What are your theories as to why impeachment was taken off the table?

We are going to suffer the consequences for a long time and people like myself will trust few to no one in government or on the air.

:shrug:

Edited again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

is real and palpable

I had that talk with a US senator some years back...

Off the record, this is it

And I consider you not one of the "conspiracy crowd". I can understand the fear.

but the real fear started not with Anthrax, but with Paul Wellstone

And if you paid attention (and you have) you know they really started folding after Wellstone's funeral

Problem, as he put it, is... message received but they cannot prove it LEGALLY.

It makes me sick to think about what cowards we have in Washington.

Afraid of what Bush and Cheney would do to them next. Keeping their jobs was more important to them than doing the right things for the country like they swore they would do. Afraid of being caught with their lapel pins down.

We may be talking of the safety of family members here. And no, for the record... at this point, I most definitely would not put that past them at all.

be when they begged for our votes?

Edit...what if Patrick Henry had had Nancy's attitude? Or the "Unknown Soldier"

people had rather keep quiet.

They were afraid of being called out for not doing their jobs as legislators and impeaching for revenge for Clinton's impeachment.

I think they wanted to be above that sort of thing. Not realizing of course that impeachment was the only way to reign in this administration.

And, I do believe that they knew they'd all lose their jobs too since the corruption throughout Washington is not just a Republican hallmark, it's a political one.

It would have been a lot easier if we'd rid the White House of them in 2004 so they couldn't say everything they do is mandated by their victory.

when it is shown they fully knew about illegal torture and/or other crimes?

We have so much work to do:)

figuratively at the very least if not literally in some cases. I can see a well-orchestrated campaign of fear, even death threats by the rwingers in order to protect * and Cheney.

edit: You're talking about going up against the Bush family, whose patriarch was head of the CIA, POTUS, who some believe has ties to JFK assassination, and whose family has a long and world-wide influence. I'd rather piss off a Mob boss than Poppy any day.

Fear that the effort would fail and it would be perceived as a waste of time, payback for the Mickey Mouse impeachment of Clinton, or that Generissimo Bush and Vice Premier Cheney, surviving the counter coup attempt, would be emboldened to fuck up with impunity.

As for the last point, failure to impeach has wrought plans to attack Iran. So we didn't need to impeach the bastards in order for them to think that they can continue to fuck up with impunity.

Political, and likely psychological fear. The Dems knew after 2006, when they could have Impeached, that they were moving up, and the pukes were moving down. They wanted the WH and a New Majority. They were afraid that if they attempted Impeachment, and it was stonewalled by the pukes or even if successful, they would suffer a backlash.

Our last hope is they get something moving,now. Or, our last last hope is they start after Obama wins the vote in November. They could Impeach and Convict these War Criminals in 2 months easily. Kucinich, Wexler, even Conyer and Waxman have files and files of all the evidence they need. Go,d I hope they do it. I am not holding my breath, though.

I think that's why Conyers/Waxman etc are waiting. Get Obama in there and go to town on these bastards.

Obama already stated he'd allow this stuff to be pursued, UNLIKE Bill Clinton. Billy boy let the stench of Reagan/Bush go unaddressed. Nice.

Better keep McCain out of there if you want results.

What would Hillary do? Same as Bill? That's what I suspect, but I don't really know.

I've suspected so for awhile. I've held my fire though.

what's there to be afraid of? flames? nah.

Democrats have a collective culture of looking for the longterm progress. In the long run, we'll leave Iraq. In the long run, gay marriage marriage equality will become law. Thus we tend to compromise on these matters.

Republicans have a collective culture of CASH OUT RIGHT NOW! LOCK IN THOSE PROFITS!. They don't care how bad they fuck up the country, the debt, the ecology, the labor market, or the world balance of power; they just care about turning a profit this quarter. You can always count on the Democrats to clean up whatever mess gets made in the process.

High government officials are vetted by and given sufficient financial support to run a campaign by the economic oligarchy. R or D have little or no meaning, and that which we call two-party politics is a stage show to distract the masses. Impeachment is "off the table" because those with the money (and assassins, if necessary) said so.

most likely.

With the illegal wiretapping that has been going on, I am sure that the Bush administration has goods on every person in Congress or one of their family members.

any investigation would expose their complicity.

...because the audience (i.e., $$$$$) might not tune in. Too soon after Clinton! That's one reason, along with some other good ones already posted here, such as the fact that too many in Congress would be implicated by their own failures in this national tragedy, and the "revenge for Clinton's impeachment" scenario, which no doubt scared off many. Cowards indeed.

It's truly absurd, and sickening, when you take five seconds to think about why Clinton was impeached, and why Bush has not been.

they know how to work the rules to the favor. Look at how Bush has been able to expand executive powers. Congress subpoenaed Cheney's office, but were stonewalled. Cheney claimed that since he was President of the Senate, he wasn't part of the Executive Branch. :wtf: Crafty indeed, like Dr. Evil. Impeachment would have been futile.

I think the GOP has threatened them. Remember, Bush has been wiretapping everyone he wants to since he's been in office.

unless they have something on her, which would not surprise me

While I believe both Bush and Cheney are guilty of impeachable crimes, I think there was (is) little chance that impeachment proceedings would be beneficial. For the most part, there is no public outcry for impeachment. For better or worse, the focus should be on moving past this regime and then correcting the damage.

On a practical basis, what would be gained by impeaching Bush? Does anybody really want President Cheney? Removing both from office is beyond the pale. I don't particularly want a President Pelosi and the partisan uproar would echo for decades.

The political will for impeachment has never been there. Impeachment would be seen as just more political gamesmanship and it was the right move to take it off the table.

For example, I saw a Gitmo vacation bumper sticker today. People don't know we've held innocent people there. The people in Germany had clues but not daily reports from their media either and plenty of propaganda. Freedom is something one cannot take for granted. But a highly propagandized society like ours is. We are not free.

They made the 1998 election a referendum on impeachment and got their asses handed to 'em.

#1, they realize the majority in the Senate is razor-thin, and were probably afraid that it would cause the majority to go back to the GOP this election cycle.

#2, along the lines of #1, for some reason I think the leaders (Pelosi, Reid, etc.) seem to have this line of thinking of, "we don't want to go after the administration....that'll upset 85% of the electorate". In other words they think the Bush administration has more public support than it actually has.

#3, if you recall a couple of days after the 2006 election, Bush met with Pelosi & Reid. Also, if you recall, the selling point during the run-up of that election from the Democratic Party was "oversight" and to get us out of Iraq. I believe in that meeting the impeachment issue may have been brought up, and I wouldn't be surprised Bush didn't offer up the following, "I'll work on an exit strategy on Iraq if you don't start any sort of investigations".....and since then, Bush has reneged on that, but Pelosi & Reid don't have the courage to do anything, and Bush knows that, going back to #2....they're paranoid that they'll receive a backlash for doing so.

real easy.

The war in Iraq was created for the war profiteers. There were other reasons, but that was the overriding one.

Some corporations = war profiteers.
Congress + Senate = owns those stocks.

Stocks = $$$$

Nancy Pelosi = sorry.

Even though some seem to not think about this I think Pelosi looked at 1974 and its results and thought why give a possible Republican candidate a few years to become comfortable with the American people. Many people who supported impeachment thought Pelosi would be President if Bush and Cheney were impeached. That is the way it is written in the Constitution, but in 1974 Nixon and the Republicans found a way around that by having the Vice President resign first so that someone from Congress could be appointed Vice President and then move to the presidents spot after Nixon resigned. Dick Cheney was Ford's Chief of Staff for a while so he would remember how that worked in 1974. I contend Pelosi realized the Republicans would not allow her to be the President and that someone from Congress or another Republican would be picked when Cheney resigned before Bush. I contend Pelosi looked around and thought the Republican would most likely pick either Condi Rice or John McCain to be the Vice President. If all of a sudden the Democrats decided they no longer wanted to impeach Bush the Republicans could have used that against the Democrats. Therefore, I contend Pelosi looked around and decided it would be better for the Democratic Party if impeachment was taken off the table.

Spiro Agnew was governor of Maryland before he became Nixon's running mate. While governor he was taking kickbacks from contractors; he continued to demand tribute while vice president, so the contractors turned state's witnesses. Agnew copped a plea that included resignation from the vice presidency.

I think there are four reasons why impeachment was never pursued. The most minor one is concern over how it would look to impeach a president during a war, even if he needs it like this one does. Many people would find the impeachment beyond the pale, and they'd blame the Democrats for impeaching him instead of Bush for giving them grounds to. Second, they know all the witnesses would claim executive privilege and never show up to testify. That includes dipshit, unless they want to send the US Marshals Service to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to pick him up.

The second most important reason to not impeach is the composition of the Senate. We've got a majority there, but you need a two-thirds supermajority. Drop Lieberman out of the Democratic equation, and the Senate is evenly balanced, meaning you need to get seventeen Republicans to vote against Bush. You couldn't get seventeen Republicans to vote with the Democrats if the question on the floor was, "should we order pizza for lunch today?" I doubt you could get more than a couple if the question was, "should we fire the president for starting an illegal war most of you guys support?"

The most important reason to not impeach the village idiot is a question that can be answered by Patrick Leahy.

eom

It was probably for that reason and to protect Obama and McCain too as well as the rest of the complicit and corrupt bastards in Congress. :grr:

There is no political reason why, when the fucking nation is clamoring for the impeachment of the President, who is a war criminal and a member of the G.O.P., a Democratic Speaker of the House would not let the will of the people be done.

She is complicit in their crimes.

because they go with Repugs (for most part) to give them the RW Creds with their votes on Legilation and then they come out, after their vote complaining about how the Repugs MADE THEM VOTE BAD for AVERAGE AMERICANS...so then they tell us to put "MORE DEMS IN" for the "Mid-Term and General Elections" and that will FIX IT ALL.

Dems are always running for office...and Repugs with their "base" are always looking to LEGISLATE... The Repugs "always make Hay when the Sun is Shining" and the Dems are always looking for that "Rainbow after the Thunderstorm." :shrug:

that the citizens actually have a voice

occurred, or thinking something occurred, is very different from proving it. Even if you have SOME evidence, the level of evidence one would need for impeachment is mind boggling. Add to that the fact that the Congress is still pretty much split 50-50 Republican-Democrat...well, you can see the problem with getting votes for impeachment.

At this stage, we have so many problems, and the perpetrators are almost out of office, that the country would end up spending a couple of years trying to impeach people who are out of office. Which would take time and money away from other very serious concerns.

The evidence just doesn't seem to be there. Where are the audio tapes? Where are the statements under oath of illegal acts?

for non-criminal abuses of power, also. Nixon faced a range of issues, including criminal and abuse of power of his office. Both Bush and Cheney have abused the power of office, and in Cheney's case in particular, the proof was solid.

My opinion is based in part upon some conversations with a person who works for a representative in Washington. In 9-01, the Vice President instituted the "shadow government," which was reported 6 months later in the Washington Post, and is noted in Senator Byrd's book "Losing America." It took the power to deal with international affairs from the legislative branch. An attempt to impeach would have met with resistence, due to the "emergency" state of affairs that the executive branch had convinced the country existed. At this point, it is unlikely that the public would react to serious investigations in the way that congress assumed they would have two years ago.

Fear of physical harm to self and/or family

Fear of political backlash

We are controlled by no kidding, honest to god, I ain't kidding, really true, literal, criminals and thugs who will stop at nothing to win.

when warranted, and i can't imagine it being more warranted than with these criminals

and the bushes, pelosi, reid, et al are all members of the same class.

they will quibble over who gets the biggest hunk of roast beef or who gets to sleep in the biggest bed, but that's all just thieves fighting over the division of loot. But when the cops show up, they all defend the hideout.

They all are parasites. They all are the enemies of anyone who is not super wealthy or directly dependent on the largesse of the super wealthy.

The planet can not survive another generation of their rule.

and it is Blackmail. Theres no doubt that bushco is using fear as their thrump cards on all of us