Lets just say there are defensible grounds. No reason to overdo it. To say there is no case for impeachment at all would be dishonest or delusional, but that’s not the same as saying it’s of vital national urgency.
Politically spineless.
Fine by me.
Well, one way to know why she doesn’t support it is to, you know, listen to her reasons for not supporting it. They boil down to this: impeachment proceedings would take up the political capital that would be better spent fixing the mismanaged war and other problems. Presumably, she also wanted to take it off the table because too many people like **Shodan **would assume she was doing it for political reasons, furthering the sort of partisan divide the democrats were supposed to be overcoming. That seems quite reasonable to me.
I agree.
Bush has not suspended habeas corpus. He has argued that it is not applicable in certain instances, but he has never, to my knowledge, refused to comply with a writ whenever one was proffered. Has he?
He has not suspended habeas corpus (of course, since only Congress can), but he has been rebuked for taking actions which could not legally be taken without a suspension of habeas corpus by none of other than that liberal wag Antonin Scalia.
This is a good point. Impeachment is so inherently political that it’s almost impossible to do it without generating instant partisan polarity. Unless the grounds for impeachment are clear and extraordinary enough to cause the President’s own party to side against him, impeachment is bound to become a purely partisan battle with predetermined, party-line votes and the charges becomes almost incidental. The media would only be interested in the circus and it would all be a waste of time.
I think that Bush DESERVES impeachment but I don’t think the process would have much success of being anything other than a trainwreck.
Isnt Cindy Sheehan making noises about challenging Nancy Pelosi for failure to live up to her campaign promises? 
What’s more likely, Impeachment of the President, or Cindy Sheehan winning a seat?
A distinction without a difference once he puts that tautology into practice (kind of like saying it’s only torture if the President says it’s torture).
A specious point when he denies prisoners the ability to petition for them.
Me, too.
Apparently, though, not to many denizens of this message board.
How many threads in the last two years have had an “impeach Bush” theme?
Even in those threads, I’m not sure the support for impeachment on this board has ever achieved a majority even among the liberals. It’s a political decision, not a legal one. As such, it’s an unwieldy and very unreliable process for redress of wrongs.
So, let me see if I can follow this.
You assumed that people on the message board that support impeachment do not find Pelosi’s reasons credible. So you posted a tongue-in-cheek rant about how Pelosi ought to be impeached according to those poster’s beliefs. When challenged on this rant, you say you’d genuinely like to know why she doesn’t support it (not sure if you were still being sarcastic here, it’s hard to tell). Finally, when you learn of these reasons (or pretend to learn of them, since you seemed to already know them), you agree with them. Is that about right?
Has this been an effective debate tactic for you in the past?
No, it never works.
But I keep trying it over and over.
In multiple threads.
Despite the fact that it never ever bears fruit, I keep posting it.
I know. It’s not that it has a majority… it’s that it has such vocal and constant support from a minority of posters who are … er… vocal, and constant.
One thing that I haven’t seen anybody discuss is this:
from what I’ve been reading, a lot of people want Bush and Cheney impeached because they’re afraid of what they’re going to do next.
Yeah, they will be out of office in a while.
On the other hand, they could wreak plenty of havoc in that time.
You could dismiss those fears as overreaction and pure speculation.
But, if it’s true that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, then we could be in deep(er) shit.
I’m sorry, this is a little too meta and/or sarcastic for me to understand. Will you break it down for me?
Are you satirizing those who post about impeachment? Are you poking fun at yourself?
I guess it’s about the same as the constant, vocal support a certain minority of posters here have for any harebrained scheme or line of reality-twisting the Bush administration proffers to expand their power and influence, regardless of established standards of law and decency.
In other news: Pope is Catholic! More at 11.
As to the OP, more on what Ravenman hinted at:
http://www.democrats.com/cindy-sheehan-occupies-john-conyers-office
So, it looks like a moot point. Conyers, per this report, is not going to impeach. It’s just more political bluster from the Democrats in office.
If torture, lying to start a war, and rigging the justice department to go after political enemies isn’t enough to warrant impeachment, or even an impeachment inquiry, then I don’t know what the hell is enough. The fact that it’s not enough is a sad reflection on America. I weep for my country.
I’m well aware of what Scalia wrote in the *Hamdi *decision-- I’ve quoted it on this MB often. But until and unless Bush refused to accept a writ of habeas corpus that the SCOTUS determines to be valid, then I’m not on board.
We discussed that at length in this thread started by RTFirefly.
The linked story says “The decision Monday by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., [to pursue criminal contempt charges against Miers et al.] may be a political calculation to cast more negative attention on the firings.” Which is neither fanatical nor stupid nor inappropriate.
Yeah, well, they already tried using their new majority to impose a troop-withdrawal deadline; either Bush vetoes it or Senate Pubs filibuster it. But if the House impeaches Bush, he can’t veto that. Whether filibuster would be an permissible weapon to block a final vote at the end of a Senate trial is a more debatable question – but the opposition party never has tried that, AFAIK. In any case, there would be no need – it’s unlikely the 2/3 needed for conviction could be mustered. But the trial itself would be useful, regardless of outcome, in dragging everything out in the open.
The Constitution does not clearly say so. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus by his own fiat, and made it stick.