How about unlawful surveillance of senators and congressman? Would not be the first time.

The republicans were already found snooping on democratic presidential campaign computers.

see J. Edgar Hoover, illegal wiretapping, and influencing elected officials.

The Democrats in Congress are not cowards. They are Machivellian's without principle. They have concluded (obviously on no evidence and wrong-headedly as usual) that the Republican Party is self-destructing, and that they can win in '08 by standing to the side and letting it happen. They see cutting off funding for the war, and impeaching the president and/or vice president as risky actions that could possibly hurt their chances, so rather than do the right thing, they will do nothing.
Of course, they are wrong on both counts. Standing up and doing the right thing to defend the constitution and to end the war would cause a wave of support for democrats. Meanwhile, as the polls are showing--with support for the democratic Congress down at 23 percent, even below bush's 27 percent rating, and with Pelosi's support in her home state of California at just 39 percent--it is clear that Democrats are killing their chances in '08 with this do-nothing strategy.
But that's what Democrats have been doing for several decades now--listening to idiot strategists who have been handing election after election to the Republicans, who are clearly the minority party.
We're headed for another disaster, I'm afraid, with Congress in the hands of the most pathetic leaders in a generation or more.

DAve LIndorff
author: The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now in paperback)
www.thiscantbehappening.net

Dave, I can't agree with you, the Democrats are cowards. They are taking the fear route, avoiding "risky" actions. They don't see the world in terms of doing the right thing, but what they - erroneously -perceive to be to their benefit. I'm baffled that they can't see how disgusted the public is with them. The DLC is killing what's left of this party.

The Democratic "Leadership" doesn't care two figs about the voters. They are motivated by service to their corporate masters, and pursue policies accordingly. The battle between Democrats and Republicans is a dog-and-pony show, put on for the benefit of a credulous public. The the real policy decisions remain insulated from any popular considerations.

Dave Lindorff, Brown is right. You over-generalize. So does the article author Rosenberg. It would be more accurate to substitute "corporate Democrats" where you say "Democrats." We have some progressive Democrats who are not woosing out, who are not cowards, and who are not merely worshiping at the alter of power. Kucinich, Lee, Lewis, McDermott, Woolsey, Watson and several others are true progressives. Several have sponsored H. Res. 333 for example. It is better to distinguish between those politicians who support the status quo of the corporate regime (corporate Democrats) and those who seek a new progressive regime (progressive Democrats) than to put all Democrats in one category. Let's not condemn or ignore our own progressive allies in Congress.

Generalization is dangerous. Don't forget H.R. 333, Dennis Kucinich's courage, and the other 13 or so who have since signed on.

Dems and repubs are just two wings of the same party...the war and business party. There needs to be a third party that represents the people only, and not the corporations and warmongers.

it will be very hard not to vote for the democrats in 2008. but their refusal to take their oath to uphold and defend the constitution and impeach cheney is as serious a breach of the law as cheney's long list of crimes. this is as clear of an indication as i have seen that we, the people, must do something to throw them all out. i have no idea how this might be done except through a nation-wide refusal to send them our money. our votes are all bought by corporate ads (we don't have great choices in the first place). we'll never do it in the voting booth. the laws are rigged to keep them in. and the media is in cahoots with them anyway to keep the status quo. even though the dems are less loony than the neocons, 'less loony' is not a great slogan to win on. i protest the war and wave signs on the street to impeach these guys every week. our group is not growing but the honks are increasing every week. it's hard to get people to march these days but it wouldn't be hard to get them to send their taxes somewhere else if something could be organized. and it wouldn't even have to happen. just the threat would create such panic in them, they might start to do what the PEOPLE WANT, not their 'corporate paymasters' (Michael Moore's word).

Once again an article about Impeachment that does not mention Dennis Kucinich's HR 333, which has been around since last April. Are all of these writers so ignorant or ??????? What is it about Dennis Kucinich that evokes such fear that journalists (see Moyers show last night on Impeachment on PBS for example)won't mention him, Sen Clinton and John Edwards want to exclude him from the debates and even Michael Moore hesitates to ever mention him even though he endorses the Conyers-Kucinich bill HR 676 for Universal, not for profit healthcare. Why is it now with the clear majority against the war that Kucinich's HR 1234 to end the war never gets mentioned? Why is he not more popular when he is the only candidate who has been against the war and voted against it and all funding for it from day 1? Is it because he has 'no strings' to corporations, that he is that an oxymoron of an honest politician, that with Kucinich in the White House it would be GAME OVER?

Stockholm Syndrome Sufferers on the moderate left are confused about the Democratic Party. They see it as an end in itself instead of a (possible) means toward an end. Many of the more popular blogs advocate this squeamish "don't rock the boat so we can win in '08" philosophy.

Actually this is a moment to forget partisanship and do the right thing for the country. Perhaps, as you argue, this will not have a negative impact on Dem chances in '08. But this constitutional crisis we face right now is more important than either party. It cuts to the heart of what our democracy is about.

I love this country--and by that I mean the people of this country and the institution of democracy--far more than I love the Democratic Party. Outcomes be damned--THERE IS NO CHOICE BUT TO PRESS AHEAD WITH IMPEACHMENT.

Aren't you glad we only have two parties? (Or, as Gore Vidal says correctly, one party with two right wings?)

As long as that's true, get used to the Dems prevaricating, and posturing, and triangulating, and generally disgusting. Their so-called strategy is based on "just like the Republicans, only not quite as bad" -- hardly a platform to inspire.

We need a real third party. I don't care if it's Green, or Socialist, or John Birchist. The mere existence of a viable third party will change the dynamics in DC. And if those dynamics don't change, nothing will save us.

It takes a Democrat to lose even when the prize has been handed to them. They're more concerned about being nice to their friends across the aisle, the Republicans.

Why not? I don't think they want to. They just can't admit it like the Republicans can.

The Democrats are counting on us being so fed up with Republican politics that the Dems get the votes in 2008. What they're not counting on is that we'll also be so fed up with spineless Democrats that many will vote 3rd party.

Bush is not alone in all this terrible mess.
He had the unequivocal support of Senator Liebermann, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schummer etc.
Are these senators representing the US or the expansionist interests of Israel?

I think people underestimate the population's desire to conform.

Anyway, a democratic politician's desire not to take down the federal government seems self serving. Long after Nixon, Democrats have made an effort not to destroy the presidency. I tend to wonder if DC beltway politicians are afraid their hat will be handed to them too. I think of how the Democrats have handle some of the largest scandals over the years (see Hamilton), and how complicit the party comes off. I liked to nominate the image of the spineless Democrat be challenged with the image of a complicit team player, waiting for their chance to serve the ball.

What would happen if a group came along and stopped the game? In the US you need representatives to champion the cause-- be it impeachment or what have you. Yet the majority of the Democrats voted in these days are either Blue Dogs or DLC. Not exactly the types one goes to when looking to challenge the system.

http://speaker.gov/contact/

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

TO: Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Why do you enable Criminals?! The President and Vice President are war Criminals. When the International Criminal Court in The Hague convenes a hearing on the U.S. war of aggression in IRAQ your INACTION on IMPEACHMENT will mark you as COMPLICIT.

Seriously everyone, does the title of this article really need an answer when it is so painfully obvious why??

I understand the logic behind the democrats allowing the republicans to implode in order to achieve their ends.

Also, there is a mode of behavior where one would try to act better than the other party - as a kind of moral high ground type of thing. Particularly after Clinton you can see why there would be this kind of thought process.

Referring to Gore Vidal here again, I took his suggestion and read Charles Beard's "The Rise of American Civilization." It would be difficult to find the actual reference, but he writes about the ruling parties acting in a certain way in order to preserve the ruling party - themselves. Saving their own collective ass so to speak.

I really think that this also applies here because what you have with Bush and Cheney is a complete mockery of American/human values. What I mean is that if you have to impeach these s.o.b.'s you call into question on some level the American political system itself - is it at this point a joke? who or what exactly is it for? It certainly has the appearance, what with Clinton and Bush, that the system is falling apart.

Here you have a group of criminals, whether they have come to grips with this in their own psyche or not, who have taken over the joint and kind of exposed, without even caring that they did so, it's murky underworld side. Speak of transparency, we certainly all know a lot more now about the brutality of big business and it's alliance with the government.

The problem with all of this for the democrats is that if they can't stop Bush, and if their concern is for the sanctity of their party, or for the office of president, they are putting all of us at tremendous risk at the hand of individuals who would have no compunction, ie, of escalating these wars, on others, on us, on the globe, out of all control. Then there had better be a god, and hopefully not Bush's.

The author's conclusions don't follow the premises. Given:
(a) Extremely low ratings of Bush and Cheney.

AND

(b) Desire to advance their party in the next round of elections.

THEN

Like any other political force, they'll hit their opponent when he's down (always the best time to hit), capitalize on public dislike of him, and push their agenda forward, reaping all kinds of political perks and bennies.

BUT WAIT -- they don't. What's wrong with the analysis here?

The better conclusions:

(1) The Dems were put into power by many of the same corporate interests and lobbyists (AIPAC, etc.) that put the Rethugs into power. (2) Many/most of them are just DINO's anyway (Democrats in Name Only), with voting records -- and lack thereof on badly-needed legislation that they refuse to write -- that little differentiate them from the Rethugs.

The left hand isn't capable of cutting off the right -- the same brain runs both.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."—Voltaire

Letter after Letter saying the democrats are no better than the repubicans, Ralph Nader has
been saying this for the last 25 years and the same people who are saying these things are
also saying "Please Ralph, go away!" Nader did not cost Gore the election, if Gore had carried
his own home state, he would have been elected. I for one hopes Nader runs again.

There is an Indian fable about several blind men who were asked to describe the elephant after using the sense of touch to examine the elephant. As each touched a different part of the elephant, they each came up with a different description of the elephant. One felt the leg and declared the elephant was like a large tree. Another felt the tail and declared the elephant was like a snake. etc.

Progressives, seeking to change problem(s) in society, are like these blind men. They are blind in that they think that changing a single individual (Anyone but Bush), or impeachment, or putting the Democratic Party condidates (who often support the same perspective as Republicans), will magically save the country or fix global warming. Merely fixing the technology of voting will not fix the destruction of democractic processes.

The many and specific problems that are revealed on Common Dreams or radio programs such as Democracy Now!, keep us forever like the "blind men" in the Indian fable. The "progressive" world-view is incapable of "connecting the dots". The Progressive world-view refuses to examine the root cause of the global crisis of survival facing humanity today.

Both Democratic and Republican parties, and all of their individual candidates, are merely the representatives of the ruling elite or class. They are a "class" because of their massive wealth derived from their ownership of the means of generating wealth.

The war in Iraq, global warming, the increasing impoverishment and death of humanity, ultimately is linked to the global capitalism that is destroying us all.

The capitalist system (massive exploitation and destruction of the many to the profit of a few) must be ended if humanity is to survive.

Check out Monthly Review magazine:
http://www.monthlyreview.org

and daily World Socialist Web Site:
http://www.wsws.org

The democratic party leadership has already lost me and will not regain me in time for the next presidential election. The time to talk about the war was 3 years ago, and thousands of lives ago. Now it is too late.

I will pick an independent who had the integrity and awareness to realize that the war is wrong when they first realized it, as opposed to those who use it for their opportunistic purposes.

Hillary was for the war when she thought that it worked to her advantage (getting votes, money etc), and now she thinks that being opposed to the war works more in her favor (getting votes and money). Sorry. Using her own words, "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." ~ Hillary Clinton February 2007

Stand up for peace - www.NotOneMore.US

Rudyjo-

Exactly.

Not One More...

"I will pick an independent who had the integrity and awareness to realize that the war is wrong when they first realized it, as opposed to those who use it for their opportunistic purposes."

You have just described Dennis Kucinich in the above! So why won't you vote for him? Were not people so programmed about "party", then Mr. Kucinich would win the primary by a landslide! It is my hope that the "open mike" incident will be enough incentive to make him see the light and leave the the Dem party and go Indie. I believe his poll numbers would triple overnight!

Yes, this is, basically, a "one-party" corporate system. The good news is that that gets us one step closer to a "NO PARTY" system, making ALL Indies and issues more important than bucks and rhetorical bullshit.

http//:www.kucinich.us

Impeachment? Why bother to impeach in the House if there is absolutely no chance to convict in the Senate?

You need 67 votes, including 16 Republican Senators to convict in the Senate.

You couldn't get 16 Republican Senators to convict Bush if he painted a swastika on his ass and ran around the Capitol naked for the next 6 years!

Check out Crossing the Rubicon at Amazon.com. This would be a good time to do so, See if it rings true for you. Mike Ruppert is the author. I can't vouch for the accuracty of the info, but there are 1,000 footnotes.

Maybe they know that if they did start the process, they would get some mail laced with Anthrax. What happened to the nice man from Dakota who was a dem leader in Congress. Just who were the targets of the anthrax mailings. NEWSMEDIA and DEMOCRATIC LEADERS in Congress. And who has been investigating, Gonzo and his boys at the Justice Dept. Every Dictator should have a bunch of thugs called THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Impeachment, though it might satisfy our craving for some visible form of revenge for the outrages wrought by the president and his gang, would, unfortunately, probably not succeed in bringing about the essential to the restoration of our constitution. It might even delay other actions of substance. My fear is that such delays would be counterproductive. We took a major step last November, though we are obviously icreasingly impatient and worried that the changes we seek won't happen while we watch those to whom we entrusted our vote flounder in trivial games. We must make a major effort to take full control of both houses of the Congress. Unless we can do that, all else is futile.

This is to Mr. Brown,

I have a question for you, why did Mr. Kucinich withdraw from the last presidential democratic primary in 2004, a day before the convention started?

I think that even though Kucinich is generally thoughtful and sincere (I actually supported him throughout that primary), he put party loyalty ahead of core principles. And while I can't speak ill of him, I find that I can't support him for president.

The country needs someone who puts the public trust, honesty, and justice first and foremost, not second to party loyalty.

I have never heard Mr. Kucinich adequately address why he dropped out or the race.

By dropping out, Mr. Kucinich let down a lot of supporters who worked hard to get his message out. More importantly, Kucinich allowed the anti-war, pro-peace message to be silenced since he was the messenger and it wasn't addressed during the democratic party convention. The democratic party leadership took the pro-peace platform off the table, like they are taking impeachment off the table now. (Yes, I know that Mr. Kucinich has an impeachment bill pending).

Sometimes you get to do a do-over, sometimes you don't. That is why when you have a chance, you better do the right thing.

peace, justice, and human rights for all

www.NotOneMore.US - Pledge for Peace

One more illustration about the Democrats being such "cowards". From today's WSWS:

US Senate unanimously passes threatening measure against Iran
By Peter Symonds
14 July 2007

(Link to full article:)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/iran-j14_prn.shtml

"A little publicised amendment to the defence spending bill denouncing Iran for the "murder" of US soldiers in Iraq was proposed by Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman and passed unanimously in the US Senate on Wednesday. ..."

It could be that they just do not have the votes. Why waste time on an impeachment that is going to go no where?

Henry Hyde and his Republican minions had no such thoughts when I came to Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. They went ahead and wasted the people's time on an impeachment about trivialities that was never going to go anywhere.

Were they thinking about the well being of the country? I do not think so. Illegal wiretaps violating the FISA laws thousands of times is a HUGE violation of the law and most definitely cause for impeachment.

However, until the people elect 60 Senators, there is not a snow balls chance in you know where of having justice prevail.

The best thing that could happen to this country in 2008 and that the American voter is left with only the "choice" between the corporate Dem and the corporate Repug, period. That's what they want anyway. They control debate at state levels on changing archaic ballot access laws to fair and equitable. And they have their own corporation running the national debates!

What this country needs is a good "sitting this one out" campiagn for 2008. Let 30% of eligible but misinformed and naive voters vote in their American idol corporate winner. We'll end up with one anyway. Let's face it. The masses have been programmed to feel uneasy and suspicious of third parties and scoff at independents as "spoilers". And with unfair ballot access laws and closed debates we will never see true democratic electyions in this country.

I'm just about ready to pack up and leave this madhouse. We'll grow cobwebs waiting for impeachment.

The article asks why Democrats are such cowards on impeachment (and, by implication, other things).

The answer is simple: one must go with one's strengths.

Why are the Dems such cowards?

STOP there, no need to go any further. Fail to impeach is one of many, many cowardly traits of the Dems.

"Why Are Dems Such Cowards on Impeachment?" They are not cowards, my friends. They are doing their job - to clean elephantine mess after the dumbest elephant. And they say "Everyone for oneself". Baloney, they are always cooperating. Donkey did heluva mess slavery and Elephant helped to clean it up at the cost of 600,000 lives. Then Elephant messes with our pockets all Roaring Twenties and who you would think came to rescue him? You're right, Big Donkey Franklin.
Now we have yet another mess of shrinking our government by selling it to the highest bidder. Great job, soon we will pledge our allegiance to one Big Pocket under Wall Street, wave Dollar Bill as Flag in exchange for life long employment, that is until death on the killing fields.

Meanwhile we will keep asking rhetorical questions and plutocracy will go on, and on, and on.

Dave Lindorf (second from the top) refers to that thing Republicans so love - the "war". Again I ask WHAT WAR? If you refer to the illegal U.S. military occupation of Iraq, use the word OCCUPATION. True, Republicans don't like either that word or the word "Resistants" instead of "insurgents" but let us not allow the Republicans to dictate our langauge.
We can only have a "war president" (if you insist on calling that moron a president) if there were a "war". "Occupation President" just doesn't have that ring.

Oh, one final comment: When a president signs a bill into law, it immediately becomes a law which he is duty bound to obey and enforce. Whatever he may like to doodle in the margins doesn't have one damned bit of effect on the Congressionally passed bill he just signed into law. If he violates it, he should be apprehended and taken into custody just anybody else. Being elected president (remember when we used to ELECT our presidents?) doesn't elevate a person to either sainthood or being a member of royalty.

So, again, it ain't a freakin' WAR. It is a freakin OCCUPATION.

JH,

What the hell are you talking about? The Republicans can't admit it either. Neither party can! It goes against conventional belief, or Party Politics 101.

As many have said, the democratic party is part of the problem not the solution. For all the "progressive" democratics in the party, get out and help build a party that represents the independent interest of the majority of people in this country.

Please check out the US Social Forum held a couple of weeks ago in Atlanta. People are building an organizaiton out of which could be the beginning of what we are looking for.

Please, the democratic party is dead. It is just that they keep pretenting to be alive.

Personally, I have no use for either Republicans or Democrats, it is one group of rich men vs another only marginally different as far as I can see. When we finally start electing real Americans to office and totally eliminate the corporate bribery we call campaign contributions, perhaps we will get our democracy back.

Hey, did all of you see the advertisement placed in the Washington Post by the White House yesterday?

It said:

WANTED: PLAYPAL FOR THE PRESIDENT

Apparently the story goes as follows:

Yesterday afternoon, the President was swinging from a treebranch by his tail, playing with his buddy. Someone failed to alert the White House security staff that "Deadeye" Dick Cheney was on the grounds hunting treesquirrels for dinner. Well, as Curious George's ill-fortune would have it, "Deadeye" Dick mistook George's buddy for a treesquirrel and fired. After thirty minutes, the White House medical staff was unable to resuscitate him, and now George is looking for a new playpal (preferably one who likes to play "war".) So, if you have any suggestions, you are encouraged to contact the White House.

Because the Democrats want the same power that the Republicans now wield.

Think of our disgust that we will have when Democrats start behaving like former PM Blair.

Didn't catch that story in the Washington Post, but this incredible!! confession by Bush on the front page of The New York Times really surprised me:

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq," he said, "were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home."

Get it??? Who were those "folks", folks???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2tITrgyfEs

mayor bloomberg is the only potential candidate whith the courage and talent to
bring peace to the Middle East.

"mayor bloomberg is the only potential candidate whith the courage and talent to
bring peace to the Middle East."

We appreciate that the use of "E" causes feelings like these. Thanks for sharing them with us.

Lots of interesting comments to read --
the majority seem to think it is cowardice.
And many of us are confused about it and what to do from here.

I was shocked when Pelosi made her "off the table" comment about impeachment. Why would she do that except to give aid and comfort to Bush?
So, to me, that's more than cowardice; that's helping the guy -- extending more than a friendly hand. It was a worrisome gesture to me suggesting a "don't worry," we can get along kind of signal.

Reid seemed to have some opening fight in him and then a big reversal. Now when he says they haven't "done enough," he seems to be sweating; worried, but not about those pressuring him to deauthorize Iraq, stop funding Iraq and to impeach Bush. His worries seem to come from another direction.

Meanwhile, as the public continues to bombard Congress with pleas to impeach both Bush and Cheney and to get our troosp out of Iraq NOW, more and more Republicans seem to be fading from Bush's side and more Democrats are calling for impeachment. But not Pelosi or Reid?

While I think it should be clear from our founders own words that impeachment is not about "revenge" but rather about correcting government wrongs/evils, the impeachment of a penis is a tough act to follow.

Perhaps in understanding the role that the "swiftboating" press played in impeaching a penis is a KEY to understanding why Democrats are reluctant to try to impeach Bush/Cheney for their evils?

Obviously, the press should be having a free for all with Cheney and Bush at such low numbers. But we can see that NOTHING is happening which would suggest the fascist house of cards tumbling down.

Yes -- we do have Keith Olberman/MSNBC with "The White House in Crisis" and his calling for resignations of Cheney and Bush.

Yes -- we did have FRONTLINE last night with Bill Moyers/Nichols/Fein calling for the impeachment of BOTH Cheney and Bush.

Yes -- there is also the Daily Show, now on vacation, but I don't think that even they have been able to keep up with the delusions and insanities of Bush/Cheney.

I noticed on Frontline that the "guys" seemed to agree that the real turning point in impeachment was the Libby "pardon" which serves as a kind of smoking gun signal of guilt and fear linking back to their lies about Iraq 9/11 and WMD. [And, in fact, imo, about 9/11, itself!!!]

To their credit, the "guys" all noted that Bush and Cheney were impeachable on many other really worse offenses.

Maybe not the worst offense . . .
but for me, my SHOCK METER hit its highest point about ten days ago when first Cheney claimed to be NOT a part of the Executive Branch and then Bush followed him into the dark abyss where no laws can reach them and surely no representative of our "people's government" can demand documents from them.

Granted TORTURE of prisoners, Rumsfeld's setting the dogs upon them ....these are the nightmares of anyone familiar with Hitler's rise.

Perhaps Pelosi and Reid recognize that the American people have no power; that it has long ago been transferred into other hands?

Our newly fascist Supreme Court also seems to be sending us that message; the 2000 election being one of the most arrogant and alarming of decisions and yet no one rose up to say it was wrong. Not even Al Gore.

AND . . .

Re this . . .
QUOTE: nodupe July 14th, 2007 8:39 pm
We are allowed to assume that some democrats may have participated in 9/11 massacre of American citizens. They are perfectly aware that with impeachment process in progress the crime of 9/11 would be laid bare and criminals within both parties would be exposed.That would put an end to this crimininal organization called Democratic Party. That explains lots of things.
UNQUOTE

I'm certainly open to considering that some Democrats may have been involved in 9/11 and if you have any information in that regard, I think you should share it.

I see no other reality than that Cheney was in charge of the 9/11 attack; arranged confusions re other training programs running; and ordered NORAD to "stand down."

they may not have the votes to convict, but i think the constitution pretty much requires the democrats to impeach both bush and cheney. all their crimes call for cessation and punishment.

if all those flag waving republicans really did love their country, they would be leading the charge to impeachment.

It appears that to be seriously taken as a politician one must have some blemishes in ones past that are documented, secret, and revealable by any number of methods at any time the "powers that be" want to do so.

Once that choker leash is firmly installed around their necks politicians know it's just a matter of time before they will be "outed" and ruined if tehy do not do as they are told.

This is how J. Edgar Hoover built and maintained funding for the FBI and how the military-industrial-intel-think tank complex maintains it's power. It will probably take violent executions to break the hold of such a group of despots.

to robert zimmerman: what do you mean by use of word "E"?
you don't agree michael bloomberg could end this disastrous war?