I see! The Dems are all poopy-heads, and are therefore certain to act in an unscrupulous and destructive fashion! How long have you been witholding these astonishing insights from us?
[QUOTE=RedFury]
John, FWIW, this is what going around in my mind when thinking of the NIE:
– my highlights. Much more at source.
And yes, I realize the Right has done its best to demonize Karen Kwiatkowski, but I’ve been reading and listening to her for quite some time and feel quite the opposite: I admire her integrity.
Go figure.
[/QUOTE]
Did she have access to the report? I suspect she is talking about the summary of the NIE that the administration prepared for those who couldn’t find the time to read the whole thing-- that indeed was cherry picked to present the administration’s view. For example, Graham criticized Clinton (although it could have been any of the other who didn’t read the report) thusly concerning Iraq-Al Qaeda links:
Bush and Cheney were pushing this linkage, and it doesn’t appear to have been in the N.I.E.
This gem:
[QUOTE=Shodan]
…This is based on the (pretty obviously false) assumption that the Usual Suspects would treat the impeachment of a Democrat for no particular reason besides his unpopularity the same as they would the impeachment of Bush…
[/quote]
– highlights, mine.
Followed by this one:
[QUOTE=Shodan]
You could, but you’d be lying.
[/quote]
…can only leave one shaking one’s head in amazement.
John, yes, you may very well be right. Other than that, there’s no denying that beyond the sheer lack of public trust all those Senators that didn’t bother to read it, should rightfully earn, it was almost an afterthought…
Meaning the Iraq invasion was a GO from the getgo – if you’ll pardon the alliteration.
So you didn’t even read the OP?
Your post is nearly as stupid as Elvis’. Congratulations, I guess.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, sure, lavish it all on Elvish, not a crumb left for the rest of us! Sometimes I get so jealous of that little tramp!
Is *that * the principled, thoughtful, conservative voice this board is in danger of driving away permanently, leaving the rest of us in blissful ignorance?
[QUOTE=NYStrip]
I know to impeach him, he must have committed a crime.
[/QUOTE]
Strictly speaking, no. The Consitution says “high crimes and misdemeanors” – George Mason’s proposal to provide for impeachment for “maladministration,” i.e., incompetence, was rejected – but Andrew Johnson was impeached for acts not constituting crimes in the usual sense, simply for resisting the will of Congress, and that was never ruled unconstitutional. In practice, an “impeachable offense” is whatever Congress wants it to be.
An impeachment attempt will likely turn off centrist voters the Dems will likely need to win in '08. Therefore, impeachment is off the table.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
An impeachment attempt will likely turn off centrist voters the Dems will likely need to win in '08. Therefore, impeachment is off the table.
[/QUOTE]
What, you think the centrists aren’t sick of Bush too?!
You see, its just that kind of shrill and confrontational style is why you guys never win any elections.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
What, you think the centrists aren’t sick of Bush too?!
[/QUOTE]
To the point of impeachment? I haven’t seen any data on it, but I doubt centrist voters support impeachment even though they aren’t too pleased with Bush.
Not yet. Impeachment used to be impossible, now its only very, very unlikely. But the Congress is busy turning over rocks and exposing what’s underneath.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
To the point of impeachment?
[/QUOTE]
To the point, I should think, that even if they don’t demand W’s impeachment, they wouldn’t be upset by it. But I haven’t seen any data either.
Are there any centrists left any more, when it comes the GeeDub? How in the hell can one be luke-warm about such a polarizing figure?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Are there any centrists left any more, when it comes the GeeDub? How in the hell can one be luke-warm about such a polarizing figure?
[/QUOTE]
There probably isn’t a lot of centrists on the issue of whether Bush is doing a good job, but there are probably centrists on the issue of what to do about it… at least enough to make the Dems take pause on the impeachment issue headed into '08.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
You see, its just that kind of shrill and confrontational style is why you guys never win any elections.
[/QUOTE]
Holy chorizo! Mr Moto’s moved in with 'luc! And here I thought I’d seen it all :eek:
[QUOTE=Shodan]
So you didn’t even read the OP?
Your post is nearly as stupid as Elvis’. Congratulations, I guess.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I was actually responding to the larger stupidity contained in yours, not the OP. But thanks anyway. Much appreciated, coming as it does, from one of the most esteemed posters on the SDMB.
:::bows:::
**
~Red**
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Of course, Cheney now insists his office is “not an entity within the Executive Branch.” Which must leave him in the legislative branch, specifically the Senate, of which he is president. And any member of Congress can be expelled from office by a simple majority of his or her house; no impeachment is necessary. Soooooo . . . . 
[/QUOTE]
Nice thought, but it wouldn’t work - Loserman (CFL-CT) would vote with the GOP, which (even once Tim Johnson returns) would limit the best case to a 50-50 deadlock.
And we know who casts the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Certainly…if they were willing to pay the political price of such an action. In addition you’d either need to have a buy in from the opposing party or you’d need an overwhelming majority in order to make this a political reality.
In this case I don’t think the Dem’s are willing to pay the political price…and they don’t have any way to get enough Pub’s to buy in. Nor do they have an overwhelming majority. So…this (perpetual, eternal seeming) question of impeaching Bush is just some mental porn for the faithful. 
[/QUOTE]
While an overwhelming majority is of course needed for conviction in a Senate trial, I don’t think that should be seen as the fundamental goal of articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. Rather, the goal should be to establish in the public consciousness the full extent of the misdeeds of this Administration, and the willingness of the GOP to block any action on those misdeeds, even when they’re laid out in full detail in an impeachment trial in the Senate.
Votes needed? 218 in the House.
No, it’s not gonna happen, because the Dems won’t make it happen. I believe that’s unfortunate for this country. I think the record’s clear that this Administration really has been, in the words of one who was there, “Worse than Watergate”, and that laying out the truth of that in full detail in an impeachment trial would be a body blow to the GOP, given the way they’ve been in Bush’s pocket for the past six and a half years.
I think it would strengthen the Dems politically, rather than hurt them. It would demonstrate that they were willing to go to the mats over something important. What I believe the Dems need more than anything else, from a political POV, is to act with the courage of their convictions.
A fuller discussion. As appropriate for the defense of the Constitution as it might be, the political reasons not to are strong too: It would prevent anything else from getting done in a time when getting out of Iraq is Job 1, and it would unite the Republicans who would find themselves forced to defend Bush. An impeachment would require substantial GOP support for its legitimacy, and right now that isn’t there.
Left unsaid in that assessment is the *fact * (let’s not kid ourselves) that the righty loyalists would be able to, and therefore would, portray it as simple partisan revenge for what they did to Clinton. That too would undermine serious consideration of what is the most responsible thing to do for the nation.
Point of order: Could the VP vote in his own impeachment trial?