Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNew York Congressman Maurice Hinchey is easily the most dogged critic of Vice President Dick Cheney in the House of Representatives, and Hinchey has not exactly been soft on President Bush. So it comes as no surprise that Hinchey, a passionate progressive who stood up to the Bush administration when most of the Democratic candidates to replace Bush were cowering in corners of the Capitol, is preparing to introduce House versions of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold's proposals to formally condemn the Bush administration "for falsifying its justification to attack Iraq, mismanaging the subsequent military occupation, and egregiously abusing the Constitution."
Hinchey is working with Feingold to develop language for censure resolutions that the ardent critics of the administration hope will quickly attract broad support after their introduction next week.
The first resolution from Feingold and Hinchey is expected to cite Bush and Cheney for making intentionally false statements about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and for misleading Congress and the public into believing Saddam Hussein had ties to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. In addition, it will score the president and vice president for failing to plan for the occupation of Iraq, distorting the reality on the ground as it deteriorated, and overstretching the military in order to maintain the administration's mad mission in Iraq.
The second resolution is expected to suggest that Bush, Cheney and other senior administration officials have blatantly disregarded the rule of law. It will focus on the administration's illegal NSA warrantless surveillance program, its extreme policies on torture, the abusive use of presidential signing statements, the politically-motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys and the failure of the administration to cooperate with congressional inquiries.
"The American people have reached a breaking point with this administration and they are demanding that Congress step up and hold the president, vice president, and others in the executive branch responsible for their actions," says Hinchey, who has been sounding the alarm about Cheney's wrongdoing for years. "While President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue to operate as if they are leaders of a monarchy, Congress should censure them and make it clear to this and future generations that their actions are entirely unacceptable. If Congress does not act to formally admonish this White House then the future of our democracy will be placed on a slippery slope in which other presidents may point to the actions of this administration as justification for further abuses of the Constitution. Congress cannot allow such abuses of power and law, which is why Senator Feingold and I will soon introduce these censure resolutions."
Feingold, who first proposed censuring Bush more than a year ago, has struggled to gain support from fellow Democrats in the Senate for any kind of demand for presidential accountability. So he was clearly delighted by the willingness of Hinchey to step up as an ally in the House.
"Congressman Hinchey has been a strong voice in opposition to the President's policies in Iraq and in defense of the Constitution," says Feingold. "I thank Congressman Hinchey for his willingness to stand up to this administration for its misleading statements leading up to and during our military involvement in Iraq, as well as its attack on the rule of law. I am working with Congressman Hinchey and others in crafting these censure resolutions condemning the damaging actions of this administration. Censure is about holding the administration accountable. Congress must be on the record repudiating the administration's misconduct, both for the American people, and for history."
The censure resolutions carry no formal penalty. Unmentioned in the Constitution or in the procedural rules of the House or Senate, a censure vote would not even have the authority to compel the president or vice president to respond to Congress. Yet, a rare rebuke from one or both houses of Congress would put Bush and Cheney on notice that they must either change their approaches in the final 18 months of their tenure or face an even stronger push for their impeachment and removal from office.
An honest review of the records of Bush and Cheney leaves little doubt that impeachment is warranted, and 14 members of the House have now signed on as cosponsors of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich's proposal to impeach Cheney. But for a Congress that has shown little taste for the serious work of upholding the Constitution, the censure resolutions offer what Feingold refers to as "moderate" response to administration wrongdoing.
Censure of Bush, Cheney and their underlings by the House or Senate would be meaningful. It would confirm that America has reached a too-long delayed "accountability moment." And, assuming that Bush and Cheney continue to respond to any congressional challenge like belligerent school boys rather than sworn defenders of the republic, it is highly unlikely that a renewed push to censure Bush and Cheney will undermine the burgeoning grassroots campaign for impeachment. Only if Bush and Cheney were to acknowledge their wrongs, change their policies and finish their terms as the model officials they have never been would a censure drive push impeachment off the table.
Demands for censure and impeachment ought to be seen as complimentary. They are both expressions of the desire of enlightened members of the legislative branch to begin holding errant executives to account.
Hinchey is right when he says that, "History must show that Congress stood up to this administration and formally condemned it."
Ultimately, history may ask less of Congress than the American people. The people are already expressing a desire for more than a formal condemnation of Bush and Cheney. Fifty-four percent, according to a recent American Research Group poll, want the vice president impeached. Support for impeaching the president hovers just below 50 -- and the anti-Bush, anti-Cheney numbers have been rising, rapidly, in recent months.
But a formal condemnation, in the form of censure resolutions, ought not be dismissed as a compromise or a deviation from the one true path of impeachment. Getting members of the House and Senate to sign on for censuring Bush and Cheney forces them to start thinking about the administration's lawlessness, it gets them on the record for accountability and it narrows the gap for the leap to impeach. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
But a formal condemnation, in the form of censure resolutions, ought not be dismissed as a compromise or a deviation from the one true path of impeachment. Getting members of the House and Senate to sign on for censuring Bush and Cheney forces them to start thinking about the administration's lawlessness, it gets them on the record for accountability and it narrows the gap for the leap to impeach.
This censure thing really is beginning to sound like impeachment-lite!
There is no 'trial' with censure so we can't get to the bottom of the lies Cheney told to get us into Iraq.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/28/2007 @ 4:34pm
NICHOLS: Feingold, who first proposed censuring Bush more than a year ago, has struggled to gain support from fellow Democrats in the Senate....he was clearly delighted by the willingness of Hinchey to step up as an ally in the House.
First reactions: The blind leads the blind.....misery loves company....Heck of a Job, Feingold/Hinchey & Bottoms Up w/your Kool-Aid..... :)
Posted by Happy at 07/28/2007 @ 4:39pm
says Feingold...".....stand up to this administration for its misleading statements leading up to and during our military involvement in Iraq.......
Intentional or not, it's a fundamental job requirement of politicians to be very generous with spouting "misleading statements".....very democratic & predictable....they universally are MisLeaders-in-Chiefs!
Posted by Happy at 07/28/2007 @ 4:46pm
NICHOLS: An honest review of the records of Bush and Cheney leaves little doubt that impeachment is warranted, and 14 members of the House have now signed on as cosponsors of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich's proposal to impeach Cheney....
To NICHOLS, all it takes to honestly leap to "little doubt" is for 14 out of 435, a whopping 3.2%, to sing kumbaya! Heck of a Job, JOHN! You've won the title of The Nation's Gullible-in-Chief!
Posted by Happy at 07/28/2007 @ 4:52pm
John Nichols' NEXT new book is "THE GENIUS OF 3.2%-ers: The Nation's Cure for Gulliblism."
Posted by Happy at 07/28/2007 @ 4:54pm
As much as I would like to believe the Untied States Congress will help make our future more promisiing, I have severe reservations.
Congress was all too willing to authorize the President to premptively attack a nation at a time when it was known, or should have been known, that Iraq posed imminent threat to America.
Now Congress deems it fit to take no action when the President violates Article III, Setion 2 by repeatedly failing to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..."
May I be so bold as to suggest that you have a duty under ARTCLE III, Section 4, - to uphold the consitution and impeach the President, Vice President and the Attorney General for their repeated contempt for the rule of law, the rights of Americans citizens, detainees, and the lives of American Soldiers and Iraqi civilians?
The removal of these men from office would be seen throughout the Islamic and non-Isalamic world, as the single most meaningful step to ending the War against militant extremism.
Sincerely, John Corey Bostoncolllege68@comcast.net
Posted by John Corey at 07/28/2007 @ 5:08pm
anyone against bringing down these lunatics in washington is insane.
why be so quaint with impeachurement?--just send a couple of d.c.'s finest to take'em downtown in the paddy-wagon.
who'd have the huevos to post bail?
languish, with heavy heart shall be their fate.
best of luck to feingold et al
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2007 @ 5:15pm
regardless of what happens between now and january 2009 the chimps are leaving and they are taking with them all that was the conservative movement.
we should be nice to them and place a memorial stone somewhere in the brushy wastes of chimpy's ranch in crawford and on it carve...
American conservatism... died of a douche bag
Posted by Will C. at 07/28/2007 @ 5:40pm
Yes, this regime may be out of power in January '09 --barring not so unforeseen circumstances such as a second terrorist attack (possibly even a staged one) and the imposition of martial law--, but that in no way negates the critical importance of impeachment.
Impeachment would 1) provide evidence to the American citizenry that our democracy is not dead yet 2) serve as the trigger for a global exhalation so to speak, and a concomitant venting of the tremendous pressure that has accumulated particularly in terms of overall Middle Eastern tensions 3) it would serve as a steel hand on the shoulder of Dick Bush since any attempt to expand the war or impose martial law by an administration under impeachment proceedings would be much more likely to be disobeyed and 4) it would serve as a massive shift in the momentum of the political pendulum. A shift, by the way, that would not be about partisan politics centrally, but a hard shove back against the growing weight of corruption that is so badly burdening our nation's capital.
These are the stakes people. I submit that if we do not at least attempt to undertake an impeachment process against this historically inept, incompetent, and most importantly, egregiously criminal executive, then we will have taken the first fateful step beyond the precipice that leads inevitably to a rapid decline in the American world standing, if not an outright collapse of our empire.
All of the ingredients are in slipping into place to complete a recipe for disaster.
As I'm sure we're all well aware, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. The current American trajectory is on a decidedly downward trend.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/28/2007 @ 6:45pm
Can I suggest a name for the bill?
The "Throw Them A Bone" Resolution of 2007?
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2007 @ 8:23pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 07/28/2007 @ 6:45pm: "Yes, this regime may be out of power in January '09 --barring not so unforeseen circumstances such as a second terrorist attack (possibly even a staged one) and the imposition of martial law--, but that in no way negates the critical importance of impeachment."
Devious but gotta admit, could be a great srategy for the Democrats to stage a terror attack before next years' elections. I mean, their belief the President's strategies against terror have failed to protect Americans sound so hollow without another attack! Shoot, maybe the Democrats will stage dozens of attacks to reallly drive home the message Bush has failed. Far fetched? Not for The Nation.
Posted by is is IS at 07/28/2007 @ 10:46pm
or for is is is
Posted by Will C. at 07/28/2007 @ 11:56pm
Last year Feingold said a censure was a first step to impeachment. I would say it still is. If repubs do not step up to the constitutional task at hand, they doom themselves, as well as our congress-- our very form of government, to irrelevance.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 12:26am
Posted by IS IS IS 07/28/2007 @ 10:46pm
Oh please, everyone should know by now that hsuB made a deal with OBL: 1.special flights out of his family members-- none held for interrogation, 2. pull out of our military from Saudi Arabia, 3. -- let OBL escape in Bora Bora and 4. forget looking for him/let him reconstitute in a safe haven 5. attack Iraq to be used by OBL for future recruitment and training.
Why have enemies when we have friends like the hsuB/cHeney admin.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 12:35am
Never doubt impeachment is not possible, what was old is new again:
July 28, 2007
Quote of the Day
"No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars or sailed an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit." – Helen Keller
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 12:37am
Obviously the repubs in congress have more pressure on them to meet the constitutional task at hand censure and then impeach the hsuB.cHeney admin:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 18-21, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their job?"
Date________Approve_Disapprove_Unsure
7/18-21/07_______34 ___64 ______2
5/29 - 6/1/07_____36 ___58 ______6
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 18-21, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their job?"
Date_________Approve_Disapprove_Unsure
7/18-21/07________46 ___51 ______2
5/29 - 6/1/07______44 ___49 ______6
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 12:57am
Posted by HAPPY 07/28/2007 @ 4:39pm | ignore this person Posted by HAPPY 07/28/2007 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person Posted by HAPPY 07/28/2007 @ 4:52pm | ignore this person Posted by HAPPY 07/28/2007 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF RATIONAL ARGUMENT?...
Or ANY kind of argument other than mockery and name calling? Learn to think! I hear Snow likes brainy dwarfs.
Posted by w_m_bear at 07/29/2007 @ 02:22am
Can I suggest a name for the bill?
The "Throw Them A Bone" Resolution of 2007?
Posted by MASK 07/28/2007 @ 8:23pm
NO...
Sorry, Mask, but I'm of the persuasion that half a loaf (or even 1/4 of a loaf or even ONE SLICE) is better than none. SURE, I'd LIKE to see Bush/Cheney impeached AND convicted (and thrown unceremoniously in the slammer to boot, even Club Fed for a couple of years). Do I think that's gonna happen? Surprise, surprise, I bought into your pretty convincing arguments against holding my breath. But Congress can, at LEAST, censure them. (Not that it will probably matter to either of those two arrogant assholes, but still....)
Posted by w_m_bear at 07/29/2007 @ 02:36am
Impeach them. Impeach them both. There are worse things.
Posted by mrsp at 07/29/2007 @ 03:34am
Posted by W_M_BEAR 07/29/2007 @ 02:36am
Sorry, BEAR, even dubious of censure.
1. Feingold was under the gun last week after opposing impeachment on Daily Kos. He HAD to come up with something (if to not lose his biggest fan, Annie Wilkes...I mean, John Nichols). So he came up with censure again as some CYA.
2. As soon as he did, Harry Reid declared it DOA (in softer words of course).
3. He's got Maurice Hinchey has House co-sponsor. Hinchey along with maybe two dozen House Progressive Caucusers have already shown their on the fringe of the Congressional caucus, when (during the GOP reign over Congress) they were the "same 35" that proposed such resolutions...and got no more than 33 every time they did it.
4. If it DOES happen, given the Iraq supplementals, dubious that even Repubs like Hagel, Snowe, Collins will vote for it...and if Lieberman doesn't...then that means it goes down, 49-50 in the Senate.
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 07:18am
Lots of if's Frita.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 07:28am
If repubs have any chance at all of recovery, 'saving face', they know they need to make big changes. They're reading the polls and nothing they've done thus far has really helped them. And bonding themselves to hsuB/cHeney/r0ve admin, only keeps them down. Down in a place where repubs will be permenantly condemned being 'with no hope', projecting 'no hope'. And it is, as Frita continually points out-- a projections game. But in reality, it's our hard fought way of life, our government by we the people, being flushed down the toilet, that repub new cons/servicers of dic'tator philosophy, are attempting to convince us to allow to happen. Otherwise, they will not profit off our bones.
XXXxxxxXXXXxxxXXXXxxXXXxxxXXxxxXxx
Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by Financial Dynamics. July 19-22, 2007. N=801 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
"Now thinking about the next election for president in 2008, if the election for U.S. president were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?"
Date_______Repub__Dem__Neither__Unsure
7/19-22/07 ___27 ____51 _____5 ____17
5/16-20/07 ___27 ____46 _____8 ____19
VVVvvvvVVVvvvVVVvvvVVvvVv
1/11-14/07 ___26 ____44 _____7 ____22
11/8-12/06 ___27 ____40 _____7 ____26
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 07:55am
It all adds up. Momentum is moving towards impeachment not away from impeachment. Global warming is melting the corporate obstructions in the way that created a trickle, then a stream, and now a river. Soon it will be a flood for impeachment and 'our' government must take action or drown.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 08:05am
Lots of if's Frita.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/29/2007 @ 07:28am
Well, TWO, HSUB.
"IF" it makes it to the Senate....seems that's an "if" you think is going to happen. I don't.
"IF" Lieberman votes against it....not really much "if" to that, given ol' Joe is pretty much in the Bush camp on the war.
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 09:12am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/29/2007 @ 07:55am
I plan on voting for the Democrat too, HSUB.
So, by your poll, I guess that means that Repubs should impeach Bush so that I will continue to plan on voting Democratic.....uh.....huh?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 09:14am
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF RATIONAL ARGUMENT?...
Posted by W_M_BEAR 07/29/2007 @ 02:22am
I'm ALL HAPPY EARS on how we can get NICHOLS to engage in ANY arguments! Suggestions? DimBear?
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2007 @ 11:16am
Frita, I was also talking about all the If you left out:
1. If Feingold was under the gun last week If after opposing impeachment on Daily Kos. If He HAD to come up with something (If to not lose his biggest fan, Annie Wilkes...I mean, John Nichols). So If he came up with censure again as some CYA.
2. If As soon as he did, If Harry Reid declared it DOA (in softer words of course).
3. He's got Maurice Hinchey has House co-sponsor. If Hinchey along with maybe two dozen House Progressive Caucusers have already shown their on the fringe of the Congressional caucus, when (during the GOP reign over Congress) If they were the "same 35" that proposed such resolutions...and If got no more than 33 every time they did it.
4. If it DOES happen, given the Iraq supplementals, If dubious that even Repubs like Hagel, Snowe, Collins will vote for it...and If Lieberman doesn't...If then that means it goes down, 49-50 in the Senate.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 11:26am
I'm ALL HAPPY EARS on how we can get NICHOLS to engage in ANY arguments! Suggestions? DimBear?
Posted by HAPPY 07/29/2007 @ 11:16am
show him your happy ears
Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 11:56am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/29/2007 @ 11:26am
Interesting. So 1. Feingold was not under assault for opposing impeachment? (Check posts to Daily Kos after his letter last week). 2. Feingold was not opposing impeachment? (only to those who try to parse his negative into a postive). 3. He didn't have to come up with something (censure) to assuage his left-wing friends from attacking him? (Then why didn't he propose it FIRST, instead of opposing impeachment and THEN coming up with censure 2 days later, after being criticized?)
4. Mr Nichols abandon Feingold? Depends, is he more loyal to his favorite Senator or dream of impeachment? I bet on Feingold and not impeachment.
5. If Reid declared it DOA?...quote Reid and parse it into "full-fledged support", HSUB. (BTW, it was the same day as Feingold's censure propose, so not sure what the "if" there is)
6. Hinchey and the Prog. Caucus have proposed censure and impeachment over the years....they never get more than 38 co-sponsors...all from their Caucus. No "ifs".
7. Censure not steamrolling through the House, is it? As for Hagel and the Repubs, despite all their TALK, how did they vote on the May Iraq supplement?
8. You think Joe Lieberman will vote against Bush?!?!?
9. Less Lieberman and the Repubs in the Senate...what's your head-count?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 12:00pm
BTW, HSUB....do you know when Congress will supposedly get started on censure? i.e. come back in session?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 12:02pm
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 12:02pm
hey baby cakes, why ask HSUB when you can call Harry's office
Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 12:07pm
Maurice Hinchey is my representative in congress, and I have to say it's gratifying to see the man step-up and take a stand against these scoundrels in office. These petty flag enshrouded "patriots" who would wipe their posteriors with the very document that makes our country great deserve to be condemned by history. Censure at least would announce to the world someone in America understands what the rest of the world sees clearly, these men are nothing but greedy criminals, and the corporate corrupt congress is complicit allowing this constitutional crisis to fester. Censure now, impeach later.
Posted by Phobos1967 at 07/29/2007 @ 12:25pm
Not needed, WILL. His statement is quite clear-
"However, on CBS's Face the Nation Reid said Bush "has been here as part of a culture of corruption. He is spying on Americans. ... The President already has the mark of the American people that he's the worst president we've ever had, and I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."
www.usnews.com
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 12:38pm
and I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."
www.usnews.com
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 12:38pm
then then why did you try to waste hsub time like that
Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 12:45pm
What are you talking about, WILL.....HSUB denied Reid said he opposed censure, not me--
2. If As soon as he did, If Harry Reid declared it DOA (in softer words of course). ---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/29/2007 @ 11:26am
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 12:48pm
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 12:48pm
you dumb broad, I'm talking about you wasting hsub time
Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 12:54pm
Mask, I have read and admired your clever arguments for some time, but I wonder why you spend so much time counting heads and poking holes in other people's arguments. Let's stipulate that the system is broken. Reid and Pelosi are as co-opted as the next congress critter by the financial powers which allowed them to buy their offices. What they do in DC is a perpetual game of power, gaining it and perserving it. Impeachment? Bill Clinton was brought to task for lying about a personal matter, which should never have been asked in the first place. While Dick and George brazenly profiteer and break law after law in the name of sheer profit with impugnity. The system is broken. That is why we are in a constitutional crisis. I would much rather hear your ideas about how to fix things than why other's arguments are inferior. You're posture on these blogs reminds me much of Plato's Socrates following in the great tradition of sophistry ready to undermine any other's argument. Were this ancient Athens, I'm afraid you would have been offered your cup of hemlock long ago. Let's hear your ideas instead, maybe you could even wax a bit idealistic?
Posted by Phobos1967 at 07/29/2007 @ 1:13pm
Posted by WILL C. 07/29/2007 @ 12:54pm
"dumb broad"? Figured a progressive like you would be more of a feminist, WILL!?!??!? Wouldn't use such chauvinistic language.
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 2:42pm
Posted by PHOBOS1967 07/29/2007 @ 1:13pm
Okay, PHOBOS, here's the deal. Everybody talks about how dumb Clinton's impeachment was (I agree, BTW), but not the full extent of the stupidity involved. It dropped the approval numbers of the Republican Congress, while Clinton left office on a high (higher still in his post-Presidency).
All of which was th exact OPPOSITE from what the Right wanted from it.
So, isn't kind of logical to think that the Democrats saw that...and don't wish to repeat it?
"It's completely different, this is about anti-Constitutionality"....sure. But it's still an impeachment, a Senate trial, and the liklihood (with Johnson out and Lieberman in Bush's pocket) of the same outcome for Bush.
Of course politicians are self-serving and self-interested (for the most part)...anybody who doesn't realize that is deluding themselves and wasting time thinking otherwise. That's why impeachment isn't going to happen.
My idea? Vote out the Republicans, period. That's my plan of action for 2008. Want to "hurt Bush" and "seek justice for the neo-cons"...destroy them POLITICALLY. Make Bush a pariah that dwarves Jimmy Carter in the 80s, or even Johnson upto his death. Make "neo-conservatism" so political suicidal to espouse, that anybody who still spouts it, comes off as a modern day George Wallace or even David Duke.
But impeachment was DOA the moment the GOP Senators (rightly) refused to oust Clinton from office in 1999, and it blew up in the faces of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, The Weekly Standard, and every other idiot on the Right who thought "Ah-ha! We blew it on Whitewater and File-gate, but we can finally kill the first 'hippie President' for getting hoovered by a fat chick!"
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 2:51pm
"dumb broad"? Figured a progressive like you would be more of a feminist, WILL!?!??!? Wouldn't use such chauvinistic language.
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 2:42pm
what does this have to do with you being a dumb broad?
Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 2:54pm
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 2:51pm
That was a lot of words just to say vote them out.
It's almost like you were trying to sound smart
Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 2:58pm
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 2:51pm
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree with you. Vote the Republicans out. The Neo-Cons deserve to be banished from the levers of state for their hubris and criminality, but what I fear the most is the lingering effect this Unitary executive will have on future presidencies. It must be explicit that the United States abhors the monarchical and lawless measures taken by Bush et al, and I guess that's what I believe Censure would do. I hope that historians will be able to look back and say there were those who opposed these abuses of power and were not made subservient by the claims of endless war against "terror."
Posted by Phobos1967 at 07/29/2007 @ 4:32pm
Posted by PHOBOS1967 07/29/2007 @ 4:32pm
The only thing censure has going for it is...unlike impeachment, Pelosi didn't specifically take it "off the table".
And given all the Dems who have eschewed impeachment, it DOES leave an option for them for something SOMEWHAT punitive to hit Bush with...without recanting their previous impeachment objections.
That said...still dubious they'll pass one in the next 5 months. (Primaries will kibosh all similar measures).
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 7:11pm
'NYT': Impeach Gonzales -- If Plea for Special Prosecutor Denied
By E&P Staff
Published: July 28, 2007 9:45 PM ET
NEW YORK In a dramatic Sunday editorial, The New York Times carefully reviews the current accusations and denials surrounding embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before closing on a stunning note: "Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales's words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.
"If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales."
Earlier the editorial had observed: "Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can't tell the truth. Mr. Bush refused to fire him after it was clear Mr. Gonzales lied about his role in the political purge of nine federal prosecutors. And he is still refusing to do so -- even after testimony by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, that suggests that Mr. Gonzales either lied to Congress about Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping operation or at the very least twisted the truth so badly that it amounts to the same thing."
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 9:44pm
It makes no sense not to do the right thing, unless one is into doing the wrong.
Published on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 by The Progressive
The Impeachment Imbroglio: Sheehan, Conyers, Pelosi, and Feingold by Ruth Conniff
"The idea that taking up impeachment will keep us from acting on health care, gay rights, etc., is ahistoric," Nichols says. "The fact of the matter is that during the impeachment of Nixon back in the 70s, the reason Congress was so effective and got so much done was that Nixon was scared and, in a calculated move, started cooperating with Congress to avoid impeachment. So the right thing to do is move immediately–see what you can get out of Bush."
For that theory to win the day, the pressure on Congress from voters has to continue to grow.
Ruth Conniff covers national politics for The Progressive and is a voice of The Progressive on many TV and radio programs.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/25/2759/
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 10:12pm
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 7:11pm
Fiengold said last year that censure was the first step to impeachment. And I haven't seen that he's ever taken that statement back.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 10:16pm
I'd like very much for John Nichols and Bruce Fein to consider for us the probable scenario that Bush-Cheney will not leave office.
Moyers, Nichols and Fein have brought many people to deal with the reality of the constitutional emergency we are in right now. They have named it and faced it.
However, we must also understand the end game -- we must face the seemingly certain fact that those who seize power, who bleed a treasury, who build a mercenary private army, who rule by their own law, who deny science and fact do plan tyranny for the long term.
This is now called tinfoil hattery, despite it being the common fear in millions of Americans. But I have learned through the example of Smedley Butler that the only way for weakened citizens to foil a dastardly plan is to limn it. Name it. Talk about it. Assign blame now for the eventuality of totalitarianism.
Democrats could be saying: "Out here in the heartland, the American people will not be pushed into giving up more freedoms to those who seek extra-Constitutional powers. The people reject fear, they reject deceit, and they reject tyranny."
And so I urge Moyers, Nichols and Fein to play the next card. What lies ahead? Tell the people. Tell them now.
Posted by webdems at 07/29/2007 @ 10:34pm
HSUB...that was last year....THIS...was 2 weeks ago-
Daily Kos by Senator Russ Feingold Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:41:41 AM PDT
Last week I came here to discuss how I plan to tighten my legislation to end the open-ended military mission in Iraq so the Administration would not be able to exploit it and keep tens of thousands of troops, if not more, stuck in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. I appreciated all of the responses and of course I noticed that many of you advocated for the impeachment of the President as well as the Vice President and the Attorney General. I've been hearing some of those same comments in Wisconsin.
Senator Russ Feingold's diary :: ::
It is clear that there are many people in this country, including myself, who demand accountability from this Administration for the terrible mess it made in Iraq and its egregious and even illegal power grabs throughout its six-plus years in power. I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses. But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country. The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.
While some have pointed to Republicans' decision to impeach President Clinton, I am also concerned about the over-use of impeachment. And I am conscious of the fact that I would have a specific role to play as a sworn, impartial juror should an impeachment be tried in the Senate. If charges come to the Senate, I will approach them and the trial with the same seriousness that I had when I participated in the Clinton impeachment trial. I would not prejudge the case one way or the other should it come to this.
I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress's time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation.
UPDATE: I know that many of you disagree with my approach to this issue, but I thought it was important to make it clear where I'm coming from and explain why I am not calling for impeachment.
(Now, here's the point where you pick out the 1 slight, miniscule bit of "maybe, could be, IF"...and ignore the 3-5 negative things)
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 10:39pm
Interesting. IF So 1. IF Feingold was not under assault for opposing impeachment? (Check posts to Daily Kos after his letter last week). 2. IF Feingold was not opposing impeachment? (IF only to those who try to parse IF his negative into a postive). 3. IF He didn't have to come up with something (censure) to assuage IF his left-wing friends from attacking him? (Then why didn't he propose it FIRST, IF instead of opposing impeachment and IF THEN coming up with censure 2 days later, IF after being criticized?)
4. IF Mr Nichols abandon Feingold? Depends IF , is he more loyal to his favorite Senator or IF dream of impeachment? IF I bet on Feingold and IF not impeachment.
5. IF Reid declared it DOA?...quote Reid and IF parse it into "full-fledged support", HSUB. (BTW, IF it was the same day as Feingold's censure propose, so IF not sure what the "if" there is)
6. IF Hinchey and the Prog. Caucus have proposed censure and IF impeachment over the years.... IF they never get more than 38 co-sponsors...all from their Caucus. IF No "ifs".
7. IF Censure not steamrolling through the House, IF is it? As for Hagel and the Repubs, IF despite all their TALK, IF how did they vote on the May Iraq supplement?
8. IF You think Joe Lieberman will vote against Bush?!?!?
9. IF Less Lieberman and the Repubs in the Senate... IF what's your head-count?
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 12:00pm
All your speculation, is just that, speculation. All based on 'if's'before you even start your sentence. You can make it sound like it all isn't, but it is all just speculation after it's all done. Odds are what's what you're betting on is that dems will sit on their hands and do nothing and the repubs skate. Laws will continue to be broken and the congress will continue to be weakened as the big corporations that back the exec will always manipulate us into war and sucking a middle class out of our a way of life. No impeachment means there's really no rule of law and our constitution doesn't work.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 10:40pm
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 10:39pm
Now Frita, where is it that Feingold says that he 'doesn't want censure' and that he was wrong about it being a first step to impeachment?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 10:46pm
All you little closet communist and naive socialist will one day wake up in your little utopian world and find yourselves slaves to your BIG GOVERNMENT! Liberalism is the reason this nation is decadent and self destructing! We're losing the war in Iraq because none of you are intelligent enough to understand the world at large. Go on try impeaching the President! My goodness he's one of you! He's a "Closet Liberal" and as such he's bank rolling the country! Go on fill your auto's with your Bigoted insane racist baby killing bumper stickers! You're all a bunch of fools! Go on prove it with your emotional diatribes!
Posted by EagleSeven1 at 07/29/2007 @ 10:49pm
ES!
You do sound like a fool.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 10:53pm
You'd rather be ruled by corporations.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 10:54pm
Isn't it funny how mask runs away when she is engaged directly.
Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 11:04pm
Frita comes back, she always comes back. Well, unless she's on another vacation...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 11:16pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/29/2007 @ 11:16pm
it does seem to take her a few hours to write out and edit numerous rough drafts of her next snappy comeback
Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 11:19pm
It's getting bad for repub new cons when:
Conservatives Refuse To Appear On Fox News To Publicly Defend Gonzales
On Fox News Sunday this morning, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) refused to defend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against accusations that he may have perjured himself before Congress. "It's very damaging…we badly need an attorney general who is above any question," said Gingrich. He continued:
"Both the president and country are better served if the attorney general is a figure of competence. Sadly, the current attorney general is not seen as any of those things. I think it's a liability for the president. More importantly, it's a liability for the United States of America."
Later in the show, host Chris Wallace revealed that no conservative would willingly defend Gonzales on Fox. "By the way, we invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales," said Wallace. "We had no takers." Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/29/no-takes-gonzo/
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 11:26pm
Posted by WILL C. 07/29/2007 @ 11:19pm
Well, you know we just need to be accommodating-- as a matter of etiquette...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 11:30pm
so your saying we have to hold the door for her
Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 11:32pm
Ha maybe, if her hat, er, mask, can fit through the door...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2007 @ 11:44pm
We might need double doors to accommodate her ass. You get one I'll get the other
Posted by Will C. at 07/30/2007 @ 12:06am
A very interesting essay has been posted over on democraticunderground. I urge those who are seriously contemplating the urgent current situation to go over and read it. I truly hope that John Nichols can take it in.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php? az=show_topic&f orum=103&topic_id=296650
Here's an excerpt:
"Animus, ignorance, and magical thinking are a tragic mix -- and I'm afraid that vintage of mind is the hideous wine of our times. The social criteria that gives rise to fascism is in place in the U.S. and those in positions of power have a strong interest in seeing things remain that way. All we can do is what folks (a minority) have always done ... exile or resistance.
In my opinion, both are honorable. The other options are varying degrees of "little Eichmann" -- Ward Churchill's much scorned, career purge-inducing -- but never-the-less accurate phrase. If one does the "soul work," to appropriate archetypal psychologist James Hillman's term, it is still possible to resist complicity. Training yourself to avoid lying for provisional gain is a time honored means of prevented alliances with exploitive assholes. They will avoid you, fire you, curse your name from the darkness of their inner abyss -- but this will solve the problem of dependance on them -- and you'll be forced to live by other means. Generally, one is more adaptable than one believes.
Keep yourself as healthy and as sane as possible: we're going to need you around after the inevitable collapse of the present system. Also, beware of those reductionist demons of the mind who diminish the soul-making possibilities of "mere" words. The acts of writing and reading are seen as passive; to crackpot realists, these activities seem useless, unproductive -- the feckless indulgences of a class of the thin-wristed effete.
Accordingly, Americans have all but ceased reading. Worse, they displace their feelings of self-loathing borne of their own corporately induced passivity upon writers and thinkers. If the tenets of democratic discourse are to survive, it is imperative that writers and thinkers begin to engage in a passionate defense of themselves against the kvetching armies of crackpot realists that have encircled and laid siege to our collective hearts and minds."
Posted by webdems at 07/30/2007 @ 01:44am
The frustration with this Congress is that they are giveing the impression of knowing what they are doing and doing nothing and it shows. Granted they passed a lot of needed legilation, legilation that was in their chambers and met little resistance. The real reason they were put there was to turn this Country around and this is were they fail, immediately they take Impeachment off the table, I smell a rat, secret meetings with the WH., remove the Impeachment I let your bills slide throught. Put Impeachment on the table move the investigation into cheny and SHAKE them up, they are falling aprt tear down the House they live in. Weare no longer taking just about Iraq and a illegal war, we are talking about America it very fabric and being and the Dems' are SELLING us out for re-election votes and secret meetings.
Posted by DDA at 07/30/2007 @ 05:59am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/29/2007 @ 10:46pm
So, Feingold clearly says he's opposed to impeachment...but because he DOESN'T recant his earlier (pre-2006 Dem victory) "censure is the first step to impeachment"....he is seeking censure to get to impeachment, regardless of what he said on Daily Kos?
Geez Louise, man, you have lost it!
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 09:05am
BTW, WILL isn't pro-impeachment either...he's just mad, because I accidentily outed him and his partner on another thread. (Thought he WAS out, my bad!)
BLOG | Posted 05/16/2007 @ 1:45pm Comments for "The Iraq Memoir Industry" by Katrina vanden Heuvel
I don't think we should waste our time with impeachment. Let the chimp and the resrt of the hamster caln serve out their terms and when they are over, collect the them up and send the over to the International Court of Justice to face charges of crimes against peace. ----Posted by WILL C. 05/16/2007 @ 10:56pm
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 09:11am
Mask - "Can I suggest a name for the bill?" - NO.
Posted by conshame at 07/30/2007 @ 10:03am
Liberalism is the reason this nation is decadent and self destructing!
Define 'liberalism' and perhaps we could have a discussion.
We're losing the war in Iraq because none of you are intelligent enough to understand the world at large.
Explain.
Go on try impeaching the President! My goodness he's one of you! He's a "Closet Liberal" and as such he's bank rolling the country!
How so?
Go on fill your auto's with your Bigoted insane racist baby killing bumper stickers! You're all a bunch of fools!
????????
Go on prove it with your emotional diatribes!
Well, as far as "emotional diatribes" go, you have certainly shown us the way.
Posted by BlueSpark at 07/30/2007 @ 10:13am
Censure is not diversion from the "one true strategy" of impeaching Bush. Impeachment takes 2 / 3. I disagree with Democrats who are concerned that a failed impeachment would hurt their prospects - but there's no such thing as evidence that will result in Republicans in the Senate voting to remove Bush from office. You have at most, fifty-one votes in the Senate even if Bush shows up to testify drunk, sneezes and cocaine comes out his nose.
Posted by conshame at 07/30/2007 @ 10:13am
Liberalism is the reason this nation is decadent and self destructing! We're losing the war in Iraq because none of you are intelligent enough to understand the world at large.
Posted by EAGLESEVEN1 07/29/2007 @ 10:49pm | ignore this person
We're losing the war in Iraq??? Really? Why do you hate the troops?
I tell you what, EagleSeven1, Liberals didn't vote George Bush into office. Liberals told you so, we told you so about George Bush, we warned you. We warned you he was hell-bent to invade Iraq, we warned you about PNAC, the Project for a New American Century.
Liberals aren't the ones, EagleSeven, who been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Weiner Savage, repeatedly do talk shows in support of George Bush. Liberals don't listen to the Rush Limbaugh program when Dick Cheney goes on there every week.
You say that Liberalism is the source of all evil, and Liberals don't understand the world. Well, LIBERALS HAVE BEEN RIGHT ABOUT THE DISASTER IN IRAQ, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
You say, one day Liberals will wake up in the thrall of Big Government, but you claim George Bush is a Liberal!!!! You claim that Liberals voted for the worst President in American History!!!! YOU ARE A LIAR, AS ARE ALL CONSERVATIVES. YOU ARE A LIAR, YOU ARE A DISGRACE!!!!!!! YOU ARE A DISGRACE, EAGLESEVEN.
Posted by conshame at 07/30/2007 @ 10:24am
Posted by CONSHAME 07/30/2007 @ 10:03am
Hey, CS, want to answer a more important question?
Is Hillary in the "genius" or "idiot" wing?
BLOG | Posted 06/14/2007 @ 09:17am Comments for "Idiot Liberals Strike Again" by Laura Flanders
There are 2 wings of the Democratic party: the idiot (conservative) wing, and the genius (liberal) wing. ----Posted by CONSHAME 06/15/2007 @ 12:13pm
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 10:27am
Again, what is up with the Time Warping posts?
Anyway, CS...had a question for you--
Posted by MASK 07/30/2007 @ 10:27am
Posted by DDA 07/30/2007 @ 05:59am
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 10:29am
Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 10:39pm
Now Frita, where is it that Feingold says that he 'doesn't want censure' and that he was wrong about it being a first step to impeachment?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/29/2007 @ 10:46pm
So, Feingold clearly says he's opposed to impeachment...but because he DOESN'T recant his earlier (pre-2006 Dem victory) "censure is the first step to impeachment"....he is seeking censure to get to impeachment, regardless of what he said on Daily Kos?
Posted by MASK 07/30/2007 @ 09:05am
So Frita, simply say you can't answer my question:
Now Frita, where is it that Feingold says that he 'doesn't want censure' and that he was wrong about it being a first step to impeachment?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/30/2007 @ 10:36am
Eagleseven-Communists,socialists,and liberals are three different things.The reason we are losing is because Bush tried to win a war on the cheap rather than follow the plan put forth by the military and for no other reason.It what way is this country decadent and how did liberals cause that?Aren't people responsible for their own behavior?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2007 @ 11:06am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/30/2007 @ 10:36am
HSUB, first, Feingold didn't say (nor did I claim) that he said he "didn't want censure"....he said he didn't want impeachment.
You are getting psychotic. Feingold clearly said on Daily Kos ----"The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years."
That sound like a ringing endorsement for "first censure, then impeachment"?
Time after time, you want to make it seem as if Pelosi, Reid, Conyers, Emmanuel, George Miller, Feingold, AL GORE, BARACK OBAMA, or HOWARD DEAN....are "speaking in code" and when they say they "don't think impeachment is a good idea" or that "Congress has better use of its time"...that it's some secret language that only YOU can decipher by which they mean the OPPOSITE of what they say.
This is driving you nuts. Even fellow impeachment supporters realize that they're "being sold out" (I read it on the other blogs all the time)....but you seem to think that "only the Right" is opposed to impeachment...
while the Left is fully onboard, just "being stealthy about it".
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 11:18am
OK, let me clarify for the anti-law/anti-constitution crowd, why censure and then impeachment makes sense. 1st censure is a quick and simple admission by the repubs in congress that hsuB/cHeney admin did wrong(s). And that 'is' the first step to then dealing with the consequences. Are there consequences to breaking laws only for dems or do our laws apply to repubs as well? As our constitution clearly states the criteria for impeachment when met-- is a clear course of action. Except if one is anti-law/anti-constitution, which clearly places one in the pro-hsuB/cHeney camp.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/30/2007 @ 11:26am
Time after time, you want to make it seem as if Pelosi, Reid, Conyers, Emmanuel, George Miller, Feingold, AL GORE, BARACK OBAMA, or HOWARD DEAN....are "speaking in code" and when they say they "don't think impeachment is a good idea" or that "Congress has better use of its time"...that it's some secret language that only YOU can decipher by which they mean the OPPOSITE of what they say.
Posted by MASK 07/30/2007 @ 11:18am
So Frita only uses one ear when someone speaks 'cautioun' about impeachment, but her other ear is deaf to pro-law/pro-constitutional veiws.... Frita takes a few words of caution out of context and a few additioanal steps to aliegn them with her anti-law/anti-constitution support of repub new cons/servicer of dic'tator philosophy.
So Frita, simply say you can't answer my question:
Now Frita, where is it that Feingold says that he 'doesn't want censure' and that he was wrong about it being a first step to impeachment?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/29/2007 @ 10:46pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/30/2007 @ 10:36am
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/30/2007 @ 11:39am
HSUB, be nuts, but an HONEST nut.
I never said Feingold "didn't want censure"...I said he didn't want impeachment...so did he (see above).
For others that "aren't saying what they mean, but the opposite"....let's look at-
Harry Reid----(on JUST CENSURE) "The president already has the mark of the American people that he's the worst president we've ever had, and I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."
Nancy Pelosi----"Impeachment is off the table."
Barack Obama----"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."
John Conyers----"our only recourse is elections"
Howard Dean----"Americans don't want impeachment, they want healing."
and finally, "inevitable candidate in 2008"...Al Gore----Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 12:08pm
George Bush: first Impeachment, then The Hague, then Hell!!!
Posted by conshame at 07/30/2007 @ 12:45pm
Posted by CONSHAME 07/30/2007 @ 12:45pm
THIS is what awaits you, HSUB...if you don't chill out a bit.
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 12:48pm
I never said Feingold "didn't want censure"... (No he said it was the 1st step to impeachment and he wants the first step. The second step everyone will clearly see as obvious. Feingold doesn't have to do the 2nd step as long as the 1st step is done.)
For others that "are saying what they mean"....let's look at-
Harry Reid---- "That's not negotiating. I mean, I am -- prided myself on being a pretty good lawyer, trial lawyer. I've settled lots and lots of cases. But you never settle a case going in saying, 'You can come and meet with me, but here's what the result's going to be before we meet.' That doesn't work. And the president has to realize it doesn't work in the practice of law, it doesn't work in the business world and it doesn't work in government."
(Plus a lot got through congress apart from impeaching Nixon-- when that happened, so if the current congress wants to get stuff through-- impeachment of hsuB/cHeney would help get the MIC/Pharm/Ins corporations out too.)
Nancy Pelosi----"Impeachment is off the table." (per she'd be next in line if both hsuB/cHeney are both simultaneously impeached which would happen.)
Barack Obama---- Obama said he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.
(I don't think he'd 'not' vote to impeach when it comes to it...)
John Conyers---- "I need 3 more reps to vote for impeachment so I can do it whether or not Pelosi puts it back on the table..."
Howard Dean----Americans want impeachment, polls are moving towards it more so than not.
Al Gore---- (3 months ago) Impeachment wouldn't pass based on-- "There no national concensus"...yet.
Posted by MASK 07/30/2007 @ 12:08pm
Now Frita, who is being honest? Why can't you 'ever' print the 'other side' of the story-- as to the 'benefits' of why impeachment, following the law and being pro-constitutional, is a good thing? Well, you'd have to 'not' be anti-law/anti-constitution to do so, now wouldn't you....
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/30/2007 @ 1:01pm
could be a great srategy for the Democrats to stage a terror attack before next years' elections.
is is is
Gee, moron, do you mean like the Repukes do everytime they get in trouble?
Sorry, we're better than those scumbags.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/30/2007 @ 1:03pm
We're losing the war in Iraq because none of you are intelligent enough to understand the world at large. Go on try impeaching the President! My goodness he's one of you! He's a "Closet Liberal" and as such he's bank rolling the country! Go on fill your auto's with your Bigoted insane racist baby killing bumper stickers! You're all a bunch of fools! Go on prove it with your emotional diatribes!
Posted by EAGLESEVEN1 07/29/2007 @ 10:49pm
Whew! Thanks for the good hearty laugh!
Oh, wait, you were SERIOUS? You poor bastard, toughen up.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/30/2007 @ 1:05pm
er, Al Gore---- (3 months ago) Impeachment wouldn't pass based on-- "There is no national concensus"...yet.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/30/2007 @ 1:08pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/30/2007 @ 1:01pm
HSUB, I am happy to print the "other side"...you do not...ever.
You pick out Feingold's statement FROM A YEAR AGO, to "explain away" his opposition to impeachment in Daily Kos TWO WEEKS AGO.
You pick Conyers earlier statement, but can offer NO explanation for his statement to Cindy Sheehan but "Prove he said that!" (as if Cindy and her friends were lying...or the reporter was)
You pick Obama saying he's "distressed"...but ignore him saying impeachment would be "more of the politics that made Washington dysfunctional".
You CHANGE what Howard Dean said on Air America (happy to provide a link to other impeachment fans calling Dean "Coward Dean", if you like. Those guys atleast took Dean at his word and didn't change it like a JOHANNESROLF post)
And you add "yet" to Gore's message, and again ignore what he said about him saying "I don't think it (impeachment) would be successful."
Question...has ANY prominent Democrat come out against impeachment in your mind...ever? Or are they just so tricky and subtle that it takes the HSUB Impeachment Translator to decipher their whole-hearted support???
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 2:12pm
I don't buy that it would take alot of time, they could do it all in 1 day - it just won't pass. Provided they did it all in a day or two, got the vote in the House, proceeded to a vote in the Senate, FAILED 51-49.
There is no written rule, that Impeachment has to take years - just that it takes 2 / 3.
Posted by conshame at 07/30/2007 @ 2:38pm
Took a bit of time (15 min.), but in six weeks, we'll have the one year anniversary of this---
BLOG | Posted 09/15/2006 @ 4:08pm Comments for "Camp Democracy and the Genius of Impeachment" by John Nichols
Guys....doesn't matter if any of YOU (or Mr Nichols) believe in what I said in my first post....what matters is.....will "Speaker Nancy", Maj. Leader Hoyer, and Senate Maj. Leader Reid? ----Posted by MASK 09/16/2006 @ 2:30bm
Just now spoke to Reid, Pelosi-- and they said to tell Masq, most of them, leadership and even McCain with a few repubs-- are with me (11:54/12:34) on this one.-----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/16/2006 @ 7:45pm
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 3:01pm
Posted by CONSHAME 07/30/2007 @ 2:38pm | ignore this person
the Britannica suggests 6 to 16 days for impeachment.
Clinton's impeachment took seven weeks.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 6:43pm
they could do it all in 1 day -
notachance. it is a trial.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 6:44pm
I draw some solice from King David who said that he got all riled up seeing the continued successes of the wicked who hate God. Then he remembered that they will suffer eternally in hell and was comforted. ----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/30/2007 @ 5:38pm
Would that be the same King David who knocked up Bathsheba, tried to fool her husband into sleeping with her too to hide the fact, and when he couldn't...had his men abandon Uriah on the battlefield so that he would get killed, so he could grab the hot babe for himself?
Seems aside from the "love God" part, he was pretty wicked and had some success.
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 7:51pm
HSUB, I am happy to print the "other side"...
Posted by MASK 07/30/2007 @ 2:12pm
Ok Frita, post the other side.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/30/2007 @ 11:48pm
Posted by MASK 07/30/2007 @ 3:01pm
So Frita, and you say I'm crazy, but you save posts from a different discussion, from several months ago that may or may not have any context to what we're discussing now, just because you can't deny that you advocate anti-law/anti-constitution--- anti-impeachment propaganda, that's pro-hsuB/cHeney/r0ve. You find cautious comments from politicians, leaving out their basis and mislead against that they feel hsuB/cHeney have committed impeachable offences, but for the very same possible public sentiment against it that you espouse, would they do what's right. No Frita, I do not decode their comments, but rather reveal your hidden agenda--- which is to push anti-law/anti-constitution/anti-impeachment rheteric to save the hsuB/cHeney admin.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/31/2007 @ 12:18am
Frita, Frito is first.
Impeach Gonzales?
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 3:49 PM by Mark Murray
Categories: White House, Congress
From NBC's Mike Viqueira
A group of House Democrats will introduce a resolution calling on the Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) will sponsor the measure. It will be dropped in the hopper tomorrow.
It's too early to say whether it will actually get anywhere.
Here's the text of resolution...
RESOLUTION
Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
1 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall
2 investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the
3 House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales,
4 Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes
5 and misdemeanors.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/30/297411.aspx
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/31/2007 @ 12:30am