Biden Makes Impeachment a Campaign Theme

MANCHESTER, NH -- Joe Biden is getting comfortable with the "I" word.

And the crowds in New Hampshire and Iowa are cheering on the Delaware senator's new bluntness.

Picking up a theme that has been championed by another contender for the Democratic presidential nod, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is now talking about impeachment on a regular basis as he campaigns in the first-caucus and first-primary states.

Biden's mincing no words as he explains the position he initially took during the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas.

Speaking in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, this week, Biden declared, "The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman, I will move to impeach."

Biden can't actually move to impeach.

The House impeaches president and vice presidents, while the Senate is charged by the Constitution to judge whether the impeached officials should be removed from their positions.

Kucinich has proposed the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney and has raised the prospect of moving to impeach Bush if Iran is attacked.

But Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he is doing his part. The Delaware senator is telling crowds that he is in the process of meeting with experts on constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum that will explain to the president that he has no authority to attack Iran and that, if an attack is launched, impeachment will be the necessary congressional response.

Biden still shies away from joining Kucinich in calling for impeachment now, in response to already established high crimes and misdemeanors. But the senator has recognized the logic of the Ohio congressman's focus on the vice president. "If you're going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach Cheney first," he said, to loud applause from the audience in Portsmouth.

Comments (52)

1. i've said it before and i say it now...

   john nichols...the hardest working blogger at the nation!

   keep fightin' the good fight.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/30/2007 @ 6:12pm

2. so he won't impeach bush & cheney for things they've already done, but he'll help move to impeach bush (he can't actually do anything about it; he's in the Senate, not the House) if (meaning "after") bush attacks iran.

   hey joe (do i sound like a hendrix song?): nothing like taking a brave stand you can't even follow up on (him being in the Senate and all), and nothing like beating bush & cheney to the punch re Iran (he'll impeach AFTER the damage is done; i mean "after", what the hell are they going to care?).

   maybe the fact he's talking impeachment at all is somehow significant to the entire Democratic primary, but the fact he says he's going to impeach bush if bush attacks iran AFTER the deed is done, seems even more mealy-mouthed democratic spinelessness than usual, at least to me.

   maybe i'm just in a bad mood 'cause i ain't out of my monkey suit yet on a friday.....

   Posted by Scrub at 11/30/2007 @ 6:40pm

3. The problem with Biden's approach to waiting until hsuB/cHeney admin drops bombs on Iran to initiate impeachment, is that it is merely more of the same old tired problem dems already have-- waiting for hsuB/cHeney to do yet another illegality and another, another,... rather than taking the initiative-- leading our country away from new con repub dic'tatorship philosophy and back to a constitutional form of government; one they 'pledged' allegiance to.

   Biden's big fallacy is that he acts as though he would actually do something when all the while there is already plenty there now to take impeachment action on, yet he has not and does not. Why believe him now? His history of inaction in the face of impeachable activities already disproves what he says he will do in the face of further impeachable actions...

   Where Kucinich's actions are daring, vital, definitive, Biden's are somewhat passive, relative, non-binding.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2007 @ 6:40pm

4. yawn

   Posted by Frankshitsz at 11/30/2007 @ 7:21pm

5. Anyone doing anything to sound the alarm is a wonderful thing.

   1. Bush is hell-bent to kill Americans and Iranians in Iran

   2. Bush is lying about Iran

   Joe Biden is at least trying, to get some attention to this subject. It is a fact that George Bush is paying clever people very highly to do everything they can to get a war going with Iran. Alot of silly Americans do not believe this, believe it or not, some Americans believe George Bush, "Oh I'm not planning to go to war, no no I'm for diplomacy, besides you can trust Condoleeza Rice can't you". Intelligent Americans known a long time that George Bush wants to kill various nationalities of people in Iran - including some Americans.

   But, the Democrats are all too scared to talk about #2. Democrats won't come out and say that George Bush is lying about Iranians supposedly doing something nefarious inside Iraq. What the hell are you scared of? You got to stop worrying about being seen as soft on Iranians and start worrying about the potential negative side of George Bush getting his Armageddon.

   You're scared to undo the demonization of Iranians, you're scared to say anything that takes Iran's side, even if it's calling George Bush a liar - which everyone knows. Democrats, Iran is not doing anything in Iraq except what they co-ordinate with the Iraqi government. George Bush has no "secret evidence". Get some courage and START CROSSING SOME SIGNIFICANT FUCCKING LINES, DEMOCRATS. Never apologize to a Republican, never retreat from a Republican, most of all TRUST THE TRUTH. It is okay to tell it like it is, if you are telling the truth.

   Posted by conshame at 11/30/2007 @ 7:25pm

6. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/30/2007 @ 6:40pm

   Hi there Fools. Looks like the polls are not doing you much good. You'll probably need a new I Party given that Bush is still riding high where it counts and poor drones like Murtha, having got done over on the surge, has not learned his lesson and still thinks he is a reliable prophet. Have you ever thought of trying to impeach his dog? (no silly, not Murtha's) That might really hurt him.

   http://tinyurl.com/2cfvwp

   (in which Murtha, confronted with a new truth, spins a web (of deceit or of his own undoing - take your choice) once again)

   http://tinyurl.com/2nt8gn

   (aka putting your money where your mouth ain't with a very nice picture of a happy and very successful man)

   Posted by lrjones4 at 11/30/2007 @ 7:31pm

7. Posted by CONSHAME 11/30/2007 @ 7:25pm

   Ms Shame,

   Perhaps if you could get the present Democrat controlled Congress to do another ILA.... say model 2007, you may get closer to having your wish fulfilled. That would still give him about 12 months. What do you think of him doing the dirty deed in...say...the eleventh month? That way he could avoid impeachment. Seems a pretty smart way to keep you happy and keep George out of trouble. A win-win outcome.

   ps Unlike most of you libs, young George can count and he knows 70 million is a few more than 27 million but then again I suppose that would be Mitt Romney's problem.

   pps. Are you Rese's mum, sister, daughter or girlfriend?

   Posted by lrjones4 at 11/30/2007 @ 8:03pm

8. The key parts...

   "Biden can't actually move to impeach."

   "But Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he is doing his part."

   "Biden still shies away from joining Kucinich in calling for impeachment now..."

   The rest is John Nichols for the 5200X doing what he's been doing for ...what?...three years?

   Starting a pool...over/under on the LAST John Nichols "impeachment is imminent" article is Election Day, November 7th, 2009.

   I'm better he posts the last a week after. I bet HSUBFOOLS posts his last impeachment is still possible on 2nd week in January, 10 days before Inauguration Day 2009.

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 8:15pm

9. Posted by SCRUB 11/30/2007 @ 6:40pm | ignore this person

   Every little bit helps, I spose ... a surety of impeachment for such a willful pathological act, late in the hour as it comes, does not hurt. A still sad, commentary, slightly tinged with moral cowardice ... nonetheless, true.

   Posted by V at 11/30/2007 @ 11:02pm

10. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/30/2007 @ 6:12pm

    yep.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 11:23pm

11. Posted by MASK 11/30/2007 @ 8:15pm |

    sounds like mr. biden is trying to jump on the ol' impeachment springboard.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 11:27pm

12. After Rese's absurdly long posts I don't feel so bad about the length of mine. Thank you Rese. If you are actually trying to get people to read the things you link to, a shorter description might be a good idea.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/01/2007 @ 12:17am

13. Posted by MASK 11/30/2007 @ 8:15pm

    WHO KNOWS, THOUGH?...

    Maybe at least the THREAT of impeachment will serve as something of a deterrent to keep Bush/Cheney from attacking Iran. From this perspective, even Kucunich's (narrowly) failed attempt to put the impeachment of Cheney "on the table" for debate in the House may give the Vice Asshole-in-charge second thoughts about pressing forward with the "bomb Iran" campaign. So John Nichols is right to bring in this theme.

    Personally, I think an attack on Iran is starting to seem less and less likely. At least we're not seeing the same degree of pumping up war hysteria (not yet anyway) that we saw in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iran. (But I am equally certain that if, in the end, Buish/Cheney do NOT bomb/cruise-missile Iran, we'll be hearing the usual chorus about how paranoid we progs all were even to IMAGINE that they would do such a thing!)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 12/01/2007 @ 02:14am

14. THAT SHOULD BE...

    "in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq" obviously. (Damn spelling demons! But maybe a Freudian slip of sorts too, though I fervently hope not....)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 12/01/2007 @ 02:17am

15. reply to "conshane": AMEN, BROTHER!

    Posted by Judy L. Fer at 12/01/2007 @ 02:50am

16. Posted by W_M_BEAR 12/01/2007 @ 02:14am

    Mr.Bear some here are giving their best impressions of mental derangement. We all know the stress they have been under for 7 years and I know it is contagious for those who have a little trouble adding up but please try not to join them. Reasonably sane X-Commos are a bit of a rarity so be a good bear.

    If you check with Crabs or Fools you will find there are literally thousands of ways of calling Bush a liar etc, etc, etc, without invoking Iran. That approach would allow you to stay in the abuse game without earning the reputation of being a bit around the twist as some here, no names mentioned, clearly are.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/01/2007 @ 03:48am

17. Do-Nothing Congress, Do-Nothing Biden, Do-Nothing Nichols,....all get paid to DO NOTHING!

    Hell, I can take a stand......IF Pelosi moves to declare San Francisco a separate country, I'd nominate her for the Nobel Peace Prize!

    Mumble ka-ching Jumble....No More Trouble.....WGAF......BSOTR.........MYOTHW.......

    Posted by Happy at 12/01/2007 @ 10:43am

18. The poll below clearly shows higher numbers for impeachment of hsuB/cHeney than those before Nixon was investigated for Watergate-- It clearly indicates that those interested in impeachment investigations of hsuB/cHeney have a better mandate than those that initiated the investigation of NIXON:

    A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.

    Question:

    Which one of these four statements do you agree with about President Bush:

    1. President Bush has not abused his powers as president.

    2. President Bush has abused his powers as president, but the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment under the Constitution.

    3. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached.

    4. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.

    11/12/07 ______________ #1 ______ #2______#3______ #4

    All voters ______________ 36% _____9%_____21% _____34%

    Democrats ____(39%) ___ 16% _____ 9% ____25% _____50%

    Republicans ___(35%) ____64% _____6% ____12% _____18%

    Independents _ (26%) ____29% ____11% ____26% _____34%

    Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of registered voters nationwide November 9-12, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.

    A total of 70% of American voters say that Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers as vice president. Of the 70%, 26% (18% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 13% (9% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 61% (43% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office. Question:

    Which one of these four statements do you agree with about Vice President Cheney:

    1. Vice President Cheney has not abused his powers as vice president.

    2. Vice President Cheney has abused his powers as vice president, but the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment under the Constitution.

    3. Vice President Cheney has abused his powers as vice president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached.

    4. Vice President Cheney has abused his powers as vice president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.

    11/12/07 ______________ #1 ______#2 ______ #3 _____ #4

    All voters ______________ 30% ____18%______9% _____43%

    Democrats ____(39%) ____ 6% ____ 25% _____6% _____63%

    Republicans ___(35%) ____61% ____12% _____6% _____21%

    Independents _ (26%) ____26% ____16% ____18% _____39%

    Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of registered voters nationwide November 9-12, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.

    http://americanresearchgroup.com/

    With these kind of poll numbers the only obsticles dems have to initiating impeachment investigations are: 1. not enough guts, 2. 12 years out of power thus no cross-party coalitions established, 3. the entrenched dic'tatorship philosophy of the repubs, 5. waning conviction in their oath to our consitution

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/01/2007 @ 11:22am

19. er, 4. the entrenched dic'tatorship philosophy of the repubs,

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/01/2007 @ 11:31am

20. Progressives, we have serious things to consider and serious work to do. We need to be able to talk to each other about them. These comments sections after articles are the logical place to do that, but they have been hijacked by nutcases and people with axes to grind. I'm sorry to say it, but we need an editor who will keep the comments on topic, modedrately brief and moderately coherent.

    Posted by CAH at 12/01/2007 @ 11:54am

21. LvLiberty_the real reason that most Democrats won't support impeachment is because Bush/Cheney provide Democratic POTUS candidates with ammo to use for their campaigns.They 're playing politics.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/01/2007 @ 12:41pm

22. No presidential power/law allows the hsuB/cHeney admin to lie the US citizenry into an unnecessary WAR, nor to commit treason by outing a covert US agent, nor to violate our constitution by illegally spying on US citizens without a warrant, nor to be criminally negligent in their non-action allowing 9/11 to occur and the tragedy of the Katrina hurricane aftermath, nor to violate our own laws and treaties against committing torture, nor to allow signing statements by the exec to violate the very law signed, nor to obstruct justice by using our DoJ as a GOP Gestapo, nor to conspire to commit fraud by purposely using incompetent appointments to create public descent against gov programs for the sole benefit of private corporations, nor to pilfer our treasury, nor to destroy our military... and on and on and on.

    I see the difficulty with initiating impeachment wasn't ever because there's not enough-- it's because there's just soooo much to choose from. The hsuB/cHeney admin IS the MOST corrupt and worst admin in US history and must be CONSTITUTIONALLY stopped asap.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/01/2007 @ 12:41pm

23. Joe, old boy, you've been in the Senate since 1972. That means you are part of the PROBLEM, not part of the solution.

    You're just taking big about impeachment, since the Senate doesn't do anything until AFTER the House moves to impeach and passes that motion on to the Senate.

    Not long ago, Joe, you described yourself as a "ZIONIST." How does being a Zionist square with your "I" talk?

    I imagine your paymasters in Tel Aviv will let you blow off some steam, to look good to us voters, and when the time comes to really step up and be a man, your Zionists hosts in Israel will do what they always do to Senators like you, Joe; Tell you to back off or face a loss of backing and money.

    So keep up the BS Joe, old boy. Cause that's all it is: Hot air and BS, coming from Joe Biden, the Senator representing the Great State of Dupont.

    Posted by Greg Bacon at 12/01/2007 @ 12:48pm

24. Posted by CAH 12/01/2007 @ 11:54am | ignore this person

    Please ... though you do define a problem, it is by example, not comment. The abdication of ones personal responsibility, and the assignation of same to another, is core to the ill that this republic suffers. Which is why I allow myself leave to speak to it. Giving someone the parental responsibility of slicing up ones intellectual fare into "nice," one size fits all, spoon size bites. And having the resulting pablum fed to one, speaks to the expectations of one successfully conditioned by, hmm ... lets call them, in honour of Reese, and for the sake of brevity and noting of nuance of such machinations, the (rather authoritarian) "powers that be."

    "Im sorry to say it"

    Yes you are ... Like the Joker said, think of it as therapy, break through the conditioning. If you cannot then your ideas probably have yet to see the light of the real world day. Could perhaps be relegated to the probable ivory tower from whence they come. This is supposition on my part, of course, as your name is new to me, and I have naught to go by but what you have said here and now.

    "we need an editor"

    We all, already have one, it is composed of various and sundry though doubtless, not equal parts, and to a lesser or greater degree each, of intellect, cognition, consciousness and will. Surely you can muster at least one of them to sufficient critical mass so as to survive the navigation of this forum, and contribute. If not with impunity, at least to the point, of getting yours across? Get used to (I hope) challenge, not comfort.

    Welcome to the wilderness.

    Posted by V at 12/01/2007 @ 3:28pm

25. Posted by V 12/01/2007 @ 3:28pm

    Hey, hey..."V" is back.

    Guess the fall LaRouche Youth Movement seminars must be over!

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2007 @ 7:53pm

26. That approach would allow you to stay in the abuse game without earning the reputation of being a bit around the twist as some here, no names mentioned, clearly are.

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/01/2007 @ 03:48am

    LRJ -- ***UNLIKE*** SOME HERE...

    I do not consider myself to BE in the "abuse game." That does seem to be how a lot of Nation posters get their rocks off, I agree, but unless someone calls me a name that I find especially unimaginative, I try not to get sucked in. (For one thing, I just don't have the time for it that a lot of posters here seem to, though I won't launch into the whole "get a job" screed that some cons seem overly fond of aiming at hyper-regulars....)

    As to being "a bit around the twist," well, one man's "nuts" is another man's sane rationality in my experience. At any rate, I like to believe that we are at least forestalling and hopefully foreclosing on a U.S. attack on Iran by talking about it publicly (AND threatening impeachment if Bush/Cheney go ahead with what apparently are their late-night schemes in this regard....)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 12/01/2007 @ 8:38pm

27. BTW, BEAR....on Posted by W_M_BEAR 12/01/2007 @ 02:14am...

    I've postulated that that may be the Mutually Assured Destruction theory of Pelosi, Reid, et al....Nancy and Harry told Dubya that if he hits Iran, they'll not only have Biden and moderate Dems onboard for a DUAL impeachment...but a good dozen or two Repubs who will see their Party go the way of the Whigs in the ensuing 2nd Great Depression.

    So Dubya and Dick get to THREATEN Iran all they want, throw red meat to the neo-cons, but can't actually do anything about it or face a future that Nixon never nightmared about. (like POST-impeachment criminal charges).

    But John Nichols isn't saying that...he STILL believes (as many much more delusional types here do...no NAMESFOOLS need mentioned) that impeachment is still possible and "only a single 'thing' away".

    or he's just trying to keep his book sales up.

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2007 @ 9:17pm

28. Posted by W_M_BEAR 12/01/2007 @ 8:38pm | ignore this person

    Nightly? LoL, probably more like 24/7 ... as doing something else, is only pretense. Bill Moyers had an excellent show yesterday on the religious reich's cheerleading (they wish GWB to use nukes if I remember correctly. I taped it I'll have to watch it again), for war with Iran.

    Posted by V at 12/01/2007 @ 10:22pm

29. As to being "a bit around the twist," well, one man's "nuts" is another man's sane rationality in my experience. At any rate, I like to believe that we are at least forestalling and hopefully foreclosing on a U.S. attack on Iran by talking about it publicly (AND threatening impeachment if Bush/Cheney go ahead with what apparently are their late-night schemes in this regard....)

    Posted by W_M_BEAR 12/01/2007 @ 8:38pm

    Bear,

    Don't pay too much attention to LR. LR is an Aussie, or at least he claims to be. Evidently, things are so boring in his own stomping ground to the point that he's more worried about what is going on in the U.S. than his own country.

    Then again, the U.S. is a better place to live so I can't fault the old boy too much. Anyway, he's talking about "a bit around the twist" and such, but it would seem that someone who is worried about the politics of another nation is "a bit around the twist".

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2007 @ 11:19pm

30. Posted by W_M_BEAR 12/01/2007 @ 8:38pm

    No I don't think you belong there Mr Bear but as it says in the good book, evil communications corrupt good manners, so we all need to be very careful we don't get dragged down by those with whom we co-habit.

    All of us who get into this little game must be maddies in one way or another or we wouldn't keep coming back masochistically for more punishment or whatever.

    I notice Mask has his diagnosis and likely prognosis in place.

    Could I suggest that libertarians and progressives cannot enter into the mind of a GW Bush? One needs empathy to do that or at least a different sort of craziness and I think we, on our side of the aisle, are well equipped for that. My craziness, as you may know by now, leads me to the conclusion that GW, on one level, stumbled into a war that was set up for him by the previous administration with not a little help from Congress.

    Though he was a great hero to Dems and the GOP and just about every American for a while, no one told him or them that it wouldn't be over in a few months. That's when the Dems and the Americans left him like shag on a rock.

    Would he have gone into Iraq without all that groundwork from Bill (and Hillary) and all the Cheer leading from Congress? This particular type of maddie, who is more likely to know how GWs mind works than a libertarian or a progressive would, (on the principle it takes one to know one) says probably not.

    Now do you see one or perhaps two difficulties? No IranLA (which, with one letter changed was his main plank of Congressional support before acting last time around. And unlike last time no backslapping, prompting and cheering but now only threats and hissing and booing from the likes of Biden.

    Well you say how about a few missiles? Bill (and the Brits) sent about 400 of them into Iraq to show Saddam in Dec 1998 that they weren't to be messed with. Why won't Bush do that? My suggestion, apart from the fact that it would be just as ineffective in serving any useful purpose as Clinton's missiles were, is that, that is not how Bush runs his wars. He well knows that if such a course were acted upon the Iranians would make sure that it became a ground war, where maybe half a million US troops would be required, and Bush and America has too much riding on Iraq to risk stuffing up what will at best be a very delicate situation for sometime yet.

    So why are the "around the twist(ers)" , including Biden, so obsessed with Iran and war when GW obviously is not. Who knows? You blokes may understand how that sort of mind works. I don't, except to say that it may be no more than a diversion from all the "bad news" coming out of Iraq.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/01/2007 @ 11:30pm

31. LR,

    You have definitely been smokin too much crack. What the hell are you talking about. The dems didnt' push Bush into shit. Bush shoved his way into the White House and promptly shoved his country into a war. The Congress didn't push Bushco into a war. You've been listening to Rove's B.S. again haven't you.

    Rove couldn't tell the truth if his life depended upon it. The guy is a pathalogical liar. That's what makes him such a genius for the rethuglican party. He gets caught in a lie, and makes up a bigger lie to cover up the smaller lie. What a genius.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2007 @ 11:47pm

32. but it would seem that someone who is worried about the politics of another nation is "a bit around the twist".

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/01/2007 @ 11:19pm

    well,

    for better,

    and for worse,

    the politics of your country,

    is the politics of everybody's,

    country.

    respectfully,

    fz.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 12:08am

33. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 12:08am

    I stand corrected. After all, the politics of the U.S. are evidently the politics of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North and South Korea, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, China.

    See, that's the problem. If all of those nations would just become republicans and let the dictators run their countries into the ground like W, then there wouldn't be any wars!!

    People of the world, quit asking for a better life. Serve your masters and be greatful that they don't shoot you in the face. Dick Cheney may just be waiting around the corner!!!!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 12:31am

34. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 12:31am

    naw,

    as your neighbours,

    (and in this electro-world we're all getting really close)

    all we ask is that you

    uphold the wonderful ideas of

    your A-1 constitution,

    and lead by example and not by

    squishing.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 12:41am

35. worried about the politics of another nation is "a bit around the twist".

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/01/2007 @ 11:19pm

    How's things Wolfie. Thanks for the warm welcome. I sort of consider myself a citizen of the world so I get involved in all sorts of forums probably spend more time on UK and Aussie forums than the US variety but also join the bloggers on WP and USA Today with one liners so I share myself around a bit.

    Not all of them are political forums (fora?) some are technical and useful for my line of work and I use a few good shares trading/investment forums in Aus. I'm on holidays for a couple of weeks and have had a bit more time on my hands to annoy you blokes.

    If I'm feeling a bit hyper then the al Jazeera forum is my destination where I renew acquaintances with such regulars as bin Laden from USA, George Bush from the Milky Way etc. Get a bit worried when Ali from Afghanistan wants my home address.

    I think Americans probably think more like Australians than other English speaking groups or at least I think I understand the idiom but that is probably because of American dominance of the English-speaking entertainment industry.

    Why this political site:

    1. What America does affects the rest of the world so it pays to know what is going on inside American's heads.

    2. There are quite a wide range of views expressed on a great variety of topics. I'm as much interested in how people think through an issue as what that person thinks.

    3. There are some very bright posters from the left and the right here who sometimes have an interesting perspective or challenge on issues that interest me.

    4. The posters are such a charming lot.

    5. It's free and I haven't been kicked off (yet).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2007 @ 12:47am

36. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 12:41am

    Sorry Frosty. We can't help it. Once we started squishing things, it evidently became quite a fascination. You know, the crunching, squishy sound of some insignificant place we wish to exploit and all.

    But of course, in the name of freedom and democracy, the squishing must continue constitution or not.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 12:48am

37. Posted by LRJONES4 12/02/2007 @ 12:47am

    LR,

    Glad your with us. Keeps things interesting. If it makes you feel better, I always keep Australia and Canada in mind of the 3rd Reich really gets control over here.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 12:51am

38. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 12:48am

    DAMN!

    i hope y'all don't find them WMDs out in alberta..........................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 12:53am

39. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 12:51am

    just don't forget the turnips and gold....................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 12:54am

40. i hope y'all don't find them WMDs out in alberta..........................

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 12:53am

    Aha!! Caught you. We knew you guys were just fronting being good hockey players to hide your nucular weapons. Now we are going to have to invade your country because our country is full of your terroist hockey players.

    Right now I'll bet they are plotting to help the dems out or maybe even something worse like not singing our national anthem before hockey games!!!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 01:01am

41. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 01:01am

    even worse,

    we may actually sing it in tune!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 01:05am

42. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 01:01am

    check out the original words to your anthem. let's party! [en.wikipedia.org]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 01:11am

43. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 01:05am

    No!! Never!! You can't do that to us. We won't stand for it. I guess we will have to pass a law requiring all Canadian hockey players to convert to the southern batptist religion before they can cross our border to play hockey. That way, their hockey skills will drop off as will their IQ's, and their singing will then fall out of tune as well. If they are caught singing in tune, we'll know they haven't been attending church services.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 01:16am

44. Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 01:16am

    in canada,

    the ice rink is our church*.

    *that's just a cliché,

    our real church is Tim Horton's [timhortons.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 01:24am

45. Senator Joe Biden 1.12% 1723

    Kucinich 31.97% 49364

    No, Kucinich's top-place finish in the Democracy for America online survey that attracted serious attention from major campaigns and drew more than 150,000 voters does not mean the anti-war congressman from Ohio is on a fast track to the nomination. But it does mean that Kucinich is displayed an ability to attract meaningful support from the party's activist base and that his "Democratic-wing-of-the-Democratic-Party" message has appeal.

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=249126

    Joe is more than happy to let thousands of iranians die, and then get around to impeachment as ChainBushey slink off to private sector reapering. mules and hawks don't mix, joe. doves are the stubborn, whipme-types.

    Posted by bloggod at 12/02/2007 @ 03:05am

46. LvLiberty-LRJones is never dead on.He is quite naive and very uninformed as well as being a chickenhawk.Liberals love history and facts and wish you guys did to.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/02/2007 @ 12:03pm

47. I think I posted this interview before, but if what Naomi Klein claims is true, Bush and Cheney could be impeached if there is evidence to back up these claims. Looting another country for private corporate gain is a no no.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPU7EUt6Bew

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 2:45pm

48. I'm tired of Biden's and Dodd's grandstanding. It's easy to talk tough when you know you don't have the constitutional authority that might actually force you to follow through with such brave threats.

    I'm sticking with Dennis. He knows where the job of impeachment lies, and he alone, among all those actually authorized to follow through, is actually following through.

    Posted by carrion at 12/02/2007 @ 5:25pm

49. Posted by BLOGGOD 12/02/2007 @ 03:05am

    We all know how well Dennis does in online polls....

    how does he do in REAL ones?

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2007 @ 9:34pm

50. Hi there Fools. Looks like the polls are not doing you much good. Posted by LRJONES4 11/30/2007 @ 7:31pm | ignore this person

    Speaking of polls, how did that election you had down there go? Did your guy get re-elected? He must have, I'm sure, as you're the voice of the great down under and everybody feels as you do. Right mate?

    "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality." - Karl Rove

    icf itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 12/02/2007 @ 10:49pm

51. 4. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.

    4. Vice President Cheney has abused his powers as vice president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/01/2007 @ 11:22am

    Put me down for two 4's. There's still more than a year before 1/20/09. If the shrub hasn't done anything wrong he has nothing to fear. Give the man his day in court to clear this all up.

    Now Cheney, well that another story. I sure that if he were impeached we'd have to look very hard to find that "undisclosed location" aka the rock he crawls under to ever make impeachment stick on him.

    "All in all, the framers would probably agree that it's better to impeach too often than too seldom. If presidents can't be virtuous, they should at least be nervous." - Joseph Sobran

    icf itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 12/02/2007 @ 11:04pm

52. I wish I was 17 again, when I knew I was a Democrat and the differences were obvious. Now I don't know who to believe anymore. Democrats have sold out and become just like Republicans. Does anyone know if Biden is for real and if and when he sold himself out? I'd like to know for real if this guy has any solid credentials.

    Posted by bobandjim at 12/03/2007 @ 06:58am