Gender: female Member Since: March 14, 2006 Last Signed In: December 11, 2007 Profile Views: 21277 Blog Views: 74765 Bond's record-setting baseball will go into the HOF with an asterisk. "distract, delude, amuse and insulate us." People trust the Democrats more than they trust Republicans. Are you smarter than the average American? Test your knowledge of the news.. Neo-Nazi's go after the Jena 6 Feds investigating Blackwater USA for weapons smuggling The death of the History of Civilization… The good General couldn't accomplish his first job in Iraq, why should we expect anything better out of his second stint there? Support Debra Bowen's decision regarding Diebold voting machines Coast Guard's Deepwater project price skyrockets June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 Its My Right to be Left of the Center Bring it On! Sirens Chronicles 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Democrats in Washington want to keep impeachment off the table
By Steven Thomma
McClatchy Newspapers "WASHINGTON - The push to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is gaining a hearing in some parts of the country, but not in Washington. More than 70 cities and 14 state Democratic parties have urged impeachment or investigations that could lead to impeachment. The most common charge is that Bush manipulated intelligence to lead the country into the Iraq war. Other charges include spying on Americans and torturing suspected terrorists in violation of U.S. and international law. Most recently, the Massachusetts Democratic Party voted to push impeachment of both men. The 2,500 state convention delegates voted almost unanimously against Cheney; the vote against Bush was closer. Massachusetts' Democratic Party thus joined 13 others on the investigate-or-impeach bandwagon, including: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Among the cities and towns, the largest and most recent is Detroit, where the city council voted 7-0 this month to urge Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney for "intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify the war." "There's a lot growing in support," said Tim Carpenter, the director of the liberal group Progressive Democrats of America. "Whether Congress will respond, that's another question." Indeed. The Democrats who run Congress have no interest in impeaching Bush or Cheney, despite pressure from their party's base outside the Beltway. It's noteworthy that impeachment pressure is coming from the home states of the two Democratic leaders in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Pelosi said last year that impeachment "is off the table." Under the Constitution, the House impeaches; the Senate then decides whether to convict and remove from office. It's also interesting that one of the resolutions came from Detroit, home to Rep. John Conyers, who as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would lead any impeachment hearings. The Detroit resolution was co-authored by Monica Conyers, the congressman's wife. But she hasn't had any noticeable clout at home: Conyers said last year that he wasn't interested in impeachment - just oversight investigations - and he hasn't changed his stand. There are both policy and political reasons that Democratic leaders are risking the anger of their base. One is that some don't see an impeachable offense in what Bush has done, what the Constitution calls "high crimes and misdemeanors." They might find such evidence in any of the many congressional investigations, but they haven't yet. Another is that they fear a political backlash from voters similar to the one that punished Republicans after they impeached Bill Clinton. One factor on the side of the pro-impeachment crowd: Clinton was much more popular than Bush. The third is that they're eager to keep Bush and Cheney around as punching bags for Democratic candidates in the 2008 campaign. "The political lens they're looking through is the 2008 election," Carpenter said. "They want to see Bush and Cheney dangling so the election is a referendum on them. That is not the correct lens." To him, the right lens is the last election, when voters threw the Republicans out of power in Congress. Those people, he said, now want Bush and Cheney out. "There is a groundswell here," Carpenter said. "Pelosi says it's off the table. It's our role to put it on the table."" 52 comments from 11 users
posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 02:18 PM
It may well be that the political mainstream in Washington are going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing. . Y'know, I just had a thought. What if Clinton's lynching had been successful, and President Gore ran as an incumbent in 2000 and 2004? Talk about unintended consequences...guess the right-wing dodged a bullet, which hit the rest of us instead... posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 02:21 PM
Thats an interesting spin Random about Clinton and Gore.
posted by
mattloch
on May 29, 2007 at 02:24 PM
There is plenty of evidence for impeachment charges to stick, it is just too bad that the political will isn't behind it in Congress..... abdication of their Constitutional obligation, that's for sure....
posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 02:26 PM
Turley states there have been numerous impeachable offenses, for quite awhile. I like that Professor.
posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 02:28 PM
Dusty, the Democrats can't get Republicans to vote for timetables on the war. How ya gonna get 'em to install Cheney as President? . Impeach Bush *AND* Cheney January 2009. posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 02:30 PM
No, they go after Cheney first Random..jeez :P
posted by
sumo211
on May 29, 2007 at 02:41 PM
Sweet Jeebus on a pogo stick...Cheneys got to go first!!! We can't let that bully of the playground near the first position or we're all soooooooo doomed! The old geezer is reportedly already trying to circumvent the Dub so he can go after Iran. He's even against the Condi having been inside the negotiations (finally) regarding Iran and Iraq...I mean he's really ticked off at the Dub for allowing this. This is a pre-emptive guy our Cheney.
posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 02:43 PM
Darth Cheney would have us shooting nukes all over the planet. The military couldn't keep up.
posted by
mattloch
on May 29, 2007 at 02:50 PM
Easy Random: you make the cases so airtight that the Republicans would be signing their own death warrants if they didn't vote for it. At the very least the Dems can force the issue of subpoenas with SCOTUS. And Dusty has it right, Cheney first, then Bush. And we'll be able to get him on more than the tax exasion and bribery charges that took down Agnew. Too bad he won't end up like Agnew, "working the wrong end of some driving range in Baltimore, for $2 a bucket"..... posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 02:52 PM
Ah Spiro..there was a corrupt man.
posted by
sumo211
on May 29, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Gone are the good old days!
posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 02:56 PM
This is an excellent read, but its too bad they single-spaced the sucker. When you get to the Tom DeLay part you're gonna hurl I swear.
posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 02:56 PM
Wish they'd taken the nattering nabobs of negativism with them, Sumo.
posted by
sumo211
on May 29, 2007 at 03:16 PM
I hear you Random...
posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 03:19 PM
posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 03:22 PM
Oh my, that is a goodie Random. Thanks! :)
posted by
sumo211
on May 29, 2007 at 03:23 PM
Dusty...lovely read indeed. The cartoon was...well...I had to save it...you know where and for what future reference!
posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 03:27 PM
LOL..I knew if you clicked the link you would appreciate the graphic Sumo :)
posted by
sumo211
on May 29, 2007 at 03:29 PM
Fitzgerald let the ball go in my opinion. He could have gone hight and didn't and I think there is a reason why. It's just an excuse talking about LIbby continuously lying about many things...to obscure the fact that Cheney was the henchman. So if the little weasel has done all that lying...he'd be lying about the lead-up to Cheney. Semantics!!!
posted by
sumo211
on May 29, 2007 at 03:31 PM
I THINK I was going for (could have gone higher and didn't...) who know...who cares?!!
posted by
sumo211
on May 29, 2007 at 03:32 PM
Knows...darn it...knows! Argh!
posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 03:34 PM
I think it's just in Fitzgerald's nature. The cases I've read about he started at the bottom and climbed one rung at a time. He won't prosecute if he doesn't think he'll win. . An honorable man, as opposed to a Ken Starr, for example. posted by
GrpThink
on May 29, 2007 at 03:36 PM
He could have gone hight and didn't and I think there is a reason why How could he go higher when Libby was lying his ass off on the stand? You can't prove a conspiracy unless you have a smoking gun or a stool pigeon. Fitz had neither. posted by
ki6amd
on May 29, 2007 at 03:36 PM
I've tried telling you all before, but wasn't it Clinton who said in February of '98 that he was worried that Saddam might be building weapons of mass destruction? He even coordinated Operation Desert Fox, a bombing campaign on Iraq, because Iraq kicked out weapons inspectors (sound familiar?). Not to mention the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. But of course none of that information says anything about hiding facts... the same facts Bush used to go into Iraq. I'll agree though that Cheney is a boob, but I'd agree with him that the Iraq war is now, and has been for a while, a proxy war with Iran. But I think Russia plays a part in the war too, although Russia's involvement has less to do with the government than it does with individuals who act outside of it. (But that's just a guess). In all reality we have to face certain facts... 1) Many people/countries/groups/etc want to attack our country regardless of our politics, 2) We will be attacked again on our soil, it's just a matter of time, 3) No government official will protect us 100%, they'll either bring our economy down, bring our borders down, bring our defenses down, or take our rights away. Personally, I'd rather have life with a few less rights, than be dead and have many rights I will never be able to use. I'm sure someone will quote Jefferson, but save your time I've already read it. I still think being alive is better than being dead, because with life I can still choose somewhere else to live that might have a different set of laws that I am willing to live with, I can even change the laws, by force, if needed. posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 03:39 PM
Ki6, that's why the sanctions were applied, and they *WORKED*. No WMD's. Gone. The inspectors would've told us that--which is why Bush had to yank the inspectors out before they could finish. . "Proxy war" is too true: Iran used us to fight their war with Iraq. And it worked, too. We'll be virtually handing the place over to them when the last helicopter lifts off the embassy roof. Bin Laden, too, used Bush to do things he wasn't able to do on his own, like get the US military out of Saudi Arabia. posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 03:45 PM
Skyler, if you don't mind losing your rights, then prison is always an alternative..per Eisenhower:"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." Not suggesting you go there Skyler..just an opportunity to use one of my favorite Eisenhower quotes :P posted by
GrpThink
on May 29, 2007 at 03:55 PM
but wasn't it Clinton who said in February of '98 that he was worried that Saddam might be building weapons of mass destruction... But of course none of that information says anything about hiding facts Talk about hiding facts: In February 1999 Saddam allowed unfettered access to Iraq to the U.N. inspectors. Saddam pointed to the November bombing as the reason for the sudden reversal. Since then the U.N. had inspected Iraq and certified it was clean. But Bush didn't want to hear that and got his war on. Now we know the truth that Bush lied when he said Iraq had WMD, even after the U.N. said he didn't. posted by
GrpThink
on May 29, 2007 at 03:56 PM
Personally, I'd rather have life with a few less rights, than be dead and have many rights That could have come right out of the mouth of a German citizen in 1932. History is repeating itself. posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 04:30 PM
OT, but look who's joining the "Corrupt Bastards Club" and possibly going "down the tubes." posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 04:34 PM
Ted Stevens and his farkwitted son? That is rich indeed Random :)
posted by
ki6amd
on May 29, 2007 at 04:38 PM
GrpThink, Speaking of Germany 1939... "He seems like a nice guy" ... (various people) when talking to/about Saddam, Chavez, Castro and, even Ahmadinejad! Sounds eerily familiar to what some people in Hollywood thought about Hitler. Perhaps we need Micheal Moore doing a movie about Hitler to convince you that we're REALLY reliving 1939.... oh wait, he's already kissing Castro's feet in his next movie!Random, if those WMDs were all gone, why were the UN inspectors being told they couldn't go to certain places? Sure, we didn't catch Saddam red handed, but we found several chemical weapons manufacturing facilities. --------------------- BOTH - REALLY, the UN declared that Iraq had no WMDs? Where's that report, because of the ones I've read, they all said that nothing could be verified because full access was not granted. Sure, it started with "we found no WMDs", but if you read past that point, your statements lose credibility. --------------------- Dusty, good quote, hadn't heard that one before, but I don't think Eisenhower would have those same opinions of prison if he were around to see the daily death tolls we have in prisons today. Not only that, but given his military record I would bet he would call Cheney a wimp for being so careful in fighting this war. And my guess is that if we had people like Eisenhower running things today, this war would have been over a LONG time ago.... and yeah, MANY more innocent Iraqis would have been killed, as we also would have probably killed many Iranians too. posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 04:42 PM
Eisenhower has many great quotes some are anti-war quotes Skyler. He saw it from many angles you know. He also warned us about the Military Industrial Complex that BushCo is so very fond of.
posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 04:42 PM
At least one of those people doing *BUSINESS* with that "nice guy" is now vice-president of the United States. Another was, until recently, . Skyler, it was because Saddam knew that once it became known that there *WERE* no WMD's, his edge, his bluff, was gone. Iran learned that lesson: if the idiot in the White House thinks you've got WMD's, you'd damned well better have 'em. . The inspectors were yanked out before the final report was ready--but they'd already concluded there weren't any WMD's. If there had been, we'd have found them and Bush would have trumpeted them. There. Were. No. WMD's. . Cheney *IS* a wimp when not drunkenly shooting people in the face. He and Bush both avoided military service. Eisenhower would *NOT* have gone in. Spam code: GAULL posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 04:46 PM
Hans Blix has stated Saddam did not have WMD's. He was the chief Inspector for the UN.
posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 04:51 PM
I have to admit that from the outside, having heard only what Bush spoon-fed the right-wing media and they dutifully regurgitated, I was amazed that they didn't find *ANYTHING* after the invasion. Teach me to believe what Shrub says about *ANYTHING.*
posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 04:56 PM
That was when the guano started hitting the fan Random. Countdown is on in a few..have to go see Al. :)
posted by
sumo211
on May 29, 2007 at 05:28 PM
Keith asked him about running...and he didn't actually come out and say a qualifying no! Like a good politician he found a way around it. He's sitting pretty by waiting until much later on if he chooses to get it on. He doesn't have to share equal time with anyone now...like if he were a candidate...and he doesn't have to have all that money (which he probably already has) right now declared. He can't be stupid...he has to know how popular he would be.
posted by
randomfactor
on May 29, 2007 at 05:29 PM
As soon as he announces he paints a target on his back. (Not that there isn't one there already.) The longer he holds off, the better his chances. . That said, I really don't expect him to run. posted by
ki6amd
on May 29, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Dusty, Blix didn't criticize Bush until we actually went into Iraq. Up until that point he was the main character in what he called the dramatization of the threat of WMDs in Iraq. Random, If we let Iraq get away with saying they had WMDs, everyone else would try it to use it as a form of intimidation too. Should we let that go? Sure I don't think attacking Tuvalu would make much sense if they said they had WMDs, but Iraq was already a threat that needed to be dealt with. And since GrpThink likes to bring up Hitler, it's a great segue into where Saddam got his ideas... HITLER!!! Maybe I was the only one who watched the History Channel's expose on the matter, but I doubt it. As for your no WMDs, they had the ingredients and that's enough for me. Sure, they weren't caught red handed, but if we went by that standard in our own judicial system, there might be a need for only 1 prison in the entire country and it would be mostly empty. So, yes, using that logic (or lack thereof) is idiotic, but if you want to use that reasoning, be my guest. I'm off to my Grandma's house to feed the cats, maybe we'll continue this tomorrow. posted by
anonymous
on May 29, 2007 at 08:51 PM
Just like YOU have better things to do, like dream up some new cheap shots against Al Gore. You've taken recycling way beyond expectations.
posted by
ronmexico
on May 29, 2007 at 09:25 PM
House #1 A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only
Which house does the Environmentalist, renouned movie producer, and Inventor of the internet live in? Which house does GWB live in? Ahh, let them eat cake...
posted by
ki6amd
on May 29, 2007 at 09:42 PM
Ron, I gotta say, I'm sad to have missed the opportunity you pounced on. Although it will be used in my next Technocrat posting.Hey Dusty, he didn't announce anything did he?... wait for September, but don't tell anyone I told you. posted by
dusty1215
on May 29, 2007 at 10:59 PM
lol Skyler..he is now saying he isn't ruling anything out. I say Sept at the earliest too. :)
posted by
anonymous
on May 30, 2007 at 10:49 AM
I am praying for Bush... On the count that prayer makes patients in the hospital sicker according to some study... Its too late to impeach this monster, just wait he'll be gone soon enough, of course it wont be soon enough for me or the country he has destroyed but thank god he's on his way out. hi dusty! posted by
antiextremism
on May 30, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Die you whiney liberal red diaper babies!!!!! You die and you go to hell!! I'm just fillin in guys, he's at Church right now praying for your demise....
posted by
randomfactor
on May 30, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Antiex, you left out "doper." No cookie for you! . Ronmexico, one's a home, the other's a movie set built on a pig farm. What've you got against spam anyway? Spam's the American Way in electronic form. . Skyler, you overlooked the fact that your "chemical stash" was established *AFTER* the invasion. We invaded the wrong country in order to *DELIVER* WMD's to them? I don't seem to recall that in the AUMF. Iraq was no threat to the US or its neighbors anymore--but Iran couldn't get Saddam out, so they tricked us into doing it for them. Fortunately for them, we had a low-grade moron running *THIS* country at the time... posted by
dusty1215
on May 30, 2007 at 12:05 PM
LOL Anti..too much dude.
posted by
mattloch
on May 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Random, Ki6amd also neglected to mention that we left the weapons stockpiles (both real conventional and imagined WMDs) unguarded and open for theft after our invasion. Now we are reclaiming the weapons one IED at a time.Ki6amd, please quit trying to Godwin the thread. If you want to have a serious discussion of WMDs in Iraq, and what the UN was trying to do right before we invaded, we can do that. But arguing potential threats posed by Iraq is a non-starter, because it was never shown to be true, even by Feith and the OSP. I can direct you to some nice article about the "bluff" game Saddam was playing, and the geo-political reasons for it, but again, another non-starter. It is also disingenuous of you to suggest a low threshold for invading another sovereign country. Perhaps you should try to watch a History Channel show on the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how JFK dealt with that problem (hint: he started with the evidence and built a conclusionary case around it, not the other way around. Oh yea, and the Bay of Pigs wasn't a good idea, too). Oh yea, and speaking of Eisenhower...  I think you may need to do a bit more reading about this ex-President before making declarative statements about his take on modern issues... posted by
sfinboston52
on May 30, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Grpthink...why so willing to give up your rights? I for one am a proud American who does not want or is willing to give up any of my rights. For when we give up some it is only time until most of them will dissappear.
posted by
GrpThink
on May 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM
"He seems like a nice guy" ... (various people) when talking to/about Saddam, Chavez, Castro and, even Ahmadinejad Who are these "various people"? Stop being coy and name names.
Sounds eerily familiar to what some people in Hollywood thought about Hitler That's a blatant lie. It was the conservatives who were against going to war with Germany. Hollywood was producing anti-German media spots that were broadcast in England and France. Our readers recommend: |
