Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A simple analogy to show why "IMPEACHMENT ASAP" is wrong.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
ddbaj Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:28 PM
Original message
A simple analogy to show why "IMPEACHMENT ASAP" is wrong.
Edited on Mon Dec-11-06 08:29 PM by ddbaj
Imagine you're a prosecutor and you're trying to solve a triple-murder. You are fairly sure of who did it but you're case is still pretty weak, enough to indict but likely to end in a not-guilty result.

Would you go ahead with it anyway, because it's your duty to indict criminals, or would you perhaps wait a few more months, build a really solid case, THEN indict the guy and have him thrown in jail for his murder?

Would a prosecutor who takes the "solid case" option be ignoring his duties?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. But that prosecutor might think differently if he knew that the criminal
is a coward and will cop a plea (i.e: resign) at the first sign of cops at the door. (faster than Nixon, I'm sure!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. To continue the analogy: The killer is still killing and getting away with it.
Even though the "case" is weak. Do you risk bringing him to justice, knowing that he's guilty, or allow him to keep killing.

As Bush is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Your analogy is based on the assumption that there is no "solid case."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. or a jury that wouldn't convict
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. To use your analogy...
Imagine your a citizen who stumbles upon this murderer in the act of committing a crime. Would you wait to gather more evidence, or would you do everything in your power to take away his weapon ASAP and stop the brutality?

Iraq policy = murder.

Impeachment = stopping the brutality
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddbaj Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Impeachment would not stop the war.
How does it stop it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. It would be a HUGE step
Not in one fell swoop would the war end...but if we take the weapon away from the madman with his finger on the trigger, its a damn good start. And a hell of a lot quicker then gathering more evidence (when all the evidence is in plain site already).

http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/impeachment_1.htm

p.s. we DO indeed want the same regime change - just off on the timing :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Think of it this way:
Impeachment is like removing a fatal blockage in the aorta of the nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. Ha ha. Nice red herring. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. megaseconded
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. We know who's in charge & where the buck stops. We know who signed all the
Edited on Mon Dec-11-06 08:53 PM by 8_year_nightmare
legislation with his own interpretations that deviated from the intent of Congress & the Senate.

We know who is responsible for the invasion of Iraq.

This is a bit different than a murder mystery, although murder is involved in this man's callous decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
9. Impeach the bastards.
Sign the petition to impeach Crazy Monkey and his frog! The solid case is at the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. You're trying to use logic
This is a blood sport - you can't talk sense now that the smell of blood is in the water...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. The one who made it a "blood sport" is Bush.
We don't like our Constitution being flushed down the toilet, nor do we like the idea of our country picking on smaller, less sophisticated countries in order to take their oil & for the sake of raiding our treasury to line the pockets of corporations in the "rebuilding" process.

Got something against accountability for those who trampled on our Constitution for their own enrichment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I don't disagree with any of that
I think Bush should be impeached, that why what the O/P is saying makes so much sense.

The people who want to do it even before the Dems are in office will ensure that he is not convicted - what would that accomplish? He would get to remain in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. For me, it goes without saying that the hearings have to come first.
I probably should have made note of that in my earlier post. I'm not an advocate of introducing impeachment right off the bat, only that the hearings begin right away. If ever a president deserved impeachment hearings, it is this pResident. He played by Nixon's rulebook, only Bush took it step after step further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. I agree
I wonder how much of the disagreement here is semantical?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. What "people?"
"The people who want to do it even before the Dems are in office will ensure that he is not convicted" - Pray tell, who are these "people" that call for this miracle? And how do these "people" have power and control over congress to pre-empt any conviction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
16. It's wrong because Congress is no longer in session
From what I have seen in the past few weeks, there are people who are mad that the incoming Congressional members didn't impeach Bush before they were even installed! They're actually complaining about them not doing anything, before they are legally able to do anything!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
18. Bull Dookie ...
Your premise is inaccurate.

You assume that we don't have a case. That's pretty inaccurate from where I sit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
everythingsxen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Really?
Are you a sitting member of Congress? You have actual evidence of impeachable offences? Please, let's see them. Please also cite which laws were broken and how.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. FISA ...
Where have you been?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC