NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060311&articleId=2085

I've been waiting for this to happen for over two years, and I'm a registered republican

You just made my day. :D Let's just hope there's some substance. Though I shudder to think who would replace Bush, not like it'd matter anyway, unless they get virtually his entire administration impeached/forced to resign as well. I will look into this some more and see if they actually mean business.

The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
Unless some "R"s get in there I think it might be sound and fury...

EDIT:
Meanwhile, at least eight (8) US cities, including Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California; and Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane, and Putney, each in Vermont, have passed resolutions calling for Bush’s impeachment.
Hehe, I love my little town...we're also trying (futilely, but whatever) to legalize pot. Seriously, it's being debated right now to make it law enforcement's lowest priority.

Holla! This is freaking awsome!

*blinks* and yet these people didn't complain when Clinton said he had the exact same authority to wiretap.

Signing this bill is a bit like voting against John Roberts for SCOTUS, the people did it because they know there'ss not a snowflakes chance in hell of it succeeding

Excellent. It won't accomplish much, but at least it's a start.

now clinton, didn't blatently utalize this power with the fervor that bush has. Not that it also site a list of at least 3-4 other major greivences against the constitution.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060311&articleId=2085

I've been waiting for this to happen for over two years, and I'm a registered republican
Bring it on!!

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/impeach_bush.jpg

Well, Clinton got blown and Bush blows up a country (or two, three).

There's some connection :p

*blinks* and yet these people didn't complain when Clinton said he had the exact same authority to wiretap.

Signing this bill is a bit like voting against John Roberts for SCOTUS, the people did it because they know there'ss not a snowflakes chance in hell of it succeeding
Clinton did not say that and you fucking well know it, because when the topic was broached on this board, it was pointed out continuously.

As to the main topic point, I'm actually opposed to impeachment proceedings--not because I don't think BUsh deserves to be impeached. I think the evidence against him is overwhelming.

It's because I believe in the adage, "you come at the king, you best not miss" that I think impeachment proceedings are a mistake. Even if the Democrats were able to get back the House and somehow get 67 votes in the Senate--which may be impossible, given the current makeup (I haven't examined it closely)--there's simply not enough time to ram impeachment through, not when the 2008 Presidential race will start in June of 2007 or thereabouts. Democrats are far better off if they can keep Bush weak and can control one or both Houses of Congress so they can stop the damage, and then look toward 2008 as a time to rebuild.

Clinton did not say that and you fucking well know it, because when the topic was broached on this board, it was pointed out continuously.

As to the main topic point, I'm actually opposed to impeachment proceedings--not because I don't think BUsh deserves to be impeached. I think the evidence against him is overwhelming.

It's because I believe in the adage, "you come at the king, you best not miss" that I think impeachment proceedings are a mistake. Even if the Democrats were able to get back the House and somehow get 67 votes in the Senate--which may be impossible, given the current makeup (I haven't examined it closely)--there's simply not enough time to ram impeachment through, not when the 2008 Presidential race will start in June of 2007 or thereabouts. Democrats are far better off if they can keep Bush weak and can control one or both Houses of Congress so they can stop the damage, and then look toward 2008 as a time to rebuild.


Your right, if it fails the Dems are dead, but if they do not grow backbones they are also dead.

*gets the champagne*

Your right, if it fails the Dems are dead, but if they do not grow backbones they are also dead.
Yeah, which is why I'm not terribly vocal about my opposition to impeachment talk. It's good to hear some Democrats speaking out, but it always seems to be the same handful.

It's good to hear some Democrats speaking out, but it always seems to be the same handful.

Yeah, Conyers (Downing Street memos) and McKinney (Katrina and Haiti) have impressed me before. Dean sometimes, too, though not as much since the primaries.

As for the impeachment proceedings, they're a good thing, because most of the American public doesn't know much about, say, the wiretappings, and a serious attempt at impeachment would expose those issues. With all the really indefensible things Bush has done, the Republicans can be smashed in '06 and annihilated in '08, if the Democrats start showing more intelligence and forcefulness than they have so far.

Unless some "R"s get in there I think it might be sound and fury...



What's more interesting is that these individuals represent the majority of the "progressive caucus"...IE: DSA

What's more interesting is that these individuals represent the majority of the "progressive caucus"...IE: DSA

I wish the Progressive Caucus actually did represent the Democratic Socialists of America; they're a decent organization, if too reformist.

guys, c'mon. 30 reps? that's less than 10% of the house. This bill is nt going to pass and even if it did, you have to get the court to agree. He's not getting impeached.

guys, c'mon. 30 reps? that's less than 10% of the house. This bill is nt going to pass and even if it did, you have to get the court to agree. He's not getting impeached.
The courts have no say in bills of impeachment. The only part the court plays in impeachment is that the Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial if it gets that far.

But you are right that it isn't going to pass, not in this House anyway.

Ya, sound and fury. No substance.

It took the Democrats long enough to grow some balls and at least attempt to go through the process of Impeaching Bush. I don’t know if they have the power to do much with this but at least they’re getting around to it.

Really though, Bush is more puppet than puppet master. It’s like impeaching Cheetah to get at Tarzan. Impeaching him might even make things worse since Cheney would no longer have to pretend to be the Vice-President anymore. Unless you get rid of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz (to name a few unsavory characters) it’s an empty gesture. Those are the most dangerous people in Washington. Still, impeaching Junior is a start since you have to start somewhere.

The Bruce

Gotta love the partisanship. Not a single Republican Representative was mentioned in that article in support of the resolution.

Gotta love the partisanship. Not a single Republican Representative was mentioned in that article in support of the resolution.

Why would supporters of this criminal and murderous gangster administration support getting rid of it? The Republican attempted coup against Clinton was rather partisan, too.

A little note on the US political process

It is rare for bill to get a passing number of signatures. Many more will vote this bill than are just signing. With this many singners on the bill, it forces it to a floor vote, unless it gets shoved into comitee for all time, which is likely, this shows the festering displesure with actions that the administration had made. I am impressed that that many democrats would sign onto this bill, they are potentially staking their pollitical careers on this one bill.

I personaly don't like where the government has gone. I am a registered Republican mind you, I personally stand under a phisicially conservative and accountable government ideology. I have only seen the government become more sprawling (esepecially under Regan and even more so under George Bush Jr.). We are seeing the greatest pork spending in american history, there needs to be accountability. This bill will at least bring the greivences, esepecially in the breaching of the constitution, to the forefront of the political system.

A little note on the US political process

It is rare for bill to get a passing number of signatures. Many more will vote this bill than are just signing. With this many singners on the bill, it forces it to a floor vote, unless it gets shoved into comitee for all time, which is likely, this shows the festering displesure with actions that the administration had made. I am impressed that that many democrats would sign onto this bill, they are potentially staking their pollitical careers on this one bill.

I personaly don't like where the government has gone. I am a registered Republican mind you, I personally stand under a phisicially conservative and accountable government ideology. I have only seen the government become more sprawling (esepecially under Regan and even more so under George Bush Jr.). We are seeing the greatest pork spending in american history, there needs to be accountability. This bill will at least bring the greivences, esepecially in the breaching of the constitution, to the forefront of the political system.
Two things. First, under the current leadership, this will never make it to a floor vote. It'll never even come close. And even if the House were to change hands in November, I doubt it would make it to the floor in January under Speaker Pelosi, because no one in the leadership wants the headaches this would bring.

Second, the Democrats who signed on are risking absolutely nothing by signing on. They represent safe districts and in many cases, I'd be surprised if they even have an opponent. Hell, Bernie Sanders is going to waltz into the Senate in November from his House seat in Vermont. I'm glad they're doing it, but they're not risking anything.

I agree that it must be very difficult for a Republican to stand by while an administration elected by that name digs the nation into a deep hole of debt, destroys the economy, creates an obscene amount of government waste, and sells off government contracts to their closest cronies like there’s no tomorrow. I don’t know if the Republicans have ever had to hold their noses this tightly ever in the past, while backing their leaders.

The Bruce

Dear God, please let the moron stay in office. Think people, if they did get rid of Dubya, that would make Cheney President. Is that what you want? I didn't think so.

Dear God, please let the moron stay in office. Think people, if they did get rid of Dubya, that would make Cheney President. Is that what you want? I didn't think so.

That isn't the point. If it goes through it will destroy the Republicans.

Cheney’s got a weak ticker. That’s one of the reasons why they didn’t let him directly become the President in the first place.

Meh!

Unless there is some damning evidence that is about to break; I am not going to hold my breath.

The Repubs won't allow it......

Meh!

Unless there is some damning evidence that is about to break; I am not going to hold my breath.

The Repubs won't allow it......
You think damning evidence would make a difference? There's boatloads of it already and it hasn't yet.

Cheney’s got a weak ticker. That’s one of the reasons why they didn’t let him directly become the President in the first place.

Actually, that's no big deal. The main reason is that he's as loveable as a blister on the bottom of one's foot, and about as photogenic. Add in his baggage from prior Administrations (ie: the Ford years), plus Haliburton and he's just not Prez material...

Why would supporters of this criminal and murderous gangster administration support getting rid of it? The Republican attempted coup against Clinton was rather partisan, too.

Exactly.
Yep. And it accomplished very little.

I don't see it happening, even if the GOP somehow loses control of Congress: the DEMS *need* to win in '08 or '12 to say relevant. The last thing they want to seem is angry (ala Dean) and bloody themselves with bad PR.

That's certainly good news :D
Seems there are still a few sane people left...