Skip to main content

I shouldn't have to qualify my comments below with the statement of my respect and admiration for Senator Feingold. So I won't. This is a response to a specific diary only and should not be interpreted as anything more.,

Feingold is in blockquotes.

It is clear that there are many people in this country, including myself, who demand accountability from this Administration for the terrible mess it made in Iraq and its egregious and even illegal power grabs throughout its six-plus years in power.  I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses.  

May have Senator? It has been proven beyond all doubt that Mr. Bush lied to the American people repeatedly regarding weapons in Iraq to sell the war. Yet the wording of your above statement excludes lying to sell a war as one of the egregious and even illegal act. This isn't about the "mess."

I would argue that there is no more egregious and illegal act than deliberately going before the American people and knowingly providing false information with the intent to take us to war.

But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country.  

The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.  

Perhaps. But to use this as an excuse is to fail to grasp what impeaching Cheney and Bush really means. This is not just about accountability. And it is not political payback. This is about the future of our country. It is about what we stand for and what we want our country to be. It is about the power of the presidency, not just under Bush, but for all president to come.

The seriousness of our condition, both here at home, and abroad, cannot be overstated.

Are we a country of lawlessness and unchecked executive power? Are we a country that lies to the world community, and yet expects their trust? Are we a country that sanctions with passivity the vision of American preeminence and unilateral, militant domination?

The failure to rebuke this administration is a de facto endorsement of lawlessness, the agenda of the neocons, and their insane policies of aggression. It is a statement to the world that, while we may not all agree with torture, illegal warfare, the Bush doctrine, the utilization of deceit, and the violation of the law and our constitution, our objections do not rise to the level of interfering with the next election.

I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration.  I share much of it.  But on balance, I think Congress’s time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation.

This borders on offensive. This statement effectively reduces the advocacy for impeachment as the rantings of an angry mob instead of the thoughtful deliberation of informed citizens who care  deeply about what their country is becoming and what nightmares lay in store if we don't correct the dangerous precedents set by this administration.

Would we like to see the Democrats finally stand up and kick George Bush's little ass back to Crawford? Of course. But this is much bigger than that.

And lastly, what the hell kind of progressive legislation are you thinking you can get passed with a veto proof majority? Any amendments you slip into a piece of legislation that would be signed by George Bush will most certainly not be worth it.

This is the time to reclaim our country. To set a correction. And to say to the world, we made a mistake. Only then will we secure our future from another George Bush. And only then will we begin the process of of reestablishing our good standing in the world.

Originally posted to TocqueDeville on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:59 PM PDT.

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

  •  I agree (129+ / 0-)

    There is no other work to be done. When the house is burning, you do not look at catalogs featuring new curtains.

    Senator, I respect you greatly, too. That's why I am counting on you for one thing right now: IMPEACHMENT.

    "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

    by JuliaAnn on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:55:17 PM PDT

    •  Hear, hear! (4+ / 0-)

      Certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man. - OWH

      by blockbuster on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:46:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the diary TocqueDeville..... (30+ / 0-)

        I was so overwhelmed, emotionally, by Senator feingold's diary that I couldn't bring myself to comment there. All I could do was get out of the way of the onslaught, the deserved onslaught - and most of the comments were right on the money! I can only hope that the immedaiate and visceral reaction to his position on impeachment must be an eyeopener for him - and any other Senators or Congresscritters browsing through DKos today..

        Thanks a lot, DICK!!!

        by Rumarhazzit on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:19:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As the founders would have said, (16+ / 0-)

          "Huzzah!" TocqueDeville, excellently done.

          Also, Right on, f'in right on, and right on to the max.

          The good Senator will, if he cares to read these many diaries responding to his earlier statement, be having a bit of eye opening and reality checking going on. I hope he takes what we say to heart. It is not the raging of an angry, vindictive mob that he hears here. It is the cry of patriots and citizens who fear for their country and their democracy.

          Congressional Dems say that history will call the Bush regime a "miserable failure." What will history say about those who sat back and let it happen? IMPEACH!

          by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:47:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sadly, I don't see Russ reconsidering... (4+ / 0-)

            And I believe we can put to rest "Occam hatchet's" supposition that Pelosi set a trap for the President to run ramshod over Congress, knowing he'd overstep (as with Harriet Miers ordered to defy Congress) and is "building the case" for the American people, AND will suddenly announce Impeachment is ON THE TABLE.

            That was nice to consider for 24 hours -- and a lot of people got their hopes up -- but let's face it, that was wishful thinking at a time when we seem to have no one at all representing the People to protect & defend our Constitution -- and punish these ruthless criminals that have thus far evaded any and all accountability for their actions.

            If we now have the most progressive Senator in Congress saying "it's not in the best interest of the Country", think about what that means? Russ has stuck his neck out many times when every other Senator was against him.... so if HE's out, I can't imagine Ms. Pixie Dust suddenly using the tools of Congress to make this President accountable:

            So let's review:

            * 1. We have high crimes committed by Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, at minium.

            * 2. One of our Presidential Candidates (Kucinich) is calling for impeachment of Cheney. Our largest warchest candidate, Obama, has made unequivocal statements that you reserve Impeachment for serious crimes, and the way to address the disturbing conduct of the Pres & Vice President is to throw the bums out -- and elect me!. And the other warchest candidates are MUM and acquiescent, as though "out of our hands" -- as in "We're here to fix everything that's broken -- but not now of course. We'll fix it in 2009 after you elect us Big Cheese."  

            * 3. Leader of House, who controls the activation of Impeachment charges, is very clearly not interested in addressing the high crimes against the United States.

            * 4. Leader of Senate, Harry Reid, has expressed no interest in bringing them to justice via the correct tools layed out by our Consitution.

            * 5. And now our most progressive Senator (arguably, you could say Boxer) is making it clear he does not think the agenda of the American people is served by impeachment, but rather there's important legislation to tend to.

            • 6. It's self evident that the Executive Branch is not going to impeach themselves.
            • 7. The Department of Justice has been co-opted and is under GOP control -- and they have no interest in whether or not Bush/Cheney are impeached.

            That takes care of our 3 main branches of Government.

            • 8. Certainly we're not seeing the Conglomerate Media calling for impeachment, so that rules out the 4th estate.

            Face it folks -- there is only one branch of government left -- and that is the entity to which all unenumerated powers (the majority of powers) are vested -- the People of the United States.

            I believe we need to make this a media campaign to the People of the United States. Not unline how VOTE VETS has been  operating. We need to make ads for commerical TV and for web-TV (YouTube etc) and make the case for High Crimes that every other branch of our Govt is too unwilling to engage in.

            And we need to out all Legislators who APPROVE of the High Crimes of Bush-Cheney by their choice to not press charges, as called for in our Constitution.  In a riff off of Johnny Cochran's brilliant but disgusting

            If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!

            We need a saying for Congress that communicates just as clearly, if you don't impeach, you vote that High Crimes agaisnt the Constitution are okay to commit.

            If anyone is onboard with putting this into the hands of the People, the highest holders of power in the United States, then please go on record and state that you would participate in such a direct-to-America campaign.

            if you'll be at YearlyKos, we can meet specifically on this.

            FEEDBACK WANTED: Good idea, bad idea, so-so, I don't care one way or other.
            ?

            ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

            by rhfactor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:43:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm in for an impeachment powwow (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rhfactor

              Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

              by Simplify on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:20:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  in all seriousness (0+ / 0-)

                I don;t have the time to set up something like this... so I'm not pushing it off on you. But I do imagine the steps would be: going to YearlyKos.com , finding out the organizer names & email contacts. Emailing them to ask if it is possible to have a room anywhere in the facility for a 2-hour confab on impeachment strategies...

                Normally I try not to make sugestions that I can't push inot action myself -- but in this case, I am occupied with a bunch of other matters in addition to work -- that I can't take this one.

                Maybe you - or someone reading this -- could create a Diary proposing such a pow-wow be formally scheduled at YK.

                ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

                by rhfactor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:02:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sincerely, thanks for the encouragement, RH (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rhfactor

                  I know I was disappointed to not see it on the schedule so far.  If I can get my shit together, I'll get the ball rolling.  But don't anyone else take that as discouragement to take charge first!

                  Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

                  by Simplify on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:09:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I can't afford to go to Chicago but my email (0+ / 0-)

              is always available. Or maybe you could live blog the discussion so those of us who are poor and geographically challenged can participate.

              We aren't going to destroy the Republic by enforcing the Constitution, we destroy it by inaction, by being fearful of the consequences.

              by ghengismom on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:46:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  As I wrote the last of my comments to the Senator (10+ / 0-)

          I suddenly realized that the comments will probably not be read. He had stated his position. He had heard ours in previous diaries. He knew our responses would be for or against his position. Why read all those comments?
          I really fear that our Congressional Dems see us as the media portrays - a bunch of far left radicals. I don't know what it takes to have them recognize that we are ahead, but only slightly so, of the general public. We're way ahead of them. Is it something in the air over there in D.C.? Do they believe Broder too?

    •  Feingold and Leahy and Conyers (19+ / 0-)

      You are duty bound by your oaths of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States to bring articles of impeachment.  

      Period.

      •  I posted a comment in a diary (10+ / 0-)

        about Bush claiming executive "confidentiality" on the Pat Tillman case. I wondered if Bush wasn't begging (or daring) Dems to hold him in contempt. I thought it may be because he wanted to stall til '09 or because he wants his Supreme Court to make permanent his executive overreach. Now I think it may be because he knows the Dems will.not.stop.him - or even try to. Pelosi's says it's off the table. Now Feingold writes in a diary here (a site that we know is monitored by Bush's gov't) that he doesn't want to waste time on impeachment. Why the hell should Bush do anything? Why shouldn't he break every damn law that comes his way? Who will stop him?
        Apparently no one.

        •  In other words, (0+ / 0-)

          Pelosi and Feingold are emboldening the Bush administration by failing to honor their oaths and uphold the Constitution. Giving aid and comfort, as it were.

          If BushCo is in fact the enemy of the Republic, what does that make them?

          Perhaps they need to be nudged with some serious primary challenges.

  •  I believe... (31+ / 0-)

    that getting a politician to understand that some things aren't done merely for political theater is going to prove impossible.

    The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. - Plato

    by robroser on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:56:47 PM PDT

    •  Well then, let's make the political argument. (52+ / 0-)

      Don't impeach:  "Democrats don't stand for anything."  "Democrats have no spine."  Gerald Ford's 1976 loss to Carter, after Ford pardoned Nixon.

      Impeach:  Democrats are strong.  Republicans are afraid.  Democrats take a tough stand for your freedom.  The law applies to everyone, even the President.

      The political theater is not impeaching -- Democrats thinking they'll look too political by impeaching, so they're making a political calculation not to impeach.

      political calculation + political calculation = apolitical image

      Wrong.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

      Impeach -- it's the law.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:24:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Problem is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny rotten, bawbie, Geotpf

         starting an impeachment that can only end with acquittal would be exactly that, an act done for pure political theatre. An act to shut you and other progressives up. It won't be successful, it will only be theater. Impeachment has no chance of success. If it is done, that makes it political theater. Sorry, but it's the truth.

      •  It's also "only theater" when bank robbers (22+ / 0-)

        are prosecuted when there may not be a conviction. That is done to preserve the rule of law.

        Are you saying Bush's crimes are less serious than bank robbery?

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

        by EclecticFloridian on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:53:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't argued that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny rotten

             it MAY not be successful. I'm arguing that it WON'T be successful. There's no may about it, it WON'T be succesful. There are not 67 votes in the Senate to remove them.

            DA's routinely do not bring charges if they believe there is no chance at conviction.

            If there's a chance at conviction, on either bank robbery or impeachment, I'd say go for it. When there's not I call it what it is. A waste of time. A staged event, for political spoon feeding. Impeachment right now, with no chance, would serve nothing more than as a message from them to you, saying, "we tried, shut the f*** up." Is that what you want? It would be nothing more than political theater, b/c there is no chance of conviction. None.

          •  the idea that (13+ / 0-)

            an attempt to impeach which does not succeed with flying colors due to republican obstruction will hurt Dems with the voting public is just plain wrong.  the people want this to happen.  the Dems will be much better off if they are seen at least attempting to do what they're supposed to do than if they keep sitting around, being ignored and dissed by the white house, and twiddling their thumbs.

            •  I didn't say (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              johnny rotten

                anything about flying colors. I said a CHANCE to succeed. It does not right now, it has no chance.

              •  but that is something (5+ / 0-)

                which simply cannot be determined with any certainty at this time.  it is a genuine future event, by its very happening it would shift the political landscape in ways that are very hard to predict.

              •  The vote won't come up "right now" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rebecca, VictorLaszlo

                I said a CHANCE to succeed. It does not right now, it has no chance.

                The vote will come up later, AFTER the House (which could begin an impeachment investigation) would presumably put BushCo in front of the Judiciary/ investigating Commitee looking into the matter.

                This is how Nixon was forced to resign. They didn't have "enough votes right now" early in the process to impeach either. But as the process unfolded and Nixon and his CREEP gang tried to stonewall the investigation - as BushCo will certainly attempt - EVERYONE in the country gradually realized Nixon WAS a crook. His own party abandoned him, as the GOP is already starting to abandon BushCo RIGHT NOW.

                An impeachment is an  investigation - not a sudden vote - that's how it unfolds.

                The Dems can make this happen ONLY if they seriously do it. They will almost certainly catch BushCo in enough lies and stonewalling that someone from the WH will most likely squeal to save their own skin.

                Impeachment is a win-win for everybody but BushCo and the GOP, especially the Dems. Their public image will be enhanced ("the Dems have finally grown balls"). Besides, It's the proper, moral course of action, whether it "succeeds" or not.

                •  You find me a John Dean (0+ / 0-)

                    of the Bush White House and we'll talk. Til then, your argument doesn't work. Not to mention that Congress will have to find him first, so Bush doesn't pardon him ahead of time, which takes away his incentive to talk.

                    Find me a John Dean and we have a ball game. We need a CHANCE for success. John Dean emerged long before the Saturday Night Massacre. Find me a John Dean in this WH.

          •  not so fast (12+ / 0-)

            if impeachment proceeding were undertaken intelligently then the frame in which they occur may become similar to Clinton's impeachment: you have a not impossible chance of Bush or Cheney testifying and perjuring themselves. This is not that far fetched: there is enough damning evidence here that a good lawyer might work it, and the result would be that Republican reps would be backed into voting yes--or be seen as ok'ing perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying. You are assuming that the dynamics of impeachment proceeding would not force a situation that would make voting agianst it political suicide--but the popularity of Bush/Cheney is so low enough Republicans might end jumping ship to tuen the tide.

          •  Fine, then let's do nothing. (21+ / 0-)

            We'll just wait until this or the next or the next president decides to start exercising the divine right of kings on us.

            When taxes on the middle class become oppressive, our jails are full of those guilty of crimes against the state, and our populace is so thoroughly outraged by what they've found out since gutless wonders decided that they "doooon't haaaaave the voooootes" to execute their oath to defend the Constitution, then you'll know this was important.

            After, as a Canadian poster here said, we can't leave the U.S. because a wall has been built between the two countries because we failed to reign in this petty despot, maybe then you'll see the importance of all this.

            When all that's come to pass, and your children are showing their papers to every government thug that asks for them and dissent is not allowed, you come tell me how risky it would have been to stop one cheerleader.

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

            by EclecticFloridian on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:41:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              johnny rotten

                Clearly I have more faith in our country than you do.

                You are operating under the delusion that impeachment will solve any of these problems. It will solve none of them. NONE. If Bush is impeached and gets away with it, then the next President won't fear doing the same things.

                What you're predicting is a Robin Hood moment. Everyone in jail except the King and his supporters. Forgive me, but I'm not that paranoid in thinking that will happen in the United States.

                You are simply paranoid. Calm down and breathe.

              •  You have FAITH in a country that re-elected Bush (21+ / 0-)

                after the atrocities he perpetrated in his first term alone?

                Where are you placing this faith? In "The People" coming around. Again, see my title line above.

                He is not being paranoid. And I for one cannot stand the denigrating and above it all stock phrase "calm down and breathe".

                Do you have any idea how arrogant and aloof at the same time that sounds.

                Sometimes. Sometimes in the world, maybe the Sky Really Is Falling -- and merits 5-alarm fire. When you denigrate someone who is rationally making statements that you simply disagree with, it is really nasty, in a passive aggressive way.

                Not only that, but you ignore the central thesis. While you focus on how you guarantee there are not enough votes to convict, there are many people are are way beyond that definition of success. And feel impeachment is a duty to our country, and simply must be undertaken as a nation that respects its own rules of law.

                many people are not using your standard of success -- and I for one think it is a red-herring that derails too many arguments.

                Ultimately what matters is not the Senate, not the Republican Senators, but the Court of Public Opinion... and put it this way, if the American people do not convict in the court of public opinion, when these criminals are compelled to finally testify, then we might as well call it a day. because at that point, it's simple: We no longer have democracy. Perhaps it's some hybrid, but it's not democracy.

                And some of us believe that by all available means we must defend our democracy.

                ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

                by rhfactor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:17:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Damn, that was good! (5+ / 0-)

                  ... and put it this way, if the American people do not convict in the court of public opinion, when these criminals are compelled to finally testify, then we might as well call it a day. because at that point, it's simple: We no longer have democracy. Perhaps it's some hybrid, but it's not democracy.

                  noli, amabo, verberare lapidem ne perdas manum -- Plautus

                  by fritzrth on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:35:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It's a faith (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  johnny rotten

                    that this country, which has survived a Revolution against daunting odds, a Civil War that killed 600,000 citizens and slaves, an attack on it's home soil at Pearl Harbor, the assassination of 4 Presidents and the attempted assassinations of 6 more and survived numerous terrorist attacks from both Islamic Nuts (Bin Laden) and our home grown hatemongers (Timothy McVeigh),

                    can survive a pathetic President and a power tripping V.P. So yes, I have faith in my country, even though it re-elected Bush. It's my country, its where I live, and I will work to change the minds of people, rather than simply get angry that they made the wrong choice.

                    Lastly, impeachment is not a defense of democracy. It will weaken our Constitution considerably. That's not a defense, that's reckless. That's a risk worth taking IF, repeat IF IF IF IF IF it has a chance to succeed. Right now, it does not.

                  •  Again, you are entirely missing several (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lotlizard

                    points regarding the impeachment process. Impeachment is not a sudden yes-or-no vote that will take place tommorrow. It is a deliberative investigation that takes place over a period of months, THEN it comes to a vote.

                    An impeachment investigation - which (correct me if I'm wrong) can be initiated by the House Judiciary Commitee (currently controlled by Dems) - will get the ball rolling. Once that happens, BushCo is placed between a rock and a hard place; We all know they have committed crimes, THEY know they have committed crimes, and they will obviously attempt to stonewall the investigation.

                    But an impeachment investigation is very serious bizness. Much more serious than the namby-pamby investigations of the DoJ recently. Any stonewalling by BushCo will cause public opinion to go south even more, and basically force the moderate Dems and republicans into seeing that BushCo is doomed, and they will not support the WH anymore if they know what will be good for them. Even Lieberman will have to abandon his good buddy George if he wants to keep his senate seat.

                    The result is either successful impeachment, or BushCo is forced to resign. This scenario is very likely to occur this way, based on various trends in public opinion - which is what Impeachment is all about.

                    The GOP is already abandoning BushCo. They will not "rally" behind him when the American people start hearing BushCo's "I-Don't-Remember"' and their "I-Don't-Have-To Answer-That". Americans all know that only CRIMINALS plead the 5th.

                    If an impeachment investigation begins to get ugly, it will NOT make President 26% look good, it will make him look worse, and the GOP will see the writing on the wall.

              •  I'll be paranoid, you continue to be clueless. (9+ / 0-)

                That way, you will continue to do nothing while I'm taking action.

                I may not be guaranteed a "win" but, at least I won't be guaranteed the loss inaction will surely yield.

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

                by EclecticFloridian on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:36:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do what you will (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  johnny rotten

                    I fight for the progressive cause every day and in a place where our views are generally viewed with hostility (South MS). I don't look for a guaranteed win, but I don't jump into fights that I KNOW I can't win.

                    How many times have I said it? At least 10, we need a CHANCE to win in order for impeachment to be a good idea. Not 100%, but a CHANCE. Right now, it has no chance.

              •  Gheez (7+ / 0-)

                You said:
                "If Bush is impeached and gets away with it, then the next President won't fear doing the same things."

                And if we don't impeach, then the next President will have even LESS to fear. And he will use the tools that Bush has made for him.

                You really need to watch the Moyer's interview.  You aren't making any sense whatsoever, and yes this sounds like DINO talking points.

          •  There were not the votes in the Senate (21+ / 0-)

            to impeach Nixon at the beginning of the Watergate hearings either.

            Guess what? The testimony and evidence that unfolded during the Nixon hearings changed that.

            Congressional Dems say that history will call the Bush regime a "miserable failure." What will history say about those who sat back and let it happen? IMPEACH!

            by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:53:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly. Like BANKING on one's (6+ / 0-)

              predictions about how the Super Bowl ends before the game is even in motion. Things change.

              ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

              by rhfactor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:21:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  That was then (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              johnny rotten

              This is now.  Senate Republicans during Nixon's time were much different than they are now.

              There already has been one impeachment-like vote.  Most people missed it.

              It wasn't against Bush.

              Or Cheney.

              It was against Gonzales, who is certainly less liked amoungst Republican Senators that either the President or Vice President.  And it wasn't an impeachment vote; it was a "Sense of the Senate" vote of no confidence that was not legally binding (well, actually it was a cloture motion on such-never got as far as an actual vote).

              Seven Republican votes voted in for the cloture motion.  Oh, and Lieberman voted against it.  (The vote was 53-38.  Stevens (of "series of tubes" fame), voted present, possibly because he's currently under investigation by Gonzales's Justice Department.)

              That's probably the high point.  57 votes in favor of removal (including four absent Democrats, not including Lieberman), ten short-at best.  Actual totals during an impeachment would probably be lower, possibly much lower.

              •  You don't know that... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rebecca

                This is what fighting and leadership and passion and stuff is all about. Senators cqan be persuaded to change their minds, if you actually try to change them instead of sitting around not doing anything. If it looks like you might not succeed, you TRY HARDER to win a little further down the road.

                Unfortunately, a lot of Democrats apparently believe that you have to put your finger in the air to see which way the winds are blowing before making any decision. It's why the Dems have utterly failed to get anything constructive done for 30 years, while the RW has taken over our country. It's because the RW do what they want to do, and try hard to get it done, while Dems sit around and whine.

                Democrats have only themselves to blame for not fighting back against the RW assholes who've fought for their vile belief system..

                Impeachment is a perfect example of Dem inaction in action.

            •  And it took what? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              itsbenj, retLT

              Two weeks? A month?

              The House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 on July 27, 1974 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the President: obstruction of justice. The second (abuse of power) and third (contempt of Congress) articles were passed on July 29, 1974 and July 30, 1974 respectively.

              In August, the previously unknown tape from June 23, 1972 was released. Recorded only a few days after the break-in, it documented Nixon and Haldeman formulating a plan to block investigations by having the CIA falsely claim to the FBI that national security was involved.

              In a nationally televised address on the evening of August 8, 1974, he announced he would resign effective noon on August 9, 1974.

              It was the tapes that did it. After that, everybody knew it was over.

              The God damned RNC e-mails are the new Watergate Tapes.

              Get. On. It. Now. Congress.

          •  oh horserfeathers! (11+ / 0-)

            When a jury is selected, they don't choose a jury who has ahead of time predetermined the guilt or innocence of the defendant.  The same rule applies here.  The impeachment is the indictment, which come with the investigations, and the trial in the Senate is  the trial with the evidence, hopefully for ALL to see.  

            We won't get ANY votes to impeach if we just sit on our hands, damnit!

            And it won't be theater, it will be justice for REAL crimes and a restoration of our Democracy, and Constitution.

            •  It will (0+ / 0-)

                 be nothing more than political theater, designed to shut up the progressive community. The Republicans will not vote to convict.

              •  As someone else has said (5+ / 0-)

                Things change.  Bush is losing support on the war every day, in his own party.  When Bush's crimes are brought to the light of day, and they are vast, in front of the PUBLIC, the Republicans will cave and vote for impeachment, because  these investigations will start to reveal their own crimes as well.

                Read up on what happened during Watergate.  We didn't have the votes for impeachment in the Senate then either, but as the crimes were really revealed, more and more Republicans got really scared that THEIR seats were going to be threatened, because of revelations of their own complicity, and other crimes, and they were the ones who begged Nixon to resign rather than get impeached.

                Considering that the crimes of this administration is far worse than what Nixon was guilty of, and considering that many of these Republicans have rolled over for him, and who knows what else they have done, I think we will see that they switch sides pretty quickly, if we start the proceedings in the House.

              •  Yes they will: 26% (0+ / 0-)

                and drop
                                p

                                    i

                                       n

                                           g

            •  The jury is already seated (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              johnny rotten

              It is called the US Senate. I already know how most republicans will vote. It is not conjecture. Mel Martinez, my republican senator will vote with Bush. Do you somehow disagree? Do you think he might be persuaded otherwise, that Bush and Cheney are in fact criminals? No chance of that happening. Almost all the republicans are in league with one another. There will not be a conviction in the Senate. No chance. It is an ex-parrot. The chance of it happening is 0.

              The political theater of an impeachment in the House is just about useless. We have already made the statement enough times that our tongue is numb. Will an impeachment accomplish more than that? Did it actually hurt Clinton?

              We say that the impeachment of Clinton made impeachment something of a farce. But it actually made the punishment irrelevant without actual conviction. Clinton served the remainder of his time in office, still gets his pension, and may, god forbid, become first gentleman in 2009. If it didn't hurt him, why would it in any way hurt Bush.

              Do Pavlov's dogs chase Schroedinger's cat?

              by corwin on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:30:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The point isn't to convince Mel. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rhfactor, sean oliver, xaxado

                The point is to convince his constituents to the point that a large majority of them understand and favor the necessity of impeachment. They'll throw Bush under the bus as quickly as they did Nixon once the evidence outs, if only to try to save their own asses.

                We have to make a "No" vote in the Senate a third rail issue. Frankly, that should not be all that hard. Congress is already working on it, though far too slowly to suit me. The RNC e-mails are Bush's Watergate Tapes. They wouldn't be burying heaven and earth to keep them hidden otherwise.

                It took all of two weeks for Nixon to crash. Chin up.

        •  There are some cases where... (0+ / 0-)

          ...the defendant is clearly guilty, but conviction from a jury of thier peers is completely impossible.  Do you waste taxpayer money for a trial you know you will lose?

          For example in fiction, last night on Cold Case on CBS, there was a case where a woman who killed her mother, because she just found out her mother was angling to start an incestous affair with her son (the mother's grandson), just like she had previously with her son (the woman's brother).  In real life, a jury composed of twelve average citizens would never convict her for protecting her son.

          In real life, a jury composed of 49 average Republican senators would never get 16 votes to convict either Bush or Cheney, let alone both.

      •  I disagree (11+ / 0-)

        I think the Republicans will be enthusiastic about impeachment when the time is right, unless they want to kiss their party goodbye for about 25 years.  The problem is that people are dying. With impeachment off the table Bush feels rather safe to do whatever he pleases. It makes a lot of sense, Hillary, Barak, and Edwards have all said that the nuclear option is on the table but impeachment is off the table.

        When Bush declares martial law the Dems will be the first to demonstrate their patriotism by rushing to his support.  No accountability is great for the Dems because when a Dem gets into office and he gets unpopular he can raise his popularity by having a small war or bombing someone and not worry about repercussions.

        •  When republicans start meeting throngs of people (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          victoria2dc, greenearth, xaxado

          wearing orange ribbons maybe they'll change their minds.

          Don't tell them to end the war! Tell them to END THE OCCUPATION .

          by CTMET on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:01:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I doubt it (0+ / 0-)

              they can't get elected without their base too. Face it, how many of you would vote for them if they voted to impeach Bush? Answer, probably none of you. You'd still vote Democratic. They know that. So they are going to stick with the people they need, the hardcore base. Impeach Bush, they lose that.

              It doesn't matter how many ribbons they see. Especially if i'm right and you woouldn't for them anyway.

        •  Oh no (0+ / 0-)

          The Republicans are perfectly willing to kiss thier party goodbye.  The thing is, they are too dense to realize they are doing so, and they don't need impeachment hearings to do so.  Thier cheerleading for the war in Iraq (and wishing to expand it to Iran) is enough for thier electoral downfall in 2008.

          An argument could easily be made that an impeachment hearing could hurt the Democrats amoungst moderates.  I'm not sure if that's true, but I'm not sure it's not true.

      •  you guys sure do have your talking points (46+ / 0-)

        well coordinated.

        We heard your arguments. Now go find something better to argue.

        The impeachment train has left the station, picking up speed, with more and more passengers. Get on or get out of the way.

        You can ever retain your "I told you so, nyah nyah" rights, if you want.

        What was YOUR suggestion for appropriate action right now?

        The world out there, y'know, that vast wasteland beyond the borders of the US, desperately needs to hear the news that the American People, through their elected Representatives in Congress, has spoken up and repudiated George Bush's insane careen towards Armageddon by speaking the Magic Words:

        "George W. Bush, you are Impeached"

        If we the people can not find it in ourselves to speak these words, then the world can rightly conclude that we have become a rogue nation, no longer fit to be part of the Community of civilized nations, and justly deserving of our fate.

        If the Senate chooses not to convict, well, we know, and the world knows, that the Senate is the Voice of the Oligarchs, not representative of the People.  

        We really have no choice but to speak.

        don't always believe what you think...

        by claude on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:10:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for telling it straight. (56+ / 0-)

    And one other thing.  No single issue is as important as keeping our constitutional government intact.  None.  All strategies and policies find meaning in the context of a legally functioning government.  Impeachment is a meta issue.

    The only frame change that matters: the corporate media = propaganda machine. Americans must find their news elsewhere.

    by geomoo on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:57:18 PM PDT

    •  Also, impeachment will help restrain (25+ / 0-)

      the Bush/Cheney cabal from doing further damage to our Constitution and our country.

      They still have 18 months left.  We can't allow them to carry on as they have up until now.  Only impeachment will throw a wrench in their gears.  

      There's plenty of foundation for it.  This is not payback for Clinton.  It's for our protection--the reason that impeachment was created by the founders.

      "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

      by Happy Days on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:24:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  On the contrary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Elise

           impeachment will give them free reign to do whatever they want. The impeachment will not be successful, they will be acquitted and will spin that as justification. Impeachment will not end the problem, it will enhance it. It will give Bush free reign for the rest of his term.

        •  Bush already has reign (and free rein). (19+ / 0-)

          The reign of absolute monarch King Bush -- long live the King -- is currently active.  Impeachment can't possibly make that any worse.  They are already kidnapping American citizens off the streets, locking them up, and torturing them.  (In small numbers, certainly).  They already ignore every law they don't like.  They already use the government to imprison and fine innocent people who oppose them politically (see some of the DOJ scandals).

          There is no more brazen for them to get.

          -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

          by neroden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:51:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You're just wrong. n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          victoria2dc, greenearth

          "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy June 6th, 1968

          by enough already on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:59:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Go back to Red State please... n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  Back (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Elise

              to Nader's campaign with you please. You are one of the reasons we have Bush in the White House to begin with. Look in the mirror the next time you want to know how the country got where it did.

            •  whatever (5+ / 0-)

              you're doing nothing more than arguing impeachment is political daydreaming, and since you don't have a crystal ball it's possible you're wrong. Life involves risks, and I think impeachment is a necessary risk that needs to occur.

            •  You are the Democrat (0+ / 0-)

              who has enabled the GOP for the past 30 years. You are the Democrat that inevitably says:

              "We don't have the votes, so just give up!"
              or
              "The RW will call us libruls and say mean stuff if we do anything against them, like oppose their wars and their tax cuts for the rich!"
              or
              "We have to attract the anti-government/racist/homophobic/born-again/ assault-rifle-owner vote if we want to win the election!"

              •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pb

                  again, ridiculous logic. When I have said I was scared to be a liberal? I love being a liberal, and I love being a liberal in the South, it gives my work more meaning, than if I lived in an 80% Democratic area.

                  I haven't been alive for 30 years yet, so how I enabled the GOP for the years I was not alive, not to mention the years I was in diapers and Kindergarden, I would love to hear you explain.

                  I opposed the war. I opposed the tax cuts. I'm passionate for Stem Cell Research, to block school vouchers, to get our troops home.

                  Impeachment will lengthen our troops stay in Iraq. All efforts to bring them home will cease during the impeachment hearings and once Bush is acquitted, any chance of getting anything accomplished there goes out the window.

                  Nice try though. I was a GOP enabler sitting in my crib watching Dumbo eh? LOL...good job. Keep it up.

                •  Then let me explain; (0+ / 0-)

                  throughout this discussion, you have said words to the effect that pushing for impeachment will

                  a) fail several months down the road because we don't have the votes right now

                  b) because of that failure it will naturally cause the dreaded RW spin machine to successfully show democrats are mean, spiteful crazy radical terrorist-loving america-haters

                  c) Now you insist it will somehow prevent troops from leaving Iraq

                  All of these reasons are based on your assumption that, for some reason, Democrats are unable or incapable of successfully pursuing a particular course of future action.

                  It is the politics of expediency instead of initiative, triangulation and crystal-ball punditry instead of courage.
                  For 30 years, this is exactly how the Democratic Party has functioned. It has cost them their principles, not to mention many elections. Americans have come to disdain the democrats because of it.

                  This behavior has allowed the GOP to seize the political initiative, win elections, pass shitty, destructive legislation, and control the political discourse, because the Democrats have always found a wishy-washy reason NOT to do or say anything about it. The Democrats are acting like abused partners who won't act to stop the situation they are in.

                  It is the same spineless behavior that made Clinton into a DINO, allowed Bush to get re-elected, and without a doubt, got us into the Iraq war.

                  It needs to STOP. NOW.

                  A slight majority of Americans favor impeachment. It's time to do something about it.

                  •  I've never (0+ / 0-)

                     said anything about the "dreaded right wing spin machine." If Democrats are on their game, they can beat back any right wing spin, as we finally proved in 2006.

                     I'm right on the delay in troops coming home. Impeachment will halt those efforts for months. When impeachment is over and Bush is acquitted, it will damage those efforts permanently. That's as plain as day.

                      You have yet to explain how I, ME as you insisted, have aided the GOP for 30 years, when in fact I've not been alive for 30 years yet. Not to mention my time as a youngster in a solidly Democratic household.

                      You aren't making sense. you're letting anger and disbelief that someone would disagree with you cloud your judgement. I don't mind the debate. But stick to rational facts...not pathetic whining about how I've enabled the GOP for 30 years. That ridiculous and does not further the debate.

        •  If that is their calculation, I want to hear it. (7+ / 0-)

          Because it seems to me they are acting out of a failure to appreciate what is happening rather than a strategic response to reality.  It would make a huge difference in my support or non-support if I knew they fully understood the dangers we face.  Senator Feingold's diary struck me as especially tepid in this regard.  He certainly didn't imply appropriate outrage tempered only by a realistic assessment of the chances of impeachment.

          The only frame change that matters: the corporate media = propaganda machine. Americans must find their news elsewhere.

          by geomoo on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:16:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, let's stop them by letting them go! (0+ / 0-)

          Why didn't I think of that?

          You must believe that their crimes aren't vile or prolific enough to convince the public (of whom about half already believe they should be removed) that America doesn't deserve these crooks.

          We aren't watching the same disaster unfold, apparently.

          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

          by nailbender on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:16:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "We mustn't fight Hitler & Tojo 'cause if we lost (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nailbender

            ... the war, why, that would tell the world that we were wrong and they were right. The risk is too great." —the "pragmatic" parallel-world FDR on Dec 8, 1941

            The Dutch children's choir Kinderen voor Kinderen (= “children for children”) is a world cultural treasure.

            by lotlizard on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 04:57:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  great analogy. I'm using it with your permission (0+ / 0-)

              and a ht, ll, at some later date.

              "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

              by nailbender on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:11:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Right Right (0+ / 0-)

                the United States is now equivalent with Hitler and Tojo.

                Congratulations, you've entered the realm of the ridiculously dumb.

              •  The Nuremberg standard: planning and waging a war (0+ / 0-)

                ... of aggression. Right back at ya, usmeagle69.

                The Dutch children's choir Kinderen voor Kinderen (= “children for children”) is a world cultural treasure.

                by lotlizard on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:10:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ah (0+ / 0-)

                     International Law I see. It's no longer about crimes Bush may have committed against Americans, now its all about a war he started and waged and we should beat the international community to the punch. Oh boy.

                  •  You implied there was no basis for a comparison (0+ / 0-)

                    ... with the instigators of World War II, and in reply I suggested one.

                    The Dutch children's choir Kinderen voor Kinderen (= “children for children”) is a world cultural treasure.

                    by lotlizard on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:37:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There's not (0+ / 0-)

                         Bush is a bad guy, a pathetic leader and a horrible representative for the world. but he's no Hitler, he's no Stalin.

                       

                      •  But seen from the POV of the average Iraqi? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        nailbender

                        The Dutch children's choir Kinderen voor Kinderen (= “children for children”) is a world cultural treasure.

                        by lotlizard on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:28:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  He's only had 8 years. (0+ / 0-)

                        whoever steps into the constitutional miasma he has created and decides that he/she can take it to the next level by declaring all lefty bloggers, say, to be enemy combatants and setting up domestic gitmos for us all over the "homeland"...well maybe not Hitler or Stalin, but Pinochet?  

                        Just because he only made it halfway to Fuhrer doesn't mean you should sell him short.  He has blazed the trail for the next despot in waiting (unless, of course, the Dems ignor cowardly advise like yours and that of the consultant class, and actually stand in the breach against the rape of our founding document).

                        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                        by nailbender on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:37:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're off base dude (0+ / 0-)

                            Bush is many things, but you're not going to find me, nor most others, comparing him to Hitler and Stalin. It's just not there. Bush is a terrible guy, a pathetic PResident, an awful leader, but he is not a genocidal maniac. We don't have death squads roaming our country, we do not have concentration camps for Muslims or Jews or Pagans, we do not have random people selected from a crowd to be executed in public squares. All of that happened under Hitler, Stalin, and does today in North Korea.

                            I understand your hatred of President Bush. I can't stand him either. But saying shit like that only undermines our cause.

                  •  unbelievable for someone who's been here (0+ / 0-)

                    as long as you have (did you inherit this uid or something?).

                    When a treaty, such as the Geneva Accords, is ratified by the US Senate, it becomes part and parcel of the US Code and a violation of such a treaty is a transgression against the laws of the United States of America (as well as against the cosignors of said treaty, secondarily).

                    Unbelievable that you would make that comment.

                    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                    by nailbender on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:28:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I simply (0+ / 0-)

                want people to recognize the reality that impeachment won't be successful, hence it will be a detriment to the country and the Constitution that ya'll claim you want to protect so badly.

               If we even had a small CHANCE of success, I wouldn't be making this argument. But we don't. I don't give a damn about political ramifications, those can change with one news cycle. The damage to our Constitution would be severe, and possibly irrevocable. And for what? A feel good "See, we tried," moment that we can tell the world? Forget it. Not worth it.

            •  your glass isn't half empty (0+ / 0-)

              it is filled with koolaid

              The damage to our constitution is severe, right now, and will be irrevocable if that damage isn't cauterized by Impeachment.  The argument is so fundamental it embarasses me to make it to a fellow poster in this forum.

              Bush, if he leaves unscathed, will prepardon himself and all his cronies to innoculate them against any future criminal prosectution (what, you didn't think of that?) and the precedents he has established via the enablement of folks like you will haunt us a thousand times more terrifyingly than Nixon's escape is haunting us now via his former henchmen in Bush's train.

              Wake up and smell the burning parchment, usm.

              "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

              by nailbender on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:24:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                  Bush's power to do that is absolute. He'll do it right before he is convicted (which won't happen, but playing along with your fairy tale). Did you not think of that?

                  You are right...IF WE HAD A CHANCE TO CONVICT...but we don't. There is no Saturday Night Massacre, no delegation of Republicans telling him they've deserted him, no 18 minute gap, without that kind of rock solid evidence, we will not win an impeachment conviction. Which means the whole exercise was futile, which will be remembered the next time when we actually might have a chance at it.

                 

        •  It's this kind of thinking among so-called (0+ / 0-)

          Democrats that has resulted in the 30-year RW take-over of the US:

          "Oh dear, the RW will spin it against us, so we better not DO ANYTHING AT ALL to make them mad at us!!!"

          These Battered Wife Democrats who always give up before the fight even starts because they are deathly terrified of this dreaded "RW spin" share a huge responsibility for 30 years of Republican misrule.

      •  They are very close to bombing Iran... (7+ / 0-)

        did you see the new stuff?  We're gonna' double up now.  The surge has thus far taken the lives of 518 soldiers... and that was through last week. What the hell do these people want?  Why do they want it?  It's beyond all reason.

      •  If a president commits impeachable offenses... (12+ / 0-)

        why is it necessary to keep repeating the mantra that properly impeaching said president "is not payback for impeaching Clinton." I'm beginning to believe, as some diaries have suggested, that Clinton's impeachment was a calculated plan to trivialize impeachment and take it off the table....How can people who are so inept at prosecuting a war be so strategically brilliant at anticipating and manipulating the future?

        Thanks a lot, DICK!!!

        by Rumarhazzit on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:46:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have never understood this reasoning: (5+ / 0-)

          Clinton's impeachment was a calculated plan to trivialize impeachment

          This honestly seems like truly idiotic thinking.  If someone screams "Fire!" in your home, and you go running to find it was just a mistake, does that mean you must from now on ignore anyone screaming "Fire"?  This argument has always struck me as a particular egregious example of the surrealism of our time.

          The only frame change that matters: the corporate media = propaganda machine. Americans must find their news elsewhere.

          by geomoo on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:51:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Because you've already lost the media war (0+ / 0-)

          on that topic.

          Everyone already thinks that that's what impeachment is about. They've thought it since post-election 2004...when the Republicans started hammering the media with it and "we" did nothing to fight back then.

          Media war lost- any attempt at impeachment is automatically considered payback by more than 50% of the American people....people who overwhelmingly just want to move forward by electing a new President.

          I touched the Universe -- And back it slid -- and I alone -- A Speck upon a Ball -- Went out upon Circumference -- Beyond the Dip of Bell --

          by Elise on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:14:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely. (27+ / 0-)

      Until Habeas is restored, torture is ended, and subpoenas and laws are honored, we do not have the form of government our founding fathers designed for us.  We are effectively living under a dictatorship.

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

      by Boston Boomer on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:38:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thats ridiculous (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Elise, Joelarama

          we are not living in a dictatorship. We elected these people, and in two years, we have the right to throw them out. Let's not get carried away with ridiculous rhetoric.

        •  You are wrong. (22+ / 0-)

          We are living in a dictatorship.  The question is simply whether we can get rid of it non-violently before the dictator consolidates all power into the offices of the President and Vice-President.

          You have not been paying attention.  How about those election theft schemes, masterminded by the corrupt DOJ?....

          -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

          by neroden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:53:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have paid plenty of attention (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Elise

              and you are nothing short of paranoid. It's not healthy. And if you are seriously considering violence, may I suggest anger management counseling and a surrendering of your firearms.

            •  Support for the notion of dictatorship: (19+ / 0-)

              I will respect your views, but I hope you can admit that it is easy to make a valid case that we are already very close to dictatorship.  And it's not just bigmouths on this site who are talking about it.  A Senator and a former Supreme Court Justice have used the same language.

              Private citizens can ignore congressional subpoenas.
              The Veep can ignore laws and oversight.
              The executive claims the right to ignore laws or pencil in his own version of laws.  This right has not even been challenged, much less successfully denied.
              Our Supreme Court recently made rulings ignoring years of earlier jurisprudence, signalling a radical re-making of the judicial landscape.
              The executive can spy on private citizens and corporations secretly and at will.
              The executive can arrest US citizens without filing charges and without providing habeas corpus.
              The executive can send people to secret prisons in which torture is used.

              The list is very long.

              The only frame change that matters: the corporate media = propaganda machine. Americans must find their news elsewhere.

              by geomoo on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:42:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  yeah, those election theft schemes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Elise

            are why the Republicans made stunning gains in last year's election. Oh, wait...

            maybe if you yell loud enough it will actually mean something

            by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:46:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Where have you been the last 6 years? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sj, cotterperson, victoria2dc, greenearth

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

          by EclecticFloridian on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:55:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In the heart of the Deep South (0+ / 0-)

               up to South Dakota, East to Pennsylvania, back west to suburban St. Louis, Missouri, down to Mississippi, back to St. Louis and now back in MS, all working to elect progressive Democrats to office (quite successfully I might add).

               I've been all over this country that I love. I have enough faith in it to know that we have a shitty President. That doesn't make our country a dictatorship.

            •  ok then, just let this asshole continue (7+ / 0-)

              then we can officially call it by the dictionary definition of dictatorship.

              Right now all we have is a re-established divine right of kings (repeal of Habeas Corpus), secret gulags, torture, repealed Posse Comitatus, pallet loads of $100 bills going missing, daily lies and misrepresentations in our national press, multi-year imprisonment for crimes without victims, officials that think they owe fealty to their bosses rather than the law.

              I'm sure you're a very successful political promoter ... you apparently have the ability to blind yourself to morality in search of a win.

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

              by EclecticFloridian on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:27:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not true at all (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Elise

                  I pick my fights, I win some, I lose some. But I never fall into paranoid ranting the way you do. I fight. I win sometimes, I lose sometimes, and I move on to the next one. My morals come into play, but so does prudence. I personally would rather a Strong Constitution, than a statement to the world that we "tried." The statement to the world is useless.

                •  The basis upon which you fight (13+ / 0-)

                  is being torn up from under you--the Constitution.  When the executive through any number of means is able to nullify the legislative, to defy the law, with a stacked judiciary, the formal institutional elements of checks and balances and separation of powers are nullified.  When the free press conforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted, when the opposition does not oppose, and the citizenry are disengaged, at worst completely uninformed and out of touch, at best are like cheerleaders on the sidelines or fantasy football players on blogs, then the political elements of the democratic republic are dysfunctional.  The Unitary Executive doctrine is the sort of curse than in an era where AMericans more vigorously and knowledgably asserted the preeminence of the constitutional order would not be tolerated.  Now a strange sort of "pragmatism" prevails in the hope among the diligents of the current oppostion party that one day their own leader can exercise Unitary Executive powers.  We are not in a dictatorship, but daily we are losing our defenses against it.  Two old saws:

                  "A stitch in time saves nine."

                  "A republic, if you can keep it."

                  •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Goldfish, Elise

                      A Republic, if we can keep it. Impeachment, with no chance of success, will only hasten the destruction of the very document that made our Republic what it is. WAIT until we have a chance is all I'm saying.

                    •  Stay the course? Sorry, (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rhfactor, greenearth, Archangel

                      that dog don't hunt. Its strategies such as what the Dems (promoted by you apparently) have been doing like that that got us in this situation.
                      I'm not looking for a pissing match either.

                      "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

                      by Skid on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:40:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No (0+ / 0-)

                         that's not what got us in this situation. The President and his cohorts getting elected is what got us in this situation. Partly thanks to Naderites who allowed it to happen.

                          I'm no Bush apologist, I'm a partisan Democrat and work for them every election cycle. We did not cause this situation, and my call for reason (WAIT until we CAN convict) is not at all out of line.

                  •  which is exactly why what usmeagle does (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Elise

                    is so important. The next election is the veto point on all of this. Not impeachment, it's a distraction. The next election is where we decide if we get a sane and just leader or another petulant kelptocrat. You're so focused on getting Bush out now you're ignoring the fact impeachment is inviable, and carries its own dangers(which might be worth risking if there was even a remote chance of success).

                    So maybe, just maybe, instead of making stupid accusations about the intelligence and morality of people who are on the front lines of the fight for the Constitution, you could talk to them like a decent human being.

                    But I guess that's too much to ask.

                    maybe if you yell loud enough it will actually mean something

                    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:52:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Be prudent, the Constitution doesn't need defense (6+ / 0-)

                  Bullshit! Prudent arrogance. The Constitution says Congress "SHALL" impeach ... crimes...

                  Is it you're contention that no impeachable crimes have been committed?

                  or

                  The Constitution doesn't actually mean "SHALL" but, instead means "could"?

                  or

                  What the Constitution says "SHALL" happen is overridden you the need to maintain power?

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

                  by EclecticFloridian on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:04:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah- you pick your turf - and you picked (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Archangel

                  this Diary to derail and spin off into precluding we can't reach the moon before we even launch a mission.

                  Sorry, but your occupation of this particular thread is quite unusual. You are working very very hard to hit every single node and pollute it, thereby cutting off any direct discussion of the Diarist's thesis and arguments.

                  Heh, and you've succeeded. So I believe you DO in fact pick your battles -- you applied your skills here, and whoever's paying you should triple the bonus. Especially on a day when Fox viewers arrive, you have timed your appearance perfectly.

                  APPLAUSE ALL AROUND! Good show ol' boy. Good show indeed!

                  ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

                  by rhfactor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:06:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, because (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Elise

                    Impeachment advocates are so interested in meaningful and reasonable discussion. All you guys want to do is have impeachment love ins and shout down, attack, and deride anyone who dares to question your CW. It's group think at it's worst and most destructive, and I'm sick of seeing it on this site.

                    If you don't like hearing opposing viewpoints, go somewhere that doesn't have them. But as long as you're here, you'll have to put up with the cross examination of those who haven't abandoned reason and critical thought for emotion and mob rule.

                    maybe if you yell loud enough it will actually mean something

                    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:00:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  oh! Sir, yes SIR! will do SIR! (0+ / 0-)

                      I realize nothing I say has logic behind it.

                      It's group think at it's worst and most destructive, and I'm sick of seeing it on this site.

                      Well that's great. Good for you. Thanks for sharing that very reasoned thought.

                      There's a difference between opposing viewpoints and a Mission. He can have his Mission, you can have yours, I can have mine -- but it's awfully repetitive to see the same thoughts being posted at almost every node on the page. It's not, in my opinion, a natural flow fo debate.

                      I'll leave it at that.

                      ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

                      by rhfactor on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:06:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  In case you didn't realize it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rhfactor

                  Impeachment is in the Constitution.  It is designed for this very situation.  They wouldn't have put it in there if it wasn't necessary.

                  Why do you think they put it in there, by the way?

                  "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                  by nailbender on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:27:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  All of that is true (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Elise

                    but none of that means must or even should use it now. In the abstract, it's a good idea, but abstracts are meaningless in the real world. In the real world we have a Senate where the minority party is filled with the president's co-conspirators, making impeachment as usefully as a screen door on a submarine.

                    I'm all for holding Bush accountable, but only with a strategy that has a probability, even a slim probability of succeeding. Impeachment doesn't have it.

                    maybe if you yell loud enough it will actually mean something

                    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:03:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Please present a method for holding Bush (0+ / 0-)

                      accountable.

                      Please include accountability for 3500+ dead Americans, an explosive Iraq vs the non-threat they were to us in 2001-2002, accountability for warrantless wiretapping, for breaking the law re said wiretapping, for the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as political punishment, for defying Congress ordering Miers to ignore their subpoenas, for failing to respond to repeated requests for timely aid during the unfolding of the Katrina disaster, that'll do for now.

                      I'd seriously like to see you deliver a strategy and tactics for holding him accountable. Let's see if you're all talk or if you stand behind your own words.

                      ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

                      by rhfactor on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:15:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  censure and criminal prosecution (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Elise

                        And extradition for war crimes if The Hague asks for him.

                        That's just a rough overview. I could go into a lot more detail if I thought you had any honest interest in hearing it. Funny how being accused of being a paid shill costs you the chance to have an honest exchange of ideas.

                        maybe if you yell loud enough it will actually mean something

                        by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 03:14:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Do you believe criminal prosecution would work? (0+ / 0-)

                          And I doubt even a Democratic Party Prez would authorize extradiction to The Hague -- though I wish they would.

                          Censure is at best a statement of disgust. It does not hold one accountable.

                          I was taking you literally when you said impeachment was not the best way to hold them accountable.

                          I actually AM interested if there is a viable alternative. because my interest is exactly that -- for him to stand trial in some legal court to face charges and have a verdict rendered. I am not married at the hip to impeachment.

                          I also think you have mischaracterized people here who are "pro impeachment". You dissed a lot of people on this site with that sweeping dismissive statement -- claiming we have the wrong ideas and we present no logic behind them.

                          Why not just disagree -- vs teaming up with someone to go shout them down -- which is exactly what you accuse me of doing.

                          This stuff IS heated. I don't know anyone anymore who doesn't consider him as Helen Thomas first pegged: The worst Presdient in US History. And degree of crimes acording to john Dean are "Worse than watergate".  It only follows that some stewards of the US Constitution take that extremely seriously.

                          So please don't blow people off like that and mischaracterize their validity, motivations, and intelligence. Thank you.

                          ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

                          by rhfactor on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:31:30 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA (that's Bush laughing) (0+ / 0-)

                          He will prepardon all of his cronies and himself as he tosses the keys to whomever gets to step into his shoes and continue, if they so desire, using the founding document for toilet paper.  

                          You really need to look a bit beyond the keyboard, Goldfish.  These people are ruthless and amoral and willing to do anything to protect themselves from accountablility and to aggregate power and booty.  

                          You are in a pitiful dreamworld if you don't know this by now.

                          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                          by nailbender on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:52:04 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  abstract? (0+ / 0-)

                      an established system for removing corrupt officials is abstract?  No, a statement like, "Corrupt officials should be removed, if you feel like it," is abstract.  An actual rule governing the process to do it is concrete, as would be the process itself, if anyone decides "well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it."

                      Man, get a dictionary.

                      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                      by nailbender on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:27:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  I think we should stop interacting with this guy (4+ / 0-)

                It's pointless, he's more concerned about politics than the Constitution, or the future of this country.  And he's just wrong.  Shoot he doesn't even know a dictatorship when he's in it.

                •  But, but ... he's a successful political promoter (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hummingbird, greenearth, xaxado

                  We have to be the fools here. We just don't know how to pick the winning fights. How could I have been so stupid as to think politicians should uphold their oath of office?

                  You're right ... I'm done with him.

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

                  by EclecticFloridian on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:32:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You sure are (0+ / 0-)

                    not picking winning fights, considering you're idea of fulfilling the oath of office is playing a game rigged by Republicans to be a "get out of jail free card" (not to mention how incredibly dishonest your meme about the oath of office not being fulfilled is).

                    maybe if you yell loud enough it will actually mean something

                    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:05:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  good to see (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Elise

                  how much interest you have in hearing view points outside your little echo chamber. The freepers could learn a thing or two from you about blocking out everything but approved talking points.

                  maybe if you yell loud enough it will actually mean something

                  by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:20:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Dictators get elected all the time. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pat208

          They grow into the job.

          So universal surveillance, no habeas, torture, refusal to submit to constitutional oversight, manipulation of the news (domestic propaganda), and politcal manipulation of Justice don't fit the "dictator" mold?  

          Hmm.  Where do you live?

          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

          by nailbender on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:23:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I live in the South (0+ / 0-)

              amongst some of the nuttiest right wingers you can think of. And I work for Democrats every election cycle.

              We lost in 2004. Badly. That (along with the Nader voters in 2000) is why Bush has his power. The way he uses it is sickening, no doubt about it. But the country and the Constitution is far more important than anger or revenge. Which means you don't risk all of that when you have NO CHANCE at a conviction. It's a waste of time, a political theater moment.

             

            •  you must be furious at Reid's tactic today (0+ / 0-)

              forcing the GOP to actually filibuster, if you think political theater is worthless.  Myself, I applaud him.

              The Watergate hearings were, indeed, just that, and they destroyed the reputation of a President of the United States of America; if they would have been allowed to proceed to their proper conclusion in his Impeachment and removal (which fyi was inconceivable just months prior), we would not be dealing with his former henchmen (Cheney, Fielding, et al) reestablishing his corrupt methods and Constitutional abrogations today.

              What are you so busy working for, the Democratic Party, or the Constitution?  I suggest you put the latter first.

              "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

              by nailbender on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:45:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why would I be furious (0+ / 0-)

                  it's a lot better than some fools on here proclaiming they'll never support Reid again and actually force a primary challenge b/c..wait for it...Bush hasn't been impeached yet.

                  Reid is making exactly the right moves. He's a hell of a majority leader...and his actions will bring our troops home a lot faster than a doomed from the start impeachment effort, which will only prolong their stay in Iraq.

                  THe Constitution will be killed a lot faster if we pursue impeachment and lose. WAIT until we have a CHANCE to convict.

                  Anyone who honestly believes that, on the evidence we have, that we will turn 20 Republicans (to make up for Nelson, Landrieu, Liebershit and Salazar) is just living in a fantasy world. A beautiful place, but not one based in reality.

  •  This whole situation feels like theatre... (18+ / 0-)

    and a very off off broadway one at that...what a pathetic press release today from the Senator...as for respect..not so much

    Hey, how 'bout we impeach the people who are supposed to do the impeaching and get some other impeachers who are more impeachy?

    by ronny mermaid on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:58:51 PM PDT

  •  WWRD?(What would Republicans do?) (29+ / 0-)

    That is the only question we need to ask. If a Democratic President had pulled even one thing that the Bush Administration has done, they would have already been impeached. And they would not give a damn about wasting time.

    •  Just sayin', but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chicago jeff

      It didn't work out too well for them, did it? Clinton was popular throughout his impeachment proceedings. I'm not saying this would happen to Bush, but I'm just saying that there's no guarantee we'd succeed.

      "It's hard to hit another living thing in the face with a shovel for about an hour... Where's the joy in that?" --- Michael Scott

      by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:02:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For stepping out of line. (0+ / 0-)
        •  I'm undecided on impeachment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson

          It's uncomfortable sitting on the fence, believe me. Particularly in a place where people chose their camps long ago...

          "It's hard to hit another living thing in the face with a shovel for about an hour... Where's the joy in that?" --- Michael Scott

          by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:15:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't "Choose a Camp" (23+ / 0-)

            I didn't "Choose A Camp" dude

            I chose MY COUNTRY

            it's not a "Camp"

            maybe if you looked at impeachment as a way to protect your country, instead of viewing the question as some sort of political game, you might find that you have "Skin In The Game"

            comparisons between Clinton's impeachment and the crimes of george bush are VERY FAVORABLE for Democrats

            Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job

            george bush's crimes are a little more serious that that. first off, bush's crimes involve OUR GOVERNMENT, Clinton's blow job didn't involve ANY GOVERNMENT policy

            can you see the difference now ???

            America sure the fuck can see the difference

            •  Easy, Zapper. (5+ / 0-)

              Don't question my patriotism on this one. It's not a "game" to me, OK? But whether you decide to acknowledge it or not, this thing is going to take place in the arena of politics. Think the GOP is going to shy away from politicizing this after they've politicized everything else?

              It can only be accomplished by playing it smart politically. There's no other way.

              "It's hard to hit another living thing in the face with a shovel for about an hour... Where's the joy in that?" --- Michael Scott

              by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:28:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Oh get over yourself (0+ / 0-)

                the American people have not indicated they support impeachment. They don't like the man right now, that doesn't mean they support his removal from office based on criminal acts.

                They don't think Bush is a criminal. They think he's incompetent and that he sucks as a President, but not a criminal.

                 You didn't "choose your country." Your country will survive, b/c it is a lot stronger than you, me or that miscreant in the White House. You chose a side in a debate. But truly believing that your country will die if it doesn't go down your road is the height of arrogance. Give it a rest. Our country is strong and great, it will survive Bush.

              •  Really? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shirl In Idaho, esquimaux, greenearth

                I'm not a scholar or an academic, I don't mind if you think that those in favor of impeachment proceedings should "get over" ourselves.  But would you say that to people like Bruce Fein, who have studied the issues and reached the same conclusions?  Of course our country is strong and great -- that doesn't mean it's infallible or that corrections never need to be made.

                •  I say that to anyone (0+ / 0-)

                     who proclaims nonsense like "Our Country is a Dictatorship," or "Our Country Will Not Survive another Minute," or "Our Republic is on the Line. Will you Impeach."

                     That nonsense is ridiculous. I don't say that b/c you favor impeachment proceedings. Clearly im in the minority on this site on that point. It's b/c you are proclaiming that all is lost if we don't. That's absurd. And yes, if Fein, hell if Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter himself said such ridiculous bullshit, I would say the same thing.

                     I disagree with impeachment. You agree with it. That's fine. Stick to arguments for your position. But ridiculous rants like those mentioned above are just silly.

                  •  I'm curious (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Shirl In Idaho, greenearth, AnnCetera

                    about your position...is there a point when you would consider impeachment of a president an important or viable option?

                    •  Indeed there is (0+ / 0-)

                        when we either have even the smallest opportunity to get 67 votes, or the President does something so blatantly outrageous that the calls for his impeachment just overwhelm him and the Congress.

                        That sounds I'm poll driven. I'm not. I simply do not see the logic in pursuing impeachment and risking both the progressive cause and the stature of the Constitution, all for political theater which is all this is, until a development occurs that gives us a chance for success. That's all.

                      •  well, that's the difference between me an you (0+ / 0-)

                        That sounds I'm poll driven. I'm not. I simply do not see the logic in pursuing impeachment and risking both the progressive cause and the stature of the Constitution, all for political theater which is all this is, until a development occurs that gives us a chance for success. That's all.

                        I get the idea that you have an unnatural fear of "Theater"

                        or is it just "Political Theater" ???

                        there once was a time when impeaching nixon was thought to be "Political Theater"

                        the difference between me an you is that I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE

                        I make decisions based upon my moral values

                        my moral values tell me to support impeachment because george bush is an inmoral and incompetent criminal

                        I don't need "Polls" or "A Majority of Opinions" to make that decision

                        I can make those choices myself, because I have a strong sense of moral decency, and I'm not afraid to act in support of my moral convictions

                        I'll leave it to you to figure out where the difference is

                        •  That's not what it looks like (0+ / 0-)

                            that's what it is. No other way to say it. We can't get the votes right now. So to pursue it anyway is political theater.
                           
                             My moral values say to fight the good fight and win it. When it's better for your cause to wait until you can, use your brain and wait. That's one of my moral values.

                             Moral decency? By pursuing this before we can win, you will be ALLOWING his acquittal. Moral Decency? You'd be handing him his acquittal. That's not decency? That's a poor play call.

                          •  I don't care about winning and losing (0+ / 0-)

                            all I care about is "What's Right"

                            I don't let winning and losing interefere with my moral values

                            just because some crook is popular, I don't refrain from calling him a crook

                            my moral values are unchangable with regard to circumstances

                            I don't compromise my moral values for ANYTHING

                            now do you understand the difference ???

                          •  All you care about is what's right (0+ / 0-)

                              great, real good. Beautiful. And that comes right before getting your ass kicked. We pursue impeachment right now, we lose bad, I'll bet just like the Republicans did, not even getting a majority of votes to convict, never mind two thirds.

                              When you've only got one bullet (one chance) you wait for a clean shot (an opportunity to actually convict).

                              Do what's right for the cause. Wait until it can be successful. Right now, it can't be.

              •  Whatever you're on (6+ / 0-)

                could you please share. it's not the reality I am living that's for sure. Americans do believe Bush is not only incompetent but a lying criminal too.

                Frodo failed....Bush has got the ring!

                by Alohaleezy on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:11:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No they don't (0+ / 0-)

                     they simply disapprove of his job performance. Never once has a majority of the American people indicated that they favored impeachment. If I'm wrong, show me the poll.

                     I can't stand the positions taken by Senator Thad Cochran (I'm in MS right now). If I got asked in a poll, I would certainly answer that I disapproved of his job performance. If I got asked whether I thought he deserved impeachment, I'd say No.

                    Just b/c the President is unpopular, doesn't mean the American people want him removed from office.

                  •  funny, but (6+ / 0-)

                    people said the same things about Nixon.  whether Bush should be impeached or not is NOT A MATTER OF public opinion polling!!!  its about LAW!  people are not found guilty or innocent by polling.

                    •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

                          it's not about polling, but it is about public opinion. Nixon didn't have it. Bush doesn't have it when it comes to job approval, but America doesn't view him as a criminal, just a pathetic bungler.

                      •  Show me the poll (4+ / 0-)

                        that people think he is just an incompetent and not a criminal? It goes both ways friend. If we could get the pollsters to ask that question Should Bush/Cheney?Gonzo be impeached for the crimes they have committed you may be surpriesed by how many people would be in favor. That is why it is important to continue to speak the truth to their lies.

                        Frodo failed....Bush has got the ring!

                        by Alohaleezy on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:22:48 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

                             we should speak truth to their lies. And we are, every day. Senator Feingold is in the lead on that.

                            Disapproval is one thing. We know, from numerous polls, that 60% or more disapprove of the President. We don't know how many think he's a criminal.

                            I've seen one credited poll that splits impeachment down the middle, 45% for, 46% against. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

              •  a majority (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                greenearth, Dave the Rave

                favors impeaching Cheney already, and that's without any more evidence than the MSM provides.  get with it, and get over yourself, yourself.

                •  Show me the poll (0+ / 0-)

                   that says a majority favors impeaching Cheney now. Show it to me. You can't, b/c it doesn't exist.

                  •  Au Contraire (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    itsbenj, rhfactor, greenearth, xaxado

                    You know not of what you speak.  You obviously haven't been to DK for awhile and are NOT paying attention to the news.

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

                    link...

                    So you're wrong, pure and simple.  Close to half favor impeaching Bush, and the majority favors impeaching Cheney.   And you will see new polls soon that will have higher numbers, I guarantee it.

                    Gotcha.

              •  what the American people think (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                greenearth, AnnCetera, Dave the Rave

                usmeagle69 said:

                 the American people have not indicated they support impeachment.

                Really?

          •  Look at this way, Droogie. (10+ / 0-)

            Like you I was on the fence for a long time beleiving that it would delay our exit from Iraq, take up too much time that should be spent elsewhere, devolve into political theater that is more farce than drama. You know what? I still belive all those things and despite that think impeachment and, with any luck, a trial in the Senate is the only option.

            It's the only way to bring to light the totality of the abuses of this adminstration in a public, official, and contiguous way, instead of the snippets of misdeeds we (and the international community) see on the news and in the papers. It's the only way to connect all the dots and actually redress some of the wrongs. Otherwise, no matter who wins power in 2008, the spectre of those misdeeds will continue to hang over all our heads.

            Who will put trust in our government, any government, if we fail to even assess the level of culpability? How can we correct those abuses unless they are brought to light in such a way that we can see how far they have infected our system? Certainly not the Middle East or Europe and I suspect not the majority of Americans. The fundamental mistrust in the workings of government must be addressed fully or we will be crippled from now forward. Not impeaching is, in effect, sweeping the problem under the rug all in the name of 'moving forward."

            I really don't care if anyone does time for all this. It would be nice, but it's not the important point. We must have it all set out for us in one neat verdict.

            •  You have good points (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Indexer

              Thank you for not bludgeoning me with them.

              Believe me, I think if we made every move the right way, impeachment would be the path to getting more good things done. But it's almost as though people around here think it's ours for the grabbing, or that there would be no consequences if things don't go off as planned.

              The consequences of failure could be a disaster, and could even wind up validating all the horrible things Bush has done if he is absolved. Are these consequences worse than not challenging him at all? I don't know. And for those of you who do know, I envy you your certainty.

              "It's hard to hit another living thing in the face with a shovel for about an hour... Where's the joy in that?" --- Michael Scott

              by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:31:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, there will definitely be consequences, (5+ / 0-)

                and I think that some of those consequences will be quite severe. We're going to have to take our lumps however they come. I don't think, however, that validation of the current policies is possible. That's what finally brought me around. The crimes are too evident and numerous for that. Even if there was a vote not to impeach that testimony would be out there for all to see and would in itself be evidence of those very misdeeds.

                The "backfire" consequence (on the Democratic Party) is a little harder to assess, but I think it's a risk that must be taken.

              •  Our founders had no certainty they would defeat (7+ / 0-)

                the world's greatest power when they took up their hunting rifles and went to war against England.

                They did it on a principle. That principle is still with us, embodied in our Constitution. I don't give a shit who wins elections in 2008 as long as our Constitution remains intact and the next president knows that s/he too must abide by it.

                That is the only constant we have to live by. Allow it to be destroyed by this cheerleader and we are lost.

                You think K Street will not encourage our next president (regardless of party) to engage in profitable, pre-emptive war if the Unitary Executive theory is allowed continued existence? How about misleading the electorate to further corporate profits? What about continued strangling of the middle class?

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

                by EclecticFloridian on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:18:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  You cannot compare what Clinton did (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            phenry, Alohaleezy, greenearth, gopher747

            to what Bush and Cheney have done to this country and the Constitution. Period!

            IMPEACH NOW!

          •  Many chose their camps long ago (4+ / 0-)

            but from the diaries I'm reading, more are (more or less) reluctantly coming to favor impeachment every day.

      •  yeah turned (13+ / 0-)

        yeah turned out horrible for the repubs, they just went on to take over the entire government.

        Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses.. Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of deaths construction..........

        by pissedpatriot on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:09:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  that's secondary, in some senses. (5+ / 0-)

        Just getting the information on the news every night, just a chance to remind the average american just what it is that these guys have done to the Constitution, would be a noble good.

        These guys are remaking the Republic into something that none of us ever imagined, that none of the Framers could have conceived of as a just government.

        We need to get out there and tell people.  No better way to do that than on the nightly news.  Objective descriptions of what these guys have done to our heritage, to what is arguably the most just and appropriate form of government that had been created.

        Je suis inondé de déesses

        by Marc in KS on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:10:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It worked because they retained power (4+ / 0-)

        until 2006 and they did not lose power because they impeached Clinton. They lost power for a myriad of reasons like corruption, Iraq, etc.  

      •  They forced Gore to run away.... (10+ / 0-)

        from Clinton's record and got the election close enough to steal.  And they've packed the courts in the meantime.  And they had the congress until just the last few months, and even in the minority the republicans are able to block everything they don't like and still get defense contractor giveaways passed overwhelmingly, as they did last week with the missile defense boondoggle.  And they've convinced people like Feingold that because Clinton was impeached, doing the same to Bush would be seen as a political stunt.

        Control of all 3 branches of government. It seems to me that impeachment worked out just fine for the republicans.

        The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

        by cometman on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:15:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was Gore's mistake (0+ / 0-)

          Not the GOP's success. I still don't see how impeachment helped the Republicans.

          "It's hard to hit another living thing in the face with a shovel for about an hour... Where's the joy in that?" --- Michael Scott

          by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:34:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It has helped them (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cometman

            in the fact that when Impeachable crimes are committed... nothing will be done. That impeachment left a bad taste in people's mouthes and now when it is truly needed.... they don't want to touch it. I would say the republicans have greatly benefited from their chance..... and will not be deterred in the future even if Bush and Cheney are both impeached.

            It's important to save the frog. - Al Gore.....WE ARE THE FROG AL!!!...Gore/Clark 08 a Return to Reason!!!

            by jigsaw68 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:45:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  it did help GOP HEAVILY in 2000 because (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            itsbenj

            it put Gore in a tight bind: finding a way to talk about the accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore admin that Gore contributing significantly towards, but distancing himself from the scandal and fatigue that utterly debilitated and adversely handicapped Gore. Please the evidence here.

            Gore did talk about the economic successes they had as he did in his convention speech:

            Gore convention speech

            For almost eight years now, I've been the partner of a leader who moved us out of the valley of recession and into the longest period of prosperity in American history. I say to you tonight, millions of Americans will live better lives for a long time to come because of the job that's been done by President Bill Clinton.
            ...
            Instead of the biggest deficits in history, we now have the biggest surpluses, the highest home ownership ever, the lowest inflation in a generation, and instead of losing jobs, we now have 22 million good new jobs, higher family incomes.
            ...
            Tonight I ask for your support on the basis of the better, fairer, more prosperous America we can build together.
            ...
            Together, let's make sure that our prosperity enriches not just the few, but all working families. Let's invest in health care, education, a secure retirement and middle-class tax cuts.

            That was his approach and under circumstances he found himself in (as you will at the link above), I think it was an pretty good approach. It makes good sense even without the scandal: you want to touch upon what you've accomplished but layout a path for further progress. Read the convention speech and judge for yourself.

            Truth, be it convenient or inconvenient, is all there is.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:52:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  you just don't (0+ / 0-)

            want to see it. its beyond obvious.

        •  Clinton campaigning would have hurt Gore (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cometman

          in 2000. Please see mounds of evidence for this here: Clinton: 60-67% personal unfavorable (99-00).

          Truth, be it convenient or inconvenient, is all there is.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:45:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NeuvoLiberal, mightymouse

            That's why he couldn't run on all the good things he and Clinton accomplished.  Instead, he sat there in debates and couldn't find much he disagreed with George on at all.  I remember, I watched them.

            In this way impeachment worked well for the republicans.  What should have been a runaway for Gore after 8 years of relative peace and prosperity turned into a close enough race for bush to steal.

            The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

            by cometman on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:56:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  one needs to understand Bush's game plan (0+ / 0-)

              for that election a bit. Other than promising HUGE tax cuts (which Gore did warn repeatedly against. Gore was in favor of targeted middle class tax cuts, but not across the board ones), Bush was pitching himself as a non-traditional Republican/conservative (like "reformer with results", "uniter not divider", "compassionate conservative" etc crap). ie, Bush was faking towards the "center" (and was courting Latino vote).

              Of course, to capitalize on the scandal circus and the fatigue, they coined "restoring honor and integrity" meme.

              At the same time, Nader was siphoning off Gore on the pseudo left. Nader's less than honest rhetoric and anti-Gore/anti-Dem rhetoric, and very specious lines of attack on Gore did undermine Gore's vote even among environmentalists (the sacrilege!).

              Gore came out with his "people, not the powerful" theme to counter both Bush and Nader. He did pull from double digit deficits that plagued him for long and eventually won the popular vote.

              In the debates, Gore was of course being honest, but Bush was faking to the center. The hammering that Gore got in media in post-debate debate spin did seem to have made him too cautious in debate #2, but he did come back strong and finished the 3rd one with a win (he won the 1st one too in polls taken immediately and 2 days after the debate).

              Truth, be it convenient or inconvenient, is all there is.

              by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:11:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Uh, Clinton wasn't at 26% when impeachment (6+ / 0-)

        started, he was at 70%, a record he maintained through impeachment proceedings.

        Silly of me to mention it, I know, but we're talking about the difference between a BJ and 3,600+ unnecessary dead, torture, repeal of Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus, secret prisons, contempt of Congress, and on and on.

        Don'cha think that plays some small part in how important this is?

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

        by EclecticFloridian on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:02:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yes, yes it did work (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenearth

        very well for them!  Gore was forced to distance himself from Clinton, which cost him the race in several different ways aside from the fraud the Cons were already prepared to perpetrate.  their approval ratings went down a little, but they picked up the Presidency, and the only seat they lost was Jeffords converting from R to I.

        it worked pretty spectacularly, if you think about it.  independent counsel statute was allowed to expire because everyone was so tired of hearing about ken starr.  people don't want to pursue this against Bush now simply because they think its "too soon" since the last impeachment!  

        in what way, exactly, did it not work for them?

      •  "It didn't work out too well for them, did it?" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenearth

        Hang on a minute...

        Once again, not even considering the EVIDENCE and the CASE presented.

        The GOP had no case, and that's why it played out as it did.

        The Case against Bush/Cheney is as compelling as a Tom Clancy spy movie -- and the public would be on the edge of their seats.

        False comparisons -- and I'm tired of reading them. :)

        ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

        by rhfactor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:39:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I can't imagine a worse guide for my actions. (0+ / 0-)

      than What Would Republicans Do?

  •  To me, this follows the ' lets move on ' ... (40+ / 0-)

    comment by bush about his libby commutation..."let's move on from impeachment, we've given it considerable thought and it's been hard on us in office and now it's over with , so we move on, next question "
    oh, man I gotta go for a walk or something...just too fed up for much more of this

    Hey, how 'bout we impeach the people who are supposed to do the impeaching and get some other impeachers who are more impeachy?

    by ronny mermaid on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:04:19 PM PDT

  •  absolutely (7+ / 0-)

    a solid and necessary rebuttal.

    Time for Miles to soothe me again, because jazz is the antibush. --zic

    by homo neurotic on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:04:31 PM PDT

  •  If people of goodwill and patriotism (22+ / 0-)
    cannot work within the system to bring the coup plotters to justice, then the system is broken.

    Tell everyone you know about Iraq Moratorium Day!

    The Occupation Project

    •  The system is broken but it's not what you think. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny rotten, Superpole, philimus, maxalb

      The system is not just the POTUS, SCOTUS, and Congress.  The system is also the electorate and the broader political culture.  Impeachment, in and of itself, is tiny.

      The system is broken when:

          Half of the country casts votes for the party of "extraordinary rendition and torture.

          Half of the country casts votes for the party of "you're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie."

          Half of the country votes for the party that picked up the mantle of Jim Crow, even as the Democratic Party let it slip away.

          Half of the country votes for the party that has blocked universal health care for 50 years.

          Half the country still flirts with the party of pre-emptive, half-assed war.

      And so on, ad nauseum.  Will impeachment do much to change this?  I doubt it.  It might be a useful tool but it might just as easily do more harm (to us and our Constitution).  Anyone who claims to know how impeachment will affect public opinion and discourse over the long run is just as deluded as the Gingrich-Delay gang during their fling in the 1990s.  (That doesn't mean impeaching Bush is the same thing; it isn't.  Bush deserves impeachment but that doesn't mean it will guarantee that it helps us in the long run.)

          If impeachment (or disagreement over impeachment) within our party costs us the Presidency in 2008 or Congress, then impeachment will not have contributed to fixing the system.  IMO.

      •  Jeff, please watch (5+ / 0-)

        Moyers' PBS program on Impeachment.  And then try reading the U.S. Constitution!

        To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

        by miriam on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:33:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I did, and I have. (4+ / 0-)

          I support impeachment, but, like anything else, it isn't the one true answer no matter what (and I know that's not advocated by most people here).

          When people are calling Senator Feingold a coward and describe his dissent (from our views) as a betrayal, that, to me, is a red flag that we are missing something.  Not proof, but a red flag.

          --------------

          Impeachment is a tool.  It might help us remove Bush and/or Cheney from office a few months early.  It might, possibly, send the message we want about Presidential arrogance.  That message, though, isn't a slam-dunk.  Remember, that was also Gingrich-Delay's message and it really backfired.  I don't think Democrats alone or with token support from Republicans will be successful in sending the message we want.  

          Getting enough real support from non-Democrats will, I believe, compromise our real goal, which is not really to get rid of Bush-Cheney.  It's to get rid of the Rethuglican party.  If they join us in impeachment, it will wash their hands of their responsibility for all this.  This wasn't just Bush-Cheney; it was the contemporary Rethuglican party.  My opinion is they will only be crushed in elections, not by focusing on Bush-Cheney but by focusing on how wrong their entire party is.

          The party of no oversight.  Exploiting fear and faux patriotism to commit their abuses.  What we would have to do to impeach the little fish would let the rest of them off the hook.  IMO.

          ------

          But I really, really appreciate your comment and tone.  If impeachment goes through, it will be because of people who talk like you and Bill Moyers and, I think, Russ Feingold.

          •  where did this (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rhfactor, VictorLaszlo

            'politicians are infallible' thing come from?  Feingold is dead wrong!  I don't care what great things he's done here or there before, he's just plain 100% wrong.  things like impeachment and convictions don't come about as a result of playing a big game of "nicey nice" and "let's all not criticize anyone!".  they happen when people realize they have a job to do, put aside their personal preferences, and get to work!

      •  At least impeachment can't be worse than not. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, VictorLaszlo

        Not impeaching (caveat below) simply means that the rule of law is dead in the US until the next revolution (which could be in 200 years time).  Nothing less.

        Caveat: there are alternatives to impeachment which would also work.  Using the inherent contempt procedure to imprison the subpoena-defying executive branch officials in the Capitol, for instance.  The alternatives, however, seem to be even less discussed and are mostly significantly riskier.

        -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

        by neroden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:00:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But why stop there? (0+ / 0-)
        If we're going to try to look at American political culture in a realistic way, let's look at Democratic complicity in Republican policy. Let's look at the fact that the Democratic politicians by and large come from the same economic class with the same economic interests as the Republicans, and how this makes the political system unresponsive to working-class voters. And at how there is no real difference between Democratic and Republican foreign policy.

        Then impeachment really starts to look futile.

        Tell everyone you know about Iraq Moratorium Day!

        The Occupation Project
         

  •  Yep. (58+ / 0-)

    Senator Feingold sez:

    But on balance, I think Congress’s time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation.

    Let's parse this, shall we?

    • Ending the war in Iraq

    Yeah, you guys are killing (no pun intended) on that one.  You've got Dubya quaking in his boots.

    • Conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years

    I'll grant you, there's been some hearings and a lot of finger-wagging and inspiring speeches given by the Democrats on these committees.  If the goal is good television, then you guys totally rock.  

    However, these people over whom you are conducting oversight A) lie to you with impunity, and/or B) secure themselves immunity by threatening to take the fifth on every question.  And just in the past week, they've gone on to the next level of thumbing their noses at your ineffectuality: they're ignoring subpoenas, and daring you to do something about it.  

    • Advancing progressive legislation

    Good thing you didn't say "/Passing/ progressive legislation".  Ain't it?  'Cuz if you said "Passing progressive legislation I'd have to take you out behind the woodshed.  As it is, I can't argue that you're advancing it.  Kinda like how I like to advance the idea around here that I should be crowned Queen of England and given the keys to Buckingham Palace.

    Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people. - Archibald Cox

    by Mehitabel9 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:05:15 PM PDT

  •  Agreed. (29+ / 0-)

    If this is not the most important thing that they do, then I have no idea of what it would be.

    Preserving the Constitution.  Saving the republic.

    What the fuck else can they be doing that is more important than that??

    Je suis inondé de déesses

    by Marc in KS on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:06:19 PM PDT

  •  I must of not (30+ / 0-)

    Could someone link me the new oath our represenatatives take,I could of sworn "when convenient" doesn't appear in there when speaking of upholding the constitution.

    I also respect Fiengold, but just what is all this important work you guys have been getting done instead?  Huh, seems to me you guys haven't done jack.  Even if you do manage to somehow do something, with signing statements, and just utter lack of regard for your branch by bush , what good is it anyway?

    Seriously, are all these people just to close to this to see whats really happening here?

    Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses.. Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of deaths construction..........

    by pissedpatriot on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:07:29 PM PDT

  •  A question (4+ / 0-)

      Is lying to the public and/or to Congress to sell a particular policy actually illegal?  I agree it should be, yes, but is it?  Frankly, Presidents have lied to the public and to Congress for years on matters of grave import -- about the Iran coup, about Gary Powers, about the Bay of Pigs, repeatedly about Vietnam, and the lies of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush administrations are of course uncountable.

      But these big public, policy-related lies have never been deemed something impeachable.  Why?  Is there a legal distinction between lying to affect policy and lying about personal matters or, perhaps in the context of a judicial or Congressional investigation?

    •  spying on (24+ / 0-)

      spying on americans without a warrant is sure the hell is illegal.

      Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses.. Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of deaths construction..........

      by pissedpatriot on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:12:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lying to the country to get them into (16+ / 0-)

      a war that will enrich your cronies is impeachable, I have no doubt.  Assuming for yourself powers to spy, to kidnap, to wage unprovoked war are all impeachable in that they assume powers not granted in the Constitution.

      There are plenty of grounds for impeachment.  It doesn't have to involve a violation of statute.

      Je suis inondé de déesses

      by Marc in KS on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:19:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe (0+ / 0-)

          That impeachment does have to be for a crime: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."  You have to show that the President not only violated a law, but did so in a decidedly non-trivial way -- you couldn't impeach a President for defacing a flag (as Bush demonstrably did on one occasion).

          That all these things Bush has done are bad I don't doubt.  But to impeach, we do need to show that they're not just bad, but both profoundly damaging to the country and illegal, and cite particular laws that have been broken.

          And in all the discussion of impeachment so far, I have yet to see or hear any such thing.  If we are going to push impeachment, the names and numbers of the violated laws should be on everyone's tongue.  Why can't we do that?

        •  How about a simple (5+ / 0-)

          Abuse Of Power.

          To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

          by miriam on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:36:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  he's broken FISA with wiretapping (12+ / 0-)

          for starters: it's a direct violation of the law.

          •  Glad you posted re FISA (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cotterperson, gnat

            I searched the comments to see if anyone mentioned it. Bush publicly acknowldged that wiretapping required court authorization and said that their was no warrantless wiretapping. Of course, that turned out to be a lie. He later acknowledged and defended the practice of bypassing the FISA court. So what's he going to argue? That he didn't know he was breaking the law -- after he earlier stated the precise legal standard that applied. And he's already publicly admitted to doing it. It's about as open-and-shut a case as you'll ever see.

            "Victory is not no violence" -- Commander Guy

            by RudiB on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:44:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I replied to your comment, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenearth

          but stupidly put it here.

          Je suis inondé de déesses

          by Marc in KS on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:07:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nope. Doesn't have to be for something illegal. (5+ / 0-)

          An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate say it is. Obviously, it ought to be something serious, but it doesn't have to be a criminal act.

          The truth doesn't need a noise machine. It just needs people who will stand up for it.

          by expatjourno on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:32:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  From Alexander Hamilton... (5+ / 0-)

          "An absolute or qualified negative in the executive, upon the acts of the legislative body, is admitted by the ablest adepts in political science, to be an indefensible barrier against the encroachments of the latter upon the former.  And it may perhaps with not less reason be contended that the powers relating to impeachments are as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive."   The Federalist, No. 66

          It sounds to me like it was expected to be far broader than just criminal activity - more an institutional check upon executive encroachments upon legislative authority.  Sound like an administration we know?

          •  Misreading (0+ / 0-)

              You're misreading the article.  The first sentence relates not to impeachment, but to the Presidential veto; Hamilton is using the veto as a counterexample against people who objected to impeachment as an improper instance of the legislature meddling in the affairs of the executive.  In effect, he is saying, "by the veto the executive gets involved in legislative affairs, so why not vice versa?"

              If you read the discussions of impeachment at the convention that decided upon the mechanisms of impeachment, it's clear that the scope of the matter was narrower, not broader, than simple crimes.  At first the only things imagined as possible reasons for impeachment were cases where the President (then not thought of as the ultra-powerful officer he is now) would be bribed by a foreign power to engage in treaties and other foreign policy decisions injurious to the independence of the United States -- a reasonable fear when the United States was a very weak state.  This gives us the "Treason, [and] Bribery" language.  Then it was suggested that there were many other crimes justifying impeachment, and it was suggested that "maladministration" be given as a cause, which would certainly cover Bush's acts.

              However, "maladministration" was rejected as overbroad, and the current language, "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was substituted. Hamilton uses identical language in #69, but doesn't expand upon the meaning.  However, there is nothing in the language to suggest that anything other than violations of the law is intended; "High Crimes" must obviously be crimes, and "Misdemeanors" would be other violations of the law not directly criminal; though I suppose the adjective "High" is intended to apply to both.

              It's true that the articles of impeachment submitted by the House in the case against President Clinton were appallingly vague with regard to the specific laws Clinton was said to have violated (though perjury and corrupt influence of witnesses are mentioned); however, it should hardly need to be pointed out that both articles of impeachment failed to win even a simple majority in a Republican-controlled Senate.  Which suggests that such shoddily-drawn articles are not the best way of achieving actual conviction and removal.

            •  I'm going to go digging (0+ / 0-)

              for my copy of Madison's Notes on the Convention Debates.  It's around here somewhere.  I went poking through the sections on impeachment back in 1998ish, but haven't looked through it in a while.  Re: the sentences I quoted, I know the first sentence is in regard to the veto.  Hamilton seems to be putting the veto and impeachment side by side, as comparable checks upon the other branch's possible encroachments.

              Re: being broader or narrower than "criminal offenses", I was not terribly precise - it's both broader and narrower.  I think (and think the Federalist papers reasonably support my so thinking) of 'impeachable offenses' and 'criminal offenses' as something of a Venn diagram.  There are criminal offenses, that because they do not represent the "abuse or violation of some public trust"  or "injuries done immediately to the society itself" (both from Federalist 65), are not impeachable.  Obviously, Clinton's impeachment comes to mind.  By the same token, there may not be a specific criminal statute prohibiting the willful fundamental subversion of some element or another of constitutional government, but it strikes me as a bit odd that, given how attuned the Founders generally were to the history of prior Republics, that they would have excluded some of the very offenses that brought down Rome (self-aggrandizing magistrates pushing the theoretical boundaries of their positions, however legal their actions may have been on paper, far beyond customary law, and at the expense of other institutions of government).

              Anyway, thanks for pointing me to the Debates - I definitely have to go dig them up now.

        •  wrong, wrong wrong (0+ / 0-)

          why not do some research about the process first before coming to such conclusions about it?  reallly, why?

      •  What they did for Clinton (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        itsbenj, mightymouse, greenearth

        was to call in scholars who could make a determination about whether their behavior fit the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  

        They don't have to violate statutes.  They have to violate what constitutional scholars would deem the intent of the Framers.

        Je suis inondé de déesses

        by Marc in KS on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:06:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  right, its nothing to do with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marc in KS, greenearth

          whether something is necessarily criminal behavior.  it means behavior which violates the spirit of the law of the land.  has Bush done anything which didn't violate the spirit of the law?  but if you want actual criminal behavior - lying to go to war, war profiteering once there, criminal negligence, violation of Habeus Corpus when it was still on the books, torture & sexual humiliation / rape at guantanamo & abu ghraib, violation of the FISA statutes, political firings in the justice dept., obstruction of justice in the Libby case, abuse of power through signing statements, obstruction of a Congressional investigation, and in my opinion, the two worst - gross criminally incompetent negligence in the Katrina disaster, and gross criminally negligent failure to defend our country in the months, weeks, days leading up to and on the day of, 9/11.

          all of that criminal.  but if you just take, for example, the justice dept. scandal.  say the Pres. argued that all of these firings were for poor performance, and criminal wrongdoing was not specifically proven.  that alone would still be an impeachable offense due to it being a gross violation of the spirit of the law separating the powers of the branches of government.  at no time, ever, was the executive meant to seize power away from the judiciary in order to stifle criticism, let alone in order to help perpetuate voter fraud, as was the case in this particular scandal.

    •  It's impeachable... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, gnat, Dave the Rave

      ...when obstruction of justice in involved.

      (1) D.I.E.B.O.L.D.: Decisive In Elections By Ousting Liberal Democrats.
      (2) R.A.T.S.: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia.
      (3) -8.75, -8.10

      by Archangel on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:02:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I suspect the real issue here (8+ / 0-)

    may be the number of Democrats who intend to support Bush.  The number of Democratic House members who voted to maintain support for the School of the Americas is instructive. Vote count to support American trained terrorists

    Note that there are at least 43 Democrats who don't really support Democratic values.

  •  They're Not Going to Permit Other Work Anyways (12+ / 0-)

    Congress is going to have loads of spare time from here on.

    Not to mention that a growing menu of progressive policy will be becoming Unconstitutional for the next 20 years.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:16:12 PM PDT

  •  I'm Convinced At This Point. . . (17+ / 0-)

    That Karl Rove must have compromising photos of every member of the Democratic caucus.

    For the love of God, the American people hate this President, hate this Vice President, hate this war in Iraq and the outright lies that sent us there. . .

    And our side writes letters to the White House, asking them to please be nice and stop breaking the law and pissing on the Constitution.

    We're known as the wimp party for a reason, and we find ways of reinforcing it day after day after day.

    For the love of God, will anyone stand up to this man before he destroys America?

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:20:17 PM PDT

  •  when you get paid by the devil -- Feingold (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Saber69, mediaprisoner

    You must do his bidding

    QCOMM/CHAIR
    BONE CARE INTL/CEO-RETIRED
    QCOMM/CHAIR
    BONE CARE INTL/CEO-RETIRED
    CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE/ATTORNEY
    WILD RICE RESTAURANT/OWNER
    DERMOND PROPERTY INVESTMENTS/PARTNE
    DERMOND PROPERTY INVESTMENTS/PARTNE
    SELF-EMPLOYED/ATTORNEY
    TARGET/RETAIL BUYER
    MERGANSER CORPORATION/CONSULTANT
    THOMAS E. BUSH, S.C./ATTORNEY
    MATC/INSTRUCTOR
    MADISON ABORTION CLINIC/DOCTOR
    THE COBURN CO INC/OWNER
    UW-MADISON/PROFESSOR
    GLICKENHAUS AND COMPANY/SENIOR PART
    BUTTONWOOD PARTNERS INC./STOCKBROKE
    ISLANDS MEDIA/SALES MANAGEMENT
    GLOBE, GLASS, AND MIRROR/CHAIRMAN
    LEMLEY YARLING & COMPANY/FINANCEER
    MANDEL GROUP/PRESIDENT
    MARCUS CORPORATION/PRESIDENT
    PREVIANT, GOLDBERG, UELMAN, GRATZ/A
    RPS CORP/OWNER
    MARTIN SCHREIBER & ASSOCIATES/ATTOR
    MARTIN SCHREIBER & ASSOCIATES/ATTOR
    ZILBER LTD/CEO
    SELF-EMPLOYED/ELDER LAW ATTORNEY
    CANNON AND DUNPHY SC/ATTORNEY
    ZILBER LTD./CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
    SELF-EMPLOYED/ATTORNEY
    MERGANSER CORPORATION/CONSULTANT
    ISLANDS MEDIA/SALES MANAGEMENT
    RETIRED/RETIRED
    QUEEN ANNE'S CATERING/DIRECTOR
    QUEEN ANNE'S CATERING/PRESIDENT
    RETIRED/RETIRED
    MARCUS CORPORATION/PRESIDENT
    WILD RICE RESTAURANT/OWNER
    MARTIN SCHREIBER & ASSOCIATES/ATTOR
    SELF-EMPLOYED/ELDER LAW ATTORNEY
    GRENADILLA INC./CHAIRMAN
    MILWAUKEE MUSLIM WOMEN'S COALITION/
    1ST NAT'L BANK OF MANITOWOC/PRESIDE

  •  Love Feingold (4+ / 0-)

    but he's just being lazy and spineless.  A crime is a crime no matter when it's committed.  You don't avoid prosecuting the criminal just because you have a lot to do.  You go after the criminal and allow the justice to prevail.  

    Wake up, Senator Feingold!  You have a lot of catching up to do with the rest of America!

    SHUT UP AND IMPEACH, GODDAMMIT!

    by MainSt on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:14:02 PM PDT

  •  The 97-0 Passage of the Lieberman Amendment (17+ / 0-)

    ....utterly puts the lie to any claim that Senator Feingold and his colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle are doing valuable things outside of impeachment.

    Given the current occupant of the White House, we can be certain that the amendment will be read as a "sense of the Congress resolution" in support of any military action President Cheney wants to take.

    And given the actions of Senator Feingold and his colleagues in tying themselves at the hip to Genocide Joe Lieberman, it is clear that our Senators lack the ability to mount anything more substantive than a  tepid, dispirited, morally confused opposition that does more to assist our domestic enemies that curb them.

    Shame.

  •  Do not impeach! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    Go straight to prosecution and prison.

    •  But: corrupt DOJ, pardons and commutations... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth

      First we have to find a prosecutor (or grand jury) who will indict them -- with Bush replacing the DOJ with lackeys.

      If we do, then after the conviction Bush will just pardon himself and Cheney.

      Unless he's impeached and removed from office first.

      -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

      by neroden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:03:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  sometimes, when I'm this disappointed (4+ / 0-)

    in someone I used to think was one of our last hopes, sometimes, actually all the time, I think, "I wonder what they have on him?".

    Now I have to go pick out what i'm going to wear to those 2008 inauguration parties.  Oh, things will be great then.  All better.  

  •  Feingold the weak-kneed! (6+ / 0-)

    This borders on offensive. This statement effectively reduces the advocacy for impeachment as the rantings of an angry mob instead of the thoughtful deliberation of informed citizens who care  deeply about what their country

    Indeed - "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you!" - a country in search of heroes!

    Well? Shall we go? Yes, let's go.

    by whenwego on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:18:50 PM PDT

  •  Tipjar? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth, Dave the Rave

    Some of us want to give you some lovin'.

    Post a tipjar!

  •  Great job, TocqueD, and I too agree. (8+ / 0-)

    This is very well said, and my feeling exactly:


    I would argue that there is no more egregious and illegal act than deliberately going before the American people and knowingly providing false information with the intent to take us to war.

    Thanks for putting up this diary and highlighting that argument! People are saying Bush/Cheney "did not manipulate the intelligence." This matter needs to be clearly settled in the open for all to see because it is too important to allow false argument/propaganda to stay out there forever. It needs to be established that a case for war was built around the policy and accepting knowingly false information (such as the Niger forgery) needs to be exposed. This administration's atrocious act of propaganda, that of projecting the image of the mushroom cloud on the American psyche when they knew it to be false is something that must be seen for what it is, and NEVER repeated again. Nothing is more important.

    ...if you have 100% agreement down at the Gunshop on anything you know the wave must be coming. -Kenevan McConnon

    by Gorette on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:20:43 PM PDT

  •  I am sorry I have just lost the capacity to (7+ / 0-)

    remain civil, therefore i shall refrain from saying anything in this moment except. NOW I HAVE HAD ENOUGH

  •  Thank you (10+ / 0-)

    I didn't see Feingold's diary until just now, and I'm fucking crying after reading it.

    They break the goddamn law and just get away with it?  They leave all this in place so that the next asshat that walks into that office gets to play with all those toys?  Jesusfuckingchrist, enough is fucking enough.

    "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

    by littlesky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:24:08 PM PDT

    •  I begin to wonder (4+ / 0-)

      They leave all this in place so that the next asshat that walks into that office gets to play with all those toys?

      If this is not the intent.

      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:49:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It IS the intent (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, neroden, greenearth

        and that's why it's so important to make sure whoever comes after knows this is unacceptable.  No one's going to willingly give up these powers, if anything it will make them likely to grab more.

        It's a simple question of discipline.

        "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

        by littlesky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:02:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  there is no other way to move this administration (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    other than to REmove it.

    That has been proven beyond all doubt.

    Or at least so I thought before reading the senator's unfortunate words.

    Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
    P.S. I am not a crackpot.
    /> -Abe Simpson

    by fromer on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:27:05 PM PDT

  •  Are Wiretaps Being Used To Muzzle (4+ / 0-)

    the Democrats? They are all so freakin paralyzed.

    "Live right. Think left." Gregory Peck

    by bookwoman on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:28:11 PM PDT

  •  I love Russ, but... (16+ / 0-)

    He's DEAD FREAKIN' WRONG on this, as the author points out.

    Thank GOD our Founding Fathers didn't worry about "how much time" they had for the revolution, and whether it would be successful or not because they didn't have the votes.

    Seriously, what freakin' BUNK to assert that ANYTHING is more important that defending the freaking FOUNDING DOCUMENT of the Country.

    "I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses."

    IF you truly believe that, then you have NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO IMPEACH.  It is your SWORN DUTY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

    "Impeachment, of course, is a matter of Constitutional Law, not personal discretion on the part of individual lawmakers."

    We CANNOT AFFORD to ignore just ignore malfescense and law-breaking like Bu$hCO has done- we are then one very small step away from a dictatorship.

    The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. --Thomas Paine

    by Citizen J on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:28:57 PM PDT

  •  Well said!! Well put! (4+ / 0-)

    Very nice, TocqueDeville!  Very nice.  Thank you for saying this.  

    •  Seconded. This is a "showdown" Diary (3+ / 0-)

      When you get someone as integrity-based and as progressive as the most excellent Senator Russ Feingold -- giving a pass on Impeachment -- and you have a very well respected DailyKos community contributor, TocqueDeville, presenting sound reasons why Sen. Feingold has gone short-sighted on this matter fundamental to our entire system of government, if hashed out well, this could be a seminal diary.

      I hope it is.

      We've had multiple hundreds of diaries over past few months arguing for/against Impeachment -- so everyone knows the arguments by now.

      But we hadn't had one of the most respected leaders in America present his case for "No impeachment" before. Now we have.

      We heard Nancy Pelosi's statement and position articulated very clearly via Mike Stark's diary. So we now have all cards on the table.

      TocqueDeville, I hope you can get Senator Feingold to reply here... Or -- if he is replying to similar comments in his own Diary, could someone who has followed the 1000+ comments perhaps re-post the Senator's answers here?

      ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

      by rhfactor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:28:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary... (5+ / 0-)

    This diary echoes my comment from the Senator's diary perfectly... It bears repeating here.

    Senator,

    With the stance you are taking, can you guarantee us (The Citizens of the United States of America), that some future President, in say the year 2108, will not use these same powers claimed by this administration? Can you? You can NOT unless you execute your oath of office NOW and defend the Constitution by impeaching these criminals. This is not about our hatred of Bush, this is about our LOVE for our country. This is not about PUNISHMENT it is about REPUDIATING their actions.
    This is not a problem solved by the next election cycle, this is a problem that will stain us for generations unless something is done about it now!

    The next time you hear a Republican use the excuse "Clinton did it", consider my point.

  •  Either Impeachment, or Rebellion (12+ / 0-)

    You choose, Congress. Because violence is being done to the  Republic and at the moment you are apologizing for it, Senator Feingold.

    Either no one is above the law, or everyone is outside of it.

    The Bush administration is banking that no one can possibly withstand or stop them...

    That, if push comes to shove, its cadre can withstand the majority will of the American people.

    That the military, who swear to the Constitution, will defend this President instead of their own People.

    It is time to call the bluff.

    If the Bushies hold themselves outside the reach of the law, then they are outside of its protection as well.

    Perhaps not this moment, but soon, there will be no choice but for an outraged American people to consider the word in the title.

    Perhaps not now, but soon we will have to consider rebellion, in the absence of our leaders obeying their own oaths of office and leading.

    To Congress. To all of you, Democratic and Republican alike:

    You have not much longer to assert your relevance in a contest of Tyrant versus Republic.

    Either do with brave hearts what is peacefully and lawfully prescribed, or excuse yourself entirely.

    Either set yourselves in front, or get out of the way.

    factses! we loves them forever!

    by cskendrick on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:33:34 PM PDT

  •  Feingold in a nutshell: (10+ / 0-)

    We're so busy investigating all their crimes, we don't have the time and resources to impeach.
     I can't come up with even one analogy to this.

    If Ron Jeremy can pull out on time, why can't George Bush?

    by Van Buren on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:34:29 PM PDT

  •  This needs to be said over, and over, and over (7+ / 0-)

    again.  

    This move to impeachment is our only remedy, the remedy needed to remove those who think that they are above the law, that they can create their own laws, and not be held accountable to anyone.

    What has been going on since Bush and Cheney were selected in 2000 is quite simple, an evil consolidation of power to those who hold themselves above the law.  It is a fascist dictatorship, plain and simple.  

    This administration  has executed a bloodless coup, with the help of Rehnquist and now Roberts in the Supreme Court, and gleefully enabled by Bush cronies and crooks like in the congress, and media sympathizers.  

    The endless war and fear mongering about Al Qaida, terrorists, Iraq and Iran, is a cover designed to lull the American people into thinking that Bush needs these powers to fight evil, when in fact he is using it to create more power for himself and Cheney.  

    The next generation of neo-con fascists are waiting in the wings (Sara Taylor, Monica Goodling, Tim Griffin types) just like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld waited, until the time will be ripe for them to seize power.  If we do not punish this administration to the full extent possible, the next group will be enboldened to possibly neutralize all dissent from those who do not swear a loyalty oath.  

    The time is now.  The war will continue regardless, as no one has the balls to stop it and bring our troops home.  There is no legislation that is as important as impeaching Bush and Cheney.  

    Impeach the bastards, settle for nothing less.

    by Do Tell on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:35:28 PM PDT

  •  Shorter Feingold: "I'd like to uphold... (18+ / 0-)

    ...the Constitution, the rule of law, democracy and our whole way of life against this threat, but my agenda's kind of full."

    The truth doesn't need a noise machine. It just needs people who will stand up for it.

    by expatjourno on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:35:40 PM PDT

  •  Feingold reminds me of a governor who politely (3+ / 0-)

    tells a condemned innocent man how sorry he is he can do nothing to help all the way to gallows.

    -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & I's score!

    by pinche tejano on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:38:10 PM PDT

  •  Feingold (5+ / 0-)

      does not need to be told what is and what isn't when it comes to progressive thought. The man is one of our champions on Capitol Hill.

      Impeachment is a waste of time, simply b/c it won't be successful right now. And we should NEVER put ou governmen thru that unless it has a CHANCE to succeed. Right now, it does not. Therefore it's nothing more than a feel good exercise. And that's no reason to do it. Keep digging. Find the smoking gun. Yes, yes I realize domestic wiretapping and other offenses could be that. There not. We need to find what Watergate had, something so obvious, so incriminating, so blatantly criminal, that most of America tore into the President demanding impeachment. That has not happened here. People don't like President Bush, but they don't see impeachment as an idea. That has to change, or impeachment will go nowhere. And doing something we know will fail merely to score "feel good" points, so we can pat ourselves on the back, is ridiculous and indeed a true waste of time. An unsuccessful impeachment will damage the Constitution far more than it already is. And right now, it is certain that Bush will be acquitted.

    •  Thank God (13+ / 0-)

      Our founding Fathers didn't base the Revolution on whether it would be successful or not.

      The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. --Thomas Paine

      by Citizen J on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:00:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One other thing (4+ / 0-)

      "We need to find what Watergate had, something so obvious, so incriminating, so blatantly criminal, that most of America tore into the President demanding impeachment."

      Read Conyer's "GWB vs the US Constitution" - all we need is contained within.  All Conyers needs to do is have permission to turn in this homework.

      The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. --Thomas Paine

      by Citizen J on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:08:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No (0+ / 0-)

          it has to be graded by the American people as a whole. W/out broad support, impeachment is worthless. We had it with Watergate. We don't now.

        •  pish tosh (4+ / 0-)

          read the polls, mate:

          The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

          http://www.commondreams.org/...

          and what were the numbers in January 1974, say? You have them at your fingertips, no?

          •  According to Bob Woodward's book (0+ / 0-)

              something along the lines of 60% favored impeachment after the Cox firing. 45%-46% does not indicate a favorable attitude towards impeachment to me.

            •  That's because (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sockpuppet, greenearth

              We actually had a media that would actually report on the crimes of the administration, and were doing so at that time.  That's a crucial, critical difference between then, and now.

              You must not realize that the Saturday Night Massacre was ordered to attempt to STOP the ongoing, televised Watergate hearings, that were killing the Nixon Administration.  Obstruction of Justice, clearly- just like Scooter and Harriet, but THIS TIME, the media doesn't have much to say.  Scooter, ah heck, that's cool, no underlying crime.  Myers, we'll just not mention that.

              The Media was wholly different then- talk to someone who actually lived thru that time, and actually watched Watergate happen.

              Start the impeachment hearings, televise them on network TV every damn night.  Impeachment ratings will rise until it's simply inevitable.

              Just like Watergate

              The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. --Thomas Paine

              by Citizen J on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:22:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No (0+ / 0-)

                 they won't. The media was different then than today, you are right. But that does not mean impeachment will gain support just b/c you put it on TV.

                •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

                  It worked that way with Watergate.  

                  With all due respect, it doesn't seem like you know very much at all about Watergate because you keep missing the point.  I'll assume that's due to ignorance, since you've said you weren't alive at that time.

                  You don't seem to understand that the atmosphere was much the same then- no real public support for impeachment, at all.  

                  In fact, most public polls showed that the majority of the country was against impeachment, UNLIKE NOW.  Again, this is a critical, crucial difference between then, and now.

                  No, Americans were AGAINST impeachment.  Until, of course, they started the hearings and showed everyone what a relentless, lying scumbag Nixon and his crew were.  That's why the Saturday Night Massacre happened- it was an attempt to STOP this.  Obviously, this attempt to Obstruct Justice and deceive the American Public was unsuccessful and the hearings continued.

                  THEN, they had to impeach- the public pressure was simply too much to resist.  Thus, the famous walk of the Republicans to the WH.

                  Impeachment was all due to public pressure that came after the hearings, as a direct result of the hearings.  This is historical fact- look it up and get your head around it.  

                  Americans will do the right thing if they are given the correct information to make an informed decision.

                  Thus, the long-planned Corporate takeover of the media- control the message and the flow of information, and you control decisions.  

                  Despite this, the American public WANTS Bu$hCO impeached- that is HUGE.

                  With all due respect, you need to learn more about Watergate before you comment on it.

                  The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. --Thomas Paine

                  by Citizen J on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:08:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What you don't seem to understand (0+ / 0-)

                      is that Trent Lott, Lamar Alexander, Pete Domenici, Jim Bunning, or any other Republican won't give a damn about the 46% that want impeachment. They don't care about the country's response, their care about their own Constituents response. They vote to convict the President on this, they lose their jobs...along with most other Republicans in the Senate. It's not gonna happen.

                      I'm not at all ignorant of Watergate nor of the current events. I'm not stupid just b/c I disagree with you.

                     

                    •  Oh, OK I see now (0+ / 0-)

                      You're not making your point based on any historical events, it's simply your read on it.  Fair enough, I suppose.

                      Your opinions:

                      But that does not mean impeachment will gain support just b/c you put it on TV.

                      and

                      They vote to convict the President on this, they lose their jobs...along with most other Republicans in the Senate. It's not gonna happen.

                      So then, I disagree with your opinion.  Not because I think you're "stupid", no, I disagree because of similar events in our recent history: Watergate.  

                      I say, start the hearings/investigations and put them on TV.  The public will learn, even the Republicans.  As they do, they'll put pressure on the Republicans that you've mentioned, because most Americans do continue to care about the law and the Constitution- it's in our DNA.  Even Republicans.  That's where the pressure comes from.  

                      Clearly the pressure that caused Nixon to resign didn't only come from the Opposition Party.  There was plenty of that, obviously.  Just like now.  But the real pressure that resulted in Nixon's administration came from members of his own Party.

                      Remember, nobody voted to convict Nixon.  The threat was enough (from fellow Republicans) to make him resign, rather than face the public humiliation that the trial would surely bring.  Maybe he had some "concern" for the Nation, but I don't really buy that.

                      Start the Impeachment Hearings- no votes needed to "convict the president" to do that.  It'll be O-V-E-R for them, just like Watergate.  

                      That was my original point.  "Just like Watergate" is my premise, and it's based on specific history of what I see as very similar events in our past.  I won't speculate as to why you hold the opinions that you do, I'll just disagree with them.  

                      You could be right, maybe Republicans on the whole are so corrupt that they simply don't care about the Rule of Law, they only care if their team "wins".

                      I choose to believe that Americans will do the right thing and stand up for the Constitution and Rule of Law, if they get to hear the truth.  With Watergate, they did.  Now, with the marked lack of truth in our media...

                      With the most recent outrage that the occupants of the White House claiming that Executive Priv. trumps Contempt of Congress, I dare say we have little choice but to impeach.

                      It's the only thing that'll stop the full bore, full-court press for a Dictatorship.

                      The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. --Thomas Paine

                      by Citizen J on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:51:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You make my point (0+ / 0-)

                          for me. I appreicate it. Where are the Republican troops marching to the WH demanding his resignation? It's not there.

                          Any GOP Senator from a conservative state will be crucified and lose his job if he's part of a successful impeachment convicton. Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint, no chance. Trent Lott and Cochran, no chance. Bunning and McConnell, no chance. you see my point.

                          We have to get them off the ledge, but lets face it. They aint gonna go. Hence, a successful impeachment is impossible.

                        •  That's it (0+ / 0-)

                          Right there- you think "successful impeachment" is the only worthy outcome, "winning".  Otherwise, it's not worth the effort.

                          I vehemently reject that argument as Cowardly and UnAmerican.  It pisses upon the graves of those who've died to promote and protect the Rule of Law that this Country was founded upon.

                          It reminds one of another triangulating chickensh*t politikking statement:
                           

                          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed."

                          Bullshit and Horsecrap of the Highest Chicken-Hearted Order, I say.

                          I'm more of this view:

                          "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." –Samuel Adams

                          I totally reject:

                            1. Your view that impeachment is only worth pursuing only if it can be successful.  Horseshit to you and your pal Pelosi on that craven attitude.  Thankfully our Founding Fathers show similar cowardice and base the Revolution on whether they thought they could win or not.  They might have decided it wasn't worth it.

                            2. Your views that public Hearings wouldn't make any difference.  They would, and DID in the recent history of this country.  Since your views that they wouldn't seem based on nothing more than the contents of your rectal cavity, I'll take my view that's actually based on recent history of this country, thanks.

                          After this, I won't further waste time with someone who simply and obviously doesn't get it.

                          You're right in one thing- there's no "republican troops marching to the WH right now".  Bully for you.  

                          Problem is, I never said that there was.  That was never my point, and I never tried to make that point.

                          One begins to wonder if you're missing the point I'm making deliberately.

                          My point, one more time:

                          There's no "republican troops marching to the wh" right now because, there's been no Hearings on TV like there were during Watergate, exposing the public to the criminality of the Administration.  

                          This is due to, in no small part, apparently misguided only wanna "win" hammerheads like you, not understanding that there can be no "winning" until the threats are removed.  

                          For the "republican troops to march to the WH", Impeachment Hearings must:

                          1- Start
                          2- Be on Network TV

                          Once the public has an opportunity to learn, they will put pressure on all public servants, even Republican ones.

                          THAT'S WHEN your "republican troops" will "march to the WH to demand resignation(s)".  ONLY THEN.

                          That's how it happened with Watergate.  That's how the events happened, that's how it came to pass.

                          Those "republican troops that marched on the wh" during Watergate that you've mentioned?  Yeah, they did so because of public pressure from the Watergate hearings.  Again, I make that point in case you've again missed it.

                          And, by the way, if you really, really think these guys are gonna go quietly and allow people like you to "win", then you haven't been paying very close attention at all.

                          The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. --Thomas Paine

                          by Citizen J on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:23:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You're telling me (0+ / 0-)

                               Washington and his men would've fought a war that they KNEW they couldn't win and would only bring more harm than good on their cause? That's an insult to their memory and to history.

                               To suggest that Washington's men didn't believe they could win a war and that Washington didn't believe he could lead his men to victory in a war is an outrageous statement and dismal comparison to my arguments.

                               An unsuccessful impeachment will further damage our Constitution. That said, I've always said it's worth going after IF THERE IS A CHANCE for success. There is not a chance in the current environment. None. Zip. Zero. Not even all Democrats are convinced...in either the House or the Senate. What do you think it is possible to find that would convince them? CIA Prisons? Hasn't done it yet. Torture?- not too many GOPers seemed infuriated about that? Wiretapping?- Virtually all Republicans supported the Presidents move on that, as did some chickenshit Democrats.
                             
                               You're chasing a ghost. I'd rather not further ruin our Constitution simply b/c you can't control your anger at what is happening.

                               I don't mind your insults. Not at all. It only further proves my point that you aren't thinking rationally...if you were, you would treat your/our cause a hell of a lot better than you have been.

                               

                          •  Damn, typo (0+ / 0-)

                            That should be "Thankfully our Founding Fathers DIDN'T show similar cowardice and base the Revolution on whether they thought they could win or not.  They might have decided it wasn't worth it."

                            Meaning, if they had triangulated like you people, they might have decided they couldn't win (and it was the world power at the time, so no, not many people thought they would win) so it wouldn't be worth it.  Just like the cowardly position you support- it's only worth it if you can succeed.

                            Bullshit, buddy.

                            And you still miss the main point, because you're unable to stay focused and would rather distract from the fact that your opinions are simply that- YOUR OPINIONS that aren't based on any historical reality.  I have history backing me up, you have nothing but your rectal cavity.

                            YOUR cause is one of cowardice and triangulation.  YOU would have us countenance, overlook, and gloss over HIGH CRIMES because you only want to "win".  "Damage" the Constitution?  Right, defending it is "damaging" it, sure.

                            MY cause is to DEFEND and Restore the Constitution.  YOU want to ignore crimes because, well, you're a chickenshit like those Dems you revile.

                            Who's "ruining the Constitution", again?  And I'm the irrational one, right.

                            Yeah, other people were right- you're just a troll.

                            The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. --Thomas Paine

                            by Citizen J on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:16:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm no troll partner (0+ / 0-)

                              I've posted on this site for 3 years. I work for Democrats, I live with Democrats and I'm out there every day in a place very hostile to progressives. So knock off the lame bullshit. Just b/c I disagree with your position does not make me a troll or a coward. Dailykos is not a forum where we all have to hold hands and agree. Sounds like the argument of a GOP mole to me. But whatever.

                              You can't defend the Constitution by impeaching the President with no chance at a conviction. We do not have 67 votes, so an impeachment trial ending in an acquittal will only expose that the Constitution can be beaten further than it has been. I repeat my mantra. When you only have one bullet, you wait for a clean shot. We MUST have a clean shot at a conviction for it to be worth it. Not a 100%, b/c that never happens, but a clean, clear shot at a conviction. Otherwise, the man walks away acquitted, which is a terrible message to the world and to future Presidents who may wish to follow the same road. It says "I GOT AWAY WITH IT, EVEN THROUGH IMPEACHMENT" in big neon lights for the next guy. Not exactly a good message.

                              You have to wait til we have a clear chance. Right now, we have NO chance. Which makes it nothing more than feel good political theater. Feel good theater never works in the long run. I don't give a damn about the political repercussions. Look through all my posts, you will not find one reference to the political repercussions of impeachment in this diary nor in Feingolds diary.

                             Suppose we impeach right now, he's acquitted, then and only then do we find the smoking gun. We will have ruined our chances b/c people like you just couldn't stay patient. Congress is going about this EXACTLY the right way. They're taking this to Court, they are forcing the Republican's hand. They HAVE to do that BEFORE an impeachment inquiry begins. You start one now, you'll get nowhere with the GOP. And face it, we hate them, but we need 17 (b/c Liebershit will vote to acquit even if Bush is on camera executing someone with a gun). We have to win them first. You go in, guns blazing, before the right moment, they'll simply clam up. The Courts are the way to expose them and expose GOP Senators to the mess that, right now, they deny exists. They have to see that mess before impeachment becomes practical. Let our Congressional do their jobs.

            •  You are way off base (0+ / 0-)

              In late 1973, 61% thought impeachment would mean disaster for the country.

              Here is what I could find of polling re Nixon's impeachment.

              Time magazine, 5-20-74

              A nationwide TIME-Yankelovich survey conducted by telephone last Wednesday and Thursday found that Nixon has lost an important weapon in his fight against impeachment: the previously prevailing fear felt by a majority of Americans that impeachment would mean disaster for the country. While 61% of the people polled shared that fear last November, only 38% expressed such concern last week. According to the survey, only 38% of the American people wanted Nixon to remain in office. A majority, 53%, wanted him either to resign or be impeached. A Louis Harris poll, also conducted last week, found that 49% wanted Nixon impeached and removed from office, while 41% did not. In April, Harris showed a 42-42 standoff on that question.

              Time magazine, 8-12-74.

              A Louis Harris survey released this week showed a dramatic shift in favor of impeachment and conviction, undoubtedly because of the impact of the televised Judiciary Committee proceedings. By 66% to 27%, those polled in personal interviews last week favored impeachment, up from 53% to 34% in a survey taken in July, just before the public committee debate started. According to the poll, a majority (56% to 31%) now believe that Nixon should be ousted from office, up from 47% to 34% in the earlier sampling. In July, a Harris survey found that most people (55% to 27%) thought that Nixon would not be found guilty. Now 47% to 40% say that he will be found guilty.

              This was in August 2004 - Not October 2003, when the Cox firing took place.

              N0 way 60% supported impeachment in 10-73. According to Time, 60% didn't support it even in 8-74. In late 1973, 61% thought impeachment would mean disaster for the country. It was only at the end that the majority supported it.

              To have 54% support heading toward impeachment of Cheney NOW, prior to ANY committee, is f*cking amazing.

              You may be thinking of Nixon's approval rating.

          •  I'd call that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenearth

            pretty broad support unless you consider 45% of the population hard core revenge seekers.

            So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

            by Cali Techie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:56:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Not the same (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenearth

          Situation with public knowledge.  See down thread comment.

          You're comparing apples and oranges as far as public knowledge goes.

          The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. --Thomas Paine

          by Citizen J on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:24:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well Said. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, greenearth, Cali Techie

    This statement effectively reduces the advocacy for impeachment as the rantings of an angry mob instead of the thoughtful deliberation of informed citizens who care  deeply about what their country is becoming and what nightmares lay in store if we don't correct the dangerous precedents set by this administration.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... We Won't Get Fooled Again!! GWB

    by word player on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:49:38 PM PDT

  •  You make one good new argument (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wonmug, Red Bean, greenearth

    And lastly, what the hell kind of progressive legislation are you thinking you can get passed with a veto proof majority? Any amendments you slip into a piece of legislation that would be signed by George Bush will most certainly not be worth it.

    Really, what do they think they can DO anyway?

  •  "These are the times that try men's souls." (4+ / 0-)

    Thomas Paine, no?
    We're so anesthetized by all our creature comforts that we're sleepwalking through history.  By invoking Executive Principle and essentially ignoring subpeonas, the Executive Branch has basically started a game of Constitutional Chicken with the Legislative Branch.  If Congress doesn't protect its turf, the foundation of our system of government has cracked.
    Even Senator Feingold, perhaps the best example of integrity that the US Senate has to offer, doesn't see this!
    America's slide to third world status has already begun (Katrina, vote caging, forging documents to use as a rationale for war, etc.).  If we don't demand accountability from this administration, we're going over the waterfall.

  •  Impeachment won't succeed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karenc13

    so the only statement that will be made is that Dems are obstructionists.

    Let's win by the ballot box instead.

    62% of independents, 58% of men and 47% of women say they would not consider voting for her...

    by Joe B on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:56:39 PM PDT

  •  angry mobs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alohaleezy, greenearth

    damn skippy!

    you can beat this shell about me but you can't touch what's inside

    by mediaprisoner on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:57:44 PM PDT

  •  Remember this Senator Feingold? (6+ / 0-)

    "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: So help me God.

    You took it, now fullfill the oath you took and impeach the lawbreakers Bush and Cheney. The Constitution has never needed supoort and defense more then now at any time in our history.

    Diebold! Democracy's premiere supplier of coffin nails since 2002

    by moon in the house of moe on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:58:15 PM PDT

  •  Hear hear!!!!!! (5+ / 0-)

    This is about the future of our country. It is about what we stand for and what we want our country to be.

  •  Impeachment is a Constitutional Tool ... (5+ / 0-)

    ... not a partisan act. Go watch Bill Moyers' 7/13 episode. It will change your mind. We MUST impeach!

    Here's the link.

  •  Go Ahead and Wait (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, greenearth

    Until when?  Until we get hit again so he can go to war with Iran?

    Until we have a disaster here and he can kick in Marshal law?

    Until after he's attacked Iran and decides Palestine and Syria look good, too?

    Until he's told y'all to go home because there's nothing you can do in D.C.?

    Until Blackwater walks our streets with all the powers this man will give them to keep us contained?

    Until after he's called off the elections?

    NOTHING you do now will be worth a dime when it hits the fan.  What will you say then?  Oops?

    This is absolutely unbelievable.  I'm disgusted and ashamed of what's up there supposedly working for us.

    •  whoa, calm down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      planetclaire4

      we're all working toward the same ends.  If Senator Feingold says something you don't like, you might want to give it a second's thought.  The Senator is one of the best friends we've got up there.

      I think his reasoning is suspect, but that doesn't mean his intentions aren't good.  What we have to do is remove the fear that impeachment is going to harm Democrats from an electoral point of view.

      •  can't agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenearth, Cali Techie

        whether the lawful process of impeachment would help or hurt re-election chances...funny, i don't see any mention of that in the Constitution.  our representatives think this is some kind of an issue of personal preference!!!  THAT is what needs to be removed.  they work for us, not the other way around.

  •  punctuation is your friend (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    benheeha, Jesterfox, MyBrainWorks

    A panda who Eats, Shoots, and Leaves is quite different from one who eats shoots and leaves.

    The same goes for senators.  "A Waste of Time, Senator?" is a rhetorical question directed to a senator.  A "Waste of Time Senator?" is a suggestion that the senator himself isn't worth the air he breathes.  I think Senator Feingold is worth our time ;-)

    Just a kindly title-changing suggestion...

  •  I totally agree with you TD! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, wonmug, greenearth

    funny, but I've been thinking all day about Senator Feingold's diary this morning. What does it mean? Is he pushing the 'off the table' strategy? And if so, why? Is he and other (most) dems colluding with bushco? If so, why? Is our country now run by industrial/military complex? Is it too late? I really don't understand how the Senator can come here and diary about crimes that have been and continue to be committed, and gloss it over with rubbish, or to be more plain, bullshit. What gives?

  •  We heard a squeak today! (3+ / 0-)

    Congress is feeling the pressure, but not enough yet. We have to keep putting on the pressure until we get more than a squeak. Keep pressing until we get complete and full compliance with our demands.

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:14:59 PM PDT

  •  Sen Fiengold needs to watch Moyers show from (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, greenearth, bess, armadillo

    last Friday on impeachment!

    To do less than impeach is to endanger our very system of government.

    Wanted: A Dem who can win PA-18 in 2008!

    by AntKat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:15:54 PM PDT

    •  Why is it that ONLY Sen. Feingold (0+ / 0-)

      should watch Moyer's show?

      shouldn't ALL congressional democrats be watching and taking notes?

      how many congressional democrats are going to contact Feingold and say, "you know, that impeachment thing you recently floated-- I think you're right and we should move ahead with it"??

      how many?

      Cerberus: In Greek mythology, the three-headed watchdog who guards the entrance to the lower world, the Hades.

      by Superpole on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:17:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The big picture (6+ / 0-)

    is what came out on Moyers' show last Friday:  the example set of a runamok presidency by Bush/Cheney is a horrific precedent.  If they are not slapped down it could be disastrous in the future.  Imagine if say a more competent and intelligent version of Bush got in - like an american Putin or like his own brother Jeb - but who was just as pernicious in his outlook.  You could exponentiate the damage to our country in those circumstances.  We need to bring them down (i) because Iran looms and they want to go after it, and (ii) because they are setting a horrible, horrible precedent for future administrations.  We need to force it to the point where the very chance of political survival for the republicans is to back this.  IN this regard, I must disagree, as do you, with the admirable Sen. Feingold.

  •  This is the correct perspective (7+ / 0-)

    Much as I'm Feingold's number-one supporter, on this, the Kossacks are right: Impeachment is the most important task facing the 110th Congress.

    As long as the Democrats refuse to impeach, they will watch their approval numbers continue to slide downward. The American people want the showdown and they will support whoever stands up to Bush and forces him to back down.

    Let me repeat that: They will support whoever that is.

    Don't let it be the Republicans.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:20:48 PM PDT

  •  I can just hear the Founding Father's now (4+ / 0-)

    "This United States thing...you know, trying to form a more perfect union stuff?  Well, I dunno...we really should be concentrating our energies on legislation that directly helps our citizens right now.  Yeah, George won't be happy about some of it, and I imagine he'll even send the Red Coats over here, but hey!  We won't have to fight them over there!

    Anyway, this Constitution stuff is just too much work, and really a waste of time..."

    •  What one of them actually said - (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Terre, Jesterfox, greenearth

      he that will not respond to its accents, and strain every nerve to carry into effect its provisions, is unworthy the name of freeman...although these gray hairs must soon descend into the sepulcher, I would infinitely rather that they should descend thither by the hand of the public executioner than desert at this crisis the sacred cause of my country.

       He said it about the DOI, but IMHO it applies equally to the Constitution.

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:53:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Doesn't "border on offensive," it IS highly (7+ / 0-)

    offensive.  

    "We are too busy to impeach President, Vice President and Attorney General responsible for the biggest string of Constitional violations in the history of our nation?"

    Really?  Really? Too damn busy?  Your OATH is to uphold the Constitution, not to "Be Busy" while the Constitution is subverted.

    Utterly offensive, if you ask me. Utterly. Come back when he has something dignified to say. As it is, the Senator sounds pathetic.

  •  Is Feingold just lining up his ducks... (5+ / 0-)

    ... for a real showdown? Up until now, Russ Feingold has acted like a real patriot and stood up to the constitution in almost all of his positions. He's smart too, and knows the game that the WH is playing. So his stance on impeachment at this point in time is perplexing. But I wonder if he is just getting this out to hide what is really up his sleeve. If impeachment were to work in Congress, it would have to be sprung suddenly, by surprise, and with a lot of good, hard and current evidence of obstruction of justice. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees are doing a good job of amassing the latter. Maybe Mr. Feingold is helping taking care of the "suddenly by surprise" part by playing naive here. Just a thought, but Occams Hatchet's diary about Nancy Pelosi got me thinking that perhaps some of our Democratic leaders are more in tune than we give them credit for.

    •  I've considered this also (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet, fijiancat, greenearth

      but I'm not convinced: it seems too complicated and unnecessary.

      •  It is somewhat far-fetched (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sockpuppet, greenearth

        but I'm wondering why Mr. Feingold felt it was necessary to write his diary in the first place. Why go out of his way to bring up something that would only bring him criticism? What good does it do him? Maybe he's just cultivating all these comments to use to back him up when he finally says "I was against impeachment, but I just can't ignore the will of the people anymore." All these comments would arm him well. Again, could be wishful thinking.

        •  yeah I went through a similar (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fijiancat, greenearth

          set of questions: for surely he must have known the diary would bring overwhelmingly negative comments. So what was the point really? I don't know; maybe you're right. time will tell.

          •  Let's keep our fingers crossed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenearth

            I can't imagine that Feingold and many other good Dems in the House and Senate don't understand the urgency of the current situation vis a vis invading Iran, suspension of Habeus Corpus, and all kinds of other illegal activities we probably don't even know about.

  •  IMPEACH! NOW! (4+ / 0-)

    Imagination is more important than knowledge - Einstein

    Check out the Iraq Moratorium

    by One Pissed Off Liberal on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:32:08 PM PDT

  •  Feingold Rationale Against Impeachment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    We the People deserve much better than you suggest Senator. I am glad you are reading these comments for your statement that impeachment should be off the table  are inconsistent with your otherwise valuable leadership within our Party. I have always held you in the highest regard and urge you to reconsider for your legacy and We the People.

    •  "We Deserve Much Better" than what (0+ / 0-)

      the good Senator from Wisconsin has suggested.

      I like that:

      We Deserve Much Better.

      The Presidency in 2009 is not good enough if our foundational structures are collapsed.

      Btw -- with respect to pelosi's and Feingold's view that the priority must be on legislation for the people:

      nancy did a great job marketing to America in 06 what she'd do in first 100 hours of new Congress.

      My understanding is that she accomplished it.

      But what OF all that legislation? Where is all this stuff Democrats are allegedly getting done -- while the bandits are given the nod they won't get prosecuted?

      ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

      by rhfactor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:39:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When will people get it? (6+ / 0-)

    The Democratic Party is officially, and irrevocably against impeachment.  

    The party has moved on.  It has no interest in hearing from you, or your friends or your family about impeachment.  The party is united on this one: Bush may have committed war crimes, he may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors -- but, hey, who's perfect?

    Only the "looney left" wants accountability in government.  

    What the Democrats want is what the Republicans want: higher fundraising numbers, and easier elections.  And right now the Democrats are raking it in.  

    So don't mess things up by trying to take back your government.  It was sold off long ago -- God only knows who owns it now.

  •  We'll have a hell of a lot more energy... (4+ / 0-)

    as a populace WITH impeachment on the table. Many people are too demoralized to put significant energy into anything without impeachment on the move. So perhaps one could argue that much MORE might be accomplished rather than less in such a case. Focus does not equal productivity.

    Time lost is always a disadvantage that is bound in some way to weaken him who loses it. -Clausewitz

    by Malachite on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:50:05 PM PDT

  •  Gravel is right: Nixon should have done time! (5+ / 0-)

    We've set a very bad precedent, imo, by pardonning criminal behavior and issuing a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card to criminals who happen to have served as President (because the country just couldn't stand the trauma!?). We loudly say that we are a nation of laws and that no one is above the law, but of course, we are self-delusional if we really think that. We are people who suck up to power and money and even celebrity. If you have one, or ideally two or more, the criminal justice system can't tag you. (If you're caught being poo, black, and carrying a couple of $5 rocks though, heaven help your sorry ass. If we serious about war crimes and a world court that tried war crimes, there are a lot of US politicos who wouldn't dare travel outside our borders.

    "Victory is not no violence" -- Commander Guy

    by RudiB on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:55:02 PM PDT

  •  How would this excuse work (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhfactor, greenearth

    Mr. Officer,  I know I was speeding, but for the betterment of society, wasting all that time on a trial, the appeals, etc, come on, forget it man. You know that it's a waste of time as well as I do.

    And forget about that "raped" constitution in the back, I'll just ignore it ever happened, and when push comes to shove, admit I did it, but explain how the "constitution" asked for it.

    "Constitutional Crisis Forthcoming"

    by egarratt on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:58:12 PM PDT

    •  Using Russ' argument on a Police officer (0+ / 0-)

      I love very tangible analogies like this. this would make a good TV ad -- as part of a Direct-to-Citizens campaign to impeach these outlaws who continue to laugh in our faces as they perpetrate even more crimes -- while the silly Dems convene hearings around a table.

      Mr. Officer,  I know I was speeding, but for the betterment of society, wasting all that time on a trial, the appeals, etc, come on, forget it man. You know that it's a waste of time as well as I do.

      ---> See my 1st VIDEO DIARY: Media savvy? Meet@ yKOS re YouTube, Video Townhall, new methods

      by rhfactor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:42:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The far-fetched scenario you describe (0+ / 0-)

      probably happens millions of times per day, in America alone.

      Yes, in the real world, laws actually are selectively enforced - for a plethora of reasons.  Cops see people break laws all the time  without taking action.  Sometimes that's the right thing to do, and sometimes it's wrong.

  •  Stop! Stop! Stop! (0+ / 0-)

    Nixon turned me into a Democrat. I never thought I would despise a politician more than Nixon. And then along came Bush II, the boy king. I won't go into the list of why he is the worst president in our history. With that said, I have no interest in impeachment. We must concentrate on 2008. Bush II and the Republicans are the issue. If we go forward with impeachment we will become the issue.

    So please stop.

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:58:44 PM PDT

  •  Tried to post this on Feingold's diary, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    but couldn't get past the pro-impeach posts.

    Scarecrow at Firedoglake reminds us:

    Congressional Democrats are working to change our Iraq policies by persuading sufficient Republicans to join in imposing a different strategy on a recalcitrant President and Vice President. But as Glenn Greenwald rightly points out, what’s left of the Republican Party has so thorougly embraced this war and the mindset supporting it that it may be incapable of providing sufficient votes to rein in this Administration. This is their war, and their base won’t let them let go.

    The importance of this history is that it suggests that Congressional efforts to end the Iraq occupation and/or redeploy US forces to other regions or into more "limited" missions, while politically worth pursuing, are highly likely to fail in actually changing policies, even if they eventually receive 60 Senate votes. What our history tells us is that if Congress truly wants to alter America’s policies in Iraq, a winning strategy probably requires removing the war’s zealous champions from the White House and encouraging the American people to relegate the Party of Aggressive War to 40 years in the political wilderness.

    Secretary, Connecticut for Lieberman Party

    by Sprinkles on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:59:08 PM PDT

  •  I've ranted through several comments now, (6+ / 0-)

    so you'd think I'd be all ranted out.  But I find that the more I think about this, the more angry I become.  What a load of horeshit, to say that it is more important to pass legislation that will die a painful death at the hands of the president or not even become fully formed due to the obstructionist behavior of the criminals who call themselves Republican members of Congress is more important that saving our Constitution, the rule of law, our country, our very lives from this current administration of monsters and any and all future administrations left with uncheckable powers due to OUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS NOT HAVING THE BACKBONE TO DO THE JUST THING!!!!!

    NION
    Liberty and Justice for All

    by Got a Grip on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:01:02 PM PDT

  •  I cried today, (3+ / 0-)

    which was accompanied with many, "Oh my God's" when I realized that the blogs had pushed Reid to do what he had done.

    This would not have happened without Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, dKos, and everybody else who emailed Harry and told him to get his act together.

    Secretary, Connecticut for Lieberman Party

    by Sprinkles on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:02:14 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for articulating EXACTLY (7+ / 0-)

    what needed to be said.  I respect and admire Senator Feingold perhaps more than any other, but he is wrong about this as are other democrats who say impeachment hearings would distract the country from the important things that need to be done.  Excuse me, but what could be more important that PRESERVING and PROTECTING our constitution and democracry from another administration that does not respect our system of checks and balances and that scoffs at the rule of law?  I'd submit nothing could be more important!

    Thanks again.  You're right on spot.

    Practice random acts of kindness (favorite bumper sticker)

    by Sally in SF on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:02:36 PM PDT

  •  There is no reason for independents to vote (6+ / 0-)

    democratic when by not impeaching we are agreeing with the republicans once again showing there is not much difference.

    We will be giving consent to the unitary executive theory to all future administrations.  

    One truth of Fein's no one gives up power ever.

  •  Isn't that why Feingold dropped out of the RAce? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, greenearth

    He was so disturbed by the lawlessness that he felt he could spend more time in his Chairmanship going after the illegal administration.

    This now is a little flip floppy.  

    Here is one question - If not now when?  

    Unleash the potential to make a difference

    by totallynext on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:28:20 PM PDT

  •  I have to think that if there is some leadership (3+ / 0-)

    on this in the form of advocacy that it is a good idea and achieves the public tipping point, a bunch of Rs will come on board because they will not want a Dem with the kind of powers that Bush/Cheney have arrogated these past years.

    If, If, If, I know, but even with the wickets, the long-term view of "good for the country" may even sink in with Rs.

    This was the from the Moyers show.  The massively important issue is whether ANYONE should have these powers, not just Bush.

    Thanks for the diary.  Strange political day.

  •  You make an important point: that the power (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    that Cheney has amassed will pass on to his successor (if htere is one), no matter who that is.

    Personally, I think that Cheney will find some way to remain in power, and so removing him now via impeachment is the only real solution.

    Otherwise, let's start planning that Kossak meet-up outside the country to avoid the closing of the borders before next year's election.

    17. Ne5

    In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

    by Spud1 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:43:25 PM PDT

  •  Three words Senator Feingold should consider: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    Represent: As in Congress represents its constituents for practical reasons...they are not endowed with superior powers.

    Misfeasance: Failure of an official to perform a required act, i.e. defend the constitution when it is violated.

    Judgment: It's beginning to become clear that our elected officials lack it!

    It's either the above, or they are all a bunch of snivelling cowards!

  •  FUCK THE POLITICIANS...we will NEVER (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    be out of Iraq...not with all the permanent bases and huge embassey...it just will NOT happen in our life time.

    So now it is about who gets the most money out of it all.

  •  You're Missing the Point (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Feanor, planetclaire4

    since you respect Sen. Feingold, I assume you are aware of how smart and careful the guy is-- and he's not Kucinich.

    Feingold-- now that the so called inpenetrable shell of republican support for smirky is starting to crack (i.e. Lugar, Voinivich, etc.)-- may very well be floating the idea of impeachment to test the BALLS of the democratic party to go further.

    you're right; he can't go it alone. perhaps he's testing the waters.

    we should be supporting his efforts, not criticizing them for not being enough.

    Cerberus: In Greek mythology, the three-headed watchdog who guards the entrance to the lower world, the Hades.

    by Superpole on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:15:08 PM PDT

  •  BEWARE (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    all ye who oppose Impeachment.

    The primaries are nigh, and our anger hath risen!!!

  •  What do you think "oversight" means? (0+ / 0-)

    I think Congress’s time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation

    The advocacy for impeachment has mostly been the rantings of an angry mob, unfortunately. There have been a few voices who actually argued persuasivly, but most have used insults, emotional arguments, and distortions in place of real debate. If you doubt the "mob mentality", then look at what is being recommended and what is being rated up. It's not a pretty picture.

  •  Will someone PLEASE explain to me how impeachment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny rotten, Feanor

    leads to conviction when there is a ZERO chance that 18 Repubs will vote to convict at present or for the foreseable future, and how an impeachment process that fails to lead to conviction will in any meaningful way help end the war, hold Bush & Co. accountable for their crimes, or accomplish anything beyond making everyone FEEL like they're doing something?

    Because impeachment without conviction is utterly meaningless, and not only a waste of congress's time, but actually dangerous, because it will essentially validate the Bush administration, and which I believe is what Feingold was trying to say, however clumsily.

    As I've said a million times here, I'm absolutely FOR impeachment--as are Feingold and a whole lot of Dems, I believe--but ONLY if it can lead to conviction. And right now, it cannot and will not, no matter how much people want it to or say it will.

    And yes, I've heard all the arguments about how, by initiating preliminary impeachment hearings, congress will suddenly be endowed with all sorts of special powers which it does not currently have (which it may in a theoretical sense but will not in a practical sense, given the administration's intransigence and the courts' partisanship), that it will give their crimes much more exposure than they currently have (which may well be true), that this will cause the public to support impeachment more than it currently does (which may also be true), and which will therefore pressure Repubs to support it (which is incredibly naive).

    And I"ve also heard the arguments about how even impeachment that does not lead to conviction is worth it, for reasons that I find quite lacking and unimpressive. But until someone can show me how initiating impeachment hearings now will either guarantee conviction, or do more good than harm, I will continue to adopt an "impeach later, if it makes sense and can lead to conviction" attitude about the matter. As has Feingold and most other Dems.

    And in any case, none of these diaries and comments are going to make them budge on impeachment, so it's all a waste of time IMO. Feingold is doing us a courtesy by posting here, but his policy decision are not likely to be based on members' exhortations, no matter how passionate. If you disagree, kindly show me an instance in which this wasn't true.

    Apologies to all, but it appears to me that all the "Impeach NOW" folks have not throught through the politics and constitutional implications of trying to get a conviction and then failing.

    Flame away...

    "We have many arrows in our quiver, and we are sharpening them." -- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

    by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:53:27 PM PDT

    •  It's about defending the Constitution, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth, MrJersey

      you've gotta at least try. It didn't look like anybody would vote to impeach Nixon until the process was well underway, and then he felt he had to resign.

      If there is no effort to do this now, we might as well take impeachment off the table as a way to deal with crimes by the Pres and VP. Nobody else will ever meet the high bar Congress is setting for future executive branches by NOT declaring these offenses impeachable.

      So, I'm saying, along with other folks, that it's the principle behind this country that we want defended.

      •  A successful defense must be, um, successful (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny rotten, Feanor

        if it to be of any use. And trying just doesn't cut it. If Dems try and fail, then they--and far worse, the republic--will be WORSE off than now, not better, by having set a terrible constitutional precedent and lost political points. What good could be accomplished by an impeachment process that leads to acquittal?

        And trying now just won't succeed, because we're not at the point where impeachment is warranted both constitutionally and politically, because right now Dems lack the evidence to justify impeachment and garner enough votes to convict. And you can't just declare impeachment hearings--however preliminary--without such evidence.

        Look back at Watergate, which likely would have led to conviction. It began with preliminary select (but NOT impeachment) hearings and the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the break-in and possible ties to the RNC and WH. These were convened in early '73, and it wasn't until early '74 that enough evidence was amassed to strongly point to likely presidential involvement, when preliminary impeachment hearings were begun. After that, things rapidly accelerated, Nixon made some fatal mistakes, and it wasn't long before articles were drawn up and voted on--with bipartisan support--and Nixon resigned. The whole process took all of 18 months.

        Staying with the Watergate analogy, we're still only part of the way into that first, pre-impeachment phase, and until it is concluded, calling for even preliminary impeachment hearings would be pointless, foolish and even dangerous. The process was designed to and can only work a certain way, and calling for it to be short-circuited just doesn't make sense, no matter how anxious we all feel.

        It's not about not wanting to hold them accountable for their vast crimes, but about being constrained by a process that was meant to be slow and deliberate and a set of circumstances that further limit our options and the speed with which this can proceed (e.g. no special prosecutor law anymore, a corrupt DoJ and conservative judiciary, a still too apathetic public, an unfriendly media, a significant number of weak-kneed Dems, etc.). Dems are up against a lot of constraints and obstacles, and to throw down the impeachment gauntlet half-cocked would not only accomplish nothing, but it could only harm them and the republic.

        Believe me, I absolutely want to impeach them. But I don't want Dems to try until they have a very good chance of convicting. And right now, they simply don't, and to try anyway would be futile and counterproductive on so many levels. I'd much rather that they continue oversight--and do it more aggressively--while trying to end the war--both of which are currently more likely to succeed.

        "We have many arrows in our quiver, and we are sharpening them." -- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

        by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:07:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it does not set precedent (0+ / 0-)

          by impeaching in the House but acquitting in the Senate. Anyone judging the incident would necessarily take into account the GOP covering their own crimes by blocking removal.

          Failing to take any action however might just set precedent.

          •  People may interpret acquittal as injustice (0+ / 0-)

            but it would still set a precedent for future impeachment efforts and situations.

            I think that the bar for persuing impeachment should be as high as the bar for criminal prosecution--i.e. very high, with a very high chance of conviction. No prosecuter worth their salt indicts without believing that they have a very solid case and high chances of conviction. It shouldn't be any different for impeachment.

            The point of impeachment is not to demonstrate something, but to convict and remove from office, period. That is its ONLY proper function, both constitutionally and politically. No matter how great Bush & Cheney's crimes are (and they are clearly very great), it still remains that unless conviction is possible, impeachment is simply pointless.

            The Repubs set a precedent for abusing and unjustified impeachment. We shouldn't be setting one for stupid and pointless impeachment. People need to think through the consequences of impeaching without convicting before referring to it as the right and necessary thing to do. Leaping before looking should be a GOP-only thing.

            I know that most people here don't agree, but I just ask that everyone think this through and not just think with their hearts.

            "We have many arrows in our quiver, and we are sharpening them." -- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

            by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:16:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  impeachment is a political act (0+ / 0-)

              I don't agree that it would set precedent other than that the peoples representatives at least tried to remove a dictator (one who publicly admitted to a felony - violating FISA). Public opinion would be the final arbiter.

              I followed some of your and others stuff at talkleft and mostly agree, except on two points. Impeachment does not detract from defunding the war (Pelosi simply uses the power of the purse or she does not - all else is kabuki), and impeachment with acquittal does not vindicate the accused or set precedent. My worry is that failing in the House may very well set precedent, and I think the House leadership is poor.

              I think history and future administrations will view the last 6 years as a case where the executive hijacked the legislative. But the next 2 years, which we have 1.5 left, will be viewed as complicit and therefore may be seen as precedent setting.

              I realize the we do not have time like we did during Nixons reign, but we have public admission of a felony. To try the case, achieve impeachment, then fail to remove, although bad, does set the precedent that Bush's actions were objected to by the peoples representatives. To not object is to set precedent.

  •  Yes, Feingold blew it big time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YetiMonk, greenearth

    I respect him immensely - no exaggeration; I really do - but you can feel how his Kos missive was more like a fire extinguisher pointed at "Impeach now!" flames than a statement of real, true feeling.  Or: he didn't mean a word it.  It was just a lame attempt to rehabilitate the status quo, probably scripted by his Democratic masters.  There was no definable difference between what he wrote and what Nancy Pelosi - hell, what Nicholas Kristoff - has said again and again.  

    Impeach?  No.  Even though...blah blah...off the table.  Done.  I just don't believe the good senator from Wisconsin really believes that, you know?

    Well, Mr. Feingold, despite the best efforts of you and yours, I'm afraid the idea of impeachment, little by little/hour by hour, is breaking through the bedrock and sifting down to the mainstream-imbibing don't-pay-much-attention-but-we-are-sick-of-these-DC-criminals masses.  Today I read (was it here?  Can't remember) that military families are sick of this war, are experiencing soulful convulsions at the idea of yet another year-long stretch in Suicide Patch - er, Iraq - and if the least amount attention is paid to how this war went down in the first place, what underpins it, you're gonna find impeachment lurking there, Mr. Feingold.  Soldiers and their families are far past patriotic claptrap and "It's for your country, dammit!" exhortations...no, they're living in the place now where Iraq exclusively = death and dismembering and everlasting mental pain, and many of them have children whom they love (and who love them back), and it's cruel in the extreme, Mr. Feingold, to ask these mothers and fathers to go off for no good reason and dance around the doorway of death.  This is abuse of a perfectly good military, you know?  Wait - that's not the worst of it; that's the cold, unfeeling reading of it.  It's abuse of human life, playing with it as if it's made in a factory and isn't special at all, which I won't bother to disabuse you or anyone else the notion of because I respect you too much.  It's all too self-evident.  Manson went to prison for proxy murder, and that's what sending soldiers to Iraq is, Mr. Feingold - it's proxy murder, both of soldiers and Iraqi civilians.  

    And it's dead wrong.  Which I know you know.

    Sir, impeachment is the onlyl answer, and I touched on but one reason why here.  I won't speak of torture or warrantless spying or suspending habeas corpus or turning the Justice Dept. into a McDonald's playland of ever-turning Republican dreams.  But if I did...well, I'm sure you wouldn't argue that there are two men who must go, and pronto, and be tried by a jury of their peers.

    Or something.

    Get with it, Mr. Feingold.  Peace out.

    Go to Myspace.com/crappyjack, take a break from politics for a while, rock the fuck out!

    by Nathan Hammersmith on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:15:12 PM PDT

  •  Governent 'of the people' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wonmug, greenearth, planetclaire4

    This borders on offensive. This statement effectively reduces the advocacy for impeachment as the rantings of an angry mob instead of the thoughtful deliberation of informed citizens who care  deeply about what their country is becoming and what nightmares lay in store if we don't correct the dangerous precedents set by this administration.

    I am getting the same reactions when I try to contact anyone about impeachment (congressman or senator.)  It is as though I must be some left-wing radical.  I have to tell them that I actually LEFT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OVER THIS before they stop and listen.  

    I will never belong to any party, ever again.  I have lost all faith.  I put the onus on the Democrats to restore that faith by doing something - anything - to save my country from slipping into a fascist dictatorship.  

    And perhaps they are satisfied to have a Democratic dictator rather than a Republican.  Perhaps that is the deal that was made behind our backs.  And oh, that would be just ducky.  As long as the uniform is blue instead of red, its all just fine.  

    NO.  This was a government built on the rights and the voice of the people; and no one gives a damn about us anymore except when we're actually voting (and elections are now broken too.)  And do you know why that is?  Because lobbyists now outnumber lawmakers something like 24-1.  

    Why would they give a damn about us?  Perhaps the money powers who own the candidates (except for a couple - the ones who are ignored by the media, by some strange coincidence) and own the media... perhaps these king makers told the Democratic party that they will not receive any endorsements - money - for next year's election if they push through with impeachment.  

    Has anyone considered that?  Because these corporations are growing fat on the Bush Administration's policies, on the war, on the land giveaways and cutbacks on corporate oversight, the union-bashing, the tax cuts... this is pig trough heaven for the corporate world.  In fact, they now run the government.  They now oversee every single oversight agency, and basically police themselves.

    And that is why I think we will never, ever get this back.  We've been bought.

    One of the starkest Lincoln quotes I've ever seen was in a letter to an officer during the Civil War.  Some people have insisted he didn't write it, but a historian tracked it down and found it.  I was floored when I first read it.  But since then, I have read others, going all the way back to our founding fathers, that indicate this has been looming since the very beginning of our nation.

    I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. - Abraham Lincoln

    If even Feingold says 'do nothing' it must be because he cannot see any way the Democrats would win next year without holding this stance.  And what on earth... would make him agree that these guys deserve to be impeached, but at the same time suggest avoiding impeachment?  The threat of even more GOP rule.

    The sad thing... is that if this is true, and it is all about campaign finance:  the Democrats are being played.  

    The corporations will never allow the Democrats to take over Congress or the White House now, unless they agree to keep things just as they are now.  The corporate world will never give up a single tool in their presidential toolbox.  They will get the Democrats to toe the line, the people will become enraged, they will toss the people an independent candidate to split the weak Democratic vote, and the gravy train will go right on, as if nothing ever happened.  Giuliani or Fred Thompson.  Probably Thompson because he was a lobbyist.  Who else?

    So I sound cynical?  Machiavelli called this hundreds of years ago.  It's over.  Put a fork in it.  Even Feingold has folded.

  •  Senator Feingold -- et tu Bruté? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, 3goldens, VictorLaszlo, greenearth, OWTH

    How depressing that Senator Feingold, of all people, is beginning to sound like just another professional politician.  No passion, no principles, just expediency.  Is this what being part of the Washington political establishment does to people?

    One cannot deny the humanity of another without diminishing one's own. James Baldwin

    by CarolynC967 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:11:57 PM PDT

  •  Face it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Feanor

    Feingold just disagrees with most of you here.  It doesn't mean he is a coward, wimp, sell out, lazy or whatever other insults you throw out.  

    He has made an independent assessment of the costs and benefits of pursuing impeachment and concluded that the costs likely outweigh the benefits.  I agree with him.  

    Some of you have lost the ability to appreciate that reasonable people can disagree about important issues.

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by johnny rotten on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:12:28 PM PDT

  •  A waste of time? Protecting and defending (0+ / 0-)

    the Constitution is a waste of time?  Impeachment is one of the responsibilities of the Congress.  Do you not understand yet?  Our desire for impeachment hearings are not the rantings of "bush-haters" but the calls of concerned citizens who seem to love and cherish the foundations of this democracy more than their elected representatives do. WE do not believe the Constitution is just a "god damn piece of paper".  Congress is willingly showing itself to be a powerless irrelevant body.

  •  thanks... (0+ / 0-)

    for making the obvious, obvious. if feingold can read this and not rethink his position, well, thats a slap in the face of alot of caring, believing americans, who want justice, pure and simple. once again, thanks it needed to be said.
    tung sol

    'cause you're the green manalishi with the two prong crown--Peter Green, Green Manalishi

    by tung sol on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:29:15 PM PDT

  •  well done (0+ / 0-)

    You answered the objections to impeachment so skillfully and articulately.  I just don't understand our Democratic party anymore, they somehow feel that they have better things to do with their time than punishing a fascist power grab and the numberless crimes that have been committed.  

    I was against impeachment up until Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence.  When he did that, he showed his contempt for the rule of law, and his arrogant act indicated he does not fear reprisals from a "co-equal branch of the government", either the Congress or the courts.

    This is the thinking and actions of a dictator, not a president.  This is why we must impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and I would add Condoleeza Rice.

  •  You are without a doubt 100% (0+ / 0-)

    correct, but it will take America no less than one generation to come to the conclusion/analysis you have, i.e., impeachable offenses have been committed and the worst act any president can commit is to lie America into a war.  

  •  Are DEMs prepared for consequences of inaction? (0+ / 0-)

    Dear Senator Feingold,

    Imo, the DEMs will suffer the consequences of incompetency during the 2008 election cycle, should Bush and Cheney again (mis)lead this nation militarily into another debacle/conflict, whether overtly and/or clandestinely against Iran.  

    We can easily predict that the Middle East will explode in its most extreme hatred against everything and anything "American"

    So if you and all in our Democratic leadership, particularly those seeking the Dem nomination for POTUS,  choose instead to follow a wilfull course of inaction against impeachment; and thus, fail to fulfill the duties of your office to uphold US Constitution -- against all threats, foreign and domestic -- I honestly believe that the DEMs will be blamed in 2008 for failing in its leadership obligations to protect us in foresight the national security interests of the United States.

    Impeach this Prez'nut!

  •  Exactly! (0+ / 0-)

    I wish I had written this diary.

    [T]o use this as an excuse is to fail to grasp what impeaching Cheney and Bush really means. This is not just about accountability. And it is not political payback. This is about the future of our country. It is about what we stand for and what we want our country to be. It is about the power of the presidency, not just under Bush, but for all president to come.

    Thank you for getting it, and saying it so well.

    I am floored at Sen. Feingold's so entirely missing the point.

  •  The Dem Talking Points (0+ / 0-)

    My how the mighty have fallen. I received a response from Senator Fienstein today re: asking her support for impeachment. And it is almost exactly these words. Actually I am going to send Fiengolds replies here back to Dianne asking her if she plagerized.

    Just Do ONE thing each day and you WIll make a differance

    by notimportant on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:18:18 AM PDT

  •  Even if impeachment was the cry of an angry mob, (0+ / 0-)

    that doesn't mean it would be the wrong thing to do.  I think we need more ranting, angry mobs in this country.  We all seem to have lost our passion.

    "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken

    by David R on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 03:24:15 AM PDT

  •  I believe he knows more than you do... (0+ / 0-)

    ...from where he is sitting, by what he does, by the differences he makes and by the laws he creates.

    You represent your opinion, he represents the people from the state of Wisconsin.  And under our Constitution, as an upper chamber representative of the people, he is an active participant and contributor in the counter-acting process of governance as developed by the Founding fathers, which, BTW, has worked well for the past 200+ years.

    yes, I believe he knows more than you as to what he and his Democratic colleagues believe is in the best interest for this country.

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

    by dcrolg on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:27:55 AM PDT

Meteor Blades, Leslie in CA, Malacandra, Rebecca, chase, Louise, fly, claude, Grassroots Mom, paradox, Angie in WA State, AustinSF, sj, BrooklynBoy, Alfred E Newman, DavidW in SF, Alma, SteveLCo, ROGNM, Sean Robertson, radish, eugene, Sally in SF, Rayne, copymark, SarahLee, roonie, Trendar, Ashami, moon in the house of moe, Haus, tikkun, Jeff Simpson, tiggers thotful spot, Pen, Gooserock, Unstable Isotope, maynard, saraswati, Knut Wicksell, Winger, Citizen Clark, tommurphy, littlesky, michael in chicago, rincewind, Hummingbird, jabb, Heimyankel, democat, LEP, GayHillbilly, darrelplant, phenry, Pompatus, RKS, bubbles, autoegocrat, Sandy on Signal, WesClarkJr, HarveyMilk, delver rootnose, RFK Lives, musicsleuth, MasonMcD, mataliandy, givmeliberty, expatjourno, Caneel, Gram E, memberofthejury, fabooj, upnatom65, DaveV, km4, Boston Boomer, conchita, justme, DickCheneyBeforeHeDicksYou, Dazy, BlackGriffen, sadhu, petercjack, annrose, whenwego, OCD, HippyWitch, Morague, PBnJ, Porfiry, edderh, RobLewis, Transmission, naufragus, roses, JuliaAnn, murphsurf, marylrgn, Molee, cognitive dissonance, sjb8888, bincbom, Saber69, jigsaw68, ornerydad, thingamabob, Terre, wonmug, ctsteve, Jesterfox, rioduran, enough already, splashy, Alohaleezy, dksbook, Eddie C, Tomtech, mayan, WeatherDem, kharma, writingdiva, scorpiorising, sockpuppet, TexDem, Miss Jones, gmb, NotInMyName, Rageaholic, cometman, johanus, GrainofSand, Andrea inOregon, besieged by bush, bloomster, Stampy51, smash, grayslady, astronautagogo, churchylafemme, jlamkin, Bulldawg, Dale Read, downandout, niteskolar, homo neurotic, Jujuree, manwithlantern, Black Maned Pensator, johnnygunn, attydave, hoof32, Bernadette, Stymnus, chachabowl, The Termite, applegal, Calidrissp, John Driscoll, wecandoit7, whyvee, onemadson, rlharry, kalmoth, bobg, lcrp, gnat, Pohjola, Rxtr2, fritzrth, green917, YetiMonk, StupidAsshole, jen, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, mosesfreeman, BigBite, eztempo, Marc in KS, rickroks, Spam Spam Bacon Spam, goldberry, greeseyparrot, Illissius, memophage, weelzup, skippythebox, greenskeeper, joanneleon, Fabian, tymxposure, fijiancat, tovan, mediaprisoner, maybeeso in michigan, bloomer 101, Ken065, Bluesee, farleftcoast, 3goldens, Farlfoto, Alegre, David R, baccaruda, Heiuan, Pym, ek hornbeck, PBen, wizardkitten, Jersey Girl, KnotIookin, tgray, truong son traveler, nytcek, juliesie, Ajax the Greater, anonymousredvest18, YucatanMan, Salo, boofdah, gloriousbastard, Annalize5, buckeyedem08, Special Purpose Entity, chicagovigilante, Sara R, jimreyn, dunderhead, lotlizard, Skid, Phil S 33, lasky57, twalling, Arctor, klarfax, Rydra Wrong, ikrisarus, Idaho Progressive, mr thinkfree, Shotput8, witchamakallit, neroden, Lisa Lockwood, nymosyn, Ghost of Frank Zappa, bookwoman, Flippant, Ekaterin, empathy, Arsenic, psyched, Erevann, rerutled, mightymouse, DivaBabe, RainyDay, coffeeinamrica, Mehitabel9, xrepub, Showman, Shirl In Idaho, rkex, trashablanca, MissInformation, BalanceSeeker, Do Tell, kraant, tarheelblue, PatsBard, MuffledDrum, rcbowman, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, parallel man, tung sol, the freak, Gorette, cookseytalbott, kestrel9000, daMule, fromer, IvanR, Evi1Twin, carolita, armadill, greenearth, donnas, blueoasis, Blue Wind, ormondotvos, DarkestHour, MJ via Chicago, StrayCat, Data Pimp, DSPS owl, thiebes, Boulderinionian, real world chick, NearlyNormal, CTLiberal, Rusty1776, bunk, feduphoosier, Dinclusin, dirtfarmer, buckinfuzzard, sharilynn, mang glider, rage, vox humana, CA Nana, profh, rsie, Jiminy Cricket, va dare, BB10, RantNRaven, creekobear, shaharazade, pissedpatriot, AmySmith, Mary2002, kurious, chesapeake, bstotts, kidneystones, coolsub, sasher, NonnyO, AntKat, dunneasley, seabos84, clinging to hope, One Pissed Off Liberal, Noor B, dov12348, Dave the Rave, timewarp, friendlyfire, Cali Techie, Polacolor, Susan Something, xaxado, khereva, SomeStones, peagreen, Loudoun County Dem, offgrid, maxalb, Sam from Ithaca, JeremyA, DvCM, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, vista2020, chigh, flumptytail, lurks a lot, jasmint53, james risser, jayden, jello5929, stratocasterman, Mantix, PoliticAl2008, RudiB, Rumarhazzit, Got a Grip, JML9999, Zydekos, Captain Nimrod, keikekaze, MichiganGirl, aseth, Terra Mystica, Empower Ink, JDWolverton, fayeforcure, bobbyd100, memofromturner, lisastar, Spoonfulofsugar, hulagirl, Chacounne, Indexer, scooter in brooklyn, zerone, Chilean Jew, Foundmyvoice, marchtoimpeach, Felix Culpa, Cat Servant, bricoleur, Kuntawpwnsyou, superhero fan, Mother of Zeus, Archangel, dgr, North Country Dem, Great Lakes Gal, ronny mermaid, MainSt, geomoo, pickandshovel, Quicksilver2723, lettuce kucinich, pberq, petulans, fool mee once, dantyrant, media whores

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site