Skip to main content

According to anti-Impeachment "realists" here, we shouldn't even try to Impeach Bush or Cheney.   Most Democrats in Congress agree.  They tell us we can't Impeach because Bush's liars, right wing nitwits, Neocons, media hacks, and thugs in Congress won't let us.  These "realists" don't state their anti-Impeachment position that way, of course, they prefer to say "we don't have the votes", it sounds so much better than admitting they are advocating craven and shameful political expediency at the very time tens of millions of Americans are begging for decisive leadership from Democrats.
   
Thanks a lot, anti-impeachment "realists".  The democracy-destroying criminals you are so afraid to Impeach have created a lethal concoction of ANTI-REALITY, and you are rewarding them for it:

"We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.  We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

In case you haven't noticed, judicious anti-Impeachment "progressives" and Congressional Democrats, that "reality" you're so willing to accommodate is a sickening spectacle of coldly-calculated and ruthlessly-implemented right wing INSANITY.  

How much longer are anti-Impeachment people here and Democrats in Congress going to be complicit in this insanity?  Are you ever going to wake up, or are you too busy admiring your pissy pants "realistic arguments" to notice that using this anti-reality pervading Alice in Wonderland D.C. as the basis of your "arguments" against Impeachment doesn't make you realists, it makes you I-D-I-O-T-S.    

You are reinforcing this right wing insanity by accommodating it.

STOP.

DOING.

THAT.

With pompous arrogance, one of you dismissed Turkana's powerful diary as a "straw man argument."  Apparently, the half a million Iraqis killed because of Bush/Cheney lies are just straw men in an "unrealistic" argument for Impeachment.  Turkana's long list of Bush/Cheney crimes, abuses of power, obstructions of justice, torture, spying, corruption, and American soldier killing criminal incompetence must have been just a bunch of abstract words on the monitor screen of that snickering anti-Impeachment "progressive".  We were admonished to dismiss all of that crime and corruption and catastrophic carnage as unworthy of consideration compared to his/her comment thread post of 8 anti-Impeachment talking points Karl Rove would have been proud to have written.

Am I pissed off?  You're fucking right I'm pissed off.

But hey, I'm not saying anti-Impeachment people here aren't performing a vitally important service.  Someone has to advise caution so our wild-eyed radical rabble-rousing Democrats in Congress won't go too far.  Any day now, Harry Reid might climb up on a tank in Lafayette Park and summon a million people into the streets of Washington to overthrow these BushCo hardliners, so keep those words of caution coming, anti-Impeachers, it may be the only thing preventing an unruly mob of Congressional Democrats from marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House with torches and pitchforks.        

Until we see that on CNN, people here who accuse Impeachment advocates of being unrealistic need to take a long look at that surreal, Orwellian, lie-infested "real world" they're using as their "justification" for opposing Impeachment.  Then they need to take a long look in the mirror so they can see what a "progressive" without a shred of self-respect looks like.

Here are a few basic facts they seem to be in need of reviewing: The Constitution is REAL.  The authority of the House of Representatives to initiate Impeachment proceedings is REAL.  The pervasive and ongoing crimes of Bush and Cheney are REAL.  The death and destruction they have inflicted are REAL.  The majorities Democrats have on the House Judiciary Committee and in the House of Representatives are REAL.  The oaths of office they all took to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution are REAL.  The moral obligation they have to honor their oaths of office is REAL.

You like reality, anti-Impeachers?  Good.  I just gave you a big plateful of reality to chew on.  Swallow every bite.  Digest it.  Until you do, don't even bother coming into this diary thread.  I have better things to do than refute "arguments" over and over again from people who don't have any arguments left, but for some bizarre reason still think they do.    

The realities I just emphasized are the realities that MATTER.  They are the realities Democrats in Congress need to act upon.  The mindless anti-reality these right wing extremists have concocted and spread throughout the Beltway in order to immunize their war criminal president and vice-president from Impeachment isn't worth pissing on, much less accommodating, as these anti-Impeachment "progressives" and most Democrats in Congress would have us do.    

I am advocating Impeachment because it would not only be defending the Constitution, it would be defending reality itself.  Both have been under assault by right wing extremists for more than a decade. They seized power by distorting reality, they're maintaining their power by distorting reality, and they will never stop distorting reality throughout our government and media until their crimes are exposed, proven, and prosecuted through Impeachment.  

Impeachment hearings and debate in the House of Representatives would be highly publicized, the evidence presented would compel national attention.  Republicans in Congress would no longer be able to hide behind slogans like "support the troops" or "fight the terrorists", they'd have to vote either for or against enforcing our laws and our Constitution.

And maybe, just MAYBE, Impeachment coverage would finally pound some REALITY into the thick skulls of that 41 percent of Americans who STILL think Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11.  Impeachment would be a WAKE UP call on issue after issue after issue to a nation that needs to WAKE THE HELL UP before it's too late.    

Democrats may never again have an opportunity like this.  They need to seize this opportunity to demonstrate political courage, strength, and decisive leadership, or be damned once and for all by tens of millions of Americans as craven politicians who will never take a stand.  

Opposing Impeachment is unconscionable and irrational.  The "intelligent arguments" anti-Impeachment "progressives" and Congressional Democrats claim to be making all rest upon ACCEPTING AND BEING RESTRAINED BY the surreal and irrational political conditions imposed upon us by a pack of strutting right wing lunatics with the blood of half a million innocent people on their hands.    

From a moral perspective, you should all be mortified and ashamed of yourselves, anti-Impeachment "progressives" and Democrats.  I have been, am now, and will continue to condemn this monumental idiocy you call "being a realist".

From an activist perspective, if progressive bloggers, here on Daily Kos and other Netroots sites, do not keep the pressure on Democrats to do what's right and Impeach, who will?

Their D.C. consultants?

Rahm Emanuel?

Joe Lieberman?

From an historical perspective, when is the last time Democrats took a stand for what's right and did not back down?  People here who accuse me of being an attention-seeking Democrat-basher need to answer that.  They need to answer it honestly, and then they need to STFU about "Democrat-bashing".

From a legislative perspective, if there is no Impeachment, Bush and Republicans are going to veto and block bills for the next 18 months, slander the 110th as a do-nothing Democratic Congress, and will have a real chance of regaining a Republican majority in 2008.

It's time for a confrontation, Democrats.  It's time for a showdown.  It's time for Impeachment hearings.

I post diaries here because I believe progressive activists are the conscience of the Democratic Party.  I believe Impeachment advocates are the conscience of Daily Kos.
I believe that American democracy will be beyond redemption if this criminal president and vice president are not held responsible in Impeachment proceedings for the horrific and pervasive damage they have inflicted on our nation and the world.

If they are not Impeached, a fatal precedent will have been set, unlimited executive branch power will be beyond challenge, and our last chance to restore government of the people, by the people, and for the people to America will have been squandered.  

Support Impeachment.

Help end Bush's occupation of Iraq.

Please Sign the Pledge.

Originally posted to Rusty1776 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:44 PM PDT.

Poll

Why are Democrats refusing to Impeach?

5%72 votes
6%87 votes
15%207 votes
4%62 votes
68%915 votes

| 1343 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Impeachment Hearings Tip Jar (403+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JD SoOR, Rebecca, enaud, PeWi, Louise, chautauqua, xerico, opendna, Alma, SteveLCo, keirdubois, miriam, tundraman, ferg, eleming, copymark, areucrazy, Pen, TrueBlueMajority, MontanaMaven, Dave the Wave, rincewind, jabb, mrhelper, steviemo, billlaurelMD, LionelEHutz, OLinda, darrelplant, Earwicker23, Pluto1618, Pompatus, LesIsMore, bubbles, route66, autoegocrat, elial, blksista, frisco, Meandering Fox, RFK Lives, mataliandy, givmeliberty, dinazina, expatjourno, Gareth, HighSticking, angryandy, km4, super simian, RandOR, conchita, riverrun, Wee Mama, amsterdam, anotherCt Dem, elveta, maxschell, Mlle Orignalmale, Porfiry, Dburn, Balonius, moiv, rickpickett, RobLewis, roses, JuliaAnn, Ignacio Magaloni, DavidHW, Fe, thingamabob, Terre, rioduran, bejammin075, kharma, slippytoad, caseynm, dejavu, Dube, normal family, averybird, BurnetO, Dittoz, nancelot, TexDem, oldjohnbrown, gobigblue, electiledisfunction, etorrey, RaulVB, exiledfromTN, Rico, churchylafemme, jpeskoff, Fernando Poo, penguins4peace, Chirons apprentice, On The Bus, drangel, AbsurdEyes, wecandoit7, papercut, Mrcia, rlharry, sommervr, ProsaicPill, Pohjola, Rxtr2, stringer bell, deep6, Panda, Donna in Rome, peterj911, glattonfolly, WV Democrat, YetiMonk, randallt, shadowplayer, Divertedone, Man Eegee, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, ScienceMom, Steven D, edavis, Little Red Hen, rmx2630, Marc in KS, Dave Brown, colinm, Humboldt Jodi, greeseyparrot, cohe, skippythebox, nailbender, Karma for All, fijiancat, Ken065, Pokerdad, radarlady, farleftcoast, Tinfoil Hat, Strat, DianeNYS, Jeffersonian Democrat, blueyedace2, vtfinest, rimstalker, JanetT in MD, unclejohn, Pym, ek hornbeck, Tonedevil, PBen, PsychoSavannah, corvo, Jersey Girl, gmoke, KnotIookin, leftvet, elkhunter, Simplify, Valtin, Jotorious, zbctj52, Kdoug, david78209, volballplr, ejsmom, Turkana, foxklub, Lepanto, owlbear1, Spoc42, romperstomper, majcmb1, dopealope, Existentialist, jimreyn, dunderhead, GreyHawk, sheddhead, lotlizard, Little Lulu, illyia, bmaples, babatunde, simultaneous contrast, rolandzebub, deep, rb608, ADamiani, walkingshark, NewCon06, Shotput8, kitchen table activist, FightTheFuture, wiscmass, Lisa Lockwood, Dave n Indy, playtonjr, Ekaterin, abben, empathy, Sigh, psyched, Erevann, rerutled, mightymouse, viscerality, Asinus Asinum Fricat, Jim P, DisNoir36, WuChier, dus7, Topaz7, Shirl In Idaho, trashablanca, gwilson, BalanceSeeker, Do Tell, Debbie in ME, Keone Michaels, ainwa, vigilant meerkat, BlueInARedState, ActivistGuy, Arabiflora, cookseytalbott, Prognosticator, buhdydharma, deha, fromer, mango, Nestor Makhnow, ejbr, carolita, greenearth, Sassy725, Hobbitfoot, blueoasis, bess, Fraggle, Flippant to the Last, 4Freedom, nonnie9999, dskinner, gatorcog, nilocjin, hypersphere01, Data Pimp, DumpDoolittle, slandurgurl, FireCrow, Terminus, FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph, NearlyNormal, plf515, armadillo, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, Zwoof, gabriella, Potus2020, Demena, feduphoosier, Dinclusin, bonesy, justiceputnam, mang glider, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, suspiciousmind, Stripe, RantNRaven, The Scoutmaster, zedaker, CunningBlogist, jjellin, Vengent, Mr Horrible, kurious, bstotts, Autarkh, Friend of the court, Temmoku, NativeOak, kml, sea note, sasher, illusionmajik, sdgeek, BentLiberal, Timothy L Smith, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, tonyfv, Dave the Rave, Shasta Dad, fisheye, out of left field, bluicebank, YD, lostandconfused, Buckeye Hamburger, Feeling Blue, ibonewits, Susan Something, xaxado, dotsright, donnamarie, khereva, EclecticFloridian, feline, SomeStones, SparkleMotion, Cottagerose, godislove, celticmuse, uniongal, ricsec7, offgrid, cfaller96, vets74, Catrina, JeremyA, DvCM, lynmar, CTDemoFarmer, Nespolo, Ticonderoga, Jimdotz, ezdidit, deepeco, DWG, tahoebasha2, Privateerkev, NoMoJoe, redhaze, progressivevoice, netguyct, TheCorkBoard, The Angry Rakkasan, jhop7, pioneer111, PrgrsvArchitect, MadAsHellMaddie, 2ajpuu, Got a Grip, electric meatball, ImpeachKingBushII, tj iowa, Andy Lewis, Captain Nimrod, Bikemom, craiger, Starve2Act, wuod kwatch, Empower Ink, jgilhousen, MKinTN, slade7, Zero Carb Rob, nom de paix, rogerdaddy, davewill, Spoonfulofsugar, DW Dawg, Shahryar, American Daughter, rjones2818, wayoutinthestix, scooter in brooklyn, Chilean Jew, Indy Justice, marchtoimpeach, galaxy33, Cat Servant, UncleBuck, wagdog, Residentcynic, winchelenator, beltane, Greasy Grant, robroser, peaceloveandkucinich, Mind That, Lujane, ronny mermaid, MrJayTee, brione, landogriffin, nsaneone, Serpents Sorrow, lettuce kucinich, Chimpolitic, banger, Chomskyface, meldroc, vanyel, o the umanity, barz9, iowa67, venger
    •  Rusty, Rusty, Rusty, how well we know this! (66+ / 0-)

      Thanks for propounding reality once again!

      There is something so insidious and damnable that is going on!  Has the whole nation turned into "wusses?"

      What in God's green earth has so cowed Congress and the Senate that they can witness, see, and allow all that we know is so completely the "reverse" of anything that this country has stood for and does stand for and not seek the ultimate condemnation of their disposal?  

      This country, in my view, is on the verge of "disposal" -- surely, there are one, or some that will come to its rescue -- we hope, Rusty, we hope!

      Come visit our activist site and get involved! SoapBox4Truth.org

      by tahoebasha2 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:13:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hi Tahoe! It's good to see you! We need to (21+ / 0-)

        dispose of Bush, Cheney, Gonzo et al before they dispose of us.

        •  Rusty, reality is that these -- sorry, I can't (27+ / 0-)

          find the right words, depraved, barren evil SOB's have set themselves up in our government as "corporate entities" to prey on any nation, situation of their choosing, not least of which are American people, themselves.  I don't know what in the hell it takes to wake people up --  I know you are trying -- but the apathy of American people is appalling.  Of course, they will scream when it starts to affect them personally, if it has not already.

          I sent an e-mail out to a long list of people re the IM project and not one, not one, has yet to sign up.  I know that all of these people care, but what is the problem?  Apathy?  Fear?

          This country is in real sad shape, Rusty -- as you know, an understatement!

          Come visit our activist site and get involved! SoapBox4Truth.org

          by tahoebasha2 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:26:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You described them well. (10+ / 0-)

            I'm grateful for all the progressive activism you engage in with such determination and spirit, you're one of my heroes, Tahoe.

            •  Aw, shucks, I was unaware! (8+ / 0-)

              We all gotta' stick together, my favorite AH (<;)</p>

              Come visit our activist site and get involved! SoapBox4Truth.org

              by tahoebasha2 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:45:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you, Rusty, I appreciate that! (9+ / 0-)

              In reality?  I am disturbed!  I am actually torn apart.  I am at a total loss to understand the acquiesence of our Congress and our Senate, as well at that of the American people.  There is something wrong with people that they don't understand that every single one of will be affected -- long range!

              What is about this country that has to learn everything the hard way!

              Come visit our activist site and get involved! SoapBox4Truth.org

              by tahoebasha2 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:13:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Keep speaking out on ConyersBlog, Tahoe. (9+ / 0-)

                You do a great job there, you've been doing a great job there for more than two years now.

                Keep speaking truth to power, Tahoe!

              •  Rusty forgot one thing on his poll (26+ / 0-)

                If they Pursue impeachment , no more black tie dinners and expensive deal making lunches.

                That's a huge sacrifice that you , Rusty, YOU , are asking them to make. It just isn't fair. They have been put out to pasture for 12 years. They've had to ask Republicans for travel money. They've been waiting to be back in power to have those lunches and get their offices back. By forcing the impeachment issue Rusty, you are denying them their God-Given right to benefits befitting the majority party that only those in Washington get.

                That is the reality. It's K street. It's powerful people giving them false respect. It 's the gifts and the sweet promises of the future. Polls? Nothing to see there. Move along. Our district is safe.

                They really don't care about oaths and promises unless it's something that directly concerns their future careers. The ones that do care are laughed at, ridiculed and ignored.

                Once again they feel invulnerable to sudden and unexpected 1994 like change because they feel superior not only to the previous occupants of THEIR offices but to you Rusty and those who would agree with you because we don't know the way Washington works. They do. So they come on here to tell us to STFU. Not because we are wrong but because we are fucking with their promised land and they don't like that.

                Can you hear them?

                "Goddamn Bloggers again. Who has Blogger duty tonight. Shit. It used to be so easy."

                So Rusty ya gotta understand, If they did the right thing and it went wrong, they'd have to look for a job  from a position of weakness. They just can't take that chance because they honestly believe their own press: 2008 is a lock. They believe it.

                There is so much more to being in the Majority that we don't see and aren't meant to see. We would just never understand it so instead the Vote counters and The Realists do the best they can to  marginalize us believers in the right thing to do as the militant left.  

                Stand aside

                The panic will start a year from October

                Then all we can do is say "Fuck em"

                Because I know that no amount of pleading or badgering are going to move these people. They come on here not to debate and possibly change their position. They come on her to discourage. I'd almost be willing to bet it's being incorporated into staff job descriptions.

                Sorry to be Negative. But there is no daylight between these people and their GOP counterparts. The competition between them and the GOP is not about US citizens rights. It's about power. The only way it will change is to clean all of them out.

                Say Impeach LOUD. They need a wake up call. You can't nose-flick em. Do the next best thing

                by Dburn on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:51:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It appears that our govenment feels it way beyond (13+ / 0-)

                  and above all that you say!  They no longer consider themselves as "representatives" of the American people WHO pay them to represent us (I don't think they ever did).  We NEED to get this across to them -- they are not, nor will they ever be a unity separate and apart from the American people.  This is where EVERYTHING has gone wrong!  Since when and how is it that our "so-called" government is calling all the shots and the Americans, thus far, have NO VOICE?   But the thing is, WE THE PEOPLE, DO have a voice -- we only need to become more vociferous and ACTIVE!  Enough of "laissez faire" mentality period!

                  Come visit our activist site and get involved! SoapBox4Truth.org

                  by tahoebasha2 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:05:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not even artificial light (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Humboldt Jodi, viscerality

                    It's all in the answer: "Bullshit". No substance. No argument. Almost like "Go fuck Yourself". Same shit , different day

                    Say Impeach LOUD. They need a wake up call. You can't nose-flick em. Do the next best thing

                    by Dburn on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:22:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What is the point then? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Superribbie

                      What is the point in calling for impeachment if there is no daylight between them?  Revenge?  Why bother at that point?  Impeachment is at its core a mechanism for transfer of power and it really makes no sense to go to the trouble of making that transfer of power if the people you want to empower in the process are exactly the same as the people you say you want to get out of power.  That is about the only argument against impeachment that would actually resonate with me - if I actually believed that there was no daylight between them that is.

                      •  The process of impeachment separates (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Karma for All

                        the Wheat from the Chaff in the Democratic party. If there really is a two party system and the daylight  is being covered by Blue Dog Democrats or just plain lack of leadership, then the process will clearly identify if there are enough Democrats currently elected that are aligned with the party platform and stand for the Rule of Law and against Tyranny.

                        The success or failure of this Impeachment is not clearly defined by the ability to convict the Bush crime Family. There are other factors that makes it helpful to voters to decide who needs to go and who needs to stay to bring back a viable two party system and reinstall the checks and balances that our founders envisioned. It also serves to see how close we are to a Fascist state.

                        FYI: I made a polite impassioned pleas to Madam Speaker last night. It comes down to

                        Country before Party
                        Country before Elections
                        Country before All other Political considerations

                        That equally applies to the Republicans too. They know they have a group of law breakers in there. We also know that the splintering of the party from just conservatives to this radical fringe is not complete. Are there Republicans in power that still believe in their platform also?

                        This gives a large percentage of the country a chance to hear the charges and then to see if their respective representatives our in the same party that they claimed they were in. Or a new one that is being formed as Cheney is forming his fourth branch.

                        Finally consider this: With the blatant law breaking that is going on in plain view with apparent impunity, if Impeachment proceedings don't commence , what are the odds that the 2008 election will even occur? Do the lawbreakers (once lawmakers) really plan to leave themselves exposed to criminal indictments after they leave office? I admit at one point I didn't see that happening as others on this site warned about the possibility. Tin hat and all that.

                        But with Cheney's recent actions, The Washington Post article, Gonzales, The Oil Revenue Sharing bill and the myriad of other scandals, I now have a hard time believing that this gang will leave themselves exposed to the discretion of Federal prosecutors should the country turn away from this road it's heading down.

                        They may not be able to run a govt, but they have stolen billions in plain view very competently. I see no reason why the outsiders that helped plan all this is not also helping to plan for the protection of their people and their gains.

                        Say Impeach LOUD. They need a wake up call. You can't nose-flick em. Do the next best thing

                        by Dburn on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:45:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  The right thing to do (11+ / 0-)

                  is to prosecute criminals under the law.

                  Why hasn't this happened yet? That it has not suggests that it really isn't just about "power/status quo", but also about fear.

                  If so, what could they be so afraid of?

                  Oh, I dunno, perhaps the thought of losing all those nice, cushy benefits is the motivator here ('their due', as it were--admittedly, some folks are so shallow that money is the yardstick by which they measure everything). Or maybe some of our friends on the left are not quite the friends we think they are, and stand to gain further from the current status quo (provided it's left unchanged). It wouldn't be hard to pull off a "two-faced" act, since MSM seems to have gone AWOL on the American public.

                  One could even suppose that there's a possibility that some of those same good friends (and probably more than a few media voices) on the left came home from work the day before the vote to end funding for the war on Iraq, and found notes or voicemails from some anonymous entity, conveying a vague, yet friendly reminder that those "anthrax perps" are "still at large".

                  Feh. Call me CT if you will on that last, I really don't care. This ain't your daddy's buncha tyrants; they make the Nixon administration look like the VonTrapp family, and I put nothing, I mean nothing, past them.

                  They must be stopped NOW, if for no other reason that if they could trash habeas corpus, think of what they could do to the Impeachment Clause, given any more time.

                  "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

                  by o the umanity on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:52:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually (4+ / 0-)

                    I have been wondering how many of those illegal wiretaps were made on the telephones of members of the Democratic Party. I'm sure that a lot of them have washing they would not like have laundered in public....

                    •  I hear that! (0+ / 0-)

                      But really, unless we're talking about "kiddie porn" or something equally hideous, I really can't think of something so bad that I would rather enable traitors to our government than have whatever it is revealed.

                      If "sacrifice for your country" is good enough for the military, then it is damn well good enough for Congress.

                      "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

                      by o the umanity on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:14:51 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  What's so hard to understand? (0+ / 0-)

                Impeachment entails large political risk.  Bush in office offers political rewards.  It's a classic carrot-stick situation.

                I don't oppose impeachment by any means, but you'd have a hard time convincing me there's any scenario where Congress will pursue it.  Half the sitting Dems are complicit in a whole bunch of Bush policies.  I think most of them would rather run a cheese grater over their tongues than vote for impeachment.

                Not that we should stop pursuing it, but the notion of getting there is falling from pipe dream to pure fantasy.

                Yay! The top 1% likes us better now!

                by freshair2 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:57:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  maybe (0+ / 0-)

            they think you and rusty do not deal with reality?

            Reality does not mean cave or give in... this is what you and the rusty types seem to think I and others are advocating.

        •  NO question about it, Rusty! People NEED (13+ / 0-)

          to understand this and quit believing their is a "tooth fairy."  Their ain't no tooth fairy and their ain't no one gonna' rescue us (as far as we know) -- apathy has got to go in this country -- people need to think beyond their little nucleus and their "me, me, me" attitudes -- this mode of thinking is part and parcel of why this abomindable adminstration has thrived and existed.

          Come visit our activist site and get involved! SoapBox4Truth.org

          by tahoebasha2 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:42:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree, Tahoe, the apathy and selfishness of (6+ / 0-)

            average Americans have been exploited by Bush and the RePugs.  They're masters at it, and we're all suffering the consequences.  

          •  A - O.K., OPOL! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alma, blueoasis

            Thanks for that!

            Come visit our activist site and get involved! SoapBox4Truth.org

            by tahoebasha2 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:47:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I am totally amazed at my grammatical errors! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alma, blueoasis

            In the comment above, obviously, it should have been "there" in place of "their" in most instances!
            Foregive, please, reaching brain dead status!

            Come visit our activist site and get involved! SoapBox4Truth.org

            by tahoebasha2 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:49:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  the only people here (5+ / 0-)

            engaging in magical thinking are the ones who act like impeachment is a magic wand that's going to make everything you want.

            Part of me would like to see the House impeach Bush, just to watch the catastrophic disappointment among you people when Bush skates out of the Senate smirking his chimp grin all the way, and how after all that, nothing will have changed. Nothing Bush has done will be set right, he will face no consequences for his actions, are chance to prosecute him after he leaves office will be harmed, if not made impossible. and the United States Senate will have put a big ol’ stamp of approval on his failed polices.

            I will laugh my ass off as all you delusional fools come on here screaming and hollering and crying at the injustice of it all. And I damn sure will say "I told you so."

            So have at it Nancy, break the drawer open and take out Article 2. Sec. 4. Let's impeach the bastards. I'm tired dealing with people who won't even consider any view point besides their own. I'm willing to roll the dice, let's see who's right.

            The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

            by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:08:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The only delusional fools around here (6+ / 0-)

              are people like you who think that doing nothing will be better and that in January 2009 all things will go back to normal.

              •  You have no idea (6+ / 0-)

                what you're talking about. And if you read my other posts on this thread you'd know I don't think that way.

                Part of the reason I'm against impeachment, dead set against it at this point, thanks in no small part to diaries like this one and the myopic people who rec them, is because it will make fixing things hard.

                You are so set on "getting" Bush that you are not seeing the big picture. Impeachment will change nothing. Bush isn't afraid to let his poll numbers drop into the low 20's, he certainly isn't going to be scared of articles of impeachment that have zero chance of resulting in conviction. He'll do his own version of that SNL sketch after Clinton was acquitted where Clinton walks up to the podium and says "I. Am. Bulletproof!" and walks away. Except he’ll have that damn chimp smirk when he does it. Because he knows he’ll have just won.

                The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

                by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:35:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nothing? (4+ / 0-)

                  You have no idea how silly it looks to others when those of you pining for that "ironclad case" put the cart before the horse.

                  You can't have a conviction without a trial!

                  I can't say it enough: make your case--and it CAN BE MADE, clearly--and you will get your votes. Even wingnuts aren't that stupid. They will not support a proven criminal.

                  If they do, then they're either completely blind to the law--and they will pay for that in the end, when they're tossed out of public office for life--or else they're being threatened by someone or something very, very influential, even more influential than our own Constitution.

                  "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

                  by o the umanity on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 05:04:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  aw c'mon! the outcome of every case is known (4+ / 0-)

                    before any trial! just turn on the teevee!
                    /snark

                    hearings.
                    investigations
                    evidence or contempt of congress
                    impeachment
                    conviction
                    arrest.

                    it seems ironclad to me.

                    Impeach them already, for crying out loud! How many laws do they have to break?!?!

                    by netguyct on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 06:37:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  ha ha ha ha (0+ / 0-)

                    "Even wingnuts aren't that stupid. They will not support a proven criminal."

                    yeah, hehe.  I'll be laughing at that one for a while!

                    •  heh...well (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Karma for All

                      perhaps I give them too much credit.

                      But really, if the wingnuts on the right side of the aisle support a proven criminal, IMO, chances are outstanding that whatever term they're in now will be their last, once the voters have their say.

                      Low-key hearings and subtle case-building will let those wingnuts continue to mask their criminal enabling of BushCo.

                      Impeachment proceedings, OTOH, will not allow them to do so.

                      Make these bastards support the acquittal of these traitors ON AN IMPEACHMENT RECORD, if they're inclined to do so. I'm willing to bet they won't, not if they don't wanna give up all their cushy perks. They'll fold like your granddaddy's accordion and you'll have your votes to convict.

                      If the vote fails to convict, the American people will take care of the rest. Believe it.

                      "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

                      by o the umanity on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:09:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Will you please post a link (0+ / 0-)

                to someone who said this on DKos?

                doing nothing will be better and that in January 2009 all things will go back to normal.

                Thanks in advance.

                "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

                by Boston Boomer on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 05:12:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, here's what jumps out at me (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Karma for All, o the umanity

              You wrote:

              Part of me would like to see the House impeach Bush, just to watch the catastrophic disappointment among you people when Bush skates out of the Senate smirking his chimp grin all the way, and how after all that, nothing will have changed.

              You want to watch the catastrophic disappointment amongst your bretheren?  You're not a dem while Bush skates free?  This is the only reason you'd like to see Bush impeached?  To watch your allies' efforts be smashed by Chimpy?

              Wow.  Just Wow.

              ending the Iraq War will be the greatest struggle of our lifetimes.

              by Humboldt Jodi on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:45:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  "What in God's green earth has so cowed Congress" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leftvet, rb608, Mad Kossack

        They aren't cowed, they are doing the job the Establishment has chosen them to do. One of two conditions will bring about impeachment:

        1. The Establishment decides it needs to be done

        or,

        1. The American people rise up and demand it.

        We need to cow Congress and the Establishment.

      •  call me a cynic... but I think they want the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cometman, ghengismom, Mad Kossack

        power once and if they regain the white house.

        What they don't realize is that once Caesar is on the throne it is going to take a bit more then words to get him off of it.

        •  The problem (3+ / 0-)

          Once the throne is built, it doesn't matter who occupies it. The temptation to use all that power will be almost overwhelming. I could easily see Hillary or Romney equally enjoying the almost unlimited power that they would have.

          Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
                                                                                                Lord Acton

          •  And given the nature of politicians nowadays? (0+ / 0-)

            there are a whole lot of them just waiting to wallow in the corruption... as the old TV commercial used to say "you're soaking in it"

            If they stay on this course I fear that eventually we may have no other choice but to take the last remedial action left to the public and it involves rope...

      •  When one reads: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Karma for All

        "We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.  We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

        all the scheming BushCo has had in the works to control the media, the DOJ, the DOD, the Legislative Agendas with it's avoidance of Oversight, and now.... the VP as "FourthBranch" (WTF????), makes all the sense in the world. The "Anti-Reality" statement above unveils the BushCo Mission undertaken that has brought us to where we are. No two ways about it.

        I am glad you re-connected us with the reality we need to act on. Thank you Rusty1776.

        BushCo continues throwing out crumbs for Dems to follow to divert and distract them from the real issue, thier lies, contempt and crimes against humanity. The Dems should not stoop to pick up on anymore trail crumbs. None.

        I can't say it any louder: IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

      •  Presidential power is a key issue for 2008... (21+ / 0-)

        It's one hell of a lot more important than Edwards's haircuts or Obama's 2Q fundraising.  It's an issue that I really don't see being discussed.

        We all know that Rudy is a man in search of a balcony.  We also know that Fred Thompson's views checks and balances w/ a Cheneyesque disdain.  What about the Dems, however?

        Deep down, I suspect that HRC likes what W/Cheney have done to enhance executive power.  While Obama may not share that enthusiasm, he doesn't seem to be that worried about the ongoing aggrandizement.  I really don't recall Edwards addressing the issue.

        At the next debate, every Dem should be asked about signing statements.  They should be asked about FISA.  They should be asked about Abu Gonzales's frontal assault on the rule of law.

        These core questions desperately need to be asked.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:29:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  disagree, tins, and fundamentally (9+ / 0-)

        I read your diary, and here is the crux of it:

        ...how do we stop it {another Bush-like disaster} from ever happening again?"

        The answer - and I am amazed that you don't see it -is Impeachment.  Impeachment isn't just about getting rid of the criminals in power, or exacting long overdue justice, or burnishing our tarnished global reputation, or boosting Democratic chances in 08.  If it was about those things, then yes, you are right, it isn't the core issue.  

        But you miss the fundamental reason to Impeach a criminal gang that has made a shambles of the Constitution and a laughingstock of the Republic: to obliterate any vile precedents that they have established - precedents which will endure and indeed poison our nation for generations if Impeachment doesn't proceed.

        Remember that Nixon was only almost Impeached.  Dick Cheney has been plotting the reaquisition of Nixonian power from the day his old boss stepped down.  Nixon lost that power because his crimes were exposed in the Impeachment hearings, but Cheney was able to reaquire it, and then some, because Impeachment (and then criminal conviction, thanks to Ford's pardon) were denied a  nation.  

        That never should have happened and we can't make that mistake again.  And now we seem to be confronting true socio- and psychopaths that won't likely back down as the realist Nixon did, so our chances of making a clean slate of it are very good.  We owe to our grandchildren what our parents denied us: a political exorcism of the spirit of tyranny from our body politic.

        Again, I quote your diary:

        ...how do we stop it {another Bush-like disaster} from ever happening again?"

        Answer: Impeachment.

        Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

        by nailbender on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:15:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i address that in the diary (4+ / 0-)

          did you really read it?  We're not going to impeach them for pulling a Unitary Executive--we're likeliest to impeach them for obstruction of justice of some point or other, like with the Attorneys thing or the lies about wiretapping.

          Impeachment will serve as a warning against outright lawlessness--NOT against the principle of the Unitary Executive.

          •  I did read it, and found it unpersuasive (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All

            The charges in the Articles of Impeachment will contain many Constitutional abrogations.  The Unitary Executive is a philosophy of government that says that the Executive branch is not bound by Constitutional strictures.  Unless all violations of the Constitution are avoided in those Articles (and they stupidly hew to misdemeanors like Katrina and VA mismanagement) then the Unitary Executive concept will be slapped down, a priori.

            For instance, UE says that it is fine to nullify the 8th Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment if the President deems it necessary.  Gitmo, Padilla, Lindh, and a host of other cases are examples of that unconstitutional exercize.  If those charges are brought (and I don't have time this am to go into all the other examples from other parts of the constitution), the UE precedent will be obliterated.

            Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

            by nailbender on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:36:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Impeachment with conviction (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Superribbie, Boston Boomer

          is the only impeachment worth a damn. And even then that in and of itself won't be enough (not that it wouldn't be a big start).

          I'm going to use your post in the future when I talk about people who believe in impeachment being a magic wand.

          The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

          by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:29:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  wrong. (5+ / 0-)

            Impeachment is a protracted global media event.  It is a cavalcade of criminal detail, paraded on the eveing news for weeks on end.  It is an airing of dirty laundry that will smell from Barrows Alaska to Buenos Aires Argentina.  It will be the official record of Bush Gang Depravity and Constitutional Disregard.  That was why Nixon cowered at the propspect and why Clinton was able to endure it (due to the triviality of the charges against him).  The charges this time are as non trivial as they can possibly be and they will resound down the ages, if we can get them in the from of an offical indictment.

            So, with that as a backdrop, imagine the pressure on all Senators to convict, and imagine the stigma that will attach to any who refuse to convict.  If conviction isn't obtained (and remember that an acquittal can still occur with a 66 to 34 vote, which would be a pillorying), then the permanent historical stigma of the Bush cabal will attach itself permanently to whichever Senators are morally bankrupt enough to side with the nation-wreckers.

            And the Congressional indictment and the record attached to it will stand as a warning sign to all who proceed to Pennsylvania Ave.  

            And if Impeachment isn't even attempted, then the prospect of another Bush is gauranteed.

            Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

            by nailbender on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:22:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And when Bush walks out of the Senate (0+ / 0-)

              And is still president, he will have once again humiliated us in front of the world. At a global media event no less.

              The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

              by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 04:52:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  IF and when Bush walks out with a bogus (0+ / 0-)

                'innocent' ruling, only the willingly fooled will be under the impression that he is innocent, and the official detailed laundry list of his crimes and malfeasances will be there to stand until civilization itself collapses.

                He cannot humiliate us.  We can only do that to ourselves by failing to stand up to his depravity.  Our shame will come from a few of his cronies ignoring the facts and giving him a pass, it will come from us giving him a pass.

                Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

                by nailbender on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:21:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  and trhanks for distributing my post. nt (0+ / 0-)

            Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

            by nailbender on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:37:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What is it about impeaching Bush = exposing the (0+ / 0-)

            corruption of the Republican party that you aren't understanding?  

            •  The corruption of the Republican party (0+ / 0-)

              Is pretty well exposed. We don't need to vindicate Bush to expose it further.

              The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

              by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Really, is that why he's having tea with Nancy? (0+ / 0-)

                The Democrats are risking the appearance of complicity for no good reason.

                •  OMG (0+ / 0-)

                  It's the Syria flap in reverse. This diary has brought out the absolute worst in people here. How many other rightwing talking points are you people going to appropriate?

                  The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

                  by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 06:41:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  thanks for your kind words (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Karma for All

                    If this is Impeachment advocates' "absolute worst," we must be fucking saints.

                    You're too kind.  

                    And speaking of Syria, I wonder if Nancy will be asking Bush whether we'll be sending any more rendition victims to them for "tenderizing?"

                    It may not have occurred to you, but she didn't go to Syria to collaborate with Assad; that's what she is doing with the Criminal in the Rose Garden.  

                    But you're right, it is silly to make fun of a tea party with the Worst. President. In. Fucking. History.  That is something that just makes fun of itself.

                    Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

                    by nailbender on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:40:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, it's a rightwing talking point to point (0+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hidden by:
                    kovie

                    out that Bush and Pelosi are working together.  But enabling Bush is not a problem for you.  

      •  What scares me most (8+ / 0-)

        about impeachment, and what it's advocates just seem totally oblivious to, really goes to what you’re talking about. The two talking points about the Senate are A) the votes will be there after hearings (not likely), or that B) impeachment with out removal is enough. Both, particularly the ladder, seem to be forgetting the opposite of removal is... acquittal. If that happens, the United States Senate will be saying, in effect, Bush did nothing wrong (ha!), or at least nothing rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors (double ha!), and  this will be used by future presidents to justify the same or similar actions.

        With out impeachment, a future president intent on following in Bush’s footsteps will have the following to think about: Bush is now at 26% approval and barely has the political capital to get an immigration bill out of the Senate, do I want to go there. Bush wasn’t impeached because the he enough support in the Senate to withstand it no matter what, do I have the same support. The answers to both are not likely to be in the positive.

        The people who are intent on impeaching Bush come hell or high water are not looking at the long game. Fixated on Bush, they do not generally recognize that we’re not at war with one man, even one administration. We are at war with an ideology that is going to use every opportunity in the next ten years to try to spin George Bush’s disastrous legacy into something that doesn’t totally discredit it. I can think of no better gift we could give our enemies in that fight then a failed impeachment.

        And anyone who thinks I'm over stating this needs to look at the right's efforts to rehabilitate Nixon’s image over the years. We're past Bush already. They're fighting the long war, why aran't we?

        The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

        by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:18:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're the one missing the big picture.... (5+ / 0-)

          Do you really think that by waiting Bush out, that will ensure that noone ever tries this kind of thing again?  If he's not held accountable, I guarantee you someone worse will come along.  History practically guarantees it.

          The Constitution was written for a reason.  If the laws of this country mean nothing and do not need to be enforced, why even bother with the charade that we actually have a democracy?

          If you can admit wrongdoing by the Bush administration, and yet think actually holding them accountable is the wrong thing to do, then you are also part of the problem in this country and a threat to its continued survival.  

          Over the course of history, democracy has been the exception rather than the rule among governments.  I'm pretty glad we have one here, however imperfect it may be.  If you want to keep it, you need to fight for it.  If you aren't willing to do that, then get the hell out of the way of those who are.

          The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

          by cometman on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:49:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I absolutely do not think (0+ / 0-)

            Waiting Bush out will make sure no one tries his shtick again. I think waiting him out and then prosecuting him criminally will prevent it. Instead of wasting time on impeachment, we should be focused on getting Democratic presidential candidates to agree to some sort of investigation of Bush’s activities post facto (anything from a criminal probe to a blue ribbon committee, either way it’s going to end up in a court room with Bush on trial). Impeachment, successful or not (and as I’ve explained several times, it won’t be successful), will make criminal prosecution almost impossible (since the media coverage of impeachment will likely let anyone from the administration pull an Ollie North).

            We also need to get the next president to agree to immediately unseal Bush’s papers. That would be an extraordinary step, but for a president with the political will to do it, they’re be no way to stop him. Bush could try to go to court, but his own unitary executive theory would bite him in the ass, since if there’s one place the executive power should be unitary, it’s presidential papers.

            Impeachment is a game where the deck is stacked against us, the dealer’s crooked, and the cards are coming from the bottom. We need to look for other avenues to attack from.

            The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

            by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 05:41:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Karma for All

          The two talking points about the Senate are A) the votes will be there after hearings (not likely), or that B) impeachment with out removal is enough. Both, particularly the ladder, seem to be forgetting the opposite of removal is... acquittal. If that happens, the United States Senate will be saying, in effect, Bush did nothing wrong (ha!), or at least nothing rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors (double ha!), and  this will be used by future presidents to justify the same or similar actions.

          Of course this begs a question: What message does refusal to consider impeachment, for what are pretty clearly constitutional violations, because it isn't politically expedient, send? Doesn't such a course of action simply skip over the intermediate steps if investigation, trial, and vote, and jump straight to tacit approval?

          Just impeach 'em already.

          by itsjim on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:27:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, just like they're saying Clinton did (0+ / 0-)

          nothing wrong and that whole blow job thing was hardly noticed by anyone.

      •  Hey I missed that diary. (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks for the link.

        "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

        by Boston Boomer on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 05:16:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You lost me, Rusty, with your (6+ / 0-)

      "Bumfuck Idaho." Thanks for the slam at Old timer, myself and other progressives in Idaho.

      I think, therefore I am, I think.

      by mcmom on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:59:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. But only after the Dems and some Reps... (0+ / 0-)

      ...get us the HELL out of Iraq!

      Then impeach away!

    •  YOU ARE PATHETIC (7+ / 0-)

      demeaning this debate into Rovian Republican slurs, derogatory name calling and baseless defamation simply because some of us disagree with your perception.

      The only reality articulated and proven here is how Conservative you behave and become towards your fellow progressive Democrats who simply disagree with your impeachment assessment.

      Shamefully pathetic.

      Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

      by dcrolg on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:16:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A world become one, of salads and sun (0+ / 0-)

      Only a Fool would Say That.

      A Boy with a Plan, A Natural Man
      Wearing a White Stetson Hat

      Sorry, I don't particularly like being baited by someone on an issue I basically agree with. So you get my favorite Steely Dan quote.

      The numbers ain't there. I still think they should do it. Just don't expect miracles.

      "Shake my left hand, man, it's closer to my heart." - Jimi Hendrix to Robert Fripp

      by The Lighthouse Keeper on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:44:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just for the record there's more than 1 way... (8+ / 0-)

      ...to "skin this catfish":
      It's in the Jeffersonian Rules for Impeachment:

      In the NOTE: Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House.  
      There are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion:

      [First way] by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member
      or Delegate
      (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536);

      [2nd way] by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a
      committee for examination
      (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543);

      [3rd way] by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to
      a committee
      (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873);

      [4th way] by a message from the President[House Speaker] (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498);

      [5th way] by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469)

      [6th way] or territory
      (III, 2487)

      [7th way] or from a grand jury (III, 2488);

      [8th way] or from facts developed
      and reported."

      Yes, in REALITY, they are still the REAL rules! Seems the WILL to do it is the only ingredient missing from the formula. Now if we can only find that elusive critter.

      "Our past patriots are spinning in their graves. Did they all die for this tyranny?" Change Course. Change Captains. Change crews. But save the ship!

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:49:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Superribbie

        The reality is that when impeachment proceedings are introduces on the floor of the House, no matter how they got there, an impeachment resolution must be voted on.  If the House leadership refuses to back it, it will almost certainly fail.  If the resolution passes, there is still the supermajority needed in the Senate, which could not even pass a no-confidence vote on Gonzales, nor pass a bill on timelines for Iraq.

        Goldfish is right---if Bush can't be removed from office, then a Senate trial is a win for Bush, something that he can hold up and say "See, I was right!"  And the increase in power of the Executive goes on, and on.

    •  Good post (5+ / 0-)

      Nice to see that impeachment is still remembered as being a viable option.  Thank you for putting it back on the frontburner.  Too bad that one of DailyKos's biggest "impeachment concern trolls" happens to own the site as well.  Makes it difficult to operate in such impeachment hostile territory.  Hostility towards the very idea of impeachment is one of the many reasons why I am not a Democrat.

      Impeachment is acting on the belief that people should be held accountable for their actions.  

    •  Hear hear! (6+ / 0-)

      Give em hell!  Somewhere out there, Molly and Harry Truman are nodding and smiling.

      I'm all over the precedent.  That is one of my most fervent arguments... that, and the impossibility of putting our broken Constitution back together again, once Congress had decided it isn't worth defending.

      If you see a crime being committed and you refuse to take any action, you are complicit. You are obstructing justice and betraying the public trust. I believe a case could be made that congressional Democrats' unwillingness to take action when faced with mounting evidence of executive lawlessness, and with the very real danger that we could fall into a dictatorship with little or no warning, is in and of itself 'treasonous.' It is also obstruction of justice.

      Both are impeachable offenses.

      Are these fighting words? You betcha.

      These people swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and we should all hold them to that oath -- we sent them to Washington, there are there at our pleasure.  I don't care how many lobbyists they think they serve.    

      I hope Lincoln's ghost kicks Nixon's ghost around the Oval Office at night. Petition to impeach Gonzo - http://www.commoncause.org/ImpeachGonzales

      by feduphoosier on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:53:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm (0+ / 0-)

        If you see a crime being committed and you refuse to take any action, you are complicit. You are obstructing justice and betraying the public trust.

        Just out of curiosity, are you advocating Seinfeld finale style Good Samaritan laws?

        Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire -8.25, -6.51

        by Superribbie on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:27:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  June 27th, 2007, RIP the Reality Based Community (5+ / 0-)

      Being in touch with reality used to be a mark of pride among members of this community, even if that reality was painful. Now apparently, that quality is to be mocked and scorned as "enabling."

      Oh, and shame on you for your hideous "if you're with us or against us" appeal in this diary. It’s absolutely shameful and atrocious for you to accuse those who don’t adopt your pet approach to dealing with Bush of being enablers. That is absently wrong, in this place of all places, where many of us came to escape and build solidarity against those sorts of attacks by the right that you would adopt their bullying tactics of intimidation and division. You are doing grievous harm to cause by adopting that approach and if there was justice in this world you would shunned by this community for it.

      If you think anyone who doesn’t support your pet project of impeachment, any one who offers objections, or reservations, or alternatives is your enemy, then bring it the fuck on, because I’ve stared down way tougher cookies when they called my honor and my patriotism into question with the kinds of abominable fallacies you’re peddling. The progressive movement has no place for that sort of demagoguery. I’ve fought against absolutism for too long to let it gain a foot hold here.

      If you want to start a war with people who don’t see things your way, then go for it, but maybe stop in think about how that energy could be put to better use.

      Shamful, shamful diary.

      The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

      by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:01:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Should we throw off the shackles of British rule? (5+ / 0-)
      Nah, we can't win, so there's no point in trying.  Let's just consolidate our positions and see if the next monarch is any better.

      --

      The President is not my master. He is Chief among my servants.

      by DemCurious on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:15:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  High Crimes ... I signed yesterday. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karma for All

      If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.

      -Barbara Jordan delivered 25 July 1974, House Judiciary Committee

      The wheels of justice grind slow but exceedingly fine.

      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. -George Orwell Iraq Moratorium

      by ezdidit on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:42:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  All things in good time. Heart surgery time.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Superribbie

      Cheney has no chance of surviving through the summer.

      The WaPo pieces define High Crimes. That is not accidental.

      There is also a general understanding that the man has a screw loose.

      This is not made better by his heart medicine.

      Reid and Pelosi have built a working coalition with Midwestern Republicans. Lugar and Voinivich are taking point, striking for reversing Iraq policy.

      After Iraq, Cheney.

      The common objective of this NEW COALITION is to reduce the religious hypocrites' influence over both the GOP and national policy.

      Jefferson and the Dixie Chicks. Imus and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

      by vets74 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 04:45:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You can support impeachment this weekend.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karma for All

      in person in Kennebunkport, Maine.  If you're in the Northeast, come give Georgie a piece of your mind on July 1st.  For more information, check out this site: http://maineimpeach.org/

      See you there with your fist in the air!!!

      The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

      by cometman on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:32:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Forget impeachment (0+ / 0-)

      Hang them for war crimes all-fu$%#ng-ready.

      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

      by gatorcog on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:39:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  RE (13+ / 0-)

    Any day now, Harry Reid might climb up on a tank in Lafayette Park and summon a million people into the streets of Washington to overthrow these BushCo hardliners, so keep those words of caution coming, anti-Impeachers, it may be the only thing preventing an unruly mob of Congressional Democrats from marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House with torches and pitchforks.

  •  impeachment by any other name still stinks (6+ / 0-)

    if you impeach bush, cheney becomes president.  if you impeach cheney, bush gets to appoint kissinger.  if you impeach both at the same time it becomes a coup.  from my angle, all these options are bad.

    1. Awakening of Capital. 2. Meeting of cars and aeroplanes 3. Dining on the terrace of the Casino 4. Skirmish in the oasis.

    by neontrace on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:47:29 PM PDT

  •  I think your anger is misguided. (29+ / 0-)

    If, for example, all the readers of this site were polled by, say, Zogby, we would be about 99% in favor of impeaching the whole lot of them.

    Don't confuse the desire to see these people impeached with the skepticism that it will happen in the time left in W's term, and the vocalization of this skepticism.

    I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid. Relentless!

    by ablington on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:47:35 PM PDT

    •  I will add... (22+ / 0-)

      ...this type of impeachment diary, the one that gets angry at the people who have some skepticism is frequently nothing more than an excuse to rail on people who may actually respond to you, as opposed to railing at a politician and getting an auto-reply. It's classic transference.

      We're all mad at our government. I guess dkos is the dumping ground for those feelings.

      I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid. Relentless!

      by ablington on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:04:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The skepticism only exists (12+ / 0-)

        because of the fear of negative repercussions of attempting to impeach. Why else would you be so skeptic?

        It is precisely this kind of skepticism, and reluctance to stand up and Scream "I Will no longer be silent" that enabled and continues to enable the BushCo Cabal to destroy America.

        •  Read ablington's original post again (14+ / 0-)

          Don't confuse the desire to see these people impeached with the skepticism that it will happen in the time left in W's term, and the vocalization of this skepticism.

          Or, I'll try explaining it thus:

          I support impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Gonzales.  I view it as necessary and I do not fear any negative repercussions.  Quite the contrary, I doubt there would be any serious ones, and they would be far outweighed by the positive repercussions.

          I am, however, skeptical that impeachment will actually happen.  I think some of the Democrats in Congress are afraid of negative repercussions - which is different from being afraid myself, please note - I think some of the Democrats in Congress feel the clock will run out before the impeachment process is finished, I think some of the Democrats in Congress prefer to let the clock run out, I think Nancy Pelosi is worried about being accused of performing a coup solely to make herself President, and I think the Republicans in Congress don't want to take down their president, VP and attorney general.

          See the difference?

          •  exactly (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny rotten, PsychoSavannah

            just what i've been trying to say.  which is to say, the reasons listed above are not meant to excuse the Dems for dereliction of duty.  they just add up to the current situation at hand.  the fact is, other than the blogosphere, many of us are really politically homeless, and we don't have a real party representing us.  a real party would have had the papers in hand and ready to serve the SECOND the election results came in.  the Dems themselves were actually surprised to win!  they were quite sure they'd be trounced, yet again.  when they weren't, the media and the Republicans were able to, incomprehensibly, immediately put them on the defensive about how "radical" they would or wouldn't be, and to say that they had no mandate and no real public support.  and the next day it wasn't just Dems in Congress repeating these notions, it was the whole ignorant country (minus us PH [politically homeless] folks).  no, unfortunately, the Dem party is the best we've got at the national level, but they are a strategy-less, amorphous bunch of "me me me-ers" who get a little taste of power and let themselves think that people actually give a flying fuck about them and their little petty points of view.  so we end up with "blue dogs" who despite being in the party which has just been elected to end the war in Iraq, hold out any support for the policy unless they get tons of fucked up pork concessions which make the legislation laughable.  we get excuses as to why we should help the Republicans further force abstinence-only education onto innocent children facing a world of potential problems.  we get a ridiculous "dry powder" argument against filibustering fucked up SCOTUS judges and the actual, real, live repealing of Habeus Corpus!

            it is truly astounding that the left can get themselves as coordinated as we are now, with a platform like the internet where we establish consensus and then convey it on to our elected representatives - and the result is just largely ignored.  we're doing these clowns' work for them for free!!!  and they just waste it!  oh believe me I understand being angry at the Dems.  but i'm still just a few orders of magnitude angrier at the Republicans who hate what this country really stands for, and who can't rest thinking that "those people" out there might actually use the power given them in the founding documents of this country.  and they are many, but most, short of the big R, have been depleted.

            what if Giuliani, Thompson, or Romney is elected?  what will we do?

        •  There are loads of reasons to be skeptical about (7+ / 0-)

          this ever taking place that have nothing to do with fear in any way.

          I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid. Relentless!

          by ablington on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:43:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not a dumping ground, a launching pad (7+ / 0-)

        Otherwise, why bother, right?

      •  But the theory is that impeachment will come (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, DiesIrae, rjones2818

        about if people just yell for it enough.  So you're getting yelled at.  

        Is it working?  Well, to this extent...very few  comes to one every day impeachment diaries and voices any skepticism.

        December is the new September.

        by Inland on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:31:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Transference (6+ / 0-)

        Good catch. I was trying to figure out what this was. Not projection, though. Stridently pro-impeachment people have their hearts in the right place. It's just that politics is a dirty business and the "right" thing isn't always the smart or doable thing. Or, at least, not at the moment when one wants to do it. I want to impeach, but I think that the way to do it is to let investigations play out. 4-6 months from now the dynamic is likely to be far different, and much more conducive towards impeachment--especially if they don't budge on Iraq, which of course they won't. Repubs will be furious at them and throwing around the "I" word. They're slowly realizing that it's them or Bush/Cheney.

        •  Sure, wait one more Friedman unit.... (4+ / 0-)

          and everything will be hunky dory.  And we'll all get unicorns!!!

          The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

          by cometman on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:15:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As opposed to what... (0+ / 0-)

            go for it now and have it soundly fail, which it will, accomplishing nothing and wasting our one and only chance to take them down? You "impeach now" people posit just one possible way to go about this, rejecting all others as cowardly, which is why no one takes you seriously and finds you to be so self-righteous and odious.

            Not only are you unrealistic, but you're offensive and anti-democratic too. Don't you see how by ramming this "impeach now" nonsense down everone's throat, you're engaging in the sort of "I'm right and am a better person than you for it" invective that we usually see on the far right? If you believe in this approach, fine, go for it, but stop insulting people who don't agree with you or implying that they're do-nothing cowards.

            I would remind you that when one becomes so convinced that one's approach is the only correct one and that anyone else's is weak and cowardly and even traitorous, and treats others as such, one becomes a mirror image of the worst qualities we tend to see on the other side. Try to wrap your head around that one.

            And as for the "substance" of your comment, it is inherently dishonest as it implies that we simply wait and do nothing. You either haven't read my MANY comments on this, or chose to conveniently ignore their content to make a specious point. I have repeatedly stated that I want aggressive investigations, and that after 4-6 months of them--and ONLY after that--could realistic impeachment be possible. If you don't think that that's necessary, fine, that's your prerogative, but don't just make stuff up and put words in my mouth. And cut out the self-righteous insults. It undermines your credibility.

      •  actually, I have quite a bit of anger toward (6+ / 0-)

        the Democratic 'leadership' because of their failure to protect the Constitution by Impeaching those who have shredded it.  It is really that simple and it isn't the anger I feel toward the criminal cabal that is still engaged in those crimes.  It is a different anger, tinged with confusion and mounting disgust.  It is not transferrance or whatever.

        And,yes, I also have a fair amount of anger toward Democratic 'activists' who feel the need to enable that cowardice.  We are in a crisis situation and the failure to acknowledge that, even after prolonged exposure to the ravages of the criminals in question, is what drives that anger.

        However at some point, you will be glad to hear, people who understand the gravity of a 5-alarm national emergency that has been allowed to burn out of control quit yelling for people to "grab a bucket and get in line;" at some point they just put their pails down and, through a curtain of tears, watch the old girl burn to the ground.  

        When you stop hearing folks like Rusty yelling, as comfortable as that silence might make you feel, you might just want to peek at your pants to see if they are on fire.

        Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

        by nailbender on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:21:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  well, if that's what he's doing (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Superribbie, scrutinizer, mspicata

        It worked. I've taken this crap from enough rightist bastards, I'm not going to take it in reverse from the progressive camp.

        I don't try to start flame wars, but oh boy, when someone out and out delcares war on me, I will bring a good damn flame thrower.

        Calling someone a Bush enabaler for no other reason then a disagreement over tactics is fighting words, make no mistake.

        The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

        by Goldfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 04:25:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I support H Res 333 (37+ / 0-)

    H Res 333 is the impeachment bill brought forth by Dennis Kucinich to impeach Dick and then go after W.  Where are the other candidiates on this?

    Go Dennis and co-sponsors!
    Kucinich 2008

    Trust no organizaton bigger than two, and even those are suspect!

    by rjones2818 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:47:59 PM PDT

  •  Ah Rusty - it appears to be a long haul to get (24+ / 0-)

    from here to impeachment, but in Vermont we are working on it.

     title=

    And we plan to keep at it!

    •  I get up every day, watch the news, throw up (29+ / 0-)

      awhile, and then ask:

      WHAT.

      THE.

      FUCK.

      DEMOCRATS????

      Impeach!

      Impeach SOMEBODY!

      Gonzo . . . Cheney . . . Bush . . .

      PICK ONE and DO IT!

      •  Slamming your fist and throwing a tantrum (8+ / 0-)

        ain't gonna get it done.  

        •  And apparently, neither is being diplomatic, (27+ / 0-)

          or asking nicely or giving our time and money to get good Dems elected.

          "...the Edwards folks do not endorse Brittany's crotch."

          by Pager on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:59:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Being silent will? (10+ / 0-)

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:00:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who said anything about being silent? (9+ / 0-)

            We'd be better to get tough legislatively and opposed to engaging an impeachment attempt of Bush or Cheney that is doomed to fail.  When the Blue Dogs, for instance, are told by their constituents that You had better not try to impeach the commander-in-chief duing a time of wa because you're endangering the troops, you'll find that the Dems don't even have the votes to impeach in the House, let alone enough to convict.  Then, marginl Dems and your independents will wonder why we wasted all that time, only to find that Bush and Cheney were, in the end, exonerated!

            It'll be like a prosecutor lsing his case before the grand jury.  Bush and Cheney skate and we lose the middle.  Oh, that'll be perfect.

            •  Actually, if the (8+ / 0-)

              whole fetid mess is laid out before the American people, all of the lies and misdeeds and broken laws, the only way Dick or W would skate would be if the Repugs stuck with them.  The middle would run away from that in a second.

              Trust no organizaton bigger than two, and even those are suspect!

              by rjones2818 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:13:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Bush and Cheney (4+ / 0-)

              will never be exonerated.

                •  So you'd rather gamble that they'd get off and (6+ / 0-)

                  justice wouldn't prevail.  Maybe it's cynicism behind this point of view, and if it is, why bother at all participating in government at this point?  I honestly don't get it.  If there is no room for truth anymore, why freaking bother.

                  •  I'm not saying (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    musing85, YellowDogBlue, vcmvo2

                    that politics is not worth participating in.  I'm just saying there are better ways to participate than in the fools errand of trying to impeach Bush and/or Cheney.

                    •  Truth (6+ / 0-)

                      Where is it in your equation, in your strategies, and where is real justice, and when you do not have these, once again, why even bother?

                      •  There's the heart of the matter. (4+ / 0-)

                        when you do not have these, once again, why even bother

                        Yes, either civic virtues and powers are a real part of the people and political culture, or it's just unbridled gangsterism.

                        I mean, if the oath of office for Federal office is a joke, then why do ordinary people go to jail or incur unshruggable duties when they take oaths? What? The "Real People" know the Public Good is a fool's game and the rest of us little people are assholes, our lives can be changed forever by a minor or major failure?

                        I ain't volunteering my children to play Eloi to their Morlock. Which is closer to the real game going on that our leaders seem to acknowledge.

                        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

                        by Jim P on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:15:54 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Exactly. I cannot believe there are this many (6+ / 0-)

                          people willing to say "this is just the way that our government is going to be, we can't do anything about it without playing a bigger game."  That might have worked for lesser issues, but we are killing and being killed people, this is the time when you get really serious about things in the human experience that matter, like truth and justice.  God help us, I don't know what else to say to people that continue to think gaming is the way to go on this.  

                    •  So to you, adhering to the Constitution (6+ / 0-)

                      is a fool's errand?? Seriously?

                      Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

                      by Catrina on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:11:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And anti-Impeachers wonder why I'm so blunt (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Karma for All, Jotorious, Catrina

                        and fed up with them . . .

                        •  Actually, this one wonders... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          itsbenj, PaintyKat

                          ...why you never answer her questions with a straight answer, but must always resort to insults.

                          No... that's not true. I don't wonder. I think I know.

                          •  I answered all your questions (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty1776

                            Line by line, point bu point, quoting you and responding to each quote.

                            You then accused me of not reading your post.

                            Is it any wonder why people insult you?

                          •  I did respond (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            You called me a "misguided soul", told me I don't believe in justice, said that my opinions have no value, and suggested that I'm a closet Republican. Perhaps you don't think that is an insult. Maybe you think it's a compliment.

                            Everything you wrote to counter my post could be summarized by saying "But that isn't true". You never once said why it isn't true. It's opinion vs. opinion. You don't respect my opinion enough to actually counter it. I did write an 8 point summary of why impeaching Bush is pointless, with facts. As far as I know, you ignored it.

                          •  you responded by saying I hadn't read (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty1776

                            what I had just gone line by line through.

                            Everything you wrote in your post was speculation and opinion.....

                            Yet you stated is fact.

                            So yes I ignored, anything after that.

                            If you blast me, which you have I blast back......if you post your opinion as gospel, and then I take the time to respond and then you say I haven't read what I just responded to  and THEN accuse me of not taking you seriously......I don't take you seriously.

                            I will show your posts just as much respect as you show mine....you showed mine ZERO.

                            What do you expect back?

                            Every argument you have has been addressed in my diaries....go read them.

                          •  To put it another way (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Karma for All, Rusty1776

                            after 6 months of thinking and writing about impeachment and exploring every aspect of it.....

                            You coming along and giving your opinion in a confrontational fashion is NOT going to sway me.

                            Especially when you ignore what I write and post the same tired talking points I have been addressing for six months.

                          •  Present a fact, and I'll counter it (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat
                            1. What charges will we impeach on? It has to be something clear cut, not some interpretation Bush made that we don't agree on. He has stretched the boundaries of the presidency, but whenever the courts told him he had gone too far he stopped that particular "crime". He lied to the American people, but this isn't a crime. If it was, every president would be impeached. He never lied to congress under oath, becasue he refused to be sworn in. So, what specific charge will he be impeached on? And it has to be something that can be directly tied to Bush, not one of his lackeys. He can't be impeached for someone else's crime.
                            1. How will impeaching Bush contribute to stopping the Iraq war?
                            1. How will impeaching Bush discourage other presidents from misbehaving? Convicting people of murder doesn't stop other murders. Convicting people of robbery doesn't stop robberies. Nixon resigned because he was facing impeachment. That didn't stop Clinton from lying under oath (and he did - it didn't warrant impeachment, but he did lie under oath).
                            1. How will we get enough votes to remove Bush from office, given that we don't even have a simple majority in the Senate and Republicans vote as a block on critical issues?  For that matter, how will we get enough votes to impeach, given that we can't get enough votes to reprimand Gonzales, a far less controversial decision?
                            1. Why is it good to distract people from the ongoing hearings into Republican corruption and focus them on the corruption of a single man who can no longer run for office?
                            1. What will impeachment provide that we aren't getting right now through hearings? Will the White House suddenly decide to release documents it currently refuses to release? Will the Justice Department suddenly become more liberal and start prosecuting Republican crimes?
                          •  read my diaries (0+ / 0-)

                            If you really care.

                            It is my impression that you jus want to argue, and I have better things to do than to argue with someone who dismisses me as you have done after I took a 1/2 hour to respond to your points last time.

                            Have a nice day.

                          •  I rest my case (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            You don't want to debate facts. You want to present opinions and then insult people who disagree with you. I was talking to my husband about why I post on these impeachment threads. Most anti-impeach people have long since walked away, realizing that their words are falling on deaf ears. That's why you think that everybody agrees with you. Because the ones who don't have given up trying to convince you that you're wrong. At some point, the Democratic party is going to split up into factions, and the right is actively encouraging this split because they know that it is the only way they can regain power.

                          •  I debated facts (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Karma for All

                            you said I didn't read your argument. Fundamentally disrectful and dishonest.

                            I have answered EVERY ONE of your points hundreds of times, but you don't care. You ignore that and want me to waste my time and hold your hand as if you were someone special, not just another Kossak.

                            You don't want debate, you want argument.

                            I suggest you find someone dumb enough to waste their time arguing with someone with a closed mind.

                            You are encouraging the split, diane.....right here, right now. Dkos is overwhelmingly pro impeach.

                            Deal with it.

                          •  I've put my arguments out (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            ...in numerous places. Some of them in the post you're responding to right here. You can't be bothered to counter them, nor have you every countered them. Instead you make up straw men to argue against. I never claimed that a majority of dKos readers weren't in favor of impeachment. That was never part of my argument. It is, however, irrelevant. I said that people who don't support impeachment by and large avoid diaries favoring it, giving you the impression that nearly everybody supports it. dKos is not the entire world. It is a major player in the blogosphere, but only a peripheral one on the world stage.

                            I'm not sorry that I'm wasting my time trying to get you to deal with the problems related to impeachment. I am only sorry that there is not a higher level of discourse on this site. Dealing with opposing views can be a wonderful way of refining our own views, if you're willing to open your mind. My views on impeachment have changed as a result of things I've read here, although I am still not in favor of it.

                          •  I have been dealing with opposing views (0+ / 0-)

                            for six months!

                            REALLY!!!!

                            Go read my diaries and you will see that...again EVERY point you raise is addressed.

                            I'll tell you what.....after I finish writing and tending mt new diary on Impeaching Cheney, I will TRY to come back and spend more time responding.

                            No offense, but you are one person, and my time is better spent on reaching the thousands of Kossaks and lurkers there, than going back and forth with one person.

                            Now excuse me, I have real work to do, instead of arguing with someone who won't put the time in to go read the hundreds of exactly the same arguments you have posted and my responses.

                            If you want my answers they are all there.

                          •  I'm looking forward to seeing the answers n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat
                          •  then go read the diaries (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Karma for All, Rusty1776

                            so you will be prepared.

                            Put the same amount of effort into opposing it that I have to support it, and perhaps we will not have to waste as much time going over the same talking points.

                            Start here... http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          •  Your straw man comment in Turkana's diary (0+ / 0-)

                            was despicable, dianem.  Are you capable of thinking AT ALL?  

                            It certainly doesn't look like it.

                      •  You might want to actually read it (5+ / 0-)

                        before leaping to conclusions like that. Seriously. You could sprain something.

                        There is nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress to impeach anybody. They have the option of doing so, but no more.

                        •  They are required to defend the Constitution (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          lotlizard, Catrina

                          They take an oath to do so.

                          When the Constitution is under attack by the executive branch they have the responsibility to impeach.  

                          This isn't difficult to understand.

                          It's called doing the right thing.  

                          •  Sorry, but no (4+ / 0-)

                            The Constitution does not prescribe any method by which anyone must "preserve, protect, and defend" it. They can use any tool in their arsenal. Impeachment is one of those tools, but hardly the only one.

                            Nice try, but not even close to the target.

                          •  Oh, let's "play" again, not! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Catrina

                            Impeachment is the only one for dealing with criminals in the white house.  Not difficult to grasp, once again.

                          •  Oh, really? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            Where is the grant of immunity from prosecution for the president in the Constitution? Members of Congress can't be arrested or put on trial for anything they say during the session, but even they can be arrested for other bad acts that take place outside the Capitol.

                            Seriously. You people should read the fucking manual before airily telling the rest of us what it says.

                          •  So which of these other tools would you suggest (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Karma for All, lotlizard, Catrina

                            be used?

                            First, let's be clear about what the target is. We need to set a precedent that blatant defiance of the Constitution will not be tolerated. The goal we are discussing here is protection of our form of government.

                            Now, given that goal, which of these and other tools would you suggest we use? You see, using the next year and a half to pass legislation does nothing to accomplish that goal. Investigations may serve a purpose but not ultimately accomplish that goal. The only thing that does accomplish that goal is impeachment.

                            Which of these other marvelous tools would you recommend? I await what can only be an ingenious plan.

                            We are all criminals until we restore Habeas Corpus, empty secret gulags, end torture and illegal wiretaps. (-2.25, -2.56)

                            by EclecticFloridian on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:11:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not going to play that game (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            I don't have to offer alternatives. Nobody pays me for my political advice; Congress-critters have plenty of staffers to do that. I'm merely pointing out a salient flaw in this diarist's argument, and those offered by his supporters.

                          •  You state there are other tools to use (0+ / 0-)

                            I am asking what those tools are. Can you name a few?

                            Or are you only going to play a game where you state these miraculous tools exist, but the rules don't require you to name them.

                            We are all criminals until we restore Habeas Corpus, empty secret gulags, end torture and illegal wiretaps. (-2.25, -2.56)

                            by EclecticFloridian on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 06:20:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As the entire exercise (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            was about what the Constitution actually said, perhaps you ought to go read it yourself.

                            But off the top of my head: censure, cutting off funding, and criminal prosecution all leap immediately to mind.

                          •  Criminal prosecution works, the others don't (0+ / 0-)

                            accomplish the goal of punishing defiance of the Constitution.

                            See, that wasn't so tough.

                            We are all criminals until we restore Habeas Corpus, empty secret gulags, end torture and illegal wiretaps. (-2.25, -2.56)

                            by EclecticFloridian on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:21:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thier oath of office requires them to (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Karma for All, Rusty1776

                            defend and protect the Constitution.

                            I swear to defend and protect the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic

                            Impeachment is mentioned six times in the Constitution as opposed to God or Corporations.

                            It's clear that preserving this democracy and protecting it from the tyranny of corrupt leadership was pretty important to the framers of the Constitution.  

                            Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

                            by Catrina on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:06:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  All of which still doesn't add up (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            to a requirement to impeach. You might also notice that the Framers made it pretty doggone difficult to do--which argues, persuasively, that they didn't intend for it to happen very often.

                          •  The provision is in the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

                            to be used when it is required. Of course it is not required without evidence of a crime. Is a prosecutor 'required' to issue indictments?  Only when there is evidence of a crime.

                            But when that evidence exists, as in this case, then yes, the requirement is implicit in the fact that the tool exists at all, and was thought important enough to include as part of the supreme law of the land, by the framers themselves.

                            Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

                            by Catrina on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:54:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Aha (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            Yes, a prosecutor is required to indict. Congress, however, is not required to impeach.

                          •  Actually you are wrong. A prosecutor is not (0+ / 0-)

                            required to indict and in many cases for different reasons, they do not. One example, a suspect who could be charged with a crime might not be indicted because the prosecutor can use him as a witness. Another example, if a prosecutor believes someone is guilty, but does not believe he/she can get a conviction. Or after a first trial if there is a hung jury, the prosecutor may decide not to re-try the accused.

                            Otoh, all decisions made by prosecutors are supposed to be made for the public good.

                            The same is true of Congress wrt law-breaking public officials. They may choose not to start the impeachment process, but if there is enough evidence to show that elected officials are harmful to the country, then they are required to do their duty, which is to defend the Constitution. They swore an oath to do so.  

                            Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

                            by Catrina on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:57:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Also (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            You left a word out of the oath. It's "...to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States..."

                          •  Well, thank you for that wording (0+ / 0-)

                            But it is not correct. Btw, I was paraphrasing from memory to make a point and not claiming accuracy.  

                            But since you brought it up and in the interests of accuracy,  there are several oaths, Presidential, Military etc. This is the oath taken by Congress which I was referring to:

                            Oaths of Office

                            I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[2]

                            You might have been thinking of the Presidential Oath when you used the word 'preserve':

                            I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

                            The Congressional oath is also taken by the VP and Cabinet members, and other civilian officers. And there are several different oaths for military personel and the different branches.

                            Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

                            by Catrina on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:24:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Please, don't worry about me, I'm a (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Karma for All, Rusty1776

                          figure skater, I'm quite agile and only jump when I know what I'm doing and where I want to land, but I do appreciate the concern.  

                          Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

                          by Catrina on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:42:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Like figure skaters never sprain (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            ankles or tear ligaments. Uh-huh. But that does explain your incredible naïveté when it comes to constitutional law.

                          •  Of course they sprain ankles (0+ / 0-)

                            and break bones etc. However they spend a great deal more time on the ice and comparitively speaking, break or sprain far fewer body parts than the average person who goes once or twice a year.  

                            Your unprovoked, snide initial remark, which had nothing to do with the subject under discussion, set the tone.  If you want to respond as you did, in such a childish manner, without any substance whatsoever, then expect to be spoken to like a child.

                            If I want to discuss anything of substance with someone who disagrees with me on this issue, I will look for people like StevenJoseph who can present his position with respect and intelligence as he did in this thread, or I will re-read Armando's excellent diaries on impeachment, even though I did not agree with him, he too presented his arguments substantively.

                            For those who prefer to act like children, they are best treated in the same manner.  

                            Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

                            by Catrina on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:33:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  The information that will be revealed during (7+ / 0-)

              impeachment investigations will be enough to secure the Democrat middle AND the Republican middle, how can you not have confidence in that at this point?  

            •  With that logic... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              averybird, Karma for All

              we will never put another person in jail in this country. After all, one of those jurors might vote to acquit, so why bother trying! Geez!! Does that make sense to you?

              Attention Waxman Staffers! Clean up on aisle 1600! huttotex 3/27/07

              by reflectionsv37 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:27:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Prosecutors often choose not to indict (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Superribbie

                based on the probability of whether or not they'll get a conviction.

                  •  A few reasons (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PaintyKat, buhdydharma
                    1. Prosecutors have a limited amount of time and resources.  They try to use them efficiently by bringing case that lead to convictions.  Likewise, their good relationship with the busy judges and local jury pools who have to hear the cases depends on the prosecutors not unduly wasting the judges and juries' time;
                    1. Some may actually believe in a variant of the maxim that "it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent one."  This view would require that they be reasonably certain of the defendant's guilt before bringing a case;
                    1. Prosecutors feel that bringing marginal cases that have a reasonable probability of ending in acquittal sends the wrong message: either they persecuted an innocent man or they publicly demonstrated that criminals can beat the system;
                    1. Prosecutors, like all lawyers, like to win.

                    I'm not sure how many of these are applicable here, but here they are.

                    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire -8.25, -6.51

                    by Superribbie on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:48:32 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes but (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      reflectionsv37

                      we only have three cases to try, and plenty of prima facie evidence.

                      I don't think this dog hunts re impeaching the criminal in chief and his band of merry co-conspirators.

                      •  Like I said, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PaintyKat

                        I don't know how many of those apply here.  There is an argument that since--unlike prosecutors--Congress does things other than bring impeachment cases, there is a scarcity of time and resources which prevents using them on impeachments unlikely to result in conviction.  The test balloon no-confidence vote on Gonzo underscored, I think, just how unlikely conviction is here.

                        Likewise, as Goldfish argues here, an acquittal by the Senate may serve to legitimize the actions of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales.  Obviously, as the O.J. verdict demonstrated, an acquittal is not the be all and end all for moving public opinion, but it would allow Bush to claim--as Clinton did--that he'd been exonerated.  

                        Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire -8.25, -6.51

                        by Superribbie on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:43:01 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          reflectionsv37

                          It is hard not to sound confrontational in this diary, I hope I didn't come of that way!

                          As far as this...

                          Likewise, as Goldfish argues here, an acquittal by the Senate may serve to legitimize the actions of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales.

                          All of the 'mays' and 'mights' are inconsequential compared to what is at stake, I refuse to let what MIGHT happen stop me from trying to do the right thing.

                          Until there is a might or a may that looks like a mac truck coming down the road at us, I can't take them too seriously.

                          So far neither the may of acquittal or the might of backlash is anywhere NEAR a big enough truck to not put these guys on trial for their crimes.

                          •  I'm fairly ambivalent myself (3+ / 0-)

                            but tend to analyze things the same way.  I agree, it is hard to be nonconfrontational on this topic.  You managed it well, and that is at least with me pretty effective.  I find that my personality is such that if someone is arguing like an asshole, I will take the other side and dig in my heels.  This diary is a perfect example of the type of demagoguing crap that would ordinarily turn me into a vocal anti-impeachment advocate.  I have found that I've argued pretty hard against impeachment on this board and just as hard for it in conversations with acquaintances.  At the end of the day, it stacks up like this for me:

                            Pros
                            --A feel good sense of "doing justice" whatever the result
                            --The possibility that the glare of the spotlight will amplify the malfeasance in the public eye past what run of the mill hearings create
                            --The possibility that this glare, in turn, might force Republicans in the Senate to come on board so that it is not a hopeless proposition
                            --It will galvanize the Dem base
                            --It will create a historical mark and, let's face it, there is no reason why history should record that Clinton was impeached but Bush wasn't

                            Cons
                            --It is unlikely that 67 Senators vote to convict no matter what the evidence shows
                            --The evidence that would be damning enough to get enough Republicans to think about flipping has not yet been developed and the Libby situation tells me that the White House will not let it come to light;
                            --Ultimately, you probably get a hodgepodge of possible perjury, obstruction, and conjecture about more;
                            --The process would take a fair chunk of time
                            --An acquittal does give Bush a chance to claim exoneration
                            --He is out in 18 months in any event, and whether there are any criminal prosecutions is a question independent of impeachment

                            Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire -8.25, -6.51

                            by Superribbie on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:24:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well said Superribbie!! (0+ / 0-)

                            But I'm still going with impeachment!! I think it has to be done!!

                            And you and Buhdydharma just showed what true, civilized debate is all about! A hat tip to both of you!!

                            Attention Waxman Staffers! Clean up on aisle 1600! huttotex 3/27/07

                            by reflectionsv37 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:54:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  But you assume things can't be different. (5+ / 0-)

              That's often a virtue, but in this circumstance it's a mistake.

              When the Blue Dogs, for instance, are told by their constituents that You had better not try to impeach the commander-in-chief duing a time of war because you're endangering the troops,

              Do you believe that's unanswerable? For one thing, you'd have to be certain that the constituents will force their Reps to NOT impeach. What I hear is that the southern military culture has never held a President in such disgust. Certainly Conservatives, Libertarians, and Independents all through America have fled the Republicans.

              But that aside...

              Here's a sample argument, which a pro could make much better, and with moving images.

              The Constitution is not a suicide pact. When the commander is drunk on power, despises the laws of this land, gets rid of everyone who tells him he's leading the troops into a no-win situation, has kept the troops understaffed, undersupplied, and underprotected, the first thing you do to fix it is to recognize that the commander is not faithfully executing his duty. And things are only going to get much worse. It was not the Founders' intention that one man could wreck America.

              Admittedly, not a bumper sticker. But that's what professionals are for. But you get the point, I'm sure--everything you say will or will not happen, assumes nothing changes when we start proceedings. Just can't ever agree with that approach.

              Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

              by Jim P on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:05:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  In your opinion, what would be the perfect (4+ / 0-)

              scenario,  to use this tool  for removing law-breakers from office?  What conditions are needed?  

              I ask, because I've read the thinking of the Founding Fathers on putting impeachment in the Constitution, and they did not lay out any conditions other than that an elected official be found to have committed crimes.

              They did consider the possible mis-use of the procedure. They considered every possible reason not to include it, and in  the end, decided it was needed and expressed their hopes that the people would see to it that the process would not be abused.

              So far, their hopes have been realized. Each time it has been used, (in two cases, as they feared, for purely partisan reasons) it has worked as intended. In the third, Nixon, it served as enough of a threat to cause him to step down voluntarily.

              So, since the FFs do not leave us a set of conditions that we must wait for before going ahead and attempting to remove criminals from office, what do you think we need to wait for when we are faced with a criminal take-over of our government as we are now?

              Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

              by Catrina on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:08:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  agree and disagree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              taylormattd

              if Dems attempt, it will fail.  but, and this is the big difference, people will sympahtize.  people will know they did the right thing.  when I say people, I mean that history will vindicate the attempt, even if it were to fail.  which it almost assuredly would.

        •  Well arguing against Impeachment sure as hell (7+ / 0-)

          isn't going to.

          Don't slander me, GOTV.  This is a diary, not a tantrum.

        •  If all you have is a Demonology ... (5+ / 0-)

          ... everything looks like a demon.

          We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

          by RonK Seattle on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:15:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Depends on the tantrum, the fist, and who is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast, Catrina, rjones2818

          throwing them.  We have seen the work of Bush's tantrum, where is the opposition?  

        •  But you do keep attempting exactly that. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rebecca, greenearth

          why?

          "2009" The end of an error

          by sheddhead on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:43:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  poopdoodle! (10+ / 0-)

          Slamming your fist and throwing a tantrum is EXACTLY how things get done!

          EXACTLY!

          Mothers against drunk driving? That was slamming your fist and throwing a tantrum.

          Protesting against the Vietnam war? Slamming tantrums

          Ralph Nader back when he stuck to what he was good at? Slamming tantrum!  "Unsafe at any speed" is a tantrum!

          Uncle Tom's Cabin is a tantrum!

          -----

          One thing sure....saying "it can't be done" won't get it done.

          Republicans believe government is the enemy. When they're in charge, they're right.

          by plf515 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:00:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bad comparisons. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PaintyKat, dianem, J Royce

            MADD, the Vietnam War protests, Nader's consumer advocacy, Harriet Beecher Stowe...

            Those things were effective.

            They made a difference.

            •  And they had their detractors from the beginning (0+ / 0-)

              telling them it would never work.  

              •  Please mark your calendar (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PaintyKat

                So you can come back and read your comment again 18 months from now.

                •  Will that make you happy, will you experience (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rusty1776

                  some sense of satisfaction if the war continues and no one calls for Bush and Cheney's impeachment for 18 more months?  If not, then what is your point?  Have you nothing better to do then to spend your time criticizing the passionate efforts of others?  Moreso, shouldn't you be off doing it or commenting on something you can be positive about rather than glibly commenting on the extension of a war that means an extension of daily death?  

            •  Yeah they did (0+ / 0-)

              but before they were DONE they made no difference.

              Republicans believe government is the enemy. When they're in charge, they're right.

              by plf515 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:07:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  actually the whole analogy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YellowDogBlue

              is nonsensical.  MADD is a political and social issue group which formed over time, gained influence slowly and made a difference by pressuring lawmakers through persuasion and raising public awareness.  nothing like an impeachment campaign which, according to people here, will just magically pop up out of nowhere and be successful because enough people want it to, no matter how we know people are going to vote about it.  the Vietnam war protests did not end the war!  the war continued to escalate long after the height of the protest movement.  it ended when the hawks were finally outnumbered enough to have no political maneuverability on the issue.  does that mean that people in the late 60's who wanted the war over but couldn't magically just make it so were complicit in its crimes and horrors?  no, absolutely fucking not.  things like Nader and MADD have nothing to do with this debate. they don't operate in the field of personality politics.  drunk drivers have no fans or supporters.  unsafe products the same, other than the companies which make them.  there are no Congresspeople who are going to vote to support drunk drivers.  maybe a couple, but that's it.  there are, however, relevant numbers of Republican (and Democratic) Congresspeople who will not support impeachment.  and when i say 'relevant', what I mean is the votes simply aren't there.  no matter how loud you yell and say they are, they aren't.  that's nothing to do with right or wrong, its just the way it is.  of course i want them impeached.  but wishing doesn't make something so, it takes time.

      •  Or (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, rjones2818

        pick all three .

      •  And I thought... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rlharry, farleftcoast, 4Freedom, Catrina

        I was the only one that started the day that way!! Mrs. R is pretty sure I'm starting to lose it!!! I'm starting to carry on conversations with the news show hosts and I'm often seen screaming and trying to rationalize with my computer screen! She may be correct!!

        Attention Waxman Staffers! Clean up on aisle 1600! huttotex 3/27/07

        by reflectionsv37 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:25:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i remain confused as to why impeachment (25+ / 0-)

    is "off the table," while use of nuclear weapons is still "on the table."

    take it from boutros boutros-ghali, put down your gun & listen to bob marley

    by rasbobbo on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:49:57 PM PDT

  •  You have no exclusive claim on reality (16+ / 0-)

    An Argument "Against" Impeachment.

    Detailed arguments agaist impeachment of Bush and Cheney get so little airing here, I would ask that you at least read and consider something from the other side of this debate.

      •  So what you're saying is: (7+ / 0-)

        I have read your arguments, and you're wrong because I'm right.  Case closed.

        What brilliant argument and keen analytical skills you have.  I'm devastated.  

        •  The arguments have been dressed time and again (5+ / 0-)

          in diaries calling for impeachment.  Ignoring them does not mean they don't exist.  

          •  Not even close (9+ / 0-)

            They've been replied to with rhetoric, platitudes, bromides, invectives, and, more than anything else, conclusory statements that argument is wrong because the contraty argument is right.

            •  Disagree. (12+ / 0-)

              I think there were plenty of substantive and well reasoned arguments against the points you made in your diary yesterday.

              I am not crazy about this diary either.  I think the notion of us fighting each other about our beliefs is not going to change anyone's mind, and there's far too much name calling on both sides (i.e., your calling folks who are pro-impeachment unrealistic and having "tantrums," and on the other side, folks calling anti-impeachment folks unpatriotic wusses, etc.).

              As I said in your diary, GOTV, events are moving very quickly.  I think folks on both sides of this argument had better fasten their seatbelts, cause it's gonna be a bumpy ride (cf. Bette Davis).

              We are headed for a showdown.  Whether that results in impeachment or heaven knows what, we are simply not going to be able to continue like this, playing it safe and thinking we can just ignore the elephant in the room (pun intended).

              So let's all see what happens.  I ask both sides to stop the name calling (though I doubt anyone will do so, but what the heck).  None of us are enemies.  We know who the enemies are, and we must unite over that knowledge and not let differences in tactics divide us -- especially when events are unfolding as quickly as they are.

              •  Is it just me, or are Rethuglican talking points (1+ / 2-)
                Recommended by:
                greenearth
                Hidden by:
                PaintyKat, Nightprowlkitty

                always about predicting the future, based on fear and misinformation?  You know, like Saddam has WMDs and we'll be greeted as liberators and the only reason we're not being attacked is because Bush is president and the terrorists will win if Dems get the majority in Congress and there aren't enough votes for impeachment, so give it up.

                Of course, Rethuglicans have been wrong about every single thing they've ever predicted, including the malarky about the terrorist attacks - after all, it was on Bu$hCo's watch that we experienced the worst terrorist attack in our history.

                Fe Fi Fo Fum, I smell the stench of a Rethuglican in every anti-impeachment response.

                But again, maybe that's just me.

                •  Oh cut it out. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PaintyKat, dianem

                  This is such a bullshit line of thought -- no one here is a republican.

                  The only thing I smell the stench of in these kinds of comments is plain old foolishness.

                  So once again I am troll rating you for ad hom attacks.

                  •  One day I'm a TU, the next day a troll. (0+ / 0-)

                    Odd, but true.  And, if I'm a troll then George W. Bush is a patriot.

                    Just sayin'...

                    •  Eh. (0+ / 0-)

                      Your comment was completely trollish.  Fact is, I am as pro-impeachment as can be.  And no, folks who are not of the same mind aren't Republicans.  That's a foolish ad hom thing to say and you know it.  So just cut it out.

                      •  Um, please refrain from telling me what to do. (0+ / 0-)

                        Troll rating me at your whim is my tough luck.  Being ordered around by anyone is simply intolerable.  So please, cut it out.

                        •  You can do whatever you like. (0+ / 0-)

                          But I'll troll rate you or anyone else who throws out ad hominem insults to folks they disagree with, calling them Republicans, all that bullshit.

                          Fact is, you can't defend what you said because it's utter nonsense.  It was not a "whim" that caused me to troll rate you.  Your comment was a personal attack, which is clearly defined in the FAQ.  It was laughably foolish in that I am pro-impeachment, so even your accuracy was completely off.  I have to wonder if you even read my comment.

                          I said "cut it out" because those kinds of comments are cause to be troll rated.  And if I see them again I'll troll rate them again.  If you don't like being told what to do, then stop harrassing folks here with ad hom attacks.

                          •  Using words like in my opinion and is it just me (0+ / 0-)

                            or I believe is not a personal attack.  It's an observation.  Please climb off my back.  I feel (again not a personal attack) like I'm being stalked.  Ha!  By a night prowl kitty... I guess that's appropriate, but I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave me alone.

                            Thanks.

                            Oh, and I never accused you of being a Republican.

                          •  Yeah, after I read the thread ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... again I realized you were calling others Republicans.  But my TR still applies, because it doesn't really matter to whom you were spewing this nonsense.

                            I am not "stalking," am merely responding to your own comments to me.  But when I run into you or anyone else making these kinds of ad hom attacks -- including your sweet little comparison of a poster in this diary to Karl Rove -- I'll troll rate them.

                            This is a community issue.  You aren't entitled to make "observations" that personally attack someone else's character and then later say "oh well, I prefaced the attack by saying "in my opinion."  Again, read the FAQ -- if you have a problem with that, contact the admins.  I doubt you'll get much sympathy but hey, go for it.

              •  well (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nightprowlkitty

                said, NPK.

            •  Every one of your points was argued with (0+ / 0-)

              substance couched in sheer logic.  I'm sorry if you feel you didn't get enough of a response, but that is probably because we've already been there and done that.  

    •  What do you mean, (5+ / 0-)

      "get so little airing?" You mean there are far fewer of them. Hm, what does that tell you?

      •  It tells me (8+ / 0-)

        that the astoundingly vast majority of people who comment here favor impeachment, and that they are largely uniniterested in discussing (or even reading) extended arguments to the contrary.  

        I understand that reality, too.

        •  DEAL WITH IT -- IMPEACHMENT IS FOLLY. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GOTV, scrutinizer, PaintyKat, Bensdad

          I'm not sure Rusty1776 or any of the insolent ilk are in any position to lecture me, GOTV or any others like us who happen to believe in the political process and not impeachment about our morals, the courage of our beliefs and our view of reality. Dissent is what this country  is all about.  Dissent is what drove the 2006 election.  

          If we want to be lectured about moral values, I'll go to Hannity's or Dobson's sites.  Hell, I'll walk out my front door here in KS and knock on any of my neighbor's doors and listen to them call my children unAmerican because we don't go to church, as they've done.  

          But I certainly don't need some angry bluestate neophyte to tell this Ivy League MA in Pol Science what I've has been trained to see, study and analyze that the relentless obviousness of REALITY or even begin to question my pedigree S.A.R. patriotism because I don't agree with him.

          Name calling, defamation, derogatory characterizations...That's how a Republican talks.  That's how a Conservative vilifies his countrymen to dissent. Save your Rovian tone, words, impotent righteousness while living in true denial -- the relentless obviousness that impeachment is going nowhere -- except in the delusional moral masturbatory circle-jerks with who you enjoy surrounding yourself.

          GOTV and others like myself have work to do -- I have it here in Kansas, to convert this state to blue. If you spent a fraction of your time making a difference instead ranting how different others are because we dont agree with you, we just might have a veto-proof senate for decades so the ability to approve liberal judges for SCOTUS within punity. Or is all this work too dirty for you?

          Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

          by dcrolg on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:09:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So what's your point? (3+ / 0-)

            Seriously, go get to work and we'll do what we think is right and see who gets to Dublin, kay?  

          •  Delusional moral masturbatory circle-jerks (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All

            Ahem. what was that about name calling?

          •  this Ivy League MA in Pol Science (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All, OWTH

            That's astoundingly pompous.

          •  And we're not working on other things? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All

            Do you think that because we believe in impeachment that there's nothing else we do?

            I wish you were right, because if you were I'd have a whole lot more time on my hands to do things I'd much rather be doing, my car would have far fewer miles on it, and our phone bill would be lower.

            Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

            by mataliandy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:10:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Dreaming of a veto-proof majority for decades? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All

            You've got to be kidding.

            The first thing a veto proof majority needs is voters. How do you propose to convince enough voters that you'll actually use the veto-proof majority for some good for the country?

            And, anyway, why the !@#$% would we want a vetoproof majority for decades? We are just in the middle of experiencing of the dangers of single-party rule. I don't want the Republicans to be the second party, but I do want more than one party.

            Also let's not forget what happened the last time the Democrats had a majority for a long time.

            Your post sounds as if the goal is just to grab and hold on to power, instead of doing what's best for the country!

            Fortunately, without impeachment that is not going to happen.

            Army 1st Lt. Ehren T. Watada, Lt. Cdr USN Matthew Diaz, SPC Eli Israel: true American heroes.

            by sdgeek on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:45:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You don't do yourself any favors (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All, AndyS In Colorado

            by credentialing yourself as you have nor by asserting your superiority by refering to the insolence of others.

            Your work is important, to you and to others.  The Constitution, however, trumps whatever the hell it is you're up to.  Convert away, that requires effort and energy that one hopes is born of conviction.

            And speaking of conviction, what is yours on the constitutional issues here? Tell me there is no moral duty or responsibility, under the Constitution, to impeach Gonzales and Cheney for high crimes and misdeameanors.  Tell me that expediency, no matter how important conversions may be, is more important that preserving and defending the ephermera we call our freedoms.

            Should we fail to do the right thing here, we risk, regardless of who is in power, losing the one thing that prevents us from going completely over the edge, the belief in the rule of law.  

            The constitutional mandate is clear.  Prosecute these bastards now.

          •  Ivy League MA in Pol Science? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All

            Whoa, baby.  You win.

            •  I mean, Jesus... I've got an MBA... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Karma for All

              ...from a lesser school, but when I want lessons in advanced business management skills, or help in solving really difficult problems, I'll certainly keep in mind that I should go to an ivy leaguer.  An Ivy Leaguer with an MBA.

              Such as George W. Bush.

          •  Thanks for the kind words (0+ / 0-)

            An MA in political science, whether from an Ivy League school or not is, I'm afraid to tell these folks, nothing to sneeze at (as they are doing).  They may take it as bragging; I take it as giving an advanced understanding of how politics works and what can happen when wrong moves are made.

            Thanks for the support.

    •  This a great diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GOTV, YellowDogBlue

      I'm sorry I missed it the first time around.

  •  If I see one more argument that (26+ / 0-)

    "we'll pass our legislative agenda to strengthen our position in '08" from the willfully self-deluded, ....

    Senate Republicans have no cowardice about using the filibuster, unlike the Dems; Bush will veto or simply not implement anything good the Dems would pass.

    And instead of firing up their own base, and attracting a near-majority of Independents who are utterly disgusted with Bush's assault on America, Dems will watch a whole bunch of people (especially independents) either sit out '08, or go with the inevitable 3rd party that will arise.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid Democratic office holders.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:55:55 PM PDT

  •  couldn't vote: the poll didn't include (19+ / 0-)

    they have a vested interest in the status quo.

    "Well, we're a little disturbed by the situation in the Middle East, but other than that..." Cyril, Breaking Away (1979)

    by peaceloveandkucinich on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:05:45 PM PDT

  •  Impeachment advocates are angry. (17+ / 0-)

    And enjoy hurling invective and insults.

    Got it. Thanks.

  •  Every time I hear "impeachment is off the table" (22+ / 0-)

    I wonder why we ever bothered rebelling against George III.

    we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

    by Lepanto on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:06:08 PM PDT

  •  The only test (17+ / 0-)

    to see if its real ,
    Is to give it a go .

    "never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

    Sir Winston Churchill
    October 29, 1941
    Harrow School

  •  Damn! No "ALL OF THE ABOVE" in the poll? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Balonius, rlharry, rjones2818

    As for the question:

    From an activist perspective, if progressive bloggers, here on Daily Kos and other Netroots sites, do not keep the pressure on Democrats to do what's right and Impeach, who will?

    We just may have to wait until Bush/Cheney go so far that the Republicans themselves impeach Cheney (they would never do Bush).

    The "rule of law"; it applies to you and me, but not the rich, the Republican or the celebrity. Welcome to America!

    by MotleyPatriot on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:09:20 PM PDT

  •  It's a disgrace that there's even an argument (9+ / 0-)

    about Impeaching.

    What is the MATTER with you, anti-Impeachment "progressives" ? ? ?

  •  my position (17+ / 0-)

    I may get flamed for saying this, but I wish that the pro-impeachment folks here on Daily Kos would stop bitching and start acting. If impeachment is so important to you, stop writing diaries about it, for God's sake. Organize a protest. Write letters to CNN. Chain yourself to the doors of your Congresscritter's district office. Hell, storm Washington D.C. with pitchforks if you think it's warranted. All organized social movements have to start somewhere.

    But please don't confuse those of us who take a different view of impeachment with the Joe Liebermans of the world. And for the record, I consider myself an "impeachment pragmatist." I'd love to see Bush and Cheney rot in Supermax Detention for the rest of their lives, and I'm certainly not going to actively campaign against an organized impeachment movement once it gets going. But I think we have a lot of conditions to fulfill before we get to that point.

    •  Precisely! (8+ / 0-)

      Yesterday's impeachment poll showed that less than 10% of the respondants favored impeaching no one or only Gonzales.  What more can be done with these emotional rants?  Wo else is left to convince here?

      Rusty, 'dharma, OPOL, the rest of you:  Your job is done here.  You have a higher percentage in your corner than the Fox News viewers who vote Republican.

      It's time to leave the nest (and your keyboards) and get it done in the real world.

    •  Um, that's what we're doing! I think the problem (9+ / 0-)

      may be pretty simple on dKos.  If people are in agreement that an Impeachment should occur and wouldn't, as you say, oppose it if it should happen, why not just back off now rather than trying to cut off the efforts in the very place they must originate?  Are we not all on the same side here?  I don't think I'd wander into a diary calling for any kind of effort to oppose the Bush administration and crap all over it, but that seems to be the MO for some when it comes to diaries rallying for impeachment.  

    •  Implies we're not acting (4+ / 0-)

      I'm guessing you haven't been following this for the entire 2+ years it's been going on.

      It started with action. I was there on the phone call with Pat Leahy's assistant who was trying to talk us out of bringing it up at the state committee meeting. I was there setting out copies of the constitution for every state committee member (except me, I already had one). I was there writing about how to bring it to your own community.

      The topic did not become so pervasive without the action you are apparently unaware of. We're building a movement from the ground up. We've been working on it for a long time.

      Some folks get a little testy when new people, thinking they've got a new idea, come along with warmed-over arguments that have been answered hundreds of times. Even worse is when old people come along and pretend that the same things they've been saying for months, which have been answered, not only early on when they started asking, but before they even thought to ask, insist that no one is paying attention to them. People get tired of paying attention when the repetition gets monotonous.

      Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

      by mataliandy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:09:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  howdy, fellow Dean-inspired activist! (0+ / 0-)

        I couldn't have said it better than you just did.

        The irony is: the most predictable thing about blogs is the know it all factor - where someone has to set everyone else straight with a mere paragraph of importantly typed words.

        -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
        *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

        by rhfactor on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:01:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Mayor Rocky Anderson... (17+ / 0-)

    ...made quite a good case for impeachment yeesterday on Amy Goodman's 'Democracy Now.'  Who would've have ever thought that the strongest voice for impeachment would come out of Salt Lake City, UTAH !  http://www.democracynow.org/...

    Rocky for President !

  •  witness (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, PaintyKat, mango, CTLiberal

    there were over 150 comments yesterday posted on a diary about a pair of pants.  We are unfocused, not keeping our eyes on the ball, as are most Americans.  Congress reflects that.  

    Democrats in Congress have had subpoena and oversight power only since January compared to how many months of damage done to the Republic, it's not going to be fixed overnight, nor will the crucial evidence be easy to uncover- face it, as evil as he may be, Cheney is a professional and he covers his tracks.

    I'm all in favor of impeachment now but unfortunately its not going to happen until the full focus of the majority of the country is there...Daily Kos participants are doing their part by arguing over it, that's how this country is supposed to run.

    Bush and Cheney will pay the piper, whether its before Jan 09 or after, mark my words.

    I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

    by route66 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:35:48 PM PDT

    •  I really hope you're right route66 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      route66, farleftcoast

      in that Bush/Cheney will pay the piper.  My daily mantra is, "Please let justice be done to these criminals".

      And yes, you're also right in that we are not even focused here.  I have proposed a national call in day to congress about impeachment...if we can get a half million people to jam the phone lines to congress and if we can get people to start writing letters to the editor of your local paper, then maybe we can start to change the dialogue in this country to favor impeachment.

      I have no idea in how to go about harnessing the power of the blogasphere.  We do have power and if we directed it in the right direction we can make a huge difference.

      Look at the 06 elections...now if we could focus that same energy towards removing the criminals...

      •  The only power the blogosphere has is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CTLiberal

        as a place where people meet. Since it is such a big meeting place for millions of people, naturally politicians are now using it, along with others, to try to influence these huge gatherings of people.  

        But they are faced with a far more informed audience and one which can respond to them rather than sit in front of tv and take what they say as gospel. Some people don't like that, but I think it's great. Elected Reps should be answerable to the people. They work for us.

        Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

        by Catrina on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:12:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Which Democrats will be in power? (5+ / 0-)

    I think you are being a little hard on the anti-impeachment people. I think their main point is that if the Democrats keep a low profile and squeak by in the next election that we'll recover from our national nightmare, it's not an unreasonable positions. But here's the point against them--which Deomcratic Party will win and which Democrats will be in power?

    The battle for impeachment may well be a battle for the Democratic Party, i.e., to stop its steady and inexorable drift towards the right. The only different is that the Republicans will be the party of maniacs and the corporate elites and the Democrats the party of the corporate elites and the merely conservative.

  •  For being a distinct minority on Daily Kos, you (4+ / 0-)

    stay-the-course anti-Impeachment drones sure make a lot of noise.

    Noise is all you have.  You don't have an argument left to stand on, you just think you do.  

  •  Sometimes when people are overstressed, (10+ / 0-)

    they have a break with reality. They might end up with a dissociative personality disorder or become completely delusional altogether, simply because reality is too much for them to bear. They create some kind of fantasy world where they don't have to deal with reality.

    That is what the anti-impeachment folks are doing right now. They have made a complete break with reality. The current administration has literally driven them insane. They have decided to run away from the reality that George Bush will be president for the next 19 months if he is not removed from office early. The anti-impeachment crowd have run away from this reality and climbed up onto a magical cloud where they can pretend that the next presidential election is just around the corner. They just cannot face the reality that the election is not for another 17 months. So instead they are living in a fantasy land where they are telling themselves bedtime stories about how the next election will go.

    But just pretending that the election is around the corner does not make it so. Playing out our fantasies with toy polls will not make the election happen any faster. Closing our eyes and wishing for the happy times won't do any good. Reality is what it is, and it must be dealt with on its own terms.

    My plea to all you anti-impeachment folks: please join us back in reality. We need your help. You could do much more good here on the ground than up in your castle on a cloud. Please come home. We need you.

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:48:09 PM PDT

    •  you're right: anti-IMPEACH people are literally (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pompatus, tr4nqued, farleftcoast

      insane.

      you spelled it out well.

      .

      -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
      *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

      by rhfactor on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:56:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I liked this comment yesterday re MOCKERY as (11+ / 0-)

        strategy.  ... It was posted very late so doubtful many read it. So I am reposting, along with my reply as well.

        It has often seemed to me ...

        that the whole Clinton impeachment was a preemptive strike by republicans to render impeachment a useless tool in the future. By making a mockery of its use, they effectively "took it off the table" for anybody else, no matter how warranted or how egregious the crimes. Or, at the very least, that's the perception that they have created.

        It's high time we change that perception.

        by dopealope on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:45:48 PM PDT

         

        I really like this comment -- dumbing down themeaning of Impeachment via mockery.

        I doubt most Republicans who participated in that abuse of Constitutional prerogative had a clue about that as an intention... (after all, think dim bulb like Orrin Hatch)... But the likes of Cheney? Seems more and more likely YES, he and the neocon think tanks probably indeed crafted the mockery of the Impeachment provision as a strategic tool to keep clipping away at the public's understanding of the Constitution.

        That select group of such GOP strategists are a quantum leap more skilled than Democrats in political chess play... and they're evil... But alas, due to consistent lack of opposition, they have been effective, layer after layer.




        Fighting a "gentleman's battle" (Harry Reid style)
        is, on the other hand, not just a losing battle, but outright suicide. And I have little respect for such suicide, unless truly all hope is totally out of reach. BUT IT'S NOT for anyone with a decent IQ and tenacity and leadership. He has no leadership.

        Nor does Pelosi, though she is quite skilled at something, or she never would have matriculated so far up. But she lacks clarity, courage and commitment.

        Inas much as Cheney & Bush have been the most destructive Republicans in history, it seems to be turning out that Reid and Pelosi are the Democrat's most useless personnel of all time -- due to this unprecedented gutting of the U.S. Constitution, the regenerative DNA of our Republic. Kill the Constitution and you've killed the American Experiment.




        I am at the point where I would favor, in all seriousness, impeaching Pelosi and Reid,
        for aiding & abetting the commission of high crimes, and for colossal failure to execute their sworn constitutional duties.

        Dean was right -- as he is most always is: He chose  to go for the DNC Chair in 05 -- rather than run for President in 08 because he saw that the Democratic Party could win a Presidential election, but if the party was broken, and the Constitution were broken, the prospects for governing were bleak. He also knew that Pelosi, just like Kerry, represented the same old centrist DLC weight that has dragged down the entire machinery for almost 20 years. And Pelosi has hated Dean from Day 1, and has never recognized the value of his strength. She smeared him first in 03 with the fullpage Washington Post ad claiming Dean to be an anti-semite and unfit for President, then she did it again in late 04 when Dean planned to run for DNC chair.




        Think also about how Pelosi and Reid are betraying a real public servant, Russ Feingold
        :

        It's easy to forget with all the contrived whoopla around our current crop of Presidential hopefuls -- 2 out of 3 of whom are DLC-certified -- but Russ Feingold was set to run for President (and if you can't recall that, look at the dKos polls a year ago), but he chose service to country before personal acclaim.

        And why?  Two reasons. (1) He knew and stated as much, though in coded language, that he didn't believe a Jewish name could win the Presidency in America, not yet, despite all other qualifications. And that's sad, but he was analyzing how he could best be of service to America, and thus took himself out of the race. (2) READ THIS PELOSI AND REID -- and see what leadership means:

        He said that in light of the 2006 majority wins, he felt he could do more good IN THE SENATE, with the Democrats controlling the committees, and that he wanted to use the time right now, not in 2009, to END THE IRAQ debacle.

        EARTH TO SENATOR REID: Do you see how you've betrayed him? He could done just what Obama chose to do -- run run run, pump up the name name name, gain acclaim acclaim acclaim, and lose lose lose in the General Election -- yet with that name all primed for The Next Run. But unlike the newbie US  Senator from Illinois, Russ Feingold  does what he says and stayed in the Senate to do the hard and immediate work ---- and what does he have to show for it?

        Weaklings undercutting every single thing he's consistently fought for. And colleagues that don;t even bother to come to the chambers to VOTE, for god's sake.

        You can always tell a leader. You ever listen to Feingold when he's on Olberman or other news shows? He never ever equivocates, he never ever has to go back and try to undo language that he uttered before. Why? Because he isn't craftily thinking about what to say, and massaging it for best career advantage. He doesn't have to do cartwheeels because he's on-purpose, focused on his job, leads via conscience, and a straight-shooter.

        I'll leave it to the wonks here to address whether it is even possible, but if I were in Congress, I would draft articles of Impeachment against Pelosi -- and then bulldoze her out of the way of the People's Work and the People's Will.

        -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
        *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

        by rhfactor on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:10:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Excellent post, rhfactor (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rhfactor, lotlizard, Rusty1776

          Thank you ... I especially like what you said about Feingold never equivocating when he speaks because he doesn't have to. That is so true, it is a very good way to judge an honest, not a pre-packaged, person. He is a leader, I am sorry he is not in the race, but glad he's in the Senate.

          Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

          by Catrina on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:21:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  visual: poll results yesterday, chumley's diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    super simian, Karma for All, boofdah

    this shows the steady trend throughout the voting in past 24 hours.

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    .
    .

    CLICK for FULLSIZE graphic

    .

    .

    -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
    *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

    by rhfactor on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:54:47 PM PDT

  •  Didn't you miss one in your poll? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking

    Where's the F***ing idiot catagory on your poll?

  •  I believe refusing to impeach is a form of (23+ / 0-)

    treason against our Constitution and our democracy, especially in light of the fact that Dick and Bush have openly declared themselves Kings of America.  Above the law. Sovereign, if you will.

    And if Congress keeps refusing to do their duty of upholding the laws of the land by using their power of impeachment to remove these criminals and traitors to our Consitution and our democracy from their thrones in the White House, then they are with them and against us.  They are complicit in this treachery, IMHO.  

    We, the people, voted Dems into the majority in Congress so they would STOP THE BU$HCO CABAL.  Now is the time for all honest, heroic, patriotic Congresspeople to come to the aid of their country.

    IMPEACH!!!  NOW!!!

  •  it's time (18+ / 0-)

    There's a reason impeachment was put into the Constitution as a remedy for a criminal official.  We're living it.

    Dems don't want to impeach for a simple reason.  If they start the hearings, they will inevitably have to answer the uncomfortable question: WHERE WERE YOU when all of this was happening?

    Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
    P.S. I am not a crackpot.
    /> -Abe Simpson

    by fromer on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:07:13 PM PDT

    •  That's a good point, fromer, I hadn't thought (2+ / 0-)

      of that aspect of their refusal to Impeach.  

      •  i see it as the biggest hurdle (7+ / 0-)

        it's not like we all woke up last Thursday to discover our President was a criminal moron.  We all knew from quite early on, even if "early" is different for each of us.

        Still, it's a b.s. argument to justify not going forward.  Dems have had Congress for less than 6 months, and they have spent much of it dealing with Iraq (rightly so, even if poorly handled).

        But the question will always be lingering there - because it's a legitimate question.  Where was the democratic party during the bulk of this criminality?

        Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
        P.S. I am not a crackpot.
        /> -Abe Simpson

        by fromer on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:25:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I should elaborate (6+ / 0-)

          "Still, it's a b.s. argument to justify not going forward.  Dems have had Congress for less than 6 months, and they have spent much of it dealing with Iraq (rightly so, even if poorly handled)."

          Meaning, it's been less than half a year of Dem control, the where were you argument can be addressed (not dodged) by simply saying: We were limited in what we could do, and even then we did too little.  We in charge now, and this is what people in positions of responsibility do: they hold people accountable.  had the President held a similar set of values, we wouldn't need to open an impeachment investigation.  He doesn't, so we have to."

          Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
          P.S. I am not a crackpot.
          /> -Abe Simpson

          by fromer on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:28:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  thanks! (0+ / 0-)

            pity you can't diary on this angle. You'd probably be run outta here on a virtual rail, even if you could support it with cold, hard facts (which you probably could).

            Snark. I think...

            "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

            by o the umanity on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:37:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think this is a point to be considered (0+ / 0-)

            which I had not thought of before.

            Many of these crimes were done in the open a good defense is if you thought they were criminal where is your vote, where did you stand up?

            You are indicting for illegal stuff in the Patriot Act that you didn't read???

            Military Commission Act was voted for by of all people Sherod Brown.  When the right say we lack a core of character, I have to agree.

            Stong and wrong is followed as Bill Clinton pointed out.  Dems seem to choose to flip flop which the repubs only do it when forced to.  They take their pot shots and we keep our powder dry.

  •  Maybe they're just evil. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pompatus, Catrina

         It seems that it is obvious to most everyone here that impeachment would be a principled and practical step to limit the excesses of the Executive. The principle part was amply described in the diary; there is no need for me to repeat it here. However, the practical part seems fairly obvious to me; it's a whole pile of bargaining chips the House Democrats could will into existence.
         So why don't they? As experienced parliamentarians, I'm sure they understand how negotiation works.
         And I'm sure they're not stupid.
         So, the only option left is that they actually support this sort of Executive impunity, and are saving it for the Democrat who will probably get elected next year.

  •  So (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alma, expatjourno, slade7

    What are we going to do? Shall we pick a day to hound the enablers?  I mean all of them.

  •  agreed. (6+ / 0-)

    here's the reality: Bush is continuing to fuck things up, and will until he is stopped. Can we really afford that????

  •  Here's where we can ALL make a small difference (10+ / 0-)

    Get an impeachment resolution passed in your town.

    After Downing Street has the tools where you can introduce a resolution in your town, and if it passes, we will hear about it and it will make a difference.

    Impeachment starts from the citizenry and perculates (at least on paper) to the legislature.

    The more towns that pass, the more our leaders will pay attention. IMHO this is the best and most direct way to make a difference. Get your local neighbors and friends engaged on impeachment!

    Think nationally act locally, right?

    •  You're right, vtfinest. Thank you for posting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karma for All, vtfinest

      that link.

    •  One just passed a town over and (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alma, mataliandy, vtfinest, lotlizard, Catrina

      we're trying here in my town which is Republican dominated.  Here's how it was reported in our local paper, keep in mind that I'm in a predominantly Republican New York county:  

      Orange North Confidential: Middletown council votes to impeach
      June 17, 2007
      President Bush and Vice President Cheney be warned, the Common Council of the City of Middletown has hereby resolved to ask some other elected officials to investigate you.
      The council passed a resolution last week titled "Middletown Resolution to Investigate Charges of Impeachable Offenses Against George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney." There are nine paragraphs that detail various offenses.
      For example, "Whereas George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney admitted to ordering NSA electronic surveillance of American citizens without warrants from the FISA Court of Review..."
      This set off a chain of events: paper was torn, words exchanged. An alderman was disgusted, others not so much. Then everybody voted.
      It passed 5-2. Aldermen John VanderVoort, R-2nd Ward, and Ray Depew, R-3rd Ward, voted against it; Aldermen Joel Sierra, D-4th Ward, and Thomas Burr, R-1st Ward, were absent.
      "I cannot believe we’ve gotten to this point," Depew said before the vote. "I’m disgusted to be an alderman tonight." He then ripped his copy of the resolution in two.
      Copies of the resolution will now go to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, state Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther, D-C-Forestburgh, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

      •  Keep going Karma for All and encourage others too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mataliandy, Karma for All
        •  I will. If we can do it here, we can do it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mataliandy, vtfinest

          anywhere!  

          •  You rock! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All, vtfinest, lotlizard

            It's hard for the people who aren't "on the ground" working this issue to see just HOW MUCH support there is for impeachment all around the country.

            This is not limited to one party or any one demographic category. It's pervasive. People want these men brought under control, and they don't want to wait until some nebulous "later" for it. They're tired of the deaths, they're tired of the treasury being bled dry, and they're tired of being lied to.

            Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

            by mataliandy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:50:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's the biggest bang for your buck too.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All

            ... For lack of a better term.

            In Vermont, 38 towns passed impeachment resolutions on Town Meeting day and that made media locally, nationally, and even internationally. But most importantly, it was locally.

            Getting it in the local ink REALLY makes a huge difference because that will get people talking it up. Once they see it in the paper, they begin talking about it with other people and from there it may inspire others in area towns to do the same. You're guaranteed that someone will be inspired by your efforts and want to do the same in theirs.

            We may not ever get to the actual investigations into impeachment in Washington. But if ouur/your town passes a resolution for impeachment, at least you'll have that sense of accomplishment that your town did something good. And not to mention that at least you'll know that you went down trying to do something to stop this administration's madness.

            SPREAD THE WORD FOLKS! THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT!

  •  Word! Preach it! (11+ / 0-)

    I believe Impeachment advocates are the conscience of Daily Kos.

    Crashing the Gate at the Big Top.

    by ormondotvos on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:27:27 PM PDT

  •  keep calling, e-mailing, writing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alma, Karma for All, vtfinest, Catrina

    Get on your local talk radio shows, write the LTEs

    Keep pushing!

  •  Must keep powder dry... must keep powder dry... (9+ / 0-)

    and Ann Coulter might call me a liberal and that would hurt my feelings.  

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:33:29 PM PDT

  •  Impeachment is indictiment resolution (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, PaintyKat, vtfinest

    Once the charges are stated in the initial resolution it won't matter if evidence is found that supports new charges.  All hearings would be limited in scope to the terms of the initial motion.

    The current hearings have a much wider latitude of investigation than impeachment hearings would.

    When call for impeachment hearings, what you're asking for is for all hearings and investigations to stop except for those related to the counts where there is most likely to be a conviction.

    Is that what you really want or would you rather all the crimes be investigated first so as to increase the chance of conviction?

    This post brought to you by George Soros and the vast left wing conspiracy

    by VelvetElvis on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:34:10 PM PDT

    •  Can't we just press broad charges (4+ / 0-)

      or go with a single 'slam-dunk' (if you can pardon that expression) charge, like the warrantless wiretapping felony Mr. Bush admitted to?

    •  So state the charges broadly, and state all of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mataliandy

      the charges.  We are going to be mired in investigations with no consequence, as we are now, unless impeachment is called for.  We can do both.  

    •  Who said that the Committees currently (5+ / 0-)

      holding hearings would have to stop for Impeachment?  I do not see why Impeachment, a totally separate process, would affect any of the work of those Committees!  Congress can do more than one thing at a time.

      Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

      by Catrina on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:32:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they can have hearings (0+ / 0-)

        but it wouldn't matter if they find out that bush killed JFK if JFK's murder isn't on the initial list of charges. Yes, more charges could be brought, but that would leave room for the argument that they had to bring new charges because they couldn't make the initial ones stick and were on a fishing expedition.

        They are also limited by the total number of hours in the day.

        This post brought to you by George Soros and the vast left wing conspiracy

        by VelvetElvis on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:08:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Consideration (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno

      You're falling into the immediacy fallacy. When Nixon was impeached, they took some time to consider what the charges would be, and indeed whether they should proceed at all.

      1974

      • February 6
        The House of Representatives votes to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether grounds exist for the impeachment of President Nixon.
      • May 9
        Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.

      There's no reason the hearings have to begin tomorrow. But Congress should start to openly consider what would be impeachable charges.

      Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

      by darrelplant on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:39:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Multiple counts of impeachments (0+ / 0-)

      There is no reason we can't just start impeachment now, and add more counts later.

      Army 1st Lt. Ehren T. Watada, Lt. Cdr USN Matthew Diaz, SPC Eli Israel: true American heroes.

      by sdgeek on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:08:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you mean a partison fishing expedition? (0+ / 0-)

        that's exactly how that would be labeled.

        Chris Matthews would yammer on and on about how the democrats can't get their act together.

        Republicans will be looking for any excuse they can find not to vote for it and the MSM will give it to them unless the case for impeachment is bulletproof before the articles are even filed.

        This post brought to you by George Soros and the vast left wing conspiracy

        by VelvetElvis on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:03:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the Dems can't base their strategy (0+ / 0-)

          on what they think Chris Matthews will say about it.  the public is in favor of this one. that is real, the public would support it.  the media won't, but that's a different story.  however, the people who count most are in Congress, where impeachment would not be supported in numbers anywhere near great enough to achieve a conviction.

  •  Still think elections will solve the problem? (7+ / 0-)

    Then go check out this sober piece I found on MyDD.

    This user really nails it in terms of why elections aren't the answer to putting an end to the hemmoraging (sp.?) of our democracy.

    Go and read it now!

  •  I really resent the insults in your diary. (21+ / 0-)

    Insulting those of us who think that an impeachment would do more harm than good does not help your cause.  This passage at the beginning is particularly insulting

    According to anti-Impeachment "realists" here, we shouldn't even try to Impeach Bush or Cheney.   Most Democrats in Congress agree.  They tell us we can't Impeach because Bush's liars, right wing nitwits, Neocons, media hacks, and thugs in Congress won't let us.  These "realists" don't state their anti-Impeachment position that way, of course, they prefer to say "we don't have the votes", it sounds so much better than admitting they are advocating craven and shameful political expediency at the very time tens of millions of Americans are begging for decisive leadership from Democrats.
     
    Thanks a lot, anti-impeachment "realists".  The democracy-destroying criminals you are so afraid to Impeach have created a lethal concoction of ANTI-REALITY, and you are rewarding them for it:

    I personally think it would do more harm than good to try and impeach at this time. That is merely my OPINION.  Just because my opinion differs from yours does not suddenly make it ok to insult me.  How on earth did this insulting diary make the recommended list? Are people so much in favor of impeachment that they are blinded to the fact that insulting some of the very people you want to jump to your side is a bad idea?  

    Furthermore, it is not me you have to convince that impeachment is a good idea.  It is the members of Congress.  So even if I started jumping up and down and said "Impeach! Impeach!" it would not change anything.

    We all know that Congress does not have the votes to impeach today.  If we started hearings today and went though the normal process of trying to impeach Bush the Evil, one of two things would happen:

    1.  We would hold hearings but after the hearings we still would not have enough votes.

    OR

    1. We would hold hearings and by the end of the hearings we would acquire enough votes to get an impeachment.

    If we held hearings and number 1 happened, it would only hurt us.  The Republicans would go on and on about what a huge waste of time and money it was, and Bush could even start bouncing back from people who give him sympathy.  In addition, we do not need impeachment hearings to air this Administration's dirty laundry.  We are already having lots of hearings for that.  So in the end, in my opinion, it would just be a step backwards for us.

    If we held hearings and number 2 happened, where we ended up with enough votes to impeach, that of course would be great, but I want everyone to consider something.  We could not even get a majority of the house to send the same Iraq Spending Bill back to Bush a second time, due to blue dog Conservative Democrats who are either looking out for their own hide or, perhaps, had some reason for not sending the bill back a second time.  

    A vote for impeachment would be MUCH MUCH MUCH riskier for them politically and would cause them to lose far more votes from the more Conservative voters than sending the Iraq Spending Bill back a second time would have.  What on earth makes anyone think they would do that when they won't send the same Iraq Spending Bill back a second time?  Ånd isn't it possible, VERY POSSIBLE in fact, that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have ASKED them what they would do?  Furthermore, isn't it very possible that they, behind closed doors of course, have said, "I will not risk voting for impeachment in my district?"

    There is no point in holding impeachment hearings if we can't possibly get an impeachment.  That is my opinion, and I recognize that I could be wrong. Yet, although my opinion may differ from yours, that does not make me an idiot if I disagree, and if you keep insulting those of us who do not believe an impeachment would work, you certainly won't be convincing any of us to join your side.  

    So was your point to convince others of the importance of impeachment, or was your point instead to feel good insulting those of us who disagree with you?

    Thank you for your time.

    Steven Joseph :)

    "The man who sees everyone as his enemy has no friends. The man who sees everyone as his friend never sees his enemies."-SJ (Nixon and MLK?)

    by StevenJoseph on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:37:48 PM PDT

    •  Sure there is. (12+ / 0-)

      There is no point in holding impeachment hearings if we can't possibly get an impeachment.

      You don't run away from a quest for justice just because somebody doesn't assure you of absolute success in advance.  You try to do justice.

      •  Well... (5+ / 0-)

        Is that how you win arguments, by using negative phrasing like that?

        I do not think that choosing not to hold impeachment hearings is running away.  You apparently do, but trying to paint those who disagree with you as cowards is not a good argumentation technique.  I am not AFRAID of impeachment hearings, and I am not running away from anything. I simply think they would do more harm than good.  Can't people discuss this issue without trying to paint those who disagree with them with an insulting and inaccurate brush?

        It certainly may make you feel better if those who disagree with you are running away like scared little doggies while you are nobly off on your quest to pursue truth, but it is not a way to win arguments. Anyone can  say "You're a coward, while I pursue justice!", but those words themselves does not really make the other person a coward or yourself noble.

        You may think of it as trying to do justice, and for you that may very well be your goal. Sometimes lost causes are the ones most worth fighting for, and sometimes they are not. We each have to decide for ourselves, but I am really disappointed in your comment for resulting to painting your opposition in a negative light like that.  Furthermore, I never said we needed an absolute chance of success.  I would settle for a better than 50% chance, and I just do not think we have that.  Why does that make me a coward?  Why does that make me running away?

        "The man who sees everyone as his enemy has no friends. The man who sees everyone as his friend never sees his enemies."-SJ (Nixon and MLK?)

        by StevenJoseph on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:54:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, you're not running away. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Karma for All, greenearth

          Only Congress is.

        •  very much agree (0+ / 0-)

          reading through this thread is pretty disgusting actually.  people are so sanctimonious and self-congratulatory i actually do feel nauseus.  jesus fucking christ people are being compared to nazis and accused of supporting rove just for pointing out that Congress won't convict if hearings are held.  

          people, that is reality.  no, that doesn't mean Dems shouldn't try, they should.  but get ready for the effort to fail, because it will.

    •  If you didn't understand the point of my diary, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pompatus, rlharry, Karma for All

      try reading it again.  The point is very clear, so try grasping it instead of wandering off into arguments I've already answered.

    •  How on earth (6+ / 0-)

      did this insulting diary make the recommended list?

      Easy.  It's their nightly red meat.  

    •  Cry me a fucking river (7+ / 0-)

      We should start impeachment hearings because it's the right thing to do for the country. We have had a coup and it must be addressed.

      Elected Democrats who don't understand this are delusional, and should be removed in the next primary season.

      •  I see... (6+ / 0-)

        so when people complain about being insulted, the correct course of action is apparently to insult them with sarcasm.  Good, that will make SURE that people come over to your side.

        I also enjoy that you think that elected Democrats who do not agree with you are delusional, as if they could not just have a difference of opinion.

        Don't you get it?  If you want your point to get through, you have to convince the others that disagree with you.  It may feel nice to have others pat you on the back, but it does not move the ball any farther along.  One of the purposes of this board is to teach people how to debate effectively.  Insulting those who disagree with you, and calling them delusional, may be great for a quick high 5, but it doesn't really help your cause, and may just hurt it.

        Have a nice day! :)

        "The man who sees everyone as his enemy has no friends. The man who sees everyone as his friend never sees his enemies."-SJ (Nixon and MLK?)

        by StevenJoseph on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:42:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly my thought (4+ / 0-)

      How on earth did this insulting diary make the recommended list?

      This was my first thought upon reading this diary.

      It's fine that there is disagreement on this issue. Why it is acceptable to the 160+ people who have tipped the diarist for his insulting diatribe against members of this community, many of whom have made reasonable and rational arguments, is beyond me.

      Disagreement is fine. I find this inappropriate. Make your point without stepping on other people to do so.

      Through violence, you may 'solve' one problem, but you sow the seeds for another. - HH the 14th Dalai Lama

      by Rachel in Vista on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:12:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for a thoughtful post (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StevenJoseph, Gary Norton, lotlizard

      StevenJoseph. You make good points.

      You say:

      We all know that Congress does not have the votes to impeach today.  If we started hearings today and went though the normal process of trying to impeach Bush the Evil, one of two things would happen

      We would hold hearings but after the hearings we still would not have enough votes.

      OR

      We would hold hearings and by the end of the hearings we would acquire enough votes to get an impeachment

      You have given this a lot of thought obviously so I respect your taking the time to present your reasons for being against impeachment at this time.

      You go on to say that their vote to impeach, if they did so, would be far more risky than a vote to end the war in Iraq, and you make a good point about expecting those who would not cast such a vote, taking what you see as an even bigger risk by voting for impeachment.

      I am for impeachment, btw, after giving it a lot of thought also.

      In your #2 point above, if they did cast a vote to impeach, it would most likely happen only with pressure from their constituents and/or because the evidence of crimes committed was so strong they could not do otherwise. If it is for the second reason, many, probably most of their constituents, imo, would not hold their vote against them.

      Having also considered all of this, I went to look at the previous two impeachments. In the Clinton impeachment Congress did vote to impeach without evidence of a 'high crime'.  My Congressman, Rep. Michael Forbes, lost his seat in the next election because although this is a relatively Conservative dist. two thirds of his constituents believed Clinton did not commit a crime worthy of impeachment and held him responsible for his partisan and unfair vote to impeach.

      Btw, many in this Dist. were not Clinton fans, but they are fans of justice. The people, imo, can be trusted to make the right decisions once they have the information to do so. This is what the FFs believed when they put Impeachment in the Constitution. That the people would play a large roll in the process and that they could be trusted to come to the right conclusions.

      The Senate refuse to convict in the Clinton impeachment. The FFs did not give the right to convict to House of Reps, they gave it to the Senate, believing that the Senate was a more deliberative body which, when faced with the weight of such an important decision, would in general, not allow partisanship to overcome reason and facts. So far, in both cases of impeachment, that is what has happened.

      So, looking at the history, and the intent of the FFs when they placed impeachment in the Constitution, I think that never before has there been a more valid reason to use it, and that the American people will not punish lawmakers for doing their duty, once the facts are known.

      That is just my opinion also, thanks for taking the trouble to present us with yours. I respect it, but I disagree with you as you can see.

      Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

      by Catrina on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:59:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are very welcome. (0+ / 0-)

        Thank YOU for posting a thoughtful discussion that concentrated on facts and not on name calling.  I guess we see things a little differently, but that is ok.  If everyone always agreed with me the world would be a mighty boring place. :)

        I think I look at the Clinton impeachment hearings a little differently from you.  To me, the Clinton impeachment hearings are a perfect example of how things can backfire for the party holding the hearings when that party decides to hold impeachment hearings and their case is not strong enough in the eyes of enough Congressmen.  President Clinton ended his Presidency with roughly a 60% approval rating.  Most Presidents end their presidency with an approval rating lower than that, but President Clinton partly benefitted from a bounce he got from people disgusted with the partisan nature of the impeachment hearings.

        So, in my mind, the Clinton impeachment hearings are a cautionary tale, and the cautionary tale has a moral:  If a political party pushes to hold impeachment hearings and that party does not have enough support, then that party will only wind up hurting themselves.  

        In addition, we must note the increasingly partisan nature of Republicans.  Look at the Iraq War for example.  While it is true that the Republicans will make some noise from time to time, with token gestures like saying, "Bush better do something to make things better!", the truth is, when it comes to a vote about the Iraq War, these Republicans just fall into party line and support the President.  If anything is clear at this point, it is that the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation was a HUGE mistake.  I think virtually all  Congressmen, Democrats or Republicans, realize that this is true, though virtually all Republicans do not admit this.  The vast majority of Americans AND the vast majority of Republicans, in my opinion, are convinced of the stupidity of this war and the need to get out, and yet these Republicans keep voting to support the party line.  

        The FACTS mean nothing to the current crop of Republicans.  That is because since the year 2000, the current Administration has played a vicious game of punishment for any Republican in Congress that stepped out of line.  This party loyalty and partisanship has been extraordinary and was what allowed this President to enact a series of assaults on our Constitution.  Keep in mind that many of these assaults could not, and would not, have happened without the consent of virtually EVERY Republican in Congress.  These Republicans abandoned HABEAS CORPUS for God' sake!  After the staggering number of votes the Republicans made that defy reason, I simply believe that the TRUTH will not be enough to cause those who have been enabling this administration for 6 years to assault our country to suddenly stop their habit of holding their noses and pulling the lever in favor of party loyalty.  If they have been suppressing their conscience this long, I believe they will continue to do so. Back in the late 90's, it was possible to get a vote on impeachment based on reason and logic, today that is not the case.  Your typical Republican today will do everything he can to try and link Iraq with those who attacked us on 9/11, even though the President himself said that there was no link.  They KNOW it isn't true.  WE know it isn't true, and there is PLENTY of evidence for this, yet they still continue defying logic.  

        Those who argue for impeachment are basically saying that the mountain of evidence against President George w. BUsh means we must impeach.  I'm saying that while there is CLEARLY a mountain of evidence against President George W. Bush, there is also an incredibly obvious quietness on the Republican side about this evidence.  To me, it demonstrates party loyalty on the Republican side that is unshakable.

        Finally, there is our corporate controlled media.  If impeachment hearings were to be held, we would not see the great level of coverage we saw during the Clinton impeachment hearings.  Instead, while we might see some front page stories at first, the newspapers would quickly find a way to move the day to day proceedings back to at least page 8, and we would regularly see the "nothing new to see here folks" kind of coverage that the media likes to do when they are trying to minimize the impact of a story.  

        We live in an age where Paris Hilton, a woman noone would ever have heard of if she was not going to inherit a fortune, gets breathless coverage for EVERYTHING she does.  Think about that for a second.  We have a President who has shredded the Constitution, a Vice President who thinks his office somehow exists in an untouchable no man's land, and the big story is how some little rich girl had to spend a few days in jail.  THIS is how much support the media will give impeachment hearings, and THIS, along with the insane party loyalty of the Republicans, is why I believe that impeachment hearings would never result in a vote for impeachment for this President, and it is an incredible shame too, for this President has abused his power and sullied our Constitution to an incredible degree.  Yes, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see this criminal marched out of The White House.  I simply do not see it happening in the next two years.

        Thanks for your time,

        Steven Joseph :)

        "The man who sees everyone as his enemy has no friends. The man who sees everyone as his friend never sees his enemies."-SJ (Nixon and MLK?)

        by StevenJoseph on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 04:09:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you again, SJ (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StevenJoseph

          Imo, your strongest and most persuasive argument against impeachment is with regard to the extreme partisanship of the current Republican Party. I would also add 'ruthlessness' and 'corruption'.

          This is a concern, as I firmly believe many Repub members of Congress are in no way concerned about the rule of law and were recruited and backed because of their willingness to vote the 'right' way.  Not to mention that any that might stray from the fold, are as you say, 'punished' in various ways. So that is a very legitmate concern.

          Otoh, there are some who are decent, eg, Rep. Jones (the originator of the 'freedom fries' nonsense) who changed his mind about the war, because he obviously does have a conscience.

          The next point I agree with you on and have concerns about is media coverage. I agree that, unlike the Clinton Impeachment hearings, the media probably would not give the same coverage to these impeachments.

          The point where I have the least agreement with you, is your argument regarding the Clinton impeachment causing problems for the Republicans. Even though the majority of the American people opposed it (two thirds I believe) the Repubs paid very little price politically, winning the presidency in 2000 (well, sort of :-)), the 2002 mid-term election, the presidency again in 2004 and maintained their majority that year also.

          I do have faith I suppose that the American people, as they did in the Clinton impeachment (he was not convicted remember) if they understand the issues, will make the right decisions. Like the framers of the Constitution, I believe firmly that once given the information, there is something incredibly powerful about a consensus of the people that tends to shift the political landscape.

          Yes, I do have concerns that they may not be given the information, but sometimes we underestimate how much gets through the filter of our media. Even now,  credit has to be given to the people for what they have ascertained, above the noise machine and the Paris Hilton coverage, they have decided that this war should end by 77% in some polls, and that in spite of the rhetoric.

          But this I know we fully agree on:

          We have a President who has shredded the Constitution, a Vice President who thinks his office somehow exists in an untouchable no man's land, and the big story is how some little rich girl had to spend a few days in jail.   Yes, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see this criminal marched out of The White House.  I simply do not see it happening in the next two years.

          Well, except for the last part. You may be right, but I know it would not make you too unhappy to be wrong so I will keep working on it until there is no more hope .... :-)

          Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

          by Catrina on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:10:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Just ask Nancy this: (7+ / 0-)

    What would it take -- how bad would these guys have to be -- how much damage would they have to do -- before you got up off your ass and actually decided to do something about it?

  •  this quote from your diary (11+ / 0-)

    illustrates what convinced me a few weeks ago. Thanks for crystallizing it so succinctly.

    From a legislative perspective, if there is no Impeachment, Bush and Republicans are going to veto and block bills for the next 18 months, slander the 110th as a do-nothing Democratic Congress, and will have a real chance of regaining a Republican majority in 2008.

    Keep it up Rusty. I will continue to rec every diary you post on this, and I hope you post one every day.

  •  I am livid about being a realist (5+ / 0-)

    Really upset--read my work, it's all there.

    It's also the TRUTH:  our people can't impeach.  It has to be going full steam right now, and half of our reps can barely get their clothes on.

    They don't have the character to do it.  Screaming at them will not instill character in them.

    I desperately want the felons who dare to keep their offices impeached.  Democrats in Congress have failed us utterly.

    I didn't fail impeachment by being a realist.  It will not happen because our reps failed and can't lead.  That's why.

    I'm sick about it, but they're failures.  They just can't do it.  I'll read the thread now, brother.

  •  Okay, so I'll stop expressing my opinion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85

    I didn't mean to discourage you, Sir.  But can I pretty pretty please with sugar on top trade my self-expression now for the right to say "I told you so" when the vote fails?

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Kellor

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:47:55 PM PDT

  •  A quick trip to the Hague... (4+ / 0-)

    After the impeachment, I think there are a number of folks who may well be war criminals in the Bush Junta.

  •  The Republicans are turning against the war. (5+ / 0-)

    And they will continue to do so. And when they find that George Bush and Dick Cheney DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT THEY THINK, they will call for his head on a plate.

    Get your napkins out, y'all. Soup's almost on.

    But, but, but, don't stop pushing. Keep adding straw to the camel's back, as fast as you can. Keep working to bring the centripetal force inward as ALL Americans, red, white, and blue, Democrat and Republican, North and South, DKos AI folk, etc., etc., etc., come together and set their angry eyes on the White House.

    If George Bush weren't an idiot, he wouldn't be sleeping a wink. And Dick Cheney, well, he hasn't slept since 1982. But that pair is about to wish they had never been born.

    Here come the fucking Americans, and boy are we ANGRY!!!

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:48:50 PM PDT

  •  I have a great rep - Nadler (NY 8) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alma, super simian

    I've called and e-mailed to ask him to support impeachment....but this is the only time I haven't heard back

    Republicans believe government is the enemy. When they're in charge, they're right.

    by plf515 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:52:17 PM PDT

  •  Basic Problems with Impeachment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David, musing85, Buffalo Girl

    Here's the problems I see with impeachment:

    1. Impeaching Bush leads to President Cheney. . .okay, that's pretty much what we have now.  And we can fix that problem by impeaching Cheney first.  Then President Pelosi.  Okay, that's not a problem.
    1. We don't have the votes: A major issue.  We could impeach anyone with a straight party-line vote in the House, but the Senate won't convict.  It. Ain't. Happening.  Hell, we can't get enough votes for a non-binding resolution on Gonzalez.  So the question is, if we can't get rid of Bush/Cheney, why impeach?  What is there to gain?  That's THE big problem.  The only gain I see is forcing the Senate GOP to decide between ditching the President or their seat.  That could be helpful.  Or, if the GOP nominee is a sitting Senator, then forcing the nominee to vote on impeachment would be especially useful.  
    1. The Media would go Apeshit.  Already, the megamedia goes nuts at the merest hint of partisanship from the Democrats.  Impeachment would cause the shit to hit the fan; the networks would go nuclear with stories about the evil Dems.  I don't know if we could weather that storm.  But then again, the megamedia was pretty strongly pro-impeachment with Clinton, so who knows what would happen.  Its a wait-and-see thing for me.
    1. Impeachment kills all other business.  Once the Dems impeach Bush/Cheney, their relationship is over.  Not bad, not awkward, but over.  As in, Bush vetoes everything, makes only recess appointments, and ignores every hearing.  So, kinda like what we have now, only worse.  A lot worse.  

    Now, if we get to the point where we don't have any other business done anyway, then this problem isn't an issue.

    So, to sum up, there are really only two issues here 1) We don't have the votes to convict; and, 2) Impeachment effectively ends all congressional business.  Resolve those issues for me and I'm with you on impeachment.  Btw, Impeach Gonzales already!

    •  Responses (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vtfinest, lotlizard
      1. Impeaching Bush leads to President Cheney. . .okay, that's pretty much what we have now.  And we can fix that problem by impeaching Cheney first.  Then President Pelosi.  Okay, that's not a problem.
      1. Cheney, if he became President, would be exercising exactly the same control he has currently, but under greater scrutiny and with a presumption of suspicion, so he'd be hobbled. So worst case: impeach just Bush, end up where we already are, but with the blinders off.
      1. Since the investigations of Bush would cover territory regarding any of Cheney's wrongdoing, and spin off investigations into those. It's likely he'd be gone too - if not first.
      1. Cheney's on the list, right next to Bush, for impeachment proceedings. Few are asking for just Bush to be impeached.
      1. We don't have the votes: A major issue.  We could impeach anyone with a straight party-line vote in the House, but the Senate won't convict.  It. Ain't. Happening.  Hell, we can't get enough votes for a non-binding resolution on Gonzalez.  So the question is, if we can't get rid of Bush/Cheney, why impeach?  What is there to gain?  That's THE big problem.  The only gain I see is forcing the Senate GOP to decide between ditching the President or their seat.  That could be helpful.  Or, if the GOP nominee is a sitting Senator, then forcing the nominee to vote on impeachment would be especially useful.  

      There are many issues on which we don't have the votes. We didn't have the votes for the minimum wage, for example. However, enough people calling for the minimum wage increase, combined with some actual leadership in Congress resulted in changed votes. Ditto for CAFE standards. Ditto for... The point is, votes are rarely guaranteed. It's what happens after the process starts that makes the difference.

      The only historical precedent we have for this is Nixon. In his case, we not only didn't have the votes, we weren't even in the same room as the votes when the investigations began, the "anti" impeachment contingent in congress began to realize that continuing to support the President after so many crimes were exposed would be the end of their careers. They changed their votes.

      1. The Media would go Apeshit.  Already, the megamedia goes nuts at the merest hint of partisanship from the Democrats.  Impeachment would cause the shit to hit the fan; the networks would go nuclear with stories about the evil Dems.  I don't know if we could weather that storm.  But then again, the megamedia was pretty strongly pro-impeachment with Clinton, so who knows what would happen.  Its a wait-and-see thing for me.

      Yup. We can be dead certain that the media would play the story in the administration's favor.  

      However, especially after Katrina, the people began to realize that they've been sold a bill of goods, and trust in the media is low. This, I think is the hardest factor to deal with, and it does create serious risk.

      However, I believe that we have to move forward anyway, because failing to try is not going to fix the media problem, and the risk of allowing the administration to continue out of control is riskier.

      We will need to be very, very good at developing responses to anticipated counter-arguments and spin as well as putting together concerted, consistent, and speedy rapid-response.

      1. Impeachment kills all other business.  Once the Dems impeach Bush/Cheney, their relationship is over.  Not bad, not awkward, but over.  As in, Bush vetoes everything, makes only recess appointments, and ignores every hearing.  So, kinda like what we have now, only worse.  A lot worse.  

      Actually, that's only true if Congress chooses to do it that way. In Nixon's case, the Clean Air Act, among other things, was passed Nixon's impeachment was underway.

      Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

      by mataliandy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:24:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How will impeaching end the Iraq War? (4+ / 0-)

    Seriously. How? Even if the house impeaches, Bush stays in office until we get 2/3 of the Senate to agree to remove him. Which should happen... oh, the day after hell freezes over. And impeaching Bush won't have any effect on the number of Republicans in the Senate who can filibuster.

    It seems to me that the headlines drawn by the impeachment trial would provide pretty good cover for the republicans to claim that they can't deal with Iraq until the impeachment is over.

    Of course, you aren't going to counter either of these points. Based on your past behavior, you're going to tell me that I'm parroting Republican talking points (which I'm not) and move onto the next comment.

    damn...pigs... sing... patience.

    •  How is not impeaching going to stop the war? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      darrelplant, vtfinest, Rusty1776, Catrina

      What's the Democratic party's plan to stop the war, aside from using it to win elections?  

      Some things you do because they are right and just, and it is in doing these things that justice prevails, like getting an illegal war to its end by exposing the criminal acts behind it.

      Have a little faith, there are enough people acquiescing in Washington right now, we need to band together or risk losing all progressive support for the Democrats.  

      •  The Diarist made a claim (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        taylormattd, YellowDogBlue

        That impeaching was necessary to end the Iraq War. I would simply like to understand the logic behind that statement. I don't see how it could happen, unless the impeachment was followed by a conviction, which is extremely unlikely at this time.

        •  Here's one scenario (4+ / 0-)

          Impeaching Bush leads to public exposure of his crimes, people already on the fence in the Republican party start demanding our troops come home now, a new bill is presented to Congress and Republicans who are looking out for the future of their party vote to withdraw.  Without saying out loud that the executive branch is guilty of high crimes the war will continue as Democrats and Republicans alike pretend there is any justification for it whatsoever.  Impeaching Bush gives Republicans an out on the Iraq war.  

          I'm sure if you start thinking about it you can come up with other scenarios along that premise.

          •  I could also imagine a scenario... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YellowDogBlue

            ...where all of the members of the Republican Party decide to admit that everything they have done for the last 6 years was a total fuck-up and they decide to become Democrats and everybody stands together on the front steps of Congress holding hands. I have a vivid imagination.

            •  They could do that out of the goodness of their (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              darrelplant, Rusty1776

              hearts or they could realize the gig was up and it was time to get rid of dead wood (or known criminals, as the case is.)  You take your pick.  

              Doing nothing is getting us nowhere.  What is your proposal to end the war?  

              •  Actually, what I'd really like ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                David

                ...is for this not to have happened. I'd like for Gore to have won the election in 2000, and Bush to never have become president. But I can't have that. Do you know why? Because a bunch of purists decided that they needed to teach the Democrats a lesson and they voted for a third party idiot who said there was no difference between the parties. And the people who are obsessing about impeachment remind me of those purists in a way I'm not comfortable with. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the loudest voices were right-winger's who are actively trying to create dissent among a formerly united Democratic group.

                If you all want to cry for impeachment, have fun. Just don't get so carried away that you forget what the goal is. We must win the next presidential election. The right already has one candidate that is catching the attention of their base and the media. He is a classic authoritarian leader (a compulsive liar) and is very, very good at getting attention. We have several good people, none of whom are totally without baggage. They are very good at winning elections. We have to keep our eyes on the prize.

                •  Therein lies the problem (0+ / 0-)

                  My prize is we get out of Iraq and the killing in my name ends.  I asked you what your plan was to end the war, not what your strategy/concerns were about the next election.  Maybe it isn't your prize though.

                  I don't blame "purists" for the loss of the last election, I blame the Clintons' move away from the progressive base and the adoption of the "please the Republican base" strategy coupled with voter fraud and yes, some discouraged voters that voted third party.  It's happened before, I think it will likely happen again if the Democrats take no action whatsoever to impeach or end this war in the very near future.  So you see, even though it isn't my goal or prize, what I am doing would secure a Democratic win in my eyes by default, the best kind of default, the kind that rewards honesty and doing the right thing.

                  That's my plan for impeaching the President, ending the war AND winning the next decade of elections.  What is yours, just keeping an eye on the goal and not getting "carried away"?  What's your plan?

                  •  Bush had a plan (0+ / 0-)

                    They were going to invade Iraq, impressing the entire middle east with the power of the United States of America. Shock and Awe. And the Iraqis would throw roses at us and welcome us into their city, and we would help them to form a democracy just like ours and they would be a shining example to the middle east and would help us to root out all of the WMD's that Hussein was hiding.

                    That's the problem with basing a plan on wishful thinking. We, as humans, are very good at wishing for things to happen. However, with the exception of fans of "The Truth", most of us recognize that wishing is not enough. Impeaching Bush will not end the Iraq War. Convicting him and removing him from office (which is impossible at this time) would not end the Iraq war. If we could dump Cheney and Bush at the same time, we might pull it off... if they did't replace Cheney in the meanwhile, but when? It took 2 months to try Clinton, with very little evidence presented. We don't even have the documents to try Bush/Cheney, and they could hold us up until well after the next election. Do you want the troops home sooner or later? If you want later, then fight for impeachment. No president is going to make major political decision while under pressure of impeachment. These guys are all egomaniacs. They won't be forced. It wouldn't surprise me if he decided to invade Iran just to take our minds off his problems.

                    I may not know how to do this, but I can tell you what won't work. And this won't work. And even if it did work, then it would gain us nothing. The next president isn't going to respect the rule of law any more or less than they are so inclined. The nation will continue. Bush/Cheney aren't the first politicians to try to subvert the Constitution. They won't be the last, either.

                    •  They are the first politicians to succeed at the (0+ / 0-)

                      level they have.  

                      As to not knowing what to do but knowing what will not work, thank you very much, but I've already heard enough about what cannot be done from my government representatives.  The way you were carrying on I thought you had a much better idea than mine.  

                      Forgive me for moving on.  

                      •  Oh, I have a better idea (0+ / 0-)

                        It's just that I just know nobody on this thread is going to listen to it, because it has nothing to do with Bush, and it takes time.

                        Turn the public against the war.  All of them, or at least almost all. Find arguments for us not being there. Educate them. Expose right-wing lies. Expose the callousness of the right-wing in general. Let the public know that they've been had. The problem is that it isn't going to happen until at least September, and it may take longer. Some have already caught on, but people are very stubborn about holding onto ideas they believe - like Hussein being involved in 9/11. We may never get past that, and there will be some holdouts who want to stay in Iraq forever. And that is how long it will take to win the war. Tell people about the hundred years war, and the crusades, and Great Britain's occupation and every other time that somebody tried to impose their will on the Iraqis by force.

                        It probably sounds pretty weak to you, but gentle tactics often work where force doesn't. You want flashy and spectacular. You want Bush to be humiliated. You want justice. I just want the war to end. I want people to learn, again, that our Constitution is a fragile thing, and if we don't protect it we will lose it. Bush will move on, regardless of whether he is impeached. Hearings on Bush will be about power and politics, and can only serve to increase cynicism, not educate the masses. Hearings would divide the nation, when what we really need is to unite the nation behind the common goal of getting these people out and keeping them out.

                        •  It doesn't sound weak to me at all, in fact, your (0+ / 0-)

                          plan is really part of my plan.  The public is not going to listen until they have a reason to though, and the best way in my opinion to get them to do so is to impeach the executive branch, in part or as a whole.  The main problem is that most people don't realize the criminality behind this all and how are we supposed to say that these are criminal acts when we aren't willing to begin prosecution of them under the law?  It's like saying you want someone to listen to the details of a murder but don't want to arrest the murderer.

                          The nation is already divided.  We won't be able to heal until truth prevails.  In truth there is optimism, in bowing to criminality cynicism thrives.  

        •  Impeaching Nixon ended Vietnam (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vtfinest

          The diarist made a claim that impeaching was necessary to end the Iraq War. I would simply like to understand the logic behind that statement.

          You already said it: impeachment is a prerequisite to ending the Iraq War. By itself, it won't end the war, but without impeachment, the war will not end, ever.

          For that matter, I would not be surprised to find that Jan 21, 2009, Bush is still President, or somebody just as bad.

          Army 1st Lt. Ehren T. Watada, Lt. Cdr USN Matthew Diaz, SPC Eli Israel: true American heroes.

          by sdgeek on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:17:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nixon was never impeached (0+ / 0-)

            And Vietnam ended because public support for the war eroded to the point that Congress could no longer support it.

            Impeachment is not a prerequisite for ending the war. Bush won't be president on Jan 21. Somebody else just as bad will be, unless we all pull together to make sure it doesn't happen.

  •  Here's what I wrote to Nadler, Clinton and Schume (13+ / 0-)

    I'm a victim of 9/11.  I was in the building when the plane hit.

    Compared to some people, I was lucky: I wasn't injured.  I kept my job.  I got home easily.  But compared to the vast majority of Americans, I am a victim.  I had glass in my hair. I lost a year's work, and some irreplaceable items.  My family went crazy for a while.  My kid had nightmares.  You explain to a 5 year old why (in his words) "They crashed into the building on purpose?" or reply to "I thought pilots were good people".

    But I am a victim another way.

    I share part of this other victimhood with all Americans.  I am a victim, not of terror, but of the so-called `war on terror'.  I am a victim of a government that is out-of-control.  I am a victim of crushing national debt.  I am a victim because I live in a country that went from having the sympathy of the world to one that is a pariah, an outcast among nations, a rogue state.  I am a victim because I now have to `watch what I say'.  I am a victim because my rights are violated, not by some nebulous and inimical group of terrorists, but by my own government.

    They do not speak for me

    But in another way, I do not share this other victimhood.  My victimhood is being abused.

    I have watched for years as my government - our government - has whittled away my rights, stolen my freedoms, and wrecked the constitution in the name of a false security.  I have watched and watched and watched, as they have used my name - my victimhood - to make me a victim once again.

    They do not speak for me

    So, I will post this diary, and I will take action.  I will volunteer.  I will give money.  I will make a difference.  This is MY country, this is MY victimhood, and I will not have it abused.  I am no martyr; I have no death wish; I hope that no terrorist ever strikes anywhere again.  But the founders of this country knew what they were doing. They wanted freedom.  They DEMANDED freedom.  They put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on the line to win freedom.  And now it is reduced to this.

    But it is worse even than this; it would be one thing to pay too heavy a price to increase our safety.  But we have paid the price for nothing.  We have arrested thousands of people, and let them go.  We have spied on our own citizens, and found out nothing.  We have allied ourselves with torturers, and yet, we are not safe.  Indeed, by making our enemies unite, we have made ourselves weaker, and our enemies stronger.

    This victim demands an end to the 'war on terror' that is really a war on America.  Impeach the president

    Republicans believe government is the enemy. When they're in charge, they're right.

    by plf515 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:54:19 PM PDT

  •  Do Fourthbranch and Abu Gonzo (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All, lotlizard, Catrina

    Give 'em the big I right now. Right now. Then go for the sockpuppet in chief.

    I got yer straw man right here.

  •  Americans want impeachment. (4+ / 0-)

    DKos holdouts just want to play politics with our country. It's pretty selfish of them.

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:00:02 PM PDT

  •  Great diary....I want them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast, Rusty1776

    impeached so bad I can taste it....and after we're done with Gonzo, dick and w, let's go after I-lie-too and Johnny Bob Taliban.  Thx.

  •  Make it rain subpoenas (7+ / 0-)

    (h/t peacevoter)

  •  Loved it! (7+ / 0-)

    I laughed, I cried, I rec'd, I hotlisted!

    No need to ever write another impeachment diary - just keep reposting this one!

    A master work.

    Bravo, kudos and well done Rusty!

    Imagination is more important than knowledge - Einstein

    by One Pissed Off Liberal on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:14:39 PM PDT

  •  I asked once before (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YellowDogBlue, DiesIrae, thirtyplus

    I'll ask again. What does impeachment solve at this juncture?

    By the time the Articles are written and the proceedings have begun he will be months away from ending his term and he can't be re-elected. Should Congress vote to impeach and it get to the Senate, if they are successful he may be thrown out of office a week or two early.

    The damage is done and can't be undone or prevented by impeachment. Face it. They won this one.

    The best we can hope for is a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House will initiate criminal investigations that will result in indictments and lengthy prison sentences for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc.

    So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

    by Cali Techie on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:14:50 PM PDT

    •  We need to restore constitutional government (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      super simian

      No matter the timing.

      The precedents set by this administration are so extreme that I feel NO administration should have those powers.

      We must make it very clear which acts by this administration were so wrong as to be impeachable, and we need to demonstrate that those things are impeachable by impeaching.

      The precedent must be set that these actions will result in ouster.

      Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

      by mataliandy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:38:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unless Bush Declares Martial Law (0+ / 0-)

        Constitutional government will be restored once he leaves office provided we the people elect someone who will keep to a higher standard.

        I agree he should not be allowed to get away with what he has done. There are however other options to impeachment that will prove to be just as if not more effective such as convicting him of crimes committed while in office and making him serve time in a federal prison for those crimes. That would be unprecedented and would send the message to anyone else contemplating the same there are consequences. That being said I doubt seriously there will be any criminal investigation at least not in the US. He could possibly be tried in the Hague for war crimes starting with invading a sovereign country that posed no threat to us.

        All impeachment and conviction will do is remove him from office. It won't punish him for what he has done nor will it undo any of the damage.

        So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

        by Cali Techie on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:53:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately, precedent is precedent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vtfinest

          Unless the precedent is nipped in the bud, any future administration can claim any of the powers this administration has claimed.

          No matter what happens to this President and Vice President personally, the precedent will still stand unless it's specifically addressed during their tenure. And past precedent under Nixon is that the courts do not hold the power to adjudicate issues of Presidential abuses of power - that is the role of the Congress.

          Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

          by mataliandy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:39:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

            Precedent is precedent and I agree they should be held accountable. It would set a precedent if they were prosecuted, tried, and convicted for criminal acts while they were in office.

            Nixon was well on his way to being prosecuted for what he did while he was in office until Ford pardoned him. A sitting president cannot be removed from office by the courts, but there is nothing that says a president cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed while holding office or that impeachment is the only option. A successful criminal prosecution would set a clear precedent and deter future bad behavior.

            Even if Impeachment were on the table and they started today, it is highly unlikely the process would be complete before his term expired rendering the whole exercise moot.

            So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

            by Cali Techie on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:23:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Time for a showdown (6+ / 0-)

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Free America.......impeach Bush.

    by Ekaterin on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:15:02 PM PDT

  •  They are chicken-asses. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catrina, thirtyplus

    They are establishment skanks. Pants-pissing weenies. Out of touch with the blood and rage pouring through the streets of America. They all gaze into the same fun-house mirrors and see the same portfolios, the same suits, the same haircuts, the same ass-kissing aides, the same careers.

    They all think of themselves as some sort of elite "lawyer" breed, as if they never heard the goddam honest TRUTH joke about what we'd like to do with the lawyers. It's no fucking JOKE, assholes, it's what we actually think.

    We have been sick with fear and rage since the turn of the millenium. Bad start to the next one, for as long as it might last (NOT).

    Just what is it about "destroy the Republican Party" you don't understand, dickwads?

    Do it, NOW.

  •  Once Upon a Time (4+ / 0-)

    A noble cause was that event undertaken in the face of anticipated defeat.

    In those days of yore, heroes set out to slay dragons; companions sallied forth against overwhelming odds; little people undertook doom-seeking missions.

    Win or lose, they girded themselves and did battle, armed with the knowledge that they were on the Right Side.  And it was enough.

    And    sometimes    they    won.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:17:58 PM PDT

  •  Oh, for the love of all that's holy (8+ / 0-)

    That's the best argument against "We don't have the votes and aren't likely to get them" that you can muster--that it's somehow a "right-wing frame"? Small wonder you can't actually win converts to your cause, if that's an example of your argumentative skills.

    Sad though it may be, the fact remains that we don't have the votes. We aren't going to get the votes any time soon--if at all. I would argue that this means, therefore, that any time we spend pining, advocating, or wishing for impeachment is nothing more than a waste of time we could be spending on other things. Like, for instance, making sure we have a big enough majority next time around to take care of business no matter who's in the White House. Or, for that matter, making sure that it's one of our people in the White House.

    There is a statistically greater likelihood that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning than there is that the Boy Who Would Be King will ever be impeached before leaving office. Or, for that matter, that he will do time after leaving it.

    Sad, but true. You can either recognize that fact, or pretend it doesn't exist. You seem to have opted for the latter choice.

  •  Do it already (6+ / 0-)

    Stop yelling at Kossacks and fucking do it already. Impeach him. Go for it. It's all you. You're in charge of that fucking committee. Get yourself elected to congress and fucking do it. Or do it from the state house. I don't care. I'll back you every step of the way. For serious. But stop yelling at me in fucking BOLD FACED ALL CAPS. That's not getting anybody impeached. It's just giving me a headache. You have the power Rusty. Make it so.

  •  Well here I am again ... (12+ / 0-)

    ... at the bottom of the thread.

    Rusty1776, you know I am very much in agreement that this crowd must be impeached.

    But this internecine fighting is extremely harmful to everyone involved.  Not one person here who is posting against impeachment is harming any cause whatsoever -- nor are they insane, deluded or evil or any less patriotic than those who are passionately in favor of impeachment at this time.

    If you want to write a passionate diary against the Bush misAdministration, you know I will recommend it, and you, as I have in the past.  And I'll argue until I'm blue in the face about why I believe impeachment should and must be "on the table."

    But to make personal ad hom characterizations towards those who you are angry with and passionately disagree with is just plain destructive and misdirected.  I am as opposed to that as I am in favor of impeachment.  This should stop.

    •  I appreciate your comments, but I disagree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto1618, Catrina

      about the approach you suggest.  There is too much at stake to be polite.  I am trying to wake people up who refuse to wake up.  

      •  I understand. (9+ / 0-)

        But I have virtually no doubt that calling folks who disagree with you all sorts of names will never "wake them up."  If I felt differently I would have recommended this diary.

        All this does is harden the divisions.  You don't have to believe me -- just see for yourself.  See if even one person changes their mind here in the comment section of your diary.

        I've read several diaries of folks who have indeed changed from anti- to pro-impeachment.  I have never once heard as the reason given that they were somehow shamed or "awakened" by the passion of a pro-impeachment diary.

        It's not a matter of being polite, I don't care about politeness.  It's a matter of authenticity.  I don't for one moment believe that the folks you are railing against are "asleep."  They have a different view.  It's one I passionately disagree with.  But this kind of diary will just harden that view, imo.

        We are all angry.  And even though I'm not using a lot of profanity in this comment, believe me, I am so angry I could throw up.  The anger is a great force, but it has to be directed towards those who are guilty of the crime -- and that is Bush and his misAdministration.  No one else.  No one else.

        Please try and think about what I'm saying here, Rusty1776.  It's hard, I know, when everything is so fucked up.  But I agree, there's too much at stake to be polite, which is why I'm so strongly disagreeing with you here.

        •  I will think about what you're saying, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotlizard

          Nightprowlkitty.

          But I don't think this kind of diary hardens views.

          You said: "See if even one person changes their mind here in the comment section of your diary."

          My reply to that is that many more people read diaries than respond in a comment thread, so how many minds are being changed cannot be measured by looking at a comment thread.  Furthermore, human nature being what it is, people aren't inclined to publicly admit they were wrong.

          •  Well ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gary Norton

            ... thanks for the thoughtful response.

            I couldn't agree more that folks aren't inclined to publicly admit when they are wrong.

            Perhaps there will be lurkers who will be swayed by this kind of diary.  But I still believe that the kind of personal characterizations in this diary, which by the way, I do not agree with, aren't an effective way to communicate on this issue and I do think it will deepen the already existing divisions.

            Bottom line for me, though, is I have a lot of faith in everyone here, from all sides of this argument -- we're all tough folks and we'll all fight this out to the best of our abilities as events progress in our fucked up political world.

      •  you are going about it incorrectly (0+ / 0-)

        on the whole.  you mistake one thing for another.  you accuse people who don't agree that an ideal impeachment scenario can be simply wished into existence of being pro-Bush enablers.

        running around and claiming that you are "awake" where as others are not because they don't share your point of view is juvenile, not to mention wrong.

        look i agree that these people should be punished and held accountable.  should be.  i also think i deserve a million dollars.  wishing does not make something so, and insulting people who engage you genuinely in a debate, or at the outset before there even is a debate...well lets just say its pretty sad to see it so accepted around here.  your point of view is correct overall, but you are tactically very, very wrong.

  •  ah, go to hell yourself (5+ / 0-)

    if the public is unfazed by what is already well known about the administration's lawlessness, then nothing is going to emerge in stonewalled hearings that will suddenly move them. (pretend that was in all caps)

    and without overwhelming popular support, impeachment will never get the votes. and if you can't actually remove him, what the hell is the point? actually, i didn't bother to read your whole bullshit diary so if i missed the part where you tell me how we're going to get 67 votes in the senate i'd love to hear it.

    you've got nothing.

    AP: John McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy

    by jethropalerobber on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:22:28 PM PDT

  •  Nice way of bridging the gap (8+ / 0-)

    And the approach in this diary is really going to persuade those of us who think the "impeachment or bust" crowd is wasting their time and it is never going to happen?

    Uh, no...

    These "feel good" impeachment diaries come in waves for the last year and a half and do nothing more than bounce in the DailyKos echo chamber. I wish is was a tangib

    But, heck, if you really think the media or congresspeople or staffers are going to push for impeachment hearings because EVERY impeachment diary on Dailykos gets thrusted top the top of teh recomend list by the same 100 or so people, then more power to ya.

    Waste of time in my book.

    Catch NY politics raw and uncensored at GregNYC at The CITY.

    by GregNYC on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:26:35 PM PDT

  •  They should lose their jobs. (10+ / 0-)

    I think it's strange that impeachment is viewed as so extreme.  It isn't.  Not in this context.  The Presidency and the Vice Presidency are, at the end of the day, jobs.  If you or I broke the law on the job, brought shame upon our company, and took actions that resulted in the deaths of thousands with no discernible greater good - then we would lose our jobs.

    It's just this simple - they should lose their jobs.

  •  WWRD-What would Repubs do? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, Karma for All, OWTH, Catrina, 2ajpuu

    That is all you need to ask.  The answer is they would impeach the ass of any Democrat who did less.
    They wouldn't stop to contemplate their navel like we are doing. They would impeach their asses! Period.

  •  We Don't Even Have the Votes to Stop Iraq Funding (0+ / 0-)

    Much less impeachment. If it would pass the House, Pelosi would bring it forward. Too many Democratic reps would vote no. She couldn't even pull a narrow majority. Leadership is just running the numbers. You think the folks back in Pelosi's district aren't 6-1 in favor of impeachment?

    When the numbers add up, she will take the collars off of Conyers and Kucinich. Before that it will be politically counterproductive. That means it will backfire.

    George W. Bush is just like Forrest Gump. Except that Forrest Gump is honest and cares about other people.

    by easong on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:34:48 PM PDT

  •  Very impressive tirade (14+ / 0-)

    Probably one of the best foot-stamping, indignant, spit-foaming rants I've seen on the subject. I am sure it will have enormous practical effect, not that practicalities seem to be a high priority with you. There are a good number of people on dkos that disagree with the proposition that, if only we get furious enough, an impeachment will just happen. If I were the resenting type, I would take exception to your implication that people who think that an impeachment is some distance, maybe an impossible distance, away, are somehow unindicted co-conspirators with Bush.

    As someone once sadi, facts are stubborn things. One important fact is that impeachments cannot be driven by a fire-breathing minority. It has to be a bipartisan majority. If you, or anyone else, could just go post the list of Republican Senators that you think would ever vote to impeach a Republican President, then I would be happy to join the discussion. You despise such numbers because you know you cannot get to 67 even in your dreams. That's why your rant, amusing as it is, is so much hot air. When I hear a cogent, reasoned plan of attack, I pay attention. Not otherwise.

    Ambition is when you follow your dreams. Insanity is when they follow you.

    by Batfish on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:44:35 PM PDT

    •  Why you...reality-based thinking person you! (6+ / 0-)

      How dare you use your brain and crush all these "Fight the power!" dreams?!?

      Is that you, Karl?

      ;-)

      •  Nah... (6+ / 0-)

        Karl's sending checks out to the diarist...lol

        •  You're terrible! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StevenJoseph, Elise, Gary Norton

          ;-)

          •  Well, I'd call it fed up, but yeah... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            itsbenj, PaintyKat, Gary Norton, kovie

            I'm done pulling punches...if I'm going to be called a traitor and an idiot...I'm sure as hell not going to be nice in return :-)

            •  This is precisely why (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Elise, Gary Norton, OWTH

              I got into a number of pie fights last week. Way too many people ready to call someone names and accuse them of being faithless just because they don't subscribe with THEIR divinely ordained view of the world and solution to its woes. And this impeachment debate seems to have really put some people in serious purity troll territory. And then, of course, are all the concern trolls on the other end.

              Sigh. Will there be metal detectors at YearlyKos? ;-)

            •  You know (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2, Elise, OWTH

              I've noticed that the better-known I get here, the more I've tended to get attacked or treated rudely. Is this because more people want to engage me because I'm one of the more known posters and thus naturally some of them will be rude, or is this some sort of weird blog envy thing going on and people are actually gunning for me? Or could it be both? Has this happened to you and other "longtimers"? Weird, and a bit disturbing.

              Or is it simply because there are so many new members who haven't bothered to learn blog ettiquette or know this site's customs, conventions and more established members and are acting like rude newbies who just don't know any better?

              •  Actually...that's pretty much exactly (6+ / 0-)

                what I've experienced and for me it pretty much goes back to the impeachment arguments in November/December of last year and it's just gotten worse and worse to the point where I'm basically giving it another 2 months or so and if things don't improve, fuck it- let the morons have this place and then I won't have to worry about my own credibility going out the window when the credibility of this joint goes all the way to the sewer. We're certainly halfway to the bottom as it is here.

                Honestly, I was told by specific people when we disagreed over impeachment in November that I would "lose all my friends" as a result of my differing opinion on the issue. My response was obviously, "um...fuck off, you aren't my 'friend' if you can't disagree with me on a political issue and still maintain a friendship."

                There's an entire movement here among a number of people who are fighting against us "archaic dragons"...no joke, that's literally what I was called...by someone with a uid of 70,000 or so. He's apparently the "new blood", a "new" leader (with a uid of 70K...that's "new") for the site...and anyone who disagrees on impeachment or anything else frankly, just gets deemed a traitor and it's open season.

                Basically, it's purist and childish bullshit. It's people stamping their feet and throwing temper tantrums like 3 year olds because they aren't getting from Congress exactly what they want the second they demand it. I really firmly believe that these people like losing- because their behavior is only going to contribute to losses for us in 2008 - and when that happens, they'll really have something to cry about and they'll have helped bring it on all of us. Of course, we'll get blamed for that too. I'm used to it now...

                A lot of reasonable people have left. I actually got an email this morning from yet another reasonable person who is thinking about leaving if something isn't done about this. People are getting sick of being called traitors just because they don't see impeachment as being something that is likely to occur. Eventually the reasonable people will all be gone and the idiots will fully take over...and when the site loses credibility, and Representatives stop coming- some of them haven't been by in a while already- they can pat themselves on the back and sit back and throw a tantrum in their irrelevancy.

                Hang in there...I'm trying to myself...hopefully it gets better soon.

                •  No (6+ / 0-)

                  I'm not going down without a fight. These idiots make a lot of noise that is way out of proportion to their numbers or standing here. I view it as trolling at this point, trying to push for an absolutely impossible strategy that has zero chances of succeeding NOW and which is likely to only make it harder to hold the administration accountable let alone impeach eventually--and having the nerve to call anyone who disagree with them as cowards and traitors.

                  These people are not Democrats, but what the MSM really means when they refer to the "far left lunatic fringe". It's not their support of "impeachment now" that makes them trolls, but the way in which they've gone about it. I'm going to be a lot less conservative with my TRs from now on when I or someone else is unfairly attacked. See R's comment below and what he wrote about both of us. I suggest you use any TR's you have left to send him a message and maybe on his way to the ban bin. This is insane. The circular firing squad will kill the party. '68 all over again. The "pure" really IS the enemy of the good.

                  And I agree with you about their enjoying losing. I know people who are only happy when they're unhappy (if you know what I mean) because it gives them something to complain about and feel relevant and empowered. I see the exact same thing here. And I also see no difference between these purity trolls, and defeatist concern trolls whose discourse basically amounts to remarks on the order of "Yeah, like that'll ever happen with these gutless wonders". Flip sides of the same infantile, cynical and self-righteous coin. Neither are true progressives.

                  Hang in there Elise. I seriously doubt that Kos and the FPers will let this site be destroyed by them. I can only wonder if this will manifest itself at YearlyKos. Can you just imagine the vicious purity pie fights being broadcast on CSPAN. THAT would do wonders for the party in '08. (Wait, I shouldn't give anyone ideas...) But I think that as congress and others go about ACTUALLY doing something to fix the mess in DC, their voices will be drowned out and become rapidly irrelevant. Or they'll get fed or be banned up and start their own sites.

                  •  I agree Kovie... (5+ / 0-)

                    I'm SO with you on this. I can't imagine this will turn into anything at YKos - I really can't. But I'm definitely frustrated. I'm not willing to give up just yet. I'm definitely here and trying to stick it out...glad to have you here too :-)

                    •  Remember to always take a breather (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Elise, skymutt

                      when things get out of hand. This is important, but you can't make it the end all and be all of your life. Today, I got tired of all the pie fights and spent a few hours doing some dirty gardening work. Best 4 hours I spent all day. Well, except for the ones I spent here. ;-)

                      And think of all the tomatoes, basil and flowers I'll have next month! :-)

                      Plus, when you think about it, what we're doing here isn't that different. It's sometimes hard and dirty work, and we have to deal with nasty critters and invasive weeds every now and then. But the payoff is well worth it, I believe. And it can sometimes be a lot of fun! Like everything, this place has its ups and downs, pluses and minuses. The ups and pluses make the downs and minuses worth bearing. For me at least. And I suspect for you.

                      Hang in there Elise! :-)

                •  DON'T LEAVE. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Goldfish, Elise, kovie

                  I'm sorry--one should never start off a post by shouting but there it is.

                  I'm pro-impeachment but I'm not rabid. I don't believe in withholding money from the Dems. I don't believe in voting 3rd party. I'm not moving to Canada.

                  As a matter of fact, I just signed on to volunteer full time again on another congressional race against Marilyn Musgrave.

                  I don't see dissenting viewpoints as traitorous and I think we need all the voices we can possibly get at this site.

                  Democracy only really works if it's messy and people disagree on a regular basis.

                  Agreeing all the time is boring and smacks of Stalinism.

                  Don't leave. I value your contributions here. I value your voice. I value your opinions. You're one of the few genuine "friends" I have on this blog and I don't want to lose you.

                  I'm half tempted to leave myself, with the rabid Edwards folks lurking the halls. But then, I just remind myself that this is where I get my news and where I learn about things that I'm not finding anywhere else and I'm not willing to throw that all away to placate a couple of bullies.

                  Don't leave. Please?

                  "...the Edwards folks do not endorse Brittany's crotch."

                  by Pager on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 06:57:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks Pager... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kovie, Nightprowlkitty, Pager

                    I know what you mean about the rabid Edwards folks. I can name tons of people who support Edwards, but who don't act like idiots about it.

                    I agree that sticking it out is best- shoot, if I didn't I'd have probably just left in November and said screw it...no point. I just get tired sometimes. This week I've been tired. I keep getting emails from others suggesting that they may leave and I keep trying to do my best to convince them, but some have already given up and others don't sound as enthused to stick around. Hopefully they'll stay too...and then we'll have more reasonable voices.

                    For now, you're stuck with me :-)

                    •  Good. I feel better. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Elise, kovie

                      Because, you know, it's all about me. :)

                      "...the Edwards folks do not endorse Brittany's crotch."

                      by Pager on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:43:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  One of the problems--for me at least (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Elise

                      is that I sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between people who feel so passionately about such heated topics (which of course many of these are) that they're not aware of how rude and disruptive they can be, and those who know that they're being rude and disruptive and are intentionally being so, because, since in their minds they are obviously right and everyone else is obviously wrong, they have the moral right if not obligation to shut them up.

                      The former kind can be dealt with--e.g. let them know that what they're doing is improper and ask them to stop. It is the latter kind that truly hurt this place. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is absolutely no place on this site for intentionally and/or persistently intolerant and disruptive behavior. None. If someone slips up occasionally then that's one thing. But to do it consistently and egregious can only be dealt with by TRing and banning.

                      My fear, though--and you clearly share it--is if enough of the latter kind of trolls join and aggressively participate in this site, then they will destroy it for the rest of us, and there will be little that we can do about it, because they will outnumber us. Kind of like democracy itself. Which, of course, would be ironic, but stranger things have happened in the name of "good causes". In fact, most probably have.

                      I'll be taking it one day at a time. But I'm determined to stay, so long as I feel that there's a point. And I think that there still very much is.

                    •  Don't mean to sound ... (0+ / 0-)

                      ... cynical or defeatist, because that is not how I feel ...

                      I really believe Daily Kos is not a final home for Progressives, for Democrats.  I will never forget what kos said about this -- that since he put up the site there have always been folks coming and going, and for some reason I've always found that people do indeed both arrive and leave in groups, human nature, perhaps.

                      I completely disagree with those who claim that either they or folks they like have been "driven off the site."  That puts the responsiblity on everyone else but the person who makes the decision to leave, and I just don't buy it.

                      This is ultimately a political site.  I know I have a tendency to post more on cultural issues, and sometimes just goofy stuff -- but I am always aware this is a political site.  One of the things I have learned by observing (and sometimes, unfortunately, participating) in some of the more ugly fights here is that politics is a very very difficult and often painful endeavor.  We're not dealing with the good side of human nature in politics -- for if we were all good all the time, we wouldn't need any laws at all.

                      It's because we all can be assholes -- whether in an extroverted and obnoxious fashion or a more subtle passive-aggressive fashion (which I tend to dislike even more) -- that we have to deal with politics and the forces that either promote human freedom or deny it.

                      So if folks want to leave, that's fine with me, and I don't think it's a bad thing, especially if they find other organizations or activities that will help them to reach their potential as far as contributing to society.  But I'll never buy the argument that anyone is "driven off" this site.  It may feel that way, sure, but I think if one really searches one's own heart, really looks into the mirror (something I don't think any of us enjoy doing), the reasons are within ourselves, not with anyone else.

                      •  Hrm. I'm not sure I said anyone was (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Nightprowlkitty

                        being "driven off the site" or that anyone who emailed said that either.

                        I think the point that was made was that some things are worth fighting for and some things are not, and those "things" may fluctuate between fighting for or they may start out as worth fighting for and become not worth it.

                        In other words- since I've been here this site has been worth fighting for. I am starting to look around and wonder if that's true anymore and many others are doing the same. It's not about being "driven" anywhere. If I leave this site it will be because this site has lost credibility. I believe we are perilously close to that. Closer than we have ever been in this site's history.

                        The fact is, blogs are a great way for candidates and Reps to communicate with the people- but just as blogs came along, other things will come along again and perhaps become MORE relevant in having that discussion. If Representatives and candidates decide that this is not a place they want to come to communicate anymore, well, there's no credibility here at that point...there's no reason to be here other than a wank fest. Why waste my time.

                        You are right in a sense- if I leave, it will be because I have determined that this place isn't worth my time anymore. The tone and certainly some of the people around here are responsible for the site becoming "not worth my time", but in the end, it's my decision to leave or not leave.

                        As for the people emailing, the same goes for them too. Their decision. I can tell you right now that the people who came to the conclusion that this place wasn't worth their time anymore-- every one of them has gone on the better things, to more activism, and to actually reaching candidates and people and actually getting things done.

                        We all make choices. I take full responsibility for mine and I always have.

                        •  Ach ... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Elise

                          ... I think I got mixed up on my diaries here.  I was referring to the folks who have accused you and others of "driving them off the site."  Sorry about that.

                          But I still think some of what I said applies -- in a way this site is something that certainly can be outgrown, in the best sense of the word.  Granted, I was not here from the beginning, but I do know how this place has changed in the past year or two.

                          And I think it is inevitable.  I think that's politics, and that's why folks have such a hard time with politics.  The only way Daily Kos could have stayed the way it was would have been for Markos to have very strictly limited participation and otherwise heavily moderated the site.  I also think Markos will not be here forever either, and I think that is a natural progression, even as it would make me very sad.

                          Anyway, sorry for the confusion.  You know I value both your writing and your community policing very much -- I think no matter what you end up doing it will be activist in nature and will benefit others.

                          I guess I am seeing this from a different perspective (and possibly as an older person as well, but not altogether sure about that).  I really believe all good movements have a golden age, one that seems to last forever, but in reality happens only for a short period of time.  I think you and many of the earlier posters were fortunate to have experienced that golden age.

                          And I also believe there will be more golden ages as things progress and as new innovations and ideas come up.  

              •  Not blog etiquette anywhere as the leader (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2, Elise, kovie

                of the pack is banned from Rep. Conyers web site and he is one of the nicest and hardest working Reps in the House of Reps and folks sure thought so here when he was working hard on voter fraud but now, not so much.

                Voting and supporting Democrats,
                PaintyKat

                WWYTR? "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend" MLK

                by PaintyKat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:24:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  What. Is. Your. Plan. (0+ / 0-)

      Lot's of criticism from the usual gallery, not much redirection amidst the sarcasm and wit.  Got a better idea?  'Cause all I'm reading here is alot of what the Democrats can't do, once again.  

      •  I'm sorry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, PaintyKat

        that we can't do impeachment right now; I really am. I wish it were otherwise. But we do not have a parliamentary system where the majority party rides alone. We need the other Party to do lots of things. Impeachment isn't one of them.

        Ambition is when you follow your dreams. Insanity is when they follow you.

        by Batfish on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:37:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have a ton of them (0+ / 0-)

        But since this diary is so clearly dismissive and insulting to any alternatives, I see no reason anyone should discuss such ideas in this insulting and puerile piece of shit diary.

        The way to deal with trolls is fire, and lots of it

        by Goldfish on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:40:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ha... (12+ / 0-)

    yeah, we're reinforcing right wing talking points.

    How many times have you said "The Democrats are cowards"...cuz that's not a Republican talking point at all, right?

  •  Do I want to see impeachments? (17+ / 0-)

    Yes.  Do I think there's a chance in hell?  Nope.  And holding this opinion apparently means that I'm afraid of and enabling criminals, I'm delusional, insane, without a shred of self-respect, and so on.  This must be some of that free-flow of ideas I was hearing about here recently.  Sheesh.

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:56:24 PM PDT

    •  Half a million people are dead. How many more (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, Catrina

      are going to die if Bush attacks Iran?  1 million?  2 million?  He's going to attack Iran if he isn't removed from office.

      That's what's at stake.  And I'm supposed to be polite so no one's feelings get hurt here?

      Why is there no chance in hell of Impeachment, Barbin?  Because not enough people are angry, that's why.

      They need to get angry, they need to get much angrier.

      As for your accusation that I'm calling progressives insane and delusional, you need to read my diary again because that isn't what I said.  I said Impeachment opponents here and in Congress are indulging this right wing insanity by accommodating it.

      •  You're creating a false division (8+ / 0-)

        (which I'd contend is not helpful and a bit too much like the sort of "you're either with me or against me" rhetoric that the other side likes to bait people with), between those who support and absolutely demand impeachment NOW and will brook no diversion from this ONE TRUE PATH, and those who oppose impeachment.

        There IS a middle ground of people who are FOR impeachment, but either don't think that it'll ever happen (like Barb), or think that it could happen, but that the best if not only way to make it happen is by following the proscribed process of investigations first, then impeachment. You really do need to stop pulling this divisive stuff, Rusty. Your heart is in the right place, but please, stop getting so self-righteous.

        It's not helpful.

        •  Proscribed (0+ / 0-)

          Proscribed by who?

          The House authorized the Judiciary committee in February 1974 -- three months before the impeachment hearings began -- to investigate whether grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon.

          That didn't stop other House committees from investigating Nixon or the Senate from investigating Nixon or the special prosecutor from investigating Nixon or even the Judiciary committee from investigating Nixon.

          Which process are you referring to?

          Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

          by darrelplant on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:47:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  By the constitutional process and tradition (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            scrutinizer, Creosote

            What you don't mention is that the house began initial hearings into Watergate a full year before the above date, a month after the new congress convened. Sam Ervin convened a select committee to investigate "Presidential Campaign Activities". It was a full year before talk of impeachment got serious.

            And yet we're not even 6 months into the new congress and you want an impeachment schedule that's twice as fast-moving as the Watergate one, facing a criminal enterprise that's ten or a hundred times deeper, broader and more entrenched than anything that Nixon's men ever cooked up. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

            I am referring to the process that's worked in the past--when properly employed--as opposed to one that sounds wonderful but has no chance of succeeding.

            •  But Impeachment's completely off the table (0+ / 0-)

              There's no schedule. There's no investigations. There's nothing - and nothing planned.

              I am referring to the process that's worked in the past--when properly employed--as opposed to one that sounds wonderful but has no chance of succeeding.

              But what are they employing? Impeachment is off the table.

              •  I'm not going to debate this again (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                scrutinizer, PaintyKat, Crisitunity

                They're investigating, quite aggressively. The fact that they're not calling it "impeachment investigations" and that they're still in the intial stages (which these little things called the limitations of time and space have something to do with) doesn't in any way mean that they can't and won't lead to impeachment. For the 2000th time, there is no such thing as an "impeachment investigation". Read the constitution and some history before you keep spouting this nonsense.

                And "off the table" DOES NOT mean "never going to happen".

                You're getting hung up on words instead of focusing on process.

                •  Hey: I'm not "spouting" (0+ / 0-)

                  I haven't taken a negative tone with you. And I don't really appreciate your exagerations either. ("For the 2000th time")

                  I could get just as condescening and nasty back to you, but I won't.

                  But please, really.

                •  And if you're "not going to debate this again" (0+ / 0-)

                  then you shouldn't have responded.

                  Responding and saying basically, "Shut up. I'm right and I don't feel like proving it" is not showing of your most appealing side.

                  I've also made my argments many times. And I'll do so many more times if I need to.

                  •  I don't recall if it was with you specifically (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PaintyKat

                    that I had some recent intense and not entirely pleasant debates on this, although I seem to recall our having exchanged comments recently that got a bit heated (but there were so many others that I have a hard time remembering who said what). So if I spoke out of turn, my apologies.

                    But my larger point, not directed at you so much as at anyone who wishes to engage in this particualar debate with me, is that I've goten tired of having it, and really don't have anything new to contribute or am hearing anything new from others. And I'm not saying "Shut up, I'm right". I'm just saying that I've said all that I need to say, and do not wish to extend a debate that has gotten boring and repetitive for me.

                    Again, apologies if I offended. My frustration is not directed at you so much as at going over the same old ground to no avail. Others have their approach to impeachment, which I respect but don't necessarily agree with, and I have mine, which others are not obliged to agree with, but which I wish others would equally respect. That's all.

                    And I'm done.

            •  Scale (0+ / 0-)

              There was a question of whether there was White House involvement in the Watergate break-in and coverup, however. That's what was being investigated and traced up the ladder from the plumbers to CREEP to Nixon's advisors in 1973.

              There is no doubt about current White House involvement in authorization of torture and wiretapping and extraordinary rendition or claims of a fourth branch of government. What's at issue is whether those actions or other fully-acknowledged actions are offenses against the Constitution, i.e. whether they are impeachable.

              Unlike Watergate, there is no need to prove that the link between the President and the act exists. What needs to be addressed is if they are offenses and if they are breaches of the President's duty to uphold the Constitution. That is the purpose of the initial investigatory phase.

              Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

              by darrelplant on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:42:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It has to begin with standard investigations (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PaintyKat

                If they indicate probable criminality and/or high crimes and misdemeanors, then it proceeds to a more intense phase, with a special prosecutor and/or select committees named. If they indicate impeachable offenses, that's when impeachment is first formally discussed.

                This is exactly how Watergate proceeded, and there is nothing about the present scandals that indicates that any other process can or should be followed. To jump straight to impeachment without first doing due diligence is not just improper, it's politically stupid.

                I've zero doubt that they've committed both vast crimes and serious violations of the constitution, both of which are obviously impeachable, and for which they should not only be impeached but idicted and convicted. But there is a process for determining and proving this formally, and it has to be followed.

                Sorry, no short cuts to holding them accountable. This has to be done right, if it's to be done at all. That's the only way to get these creeps.

                •  Chronology (0+ / 0-)

                  Your chronology's off.

                  Criminal prosecutions of the Watergate burglars began before the 1972 elections. Convictions came through in January 1973.

                  The Ervin Senate Select Committee was established in February 1973. Public hearings began in May.

                  Archibald Cox was named special prosecutor in May 1973.

                  Elliot Richardson resigned, Wm. Ruckelshaus resigned, Cox was fired by Bork in October.

                  Leon Jaworski replaced Cox in November.

                  There was no real period of "standard investigations" unless you count the criminal trials of people like Hunt and Liddy. Almost as soon as Nixon was reinagurated, the Senate authorized Ervin's committee. And they did so months before the naming of a special prosecutor. But that amount of time was necessary because they didn't have evidence that Nixon was involved in Watergate or the cover-up in any way until the existence of the tapes was revealed in July '73. From then on it was essentially a battle over obtaining documentation and tapes.

                  Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

                  by darrelplant on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:09:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually, it's spot-on (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PaintyKat

                    I just didn't include the WHOLE chronology, for brevity. But the part that I included was correct. Where do you think that I was wrong?

                    And like I've said before, Ervin's committee, while select, was not an "impeachment" hearing, per se. No one was even thinking impeachment at the time since no one realized (who wasn't in on the secrets of course) how high Watergate went. He was investigating some serious matters, but not in an "impeachment" mode. Impeachment wasn't formally mentioned until February '74, a full year later.

                    My entire point is sure, absolutely investigate up the ying yang. Demand a special prosecutor. Convene select committees. Hire a huge team of lawyers and investigators. But don't call it impeachment until sufficient hard evidence is in that PROVES (and not just indicates) that impeachable actions were committed. Because that's how it's supposed to work, and that's how it's most likely to succeed, in my opinion.

                    And history bears me out, I think.

                    •  and... (0+ / 0-)

                      "Impeachment wasn't formally mentioned until February '74, a full year later."

                      ...and Nixon didn't resign until Aug. 74.  these things take lots of time.  

                      •  Which is why it's a long shot at best (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PaintyKat

                        and if there's any chance that it can be done, it's only through following the process. But to go all half-cocked now will only assure that it will not happen, and make Dems look like partisan hacks and desperate fools, and accomplish nothing tangible.

                        I want to actually get the bastards, not just make a show of it.

                      •  Year and a half (0+ / 0-)

                        "It has been more than a year and a half since it was first disclosed that the President authorized an illegal warrantless wiretapping program."

                        -- Russ Feingold, 27 June 2007

                        Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

                        by darrelplant on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 04:54:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Where you were wrong (0+ / 0-)

                      Well, you were wrong in saying that investigations then proceed to "a more intense phase, with a special prosecutor and/or select committees named" The first investigation was the select committee.

                      What Ervin and the special prosecutor did was chase the trail of the misdeeds at Watergate up to the White House and President Nixon. There was no proof and some doubt that Nixon knew about or authorized the break-in and cover-up. It was possible that it was the work of zealous underlings.

                      That trail has already been established in issues like issues like the presidential orders authorizing domestic wiretapping. Bush's signature is on the authorization. He's spoken publicly in the program's defense. At issue is whether it was something he could constitutionally authorize. The fact that he did it cannot be disputed.

                      So there really isn't a need for the same kind of thread-following that Ervin's committee had to undertake. The potential offenses are out in the open. What needs to be determined is whether they are impeachable or not.

                      As for not calling it impeachment until you have hard evidence, you're wrong again there. There was no "smoking gun" proving Nixon's complicity until four days before he resigned, well after the House had authorized Judiciary to determine potential grounds. It only came after the special prosecutor got a decision from the Supreme Court that ordered Nixon to turn over tapes that showed he authorized the cover-up. Until that point, he had a solid base of Republican support. Not overwhelming, but solid. That was nearly six months after the full House authorized an impeachment inquiry.

                      Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

                      by darrelplant on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:49:04 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The politics are very different this time (0+ / 0-)

                        which changes everything. Nixon was more popular, true, but Dems had a stronger majority as well, the courts, DoJ and MSM weren't as GOP-friendly, and the public wasn't as apathetic, so Dems could proceed with oversight much more aggressively than today's Dems have political room to do.

                        What I see them doing right now is less "investigation" from a formal point of view, as building a political case for more aggressive oversight, by revealing to the public just how egregious and wide-ranging the administration's crimes have been and continue to be, and by trying to peel away Repubs one at a time as the election approaches.

                        It's not very different from their Iraq strategy, which also ultumately comes down to politics. And they're following the process that is politically open to them at present to build up to both ending the war and holding BushCo accountable. And right now, the politics of the situation simply doesn't allow either defunding or impeachment. So I think that they ARE following the Watergate process, once you account for the huge political and other differences between that era and this one.

          •  Also: there's a typo, possibly causing confusion (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PaintyKat, Karma for All, kovie

            Proscribed = forbidden
            Obviously kovie meant to write (and you correctly understood) "prescribed."

            The Dutch children's choir Kinderen voor Kinderen (= “children for children”) is a world cultural treasure.

            by lotlizard on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:43:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  No, you used (5+ / 0-)

        ...the "without a shred of self respect."  I included other words from the comments.  And I'm not bothered by a lack of manners here, I just don't agree with your approach.  But since it's your approach and not mine, well then, that's okay.

        But what you seem to be ignoring is, there are many people, myself included, who are angry, furious, incensed (pick a word), but still don't believe that impeachment will happen.  Not believing it will happen is not the same as being against impeachment.  

        Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

        by Barbara Morrill on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:43:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Keep up the good work, Rusty ~ (3+ / 0-)

        I have convinced two Repubs who voted twice for Bush that he needs to be impeached. It really didn't take much convincing. People are angry as hell, even more so those who were fooled!

        I'm working on others, mostly Repubs because I know a lot of Repubs, but they care about this country too and I don't think I'll have much trouble once I get them away from Fox and Rush and send them some facts!

        Love your spirit, Rusty, I'm tired too of being polite, tried that for SIX YEARS and look where THAT got us, so either help get these criminals out of our government or get out of the way!  

        Speak your truth quietly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story - Max Ehrmann

        by Catrina on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:37:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, what you said was that ... (14+ / 0-)

        ... impeachment opponents here are engaging in "craven and shameful political expediency," that they are "pissy pants" "I-D-I-O-T-S," that they are "unconscionable and irrational", that they are "without a shred of self-respect."

        And, of course, that they are "progressive," not progressive.

        I am now, and have been for two years, in favor of impeachment. So has another well-known Front Pager. But this blunderbuss attack on everybody - Front Pagers and rank-and-file Kossacks alike - who believe that impeachment is the wrong tack to take, that it might even be counterproductive is, imo, way beyond the Pale.

        And you haven't persuaded a single person to change his or her mind. Just as you won't change the mind of a single person in Congress by approaching the issue in this manner.