Impeachment or ending the war?

Which one would you pick if you had choose.

It needs to be DONE, and done completely. Those that let Nixon slide 30 years ago set us up for this black hole we're in now.

need to be held accountable for their crimes or we are through as a republic.

The GOP isn't going to totally roll over on Bush, not on that issue. They may break with him on the war, but not on impeachment.

To get an idea of how long an impeachment process might last, let's look at how long the LAST impeachment exercise, which, once it got rolling, moved at a decent clip, took:
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm


September 24, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee announces the committee will consider a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Clinton in an open session on October 5 or October 6. ...


October 2, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee releases another 4,610 pages of supporting material from Ken Starr's investigation, including transcripts of grand jury testimony and transcripts of the Linda Tripp-Monica Lewinsky tapes.


October 5, 1998: On a 21-16 vote, the House Judiciary Committee recommends a full impeachment inquiry. ....

November 19, 1998: In a marathon session, Independent Counsel Ken Starr outlines his case against President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee, saying Clinton repeatedly "chose deception." Democrats grill Starr about his investigative methods....

December 1, 1998: On a party-line vote, the House Judiciary Committee expands its impeachment inquiry to include alleged campaign finance abuses, approving subpoenas for Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI Director Louis Freeh and federal prosecutor Charles LaBella.

... December 18, 1998: The House of Representatives engages in a fierce, daylong debate whether to impeach President Clinton. A CNN survey suggests there are enough votes to approve one or more articles of impeachment.



December 19, 1998: After 13 1/2 hours of debate over two days, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment, charging President Clinton with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton vows to fill out his term and appeals for a bipartisan compromise in the Senate.



OK, we aren't even out of the HOUSE yet--gee, that was "only" four months and back-and-forth wrangling (and I am not even counting all of the investigatory actions and political wrangling that preceded this four month perios)...NOW, at long last, on to the SENATE:

January 5, 1999: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott announces President Clinton's trial will begin January 7, but senators continue to wrangle over how long the trial should be and whether to call witnesses.

January 7, 1999: With ceremonial flourishes, the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of President Bill Clinton begins in the Senate, with the swearing in of Chief Justice William Rehnquist to preside and the senators as jurors.

Blah, blah, blah...parliamentary wrangling, delaying tactics, aggressive defenses, justifications....


February 9, 1999: Senate begins closed-door deliberations on President Clinton's fate, after rejecting a "sunshine" proposal to open the proceedings to the public. .....

February 12, 1999: President Clinton is acquitted of the two articles of impeachment. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats vote "not guilty." On the charge of obstruction of justice, the Senate is split 50-50. Afterward, Clinton says he is "profoundly sorry" for the burden he imposed on the Congress and the American people.


Wow, how nice--just over a month for the Senate, faster than the House. But then, they knew damned well they weren't going to convict him for, in essence, a blow job. They knew the knives would be out by angry investigators everywhere, the Larry Flynts and others, seeking examples of GOP blowjobs to throw in their hypocritical faces.

They had to make it look as though they were actually deliberating--so they made it look good and spent a few brief (for the Senate) moments examining the evidence. Even at this relatively breakneck pace, this process isn't looking too "speedy" is it?

Five MONTHS between the first step, the Judiciary Committee announcement and the Senate aquittal. And a boatload of chatter before that first step, too.

A lot of young men and women could die in that time, for what?

To satisfy a revenge fantasy?

And just as long. Veto Veto Veto Veto Veto Veto Veto What don't you get about that?

choice. That's the way the OP was written. One or the other--YOU choose.

We aren't talking "from reality" in this thread. So votes aren't at issue--you can pick one of the choices and, voila, it happens. The only thing is, you can pick ONLY one.

So, your choice--impeachment or ending the war?

Once Impeachment is accomplished there will be no end to the good that will follow. It won't even really take removal from office but I don't see where that can not happen as well.

House Judiciary reporting out, to acquittal, was FIVE MONTHS. I posted the timeline elsewhere in this thread.

Now, will this Congress be able to move as quickly? I don't think so. I think the GOP will throw up EVERY roadblock they can to slow the process down to a crawl.

You're saying you can live with five months, minimum, of dead Americans coming home while impeachment plays out?

Anything they pass relating to the war will be vetoed. Congress is quite capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. They can vote on Impeachment and then after it goes to the Senate they are free to do other business. I don't understand your logic...

You can have--no vetos, now--in a fantasy world, one thing or the other.

You GET a wish, see? That's the construct here. It's a mind game. In this game, CONGRESS isn't in charge of what happens--YOU are. But you can only have ONE of the two choices.

You can get your impeachment, or you can get the war ended. Which do you prefer, removal from office/revenge or saving lives?

The OP has given you a choice--it is a FANTASY choice, but it's a choice. You hold the magic wand, see?

That said, you think the war would end just with impeachment? President Cheney would carry on smartly.

As much as I'd like to see the Iraq war ended, I'd have to vote for impeachment. Maybe that would keep them too busy to move the troops from Iraq to IRAN for the NEXT war.

As much as I'd like to see that gang of thugs impeached, the senate's time is better spent ending the bloodshed.

source of bloodshed?

I'm not totally convinced they're out to start a war with Iran.

I think they very much want to.

Bush** and DarthCheney will keep the war going as long as they are in power.
The only way to end the war is to remove them from power through impeachment.

keep on sending bills to lord pissypants for a timeline, and he huffs and puffs, and our Congress runs away each time to change it, impeachment is the only resolution, don't these senators get it yet? bang them against the ropes hard, apparently the Repigs have no problem doing that to us.

Ending the war stops this war. Impeaching George Bush may still stop this war but also will, at the very least, discourage future wars and may prevent them altogether.

They are not mutually exclusive.

You can only pick one.

what's more important--extracting revenge, or bringing them back alive.

If the Democrats don't act, history will view them as enablers, who cared more about consolidating personal power (2008 elections) than protecting the Constitution.

:shrug:

Of course, these postulations aren't reality-based, but assuming we actually could pick just one, the one that will save lives--ending the war--is the appropriate one. The revenge fantasty is just absurd. If you impeach Bush, you get Cheney. And if you impeach Cheney, you get whosoever HE appoints as his VP--how about Senator "Losing It" McCain? And while impeachment grinds on, for a month or six, more kids die in the sandbox.

It has a side benefit that the war ending would completely destroy what shreds of credibility this administration has left. They like 'caging?' Well, they'd be caged, unable to prosecute any agenda at all.

Upthread I pointed out how long it took two lousy and simple Articles of Impeachment to get from the House to the Senate, and then to trial and aquittal.

Five months. Not counting the shenanigans and posturing that preceded the House announcement.

A lot of people can die in five months of war.

Keep in mind, the original question. You have the power, and YOU can only choose one.

I choose live soldiers over revenge fantasies.

THERE'S a positive move.

Better they die hearing insults in Arabic than insults in Farsi?

:shrug:

I don't want them to be pulled out of Iraq just to be thrown into Iran. And that's the most likely result of leaving Iraq at this juncture without crippling the cabal that put them there.

administration to prosecute any future wars, though. No one's going to believe his justifications if his first war is rolled up and put away by the adults in charge, will they?

What's the Monkey's saying? "Fool me once, won't git fooled agin'?"

Near as I can tell, that Iran Scolding thing that Lieberman ginned up was NOT a war authorization. It was more on the lines of "Resolved, We know Iranians are coming over the border and shooting our guys" type thing.

Are you saying that the Congress would be conned...again? I'd be surprised if that were the case. And I'd think they'd snap the purse shut tight, too. You can't run a war without money.

They'd spin it the way they always do and call it an "emergency redeployment."

And Congress would still have to be involved in any Iranian misadventures--that's unavoidable, because it is an act of war against a separate and distinct nation.

It's not a 'redeployment' when you're going into a separate, sovereign nation. And Iran isn't Cambodia. We can't "pretend" we were never there.

Assuming, that is, that impeachment and ending the war are mutually exclusive.

Edit: Grammar.

another idiot as bad as Bush anytime real soon?

The unfortunate reality is that we don't retain those lessons of war. Look at Vietnam. That wasn't that long ago, but you'd swear all these assholes have complete amnesia. If that didn't discourage us from going on foolish adventures, what will? 58K dead, and here we are again...

This mess we are in now is Vietnam without bar girls, easy sex, an abundance of drugs, good food, and of course, the draft, and with turbans, body armor, plenty of casualties but fewer deaths, and a different style battlefield alltogether.

And the Congress voted to let Bush start that war. If he's impeached, it won't be for any of that war stuff. Because they went along with the program.

only if it was for starting this war. Impeachment for other purposes would not act to deter future war prone Presidents.

...but being as we are murdering tons of Iraqis every single day and every single day an American youth is sent home in a box, I would have to say...End the War. ...but Bush would just start another one. Being president is a sociopath's wet dream.

I want both.

Lee

Absolutely necessary!

and yep, the '74 legislature could chew gum and walk at the same time, why can't these guys do that? Or rather, why don't they want to?

???????

We really are capable of multi-tasking.

Really.

The reason is simple, without Impeachment of these treasonous war criminals the war will never end anyway.
The ONLY way to have a chance of ending this war and also stopping the next one with Iran is to stop these bastards and do it NOW!.

Don't mistake Impeachment for the disease, its the cure.

If george is impeached, then cheney becomes president. So then comes impeaching cheney. For as much time as both would take and the votes needed to make both happen it seems to me that we've got a better chance at ending the war rather than impeachment of both a president and vice-president.

The question is fallacious. They have refused for fucking years to end the war.

That is why there must be impeachment. There is no alternative.

to me it seems naive to think that if by some miracle that both Cheney and Bush are impeached that the war will end. Sure there might be a gradual drawdown, but troops will remain in Iraq for some time, IMO. I don't like it, but let's face reality. It will take anywhere from 12 to 18 months to pull our troops out safely and responsibly.

As I said before, we have a far better chance of ending the war with elections not far off than we do of impeaching both bush and cheney.

think that it would change the Iraq policy, then I am not sure what to say to you.

So I would prefer impeachment

Ending the war would follow -- hopefully.

Impeachment first, then we'll end the war.