DLC Already Decided:There will be No Intention to Impeach in 06 or 07.

and that's why Feindold introduced the Resolution for Censure.

Nancy Pelosi made that clear in a press conference she gave a couple of weeks ago: Here's a thread I posted on the issue at the time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2489288&mesg_id=2489288

starting with their members in Congress?

Just asking.

What's provdided doesn't seem to equal the conclusion....

I like to think impeachment will soon follow a Dem takeover of the House. I don't see any reason to think otherwise based on your info. It seems obvious to me.

I quoted Nancy Pelosi pretty closely, as i posted just after the news conference - it's not only the words stated, but the tone.

I do not know at this time if C-span archives it's press coverages.
If they do, it's worth the time searching the link and checking it out for your own edicification. otherwise i'm sure there are news articles posted on this statement - the fact is it was played up by the likes of Tweety and others like him at the time..

probably do a google for the statement.

This report is a few days old and is not the press conference following the day after San Francisco Board of Supes voted for the Resolution to Impeach Bush and Cheney, which Pelosi rejected completely.

this report below follows Feingold's resolution for Censure, dated March 17th 2006. But it is an indication of intentions..

WASHINGTON — Censure President Bush? Impeach him? Or discreetly kill those ideas to avoid fueling Republican intensity?

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has chosen the “discreetly kill” option, arguing that the current impeachment/censure talk is just a pointless distraction from the party’s message.

“I think that things are going well for the Democrats right now,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday, alluding to recent data showing that a plurality of poll respondents would prefer a Democratic-controlled House.

So why, she implied, should Democrats risk spoiling the mood?

She rebuffed the call by Sen. Russ Feingold, D- Wisc., to censure Bush for ordering National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaida contacts with persons in the United States without seeking warrants from a court.

“I have no idea why anybody would censure someone before they have an investigation,” she said.

Just win in November
As for impeachment, Pelosi asked, “Why doesn't everybody channel their energy into winning the election and understand that elections have ramifications?”

Once the Democrats win the House in November, she promised, they’d seek to enact a job creation program, universal health insurance, more funding for public education, “energy independence, and real security for our country.”


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11866980/

:shrug:

on edit, i will just post Feingold's own words on this


<"But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong."

-Senator Russell Feingold, 3/16/06>

i see nothing about the dlc in this.

The DLC has nothing to do with Pelosi's decision right now, people really do overstate their power in hte party. Besides if we get a majority back in Congress next time around I think the priority outta be repairing some of the damage Bush has done to the country.

from making it to the full floor vote. that's where the power really is. in committee. it's why Republicans work so hard at defeating "DINOs".

You know its never happened once in his presidency. Truman had the do nothing Congress of 1946-1947, looks like Bush has a do everything Congress. I remember when Pelosi was chosen for her leadership spot, a lot of the ocngressional moderates weren't pleased, they wanted Hoyer.

in comgress are spineless, vichy dems.
How about a list of some of the other "useless, grandstanding" activities we engage in. I'll start:
Demonstrations
Candle light vigils
Calls to members
The Pledge
Flag Flying
Medals
Ribbons
Flag Burning
Petitions
Polls
Surveys
Bumper stickers
Road signs
Emails
Protest marches
Sit ins
Symbolic die-ins
Fasting
Prayers
Congratulatory Letters
Funerals
"Condemnation" of rogue nations
Arm Bands
Censure
Singing "We shall overcome"
Voting
What else hasve I missed?
Is the only thing that people like Nancy Pelosi will acknowledge as important or effective violence?
How hard is it to imagine that support for censure is the very thing that makes it effective? When a motion for censure or impeachment stands alone, without support, then and then only does it become ineffective grandstanding. Urrrg!`

They might just want him to stay in office for a full term so that he continues to screw up and drive more and more voters away from the republican party. When we get a majority in congress we can stop any resolution to attack Iran or any other major mistakes. Every day that Bush is in office more people become democrats. Would it be worth 1 more year of Bush for a period of 20 years of democrat control of congress and presidency?

Democrats elected to? The US is destroyed. And the Democrats have done a great job sitting back and watching.

create more Democrats, what it does is create more people who get disillusioned with all government and switch off from politics altogether.

It might be different if Democrat leaders did something to demonstrate that they had spine, that they gave a damn, that they would do things differently.

But people see ass-holes on one side running(ruining?) the country, and well-trained puppydogs on the other side, who won't even wag their tails without the Repugs' say-so.

:hi:

I think your suggestion has some merit. Especially since even if Bush were impeached, we'd then have Cheney - who would just be more effective at screwing up the country, IMO. I just don't see how Cheney is an improvement over Bush. (Maybe some folks here will tell me though)

OTOH, if we somehow take back Congress in '06 (which is the only way impeachment flies anyway), Congress could then thwart the whims of BushCo so much that he gets so pissy that he starts doing even wilder and crazier and more illegal things, in which case for the good of the country impeachment would obviously have to be undertaken. But in that scenario I mean so crazy that even some Repubs would come aboard, because it would hopefully be obvious to the entire country by that time that he's a nutcase.

and I know I can depend on r4p to do it. I have been thinking hte same thing for days, but because of my blatant and emphatic anti-DLC stance felt if I said it, the impact would be diluted. Thank you!

This is what I believe to be the absolute truth. The DLC has the money and, where the money goes, so goes the power... they are dictating (yet again) on this issue. Their cynical don't-rock-the-boat, play-nice-so-big-business-will-take-us-seriously bullsh*t is once again dictating the lay down and take it behavior of this Party! I am sick of it.

Thank you for saying what needed saying, r4p. This Party needs to get up off its knees and start swinging soon or we are down for the count. Why would America switch Parties to vote for the Democrats if they are nothing but bad carbon-copies of the Republicans?????? Wake up and smell the effing coffee!

TC

The DLC controls lots of money which they use to buy slots on ballots that might otherwise belong to Democrats. Who knows if Dems can win? There are a few remaining Dems in Washington--true, but more and more this small clique of a party is usurping their seats. Meanwhile, the real party, the remaining registered Democrats across the nation have no idea that they are voting for a corporate created party with a limited voter base.

Recently (reported at kos) the DLC is making fundraising calls to members of the Democratic party asking for bucks. Talk left vote right<---should be their bumper sticker.

than stand for something, for once--like presidential accountability. And it starts with holding an imperial president accountable for illegaly wiretapping American citizens. And don't forget we still do not know the extent of this illegal wiretapping.

Congress needs to hear from the NSA whistleblower. He offered to testify. Has he been called to testify or has his testimony been blocked by the Bush administration's lapdog Alberto Gonzales.

His name is Russell Tice and the NSA, not Gonzales, denied his rerquest to testify before Congress.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/11/1436222

NSA Denies Whistleblower’s Demand To Testify Before Congress

Meanwhile, ABC News is reporting the National Security Agency has denied the request of whistleblower Russell Tice to testify before Congress. Tice, a former intelligence agent at the NSA and Defense Intelligence Agency who has spoken out against the domestic spy program, was told he is not free to testify because staff members on Capitol Hill do not have high enough security clearance to hear the secrets he has to tell. Tice first spoke out on record on Democracy Now last week.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435201

AMY GOODMAN: What made you decide to come forward? You worked for the top-secret agency of this government, one that is far larger and even more secret than the C.I.A.

RUSSELL TICE: Well, the main reason is, you know, I'm involved with some certain aspects of the intelligence community, which are very closely held, and I believe I have seen some things that are illegal. Ultimately it's Congress's responsibility to conduct oversight in these things. I don't see it happening. Another reason is there was a certain roadblock that was sort of lifted that allowed me to do this, and I can't explain, but I will to Congress if allowed to.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the letter you have written to Congress, your request to testify?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, it’s just a simple request under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which is a legal means to contact Congress and tell them that you believe that something has gone wrong in the intelligence community.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you start off by talking overall? Since most people until recently, until this latest story of President Bush engaging in these wiretaps of American citizens, as well as foreign nationals in this country, perhaps hadn't even heard of the N.S.A., can you just describe for us what is the National Security Agency? How does it monitor these communications?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, the National Security Agency is an agency that deals with monitoring communications for the defense of the country. The charter basically says that the N.S.A. will deal with communications of -- overseas. We're not allowed to go after Americans, and I think ultimately that’s what the big fuss is now. But as far as the details of how N.S.A. does that, unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to say that. I don’t want to walk out of here and end up in an F.B.I. interrogation room.

AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, you have worked for the National Security Agency. Can you talk about your response to the revelations that the Times, you know, revealed in -- perhaps late, knowing the story well before the election, yet revealing it a few weeks ago -- the revelation of the wiretapping of American citizens?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT officer at N.S.A., we're taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this. This is probably the number one commandment of the SIGINT Ten Commandments as a SIGINT officer.You will not spy on Americans. It is drilled into our head over and over and over again in security briefings, at least twice a year, where you ultimately have to sign a paper that says you have gotten the briefing. Everyone at N.S.A. who’s a SIGINT officer knows that you do not do this. Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that’s a gospel to a SIGINT officer.

<>AMY GOODMAN: Were you ever asked to engage in this?

RUSSELL TICE: No, no, and if I did so, I did so unwittingly, which I have a feeling would be the case for many of the people involved in this. More than likely this was very closely held at the upper echelons at N.S.A., and mainly because these people knew -- General Hayden, Bill Black, and probably the new one, Keith Alexander, they all knew this was illegal. So, you know, they kept it from the populace of N.S.A., because every N.S.A. officer certainly knows this is illegal.

<>AMY GOODMAN: What about the telecoms, the telecommunications corporations working with the Bush administration to open up a back door to eavesdropping, to wiretapping?

RUSSELL TICE: If that was done and, you know, I use a big “if” here, and, remember, I can't tell you what I know of how N.S.A. does its business, but I can use the wiggle words like “if” and scenarios that don't incorporate specifics, but nonetheless, if U.S. gateways and junction points in the United States were used to siphon off information, I would think that the corporate executives of these companies need to be held accountable, as well, because they would certainly also know that what they're doing is wrong and illegal. And if they have some sort of court order or some sort of paper or something signed from some government official, Congress needs to look at those papers and look at the bottom line and see whose signature is there. And these corporations know that this is illegal, as well. So everyone needs to be held accountable in this mess.

Democrats will investigate and impeach Bush

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2521146&mesg_id=2521146