chests to the day they died. Nixon wore that scarlet letter even though he never even had his case go as far as a House vote. His rotting corpse still wears that bright letter of shame.

So forget that red herring about a Senate trial being a non-starter.

Who cares about a Senate trial! For myself, I think that once we got those impeachment hearings going, and once the crimes of this administration started being aired on live television for all to see, and without the mediation of reporters and spin doctors, a Senate trial and conviction would be extremely likely, but whether I’m right or not really doesn’t matter.

What we need is impeachment hearings and impeachment by the House!

Enough excuses!

We have a criminal cabal in the White House that is doing incalculable damage to our nation and to our Constitution, and so far we see in Congress is a dithering, cowardly bunch of people afraid to even stand up for the honor of their own institution.

Even then, it's only a beginning. These criminals must be indicted, convicted, and imprisoned for their appalling crimes and their wealth confiscated for the benefit of the worst victims of those crimes. Without such justice, we do not deserve to call ourselves a democracy. Without it, the DISHONOR IS OURS .. and deserved!

[Phredicles]

1. Great post. Still, the new polls give me hope, as long as Pelosi doesn't

prove as intransigent as Mr. Lovely Man.

[scarletwoman]

2. Thank you, TN! I'm up way past my bedtime, & too sleepy to write a sensible comment -- but

here's my k & r.

Now I'm off to bed -- perchance to dream of impeachment...

sw

[Old and In the Way]

3. The charge is important.

It sends a signal to the world that we honor and uphold our Constitution and that we acknowledge the crimes committed in our name. It also sends a message to future wanabee Bush-Cheneys that you will pay a price to screw with our Rights.

The Senate vote will be political and might not carry the day. That's OK...the voter will get a chance to rectify that in the Senator's next election.

[TahitiNut]

5. There's far more than just a few criminally corrupt office-holders in D.C. FAR more!

The corruption and ROT runs wide and deep in this country and even the imprisonment of Cheney and Bush and a few of their chief enablers isn't near enough to debrede the wounds to this nation. If it's to end, the maggots must feast on the necrotic flesh of our body politic before it can ever be made healthy.

AND THERE'S NO PARTY LABEL THAN CAN MAKE THE DISEASE EASIER TO FIND. That's a delusion.

[defendandprotect]

4. We need to have all of this BS on record, for history -- and stand against it -- !!!

[DesertRat]

6. Well said, TN. I'm with you!

:kick:

[IChing]

7. The doubt on questioning, the truth of your environment

is the message in the bottle................

shameless kick for you and
for your great input as always.

[TahitiNut]

8. I often feel a bit like a castaway ... sometimes wishing I had amnesia.

:evilgrin:

[Decruiter]

9. AMEN! Thanks TahitiNut! You are the best of the bestest. n/t

IMPEACH, INDICT, IMPRISON!

The criminals running this nation now, are the same ones that should have been put away with Nixon, we let them off, we the people let them get away again with Iran/Contra and we still are having to live with them to this damned day.

We have but one opportunity and that is to finally rise up and put them away for good.

NO QUARTER! This time, this time, it is prison or else we don't have a nation left.

[calimary]

10. Damn straight. I don't care WHAT happens in the Senate. The important thing

is to get it done in the House of Reps. THAT'S where it counts, and THAT'S where it goes onto the books.

[TahitiNut]

11. Just think of the nice list of traitorous Senators we'd have for the next election and history.

Think of all the nice letters we could write. :evilgrin:

All that tar and feathers ... going to waste.

[lyonn]

54. Clinton will always be mentioned in the history books

dealing with his impeachment. Imagine the following president getting us into an illegal war we can't get out of, has the whole Middle East stirred up, trashing the Constitution and ignoring Congress, in other words a supreme ruler and not having an impeachment proceeding for his real crimes. Yup, gotta get this guy down for an impeachment, now.

[Usrename]

12. Action must be taken now. The world is watching.

If impeachment is delayed for too much longer, I worry that it will be too late, and we will be hoplessly screwed. We know that these monsters will continue with their crimes until the whole world gives up on us, no matter how much the world seems to like big Al.

[orleans]

13. it's what's for dinner!

[sandnsea]

14. When it's up to 60%

They'll act. They aren't going to impeach when the country is 50/50 on the issue.

Keep rattling, and throw in the magical word "resign" just like Olbermann did. Watch those numbers rise when people realize there's a way to get rid of these bastards without a blood bath. Just like Nixon.

[TahitiNut]

16. When the vast majority of the country continues to be ill-informed regarding the scope ...

... and severity of the criminal acts of this regime, it's remarkable that so many favor impeachment - ESPECIALLY while suffering "Clinton fatigue."

Impeachment hearings can only result in 70% favoring conviction, removal, and "rail transport" in a tar-and-feather suit.

Unlike others, apparently, I remember Watergate VERY well - and the majority of the nation was NOT in favor of impeaching Nixon ... not until the tapes were disclosed and the 18-minute gap discovered. Compared to Nixon, the crimes are an order of magnitude greater and the public sentiment is more than DOUBLE the negatives against Cheney/Bush. There is no reasonable excuse whatsoever to delay.

[sandnsea]

27. The country does not like impeachment

Exactly right. Resignation is the way to avoid the blood bath. Just because someone opposes impeachent does not mean they don't oppose this cabal being gone, and also think they should be gone. People know what they've done. They just don't know that the government can truly pay attention to two wars, terrorism, AND impeachment, all at the same time. Resignation is the answer to that.

[Jacobin]

38. Clinton was at 68% approval in the middle of impeachment proceedings

Its about doing what's right.

[sandnsea]

50. Resignation

is what's right. We don't need to impeach to get him out. We just need him out.

People thought the impeachment was hurting the country and it made them angry. We do not want the debate to change from Bush's atrocities to whether an impeachment is partisan. Resignation avoids that, and gets Bush out at the same time. It's the smart answer all the way around.

[JTG of the PRB]

15. This reminds me of an old cliché...

"When impeachment is outlawed, only outlaws will impeach."

Wait... Maybe it was "When impeachment is outlawed, only outlaws will be impeached."

Hmm. My head is starting to hurt.

[spanone]

17. Without it we have a King and best just STFU

[Solly Mack]

18. !

!

[Individualist]

19. K&R

IMPEACH!

[Poiuyt]

20. The big red "I" is what's important to me

I want future presidents to know that fascist behavior will be dealt with harshly and I want the rest of the world to know that we do indeed stand for democracy. I want the U.S. to once again be the "good guys."

[TahitiNut]

21. Democracy is a "Do It Yourself" project.

Too many Americans apparently think they can buy it at Wal*Mart or "let George do it."

[Ms. Clio]

22. great post!

We need to be relentless on the subject of impeachment, if only for the sake of history -- so those looking back, years from now, won't wonder why nobody today seemed to give a damn about the Republicon destruction of the U.S. in the early twenty-first century.

[KAT119]

23. K&R! Thank you....

[Me.]

24. Nancy Needs To Be Reminded Of Who She's Supposed To Be Representing

“5. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are not speaking. The majority of Americans believe Dick Cheney and George Bush should be impeached. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, says no. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, I am told by someone familiar with the inner workings of the House, favors proceeding with impeaching Cheney. But Nancy says no. Pelosi is being described by some as Tom Delay in a skirt, in terms of her refusal to pay attention to what the majority of Americans want.”

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1275584

Saw Gravel on George Steps this morning and he said the way to achieve what you want in Congress is to keep coming back at it, time after time, until you succeed. That business about 'not enough votes' or alternatively 'the American people won't buy it' is just so much CYA camouflage as far as I'm concerned.

[Marnieworld]

25. Damn straight

If not now then when? They need to be reminded that this is their job! There are actually obligated to do this, required, expected to do this by the Founders in the Constitution. There job is to protect the Constitution, not their own political lives.

[AntiFascist]

26. K&R n/t

[davidwparker]

28. w/out it, we have no respect for the "rule of law" either and yes, we

are cowards and "good Americans."

Like some caller to Jon Elliot said, she can now see how the German citizens rolled over in the 30's.

[TahitiNut]

31. It's important to remember that autocratic regimes usually enjoyed 25-40% support even to the end.

Hitler reportedly had 35% support in 1939-40 as he embarked on the "Final Solution" and the Blitz. Batista had around 30-35% support of the Cuban people in 1956, before the revolution. Most monarchies held at least a bare majority of support - even the Romanovs.

[WillyT]

29. I'm With You TN, But You Already Knew That !!!

:patriot::kick::patriot:

[TahitiNut]

34. Ubetcha, cousin! DU has a hard core (notably H20 Man) who've been steadfast from the start.

We've never wavered, even in 2006. The stance and the message has been consistent and principled - recognizing there's a solemn DUTY to justice, the Constitution, and future generations. I've never known or heard of a coward or an outlaw who didn't regard themselves as a "pragmatist" - who didn't argue against principle for some perceived future advantage. Personally, I don't want to live in a nation or a world where such 'pragmatism' holds sway - where we're dissuaded by some crystal ball gazing calculus from doing the Right Thing.

Realism and pragmatism clearly have value in the selection of tactics, but the choice of whether or not to proceed MUST be based on duty, honor, and integrity. We should never let the lives we live be separate from the words we speak. Those words, enscribed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are clear. We cannot passively tolerate the continued corruption and criminality of this cabal of autocrats and kleptocrats. They must be IMPEACHED!

[Me.]

39. Zowee

Fab post

[WillyT]

46. Seriously... Permission To Start A Tread With Those Words ???

That's the most cogent argument I've seen so far.

I await your permission.

:patriot:

[TahitiNut]

48. Well, certainly, my good friend.

You're consistently kind and good-spirited, cousin. (I sure do miss you good people in the Bay Area.)

:hi: :pals:

[WillyT]

49. I Miss Ya Too Tahiti !!!

:grouphug:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

30. K & R. Bravo -- dead center on target. nt.

[TahitiNut]

32. Thank you, all, for the recommends!! We've made the DU front page.

Even our small voices might be heard. Bravo!

[proud patriot]

33. Agreed

:)

[bbgrunt]

35. k and r kand r k and r

[H2O Man]

36. Thank you.

Outstanding post. I really appreciate your message of strength.

Nominated.

[dickbearton]

37. Corporate Stooges

Pelosi, like most of Congress, the MSM, and the Supreme
Kangaroo Court are bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Not only is the Criminal Bush Administration and the Corrupt
Republican Party a front for oil and gas interests, but they
are also a front for the entire military industrial complex.
Criminal Bush and possibly Pelosi are the face of modern
Corporate Fascism.

[Greyskye]

40. HEAR HEAR!

Well said!

:kick: & R!

[bread_and_roses]

41. Another K&R from me

I have been furious from the day I first read the Pelosi quote "off the table."

There's a good article over at Commondreams:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/08/2385/

Published on Sunday, July 8, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Nobody Marched to Impeach Bill Clinton
by Linda Milazzo

NOBODY marched to impeach Bill Clinton. Angry citizens DIDN’T fill the streets, carry signs and beg a non-responsive Congress to do its Constitutional duty and remove Bill Clinton from his job. Panels WEREN’T held across the nation, moderated by Constitutional scholars who loved their country so much that they traversed its full span to inform packed audiences of the high crimes Bill Clinton had done.

Nope. That DIDN’T happen.

In 1998, thousands upon thousands of Americans DIDN’T call, write, fax and visit their elected leaders every day imploring them to impeach Bill Clinton. Millions of citizens DIDN’T believe that the rest of the world wanted Bill Clinton impeached. Groups of citizen activists DIDN’T band together to camp out at their Representatives’ homes and District Offices for days, sometimes weeks, holding “Impeach Bill Clinton” signs and wearing “Impeach Bill Clinton” T-shirts. Thousands of cars DIDN’T bear “Impeach Bill Clinton” bumper stickers.

Nope. That DIDN’T happen.

Average citizens DIDN’T travel to Washington, DC to walk the Halls of Congress and seek audiences with their elected officials demanding to have Bill Clinton impeached.

Nuh-uh!

“Impeachment Centers” WEREN’T opened dedicated to impeaching Bill Clinton like the one in Los Angeles that opened on the Fourth of July, dedicated to impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney.

This constant upswelling gives me a -very - faint glimmer of hope, though...if people make enough noise, Pelosi can proclaim that she is responding to the will of the people....

so we have to keep clammoring.

[Madspirit]

42. k&r...n/t

[L0oniX]

43. It's the money ....stupid

The reason they are not interested in impeachment is because they are taking money from the same asscarrots that Bush, his cronies and congressmen are taking money from. DOH!

[provis99]

44. Clinton was impeached. didn't mean a damn thing.

Impeachment with out trial, removal from office, and then criminal proceedings is irrelevant. Frankly, if Bush were to be impeached without conviction in the Senate, it will look exactly like what it is: a payback for Clinton being impeached, and Democrats will be punished for it in the elections. Far from making Bush look bad by being impeached, people will actually feel sorry for him as a victim of a vindictive Democratic leadership, and history will think kindlier of him.

[Poiuyt]

45. Bush should not be given a pass just because Clinton was impeached

History will record Bush as being one of the worst, if not the worst president. I realize that we can't impeach due to incompetence, but people in the future will surely see the difference between Clinton and Bush. Americans today will not feel sorry for him because his approval ratings are so low.

[TahitiNut]

47. So, the message you send is "Clinton was worse than Bush"??

Fascinating. :eyes:

"People will feel sorry for him" and "history will thnk kindlier of him"?? You got all that out of your crystal ball?

Clearly, nobody is interested in the details - little details like suspension of habeas corpus, felonious spying on thousands of American citizens, violation of FISA, an invasion based on fraudulent claims, and the deliberate destruction of a NNP intel network (BJ&A). Of course ... our children and our children's children will be imbeciles who can't distinguish a blow-job from a war crime. After all, Clinton's 68% approval rating compared to Smirk's 26% approval rating just shows Americans (and the world) are idiots.

The process defined by the Constitution for the removal of officials for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is irrelevant ... at least in part, huh?

:eyes:

[RufusTFirefly]

53. It's a Constitutional issue (thank you, TahitiNut!!)

The notion that the frivolous Clinton impeachment somehow ties our hands when it comes to impeaching Bush is absurd.
The fundamental question is this: Does the Constitution have any meaning anymore?

If the answer is yes, then we must begin impeachment proceedings. There is abundant evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
If the answer is no, then America ceases to exist, for it is the Constitution that unites and defines us. Welcome to Friendly Fascism. Fasten your seatbelt. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

[TahitiNut]

56. Somewhere in the Constitution (that I've not yet found) it must say that ....

... the Senate gets to determine whether or not the House can pass a Bill of Impeachment.

I keep looking for the version of the Constituion that others seem to be reading --- and I just can't find it. Funny that. :shrug:

[RufusTFirefly]

63. I believe it comes right after Article 2.5

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States, and has been deemed Electable by no less than two thirds of the Corporate Media and its related Polling Organizations.

[Jed Dilligan]

60. Psst...

I think this guy is agreeing with you. Chill pill?

[WilliamPitt]

58. Really?

It exhausted the electorate and made Gore's run far harder...and in the end, it helped give us George & Co.

[lyonn]

64. No, no, we don't want Bush impeached because we want payback?!

Do you really think this impeachment talk has to do with payback? You are saying that is exactly what it is......

America is in such serious trouble and you think impeachment is payback. Consider we believe he has broken laws and failed to uphold the rules and laws of the Constitution.

[ProudDad]

71. Don't believe it

Clinton's impeachment solidified the repuke base and confused enough of the ignorant undecideds to make the election close enough in 2000 for the pukes to steal it.

Exposing the crimes of the bush crime family would have the opposite effect in '08 -- people would finally, for the first time since Johnson, feel that the Dems finally grew some balls and elect more of them to office.

[TahitiNut]

76. Indeed. I too feel that would be the impact in the muddled middle.

But I eschew crystal ball gazing - since it's merely ASSertive and neither principled nor empirical. I do OK at the track when I (rarely) go ... but I sure wouldn't want to depend on it. I think we both have had the experience of unforeseen positive results (serendipity?) when we acted out of conscience and duty rather than an attempt to assure some future 'win.'

More important, however, is my deeper belief that ... if we do the Right Thing and are punished for doing it - then we don't deserve what we'd want to achieve. If a conscientious and principled effort to impeach Cheney and/or Bush is made and the electorate reacts negatively ... then maybe the electorate doesn't DESERVE democracy.

I can't help but believe (hope?) that history will make the mistakes of this time very clear - much to the shame of our progeny.

[bagrman]

51. Sorry . Dems and repukes are different sides of the same coin. Their not going to do anything.

[TahitiNut]

55. Their not, huh?

:rofl:

Then there's nothing left but to let the blood flow in the streets.

[bagrman]

77. It's called term limits.

[Edweird]

52. I'd say the anecdotal evidence supports the conclusion that we are a nation of cowards

and outlaws whether we impeach or not.

[thegreatcause2]

57. government based on the consent of the governed

bush is a lying bastard. he has lost the support of the "governed". the our political system is based on the consent of the people. my only conclusion is, for the sake of our political system, WE MUST IMPEACH THIS LYING, BIG-TIME ASSHOLE BUSH.

[Mutineer]

59. The American people want it--so why don't our Democratic

leaders?

[ProudDad]

72. As far as the Dem "leadership" is concerned

their corporate masters outweigh the American People...

At least so far. That can be changed.

Keep up the pressure.

[Octafish]

61. 90-percent would favor impeachment once We the People learn how Bush lied America into war.

About 40-percent of the American people still believe that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were in cahoots on 9-11.

That number would shrink considerably with factual reporting of how Bush lied America into war.

While most DUers know the story of how the Iraq War of Lies unfolded, I'd bet most Americans haven't heard the full story.

Once they do, there won't be many in favor of keeping Smirk or Sneer on the government dole.

[lyonn]

67. The only way to make the media report the truth is by impeachment

hearings. The war in Iraq must be the major issue. We know that more than 60% are against the war now. After making them understand how we got there I believe there will be no stopping the vote in the Senate due to public opinion.

[madokie]

62. Yes we must impeach and remove from office this whole criminal cabal

theres just no two ways about it either

[TahitiNut]

65. Well, there are 2 ways about it ... but the other way is revolution - eventually.

Impeachment is part of the "slow-motion revolution" that the Founders designed as a substitute for violent revolution ... with blood flowing in the streets. The problem with violent revolution, besides the inconvenience of missing the latest American Idol broadcast, is that people endure a great deal of suffering in the hopes (almost always ill-founded) that "things will get better." That hope is usually harbored by those whose sufferings are less than those of their neighbors' - believing perhaps that their neighbors will do the dirty work, just as they've born the brunt of the suffering, and again the idle can ride along on the investments in blood and brutality of others.

This is why those who'd gather power to themselves also foment division in our body politic ... divisions by the old stand-bys of race, class, or religion. In the context of such division we can wallow in the illusion that it's "them" who'll do the suffering and dying.

The price only gets higher and higher. The piper ALWAYS gets paid Eventually.

[Swamp Rat]

66. IMPEACH!! CONVICT!! IMPRISON!!

[lyonn]

68. These two paragraphs are what really haired me up:

"In a fascinating interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , reporters Mike Stark and Dave Johnson get Pelosi to admit that she had decided "at least a year ago," before Democrats had even taken control of the House and Senate, "that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and short-comings."

She then goes on to say, "The President isn't worth it ... he's not worth impeaching. We've got important work to do."


What more "positive things" than to stop the crimes that Bush has committed"

"He isn't worth it" ... "We got important work to do." Lady wake up, pay attention..... Who would have thought Nancy's job could be in jeopardy? I believe it could be.

[Laelth]

69. Hear, Hear!

k&r

-Laelth

[rubberducky]

70. We need to get Nancy to put this back on the table!!

Nancy needs to hear from all of us! Get off her high horse. WE the people have spoken. WE the people DEMAND impeachment! Don`t care how it messes up her schedule. Just DO IT!!

[wiggs]

73. Don't get it. The main reason for impeachment is not the high crimes and

misdemeanors that WE ALL KNOW HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

The main reason now is that we need thinking, honest adults in the WH to craft the best possible option for Iraq. The idiots there now have created this disaster...have been wrong every step of the way...have been proven to attract failure like a moth to flame. (I say that while having the opinion that they are not actually trying to do something constructive...I'm in a generous mood I guess) Do we now ask these guys, of whom it must be said that there can't possibly be one person in the United States who thinks honestly that they will do the right thing...do we ask these guys to solve a much tougher puzzle now than four years ago and come up with a plan that actually works???? Given that ALL options are bad, who is best equipped to choose the best least destructive option? The ONE THING WE KNOW FOR SURE IS THAT IT IS NOT...NOT THESE HEINOUS IDEOLOGS THAT CURRENTLY RESIDE IN THE WH!!! Honestly, they are the very LAST people we should be entrusting with the future of our country. Come on!

For the sake of the country and for the sake of the young men and women in Iraq, we must replace failed administrators in the WH with someone, anyone, who can analyze facts, seek input, weigh options, and make decisions that are best for the country and the world. We must do this right, frickin' now, if not sooner.

It must be clear to dc dems that any delay in getting appropriate decision makers in the WH is a deriliction of duty and a tragedy. I used to crave jail for these imposters in the WH, thinking that impeachment was too good. Now it is clear that Cheney and Bush should not be the focus of our attention. The focus should be on the future of our country and the fate of our soldiers. If this is our focus then Bush and Cheney should be considered roadbumps in our headlong rush to solve our problems...not the end all and be all of our goals. And. January. 2009. Is. Too. Late.

Get them the hell out and let's get on with it. Anything less is unworthy, IMHO, and we are diminished as a nation if we spend one more minute on debating whether or not lying to congress is a high crime...or if we have enough votes for impeachment...or if impeachment would harm 2008 prospects...

Am I right or have I had one too many cocktails tonight? Or am I right AND I've had too many cocktails? I think the latter.

[me b zola]

74. Excellent post, TN

Without it, the DISHONOR IS OURS .. and deserved!


:kick:

[Vidar]

75. Wonderful post, TahitiNut.