What bothers me the most about the articles of impeachment

[cushla_machree]

I just would really like to know *when* a good time is?

The documentation is all there. Remember the Conyers report, "Constitution in Crisis," which is approximately 350 pages in length, compiled evidence that the Bush Administration has violated numerous laws and regulations.

When is a good time? Apparently never.

Why? It will only hurt us? We are told to wait, wait wait. Bush was given a total pass after 9-11, after all, not a good time then! Then we were going to wait for Kerry to get into office, then after the midterm elections. What has the Congress done? Nothing.

What proof do we have that impeachment is a bad course? It may have not worked for the republicans on Clinton, but that was about a personal issue! This is about lying and manipulating and countless innocent deaths. And we can't bring ourselves to right those wrongs because...Why? Well we don't want to be too hard on bush because it will backfire on us! How do we know this? This is what the media tells us..the same media that reports Bush's approval at UNDER 30%!

I am getting really sick of the Democratic party. If they won't stand up, who will? Does it ever occur to them that the people telling them to shut up and just let it go are the same people who BENEFIT from not questioning our government? When can everyone stop basing their actions on what the moronic people on TV will spin things into?

I believe every person in the Bush administration who was involved in this outright manipulation and lying have betrayed our Constitution. But I expect such things from people like Bush and Cheney and other club members of PNAC. I expect the media to go along with them. But the democrats,they are much worse. Because they KNOW exactly what Bush and CO. have done, and they are the ones who want to do nothing about it.

People have DIED for the right to vote and for the right to self government. Congratulation's to Dennis Kucinich for doing what is RIGHT. For doing what is unpopular, not because it 'feels good' but because when people so flagrantly violate our Constitution, Lie, distort, torture, violate civil liberties, intimediate & commit treason by outing CIA agents, this person stands up and says, this is wrong, this is why, and this is what I am going to do about.

I expect better of people here as well. For what it is worth:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value."
Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

[99th_Monkey]

1. In actuality, there's only a tiny minority on DU who oppose Impeachment

A DU poll that was posted earlier asked for a raise of hands on the issue and I was stunned at how
high the "pro" impeachment percentage was ... something like 80-85%. Sorry I don't have the link.

but those opposed are doing a good job of making lots of noise that sounds like "no reasonable Democrat
on the planet supports impeachment" so STFU.

[JackRiddler]

2. The poll you mention is here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3436319&mesg_id=3436319

Keep it kicked!

[99th_Monkey]

15. Hey!! Thanks for bringing the poll update to the discussion. I was too lazy to track it down.

ya, like 89% PRO-Impeachment now.. woot!!

[PeaceNikki]

3. Let's clarify that. I think, no I know, we would all LOVE impeachment.

But we also all know that it will not result in a conviction. As much as we'd all like it to, it won't. And even if it did, we'd have Cheney. The attempt to impeach him died in committee as this likely will. Facing the reality that it will not get anywhere puts us in a position of realism.

An unsuccessful attempt that's either dead in committee or dead after trial gives the administration fodder to claim insufficient evidence or acquittal. And what does that net us? Yes, we go on record as standing up against it, but that's it. I know that is virtuous and awesome and we can pat ourselves on the back. However, now more than ever we NEED to unite to make sure that these fuckers don't steal another election. We need to get back in the WH and regain control of the Senate to the point of being effective. We need to end the war.

We're all good Democrats. Great Democrats. Pelosi and Feingold and Conyers and Kucinich and Wexler and all the DUer's, too. Each and every one of us on either "side" of this issue. We just need to get our shit together and work on common goals. The kind we have a fighting chance of winning and not the ones that we know we can't, no matter how virtuous the fight. We shouldn't try to hurt our Democratic leaders or fellow Dems and spite them for their stance on this issue.

[underseasurveyor]

4. you can scratch pelosi off that "great" democrat list

and the common goal is to impeach and restore and honor that 'god damned piece of paper" our constitution.

expose the criminals, expose the crimes... and that includes stealing elections.

IMPEACH THE BASTARDS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Raster]

6. No, we do NOT know that impeachment would not result in conviction.

That is yet again another oft repeated meme, that quite frankly, history does not bear out. And the the attempt to impeach cheney* is still in committee and not dead.

[mopinko]

9. we'd have cheney. NOT

there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't and shouldn't be impeached together. any serious effort most certainly would.

[PeaceNikki]

10. Attempts to impeach him have been in committee for 14 months.

In half that time, this nightmare regime will be over. Or it'll continue if we keep eating our Democratic leaders alive over this issue.

[mopinko]

11. and this attempt to impeach bush will do the same.

makes me puke, but it is where we are.

[99th_Monkey]

16. Or BushCo will have the spare time to attack Iran and declare martial law.

Left to their own devises and enough time on their hands --esp. if they're told they get a free pass -- predatory psychopaths have a way of repeating their crimes and offenses, over and over and over again, and upping the stakes.

[Raksha]

18. Pelosi deserves to be eaten alive,

and doesn't deserve to be a Democratic leader.

In half that time, this nightmare regime will be over. Or it'll continue if we keep eating our Democratic leaders alive over this issue.

BTW, what makes you say "the nightmare will continue" if we dump Pelosi and the other Bush enablers with a D after their names? That doesn't make any sense.

[bread_and_roses]

13. "Our Democratic leaders" are not more important than the constitution

People come and go. The constitution is the law. And among our common goals, I would hope, would be it's preservation of civil liberties and separation of powers.

Not to mention that I think it is insane and question the motivations of anyone who would lay their cards on the table the way Pelosi did and as much as give a pass to anything this illegitimate, criminal Junta did for the next two years with her "off the table" statement.

Thank you, DK, for getting at least some of these crimes read into the record.

[cushla_machree]

22. I agree

I would rather have 4 years of McCain if it meant that Bush and Co. went down for this. Preserving the Constitution is more important to me than saving nancy pelosi's job. There are always elections coming and going. I am not going to be trapped in fear, and not uphold the values of this country. No way. There is no proof that impeachment proceedings would hurt democrats. Its just repeated so much that everyone believes it.

[Raksha]

17. No, we don't "all know" any such thing!

Re Let's clarify that. I think, no I know, we would all LOVE impeachment. But we also all know that it will not result in a conviction.

I think if an impeachment investigation were to actually happen, it has at least a 50/50 chance of resulting in conviction--and that's a conservative estimate. We're talking about Bush/Cheney's crimes here, after all, not a witch hunt over Clinton's infidelities.

[cushla_machree]

21. Well thats good to know

I think more people would support it then the media would let you believe.

[jgraz]

5. It's never the right time when your Speaker is facing prosecution for war crimes

Pelosi knew about the black site prisons, the torture and the wiretapping. And she said nothing. She wants Bush impeached less than Bush does.

[Raster]

7. Thank you!

[low_phreaq]

14. All who are complicit need to be removed

Check it out:

Declaration, Reloaded
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3434534&mesg_id=3434534

[Psyop Samurai]

8. We are with you, cushla...

I get too angry to even think about composing a post like yours, so I'm glad that you could do it for me.

:hug:

[maui9002]

12. Why I don't support impeachment

I honestly believe George Bush has been the worst President we've had in my lifetime--and I'm in my fifties. And I don't think it's even close. That being said, I've had misgivings about the efforts to impeach the President. It's not because I feel sorry for him. It's not because I don't believe many of the "charges" that have been made against him. And it's not because I'm squeamish or unprepared to do what is right for the country. I respect the opinions of those who are pushing for impeachment, but I disagree that it's the right path for this country, especially at this time, for the following reasons (and I won't even get into the it's useless because it won't succeed argument):

1. Respect for our Constitution. Unlike the governing charters of many state and local governments, the U.S. Constitution does not provide for a mechanism to remove a bad President (as opposed to a criminal one). In short, the U.S. Constitution does not provide for recall of the President; essentially, every four years, the American people have the ability to remove an incumbent President (assuming he or she is not term limited) or retain him or her in office. Impeachment is only available if the President commits "high crimes and misdemeanors", which I believe were meant to address criminal wrongdoing in office (treason, stealing from the treasury, etc.) and not what is usually termed political wrongdoing. I recognize many who support impeachment will disagree with me on this point, but as bad an actor as Bush 43 has been, I believe his wrongdoing has been political rather than criminal--terribly misguided ideology that has cost us and innocent Iraqis terrible suffering and billions of dollars in squandered capital. While Senator Kucinich has laid out what he believes are criminal violations involving lying to the American public and an assortment of crimes involving violations of international law, I don't believe that U.S. Presidents, even those who are as incompetent and ideologically stubborn as the current President has been, should be convicted for taking action that is essentially political in nature. For example, if every President who mislead the public in connection with sending Americans into armed conflict were the subject of impeachment, then FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Reagan, at minimum, would be subject to that charge. I think that's a bad precedent to set for future Presidents.

2. Exacerbates partisan political climate. In my view, we've been unable to address many of the nation's most pressing issues (health care, climate change, energy independence, immigration, security net, among others) because our representatives, like the American people, are locked in a partisan fight to win at all costs, with all give but take on either side. Introducing impeachment in this environment would make this situation even worse, and doom any chance to pass legislation on a bipartisan basis. In fact, one of the core themes of Barack Obama's campaign is to change the nature of political discourse away from uncompromising partisanship to one of increased communication and cooperation; I'd hate to see us run counter to that theme with an effort to impeach a lame duck President that is sure to trigger ideological warfare (and in my opinion, ensure a much larger turnout in November by Republicans who would otherwise not vote due to disaffection with their own President and party).

3. Alternative to Impeachment. If the primary purpose of impeachment is to hold this administration accountable by using the process to disclose the wrongdoing (which I believe it must be since I don't believe there is any credible probability the President would be impeached and removed from office), then the Democratically controlled Congress could accomplish a similar result by holding hearings on any number of what impeachment supporters would otherwise regard as impeachable offenses: the lead up to the war in Iraq, the misuse of intelligence to sell the war, the use of private contractors and their relationship to Bush administration officials, the firing of the U.S. attorneys, the unforgivable response to Katrina, and the violation of constitutional and human rights, among others. There have been some hearings, but had the Democratic leadership focused on this approach I believe we could have accomplished much the same objective without the problems associated with impeachment.

As I mentioned above, I respect the heartfelt opinions of those who support impeachment; I would hope that they would respect mine and understand that my opinions, while different, are equally heartfelt and not the result of apathy, a lack of patriotism, or a lack of courage (charges that seem evident in a number of posts challenging those, like me, who don't support impeachment).

[Caretha]

19. No, I don't believe

that your opinions aren't equally heartfelt and not the result of apathy, a lack of patriotism, or a lack of courage , but that they are based on a lack of either not paying attention to what has been attempted by Congress or some sort of attempt at obfuscating. No, it doesn't make me question those things that you mention (I call those things straw-men, meant to say "look over here, don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain"). It just makes me wonder where the hell you've been for the past 2-3 years, and prior to that when hearings were forced to be held in the basement, and what the hell is your agenda. Because your solution that you stated in point #3 has been attempted over and over and over again by Congress. Most of us who were/are paying attention haven't let that slip down some damn memory hole.

You said the Democratically controlled Congress could accomplish a similar result by holding hearings on any number of what impeachment supporters would otherwise regard as impeachable offenses: the lead up to the war in Iraq, the misuse of intelligence to sell the war, the use of private contractors and their relationship to Bush administration officials, the firing of the U.S. attorneys, the unforgivable response to Katrina, and the violation of constitutional and human rights, among others. There have been some hearings, but had the Democratic leadership focused on this approach I believe we could have accomplished much the same objective without the problems associated with impeachment.
.

You do of course realize that this administration has told Congress that they will not be held accountable and to just for-get-about that "oversight" thingy granted to Congress by the US CONSTITUTION. They have ignored EVERY subpoena issued, by claiming executive privilege when asked to testify about the above misdeeds. And when in the past they sent a toady to testify, the standard response was, "I don't recall". Which makes your paragraph 3 simply a waste of bandwidth and an exercise in wasted time writing it, and wasted time by everyone who read it.

I have come to the conclusion that everytime someone such as yourself tries to run another piece of shit up-the-flag pole to see if it will fly, that it is now my patriotic duty to point out the blatant errors, whether it is "equally heartfelt and not the result of apathy, a lack of patriotism, or a lack of courage" or something else more sinister.

[maui9002]

20. Why the attack?

While I enjoy this board (and only found it recently), I'm just a bit disappointed that some feel it necessary to engage in less than civil discourse. This is not the first time I've been questioned about my motives or asked "where the hell have you been" as if I've been blithely sailing along without a care in the world and ignorant of what has been happening. There are plenty of Democrats who disagree with you, even if a majority of those who post on DU support impeachment; I don't, the OP asked why, and I tried to respond in a civil, reasonable way so that those who disagree with me would at least understand why I believe what I do. If your purpose is just to rail away at those with whom you disagree, you achieved your goal. But if your purpose is to rally others to support your views, questioning their motives, asking where the hell they've been as if they're ignorant, and calling them blatantly wrong won't get you there.

As for the substance of your post, I'm disappointed that the current Congress has not been more forceful in the hearing process; I'm well aware of the hearings that have occurred, as well as the stonewalling by those called for the hearings. All I can say is that I'd push the envelope harder in this area; if Pete Seeger can be indicted and sentenced to jail for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about his affiliation with the Communist Party, then this Congress should be able to force any number of Bush administration officials to testify (or take the fifth) before Congress or hold them in contempt.

Peace be with you.