spiker:

You force him to cast a vote (or not) by honestly working your agenda.

I don't understand.

Pelosi/Reid could get a bill that says Bush is a bad, bad man because he won't take our troop out of Iraq (i.e. a resolution). Then vote on it.

Pelosi/Reid could organize an impeachment process for whatever crimes Democrats believe Bush and Chenney are guilty of. They take it as far as it will go. If it reaches a vote and Lieberman either votes with or against the bill, or not at all.

What's the problem in not understanding that Democrats are either complicit, hipocrites, or cowards?

I think the democrats could have done more than they've done.

What I don't understand is how they're supposed to force another Senator to vote a certain way. They could write up any bill they want, but if he disagrees with them then writing up an even stronger version of that bill is not going to make him change his mind.

If you think the Democrats should be working harder, okay, that's fine. But they can't be held responsible for Lieberman's actions.

You are forcing Lieberman to make a choice on behalf of his constituents. It doesn't matter if he votes with you or against you or doesn't vote at all. You force him to make a decision on a Democratic issue in a vote.

What makes you think I meant anything else other than that?

Because he's already voting on those issues.

The point that was made in mentioning Leiberman is that the Democrats don't have a full majority in the Senate on war issues because Lieberman votes with the Republicans on those issues. Thus, they can't do everything they want to do.

There's no need to force him to vote, he's already voting. The result of his voting is that he's voting against them, which keeps them from being able to pass certain bills.

Vote on impeachment based on the criminal act of fostering torture.

Vote on that Lieberman.

Even w/o Lieberman Reid could bring that to the floor if it came from the House.

Does Bush deserve to be impeached? I think so. I'm a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, but I think the things he's done deserve impeachment.

However, despite my opinion that he deserves it, I don't think it would do any good. The process takes a long time. Including the investigation that is a necessary first step, it took years with Clinton. Since Bush was only 2 years away from leaving office when the Dems took over, there was little point in it. It is also very divisive within the country and makes it harder for Congress and the President to deal with each other while it is happening. Plus, it would have failed because despite having a majority in both houses, they still don't have enough to actually do convict him. So it would have made the last two years of his Presidency even worse without actually accomplishing anything.

Sometimes the most drastic option isn't the best one.

Yes there was a decleration of War, Gulf War One. At the end of it a "suspension of hostilities" was put in place and during the Clinton years the war never really stopped. Each day there were hostile actions against the coalition forces and after many many resolutions by the UN and violation of those resolutions by Sadamm the war was ramped up and hostilities were resumed. How old are you, were you just not paying attention in the 90's?

Well, no. There was an authorization of the use of force.

Are you arguing that the current war was to enforce UN resolutions?

@ RM77:

When I say that the Congressional Democrats are cowards, don't think for a second that I'm letting the Congressional Republicans off the hook. As a Republican Senator, John McCain supported George W. Bush 95% of the time.

The presidential race is not between Barack Obama and Senator X as you seem to suggest. John McCain supported the Iraq War back to its inception, he supports it now, and he supports it into the indefinite future.

As for Obama's anti-war speech, read it and weep. Obama made nine substantial points about going to war with Iraq. He has been vindicated by history on eight of those points.

<link>

Obama 08!

"If not now then when? If not us then who?"

So it would have made the last two years of his Presidency even worse without actually accomplishing anything.

We could have ended up with civil disobedience like in the Viet-Nam era (w/ congressional leadership) that would have forced the administration to move out of Iraq.

Plus, otherwise occupied, Bush wouldn't have had the time to pass pre-emptive measures against global warming while accepting the fact of it. There are a bunch of issues that have been craftily preempted by addressing them rather than ignoring them like they had in the past.

No your logic on this from the perspective of Democrats doesn't see the reality of what happened when Clinton was impeached.

Clinton didn't get anything done either.