Removing Bush and Cheney from office by the numbers:

[ProSense]

It's not going to happen unless a bipartisan majority vote in the Senate votes to remove Bush and Cheney from office.

Impeachment is initiated in the House, but removal from office is a function of the Senate. Impeachment means nothing if Bush and Cheney remain in office.

Now which Republican Senators are going to (are likely to) vote to remove Bush and Cheney from office?

Give me a rational argument as to why Republicans would do this after all their stalling?

Everyone knows Bush deserves impeachment (oops, that's Reagan), but Congress can't even muster the votes to cut funding for the illegal Iraq war.

[T Wolf]

1. By this logic, the Dems have no shot of passing anything. Maybe they

should just go on permanent vacation until after the 08 election. Then, if they have 67 Senate seats and 300 House seats, they can go back to work.

Until then, they are just posturing - and not very well.

[ProSense]

2. No, you're denying that the Republicans have been an obstacle to

every attempt to hold Bush accountable.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. Yes!

The republicans and all their sleeper cells have been an obstacle to democracy in this country.

From vote counting to congressional oversight.

You name it, the republicans have a show on FOX that claims to "have an alternative explanation"

[T Wolf]

11. No. I am saying that IF the excuse that impeachment will fail in the Senate

because the Dems do not have enough votes for conviction is a reason for not pursuing it, THEN they should not be trying to pass any legislation because they do not have enough votes to override a veto.

If they are unwilling to hold impeachment hearings, why are they willing to attempt to pass anything? Simple posturing is the obvious answer.

They even posture against supposedly-Democratic values. For christ's sake - the Dems supported the censuring of MoveOn.

The overwhelming majority of bodies on our side of the aisle are as worthless as the enemy. Maybe moreso because they are blockades to progress as much as the pukes are.

[ProSense]

22. "For christ's sake the - Dems supported the censuring of MoveOn"

Some Dems did, and some Dems voted to fund the war.

I'm talking about Republicans, but see the extent of the problem?

[T Wolf]

26. The problem is that 1) the repugs will never do anything to uphold the

Constitution or the law; 2) the Dems will not challenge the pukes even though they could (though success is not guaranteed); and 3) we are stuck with the lesser of two evils that is only slighly less evil.

I am by no means excusing the GOPers. It is a given that they are aan obstacle to any progress that needs to be permanently and totally removed from the scene. I am just saying that IF the Dems wanted to fight for what many here say they believe in, they could do a much better job. But they are too busy protecting their own ass.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. It's not Congress...

...400+ people in Congress are not going to get anything done if millions of people worship everything FOX tells them.

Look at evolution.

Congress wouldn't be able to pass a law banning intelligent design in science classes.

And don't even get me started on global warming...

[JuniperLea]

4. Your reasoning is flawed... very, very flawed...

"Impeachment means nothing if Bush and Cheney remain in office."


Wrong, wrong, wrong!

The attempt will show the world that the people understand we have a failed president, a criminal in office. There is much healing to be done in this regard, and the attempt will help to this end. Not attempting an impeachment tells the world we are impotent, that our government has evolved into a sham of its former self, something more akin to Communism instead of a Democracy.

I'm really tired of this old worn out argument. It's like repeating a lie so it will become something like the truth. It's like saying you won't vote your conscience in the primary because the candidate that you REALLY like doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Balderdash! Bloody, buggery, balderdash!!!

[ProSense]

6. Clinton was impeached and remained in office!

It may tell the world something I suspect they already know, but Bush and Cheney would continue in their roles.

[JuniperLea]

7. Clinton had a much higher approval rating than Bush does without impeachment!

Plus, we are a relatively young country. Sexual dalliances mean little to most of the rest of the world. Even the middle east... they just don't allow their play to make the headlines.

[ProSense]

9. What does that have to do with them still being in office? n/t

[JuniperLea]

13. Please just read the convo...

I'm talking about what it tells the world...

[ProSense]

8. Another thing,

I want Bush and Cheney to be tried and removed from office. I am not interested in impeachment for show. They could probably get the votes to censure Bush, but what good is that if they are still at the helm?

I wish people would focus on calling out their Reps and Senators on this instead of just screaming generic Democrats or Pelosi and Reid. Put the pressure where it matters because at the end of the day, they each just have one vote. We need more than one or two, and some are already standing up with their votes.

[JuniperLea]

10. You should really make up your mind...

Do you want Bush and Cheney tried and removed from office? Or do you want to argue against that?

[ProSense]

14. Where am I arguing against it? n/t

[porphyrian]

12. You act like impeachment can be boiled down to two hand counts.

There's an entire period of investigation you are conveniently ignoring that would significantly affect both public opinion and the Senate's vote to convict.

[ProSense]

15. No, that is the House side. I am addressing the Senate side.

Will the Republicans vote to Remove Bush and Cheney from office?

[porphyrian]

16. No, you have comprehension problems.

Reread what I wrote and pay attention this time.

[ProSense]

17. No, I'm not. Tell me which Republicans will vote to convict Bush?

Don't try to be coy!

[porphyrian]

19. You still have no idea what I said. Why should I respect your question?

I'll answer, though, just to prove you're the one being obstinate.

Impeachment is a process. It is not simply a vote to do it and a vote to convict. Between the two, there is an investigation. That investigation would certainly reveal a number of things that the corporate media chooses not to report otherwise that would become public record. What is revealed would more than make the case for conviction, both with the people and, by extension, their Senators, who would not vote to convict until AFTER the investigation was done. So, I can't tell you how the Senate vote would come out, and neither can you, before the first two steps are complete.

[ProSense]

20. There have been investigations that have revealed impeachable offenses.

People have resigned, been convicted. There is evidence of torture, and Republicans on record saying that waterboarding amounts to a swimming lesson. Investigations can reveal a lot more, but will the Republicans vote to convict?

You can claim that I don't understand that impeachment is a process, but do you understand that the current Republicans in Congress will be intent on making a mockery of the process and obstructing justice wherever they can.

[porphyrian]

21. Did you sustain a head injury?

If you are just going to keep asking the same question regardless of anything I say, what is the point?

[ProSense]

23. Insulting me, doesn't change the facts, sorry! n/t

[porphyrian]

24. I'm convinced you wouldn't recognize a fact unless it could predict how republicans might vote.

When you decide to stop hiding behind straw men, we can talk.

[ProSense]

25. So your entire argument for believing the Senate would convict Bush and Cheney is based on

not knowing how Republicans would vote?

[porphyrian]

28. You haven't been right yet. Keep stabbing. -n/t

[ProSense]

30. Do you have a point? n/t

[porphyrian]

31. Yes, it's the one I made repeatedly that you missed every time. -n/t

[balantz]

18. We The People need to show the world that we are taking action against

the worst criminals in the world, OCCUPYING OUR WHITE HOUSE! We The People have to show the rest of We The People that we are standing up against these viscious thugs that call themselves Our Leaders!

Whether or not Senate agrees we have to do this action.

No more delaying!

What would Jefferson do?

[L. Coyote]

27. If high crimes are brought to public consciousness, won't that suffice to end the junta?

Ya got nuf high crimes, cuz dats all u need. everone nos. preti simple.

Just saying it may not have to even go to the Senate given the long ist of offenses. What is lacking is the imprinting of the facts on the public palate. As Sam Irwin said, "If you paint a really good picture of a cow, you don't have to write cow under it." Nixon resigned when the Republican Congress members told him to. That happened AFTER hearings began, of course.

[ProSense]

29. "What is lacking is the imprinting of the facts on the public palate."

I agree with that (if you impeach they will come) to a point, especially in the context of Nixon. What's different is that we have a group of Republicans in office who would turn the process into a circus and a mainstream media prepared to help (fair and balanced equals facts countered by lies and spin). So I agree, but it would take more than planting a seed. It would take public outcry and pressure (on Republicans), and the latter is what's needed most.