Spell It Out: "I-M-P-E-A-C-H!"

posted by John Nichols on 04/28/2007 @ 12:20am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (105)

Subscribe Now

In January, Brooklyn's Jacob Park made an audacious proposal to the loose coalition of groups that has been campaigning to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

They should pick a date, say April 28, and encourage activists across the country to spell out the word "I-M-P-E-A-C-H" on beaches, highway overpasses, the sides of buildings, downtown street corners and anywhere else where Americans might get the message they can and should be about business of applying the Constitutional remedy to a lawless administration.

"George Bush and Dick Cheney have lied the nation into a war of aggression, are spying in open violation of the law, and have sanctioned the use of torture," declares Park's ambitious A28.org website. "These are high crimes and misdemeanors that demand accountability. Since Congress doesn't seem to get it, on April 28 Americans from Miami, Florida to North Pole, Alaska, are going to spell it out for them: IMPEACH!"

Park's vision is coming to fruition this weekend, with the "A28" movement flexing its muscles at a moment when impeachment is suddenly very much "on the table" from which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to remove it. Vermont's state Senate and dozens of local city councils and commissions across the country have endorsed impeachment. Democratic and Green party groups across the country have added their voices. The peace movement, including the umbrella group United for Peace and Justice, has declared impeachment a priority. Polls by Newsweek and other media outlets show that a majority of Americans see impeachment as a legitimate response to accusations that Bush and Co. faked up a "case" for war with Iraq. And Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney that focus on the manipulation of intelligence before the war and attempts to maintain the lie since its beginning.

Kucinich said in announcing those articles that, "I do not stand alone. Millions of Americans are standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law."

The A28 movement is confirming the truth of that statement.

From the Caribbean to the Arctic Circle, activists will spread the word by banner, boat, automobile and plane.

Two thousand people are expected to form a "human mural" on Ocean Beach in San Francisco to spell out "I-M-P-E-A-C-H!" with their bodies. Then they'll march to Pelosi's home for an impeachment rally.

Down the coast in San Diego, where the state Democratic convention is being held, another human mural will be formed on a local beach as activists from across California rally in favor of a party resolution calling for articles of impeachment to be advanced in Congress.

There will be more human murals in New York, Washington and dozens of cities nationwide.

Planes pulling pro-impeachment banners will fly over the Jazz & Heritage Festival in New Orleans � a city that nurtures a particular gripe against the president -- and public events in New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta and other cities.

An impeachment caravan will cross the state of Iowa.

And when George Bush arrives in Miami to deliver the commencement address at Miami Dade College, he will be greeted by a crowd of Floridians calling for his impeachment and removal from office.

The A28 movement is pegged to one day. But it started before April 28, with an April 26 banner drop from the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington. Code Pink and Hip Hop Caucus activists unfurled a two-story long banner that called the Congress back to the roots of the Republic.

It quoted the Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Fourteen of the impeachment activists were arrested for daring to so quote the founding document in George Bush's Washington. But in the America that lies beyond the beltway, the Constitution is making a comeback � especially the six separate sections in which it spells out the word "I-M-P-E-A-C-H!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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.'"

Comments (105)

"Code Pink and Hip Hop Caucus activists,A28 movement ,Two thousand people are expected to form a "human mural" on Ocean Beach in San Francisco,encourage activists across the country to spell out the word "I-M-P-E-A-C-H" on beaches, highway overpasses, the sides of buildings, downtown street corners,Vermont's state Senate and dozens of local city councils and commissions across the country have endorsed impeachment. Democratic and Green party groups across the country have added their voices,, including the umbrella group United for Peace and Justice, has declared impeachment a priority...and last but not least,..Kucinich.."

Can you spell .."K-O-O-K-S",....come on...itys always the same crowd...where are the nudists for Islamic Justice?...always the same groups rally 13-14 people.

I appreciate the art of demonstartions..ah, never mind....

Lets impeach now...

I would like to see code Pink, Hip Hop artists,..all the usual suspects on TV everyday...screeching for impeachment......as loud and as often as they can...and see if you really get an impeachment hearing...from the leadership....or see if they do what the rest of America does when it see your "peace advocates groups" marching...they roll their eyes..

Impeachment now.

Posted by john maasch at 04/28/2007 @ 01:08am
"And when George Bush arrives in Miami to deliver the commencement address at Miami Dade College, he will be greeted by a crowd of Floridians calling for his impeachment and removal from office."

Really? Good -- a way of breaking through the communications bubble.

Posted by RLawrence at 04/28/2007 @ 05:39am
A link to Rep. Kucinich's web page with the impeachment docs, as also reported this week at the Nation blogs:

Kucinich Docs [kucinich.house.gov]

Posted by RLawrence at 04/28/2007 @ 05:44am
From Page 1 of 3: Rep. Kucinich's Synopsis of H.Res. 233 -- Impeachment of VP Cheney

Article I: The Vice Preisdent of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraqin a manner damaging to our national security interests."

Posted by RLawrence at 04/28/2007 @ 06:31am
From the synopsis of Article II of H. Res. 233 -- More Deception, Different Topic:

"The Vice President of the United States, Richsrd B. Cheney, has purposesly manipulated the intelligence process to decieve the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and [aQ] in order to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner dmanaging to our national security interests."

The charge continues: The veep was fuly informed that there was no credible evidence of such a link, but systematically sought to deceive "the citizens and the Congress" about an alleged relationship.

Mentions the 650,000 Iraqis killed as a result, the 3300 Americans, and the $500 billion in war costs.

Posted by RLawrence at 04/28/2007 @ 06:37am
I heard a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I think, talking about the Kucinich resolution. She said she couldn't really comment because such matters come through the committee -- I think this is what she said... could have just been that it would be inappropriate for a member of Judiciary to comment

Either way, it was a careful sort of a response. That makes sense, since impeachment is just an indictment, with a trial in the Senate to follow. Investigation and evidence must come first (although Kucinich obviously feels he has enough to go forward now.)

Posted by RLawrence at 04/28/2007 @ 07:02am
Journalist Chris Hedges from the Truthdig website supports impeachment.

Spee ch [truthdig.com]

The link is to a speech Hedges gave in Washington:

"This President is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the �crime of aggression'."

Posted by RLawrence at 04/28/2007 @ 07:20am
Ledeen, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rhode, Feith, Libby, both Wurmsers, Lieberman, Chertoff and ALL OF AIPAC represent the "Suits" division of Mossad.

David Rockefeller is the King Suit who married the GHW Bush contigent to the Mossad contingent for a grand conspiracy to utilize the PNAC (false flag atack) plan as the pretext for Ledeen's wet dream, TOTAL WAR.

The Bilderberg globalists assumed they were all on the same page, and the Queen Of Royal Dutch Shell (Queen Beatrix) assumed she was sheltered from investigation of role in the conspiracy to drive oil prices higher while taking over the world's supply. All of the coconspirators (elected US officials) have private bank accounts in Norway.

But here's the problem. Likud double crossed them all, and as a result, controls the world right now. Israel has wiretapped every phone, has more blackmail evidence against the key players than any other single entity, and even has the ability to attack any country in the world using US nukes from our soil or their own - as they control the targeting and launch codes.

They have the US media under total control to the extent that no journalist will dare to ask ANY relevant questions about Israel's role in the entire conspiracy, or the evidence of their blackmail, bribery and extortion.

The AIPAC/ Franklin Trial? Where are the stories about that in the media? One of the worst cases of foreign espionage since the Pollard Affair, and you'll not hear or see a word of it in the Israeli-controlled US media.

Irael has used the Bush Administration to achieve their own goal of creating Eretz Israel, and they are in the process of using their US Media to throw the Bush Administration under the bus, while concealing their own direct role in 9/1, the anthrax atacks, and all that has and will follow.

Next up - the attack against america, purportedly by Iran, followed by our nuclear response and a declaration of Martial law, and the activation of concentration camps in the US to house dissenters.

Google: "swift luck greens"

Agent Chertoff's wet dream.

Where are Henry Kissinger, General Tommy Franks and General Norman Shwarzkopf? What are they plotting? Ask the question - right out loud.

Posted by plunger at 04/28/2007 @ 09:01am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/28/2007 @ 01:08am

Yeah, goodness knows we wouldn't want to support peace, would we?

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2007 @ 09:07am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/28/2007 @ 09:07am

Yeah, goodness knows we wouldn't want to support peace, would we?

We all support peace. Some of us have a problem with cheap moralizing, however. Our troops killing terrorists in Afghanistan and Itaq are doing far more to bring about world peace than any number of moonbats on parade in this country's nice safe streets.

Posted by pontificus at 04/28/2007 @ 09:22am
Funny how these demonstrations always seem to happen when the weather turns nice. Brings to mind some quotes about sunshine patriots and winter soldiers.

Liberals always prefer talk over action, symbolism over substance. They will yammer all day to each other and anyone who will listen about their devotion to peace. In practice, however, this generally means unilateral disarmament or isolationism, UN resolutions, or other such bad ideas or meaningless blather. This is why most Americans just ignore these 'peace marches' for the kibuki they are.

Posted by pontificus at 04/28/2007 @ 09:31am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/28/2007 @ 01:08am | ignore this person

Do you have a substative argument beyond name calling and using phrases such as "screeching"?

Kucinich actually spells out an argument. The synopsis from the following link spells out his argument rather succinctly and provides evidence.

http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

Can you do similarly? Or are you engaging in the same kind of behavior you are complaining about?

Posted by srjenkins at 04/28/2007 @ 09:34am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 09:22am

I served in the military during the first Iraq War. Which war did you serve in again? Most people that support this war aren't in it or have ever had their lives (or anyone they know) on the line. "Brings to mind some quotes about sunshine patriots and winter soldiers." Indeed.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/28/2007 @ 09:37am
Check out this brief video presentation on the USS Liberty to learn how the world REALLY WORKS:

http://www.icomment.org/index.php/main/video/show?id=3892303&s=100

Posted by plunger at 04/28/2007 @ 09:48am
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/28/2007 @ 09:37am

I served in the military during the first Iraq War. Which war did you serve in again? Most people that support this war aren't in it or have ever had their lives (or anyone they know) on the line. "Brings to mind some quotes about sunshine patriots and winter soldiers." Indeed.

If you served in the first Iraq War then you were a volunteer, as is every soldier currently overseas to keep this country safe. If you are now regretting your service, aren't you just seeking someone to blame? And are you saying that only military personnel have the right to make comments regarding the war? If that was so, you are vastly outvoted by your fellow soldiers and veterans, and any mention of the war by the left is moot because they're virtually all non-affiliated with the military.

Posted by pontificus at 04/28/2007 @ 09:51am
Which US Naval Vessel will Israel's Submarines destroy in the waters off of Iran in order to create the pretext for the immediate retaliatory nuclear strike that Vice Criminal Dick Cheney has been telegraphing for the better part of a year?

Posted by plunger at 04/28/2007 @ 09:51am
I think it is important to remember that, after giving the green light to Saddam with Kuwait, Bush Sr. had to be shamed into kicking Saddam out of that country. he wasn't going to do anything, until the outcry from our allies became so strong, he had no other choice. he did show considerable wisdom and diplomacy in putting together a real coalition, and then not to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. funny Shrub made his dad look good with his absurd policies.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 11:21am
it seems that there is a growing movement in this country to impeach king shrub. compare this with Clinton's impeachment, something most of the american people opposed at the time.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 11:45am
Might I help get to the point:

I served in the military during the first Iraq War. Which war did you serve in again?

Posted by SRJENKINS 04/28/2007 @ 09:37am

None. Haven't a clue.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 09:51bm

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 12:09pm
kibuki ? hahahaha, Ponti you are as dumb as the proverbial stick.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 12:15pm
full disclosure, I have emptied my ignore bin, so for a time I am fair game.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 12:16pm
when it see your "peace advocates groups" marching...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/28/2007 @ 01:08am | ignore this person

So, John, I take it you're with the "war advocates group".

Liberals always prefer talk over action, symbolism over substance.

Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 09:31am | ignore this person

and Blatherificus and his NeoNuts prefer preemptive war over talk, agression over diplomacy.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun-tzu, The Art of War

Posted by COProgressive at 04/28/2007 @ 12:32pm
funny Shrub made his dad look good with his absurd policies.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/28/2007 @ 11:21am

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq .... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

George H. W. Bush - If only his son could read.

Posted by COProgressive at 04/28/2007 @ 12:36pm
Like a gun itself, doesn't kill, people 'using' the gun, do the killing. Our government itself, doesn't kill, people 'using' our government, did the killing of ours and theirs. Those people proven to have 'used' our government 'illegally' to kill hundreds of thousands-- must suffer the consequences.

Or, they will do as Cho, with 'their' last bullet?

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 12:37pm
Kabuki? let's have a show of hands, who has actually seen this form of Japanese "opera"?

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 12:47pm
Kabuki? Only glancingly, mostly via video. Hard to watch or translate. Meant for a 'slower' time.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 12:58pm
Kabuki? Only glancingly, mostly via video. Hard to watch or translate. Meant for a 'slower' time.

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/28/2007 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person

No, you must see "live" you'd be surprised. Bunraku is also heavenly. ask me.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 1:06pm
impeach contains most of the word peace, coincidence? I think not.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 1:11pm
....aren't you just seeking someone to blame? And are you saying that only military personnel have the right to make comments regarding the war?

Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 09:51am | ignore this person

As usual, Blather has gotten it wrong again. SRJENKINS was making the point that this war of aggression was need less. Yes, he did volunteer, as did I thirty something years ago. I'm proud of my military service, but I joined the Marines when I was 19 years old to avoid being drafted. If I had to fight, I wanted to fight with the best. Sorry, Army guys :-( But I was 19 and didn't have the wisdom then that I have accumulated over the years. While I am proud to have been a Marine, I did not care for what I had to do. War suck at the ground level, sucks big time. I just can't believe that anyone that's been in combat and had to do what I did would support sending any mothers' son and now daughter to war, especially an unnecessary war, poorly conceived, poorly managed, with no exit strategy, just to put 150,000 pairs of American boots on top of the second largest bubble of oil in the world based on lies.

SRJENKINS is right in quoting Blather "Brings to mind some quotes about sunshine patriots and winter soldiers." Indeed.

This is George W Bush's war and it is a failure. Bush won't admit it and will keep it going until he leaves office so that he doesn't have to accept it for what it is. War president my ass! He and his NeoNut partners have caused the Vietnam like quagmire that the next Democratic President will have to clean up. Just like George, the spoiled rich kid, screw things up and let someone else fix it for him. War president my ass, he's nothing more than a Chickenhawk kid playing with his toy solders. Unfortunately, this solders are alive, have mothers and fathers, wives and children. They bleed and die and are sent home in flag draped caskets we aren't allowed to see. Just so George won't be a "losing war president'.

"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear."

General Douglas MacArthur

Posted by COProgressive at 04/28/2007 @ 1:34pm
I forgot to add....

itmfa

"The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the King of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable: There is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable, no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution."

Alexander Hamilton

Posted by COProgressive at 04/28/2007 @ 1:40pm
Why will the repubs in congress go along with dems and impeachment:

The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE � 3.

"How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Date___________Excellent/Pretty Good__Only Fair/Poor

4/20-23/07______________22____________74

4/5-10/05_______________36____________61

4/10-15/03______________52____________41

Congressional Job Approval

Poll_____________Date______Approve_Disapprove

FOX News_____04/17 - 04/18_____35_____49

CBS News_____04/09 - 04/12_____34_____54

LA Times/

Bloomberg____04/05 - 04/09_____34_____58

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 12-15, 2007. N=1,141 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

4/12-15/07______54_______44_______2

10/5-8/06_______48_______50_______3

5/11-15/06______39_______58_______4

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 1:59pm
Co, "So, John, I take it you're with the "war advocates group".

No.

Posted by john maasch at 04/28/2007 @ 2:14pm
you must see "live" you'd be surprised. Bunraku is also heavenly. ask me.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/28/2007 @ 1:06pm

One of my daughters has been studying Japanesse for that last 2-3 years, but she's up in Boston, whilst I'm in Austin. When I find an opportunity, I'll look forward to the 3-4+ hours with her.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 2:29pm
impeach contains most of the word peace, coincidence? I think not.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/28/2007 @ 1:11pm

I, M and H+E. I'm HE... Perhaps hsuB stopped listening to HIM. Or maybe he's been really listening to the other one the whole time.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 2:34pm
No.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/28/2007 @ 2:14pm

Learning from Biden or just biding your time, effort.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 2:38pm
Okay, two quick questions...

1. I haven't found it in the news...how many and who are Kucinich's co-sponsers?

2. Given the imminent dual impeachments of Dubya and Dick, anybody know any writers here at "The Nation" with a good book on the subject???

Posted by Mask at 04/28/2007 @ 2:49pm
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 1,140,000 for recent books on impeachment. (0.27 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q= recent+books+on+impeachment&btnG=Google+Search

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 2:57pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/28/2007 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person

Austin? I have heard many nice things about that place. I did not mean to sound glib about seeing the Kabuki. I realize not everyone is in the position to do so, not living in a city where this is possible, eventhough rare. I had the opportunity for a funny retort recently. an associate was carrying a book about the Noh drama, leading me to ask,"what part of Noh don't you understand?" hilarity ensued.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 2:58pm
"One function of Kucinich's introduction of the Articles will be break the silence on the "I" word, which had been demanded by US Rep. Pelosi. It was largely viewed that US Rep. Conyers, the original sponsor of H Res 635, dropped his bill out of respect to Pelosi and his desire to be appointed Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, several Members of Congress have stated that they have followed in Conyers's steps in choosing not to introduce similar bills of their own.

According to APN's analysis, there are currently four (4) Members of Congress who would be willing to support impeachment. US Rep. Kucinich has been one of the people on the list for some time and we can now reveal this to our readers. US Rep. John Lewis told an Atlanta-based radio station WAOK that he would support Articles of Impeachment should they be introduced, although he did not support his colleague Cynthia McKinney's bill when it was introduced. The other two Representatives cannot be named at this time.

One of the main arguments against is impeaching Bush is regarding the possibility of a President Cheney; however, the bill to impeach Cheney would eliminate this issue.

At the same time, when Pelosi said impeachment was off the table, implicitly she meant the impeachment of Bush.

For Kucinich to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Cheney is, thus, in a way, dispelling the stigma of impeachment, because many Members of Congress may be more inclined to support impeaching Cheney. It also brings up the general idea of impeachment into the mainstream media dialogue."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00427.htm

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 3:06pm
"what part of Noh don't you understand?" hilarity ensued.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/28/2007 @ 2:58pm

That is funny.

Unfortunately, a similar question to hsuB would suggest the name Noah... not too funny.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 3:13pm
My eldest daughter just called to remind me of what's going today at the park. So much for catching up with work at home.

Off to Eeyore's bithday.

Later.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 3:23pm
If we fail to impeach Bush and Chaney and they are able to leave their offices under any circumstance other than disgrace it will constitute what I would consider the greatest miscarriage of justice in our history. Not only should they be stripped of their offices they should be tried and convicted and sentanced for their treasonous actions.

Posted by craftcarver at 04/28/2007 @ 3:59pm
The Americans killed in Iraq included five who died in fighting Friday in Anbar province, three killed when a roadside bomb struck their patrol southeast of Baghdad and one killed in a separate roadside bombing south of the capital.

The deaths raised to 99 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died this month and at least 3,346 who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press account.

how long does Bush have in office? you do the math.

I mourn the fallen and my sympathies go out to their families.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 5:14pm
Okay, two quick questions...

1. I haven't found it in the news...how many and who are Kucinich's co-sponsers?

2. Given the imminent dual impeachments of Dubya and Dick, anybody know any writers here at "The Nation" with a good book on the subject???

Posted by MASK

Is there anything in the mainstream media about the impeachment effort submitted by Kucinich? I think we've already discussed that issue.

And still attempting to muddy the waters, confuse those too simple to recognize what you are.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/28/2007 @ 7:15pm
To the president-

You will fool no one by running out the clock and blaming your spectacular failures on others.

You own this war, and all the damage done to our democratic institutions. Your legacy will be that of the worst president in all our history.

The only way tomorrow's history books will say otherwise is if Neil represents the publisher, and your mother donates them.

Posted by drhammer at 04/28/2007 @ 7:35pm
Well, I guess Cheney is impeachable, but not Bush. How would you impeach a man who did nothing, except signing papers that given to him.

Posted by Helen DAO at 04/28/2007 @ 8:45pm
International human rights law

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 38, (1989) proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities." The Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict to the Convention that came into force in 2002 stipulates that its State Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons below the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities and that they are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces.

Fatalities by AGE

Age Total Percentage

21 431 12.9%

20 362 10.8%

22 335 10%

23 232 6.9%

24 221 6.6%

25 203 6.1%

19 193 5.8%

26 163 4.9%

27 141 4.2%

28 123 3.7%

29 98 2.9%

31 96 2.9%

30 85 2.5%

32 74 2.2%

34 61 1.8%

36 59 1.8%

33 55 1.6%

35 51 1.5%

37 46 1.4%

38 37 1.1%

39 37 1.1%

40 30 0.9%

18 29 0.9%

43 25 0.7%

44 23 0.7%

41 23 0.7%

42 23 0.7%

45 17 0.5%

46 16 0.5%

48 10 0.3%

47 9 0.3%

51 7 0.2%

49 5 0.1%

50 4 0.1%

53 2 0.1%

55 2 0.1%

59 2 0.1%

60 1 0%

56 1 0%

57 1 0%

54 1 0%

52 1 0%

Total 3346

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx

In the United States seventeen-year-olds may join the armed forces, but may not be deployed in combat situations. The United States military requires all soldiers to possess a high school diploma or equivalent; this requirement may be waived for young soldiers for up to 180 days from the date of enlistment. In spirit, these policies ensure soldier maturity similarly to laws that would explicitly ban the use of minors in combat.

"The United States has emerged as the most vigorous opponent of establishing eighteen as the minimum age for military service, although less than 3,000 members of its 1.3 million active duty force are minors."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children

The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.

The majority of moral waivers are for serious misdemeanors, most often committed by juveniles. As Douglas Smith, the public information officer for the Army's recruiting command, said, "We understand that people make mistakes in their lives and they can overcome those mistakes."

The Marine Corps issues far more moral waivers than the Army -- 20,750 in 2006 -- but only because it has a stricter policy on drug use. It requires waivers for one-time marijuana use while the other services do not. Rules on waivers vary by service.

"The data is crystal clear; our armed forces are under incredible strain, and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards," said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. He has requested more detailed data from the Defense Department on the use of waivers.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/america/web.0214military.php

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 9:51pm
Military recruiters target schools strategically

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | November 29, 2004

A survey of the military's recruitment system found that the Defense Department zeroes in on schools where students are perceived to be more likely to join up, while making far less effort at schools where students are steered toward college.

Now, as pressure mounts on recruiters to find 180,000 volunteers amid casualty counts from Iraq and Afghanistan that have surpassed 1,300 dead and 10,000 wounded, the fairness of the system by which the nation persuades young people to take on the burden of national defense is coming under increasing scrutiny.

David Walsh, a psychologist who has written a book about the impact of media on the adolescent brain, says teenage brains are not yet fully developed. Studies have shown that teens' brain structures make them less independent of group opinion and less likely to consider long-term consequences than adults a few years older.

What we end up doing is maintaining the gap between the haves and the have-nots, because they are the ones who are targeted to put their lives on the line and make sacrifices for the rest of us," Walsh said. "The kids with more options, we don't bother with them."

"This closing method works best with younger men," the manual reads. "You must be careful how you use this one. You must be on friendly terms with your prospect, or this may backfire. It works like this: When you find difficulty in closing, particularly when your prospect's interest seems to be waning, challenge his ego by suggesting that basic training may be too difficult for him and he might not be able to pass it. Then, if he accepts your challenge, you will be a giant step closer to getting him to enlist."

"It turned out that kids who were of upper income were more likely to go to college, but it also turned out that kids from lower incomes had better chances of getting need-based financial aid to college," said Beth Asch, a RAND military personnel analyst. "So when you look at who goes to the military, you tend to get those in the middle."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/29/ military_recruiters_pursue_target_schools_carefully/?page=1

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 9:59pm
Education infiltration: the Pentagon targets high schools - Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps Career Academies - Cover Story

The Progressive

March, 1994

by Linda Rocawich

Now that the Cold War is over, what's the military to do? At the Pentagon, no one really wants to downsize the services - or cut the budget much. Downsizing is taking place, though. Bases are closing, the middle-management ranks of officers are shrinking. College-level ROTC is becoming a shadow of its former self

But under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Les Aspin who, just before resigning, approved a plan for "nontraditional" military efforts, the armed services are moving into the high schools in a major way. They'll be counseling troubled teenagers and offering inner-city schools large grants to set up military academies.

Part of the program is simply a doubling of Junior ROTC, which has been with us for years. The current list of 1,500 high schools nationwide with Junior ROTC programs is slated to grow to 3,000 by the year 1997.

But another - more alarming - part would put the military in control of special programs in certain "target schools."

Robert Goldich, a national-defense specialist at the Library of Congress, has pointed out, "If the military downsizes below a certain |critical mass,' which cannot be easily determined in advance, it may become invisible in the minds of a large segment of the population-potential recruits and their parents."

The armed forces may then, Goldich says, "wish to argue for force levels higher than those warranted by visible and foreseeable threats, on grounds ... of not letting the military as an institution shrink to the point of what might be called |social irrelevance.'"

Before I heard the Goldich theory, I spoke with Tod Ensign, director of Citizen Soldier, about the military career academies. He said he was reminded of an explanation offered him by an advertising executive who was developing TV recruitment ads just after the Pentagon turned to an all-volunteer Army, when the Gallup Poll was showing Americans' attitudes toward enlistment at an all-time low.

"The purpose of these ads," Ensign quotes the executive as saying, "isn't to make you rush out and do something. They're intended to make that |something' [enlistment] known to you and to bring it within the range of acceptable choices."

Ensign, author of the book Military Life: What You Should Know Before You Enlist!, suggests that the expansion of Junior ROTC and establishment of career academies now under way serves this purpose: "acceptability" of the military or, in Goldich's terms, prevention of "social irrelevance."

Aside from the reasons for expansion laid out in the Campaign Plan already cited, the Pentagon also invokes its support of "America 2000," the education improvement strategy developed at President George Bush's "education summit" held in Virginia in 1989 and chaired by then-Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n3_v58/ai_14874578

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 11:10pm
US Congress found in the Recruiting, Retention, and Reservist Promotion Act of 2000 that JROTC and similar programs "provide significant benefits for the Armed Forces, including significant public relations benefits."[8]

In a February 2000 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, the armed service chiefs of staff testified that 30%�50% of graduating JROTC cadets go on to join the military:

Admiral Jay L. Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations testified that "Even if the number is only 30 percent, that is a good number. But think about what we get out of the other 70 percent. They have exposure to us. They have exposure to the military. And the challenge of the education mandate that we all share in principals and school counselors and school districts that won't let us in, that is a powerful tool I think to educate whether or not they end up in the service. So it is a long way around saying it is well worth the investment for lots of different reasons."[6]

Each branch of the US Armed Forces maintains a Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, organized into units. As of June 2006, there are a total of 3,229 units:

1555 Army AJROTC units[1]

794 Air Force AFJROTC units[9]

619 Navy NJROTC units[10]

260 Marine Corps MCJROTC units[11]

1 Coast Guard JROTC unit[12]

In 1967, Congress increased the total number of units authorized to be established from 1,200 to 1,600. In 1992, Congress expanded the maximum number of JROTC units to 3,500; The statutory limitation on the number of units was struck from the law in 2001.[13]

A battalion is a military unit usually consisting of between two and six companies

A company is a military unit, typically consisting of 100-200 soldiers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_Reserve_Officers%27_Training_Corps

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 11:19pm
http://www.jobs.net/Job.asp?jid=J8E0P771S7NYLKV4T66

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2007 @ 11:28pm
Cheney was of military age and a supporter of the Vietnam War but he did not serve in the war, applying for and receiving five draft deferments. In an interview with George C. Wilson that appeared in the April 5, 1989 issue of The Washington Post, when asked about his deferments the future Defense Secretary said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."[7] In January 1959 Mr. Cheney reached age 18 (18 29 0.9%) and was classified as 1-A -- available for service. At that time, however, the military was taking only older men, and like most others who were in college at the time (Cheney was at Yale) he had little concern about being drafted.

In June 1962, Cheney left Yale to return home to Casper, where he worked as a lineman for a power company before enrolling at the University of Wyoming. In 1962, only 82,060 men were inducted into the service, the fewest since 1949. While Cheney was eligible for the draft, as he said during his confirmation hearings in 1989, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was taking only older men.

By January 1963, with the US actively advising South Vietnamese forces, Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College and turned 22 (22 335 10%) that month. At that time, he sought his first student deferment which was granted on March 20, according to records from the Selective Service System. After transferring to the University of Wyoming at Laramie, Cheney sought his second student deferment on July 23, 1963. On August 7, 1964, Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to use military force in Vietnam. From that point on, American involvement in Vietnam began to escalate rapidly.

On August 29, 1964, 22 days after the resolution, Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He sought and was granted his third student deferment on October 14, 1964. In May 1965, Cheney graduated from college and his draft status changed to 1-A. Since he was married, however, he had somewhat better protection from being drafted. In July 1965, Johnson announced that he was doubling the number of men drafted. The number of inductions soared, to 382,010 in 1966 from 230,991 in 1965 and 112,386 in 1964. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment because he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming on November 1, 1965.

On October 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. On January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 (26 163 4.9%)and was no longer eligible for the draft.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2007 @ 12:04am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 09:51am

If you are going to say things like "[l]iberals always prefer talk over action" and "sunshine patriots" then I expect that your actions are congruent with your statements. The Army needs people, and if you believe in the cause, then I have to wonder why you and other members of your family aren't there.

My point in bringing my service into the discussion is because I suspected - and it appears I am correct - that you need to make some lifestyle changes before you can come in here and start making blanket statements about liberals, of which I am one, that are more appropriately applied to yourself.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/29/2007 @ 12:37am
John: I was at the A28 demostration yesterday. It was amazing, there were people of all ages and nationalities. BTW, I got some pictures in case your interested.

Miami Resident.

Posted by riera18 at 04/29/2007 @ 01:24am
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/29/2007 @ 12:37am

Good point SRJ. I come here frequently, but comment infrequently. In any case, Maasch always reminds me of my 8 year old son: He immediately responds with the opposite of whatever I tell him, despite all evidence to the contrary.

"Be careful, the knife is sharp!" "No, it's not!"

Posted by JasonLitz at 04/29/2007 @ 03:22am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/28/2007 @ 7:15pm

How is asking how many co-sponsors Kucinich has gotten..."muddying the waters"?!?!?!

Posted by Mask at 04/29/2007 @ 09:06am
Bushfools,

Your cut and pastes are dry to wade through..there is really nothing of value or new or importanat in those..

So Cheney got a deferment? So what? MILLIONS did the samething...millions, 10s of millions...is his "millitary record any better or worse than Bill Clinton(I mean, theres a sick story if you want to cut and paste some more truths), or Edwards, or Obamas or HBillarys or Denny or Romney,or Fred Thompson or Rudy or any of them...in fact , if your candiate wins in 08,she will be further from military servce than any other president..2 of them if you include Bill and his famous letter to the draft board...my son was in the honor guard for a while and was(all were treated horrible by her) treated like shit by Hillary..none wanted to serve on her or Bills detail and many had to be ordered to attend when Clintons left the WH cerimonies at Bush Ingauration..

Please, even the choir here has to tire of these cut and pastes..

If you live in Austin(my brother in law lives on Lake Travis..man, talk about beautiful and expensive)...you should be at the lake this week end..not cut and pasting 6+ years old articles that meant nothing,,even back then...

We don't require our elected officials to serve in the military as a prereq for elective office..and I am glad we don't.

So your cut and pastes are just a tediuos effort...and worse to read.

I would submit Bush flying jets, even with all the crap about the Alabama guard is more a positive effort than alot of presidents have offered up...

Posted by john maasch at 04/29/2007 @ 10:38am
Posted by JASONLITZ 04/29/2007 @ 03:22am

I only respond in an opposite manner when confronted by lunacy and emotional hysterical ranting mistaken for sound logic..hopefully your 8 year old will be able to recognize the same..however, if your house is so steeped in left wing ideology he may have as much of a chance for OBJECTIVE thinking as one who sits at an empty desk playing with paper clips..

..many 8+ year olds on this blog can't recognise the difference, ...and hopefully you can teach your son the difference between an emotional hope and a reasonable expected outcome.

Ask your 8 year old son what he sees as a future in Iraq after we tell the peace loving locals(and the shadow AQ govt announced earlier by AQ) what day we are leaving and what will happen, say 3 days later? And then ask him how long it will be before we "go back in" and stop all the peaceful celebrations of our defeat, er, departure? Should we go in and stop a blood bath or should we celebrate our withdrawl and watch the slaughter as we did in VN and then take in some more boat people?

BTW, ask your 8 year old what Hillarys or Obamas actual policy and plans are if they win regarding Iraq? What he thinks their plans are , in your own words(or in your 8 year olds), or in theirs..I haven't heard one other, than what they would or wouldn't have done in the first place, but that is long gone and a useless statement.

Posted by john maasch at 04/29/2007 @ 10:57am
Fooly, pay no mind to Maasch, one of the nattering nabobs of negativity. not that I think you would. yourr stuff is never less than informative, unlike Maasch's.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/29/2007 @ 10:59am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/29/2007 @ 10:38am

I think I get it now.

The question is how MAASCH achieves the near random syntactic/semantic quality in these Joycean outbursts of his (see above, where he seems to imply that Obama should be included in the discussion of Baby Boom politicians and 'Nam ... when Obama was born in, ummm, 1-9-6-1. Or anyone have ANY idea what the model intellect MAASCH is trying to say when he implies that his kid is/was Hilary's body guard?).

The answer may be in the method: MAASCH loads up copiously on the cheap beer (3 bucks a case, 2 for a hard-earned fiver), bravely approaches the keybaord, spins delicately around and positions his opening over the keybaord ... and then farts violently, pushing the keys with the sheer force of his "shock and awe" flatulence.

That may account for the ",,,"s and the complete breakdowns of space/time/logic that make a MAASCH post a MAASCH post.

But one thing is not random in MAASCH's posts. And that is the complete and mindless subservience to the conservaClown party line, toward which he lumbers in support with the complete devotion of his doubles in North Korea as he subordinates his whole life to being out in front in saluting the Maximum Leader and his failed policies ...

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 04/29/2007 @ 11:06am
And speaking of flatulence:

I am sick to the point of naseau with conserva-Self-Hating-Americans spouting off like emotionally disturbed trained monkeys about (boo-hoo !!!) all the scandel in today's political climate; never mind whether crimes have been comitted, as if not talking about such would somehow simalarly make murderers and rapists cease to ply their trade.

This is the "whoever smelt it, dealt it" conservaLoser approach to criminality. This game, invented by conservaRetards for conservaRetrards with no capacity to think for themselves, goes like this:

Claim: Libby is a felon.

Conserva-Everything-To-Harm-America Response; "Whoever smelt it, dealt it"

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 04/29/2007 @ 11:15am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/29/2007 @ 10:38am

Well, not Biden your time anymore!

And of course I totally disagree with you. Context is what's important in binding historical actions. Naturally one of the far rights techniques to denying it's own actions is to pooh-pooh its importance and hope no one not only connects the dots but also believe/accept a deflated anger in holding the hsuB/henney/ove admin accountable for their evil.

"So Cheney got a deferment? So what? MILLIONS did the samething...millions, 10s of millions.." JM

Only Cheney, of all those tens of millions, was the only one that pushed and lied our country into war. I am attempting to point out Cheney's disingenuousness and high hypocrisy in feverously lying about the evidence. He, as you, is clueless about the blood on his hands.

The only reason 'we the people' or our MSM were not more skeptical about the new con repub majority rubber-stamp congress and the BS hsuB admin were putting out, was and is, that we are conditioned to accept military solutions. It's part of why we're in this situation. Again you're clueless and I do not expect you to get it.

However there 'are' those 'real' conservatives that I side with on occasion, that are not blind and will see the connection I've pointed out with my cut and pastes. I did edit out a lot. Could've I edited out more: perhaps. For that I do apologize.

BTW, Murtha just now put impeachment back on the table as one of the four options congress has in persuading hsuB concerning troop pullout of Iraq.

And as for living in Austin: YES.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2007 @ 11:27am
Should read: Naturally one of the far right's techniques to denying its own actions is to pooh-pooh its importance...

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2007 @ 11:31am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/29/2007 @ 11:31am

To "pooh-pooh" reality that tilts decisively against conservaLoserism is necessarily a way of life for the committed conservaLoser. See above as DEFACACIOUS engaged in the one form of exertion that he is equipped to performly -- namely, to "pooh-pooh" -- when faced with JENKINS backing up his claims with reference to his service record.

Aaaahhh ... feel the gusts of conserva-Loser-Relativism in full retreat from reality ...

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 04/29/2007 @ 11:40am
Their own reality is all they got.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2007 @ 11:42am
in a still dysfunctional but i guess getting better democracy, almost all republican politcians oppose impeachment, claim folks dont want none of that crazy crap...most dem pols fear being called traitors or accused of playing politics or somehow get magically "roved" in the shower...

but a brief perusal of the strangely disjointed polling information seems to show...

the american people would kinda like to see some impeachment procedures...really, even if it does not go through...

ah...reality tv...people want more of it, and i mean REAL reality tv...

people have really figured out what a bunch of bullshitters and incompetants the neocons have been and want the oversight to (oh so belatedly) kick in.

but as is so often the case, schmuk america is ahead of even the most progressive and trendy of washington...

people are getting into the politics if nothing more than for the lurid voyeurism of peering into a well educated pack of disconnected self serving deaf dumb and blind...with a few notable exceptions.

people have been fooled by the neocons (with the cowardly convenient complicity of sheeplike bleating hyper conforming non-neocon pubs and quisling hollow men/women dems) and are angry.

they wont get fooled again. at least for a generation or half...

come on! start with iron dick mr. 9% popularity! shit...still a'skeered of that evil old sociopath? pathetic.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2007 @ 11:44am
Fools, Maasch's responses could be written by a well trained monkey. they often show neither a command of facts, nor reasoned thought. so what, I still like him, and you too.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/29/2007 @ 11:47am
pictures from beach impeach [beachblogger.net] san diego

http://www.beachblogger.net/

peace, peter

Posted by beachblogger at 04/29/2007 @ 11:52am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/29/2007 @ 11:47am

Yes, I come to appreciate all the differing trees. It just wouldn't be the same world nor as expansive without the contrast.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2007 @ 12:00pm
just because millions of americans dodged the vietnam draft does not necessarily mean that cheney's deferments, and bush's awol, are insignificant matters en lieu of their interest in invading, occupying and indefinitely remanining in iraq.

in fact, only two people are responsible for getting us out: bush and cheney.

so, their history of service is highly significant.

and who was making cracks about "8 year old logic"?

Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2007 @ 12:26pm
JR,

Ah..Thanks..I think...

Lemonfart..the oder at the key board is yours.. my post stands..

Bushfools,

I think you are a smart fellow, as opposed to Lemonfart who is a poor poet, as far as my syntax and spelling...I am a victim of the public school sysem..perhaps Lemonfart would like to hold classes later..in poor poetry or how to write a demeaning post without being funny or whitty...and then we could also be treated to his political genius.

I digress..

All I am saying to you Bushfools, is we can all read poll results and so..............(enough dots for you Lemonhead?)

My only points to you..

1. I don't care about Chaneys or Bush military record any more than you do about Clintons..either of them..

2. The policys of Bush are not of a conservative or a conservative Congress..except tax cuts.. Bush, nor congress were conservative..

3.Name calling by Lemonfarts have no effect on the basic question in my posts..

What is the policy espoused by the Dems, besides telegrahing the day of abandonment as we did in VN...VN was followed up by a slaughter worse than the the war..so will Iraq..

And when AQ has the most influence over whats left of Iraq(after the Kurds step up their own piece), what are the policys , ideas, anything espoused by any of the ones who so impressed the bulk here so easily,...even without stating anything more than "I would have done things different.."

Shouldn't we ask what now, if you are in power Obama, Hillary? ...we all know they think Bush screwed the pooch, but that presumedly will be over on Jan 20...what is THEIR "after Bush policy?" Seems to me that it should be of interest..not what Bush did..

Are we going to wtch the massacure(sp) and taking "boat people"..?

I am now ready for the emotional barbs as I head out the door, but maybe when I come bach some one could asnwer the questions I posed...so far you all sound like the dem "debate", where questions were asked and the ,ah, candidates, spoke their talking points, but never answered tyhe questions...I don't know why they even bother with these celebrety photo ops..

Posted by john maasch at 04/29/2007 @ 2:05pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 09:22am

Afghanistan I'll buy as OBL was camped out there....but explain the threat that Saddam posed to the US again? Oh, thats right - there was none. It was a pre-emptive war that had nothing to do with the "War on Terror" (a nebulous concept at best) and only served GWB's political interests it would seem.

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2007 @ 2:32pm
Our troops killing terrorists in Afghanistan and Itaq are doing far more to bring about world peace than any number of moonbats on parade in this country's nice safe streets.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 09:22am

War is peace?!? LOL, I think Orwell wrote about people like you in "1984"

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/29/2007 @ 5:29pm
impeach contains most of the word peace, coincidence? I think not.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/28/2007 @ 1:11pm

JR, this post isn't nearly up to your usual standard. A bit too sappy, for my tastes, anyway.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/29/2007 @ 5:35pm
1. I haven't found it in the news...how many and who are Kucinich's co-sponsers?

Posted by MASK 04/28/2007 @ 2:49pm

Try reading the Washington Post. They had a page two article about it the day after the press conference.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/29/2007 @ 5:37pm
The answer may be in the method: MAASCH loads up copiously on the cheap beer (3 bucks a case, 2 for a hard-earned fiver), bravely approaches the keybaord, spins delicately around and positions his opening over the keybaord ...

Posted by GLENN LEMON 04/29/2007 @ 11:06am

Hey, Glenn, that was a cheap shot. Anyone who comes here regularly knows that MAASCH likes the quality beers.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/29/2007 @ 5:42pm
John Maasch: I am having a hard time following your line of reasoning and your facts. So a few questions for you:

1. Can you point to someone in national politics that represents a "true" conservative view point from your point of view?

2. Can you outline a "true conservative" plan for Iraq? Particularly, I'd like to know how you would define success or "winning the war" and what it would take to make that happen.

3. Can you tell us which source(s) you are citing when you say "[Vietnam] was followed up by a slaughter worse than the the war...so will Iraq"?

4. Can you explain how "AQ has the most influence over whats left of Iraq" if the U.S. withdraws - given the multi-faceted ethnic, religious, tribal and other relationships that dominate the region that have nothing to do with AQ?

In the interest of fair play, I'll also answer these questions myself.

1. While I don't agree with everything of each of these people argue for and represent, I do like the politics of Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders.

2. I don't think it is appropriate for the U.S. to have any kind of "plan for Iraq" nor is "winning" the appropriate metaphor. Freedom means being able to choose your own destiny, even if that destiny is not in line with American interests. If there is a security role for the U.S., it needs be provided as part of a multinational force - including Iran and Syria - under the command of another nation that is not beholden to U.S. interests. Perhaps the Swiss have a military commander that could do the job.

3. While there are casualty estimates, I think it is a stretch to say that, even with all the lives lost in Vietnam after U.S. departure, it was more than the 4 million estimated dead during U.S. occupation. It is an even more of a stretch to say that had the U.S. stayed, fewer people would have died. Same can be said of Iraq.

I've provided some links to casualty estimates should you feel that you can make the argument that these populations are safer with U.S. occupation. I'd be very interested in learning more about how you arrive at your conclusion.

http://web.mit.edu/cis/human-cost-war-101106.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

4. When the U.S. leaves, the Shia majority - will likely be on very good terms with the Shia government in Iran and Shia in the north of Saudia Arabia (where the oil is) - and suddenly have a lot of global political power. AQ is a red herring. The real question is what will the U.S. do if the Shia decide they would rather sell their oil to China, Russia, India or elsewhere? U.S. concerns for the welfare of the Kurds and the Sunni minority are simply a convenient cover story as their concern for Turkish Kurds and U.S. foreign policy toward Syria illustrates.

I look forward to your answers to these questions - which I hope you will make an effort to respond to before attempting to argue against any particular point I have outlined here.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/29/2007 @ 6:17pm
yummy yum yum, our very own Profumo like sexscandal in the hallowed halls of power. that'll take our mind off the war and the Gonz for a while. No sex but massage cries the disgraced pol.sure. like ordering a pizza. fur pie one presumes.check out the delicious movie "scandal", which is about the Profumo affair, which brought a gov'r down.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/29/2007 @ 6:49pm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098260/

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/29/2007 @ 6:54pm
We all support peace. Some of us have a problem with cheap moralizing, however. Our troops killing terrorists in Afghanistan and Itaq are doing far more to bring about world peace than any number of moonbats on parade in this country's nice safe streets.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 09:22am

And if you really believe this, I've got a great bridge over the East River to sell you.

Posted by w_m_bear at 04/29/2007 @ 7:05pm
very fine Jenkins. your cogent reply to Maasch reminds me of an oyster where a grain of sand can produce a pearl.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/29/2007 @ 7:59pm
SRJENKINS:

I hate to break it to you, but as we here have found on numerous occasions, when you actually confront these right-wing-nut-jobbers with cold hard reason and fact, they either, a) refuse to respond and deflect your questions with some other issue completely ancillary to the debate at hand, b) resort to ad hominem attacks, c) make some sort of impassioned plea to the collective patriotism of the readers, or d) just refuse to answer.

I am betting on d for Maasch on this one.

Posted by jorcheim at 04/30/2007 @ 02:10am
Call WAR contractor and Republican contributor General Electric Corporation at 203 373 2211 and ask for the public relations department. Tell the public relations person politely that you will not buy any GE products anymore [ NO light bulbs, ovens, stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers, TVs, radios, telephones, stereos, DVD recorders, VCRs ] until the CEO of GE gets George W Bush to end the war and occupation of Iraq and that George W Bush and Dick Cheney resign.

Repeal and Replace Medicare Part D with a real prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B. http://medicare.dmocrats.org

Join the Liberal Democratic party of the United States of America.

http://www.dmocrats.org

Posted by DMOCRATSoORG at 04/30/2007 @ 05:07am
JORCHEIM:

What is the alternative - not to confront them at all? Part of the reason many people claiming the label of conservative are successful is because they make dubious claims that don't get challenged. I think it is important to challenge them - when there is time and its the right situation, and in the process, learn what arguments are typically made and have answers for them next time they are seen. It is not a fruitless exercise - although perhaps our time would be better spent doing other things.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/30/2007 @ 08:50am
ILOVEPHYSICS.....got it. And of course no mention of co-sponsors. But it DID mention that it somehow ISN'T scaring Speaker Nancy into action (see the bolds I added)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Democratic lawmaker opposed to the Iraq war initiated a bid on Tuesday to remove Vice President Dick Cheney from office that even his own party leaders dismissed as futile.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced three articles of impeachment in the Democratic-led House of Representatives against Cheney, accusing him of having misled the country into its 2003 invasion of Iraq and, more recently, threatening Iran without cause.

"I believe the vice president's conduct of office has been destructive to the founding purposes of our nation," said Kucinich, who is making a long-shot bid for the White House.

Shortly after Democrats took control of Congress in January from Bush's Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would not consider impeachment, a highly divisive issue that could tie Capitol Hill into knots.

"Nothing has changed. It's off the table," said Nadeam Elshami, a Pelosi spokesman. "We're focusing on tough issues like bringing the war in Iraq to a responsible end."

Kucinich offered his impeachment resolutions without any co-sponsors. But he insisted he did not stand alone.

"I believe that I stand with millions of Americans who have expressed concern ... that something has to be done to reclaim our country's goodness," said Kucinich, who has become a hero in some liberal circles for his strident voice against the Iraq war.

Yet he is far behind in a pack of more than a half dozen Democrats seeking their party's 2008 presidential nomination, scoring in the single digits in public opinion polls.

The Ohio Democrat rejected suggestions he introduced the articles of impeachment to give his campaign a boost.

"These articles are about the conduct of the vice president," Kucinich said. "That's what this is about."

But House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said, "It's nothing but pure politics."

According to the House historical office, no vice president has ever been impeached.

But the House has impeached two presidents -- Bill Clinton in 1998 on charges of lying about an affair with an intern, and Andrew Johnson in 1868 on charges of improperly removing a member of his Cabinet. Both were acquitted in Senate trials.

Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 09:12am
SRJENKINS:

Oh no, by all means, confront them, and crush them. Their intellectual dishonesty needs to be eliminated root and stem. Give them no quarter, for they will give you none. Unmask their dubious claims for what they generally are: complete bullshit in support of a failed and discredited ideology.

I was simply letting you in on a little secret about them, in case you didn't know already, not advising you to back off.

Posted by jorcheim at 04/30/2007 @ 09:37am
SR,

How are you..

I will try to answer your questions from my point of view..

1. Can you point to someone in national politics that represents a "true" conservative view point from your point of view?

Answer: From my point of view I don't see anyone in govt today as a true conservative...the closest would be Fred Thompson or the man who ran against Arnold for Governor for the Republican Party in the recall election..I am sorry, but I do not know his name..I watched him with interest but new he would disappear out there..There are very few..John Kasich would be another..I am a fiscal conservative..socialy not too conservative..I believe a live and let live with social issues.

2. Can you outline a "true conservative" plan for Iraq? Particularly, I'd like to know how you would define success or "winning the war" and what it would take to make that happen.

I don't really think we can win a war on terror as much as contain it and try to "help" the participants " see the futility. That may mean hunting done those dedicated to our death and destruction ruthlessly and publicly. I don't know if this is a conservative plan, as I think a conservative would not have invaded Iraq as Bush did..not right right now anyway, I would add as many troops as is needed to seal of the Iraqi Borders and set up a police state inside in order to clear out the insurgents and ID the elements locally that are fighting. For me this would not be about setting up a democracy in Iraq..yet...first drain the swamp..

3. Can you tell us which source(s) you are citing when you say "[Vietnam] was followed up by a slaughter worse than the the war...so will Iraq"?

I can't source you articles and dates, but from everything I have come to understand from watching MSM and reading, that after the us left VN the north came in and cleaned out all vestiages of the south and supporters, set up re education camps, and created a huge boat people and refugee that almost swamped Thailand. I have been to Thailand and have heard talk of the mass killings...out of VN and Cambodia. Many sources sited here to back up ones points may or may not be recognized by another, so I do not put much weight on quoted sources as perhaps I should...I can be persuaeded it was not millions killed off in VN after we left, but I could be certain it was more than 20.

4. Can you explain how "AQ has the most influence over whats left of Iraq" if the U.S. withdraws - given the multi-faceted ethnic, religious, tribal and other relationships that dominate the region that have nothing to do with AQ?

I think AQ has the focal point of all media, funding,recruiting and as a result have publicly placed themselves as the savior of the Islamic world. And as such is in a position to run "take" over as soon as we leave to unite all Islamic peopls in Iraq...whether this is practical or not would have to be seen, but I can see them having a better go of it there than in Afgansitan..and oil resources are there..I can see them putting up a huge fight for the resources..who will stop them? The Iraqi army? I think they(AQ) could stop a civil war there..

These are my answers as best as I can give them and I realize they are also my opinion to an extent..I hope they are met with thought as opposed to the usual responses here from the usual suspects...

Posted by john maasch at 04/30/2007 @ 11:38am
"...when you actually confront these right-wing-nut-jobbers with cold hard reason and fact, they either, a) refuse to respond and deflect your questions with some other issue completely ancillary to the debate at hand, b) resort to ad hominem attacks, c) make some sort of impassioned plea to the collective patriotism of the readers, or d) just refuse to answer.

I am betting on d for Maasch on this one.

Posted by JORCHEIM 04/30/2007 @ 02:10am"

You left out their favorite, which might be considered a corollary to both choices a and b - blame it all on Clinton or excuse lemming behavior by showing that at some time in the past, Clinton did something wrong that is in some twisted sense remotely similar to a current misadventure perpetrated by the current administration.

It's usually fallacious, spurious, and almost always a fish of a crimson variety (that's a red herring for the lemmings out there).

And what lemmings can't understand is that non-lemmings are able to appreciate Clinton's (or any other person, for that matter) successes without the worship/denial paradigm that represents all of lemming-dom.

Posted by Turk33 at 04/30/2007 @ 12:13pm
Where's Rod Serling? I post a response to Jorcheim, and my post appears before his in the thread?

Here's my response, and hopefully it appears in the right place this time.

"...when you actually confront these right-wing-nut-jobbers with cold hard reason and fact, they either, a) refuse to respond and deflect your questions with some other issue completely ancillary to the debate at hand, b) resort to ad hominem attacks, c) make some sort of impassioned plea to the collective patriotism of the readers, or d) just refuse to answer.

I am betting on d for Maasch on this one.

Posted by JORCHEIM 04/30/2007 @ 02:10am"

You left out their favorite, which might be considered a corollary to both choices a and b - blame it all on Clinton or excuse lemming behavior by showing that at some time in the past, Clinton did something wrong that is in some twisted sense remotely similar to a current misadventure perpetrated by the current administration.

It's usually fallacious, spurious, and almost always a fish of a crimson variety (that's a red herring for the lemmings out there).

And what lemmings can't understand is that non-lemmings are able to appreciate Clinton's (or any other person, for that matter) successes without the worship/denial paradigm that represents all of lemming-dom.

Posted by TURK33 04/30/2007 @ 12:13pm

Posted by Turk33 at 04/30/2007 @ 12:17pm
We all support peace. Some of us have a problem with cheap moralizing, however. .

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 09:22am

Hypocrite liar. You do no "support peace", nor do you have ANY problem with cheap moralizing - IT IS ALL YOU DO.

Pathetic. truly pathetic.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/30/2007 @ 12:50pm
I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T------A w-a-i-s-t o-f t-i-m-e a-n-d e-f-f-o-r-t. J-u-s-t l-i-k-e m-o-s-t o-f t-h-e a-r-t-i-c-l-e-s w-r-i-t-t-e-n b-y l-i-t-t-l-e J-o-h-n-n-y N-i-c-h-o-l-s.

Posted by Len Mosse at 04/30/2007 @ 1:21pm
Hi John,

I sympathize with you. I don't see many in government that represent my point of view either, and I think more diversity of viewpoints in government makes for better government - including the many viewpoints I don't agree with.

But I guess I am still having trouble understanding a few things in your position.

How can one both be fiscally conservative and argue in favor of the Iraq war? It is a huge waste of resources, and I think it is hard to make the case it is any kind of investment. I would think that fiscal conservatives would be leading the attack on George Bush's Iraq policy - but they are not. Any idea as to why?

I agree that if you were going to be engaged in regime change in Iraq using the military, you would need a large occupying force. For historical precedent, you could look at Occupied Japan which had more than 350,000 troops on the ground and no borders to defend. It seems Iraq would need even more troops.

But this gets at another problem. Where are you going to get a force that size? Do you go with mercenaries and private contractors? What does it say when there are not enough American people signing up to be part of the occupying force to get one of the needed size?

My view is that it is because people, despite their rhetoric, know it is not worth the sacrifice. Many are willing to show their support on the Internet, but few want to suit up and do a tour or two. Which brings me to my essential position: If it is important enough, one should be willing to sign up to do a tour - not hypothetically, but actually. If it is not important enough to make that sacrifice, then it is not important enough to support and send others to go in one's place.

But perhaps Gibbon's theory that he outlined in The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is in play. The American people have lost their sense of civic virtue and are no longer willing to make the sacrifices necessary for the continued survival of their nation. The U.S. is choosing mercenaries and by doing so, will give us an opportunity to see if Gibbon was right.

I don't think this second theory is true. I think Americans would step up, if they believed it was worth the sacrifice. Clearly, Iraq and a global war on terror isn't worth it for most.

As for casualty statistics, I agree there aren't any good statistics. I also agree that many people died - trying to escape, in retribution and what have you. What I am questioning is whether you can say the U.S. is morally culpable for those deaths or whether, as a practical matter, if the U.S. stayed longer, it would have resulted in more lives saved.

This is not even to get into counter-factual claims like: what if the U.S. helped refugees to escape safely, what if the U.S. never was in Vietnam, what if the U.S. was there for a shorter time? All of these MAY have resulted in fewer deaths. But it is all speculation - same as what would happen in Iraq if the U.S. had a full occupying force or if we left today.

We may have ideas about these things. But, we cannot pretend that they are facts.

I think your thinking is fuzziest on AQ. The chances of all Muslims in Iraq coming together under AQ when the U.S. withdraws is zero. There are complex antagonisms between around religious, ethnic, tribal, economic and other lines that don't just suddenly disappear when the U.S. leaves.

As for who stops AQ, there are militia groups (Al-Sadr army), insurgents groups not affilitated with AQ, and others - and perhaps AQ would not get material support (like food) from civilians if the legitimacy that a foreign occupying power gives them were removed. It is also not just a question of capturing the resource, it's keeping it - as the U.S. occupation illustrates so well.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/30/2007 @ 2:24pm
Your VOTE Is Needed NOW In The National Cheney Impeachment Poll

VOTING ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php

Cast your vote and send your message to Congress at the same time!

As courageously drafted by Dennis Kucinich in H.Res. 333 filed just last week, the first and most central ground stated for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney was that he led the charge in fabricating a case for invasion of Iraq, based on phony weapons of mass destruction. Now almost as if it were timed to coincide with that initiative, former CIA head George Tenet reveals they knew their evidence was flimsy, erroneous and just plain bogus all along, but that Cheney just kept exaggerating the threat anyway. This is without question the most momentous issue of our time, and whether you agree that Cheney should be impeached, or not, your voice is needed to speak out now, and tell Congress what they should do about it.

You can vote yes. Or you can vote no. But we cannot remain silent.

http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/3673622/

Should Vice President Cheney be impeached?

The People Email Network

Total Submissions On This Issue = 20,887

YES 99.31%

No 00.68%

http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/transparency.cgi?paper=1&qnum=pet45

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2007 @ 2:26pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/30/2007 @ 2:26pm

Boy, when it comes to factual polling....screw Gallup, Harris, Rasmussen, Pew Research or Quinnipiac and give me...

http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/transparency.cgi?paper=1&qnum=pet45 with an online poll that scores 99% yes on a question.

Them's facts you can take to the bank....

along with some of "Game of Life" $100 bills with Art Linkletter's picture on it!

Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 2:54pm
Masky (tm),

You're free to post what you got.

You got nothing?

As usual.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2007 @ 3:03pm
Hey, BTW, as hsuB's polls are already lower than Nixon's by half, what do you think hsuB's will be when it's his turn to get impeached? 0.68 % approval to 99 % disapproval! Most likely closer to it than not. And you won't be able to put a Mask (tm) on that one either.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2007 @ 3:10pm
And the only one with polls not in the 30s or lower, Rice, was out yesterday trying to mask (tm), 'her' downward spiral as well.

So who will left with any credibility to go out and spin next week? The tongue-in-cheek answer may actually be the truth now, hsuB's Laura and their dog. I suppose she'll be doing all the interviews lap dog style.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2007 @ 4:38pm
You're free to post what you got.

You got nothing?

As usual.

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/30/2007 @ 3:03pm

You're right....I don't have anything like what YOU have. I don't even have any polling from Gallup, Harris, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Pew Center on impeachment.....yep, nothing....nothing at all from those mainstream NON-online-frequented-by-the-Left-Bloggers sources on how 99% of Americans want Cheney impeached...

wait a tick....even stupid ol' Dick gets like EIGHTEEN percent support....how come 17% of the people who love Cheney...

want him impeached?!??!!?

I mean...if your online polls are to be believed????

hehe

Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 4:40pm
BTW....April has passed, we are now at exactly T-Minus SIX MONTHS and counting, until Halloween and Speaker Nancy delivering those bills of impeachment to Majority Leader Reid for the trial!

Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 4:42pm
MASK: Perhaps a question to ask is why Gallop and others aren't polling about impeachment? An older Newsweek poll had this:

Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a "top priority," but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/

More than half indicate it should be some kind of priority, would seem to indicate it is an issue that needs better coverage by polling organizations - don't you think?

Posted by srjenkins at 04/30/2007 @ 5:03pm
wait a tick....even stupid ol' Dick gets like EIGHTEEN percent support....how come 17% of the people who love Cheney...

want him impeached?!??!!?

Posted by MASK 04/30/2007 @ 4:40pm

I suppose it means that they changed their minds! But then that means, even that lemmings are turning on the new con repubs koolaide brinking hsuB/heney/ove admin!!!!???!!!???

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2007 @ 5:21pm
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 1,160,000 for hsuB Cheney impeachment polls. (0.12 seconds)

Demand More Polls on Bush Impeachment | Democrats.com Here at a glance are the polls on the impeachment of George Bush (question wordings, ... Impeach Bush Petition. 88.4% Ten Reasons to Impeach Bush and Cheney ... www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq ... Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney," edited by Dennis ... Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush ... www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

ImpeachPAC | Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney Your support has allowed us to run five news-making impeachment polls! ... Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney," edited by Dennis Loo ... www.impeachpac.org/ - 41k - Apr 29, 2007

Should Rep. Dennis Kucinich Introduce Articles of Impeachment ... Why do we need polls like this to get this man to do the right thing? ... we must impeach cheney as well as bush. although it would be acceptable to start ... www.democrats.com/kucinich-impeachment-poll

FOXNews.com - Kucinich Prepares Impeachment Articles Against Dick ... Kucinich Prepares Impeachment Articles Against Dick Cheney, Ohio Rep. ... protests this weekend calling for the impeachment of both Cheney and President Bush. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267968,00.html

FOXNews.com - Vermont Senate OKs Bush, Cheney Impeachment ... Vermont Senate OKs Bush, Cheney Impeachment Resolution, Vermont senators adopted a nonbinding ... RCP POLL AVERAGES. Republican Presidential Nomination ... www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267386,00.html

Impeach Bush Cheney | Impeach for peace Stop Chasing the Fall Guy Rabbits--Impeach Cheney First, then Bush by Al McSurely. Submitted by amcsurely on Tue, 04/24/2007 - 12:34. ... www.impeachbushcheney.net/

AfterDowningStreet.org | Impeach Bush and Cheney Now! A statewide lawyers group is teaming up with the Maine Campaign to Impeach in an effort to oust President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for their ... www.afterdowningstreet.org/

Durham Impeach Bush Cheney Meetup Group (Durham, NC) - Meetup.com Our next Meetup: Durham Impeach Bush Cheney May Meetup ... Poll: "Do you want to carpool to the Charlotte Impeachment Rally Sept. 30 - 1 pm to 6 pm" ... impeachbush.meetup.com/349/

Polls - Raleigh Impeach Bush Cheney Meetup Group (Raleigh, NC ... Meet nearby Activists to Impeach Bush! Come to an Impeach Bush Meetup to join their appeal to Congress to impeach George W. Bush for high crimes and ... impeachbush.meetup.com/356/polls/

Live Vote: Should Bush be impeached? - Politics - MSNBC.com Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? ... Cheney calls Reid comments 'uninformed' ... Bush, Cheney, Reid dig in on Iraq ... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/from/ET/

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? 427,948 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 88%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 4.5%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 6.1%

I don't know. 1.9%

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2007 @ 5:46pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/30/2007 @ 5:03pm

Sorry, SRJ, if there story was there, the polling guys would be after it. It isn't, so they aren't.

It's why poor HSUB is stuck with his "definitive online polls" where 99% of "Americans" want Cheney impeached, while even his worse legitimate polls show him only down to 15% (Like I asked him, how do 14% of them like the guy, but want him impeached?!?!)

Some of the nuttier ones claim it's a "media blackout"...which is stupid because indies like Pew Center and Quinnipiac aren't finding it either.

It also supposes that Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, Harry Reid and even Dr Scream himself aren't doing some polling at the DNC and coming up with the same results....and therefore dissing poor little Dennis Kucinich like the crazy hippie nephew who keeps talking about hemp.

Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 8:03pm
MASK: You apparently have much more faith in the Democratic Party and polling organizations than I have. I'll only point out the obvious fact that no polls means you have no conclusive answer one way or another. Given the importance of the question and given how these organizations treated impeachment during Clinton's administration, the lack of interest...seems odd, especially given the results of the few polls we do have.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/30/2007 @ 8:52pm
Posted by MASK 04/30/2007 @ 8:03pm

Oh just go ahead and say 'pooh-pooh'. Or is it too hard through the little plastic mouth?

It's so obviously a big story.

My guess is that the MSM is still a little bowlegged per bending over so far in the drum up to Iraq war, that it still hurts them to stand up straight. The stitches just came out though. Soon they'll be able to run with the impeachment story and run polls again. Very soon.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2007 @ 01:46am

John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Spell It Out: "I-M-P-E-A-C-H!"

posted by John Nichols on 04/28/2007 @ 12:20am

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

Spell It Out: "I-M-P-E-A-C-H!"

posted by John Nichols on 04/28/2007 @ 12:20am

Share this article

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation