Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

After yesterdays outrageous act by the worst President in history, the quixotic drive for impeachment will no doubt gain momentum on the Left blogs. Today, Meteor Blades provides evidence that the Left blogs will indeed promote the ill advised drive for impeachment. And let me remind folks why I feel the drive for impeachment is an extremely bad idea:

(1) It will NEVER happen and, ironically, yesterday's event reinforces this. Bush's approval ratings are likely to increase slightly as a result of his actions yesterday - as his wingnut base will rally to support him. This makes the chances of garnering GOP support an even longer shot than it was before - when it was impossible.

More.

Remember, to remove Bush from office requires a 2/3 vote from the Senate, which means 17 Republicans (I count Lieberman as a Republican) must vote to remove from office. It simply will never happen. No realistic person can think it will. So let's be clear, impeachment here is nothing but a symbolic gesture.

(2) It is likely to have negative political ramifications for Democrats in 2008. I care less about this than most. If Bush and Cheney could be removed, the political cost could be worth it. But since they can not be removed, then it simply is not.

(3) Impeachment would preclude discussion of of all other issues, most notably Iraq. Indeed, impeachment would be the worst possible development for ending the war in Iraq. It supplants getting out of Iraq as the centerpiece issue for progressive activism.

Last, and probably least, the progressive base and the Netroots would be utterly defanged and treated as completely irrelevant if it chooses to waste its time on pushing for impeachment. No more than a handful of Democrats will vote for it. The Media will portray as on par with 9/11 conspiracies. It is to throw away the progressive base and Netroots' power as a Left flank in the political discourse. It relegates it to crazy Larouche status.

In short, I can not imagine a more harmful cause for the progressive base and the Netroots to embrace. It will make the day of Republicans across the country IF Democrats followed such a lead.

Fortunately, Democrats will not. But they will nonetheless suffer because the progressive base and the Netroots will feel betrayed that Democrats will choose to not follow them over the cliff. Thus, there will be negative ramification for Democrats anyway.

But my ultimate bottom line is that the essential role the progressive base and the Netroots can and should play on ending the war in Iraq will be completely squandered. That is the part that I will find hard to forgive. Truthfully, I find it difficult to not be enraged at Netroots leaders like Meteor Blades who should know better. Knowing him, I must say I am pretty shocked by his irresponsible behavior. I hope for him coming to his senses soon and ending this harmful campaign.

Tags: impeachment, Iraq (all tags)

Comments

204 Comments

Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

100 % in agreement with you. Thank you for posting this. It may not get a lot of support from some of us who are rightfully enraged and  understandably unable to think clearly, but at the end of the day, you are 100 % correct.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-03 06:06AM | 0 recs
Here's my question

Does anyone deny that Bush and Cheney will not be removed no matter what? Since no sane person denies it, then the merits of the approach must fail.

It is ALL risk and NO reward.

It is irresponsible to promote this folly. I call out Meteor Blades for his irresponsibility.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:14AM | 0 recs
I tend to agree with you, but

I wouldn't say NO reward. The reward would be making a statement that if a president is committing impeachable offenses, he or she should be impeached.

by clarkent 2007-07-03 06:18AM | 0 recs
That is no reward

That is vainglorious chestbeating.

Which is exactly what the Netroots will be doing.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:20AM | 0 recs
Chestbeating?

Standing up for a principle is not chestbeating.

by clarkent 2007-07-03 06:31AM | 0 recs
Of course it is

when you know BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that what you are advocating for CAN NOT HAPPEN.

17 GOP Senators will NOT remove the President.

PEriod.

You know it. I know it. Meteoir Blades knows it. EVERYONE knows it.

IT is nothing BUT chest beating.

Do not pretend it is anythng BUT CHESTBEATING.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:42AM | 0 recs
What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

...to see you take this approach after your long - and quite correct - effort to push "defunding" as the only possible way for Dems to force Mister Bush to change directions in Iraq. A point of view for which you were called irresponsible and wrong-headed about a zillion times because it would never happen and would gravely harm the Democrats who would be challenged for not supporting the troops.

In case you hadn't noticed, a great wide swath of the netroots already supports impeachment. But so far it's been almost exclusively a keyboard exercise, much of it counterproductive name-calling of Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats.

Instead of promoting more of this, I think it's time that those who do believe that impeachment proceedings are a necessary remedy should try to make our case to those who must decide whether or not to initiate those proceedings. In other words, instead of all talk, some action.

I think there is a very good chance that fewer than five or six of the Judiciary Committee members can be persuaded to support impeachment. And when it becomes apparent that no more than that will do so, and that Pelosi isn't going to budge, impeachment fever will die down. If a majority on the committee does change their minds, then we'll see how the proceedings/hearings go.

As for diverting attention of progressive activists and Democrats away from ending the occupation of Iraq, this is a bogus argument typical of those who believe that neither activists nor elected Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time.

by Meteor Blades 2007-07-03 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

The details matter in this Meteor Blades.

The Democratic Congress CAN end the war by NOT funding it.

The Democratic Congress CAN NOT remove the President; it requires 17 GOP Senators to do that.

The American People by a 2-1 margin want to end the Iraq War.

The most FAVORABLE impeachment polling shows 60% of Americans OPPOSING impeachment.

Ending the war in Iraq CAN happen.

Removing the President can NOT.

Fighting to end the war in Iraq is essential to the political prospects of Democrats in 2008.

Fighting for impeachment is HARMFUL to the political prospects of Democrats.

Bush will be out of office in Jaunary 2009 no matter what.

A failure to end the Iraq War before Bush is out of office is likely to condemn us to many many many more years of war in Iraq.

The differences between what I did and what you are doing are obvious.
 

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

May I add.

171 Democrats voted for the McGovern Amendment.

ONLY 5 or 6 Democrats support Kucinich's proposal to impeach CHENEY (NOT Bush.)

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:49AM | 0 recs
A very important point

Isn't it interesting that some of the very same people who reject your plan are so forcefully in favor of impeachment? I sense a great vote-counting deficit.

by andgarden 2007-07-03 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: A very important point

Meteor Blades favors my proposal but does not believe it is possible.

Major Danby, a newly minted impeachment proponent, OPPOSES my proposal as "unrealistic."

MB is just wrong.

Danby is dishonest.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:56AM | 0 recs
I had Kargox in mind

but yes, Danby is incoherent on this issue too.

by andgarden 2007-07-03 07:58AM | 0 recs
Really?

Then let's debate it, andgarden.  Anywhere, any time.

by Major Danby 2007-07-04 12:12AM | 0 recs
Let's start with what you say below

According to you, defunding is impossible because the Democratic caucus isn't united behind it. If that's true, then how could it ever unite behind impeachment? And given that an impeachment conviction requires many Republicans in the Senate, why on earth would you focus on it?

by andgarden 2007-07-04 05:52AM | 0 recs
This is for everyone but Armando ...

... because in my experience there's usually little point in arguing with Armando once he gets wound up tightly enough.  Someone alerted me to it and it led me to go retrieve my MyDD password.

Armando (BTD) called me out in a diary last Saturday, which I encourage everyone to read -- http://big_tent_democrat.mydd.com/story/ 2007/6/30/142248/428#readmore -- after my diary on impeachment was (to my surprise) promoted to FP.

Please, if you will, read his diary before you proceed.

[...waits...]

Now: did you get the sense in reading his diary and cutting through the thickets of invective that I was promoting impeachment on the sole ground of Bush's refusal to honor Congressional subpoenas into the many investigations -- including that of AG Gonzales, whom Armando  evidently would also like to be impeached -- should that behavior persist?

Did you get the sense that I was not yet advocating impeachment on any of the substantive grounds that impeachment advocates -- thoughtful ones, who argue that even a failed impeachment can have a positive effect, because they are not as cocksure about their ability to predict the future as is Armando -- propose?  Did you get the sense that I remain a skeptic on those, and would return to a "wait-and-see" position if Bush did relent on this issue?

If not, then there was something critical missing from Armando's diary.

Armando calls me "dishonest" here -- it would probably be impossible to pin him down as to precisely why, beyond totalizing and unsupported invective, but I'll venture that it comes down to my rejecting some putative "fact" that boils down to his opinion -- and says in his June 30 missive that he knows why I wrote the diary(!)  Evidently, he thinks it was to suck up -- to someone, I'm not sure whom.

Having the advantage of living inside my own brain, I am well-aware of why I wrote that diary: because I think that Bush's move to neutralize Congressional investigations (ones based on the suspicion of actual underlying crimes) when he doesn't like where they are going is an awful precedent, a nuclear bomb of a move, and that Congress must be ready to pull out the heavy munitions to oppose it, as a matter of maintaining its institutional relevance.

That's why I wrote it.  That's why I'd be willing to support impeaching Bush over it if he does not back down.

Now, as to Iraq defunding, my opposition to it was mostly prudential.  It's true that a united Democratic caucus could refuse to fund the war, and I don't like they way they played their hand.  But we don't have a united Democratic caucus; we have a caucus that -- for understandable if not admirable reasons -- is not willing to stand by waiting for Bush to pull out what they fear could be a deadly successful PR campaign about Democrats defunding the troops.  That's why I concentrated my energy on other approaches to stopping the war.

Armando suffers from a malady common among academics, which is that, having come up with an idea and convinced a few friends about it, he's convinced that it's brilliant and anyone who doesn't see that must be blind and/or daft.  The problem with this approach to life is that sometimes one's ideas aren't actually all that perfect.  Most intellectuals learn, in time, to let go of the ones that go splat.  Others continue howling at the moon forever.  I would have wished a better fate for Armando.

Now, why the personal attacks from Armando?  He'd probably say it's because I kept hounding him in comments.  You can read his last month or so of comments in DKos and see whose deportment you prefer.  In my opinion, it's actually because of our disagreements over policy towards Cuba, which I generally tried to soft-pedal around him while we were cavorting the same pasture.  One day I didn't quite so much, and right after that things went sour.  Coincidence?  Maybe.

Speaking of which, I don't spend much time here on MyDD -- just because I spend so much time elsewhere -- so if anything amusing happens that suggests I really have to return soon, drop me a line at senecadoane@lycos.com.

by Major Danby 2007-07-04 12:08AM | 0 recs
Re: This is for everyone but Armando ...

Armando suffers from a malady common among academics, which is that, having come up with an idea and convinced a few friends about it, he's convinced that it's brilliant and anyone who doesn't see that must be blind and/or daft...

I've noticed...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-04 08:17AM | 0 recs
Since the details are important ...

...there are 10 Dems signed onto H Res 333 so far. And only 169 Democrats voted for McGovern. The other two votes were Republicans.

And, you know well my argument regarding "defunding," which, as you also I know, I support in theory. You need 41 filibuster votes in the Senate to make it happen.

by Meteor Blades 2007-07-03 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Since the details are important ...

Actually the 2 Republicans who signed on adds to my argument. There is and will be ZERO GOP support for impeachment.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...


If you wanna use polls, by my knowledge up to 44% would support investigations into impeachment

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/1 4897

by Brattlerouser 2007-07-03 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

Look, I don't know you, so I am not trying to be insulting. But it seems to me that your style in your posts and more specifically in your comments lends itself to an unfriendly and antagonistic tone. Maybe that is just how I am reading it and I am wrong, but thats how it reads to me. The reason I am bringing this up is because it seems that conversations become a fight rather than a debate very quickly. I am not blaming you exclusively but it seems to me that adopting a friendlier or at least more courteous tone would go a long way towards increasing the quality of the argument.

by JDF 2007-07-03 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

You don;t know me of course.

But you should note I am very angry about this.

I appreciate your comment but on this I will be me.

If it gets too hot for you, I think your best course will be to not enter this arena.

Wishing you all the best in your future discussions.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:10AM | 0 recs
"Friendlier or more courteous tone"?

You're talking to the wrong person.  I happen to agree with BTD's thesis here...focus on the thing that might happen (ending the Iraq War) rather than the thing that won't (Removal from Office).

But asking him to "tone it down" is about as likely to happen as removing Bush from office.

by rashomon 2007-07-03 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

BTD a/k/a Armando is who he is. Love him or hate him. Get past the abrasiveness and you will find more than a few nuggests to think about. Changing him, even his worts, would make him not worth reading.

by molly bloom 2007-07-03 07:09PM | 0 recs
...But will he?

"Bush will be out of office in Jaunary 2009 no matter what."

You're more optimistic than I am.  I have no doubt that Bush & Cheney would consider "postponing" the 2008 elections, especially if another terrorist attack occurs near the time.  Impeachment MUST proceed as a matter of principle.

by ramfar 2007-07-03 11:00AM | 0 recs
by that logic

why would he even accept impeachment? I have no patience for conspiracy theories.

by andgarden 2007-07-03 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: by that logic

Well a conspiracy is just a plan with 2 or more people involved.  Whether you have patience for such theories or not is remarkable irrelevant.  It could come down to a constitutional crisis if they try to postpone the 2008 election.  Remember that in Nixon's last days, Schlesinger told the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to take orders from him only, not tricky dicky.  These things do happen.

by ramfar 2007-07-03 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: by that logic

"conspiracy theory", my ass

bush's unprecedented overreaching arm of the executive powers not only in violation of the constitution, it is irresistable to almost any future presidential candidate  

yes, even our own...which is why you don't hear any of them coming down on the side of impeachment

the congressional oath of office stipulates defending the constitution

they are remiss

"power corrupts,
total power corrupts totally"

by sybil disobedience 2007-07-03 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

Anything to STOP the march to war against Iran.

Each Democrat will have to answer -- if they stand idly by, especially those who voted against containing our President/

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

And the war with Iraq?

But of course, impeachment will stop neither as Bush will NOt be removed.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

The Iraq mission is over, those surged troops are going over there for Iran.

The impeachment process I would hope wake enough people up to reduce his credibility, his ability to act as CIC.  I've had enough of these Dem enablers with Bush, I want them to show some spine.  It started when those DLC'ers (including Hillary) refused to pres for censure even when Bush admitted he broke the law.

The Hyprocrisy stinks at the moment.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 09:16AM | 0 recs
Well

How will a failed impeachment reduce his redibility, as if that would stop him anyway.

For crissakes, I am stopping now because I will be insulting thre intelligence of the lot of you next.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

We haven't got the 'Democratic' votes for defunding -- the sham of Feingold-Reid should have shown you that.  We might not get removal of Bush, but impeachment is important to counter the bs that will will/are getting in the newscycle about Lieberman, Iran, and Hezbollah.

This country NEEDS impeachment.

Insult away -0- just be rational.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

If we do not have the votes to defund the war in Iraq then we certainly do not have the votes to remove Bush or Cheney form office.

by Sam I Am 2007-07-03 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

So what do nothing?

At this stage, I believe the only thing we can do is slow down the war mongers == on both sides of the aisle.  If we can't do it by votes, then by psychological means.  Let's see those dems who have the spine, some conviction.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

Then shoot for the realistic goal that does not require GOP support.

This seems an obvious point.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

"reduce his credibility"

What lala land are you living in? His approval rating is only slightly higher than the Prime Minister of Israel. Bush has no credibility except for with a few dead enders like Boehner and other cretins. Watch the republicans run from him as September approaches. Whether or not Bush has credibility he is still constitutionally Commander in Chief. It sucks, I know.

by DoIT 2007-07-03 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

When what 40% (apparently) still think al-qaeda were in Iraq at the time of the invasion, and with Iran on the horizon, I still think we have some work to do.  So yes, his credibility still needs to be worked on -- I want a court case hanging over this thug's head.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

Impeachment is not a court case.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

a trial -- better?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

since you are advocating for it- shouldn't you  know what it is?

by bruh21 2007-07-03 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

I do?  Now, what's your next question?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: What irony, Armando. It's quite amazing ...

 good luck. luckily  you are the fringe so you ulimately don't matter other than in online blogging time

by bruh21 2007-07-03 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course it is
No, I DON'T know that.
The evidence and the investigations are ratcheting up, and the public outcry is getting louder.
In the meantime, you can naysay and continue your dire warnings of political doom, while I and other patriots will demand fealty to the rule of law.
And you call Meteor Blades irresponsible.
by kestrel9000 2007-07-03 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course it is

You will demand fealty to the rule of law to what effect?

You CHOOSe not to know that removal from office is a nonstarter because you choose to not see it.

That is irresponsible too.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course it is

You are giving up -- predicting the outcome -- before even seeing the evidence?  Ummm/

We've seen the evidence with regard to the funding bills.  Even Lugar won't budge on the funding -- tell you anything -- even about our lot?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course it is

The evidence of the support for impeachment proceedings is clear. Almost zero.

The chances of Republicans supporitng is ZERO and will remain zero.

Are you seriously arguing that this is not so? Then there is nothing for me to say to you.

As for funding bills, you do not understand that NOT funding does not require passage of any bills. And that requires only Democrats.

I find it bat shit crazy that someone would argue impeachment is possible but not funding the IRaq Debacloe is not.

That simply is not a serious position. I can not respect it and it why I have no respect for the impeachment movement.

The Impeachment Movement lives in a world of utter delusion and ignorance. It simply has no grasp of the facts or reality.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course it is

Those 'democrats' on the appropriation committee, you know like BEN NELSON, or even weak-knee'ed Reid --- do you seriously think they would refuse to put 'any' funding bills the table...?  For you to think otherwise -- escapes me?  

Also, talking about the evidence about support for impeachment proceedinsg -- When was the last poll -- 06?  Maybe MoveOn and Zogby should be exploring the myth that impeachment is NOT on the minds of constituents who are worried about our mafia government.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course it is

The House.

Not the Senate.

I have stated too often to count that 218 is the key number.

Honestly, and respectfully, please read my series at Talk LEft on the subject.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:50AM | 0 recs
Somehow the netroots

love symbolism over real change. And candidates that put out press releases containg the right buzz words rather than having a solid history.

Myself I am a pragmatic to the bone. The only thing that matters is victory and pushing through a progressive agenda. I couldn't care less for purity and symbolism.

by Populism2008 2007-07-03 06:32AM | 0 recs
Well

I am fairly sure you will take me to task because I am, or frankly, was, if this impeachment business catches fire, pushing for Democrats to set a date certain after which they will not fund the Iraq Debacle.

Many consider my proposals quixotic. They are wrong to do so. Because my proposal requires only the support of Democrats.

Impeachment requires 17 GOP Senators voting to remove Bush and Cheney from office and THAT WIL NEVER HAPPEN.

In addition, 2/3 of the American People want the IRaq Debacdle ended. At best, 39% of Americans want Bush and Cheney removed from office.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:36AM | 0 recs
Guess what, Armando. The day ....

...impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon began on October 30, 1973, exactly 39% of Americans wanted him to resign or be impeached.

by Meteor Blades 2007-07-03 07:21AM | 0 recs
Indeed

Where is our Leon Jaworski?

In the summer of 1973, Watergate hearings were ongoing. And STILL, in October 1973, impeachment was not faovred by a majority of the Nation.

By the time the political will for impeachment is reached, we will have a new President.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Guess what, Armando. The day ....

The public reacted quite differently to the Nixon impeachment process than to the Clinton impeachment process.  In 1974, Democrats gained 49 House seats and 5 Senate seats; in 1976 Democrats gained the Presidency reaching their high water mark for the percentage of the popular vote since 1964.  By contrast, in 1998, Democrats gained 5 House seats.

The data says that the public will support and reward an impeachment process based on the facts.  Bush and Cheney are so much worse than Nixon and Agnew.  Nixon would not let a great American city die nor would he pardon or commute the sentences of his cronies.  Nixon fought it in the courts but he ultimately honored the legal proceedings and turned in the tapes that led to his downfall (and I am aware of the 18 minute gap).

by David Kowalski 2007-07-03 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Guess what, Armando. The day ....

the tapes and Nixon resigned.

You got some tapes?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 08:19PM | 0 recs
Is it your view that the Democrats ...

...should just prone-out when the Administration continues to refuse to respond to the subpoenas?

by Meteor Blades 2007-07-03 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Is it your view that the Democrats ...

Of ocurse not. Is the only option impeachment?

Of course it is not. Leahy has told you what will happen. A court case will be filed.

KagroX has also been irresponsible in his description of this process.

He has either inadvertently or deliberately been telling falsehoods.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:39AM | 0 recs
File court cases...

...and be stuck for who knows how long wrangling this legally. It took more than a year, as I noted in today's post, for the Nixon tapes issue to be resolved. So what's being recommended here is to do nothing regarding ignored subpoenas for a year or so?

by Meteor Blades 2007-07-03 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: File court cases...

Are you suggesting Bush be impeached for asserting executive privilege and arguing his case in court?

Actually, I am glad you make that argument because it highlight the utter friovolousness of the impeachment call.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 08:41AM | 0 recs
Geez, Armando, don't pull your ...

...bullshit on me. You answer the question you asked of me and then attack me for the answer you put in my mouth?

My view is not that he be impeached for invoking executive privilege. My view is that he be impeached because we know he will drag this out in the courts - courts, as you are aware, that are far more conservative than in 1972-74, when they were ruling on Nixon. He (and Cheney) can't claim executive privilege in an impeachment trial.

by Meteor Blades 2007-07-03 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Geez, Armando, don't pull your ...

Impeached because we KNOW what Bush will do, which is perfectly legal?

WTF? I think I treated you too fairly.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 08:57AM | 0 recs
Try to follow this:

Meteor Blades point is that:

A.) Bush and Cheney have committed crimes.

B.) We will never fully expose those crimes because of their defiance of subpoenas and congressional oversight in general, unless...

C.) Dems initiate impeachment proceedings which will expand their investigational powers as outlined in the constitution.

And what the fuck does "I think I treated you too fairly" mean? Are you implying that it is up to you to decide whether Meteor Blades is intellectually or morally worthy of fair treatment. Jesus, God, your obnoxiously arrogant assholishness never fails to amaze.

by miasmo 2007-07-03 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: File court cases...

There war crimes that he has command responsibility for.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-07-03 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: File court cases...

"...and be stuck for who knows how long wrangling this legally."

That it might take a year to resolve this LEGALLY sucks but it is the law of our land and at least one political party should uphold it.

by DoIT 2007-07-03 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I tend to agree with you, but

We can still be rewarded with this by using it against the Republicans in 2008, but in a more artful way. Like we did in 2006 with the "Culture of Corruption" Theme. That worked. Impeachment works against us. We just need a new slogan for Bush Specifically. Like :

Rogue Administration

Unhinged President

Reign of Incompetence

Something like that. Ya know?

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-03 06:22AM | 0 recs
Impeachment washes it away

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:28AM | 0 recs
I won't mince words

I am extremely angry at those who would forego a very real opportunity to have real, positive effect on ending the Iraq Debacle to instead pursue an impossible, harmful, vainglorious drive for what everyone knows can not happen and  which will be as harmful to Democratic and progressive issues as one can imagine.

It is very very wrong.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:06AM | 0 recs
I say

that we should keep subpoenaing the bastards and get all the info we can about warrantless wiretapping, the US Attorney scandal and all the other (most offensive) shit they've been doing.

If momentum builds for impeachment, great. I'm pretty much in agreement with you about the chances of that happening, but who knows? At the very least, we can challenge their claims of ultimate executive power and hopefully bring to light some of their most egregious behavior.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-03 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I say

What you describe is NOt an impeachment procedding.

It is OVERSIGHT.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I say

Yep.

And it's been missing for far too long. We should demand that our Congress is extremely aggressive in investigating the Administration.

I like Leahy's subpoena talk. The Bush Administration should be fully investigated and forced to answer for its behavior. While impeachment does seem out of the cards, we have every right to know what happened in these cases.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-03 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I won't mince words

Not impeaching is more about all the Dem senators running for prez - than an inadequate number of votes.
Remember Feingold's Censure bill in Spring 06?  I think only Harkin and Boxer signed on. And why didn't Reid want it to come to a vote? Because of the Dem senators running for prez.

"If Frist had succeeded in bringing Feingold's resolution up for a floor vote, it would have put on the spot Democrats who are thinking of running for president in 2008, such as Sens. Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and John Kerry.
Feingold himself is a potential 2008 Democratic presidential contender."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11811676/

by annefrank 2007-07-03 06:54PM | 0 recs
There is no good time

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:15AM | 0 recs
Not completely correct

Today impeachment is a no go ( I wish it were otherwise).

Use the oversight function of congress and see what developes. Do it carefully and not rashly. That is the only hope impeachment has. And yes the clock is likely to run out, so don't hold your breath, don't be disappointed if nothing developes and impeachment never happens.  

The investigations are important, if only because there should be some consequnces to Bush's actions (even if it is just full exposure)  and because the public has a right to the full story. As a side benefit, who knows what might turn up and what the public reaction might be.

We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, so I think we can still push for setting a funding deadline and raise a little hell with investigation.  

by molly bloom 2007-07-03 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Not completely correct

I agree with this.

But let's end the Iraqw Debacle please.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 08:20PM | 0 recs
Concur

by molly bloom 2007-07-04 04:33AM | 0 recs
It seems a minority view in these parts

But I agree with you 100%.

Under the circumstances, I think it's possible that the drive for impeachment from the netroots might actually force the Democratic leadership to throw out some other form of red meat. Perhaps even something along the lines of what you suggest for getting out of Iraq.  

by andgarden 2007-07-03 06:15AM | 0 recs
No

There will be no red meat.

There will be awkward moments such as one sees when a crazy relative has insane rants.

The Netroots will be marginalized. Utterly.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:18AM | 0 recs
Maybe

It comes down to the question of how valuable the netroots are to establishment Dems.

If they start seeing us as LaRoucheites, then you are right, we will be ignored.

by andgarden 2007-07-03 06:20AM | 0 recs
That wil be the consequence

of something as ill advised as this.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: That wil be the consequence
Conyers will hold a hearing next Wed. At least the issue will be addressed!
Why couldn't the Senate hold a hearing? At least to say they did SOMETHING!
by annefrank 2007-07-03 06:58PM | 0 recs
Frankly

the netroots deserve to be marginalized. There is too much purism and wild eyed utopianism around these parts. Too little of reality.

by Populism2008 2007-07-03 06:34AM | 0 recs
Strongly disagree

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Frankly

What are you doing here, then?

by clarkent 2007-07-03 07:24AM | 0 recs
I agree with you

Just one quibble.  When you write, "Bush's approval ratings are likely to increase slightly as a result of his actions yesterday - as his wingnut base will rally to support him," well, that can't be true.  Approval Ratings polls are binary choices -- they don't measure intensity of preference.  If a wingnut supports him anyway, it doesn't boost Bush's numbers to have the wingnut happier about his support.

by Adam B 2007-07-03 06:16AM | 0 recs
There are some who have not been supporting

him. This might change their minds.

by andgarden 2007-07-03 06:18AM | 0 recs
You ignore that

Bush suffered with his wingnuts because of immigration.

It will bring some back to the fold.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You ignore that

Fair enough.  This is certainly a balm for that.

by Adam B 2007-07-03 07:12AM | 0 recs
On this, as I wrote in several ...

...places yesterday, I agree with Armando. This commutation was, at least in part, given to get the rightwing pundits and angry rank-and-file back on board. I wouldn't be surprised to see an uptick  polls.

by Meteor Blades 2007-07-03 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: On this, as I wrote in several ...

Especially with the Top prez candidates praising Bush.

by annefrank 2007-07-03 07:00PM | 0 recs
An abdication of responsibility

This comment from Meteor Baldes is outrageous:

It's up to us to create a groundswell ... (0 / 0)

...of support. And up to us who believe impeachment is the right move to persuade people who can actually vote to begin impeachment proceedings. When the proceedings started against Richard Nixon in October 1973, only 39% of Americans supported impeachment or resignation, even though only 27% approved of the job he was doing.

You may be right that impeachment proceedings will not happen. Without proceedings, no impeachment. They certainly won't happen without the Democratic votes on the Judiciary Committee. Discussing impeachment will continue whether you like it or not. Personally, I don't think we need to have any more philosophical discussion about whether it's a good idea or not, or whether it's possible. We're split on that and we've all pretty much had our say.  No need for further flamewars.

So now, it's up to those of us who believe impeachment is possible, and the right thing, to see if we can make it happen. If we can't, then you can tell us all to shut up.

Can we hold out this long?

by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:13:19 AM PDT

Meteor Blades has used the Front Page of Daily Kos to forward as harmful a proposal as one could imagine at this time and he does not want to discuss the outrageousness of his actions.

His irresponsibility will forward and harmful discussion instead of moving forward on ending the Iraq Debacle. And he thinks we should not discuss his harmful actions.

Excuse me Meteor Blades. What you are doing is extremely wrong and extremely irresponsible. You have abused your trust as a FPer at daily kso by not considering these issues and instead have assuaged your vainglorious wishes.

Leaders do not behave in this way. Leaders weigh the consequences of their actions. You should be ashamed.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:26AM | 0 recs
Here's what I am saying

MEteor Blades should write DIARIES saying this if he believes it is meaningful.

But he shoulod not post it on the FP of daily kos.

He owes the Netroots to consider what the perception and result of his actions will be when he does so.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:45AM | 0 recs
As a former FPer

I can tell you that it was well understood what types of issues should merit careful consideration before writng a FP post taking a posiiton on them.

Of course there are a myriad of important issues where FPers would disagree. Those were open for debate and the outside world consequences were largely minimal.

Impeachment is not one of those issues. It is too hot and too potentially harmful for a FPer to just throw out outlandish ill thought out posts as Meteor Blades did.

He should express his opinion on THAt topic in the diaries, not on the FP.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:04AM | 0 recs
I have asked whether he is speaking to

the editorial policy of dailykos. I am interested to see his response.

by andgarden 2007-07-03 07:07AM | 0 recs
The answr is no

The PERCEPTION is YES.

It is a copout question. Ask him if it will be PERCEIVED as the editorial policy of daily kos.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:16AM | 0 recs
I agree

I've been around for a while, and since I'm not sure of the answer to my original question, I think the perception will be that it IS.

by andgarden 2007-07-03 07:21AM | 0 recs
As you are quite well aware ...

...having been a former Front Pager, FPers have a free hand - except when it comes to raising money or violating the FAQs - to write what we want. We represent ourselves only when we write unless we sign onto a piece as a group, which has happened only once IIRC.

by Meteor Blades 2007-07-03 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: As you are quite well aware ...

there are and were certain issues where FPers RIGHTLY chose to express their views  IN DIARIES understnaidng that the perception of a FP post is quite different from that of a diary.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:51AM | 0 recs
Bullshit. You fail to note ...

...the person I am responding to is the one who said "enough already" with the impeachment Diaries.

Read in context:

Discussing impeachment will continue whether you like it or not. Personally, I don't think we need to have any more philosophical discussion about whether it's a good idea or not, or whether it's possible. We're split on that and we've all pretty much had our say.  No need for further flamewars.

I don't think the flamewars around impeachment are doing any good. Most of the worst commentary focus es on bashing Pelosi and other Democrats. That's not helpful to us at all. But those Diaries will continue to flow. And, while I personally don't think we need any more discussion because people's positions have hardened, I know full well, as I wrote, that we will have them anyway. And I don't believe, as you well know, in shutting people up no matter how deeply they disagree with me.

by Meteor Blades 2007-07-03 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Bullshit. You fail to note ...

And the diaries SHOULD continue to flow.

As I expressed at the time many FPers WRONGLY tried to stifle impeachment diaries, I stated that unlike, CT diaries, impeachment is something that can be legititmately advocated for and thus diarists should have a free hand to write about it.

The issue with your FP post is quite different. There is a responsibility in a FP post that is unlike that of a diary.

Like it or not, there is leadership involved in a FP post. Particularly on an issue like impeachment.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:53AM | 0 recs
Agree completely

I hate to see some progressives driving over the cliff again and again and again. There simply seems to be no sense of reality.

Impeachment is a pipe dream. Stupid, wasteful, meaningless.

by Populism2008 2007-07-03 06:27AM | 0 recs
Harmful

Extremeley harmful.

I want to be clear. I am taking Meteor Blades to task for his irresponsible act.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:29AM | 0 recs
Keith Olberman

Hopefully when Keith Olbermann gives his Liberal State Of The Union Speech aka "Special Comment" tonight calling for both Cheney and Bush to resign, it will be enough to appease our anger and calm us down. It always works for me. He's my anger outlet. OTOH, I hope it doesn't do the opposite and further galvanize a call for Impeachment. This is going to be tricky. We'll see what happens.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-03 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olberman

Of course it will further the flames.

Olberman is speaking from his heart but we will see if he call for impeachment.

It seems the natural extension of his thoughts.

But progressives and Democrats have specific goals unrelated to what Olberman thinks or says.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 06:32AM | 0 recs
Impeachment now is a waste of time

I completely agree that impeachment would be a very bad idea. As much as I would like to see Bush and Cheney pay for their crimes I am certain that an impeachment hearing would be a huge distraction from what needs to occur, namely getting out of Iraq. And I also agree that although Bush might be impeached by the House he would not be found guilty by the Senate.

Let's work on getting out of Iraq and passing an energy bill that leads us toward energy independence and lessens global warming. Then let's concentrate on gaining huge majorities in both houses and a Democratic president. After all that I am all for impeachment, roughly between November 6th 2007 and January 21st 2008. It would be a nice send off party.

by DoIT 2007-07-03 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment now is a waste of time


Are you sure Bush is going to sign these great bills into law?

How are we going to get around that?

by Brattlerouser 2007-07-03 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Anyone who's sickened by this current administrations blatant disregard for morality and the laws of the land favor impeachment as a remedy.
It doesn't make it any less a pipe dream.

I'd like to see the Dems win on ANY issue. Outsmart Rove and Cheney at least once.
They do what they want,there's a lot of noise,but no accountability. I.E Libby,Gonzalez,war in Iraq etc.

by g1967 2007-07-03 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

They will Not win on impeachment.

They CAN and SHOULD win on Iraq.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle
Only if the "Dark Side" continues to defect.
Calling them obstructionist as I saw somewhere is putting it mildly.
by g1967 2007-07-03 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

How are the Dems going to win on Iraq when you have even new senators like Webb not willing to use the power of the purse to stop funding the war?  You have them undermine each other.  Obama did this to Feingold.  

If you are just going to have rhetoric without action I think Meteor Blades may have a point.  Perhaps it should be in the diaries and not on the front page, but something needs to happen and I see no progress on the Iraq front and I hear stuff about Iran that really disturbs me.

by pioneer111 2007-07-03 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I do not count on the Senate.

I have always focused on the House.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Even when the house split the sup. bill -- there weren't enough Dems in the House to fail (even as an initial dissent theater measure)  funding the war.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425. xml

86 Dems voting aye...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

171 voted for the McGovern Amendment. 169 Dems.

But I still do not see your point.

I can accept the reasoning that the not funding option in unlikely to work.

I can NOT accept that impeachment has ANY chance to work.

There are currently ZERO supporters of removal of PResident Bush in the Congress. There are 10 supporters of removal of Cheney.

Do you think impeachment the more viable approach for ending the war?

On the basis of what?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

McGovern Amendment failed.  Many of those dems that voted for that amendment did it for show...

I mean Harman -- come on!

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll536. xml

You gotta be realistic, I'm trying to be, which is why I'm gunning for an impeachment 'trial' rather than dragging out a dog and pony show with democrats biting their lips in front of the camera about withdrawing funding - ain't gonna happen...  Iran Iran Iran

We just need enough Dems to start the trial -- that's my take.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

That is realistic?

Well, we have exhausted this discussion if that is being realistic.

I can not respect that view.

Sorry.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

All this talk making a choice about leaving Iraq or impeaching the criminals is pure bunk. We won't be leaving Iraq under any conditions until the Bush team has gone; impeachment would speed up that process.

It would also send a message that needs to be sent; criminals and traitors face justice. Otherwise all we'll see is this gang laughing all the way to the bank. But bets are that they'll figure out a way to do that anyway.

by donjo 2007-07-03 08:32AM | 0 recs
Delusion

There wil be no removal thus no "speeding up."

Defunding will end the war.

I really can't stand even discussing this with folks who argue nonsense like you just did.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Delusion

Less than 10 Democrats in the Senate voted against the latest war funding bill so that option, sadly, won't happen.

The funded withdrawl bill received the support of virtually our entire caucus.  As the GOP rats desert the USS Bush there is a realistic shot at getting the 67 votes necessary to override Bush's veto.

Impeachment talk only distracts from the funded withdrawal effort.

by Sam I Am 2007-07-03 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Delusion

29 Senators voted for Reid-Feingold.

171 Representatives voted for the McGovern Amendement.

I will not repeat the NOT funding framework for you again as you must be aware that what I propose does not require bill passage.

At any rate, you do realize that impeachment and removal of the PResident currently has ZERO supporters in the Congress.

Support for removal of Cheney has 10 supporters in the House.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Delusion

How great to be an all-knowing, all seeing, egotistical and condescending snob like you. You might learn from some of these posts if you deigned it not beneath your dignity to listen to someone else's arguments. Sorry, but my arguments make more sense than yours ever did and just because YOU say it doesn't make it true. Stopping the funding won't stop the war - they'll just get it from somewhere else. What will stop the war is removing these criminals from office either through impeachment, resignation, or more drastic means. Changing the overall strategy to include negotiations with neighboring countries is imperative as is switching from a "battle force" mentality to a more "peaceful" role as teachers and "nation-builders," while other nations are asked to take over our role so we can get the hell out of there. Fat chance of all that happening, though, as long as we pussy-foot around and continue treating this sorry cabal as though they deserved respect.  

by donjo 2007-07-03 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Delusion

Heh.

Whatever.

Look in the mirror you impeachment snob.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle


Hey Big Tent, Brattlerouser here.

Dude, disagree all you want with impeachment. It's great! But please, show some respect fom people who disagree with you.

> I really can't stand even discussing this with folks who argue nonsense like you just did.

While there are people who can't argue succintly, comments like that aren't necessary. Now let me begin why fighting for the Constitution is the better route.

***

Ending the war is a task that could best be accomplished by inaction, by Congress refusing to provide any more funding. Or it could be accomplished by a bill created by one committee. It is not a fulltime task for the entire Congress.

But as I've said before, there is just no way that Bush & Cheney are going to bring the troops home on their watch, not to mention Nancy Pelosi has also sworn that funding is also "off the table." If you want proof she said that, I'll get it.

What could help move Congress would be the same thing that the 93rd U.S. Congress end the Vietnam War and convinced Nixon not to veto the cut-off in funding: impeachment. Just like back then, impeachment could likely drive the war debate in the right direction, because impeachment would be for offenses either directly connected to the war or offenses that have been justified by "war on terror" propaganda. Granted there are other issues to investigate for impeachment, this focuses exclusively on the Iraq war delimna (sp.?)

In the event that Congress actually cuts off the funding and end the war, it is very likely that Bush and Cheney would misappropriate funds from the Pentagon to keep the occupation going. Keep in mind, they already did this in order to secretly begin the war, and to this day, they still have never been held accountable for it. So, removing them from office is not only needed in order to give Congress the backbone to end the war, but it is also needed if the war is ever to actually end.

I hope this has been helpful and much clearer than the argument I made last time we discussed. If not, fine. But again, please, show the necessary respect from people you disagree with.

by Brattlerouser 2007-07-03 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

A great MyDD diary by croweb on why elections aren't the answer to solving the Bush/Cheney delimna (sp.?)

Hope this helps.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/21/2118 16/721

by Brattlerouser 2007-07-03 09:45AM | 0 recs
Your argument disregards

the fact that we have soldiers dying in the field everyday.  If we can shorten the Bush/Cheney tenure one day, we could save lives.  As one who served his country, that matters to me.  We need to do the right thing and that is to formally impeach Cheney for lying and covering up the intelligence gathered by Joe Wilson's trip for the CIA.  I believe it can be proven that Cheney advised the CIA to NOT put the information he received verbally (i.e. the Iraqi-Niger yellowcake story was false) in writing.  This gave Cheney's office plausible deniability (the Sergeant Schulz defense, "I know nuttink") and allowed him to sell the case for war to the American people.  He was not faithful to his oath of office.  I seriously doubt that any Republican senator up for reelection in 2008 would vote to save his sorry ass.

by lobo charlie 2007-07-03 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Your argument disregards

No, YOUR argument disregards this fact.

I support not funding the Iraq war.

Impeachment will take MUCH longer even if it were possible, which it is not.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:20AM | 0 recs
I don't disregard defunding the war,

I think it is a good idea but these crazy assholes will not protect the troops and will likely keep them in place regardless.  We can't count on them to do the right thing.  So, yes cut off funding but move forward on impeachment.  We can do both.

by lobo charlie 2007-07-03 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't disregard defunding the war,

My premise is that in fact promoting impeachment undermines the Iraq push BECAUSE impeachment is not a realistic goal and will marginalize the push on Iraq.

If you believe I might be right then the only justification for impeachment is the idea that it will lead to removal.

I believe no serious person actually believes that.

They argue for it as a symbol. We can;t afford those symbols.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I think you're exactly right BTD (though incidentally, I didn't think defunding the Iraq War would work for similar reasons).

by Korha 2007-07-03 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I acceptr the NOT funding might not work, but it only requires Democrats and thus is much more realistic than impeachment, whichhas NO chance at all.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Again, we don't have enough democrats...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

We have 233 Democrats in the House. We only need 218 who will not fund past a date certain.

I think you simply do not understand what it is I am proposing.

You should read my work at Talk LEft to better understand it.

And of course, if we do not have enough Dems for THAT we surely do not have NEAR enough for impeachment and removal.

If my proposal has no chance, then impeachment has absolutely no chance.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

OK -- give me a posting -- what you are trying to advocate?  Because looking at individual dems even in the House I don't think what you are proposing will fly.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Search through here.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Thank you for sending me your impressive portfolio.  However, it might be a little more helpful if you would direct me to a relevant posting that fleshes your defunding -achievable?- strategy?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Almost all of those posts do.

Just peruse the titles and see which one intrests you.

That is just my IRAQ portfolio.
 

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I can see you're proud...  I will try and read your posts when I've got through all the other blogs I check.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Nah. Skip it.

You are not much for facts it seems to me anyway.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Your string of postings at Talkleft are impressive, but sorry they are not evidence of FACTS?  That's a new one...

If you can't back up your postings with facts on THIS site, or even provide a relevant link to where you have summarized, or broken down your strategy == then why should I trust you that I know what you're talking about?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I do not consider you worht the effort.

Think what you will.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Fine by me... I don't think much of you either.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

With impeachment -- I'm more interested in justice being seen to be done.  I'm more interested in the process, exposing the evidence. Facts will speak for themselves, regardless whether we can remove these thugs.

If Cheney and Bush are seen to get away with what they've done then it helps other dynastic, eltist regimes to carry-on this hyjacking of democracy and the courts.  Does not sit well with me.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

The chestbeating aspect, as I derogatorily phrase it.

I simply can not respect that view.

There are peopel dying in Iraq.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I wouldn't call it chestbeating...  I would call it all we have left for Checks and Balances.  

Impeachment proceedings might actually help drag a few hawk funding dems to the light!

Especially if their names came up in a few places.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

What we have left for checks and balances?

My gawd, you disregard the MOSTIMPORTANT check, the Spending Power.

I am stopping now.

I think people simply know too little about the Constitution and the Federalist Papers here.

That is simply an incredible statemet to make.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I think people simply know too little about the Constitution and the Federalist Papers here.

No, I just don't have tunnel vision.

Maybe you should have taken a psychology class as well as Constitution 101.  You seem to be completely ignoring human group dynamics?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

You are ingoring reality.

The reality is there will be no impeachment proceedings at all, much less an impeachment, much less a removal.

Caterwauling about group psychology matters not.

Go ahead with your fantasy scenarios.

And a year from now we'll wonder why we did not do more to end the war in Iraq.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Whatever...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

the question is con law- not pscyh- I can see why that may confuse you given the level to which people treat all conversations as mere opinion these days.

by bruh21 2007-07-03 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

It's both!

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

The Constitution doesn't work all by itself... it needs you know humans -- making decisions...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

okay- like I said above you are a waste of time. goood luck,

by bruh21 2007-07-03 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

OK -- bye bye -- back into the bunker you go...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

If you can show me how Democrats can solve the Iraq problem before Bush/Cheney are out of office then I'll give your position more consideration.

You seem to imply there is something that can be done between now and Jan '09 but I don't see anything getting fixed before Bush/Cheney are gone.

by Andrew C White 2007-07-03 11:25AM | 0 recs
He has said so repeatedly

See here for starters

I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that it will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that political battle too.

This approach is perfectly consistent with the so called "short leash" plan, where the Debacle will be funded in 3 month intervals. But it is only consistent if BOTH are done. The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.

The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.

Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can't end it on March 31, 2008.

This approach has the following virtues: (1) you are funding the troops in the field; (2) you are giving the Surge a chance to work; (3) you are laying out a plan the American People support; and most importantly, (4)you can end the Debacle and bring our troops home.

Now if your goal is to RUN on the Debacle (which is unattainable in my opinion, the ruse is too easily seen through) then you won't like this plan.

But if you want to run as the Party that ended the Debacle, or at least the Party that did everything it could to end the Debacle, then you must adopt the NOT funding plan. That means Reid-Feingold

by andgarden 2007-07-03 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: He has said so repeatedly

These folks are not worth it.

They do NOt want there to be another option.

I an done wadting my time on this.

There will be no impeachment proceedings and they will be shredding Dems for THAt instead of fighting to end the war.

I have no respect for them.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 12:16PM | 0 recs
A rebuttal to Big Tent's claims

Big Tent writes: (1) It will NEVER happen and, ironically, yesterday's event reinforces this. Bush's approval ratings are likely to increase slightly as a result of his actions yesterday - as his wingnut base will rally to support him. This makes the chances of garnering GOP support an even longer shot than it was before - when it was impossible.

As long as Nancy Pelosi and other like-minded individuals keep saying what they're saying then it won't happen. As I tried saying before, when the first bill to impeach Nixon was filed, ONLY 25 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SUPPORTED THE IDEA AT ALL. He was after all, onlt to years prior electe by a landslide, unlike George W., and was very popular back then. Despite it all, hearing were still held, the crimes were exposed (on TV no less), without all the spin, and the public and Congress turned. Bush and Cheney deserve the same attention and would get the same result, especially given their current approval ratings. I also think their crimes are much much worse then Nixon's. After all, if John Dean of Watergate fame write a book called, Worse Than Watergate, shouldn't our bells and whistles being going off ny now? I mean the guy LIVED Watergate!

Big Tent writes: Remember, to remove Bush from office requires a 2/3 vote from the Senate, which means 17 Republicans (I count Lieberman as a Republican) must vote to remove from office. It simply will never happen. No realistic person can think it will. So let's be clear, impeachment here is nothing but a symbolic gesture.

Impeachment is in the House. Removal is after a trial in the Senate. There is NO REQUIREMENT that there even be a trial after impeachment. It is its own punishment, and while it may not remove the president or Veep, it WILL send a message to future presidents that you cannot behave as Bush and Cheney have done.

and one other tibit, BIg Tent, there were only 58 Democrats in the Senate in 1974 --NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH TO EVICT NIXON--and the House went ahead with impeachment. They weren't uptight and worried about how this as going to make them look like in the end, in fact, it made them stronger, not weaker. And Carter was elected president too!

Big Tent writes: But since they can not be removed, then it simply is not.

the ramification of Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table"  do-nothingism in defesne of the Constitution, along with Congress' failure to stop the war, has led to a plummeting in support for the  Democratic Congress and the Democratic Party, no?  If they continue to do so, I predict they are well on their way to blowing the coveted 2008 election (which man hold so dearly to).  If onlt they'd stand up for the Constitution and conduct investigations, and do it proudly, using their congressional standing to explain the importance of their actions, I guarantee it would be their best chance of winning in '08. With all due respect, but don't you think you have it backwards? IMHO, the Dems won in 06 because they portrayed themselves as fighters and sold themselves to be an effective opposition. Now they stand exposed as wimps, cowards, and lack of principle because they're willing to kowtow to a president and veep who may well be the least respected leaders in our nation's history. IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY! If the Dems continue on the path they are leading, history will not treat them well. Kinda like the "good Germans" of WWII.  

Big Tent says: (3) Impeachment would preclude discussion of of all other issues, most notably Iraq. Indeed, impeachment would be the worst possible development for ending the war in Iraq. It supplants getting out of Iraq as the centerpiece issue for progressive activism.

As far as I what I learned, impeachment would in large part be about the war, and contribute to ending it once and for all.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time. They did it back in '73-'74 and they can do it again. During the Nixon impeachment, we got OSHA, the EPA, the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and more.  The Clinton impeachment process ONLY TOOK FOUR MONTHS!  With all the available evidence now, I'm confident it won't take as long as that.

The important hearings are in the Judiciary Committee. What else does it have to do? Not much with the war, as far as I know.

Big Tent writes....: Last, and probably least, the progressive base and the Netroots would be utterly defanged and treated as completely irrelevant if it chooses to waste its time on pushing for impeachment. No more than a handful of Democrats will vote for it. The Media will portray as on par with 9/11 conspiracies. It is to throw away the progressive base and Netroots' power as a Left flank in the political discourse. It relegates it to crazy Larouche status.

Dude, are you looking for blood libel or what? Just because that nut job is for impeachment doesn't mean the Founding Fathers and those who follow them aren't! There are a lot of psychos in the world today who don't think impeachment's a good idea either, ya know?

So are you saying that it's wacko to say the Constitution is in danger and that impeachment, as defined in the Constitution, is the appropriate remedy? You once said impeachment is a radical tool in the arsenal. I don't. I see it as a conservative toll in the arsenal. You're preserving and maintaining the status quo from change, regardless of the good or bad intentions. If you think that's crazy, then whatever.  

Impeachment expert Dave Lindorff lives in a town where Republicans rule. I can't tell you how many times he's gotte a thumbs up when he goes out in public and weara an "Impeach Bush" t-shirt. I've heard tons of stories of people wearing them in airports (actor Tim Robbins for one) and also get more praise than jeers. I think that says something.

Big Tent says: In short, I can not imagine a more harmful cause for the progressive base and the Netroots to embrace. It will make the day of Republicans across the country IF Democrats followed such a lead.

I can: How about caving in to the Pelosi/Emanuel/Schumer idea that doing nothing is the best way to win in '08?

I've said it again and again, the Dems are NOT going to end this war from here on out passing all the bills they want. Seriously, who thinkg the Dems are going to end this war, ESPECIALLY since they just bought it two months ago. It's their war now, and we know which Dems are on the receipt.

And finally, Big Tent writes: Fortunately, Democrats will not. But they will nonetheless suffer because the progressive base and the Netroots will feel betrayed that Democrats will choose to not follow them over the cliff. Thus, there will be negative ramification for Democrats anyway.

But my ultimate bottom line is that the essential role the progressive base and the Netroots can and should play on ending the war in Iraq will be completely squandered. That is the part that I will find hard to forgive. Truthfully, I find it difficult to not be enraged at Netroots leaders like Meteor Blades who should know better. Knowing him, I must say I am pretty shocked by his irresponsible behavior. I hope for him coming to his senses soon and ending this harmful campaign.

The only harmful campign I know of is Pelosi's and the Democrtic leadership's disgraceful effort to crush an organic, bottom-up, and diverse grassroots movement of all people, from all walks of life (don't believe me, come to Vermont!) -- I can only imagine what Thomas Jefferson would think if he read this diary. He'd be going apeshit over ALL OF OUR timidity in stopping this insanity.

by Brattlerouser 2007-07-03 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A rebuttal to Big Tent's claims

Good One...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I was for impeachment before I was against it.

BTD to a point, then what digby said pushed me off the fence:

Impeachment
by digby

by jen 2007-07-03 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Didby vs. Turley

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/17 turley-on-nsa-spying-i-dont-know-of-a-m ore-potential-charge-of-impeachment

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/28/nsa- turley/

Turley convinced me... now or never.  We can't let these crimes go by.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Since Congress is NOt empowered to enforce the  law that Turley point is utterly stupid.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

explain.... Turley wrong -- you're right -- ok listening.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

The Congress does not have the power to investigate crimes.

That is an executive power.

Very simple.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

link?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

You need a link for THAT?

forget it  then. You do not know the basics of Constitutional law.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Jesus you're arrogant and sure of yourself...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

No, this is basic.

That you think it is arrogance demonstrates your ignorance.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-04 01:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

You are still making no sense... is it pride, arrogrance, or ignorance on your part that you do not want to admit that impeachment is what both the vp and president deserve?  That you still cling to your way for the highway.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-04 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Investigation

In all prior impeachment proceedings, the House has examined the charges prior to entertaining any vote. 13 Usually an initial investigation is conducted by the Judiciary Committee, to which investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented. However, it is possible that this investigation would be carried out by a select or special committee. 14

The focus of the impeachment inquiry is to determine whether the person involved has engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. If the House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, determines that grounds for impeachment exist, a resolution impeaching the individual in question and setting forth specific allegations of misconduct, in one or more articles of impeachment, will be reported to the full House...

Surely for high crimes -- the judiciary committee has some involvement?

a quick link: http://bogota.usembassy.gov/wwwsimpe.sht ml

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Impeachment is not a criminal investigation.

No one goes to jail if they are impeached and removed.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

You are making no sense...?

Turley (re. just 'one' case of Bush and giving the finger to the Constitution): "and that is, you know, for many years, since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that this was a clearly criminal act that the president called for. ... If we're right, not only did he order that crime, but it would be, in fact, an impeachable offense."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Law_Schola r_Wiretap_subpoenas_may_open_0627.html

Okkkk? so why would Conyers not pursue, this avenue to start off the 'political' process of impeachment proceedings? Anything to start investigations off -- especially on this criminal act alone?

Your strategy of trying to get some brain-dead dino's to agree to not "fund the troops" vs individuals like myself who want to kick the dems into upholding the Constitution, allowing for Congress to show some backbone -- exert some checks and balances is beyond me...

If those dems can't stand behind the Constitution then they don't deserve to be re-elected in 2008 -- and stuff HRC 2008 chances...  

The lack of spines, the wimpering, those scary elections that come up every two years... for god sake what's the point re-electing democrats -- weak

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

It is being investigated.

Are you fucking NOt aware of that?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-04 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Of course I do -- I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise...  Grow-up!

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-04 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Also I've already said that we don't have the number to remove in the Senate -- because we haven't filibustered for six years... the corruption is well and truly entrenched.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-07-03 06:51PM | 0 recs
Oh, for God's sake

Stand on this ground, Armando!  Flesh this out!  Is it something being a crime that cuts it out of Congress's purview?  What is the scope of Congress's oversight power?  Its subpoena power?  Take as much rope as you want to hang yourself with this one.  You're going to say that it's the Special Prosecutor, acting for the DOJ, that actually investigates, aren't you?  Well go that final step, Armando -- does that mean that Congress has no power to investigate a high crime or misdemeanor, especially one against the naked Constitution?

Volunteer to write Fielding's brief for him on this.  That'll boost our chances.

by Major Danby 2007-07-04 12:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, for God's sake

Criminal enforcement, you dishonest poseur, is the purview of the Executive.

A very simply point you dimiwitted game player.

An impeachment proceeding is something else altogether.

Go back to Daily Kos please. I have left the premises and been quite happy, in large part because I never have to deal with you and your dishonesty.

Go suck up there and please leave me alone.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-04 01:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

No one is saying to let the crimes go by. But impeachment or not, investigations must go forward. It's obvious impeachment is not going to happen before Jr's term is up. That doesn't mean focus should be taken off investigations.

by jen 2007-07-03 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

And what happens when Bush blocks Congress's power to investigate by refusing to cooperate?  Which, in the case of the USA scandal, he just did?  What does one do then if not prepare the ground for impeachment -- or give up on those investigations?

by Major Danby 2007-07-04 12:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I don't buy it.

BTD argues that "the votes aren't there" is a good reason against pursuing impeachment, but not a good reason against pursuing defunding of the war.  His distinction is unpersuasive.  Either we're allowed to take into account what's politically possible or we're not.

BTD contends that defunding is achievable because it only requires Democrats.  That's true in theory, but in practice we have only the Democrats who are in office and no other.  Perhaps Dick Lugar will never vote to defund the war, but neither will Carl Levin.  We have no mystical power to control Levin's mind because he has a D next to his name; he is unreachable.

You can proclaim until you're blue in the face that all the Democrats have to do is refuse to pass a war funding bill.  But not enough of the Democrats currently in office are on board with this approach, and it's not realistic to think that all the holdouts can be persuaded.  BTD's logic is that a bad Dem can be successfully pressured, but a bad R is simply a fact of life that we can never do anything about.  In reality, there's very little difference.

Either we can take political feasibility into account or we can't.  Whatever the issue may be.

by Steve M 2007-07-03 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

If my position is true in theory,. the question is is the possiboility of removal true in theory?

It is not.

You reject my reading of reality by I don't know what reasoning.

Democrats v Republicans is my evidence. You reject that reality?

The best you can do is reject BOTH impeachment and my approach. you can not be for impeachment and against my approach.

Your comment makes no sense.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Who said I was for impeachment?  Do I strike you as the pro-impeachment type?  Your response is quite strange.

What I argued is that if you think impeachment is unrealistic, then you should concede defunding is unrealistic by the exact same logic - the votes are not there for either one.  How you got from that to thinking I am pro-impeachment and anti-defunding is beyond me.

I think you are guilty of collective thinking - the same brand of thinking that blames "the Dems" for not getting something done when in reality only a few bad Dems were to blame as individuals.

You argue that "the Dems" have the power to accomplish defunding on their own.  But "the Dems" is a group comprised of individuals, some of whom are against defunding and are not going to change their minds.  To the extent any of these individuals are vulnerable to pure political pressure - "we'll vote you out unless you change your mind" - I see no reason to think some individual Republicans are not equally vulnerable.

I'm not one to rain on anyone's parade because I think energy and grassroots activism are critical to our political movement.  But since you asked, yes, I do disagree with your approach, because I think defunding is not going to happen.  By arguing that defunding is possible, you create unrealistic expectations and encourage people to turn against the Dems - collectively - as if they're just as bad as the other guys.

I'm not any happier about the present state of affairs than you are.  But I agree with Howard Dean that there is nothing wrong with this country that can't be solved by electing more Democrats in 2008, and that's my goal.  You want to fight for defunding in this Congress, it's a free country, but I think you're being just as unrealistic as the impeachment advocates you deplore.  Neither of you will get your way.

by Steve M 2007-07-03 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

But the circumstances are DIFFERENT, not the same.

Logic requires that different facts CAN reslt in a differebnt conclusion.

Your complaint makes no sense.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

BTW, ny focus is on the House of Representative, not the Senate.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I mentioned Lugar and Levin because I think they are accessible examples.  I don't think very many of the House Democrats who oppose defunding are open to reconsidering their views; for some reason, which I cannot explain, they have it in their heads that defunding is like the worst thing ever.

by Steve M 2007-07-03 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Do you think that 218-169 Democrats are equivalent to 17 GOP Senators?

I do not.

Therefore, you do not disagree with my logic, but with my assessments.

You argument is based on different perceptions, not different logic.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

You also ingore politcal consequence.

In essence, you ignored my post almost in its entirety.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I don't feel it's necessary to get past your first argument, which is that it's not going to happen.  This is because, if it's not going to happen, nothing else matters.

Do I think defunding, if somehow it happened, would have negative political ramifications for the Dems?  Ehhh, that's hard for me to answer, because in a political environment where we could get a majority to defund maybe we could also get some Democratic voices who are willing to defend the decision and explain why there's nothing wrong with defunding.

In the present, cowardly environment, where Dems have given the GOP all the sound bites they could ever ask for about how defunding would abandon our troops in the field, etc., yeah it probably would have negative consequences.  I'm not saying things ought to be this way, but that's my opinion.  I'd like better Dems too, I guess.

by Steve M 2007-07-03 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

But that is absurd.

The CONSEQUENCES of trying are absoluterly important to the analysis.

I think your comemnt basically strikes out on all counts.

The essence is your different perception of the reality of defunding.

Which is fine, but not a logic issue.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

How very Bush-like to insult someone and then refuse to post the answer. I think most people here agree that impeachment will probably not happen; however it's imperative that something be done to keep these crooks under control. The only alternative right now is impeachment proceedings which at least give the semblance of somebody doing something. Hot air won't do it and as for the argument that it's too time -consuming, I think Clinton's travesty took only about 45 days. Conyers and Waxman have a truckload of documents, etc.; it's time to put them to use.

by donjo 2007-07-03 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Did you just compare someone to Bush? You are the second person to do that here today. It's really trollish to do that.

by bruh21 2007-07-03 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

It is a waste of time to discuss this seriously with such as that one.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-03 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle


BTD,

Take a deep breath and relax.

I'm reading your comments and all of this is driving you crazy. Maybe you've been spending too much time on the computer.

Do yourself a favor. Walk away from it, and go do something healthy. Go out and enjoy your 4th of July. Just get away from the computer. I think it would benefit you, dude.

by Brattlerouser 2007-07-03 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle


BTD,

Dude, do yourself a favor and walk away from the computer. You've been thinking too hard, writing too much, and getting way too testy with people you disagree with.

Go out, relax, and enjoy your 4th of July. I think it will do you some good.

by Brattlerouser 2007-07-03 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Seriously? Some of your supercilious comments are the most hilarious I've read in some time. Keep up the good work. Why is anyone who disagrees with your enlightened lawyerly premises considered some sort of trogdolyte? BTW, I think most of us trogdolytes out here in reality-land favor some action on impeachment by a large margin. It will probably never happen, like your solution of de-funding the occupation, but there's no law against wishful thinking - and I wish both could and would happen.

P.S. If you want to carry on a "thoughtful" conversation with others with a "superior" mind and law-school education, may I be so bold as to suggest you do it in private rather than on a public blog? Otherwise the trash just gets in.

by donjo 2007-07-03 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

You're a wuss.

by donjo 2007-07-03 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

Well- Obama goes further but saying Bush's actions don't even WARRANT impeachment!

by annefrank 2007-07-03 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

What a joke of a blog. Any dissenting opinions will be deleted, removed, or blocked. This one is called, what? MY DIRECT DEMOCRACY? Even the name's quite ludicrous. Ciao!  

by donjo 2007-07-03 09:19PM | 0 recs
Consider this:

A formal impeachment process will expand the Dems invetigatory powers while putting Bush/Cheney's crimes front and center in the media spotlight. If serious crimes are exposed, why would not the voters punish the Senate Republicans who vote to acquit rather than the Democrats? How is this a loser for Dems?

And how does it prevent them from withholding funding for the war?

by miasmo 2007-07-03 09:34PM | 0 recs
Armandoverandoveragain

[I posted this up above, forgetting that it would be squeezed like a long trail of toothpaste into the right column.  So I'm posting it again down here.  If this is a bannable offense, let me know.]

In my experience there's usually little point in arguing with Armando once he gets wound up tightly enough.  Someone alerted me to Armando's antics here and it led me to go retrieve my MyDD password.

Armando (BTD) called me out in a diary last Saturday, which I encourage everyone to read -- http://big_tent_democrat.mydd.com/story/ 2007/6/30/142248/428#readmore -- after my diary on impeachment was (to my surprise) promoted to FP.

Please, if you will, read his diary before you proceed.

[...waits...]

Now: did you get the sense in reading his diary and cutting through the thickets of invective that I was promoting impeachment on the sole ground of Bush's refusal to honor Congressional subpoenas into the many investigations -- including that of AG Gonzales, whom Armando  evidently would also like to be impeached -- should that behavior persist?

Did you get the sense that I was not yet advocating impeachment on any of the substantive grounds that impeachment advocates -- thoughtful ones, who argue that even a failed impeachment can have a positive effect, because they are not as cocksure about their ability to predict the future as is Armando -- propose?  Did you get the sense that I remain a skeptic on those, and would return to a "wait-and-see" position if Bush did relent on this issue?

If not, then there was something critical missing from Armando's diary.

Armando calls me "dishonest" here -- it would probably be impossible to pin him down as to precisely why, beyond totalizing and unsupported invective, but I'll venture that it comes down to my rejecting some putative "fact" that boils down to his opinion -- and says in his June 30 missive that he knows why I wrote the diary(!)  Evidently, he thinks it was to suck up -- to someone, I'm not sure whom.

Having the advantage of living inside my own brain, I am well-aware of why I wrote that diary: because I think that Bush's move to neutralize Congressional investigations (ones based on the suspicion of actual underlying crimes) when he doesn't like where they are going is an awful precedent, a nuclear bomb of a move, and that Congress must be ready to pull out the heavy munitions to oppose it, as a matter of maintaining its institutional relevance.

That's why I wrote it.  That's why I'd be willing to support impeaching Bush over it if he does not back down.

Now, as to Iraq defunding, my opposition to it was mostly prudential.  It's true that a united Democratic caucus could refuse to fund the war, and I don't like they way they played their hand.  But we don't have a united Democratic caucus; we have a caucus that -- for understandable if not admirable reasons -- is not willing to stand by waiting for Bush to pull out what they fear could be a deadly successful PR campaign about Democrats defunding the troops.  That's why I concentrated my energy on other approaches to stopping the war.

Armando suffers from a malady common among academics, which is that, having come up with an idea and convinced a few friends about it, he's convinced that it's brilliant and anyone who doesn't see that must be blind and/or daft.  The problem with this approach to life is that sometimes one's ideas aren't actually all that perfect.  Most intellectuals learn, in time, to let go of the ones that go splat.  Others continue howling at the moon forever.  I would have wished a better fate for Armando.

Now, why the personal attacks from Armando?  He'd probably say it's because I kept hounding him in comments.  You can read his last month or so of comments in DKos and see whose deportment you prefer.  In my opinion, it's actually because of our disagreements over policy towards Cuba, which I generally tried to soft-pedal around him while we were cavorting the same pasture.  One day I didn't quite so much, and right after that things went sour.  Coincidence?  Maybe.

Speaking of which, I don't spend much time here on MyDD -- just because I spend so much time elsewhere -- so if anything amusing happens that suggests I really have to return soon, drop me a line at senecadoane@lycos.com.

by Major Danby 2007-07-04 12:10AM | 0 recs
Your dishonesty

never surprises.

Please do me the favfor of never interacting with me again.

Right your responses at daily kos.

You are dishonest dimwit sucking up to other dimwits.

I have no, ZERO, respect for you and see right through your game.

I ask you again, do not interact with me.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-04 01:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Your dishonesty

Armando does not want me to interact with him, so this is addressed to other readers other than Armando.

Armando demands that I not interact with him or else ... what?  He'll go onto a progressive blog and loudly (and groundlessly) call me dishonest, because it's the worst thing he can think of being called?

Let's review this play.  He calls me dishonest, I show up to challenge him, and he says "don't interact with me"?  Honestly, he used to be a lot better than this.  This is just sad.

Someone else may want to forward this to him, since I have to assume he doesn't want to read this:

* I challenge him to cite evidence of my "dishonesty."

* I challenge him to parse the sentence "Right your responses at daily kos."

* I challenge him to explain how I could be "sucking up to other dimwits" -- where "dimwits" in his lexicon evidently means "advocates of impeachment" -- when I have come out for (1) being prepared to impeach solely on grounds of obstruction of justice, based on refusal to cooperate with Congressional investigations into underlying criminal behavior, rather than impeachment at this point on any substantive ground (the latter being the strongly preferred position among DKos pro-impeachment types), and (2) for making the point publicly that if any quid pro quo can be found such that Bush's commutation was the price of Libby's silence, that too would constitute impeachable obstruction of justice.  Not much of a suckup when one doesn't go along with the program.

* I challenge him to set out in writing, right here and now, what "my game" is.  Am I fighting to become FPer on DKos?  To write a political tell-all book?  To become Pope of the Left?  Armando should really present his actual claim here rather than a dark hint.  Not to me, of course -- he isn't interacting with me -- but to the rest of you.  Otherwise, how will you know he was right when he shows up later and claims that he was right?

Armando acts as though his groundless assertion of "dishonesty" on my part is something I should, well, I don't know, I guess just ignore.  Nope.  I know many people still respect him for the intellect and presence he once was -- I still respect that old presence, and wish it had not devolved into this -- and so when he makes claims like this and I find out about them, I'll set the record straight.  Even in -- gasp! -- his diaries!

Oh, by the way, I've been continuing to fight the fight for rational discourse on Daily Kos -- still the world's largest political blog -- while Armando decided that it was more important to abuse people there than to remain.  I wish he had made a different choice, even though I don't miss the likes of this tripe.

by Major Danby 2007-07-05 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

aravia-cockfights are illegal in the US.

by Miss Devore 2007-07-04 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

I agree that an actual impeachment would be better for the bad guys than it would be for the good guys but the movement to impeach is very valuable since it moves the window, which is something that the good guys couldn't possibly be worse at doing and which the bad guys have perfected.    

by eRobin 2007-07-05 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle

by Major Danby 2007-07-05 03:51PM | 0 recs
Rising to the andgarden challenge

After this exchange about me:

Armando: Major Danby, a newly minted impeachment proponent, OPPOSES my proposal as "unrealistic."

MB is just wrong.

Danby is dishonest.

andgarden: yes, Danby is incoherent on this issue too.

I challenged andgarden as to my "incoherence" and he said:

According to you, defunding is impossible because the Democratic caucus isn't united behind it. If that's true, then how could it ever unite behind impeachment? And given that an impeachment conviction requires many Republicans in the Senate, why on earth would you focus on it?

Andgarden's two hidden assumptions here worth bringing to the light:

(1) If the Democratic caucus won't unite behind defunding, it could not unite behind impeachment.

(2) There is no reason to proceed with impeachment unless it leads to a conviction.

One problem is that andgarden (like Armando) lumps together all flavors of possible impeachment as having the same probability and value.  They aren't all the same.  That's why I have proposed impeachment on a narrow ground, as well as favoring further investigations, rather than broadly.  But let's take these one by one:

(1) The Democratic caucus won't unite behind defunding because it expects the sort of Republican response that Garry Trudeau laid out in a wonderful week of Doonesbury in mid-May:  that refusing to provide any funding for the war would be taken as "insulting and abandoning the troops" rather than "forcing Bush's hand to withdraw them."  Some of them further look towards the day when Republicans will claim that it was the Democrats, rather than the Republicans, who "lost Iraq," by giving hope to the enemy.

Both of these GOP positions are wrong.  But Democratic fear about how they will play with the public is quite valid.  This is one of the "lessons of Vietnam" -- or, more properly, "post-Vietnam" -- politically.

I thought, and think, that there were ways around these problems.  Democrats should have pushed Bush until he folded, and either accepted timelines or the quite reasonable "Murtha II" positions.  That they didn't even do that is good evidence that they were not prepared to let the public see them -- even if wrongly -- as "owning" the loss of the war.  The right wing of the Democratic caucus would never let go of their fear of being stomped over this, without much better reason to believe that they and their party would not be punished for it, and many of the moderate votes for anti-war measures were, I believe, for show.

Now, compare that with a situation in which there is reason to believe that Bush has been committing crimes -- not ones about which one can (however speciously) argue, like violating FISA, but real crimes like obstruction of Justice -- and has been blocking Congressional investigation into those crimes.  Do I think that the Dem caucus can unite behind saying that "yes, the President must comply with Congressional investigations into these underlying crimes, and if impeachment is the only way to force that, that is what we'll do"?  Yes, I do think that the Dem caucus is more likely to unite over that, largely because it is defending an institutional as well as partisan prerogative.

As for whether one can impeach and fail to convict but still come away with a political victory -- sure.  Let's say that President Bush invited Nancy Pelosi into his office and then without provocation tortured her to death while simulcasting it on Fox.  The DC police, under the guidance of the Executive Branch, are prevented from arresting him.  And let's say that 34 Republican Senators bought his view that this was an act of self-defense in some way, as defined by a signing statement.  We would fail to remove him for that.  And yet, I suggest that the Democratic Party would still win by impeaching him over that rather than by -- just imagine this for a moment -- sitting by and simply censuring the President or something after he had tortured the Speaker of the House to death on national TV.  It would help cement the GOP as the party of sick twisted wackos and knaves who must be stopped.

The question, then, should not be "is there any reason to impeach if you don't think you can win," but "is this a political action that, even if unsuccessful, still brings credit and honor and support to the party"?  Let's talk about that.

By the way, andgarden, I don't think you established with your response why I was "incoherent" on this issue, so we can talk about that instead or as well.

by Major Danby 2007-07-05 04:21PM | 0 recs
I think it's fundamentally incoherent

to agitate for an impossible goal when you have rejected as a lost cause a more easily attainable one.

I suspect that you, like many of the rest of the Impeachment supporters, have latched on because you want an impeachment show, not because you actually think you can change anything.

by andgarden 2007-07-06 07:15AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads