Letters to the Editor
-
I Don't Think We Should
Sink to the simian depths of the republicans by impeaching when we know damn well there's nothing close to 67 votes in the Senate. Why drag the country through it?
-
This story pegged the Consternation meter at DailyKos
It's safe to say some liberal bloggers hate Cindy more than they hate Bush. The moment had to come, you could sense it, when far left Democrats would drink the Kool-Aid. It's not about ideology anymore, it's about getting elected.
-
Dan Gerstein?
Is the Politico's Dan Gerstein the same Dan Gerstein as Joe Lieberman's Danger Stein? Has he found an "objective" news organization--one which if memory served is own by the chairman of the Ronald Reagan Library Foundation--from which to act as Holy Joe's cat's paw against the Democrats?
-
Starting impeachment hearings isn't the same thing as voting for impeachment
Impeachment of Nixon, or his resignation, wouldn't have happened if no one would even have scheduled impeachment hearings on it in the first place.
Do Democrats opposing impeachment think that the time to start impeachment hearings will be at some future date when the Bush administration does something so undeniably awful that many Republicans want him out of office before 2009?
It seems to me that when the Republicans impeached President Clinton they put their political desires above the interests of the country and that the Democrats are making the same mistake in not considering impeachment of Bush.
Impeachment hearings don't need to be 24/7. The fact that the Bush administration will endlessly continue to stonewall makes that certain. However, something needs to be done to apply constant pressure the Bush administration to at least follow the law in the future. Perhaps putting impeachment "on the table" will lessen the likelihood of an expansion of fighting in the Mideast bases on more falsehoods. Perhaps showing the Democrats have a spine will lessen the chances of a future disaster further empowering Bush and Cheney.
By refusing to even hold hearings on impeachment the Democrats just give Bush more power and emphasize how powerless Democrats are even in the majority.
-
Well, in all fairness...
...it's kinda tough to effectuate ideology in this country without getting elected.
As I recall, we have a pretty serious situation in Iraq that our legislators have yet to find a way to resolve. Add in other real problems, like health insurance and a sustainable energy policy, and it would seem there are a number of other things out lawmakers should be doing to address the needs of the people.
As for Bush, what would impeachment do? He's already extremely unpopular, he lives in a state of denial anyway, and even removing him would backfire with Cheney waiting in the wings. Where's the win?
-
Let Cindy Sheehan play the designated role--activist.
Cindy Sheehan should continue her activist's role. Why not? This is called democracy. Everybody is entitled to have his/her voice. Even in the Democratic party, there should be diverse voices. We are not in a dictatorship or police state.
For what Bush has done--waging an unnecessary war, etc., shouldn't he deserve to be impeached? I truly think according to the Constitution, Bush meets the impeachment criteria very fittingly.
In this regard, doing the right thing--impeaching Bush should be more important than not acting because the political process will not guarantee the result.
As an activist, as long as Cindy Sheehan can raise the public's awareness that Bush should be impeached, she is already successful.
-
Act of Civic Duty not Act of Ideology
I want to correct somebody's posting above. Impeaching Bush is not an act of ideology, but an act of civic duty and an act of common sense.
For what Bush has done, he should be impeached.
-
To not impeach the president is to shirk our responsibility
People who say that we have "more important" items on the agenda have their priorities way out-of-whack and are overly optimistic about the potential for our current Congress to accomplish...well, anything.
Impeachment would go a long way to resetting the corrupt culture.
Impeach the President and Vice President. Now.
-
Anonymouse is Exactly Correct.
Impeachment is actually required by the oath to the Constitution that our representatives have taken. There is no choice in the matter, else you are violating that oath.
Sheehan is neither here nor there, in the end. She can do what she wants. And her overall goals are simple, and long overdue: end this clusterfucking war that we will never win, and get this complete idiot out of office before he kills us all.
Congressional Democrats, I live in a very progressive community in a once-conservative state that has turned very blue because of the corruptness of your opponents. And, I can tell you with great certainty, every sincle Democrat and Independent I know holds you in utter contempt at this point. Look up the definition of "coward" in the dictionary. What you read is you. If you're not going to do your job, go the hell away.
-
Impeach.
The rest is a colossal waste of time. I hear that now the Congress is just three members short of enough signers to begin impeachment proceedings on President Cheney. It would be interesting to see what sort os shell would be left of Bushit if that glorious event were to ever take place. My bet is that we'd see a large pee ring forming on the front of those faded Crawford jeans and a public fall from the wagon that has been taking place privately over the past three years...
-
but clearly that's not what you want
What you want is conviction, tossing him from office and marching him and his entire administration off to jail or the gallows. And that just as clearly isn't going to happen so you have to pick out the battles you can win. It took several years for the Republican Congress to impeach Clinton. You haven't got several years.
-
The politics of Impeachment...
Call for it, make a big noise, and watch the numbers in favor of it go up.
The "we can't do it until we have enough votes" bunch are the ones who don't understand politics. It's not about having the power or waiting for the power, it's about gaining the power.
The way to gain the power is to show people you've got the guts to do it, not to whine about not having enough votes.
-
The idiocy never ceases....
"Many progressive activists are incredulous at the inability of the congressional leadership to end the war, move big pieces of their agenda and (not least of all) defenestrate The Decider. Their frustration is starting to boil over."
This is simply an amazing statement. Anyone who is "incredulous" that a 51-49 seat advantage in the Senate wouldn't allow the Democrats to "end the war" is delusional, stupid or both. Expressing frustration by demanding impeachment is simply confirmation of idiocy. To then ridicule those who recognize the reality of the situation as being more interested in winning elections than caring about ideology is simply adding more evidence to the pile.
In case people are confused, let me state my position plainly: I don't want the war to end at some point in the future, I want it to end now. And I don't want Bush to be impeached, I want to hand him over to stand trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity.
Having said all of the above, I understand how the system works. Given the fact that the judiciary at all levels - including the Supreme Court - is now dominated with conservative activists who believe in the power of the "unitary executive," the only real chance we as a society have of (1) ending the war; and (2) getting at the truth of the criminal misdeeds of the Bush Administration is to ELECT A DEMOCRAT AS PRESIDENT. So this is my focus - and it should be for all progressives who care about this country.
So honestly, I don't care about your motives or your sincerity. If you are doing things that harm the ability of a Democrat - any Democrat - to be elected to the presidency, you are working on the side of evil. So go ahead and indulge your ego by holding yourself up as being morally superior to those who worry about things like elections. You fool only yourself.