Democrats say No impeachment for Bush

maddog, seems there will be investigations after all. And investigations could lead to impeachment sometime down the road. First things first I guess. "Democrats may use probes to force policy shifts"
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | November 11, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The new Democratic leaders in Congress are likely to move quickly to use their investigative powers as a key lever to force changes in the administration's policies on the Iraq war and domestic spying, according to congressional staff members.

Despite the conciliatory language this week between the White House and the new leaders of Congress, Democrats expect to launch probes into the administration's use of prewar intelligence on Iraq and its domestic wiretapping program and into Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, current and former aides said.
link

In any case, it's not good politics to shoot and miss. Sometimes, it's not even profitable to get a hit.

I wouldn't count on a real investigation. They will probably just whitewash it. And trust me there is no way they're going o impeach Bush because they know if Bush get's removed from power he's gonna expose the crimes they have committed. They are all crimminals and they all protect each other because they know that if one of them goes down he or she is gonna start naming names. This is all probably going to be a big whitewash just to temporarily make the people happy so they can continue they're agenda.

There is no need to impeach Bush as much as I would like to see it done. With Congress firmly in Democratic hands W can't possibly be as dictatorial as before. Besides having seen all his moves the last 6 years people are up to his tricks and don't trust him. Democrats should however, get Rove and Cheney as these two are the brains behind all that was wrong with the Bush Administration.

As it was in the entire Clinton Admiitration, the GOP spent millions and found nothing worth pursuing (till Clinton did it to himself) All the wasted time and money from the GOP was talked about as being "retribution" for the rewagan investigations.
Let it go, Our country is so phucked up and in need of a complete course correction that wasting effort on a targeted impeachment wont serve any cause. All it will do is satisfy a bunch of left wing hotheads and piss of the Conservatives mightily.
Every time we want to think about impeachmenst lets think bout our kid in harms way. We owe them our undivided attention.
We also need to show the rest of the world that were not a bunch of rabis raccoons bent on chewing our legs off to gain some minor retribution on a president whose legacy will rival Harding's

Well said, farmerman. The American people put the Democrats in power because they believed they might get something done to improve the country. An impeachment will drain the energy out of anything positive the Democrats might do.

Would you rather have an impeachment, or progress toward balancing the budget again? What will benefit the country more?

Jeez I wish I payed better attention in spelling.

don't wurry farmurman, we no whut yir saying......

how about a public execution

wait a gull durn minit. Bad spellin aint a capitol offense yet>

damm gud thing to.

maddog, most likely you're right. The investigations may become a whitewash. Impeachment would be a slap on the wrist for Bushie's war crimes anyway. Both he and Blair should be in prison. And it looks like a bunch of Dem constituants are willing to settle for pocket change. It will be great to see a raise of the minimum wage but ignoring the mass murder is criminal as the mass murder itself.

Impeachment and the Table
t r u t h o u t | Editorial

Monday 13 November 2006

A compelling argument can certainly be made that, given all that the country now faces, an impeachment of George W. Bush by the new Democratic Congress would do more to further divide the nation than heal it. Ironically many of Mr. Bush's critics have dubbed Mr. Bush himself "the great divider." Whether you blame Mr. Bush for the social divisions in America or not, deep and abiding social divisions, particularly over the morass in Iraq, are undeniable, and healing those divisions should be of paramount importance to the new Congress. Equally undeniable are the political risks for a new Democratic Congress that would pursue impeachment shortly after taking back the gavel for the first time in over a decade.

However, in stating flatly that "impeachment is off the table," incoming Speaker Pelosi and incoming Chairman Conyers appear to have erred rather substantially. Impeachment, of course, is a matter of Constitutional law, not personal discretion on the part of individual lawmakers. The pre-emptive nature of the decision by Pelosi and Conyers stands in sharp contrast to every principal of law enforcement. Congress - whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans - has a solemn duty to uphold and when necessary enforce the law.

If there is some reason that impeachment is not warranted in a given circumstance, it should be stated in that context. But for an individual lawmaker, any individual lawmaker, to presume to preclude impeachment regardless of the circumstances scoffs at the Constitution. The great danger is that individuals in official positions might choose to assume unto themselves the power of the law at their personal discretion. If the last six years have taught us anything, it is that such hubris leads to ruin.

White House attorneys have even gone so far as to argue that Mr. Bush is a "unitary executive," and thus entitled to assume omnipotent legal power in all matters. Not at some point in the past, but this day. At the risk of seeing the day that such largess is the presumed entitlement of all elected officials, it is best that as a nation we chart a course back to the comparatively safe harbor of due process.

The Constitution provides impeachment as a remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is important to note that the category at issue is high crimes. We are mired in a military operation, with no end in sight and a human toll approaching catastrophic in proportion. Impeachment raises its head in this dialog because evidence exists that Mr. Bush and other White House officials may have deliberately misled the nation on the road to Baghdad. Deliberately. If true, the law itself mandates action under due process. Such action is expressly non-discretionary.

During the Iraq Resolution debate, a white-haired Robert Byrd of West Virginia stood on the floor of the Senate and argued with a haunting passion that the Congress did not, under Constitutional law, have the right to reassign war-making power to the president. It was, he implored, an abandonment of Congressional duty. Maybe that old man knew what he was talking about after all.

In a football game the offense is suppose score as often as possible whenever it gets the ball. Well, when you are leading by more than a touchdown and a minute to go you just try to run out the clock. Why? Doesn't rule suggest the offense must score? Well, again it is a judgement call. It is not just the score that the coach must consider. If it is a regular game you might meet that team again and football is definitely an emotional game. You don't want that team in a grudge match along with their fans. It is the same with politics. W can't run in 2008. You have upper hand in the Legislature but so he cannot do as he wants now and you can refuse and investigate all his actions. There are pressing problems in America let alone Iraq. At least, with a controlled Congress it will prevent W from worsening the Iraq situation. An impeachment will stop all the processes that are needed to solve problems at home and Iraq would be out of control as all resources are devoted to impeachment. Besides, impeachment is not a guarantee as the Democrats do not have the 2/3s majority to override the Presidency. you forget even a lame-duck President has considerable power. He can veto anything. Also, Lieberman is a swing-door Independent. With impeachment he might give the majority to the Republicans with Cheney making the deciding vote.