Pelosi Slips Impeachment Onto the Table

posted by John Nichols on 07/10/2008 @ 4:08pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (85)

Subscribe Now

As Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich moved a "privileged resolution" to force House to consider the question of whether President Bush should be impeached for lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading and occupying Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi surprised almost everyone by suggesting that the Judiciary Committee might indeed take up the issue.

Pelosi, who famously declared impeachment to be "off the table" before the 2006 election, now suggests that hearings on the president's high crimes and misdemeanors are a distinct possibility.

"My expectation is that there will be some review of that in the committee," the California Democrat told reporters Thursday.

"This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee," Pelosi explained.

The speaker was not suggesting that members of the Judiciary panel would be voting anytime soon on formal impeachment resolutions. Pelosi said she did "not necessarily (see the committee) taking up the articles of impeachment because that would have to be approved on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject."

Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, has indicated that he is reviewing the 35 articles of impeachment Kucinich has proposed for President Bush. He has not indicated, however, whether he intends to hold hearings on any of them or on broads questions of whether violations of their oaths of office, the Constitutionally-defined separation of powers and the laws of the land by the president and Vice President Dick Cheney -- the subject of three impeachment articles submitted by Kucinich -- should be addressed by Congress.

It is no secret that Conyers has felt constrained by Pelosi's "off-the-table" commitment.

Whether her new line opens the door for hearings before the end of the Bush-Cheney presidency remains to be seen.

But Pelosi's remarks do create an opening for the members of the Judiciary Committee, including Florida Democrat Bob Wexler and Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who have co-sponsored Kucinich's articles of impeachment and who have urged the committee to open hearings on issues of presidential accountability.

For his part, Kucinich will keep pressing for action.

"Congress must, in the name of the American people, use the one remedy which the Founders provided for an Executive who gravely abused his power: Impeachment. Congress must reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government; bring this President to an accounting, and in doing so reestablish the people's trust in Congress and in our United States system of government. We must not let this President's conduct go unchallenged and thereby create a precedent which undermines the Constitution," the Ohio congressman said Thursday, as he prepared to introduce his privileged resolution to force consideration of impeachment of a president who he accuses of "deceiving Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq WMDs to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization of the use of military force against Iraq.".

"In the final analysis this is about our Constitution and whether a President can be held accountable for his actions and his deceptions, especially when the effects of those actions have been so calamitous for America, Iraq and the world. Unless Congress reasserts itself as the power branch of government which the Founders intended, our experiment with a republican form of Government may be nearing an end. But when Congress acts to hold this President accountable it will be redeeming the faith that the Founders had in the power of a system of checks and balances which preserves our republic."

Comments (85)

its long past the time the dem controlled congress grew some nads and did something like this. and it would play well in the general election i think. people want accountability and the circus would play well to an angry jerry springer nation.

another nads issue...

arrest karl rove. he still refuses to testify, hiding behind that bullshit "executive priviledge" crap.

ARREST KARL ROVE AND IMPRISON HIM IN THAT CELL ON UNDER THE CAPITOL!!!!

do it! fight dammit!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2008 @ 4:17pm
god damn, this country is so f*cking furious with this president, that i think an impeachment would actually be a very mild sentence.

i personally was thinking, i dunno, maybe a few years in prison? a few meaning.....well.....like 15. serious.

lied us into war. much blood and treasure gone.

hmmmmmmmmmm...........

i dunno, i know a guy who got 15 years for selling ecstasy.

but he didn't start a war in which a lot of people died, and didn't lie about it....and...

i hate two-tiered justice system in this country.....

it's the political/money class and the rest of us.

Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:20pm
'I want to cut his nuts off' -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson

'its long past the time the dem controlled congress grew some nads and did something like this' -- ibblebibble

Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/10/2008 @ 4:34pm
Impeachment by now is almost a powder puff.

Criminal indictments are justified & possible ... however improbable.

A special prosecutor appointed by Obama & his AG?

Yeah, right.

Nancy P is merely attempting to pacify us annoying progressives.

Enjoy gnawing the bone, but there ain't meat on it or marrow in it, not from the invertebrate Dem leadership.

Posted by sloper at 07/10/2008 @ 4:42pm
Misdemeanors, bull!!! He has committed treason, murder and crimes against humanity, these are high crimes not misdemeanors.

Posted by lvdragonlady at 07/10/2008 @ 4:44pm
I am relieved to see Pelosi finally talking about action. Unfortunately, the way congress moves, Bush will probably have the oportunity to start a war with Iran first. Sigh, when Bush was first elected, the very first day, I borrowed the line, form a book about South Africa during apartied, "Cry the Beloved Country". Problem is, our country started down an irrevocable path the day John Kennedy was assasinated.

I was apalled when Pelosi first came into office and took Impeachment off the table. After all, Bush only had two more years... to loot the country.

Skysails

Posted by Skysails at 07/10/2008 @ 4:46pm
Nothing will become of this. It's all positioning but they aren't ever going to truly act on it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 4:50pm
Everybody see me now?

If not, I'll try something new and it's definitely some censorship from "TN"...

If so, it was just a technical glitch.

BTW, impeachment is just red meat from Pelosi to try to raise those Congressional approvals.

Posted by Mask at 07/10/2008 @ 4:58pm
Great, finally. But isn't it too little too late? Why didn't we bring this up when one of his first acts as president was to engage in a "police action" that escalated into a full-blown war without approval of congress? Or when it was discovered that he had altered official documents concerning his affiliates, namely family members and Middle Easter warlords and oil-barons? Or when he on numerous occasions stifled or tried to stifle civil liberties? Or even before this whole mess, after his more than suspicious "election?" Why was there no investigation after Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face? How is it that Bush was able to become president when he had an official record of DUI's and other drug related offenses (I'm not even including Marijuana), discharge from the military under dubious conditions, and not very many credentials to speak of? There are even more impeachable offenses to pile on, I'm sure, so why is it only now, when his term limit is almost up, that congress begins to "consider" impeachment? I only hope that if such a president ever comes to office again, congress (or their constituents; us) will be much, much quicker in considering impeachment of dead duck presidents.

Posted by Matt_Adams at 07/10/2008 @ 5:00pm
Ooooooooooh.... Pelosi tosses out a little bone to her pack!

Let's let MASK, if around while this thread is `alive', take it and shove, uhhh, sorry, highlight it the beta way.....heheheheheh!

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/10/2008 @ 4:16pm

Maskbeta is gone. Courtesy of the dumbasses who run this POS blog.

Posted by Benchrest at 07/10/2008 @ 5:07pm
Well, apparently, I am either very unlucky...

or "The Nation" is undertaking a very interesting form of BANNING.

For some reason, "Maskbeta" is now suffering the same problem as "Mask" and I've had to creat e a new account.

If THIS one doesn't last...get very suspicious.

Maybe Ms Goodall has it in for me...or maybe HIGHER UPS!

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 5:08pm
BTW, impeachment is no more likely now...

that it was when HSUB predicted it would occur by March of '07.

HAPP is right, it's red meat to the base to try to boost those Congresssional approvals.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 5:10pm
The fact that impeachment was off the table for too long to make a difference in this administration is sad but impeachment also has a prophylactic effect on future POTUSes.

Posted by midnight04 at 07/10/2008 @ 5:19pm
BTW, impeachment is no more likely now... that it was when HSUB predicted it would occur by March of '07. HAPP is right, it's red meat to the base to try to boost those Congresssional approvals. Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 5:10pm

Should it be MaskCharlie after Maskbeta?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 5:20pm
Speaker Pelosi is a spineless, wimp of a Speaker, she is weak. I was so ecstatic when the democrats seized the House of Representives, because finally we would be able to curb the "imperial powers" of Bush/Cheney. Instead we got a narcistic old queen who wants to be in the spotlight and ignore what she should had have had the House do when she became Speaker. It is a little too late, Nancy. you remind me now of the other Nancy, Nancy Reagan. All fluff and no substance.

Posted by victex at 07/10/2008 @ 7:01pm
Speaker Pelosi is a spineless, wimp of a Speaker, she is weak. I was so ecstatic when the democrats seized the House of Representives, because finally we would be able to curb the "imperial powers" of Bush/Cheney. Instead we got a narcistic old queen who wants to be in the spotlight and ignore what she should had have had the House do when she became Speaker. It is a little too late, Nancy. you remind me now of the other Nancy, Nancy Reagan. All fluff and no substance.

Posted by victex at 07/10/2008 @ 7:01pm
Let's see, the day after it is reported that this congress has the lowest approval numbers ever, in the single digits, Pelosi brings up the impeachment question. Unrelated? Unlikely.

The fact that there have not been any impeachment proceedings brought by the democratic controlled house and senate tells you all you need to know. Do you think they would hesitate one second if they felt they had grounds?

Posted by Next Door at 07/10/2008 @ 7:40pm
This is nothing more than cheap political posturing. the Congress dems are just as complicit in this illegal act as anyone (including our illustrious media sources). Just keeing the masses busy, nothing more than that folks.

Posted by aranaz at 07/10/2008 @ 8:04pm
Since we went to war "together" with congressional consent there is really nothing to argue about. Trying to say congress was mislead would mean they are all a bunch of mindless twerps, which they are not (what are they, 75% lawyers?) please.... No, this is just show for a mindless extreme base to get their collective, you-know-whats, off...sort of like a soma holiday. The rest of us will look at it really is, as an excuse to ignore real problems.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/10/2008 @ 8:17pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/10/2008 @ 7:57pm

FRANK, maybe you can go on the Aryan Nation site...

and come back and regale us with a few more jokes, huh?

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 8:21pm
she doesn't care about bush.

this is anti-mccain.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 8:36pm
What is it 5 months left for this criminal Bush to remain in power? Fine time for Pelosi to grow some backbone. Impeachment should have been on the table from day 1 the democrats allegedly took control of the house. This should have been a priority.

Posted by drkenne at 07/10/2008 @ 8:38pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 8:21pm

the joke was just the iceberg tip of a long series of racist nonsense.

frank, THAT'S why.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 8:39pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 8:39pm

I mentioned that to CCC before the "nick crash".

He forgets FRANK's reference to Obama as "our BOY"...as a "mulatto"...and his recent mention of "black guys bragging about knocking up girls" and "black women on welfare buying steaks at my store".

Throw in his homophobic references as well.....it paints a picture more than just one "joke".

He knows his credibility here is now slightly less than LIBZSUK.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 8:45pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/10/2008 @ 8:52pm

Gee, FRANK, you got an excuse for EVERYTHING, don't you.

"boy" for Obama was "just about age, nothing more"...

You "didn't know" that "mulatto" was derogatory...

You tell a "black people are lazy, go on welfare and commit crimes" "joke" and "we just need to lighten up"...

What's next you talk about Obama's kids and then explaing that "'pickaninny' is a perfectly legitimate Creole word...why are you people so upset???"?

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 8:56pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/10/2008 @ 9:03pm

FRANK, FRANK...sorry, but your collapse into (what I think) is the "REAL FRANK" (not the old anti-war, anti-Republican progressive)...but a racist, homophobic old conservative who idolized the Clintons enough to stick it out for the last few years and SOUND like a liberal...is an interesting psychological study.

I figure you're one of the last "Dixiecrats"....New Dealer who likes blacks, but wants them to stay in their place and who casts an askanced eye at a gay man figuring he's "checking you out".

And it's a metaphysical study as well....how "the truth" eventually comes out in everybody...under enough pressure and stress (the loss of Your Leader's "rightful" nomination and the growing fear that your political "expertise" is not only rejected here...but will be proven wrong AGAIN). ((Somebody noted how your ego cannot handle the fact you've lost both affection as well as respect here...likely true.))

So...naw...won't put you on ignore. Your slide into darkness is both interesting...as well as satisfying since it proves that LIARS and the self-important...eventually do get their just desserts.

So I suppose we should all thank you.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 9:18pm
Hearings, just hearings, will be a good general campaign move, giving the desperate media something to shout about. Terrorist fist bumps are starting to (if you'll pardon the expression) pale.

Hearings will not only present the Dems with an inexpensive op to appear as if they' re doing something, but hearings could also, rather perversely, give the CheneyBush admin an op to make the Dems look like irresponsible bullies, driving the poor VP into the hospital with aggravated heart problems, allowing W to appoint a new VP, which might place W in a more advantageous position when pardoning season rolls around, and he has to resign, thereby positioning the new vp TO SLIP ON THE PARDONER'S ROBES, and absolve W.

Lots of winners, of a sort.

The old RMN routine, tried & true.

Posted by sloper at 07/10/2008 @ 10:20pm
Time-warp back to my 9:03 post asshole. Now please stop talking to me. Posted by frankgrits at 07/10/2008 @ 9:38pm

You could always block him.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 10:42pm
Will they allow mention of the FIFTY-FIVE METRIC TONS OF YELLOW CAKE URANIUM that was just airlifted from Iraq to Canada? Are the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Atlanta Journal the only media to report on this?

Posted by Dimslie at 07/11/2008 @ 02:41am
Boy that Pelosi is a genius. She is too incompetent to deal with high gas and energy prices, illegal aliens, the war in Iraq, so to take the focus off her failures she decides to give us the Circus of an impeachment of President Bush.

Just like the ancient Romans, corrupt worthless government gave the masses "Bread and circuses" so that they will not notice how bad things are. Bread and circuses" (panem et circenses) is an ancient Roman metaphor for people choosing food and fun over freedom. It often appears in commentary that accuses people of giving up their civic duty and following whichever political leader offers to satisfy their decadent desires.

That is all this talk is, a Circus to make it appear that her do nothing Congress is doing something. Does anyone really think that this will go anywhere, being that the man has less than six months left in office? Should they go after President Bush, after he leaves office, then it will be a Marxists show trial for the same reason.

Has the USA been so corrupted that we allow this to happen? Is the haltered by the Left of President Bush so great, that all a Democrat has to do is talk about impeachment to take the focus away from their own shortcomings?

Posted by Exton1 at 07/11/2008 @ 03:22am
THANK YOU Dennis Kucinich!!!!!

Posted by drkenne at 07/11/2008 @ 07:08am
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/11/2008 @ 07:08am |

Darin, the response to your posts is...

you're trying to provide "cover" for a fellow Republican (or if you like fellow McCain supporter) on this blog because you're a hyper-partisan and always have been.

We ALL know your modus operandi. Seen it a million times "Dems are bad..." then some example that is proven false, then "Oh, okay BOTH sides do it..." when you get caught.

In this case, you're trying to "explain away" FRANK's "joke" because he's an "ally"

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/11/2008 @ 07:16am
Bring it, morons! I can't think of a better way to unite a currently un-enthused Republican base behind McCain. Besides, impeachment hearings will bring out and remind the American public all the justified reasons for lifting the 1991 ceasefire in Iraq and enforcing those conditions.

And BTW, Matt Adams, Congress did approve our invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Mille at 07/11/2008 @ 07:39am
These boards have been screwed up for too long now for it to be caused by ignorance and it must be to discourage us from coming on here in much the same way as huffpo is doing...I'm going to have to cancel my subscription and vote against anything considered to be "progressive".Coming on here has taught me that modern progressives are not progressive and too many on the right are just as bad.Going to erase the Nation from my memory.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/11/2008 @ 10:53am
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/11/2008 @ 07:51am

Your attempt to obfuscate & blur REAL efforts to create an equitable society in the USA are transparent & phony.The repugs, dominated by the neocons have aggressively sought to demolish all aspects of the New Deal & any attempt to expand it in the modern era. Author Carl Carmer spoke of those "beneficent" republicans who greedily take all year long & then in a single act of highly publicized charitable sacrifice, "give back" to the community.

Posted by Sorelish at 07/11/2008 @ 11:40am
I am not fooled by Pelosi's rubbishy gesture to boost congressional re-election chances in the fall.Many comments above are right on the money: She knows nothing will come of this. She is beholden to Israel, which will never allow its role in Bush's crimes to be exposed by an impeachment. Time for your next Botox injection, Nancy.

Posted by mystic at 07/11/2008 @ 12:14pm
Impeach Bush! Support Al Qaeda!

Posted by abell12ct at 07/11/2008 @ 12:56pm
and remind the American public all the justified reasons for lifting the 1991 ceasefire in Iraq and enforcing those conditions.

Posted by Mille at 07/11/2008 @ 07:39am

Oh. Did the UN lift the cease fire? Express that the invasion was legal?

I must have missed that.

Posted by Hman23 at 07/11/2008 @ 12:58pm
and remind the American public all the justified reasons for lifting the 1991 ceasefire in Iraq and enforcing those conditions.

Posted by Mille at 07/11/2008 @ 07:39am

Oh. Did the UN lift the cease fire? Express that the invasion was legal?

I must have missed that.

Posted by Hman23 at 07/11/2008 @ 12:58pm
Impeach Bush! Support Al Qaeda!

Posted by abell12ct at 07/11/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by Sorelish All men are created equal. After that all bets are off. Liberals redistribution of wealth through taxing the rich is not equitable. That just penalizes people for being smart and making money.

Posted by abell12ct at 07/11/2008 @ 1:03pm
Hello Darladoon,

I made a couple of posts to you in the previous blog, but because things are posting out of order there and maybe you aren't checking back there anymore I will repeate the posts here.

Take care

=========================

Hello Darladoon,

I did want to update my previous post.

I mentioned BC Place in Vancouver. Probably by now it has a different name - all the stadiums here in the U.S. seem to change names all the time, so that is probably true of B.C. Place as well.

But it is a domed stadium so you don't have to worry about sitting out in bad weather to watch your B.C. Lions win.

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 12:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Hello darladoon,

You said the following above:

"as bush readies his pen to sign this disgusting bill, darla is (officially) making plans to: a) renounce her US citizenship b) move to british columbia"

Two points:

1. It will cost you more money. I don't know if you like computers but if you do Microsoft Office 2007 Student and Teacher Edition costs approx $135 most places in the U.S., at Future Shop it costs approx $189. A ham sandwich, soup and coffee at Tim Hortons' costs around $5.75 in Buffalo, around $7.75 in Niagara Falls, Ontario.

2. In a blog a while back you indicated you were not a sports fan - but - you are moving to an area where the local team, the B.C. Lions, wins the Grey Cup quite often. So you might want to consider becoming a fan and going to games at B.C. Place.

But if you do, watch out when your team plays the Montreal Alouettes. They hardly ever win the Cup, but it has been my experience from watching CFL games that they are a tough team you can not count out. So a game against Montreal will not be an automatic win for the Lions.

I guess also you will have easy access to the Winter Olympic events in two years as well. The skating events (both speed and figure skating and also hockey) are the best ones to be a spectator at. You only see a little part of luge or downhill skiing being a spectator. I always liked the Winter Olympics better than the summer games.

Since you are moving I figured I might as well be a travel guide.

Take care

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 11:55am | ignore this person | warn this

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 1:05pm
Hman23,

You made an earlier post reply to Mille that caught my attention":

"Oh. Did the UN lift the cease fire? Express that the invasion was legal?

I must have missed that."

Huh? Whether the UN did or did not lift a cease fire concerns me how?

What relevence does that have to the need to stop threats?

You are taling the U.N. here. This is the U.N. that allowed genocide in Rwanda, is doing the same in the Sudan. This is the U.N. whose blue helmeted peackeepers raped women in Africa.

This is the U.N. who held a conference on racism (Durban conference) a while back and is planning another one. The conference on racism that turned into a vitriolic bash Israel conference. The upcoming conference on racism that Canada is going to refuse to attend.

I think it is a good idea to pay as much attention to the U.N. in general as Canada is doing to the upcoming U.N. conference. In other words, none.

What the U.N. does or does not think, or what the U.N. does or does not do, concerns me how?

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 1:18pm
Bush deserves to be impeached but I hope the Dems don't spend 2 seconds on it. Our country is facing serious economic and environmental crises and Congress appears to fiddle as much as Bush. The Dems have a tremendous opportunity to win a decisive victory this fall and advance a progressive economic and environmental agenda. This will all be squandered if the public perceives that the Democratic Congress is more interested in articles of impeachment than pushing legislation that addresses our current crises. Most Americans don't give a damn about impeachment, they can just hardly wait until Bush's term is up. However, they do care about what Democrats are going to do now and in the future to address the messes Bush has left us with. If they think the Dems are more interested in politics than fixing problems, an historic opportunity will be lost and the Republicans will quickly regain their footing.

Posted by jrutle at 07/11/2008 @ 1:22pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/11/2008 @ 07:23am

You forgot a few things:

1: illegal wiretaps

2: holding US citizens without charges

3: kidnapping foreign nationals

4: Using politics as a hiring criteria for federal prosecutors

5: Admin officials refusing congressional subpoenas .

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2008 @ 1:24pm
This one of the reasons I voted for Kucinich! He has good nerves. There is no doubt in my mind that many Federal Laws, along with the Constitution have been violated. While there may not be time for impeachment proceeding, these violations of the law can be referred to the Federal courts, and jail time is sure to follow for the President, Vice-President, and many members or former members of the Administration. But , if Congress thinks they are going to get a pass on "Free Trade issues, they had better think again.

Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/11/2008 @ 1:28pm
This one of the reasons I voted for Kucinich! He has good nerves. There is no doubt in my mind that many Federal Laws, along with the Constitution have been violated. While there may not be time for impeachment proceeding, these violations of the law can be referred to the Federal courts, and jail time is sure to follow for the President, Vice-President, and many members or former members of the Administration. But , if Congress thinks they are going to get a pass on "Free Trade issues, they had better think again.

Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/11/2008 @ 1:30pm
Why doesn't Kucinich just have the UFO that he saw kidnap Bush and Cheney and fly them to outer space?

Posted by jimmylove at 07/11/2008 @ 1:31pm
This one of the reasons I voted for Kucinich! He has good nerves. There is no doubt in my mind that many Federal Laws, along with the Constitution have been violated. While there may not be time for impeachment proceeding, these violations of the law can be referred to the Federal courts, and jail time is sure to follow for the President, Vice-President, and many members or former members of the Administration. But , if Congress thinks they are going to get a pass on "Free Trade issues, they had better think again.

Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/11/2008 @ 1:32pm
Hello ibbleblibble,

Three things:

1. I just accidently clicked the button to warn you. About what, I do not know, but I guess you have been warned!

2. I was looking to ask you a question:

In your post you said:

"ARREST KARL ROVE AND IMPRISON HIM IN THAT CELL ON UNDER THE CAPITOL!!!! "

When you arrest him, is he going to be "frog-marched" out of wherever he is to be taken into custody?

As you know, he was not "frog-marched" out of the White House, as all you libs were looking to do. Are you still looking to "frog-march" him?

3. Hopefully he will not be "frog-marched" out of anywhere - but it could happen because I am sure you libs will keep trying. So, in case you are successful, and since I am not a lib, could you please explain to me what "frog-marching" really is.

Thanks

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 1:33pm
why does it take Americans going bankrupt and our rapid descent into being a third world country to realize that we don't need a third term of dictatorship; why doesn't Congress listen to the will of the people??

Every poll has said majority favoring impeaching bush.....what else can people do except riot.....

bush/cheney keep attempting to rewrite the Constitution of our founding fathers...which is another assault on our country...and then tell people they aren't patriots.....

what the h e l l are people thinking???

can we make a wise choice now??

I do not think that mccain getting captured forty years ago is relevant to the problems plaguing our country now....as a veteran, I think he makes a mockery of service to our country, and he could care less about the regular enlisted person....he would continue bush policies of deporting families who have a servicemember overseas....everything he says is a joke....we shouldn't all collectively suffer because mccain was a pow...and mcbush is delusional is he thinks the recession is "all in our heads".....

Posted by jrs112 at 07/11/2008 @ 1:39pm
why does it take Americans going bankrupt and our rapid descent into being a third world country to realize that we don't need a third term of dictatorship; why doesn't Congress listen to the will of the people??

Every poll has said majority favoring impeaching bush.....what else can people do except riot.....

bush/cheney keep attempting to rewrite the Constitution of our founding fathers...which is another assault on our country...and then tell people they aren't patriots.....

what the h e l l are people thinking???

can we make a wise choice now??

I do not think that mccain getting captured forty years ago is relevant to the problems plaguing our country now....as a veteran, I think he makes a mockery of service to our country, and he could care less about the regular enlisted person....he would continue bush policies of deporting families who have a servicemember overseas....everything he says is a joke....we shouldn't all collectively suffer because mccain was a pow...and mcbush is delusional is he thinks the recession is "all in our heads".....

Posted by jrs112 at 07/11/2008 @ 1:39pm
why does it take Americans going bankrupt and our rapid descent into being a third world country to realize that we don't need a third term of dictatorship; why doesn't Congress listen to the will of the people??

Every poll has said majority favoring impeaching bush.....what else can people do except riot.....

bush/cheney keep attempting to rewrite the Constitution of our founding fathers...which is another assault on our country...and then tell people they aren't patriots.....

what the h e l l are people thinking???

can we make a wise choice now??

I do not think that mccain getting captured forty years ago is relevant to the problems plaguing our country now....as a veteran, I think he makes a mockery of service to our country, and he could care less about the regular enlisted person....he would continue bush policies of deporting families who have a servicemember overseas....everything he says is a joke....we shouldn't all collectively suffer because mccain was a pow...and mcbush is delusional is he thinks the recession is "all in our heads".....

Posted by jrs112 at 07/11/2008 @ 1:39pm
why does it take Americans going bankrupt and our rapid descent into being a third world country to realize that we don't need a third term of dictatorship; why doesn't Congress listen to the will of the people??

Every poll has said majority favoring impeaching bush.....what else can people do except riot.....

bush/cheney keep attempting to rewrite the Constitution of our founding fathers...which is another assault on our country...and then tell people they aren't patriots.....

what the h e l l are people thinking???

can we make a wise choice now??

I do not think that mccain getting captured forty years ago is relevant to the problems plaguing our country now....as a veteran, I think he makes a mockery of service to our country, and he could care less about the regular enlisted person....he would continue bush policies of deporting families who have a servicemember overseas....everything he says is a joke....we shouldn't all collectively suffer because mccain was a pow...and mcbush is delusional is he thinks the recession is "all in our heads".....

Posted by jrs112 at 07/11/2008 @ 1:39pm
rese - I thought that if what you stated were true, it would stand to reason that (much reviled) Iran would be a major seizer of illegal drugs, so after a bit of research, I found stats on the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime... www.unodc.org ...and found that Iran seizes, by far, more drugs than any other country in the region - more than the rest combined.

Posted by jenni_poo at 07/11/2008 @ 1:54pm
Why doesn't Kucinich just have his UFO buddies kidnap Bush and Cheney and fly them into outer space?

Posted by jimmylove at 07/11/2008 @ 1:55pm
Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 1:18pm

The point, which appears to have flown right over your head, is that Mr. MILLE referenced violations of UN security resolutions as a jsutifiable reason for the war.

So my point is that if it was a UN resolution that was violated, shouldn't the decision as to what to do in response to the violation have come from the UN?

Posted by Hman23 at 07/11/2008 @ 1:55pm
This website is terrible. You cannot follow the posts with all the time warps.

Posted by Hman23 at 07/11/2008 @ 1:56pm
Hey, as they say-- it's better late than never.

And as well, that congress is acknowledging their authority of oversight, to investigate and subpoena, and to consider their power to impeach the POTUS- the lesser power of the three branches, is a big step out of the petty dic'tator exec created by the new con repubs. Impeachment is the only way to side step the GOP gestapo corrupted DoJ partisanship.

That's it's taken this long after 12 years of congressional repub corruption is a testament to the level of what 7 years of dictatorship can weaken the power of our constitution.

Lastly, a curious aside for those with a open mind-- as always, whenever new con repubs or the hsuB/cHeney admin say anything, consider they mean the opposite or close to it-- literally.

http://tinyurl.com/5jsnqd

http://tinyurl.com/64edgt

http://tinyurl.com/64pqlx

http://tinyurl.com/5g45kx

http://tinyurl.com/5k73uh

http://tinyurl.com/5ejb2v

http://tinyurl.com/6jslpf

http://tinyurl.com/6q9e5m

http://tinyurl.com/6d8gof

http://tinyurl.com/5kb7at

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008 @ 1:57pm
rese - I thought that if what you stated were true, it would stand to reason that (much reviled) Iran would be a major seizer of illegal drugs, so after a bit of research, I found stats on the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime... www.unodc.org ...and found that Iran seizes, by far, more drugs than any other country in the region - more than the rest combined.

Posted by jenni_poo at 07/11/2008 @ 2:11pm
Thanks

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

frog marched? huh? whats that, the french army's version of a goose step? lol...

i wonder what that "warn" button really does. i would imagine MASK is probably one of the more warned posters here in that he pisses off LOTS...actually i think he pisses off more libs than cons despite the fact that, as i've pointed out before...he's basically a moderate to lib himself...

he's often a great reality check for some lefties here and god knows lefties need reality checks almost as much as righties.

the funny thing that i've thought is this.

god only knows who is reading this stuff, much less posting here. i'm sure its almost exclusively us schmukos but who knows? i'm sure i'm being absurd but i swear i've heard shit on the news/opinion shows i've said here. probably just everyone else finally coming to the same conclusions my supergenius megacephalatic mensa brain discerned...

har har har!

but rove full of shit blabbing about executive priv. what? can he rob a bank and claim exec priv?

pffft! arrest him and plop him in that cell under the capitol if he continues this bullshit. it would make great headlines and circus material and show everyone that the legislative branch cannot be run over.

him refusing is intolerable.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2008 @ 2:15pm
This post is however emblematic of the disconnect between those that:

1. understand our constitution and those that don't,

2. want a dic'tatorship as our form of government and those that don't,

3. don't understand; could care less either way, those that do understand and still don't care, those that understand; care and are furious,

4. serve in our government and those that don't.

So one will post and fit in somewhere of 4 differing places... er, literally.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008 @ 2:29pm
And the #1 response to the post is:

'Uh-huh. I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being as this is the .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and could blow your head clean off, you have to ask yourself one question, "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, punk?'

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008 @ 2:36pm
Hello Hman23,

You asked:

"So my point is that if it was a UN resolution that was violated, shouldn't the decision as to what to do in response to the violation have come from the UN?"

==========================

Don't forget, though, the UN was never going to enforce their resolutions, and since Saddam was growing links to terror and would have re-started his WMD program once let off of the hook, a lot of people would have been seriously harmed by Saddams actions, and lack of UN enforcement.

If an organization makes a resoultion on a legitimate complaint against somebody and then does not enforce it, somebody else has to instead. You can't leave it up to the UN.

I put the "legitimate complaint" comment in because as you I am sure know the UN puts in resolution after resolution against Israel, and those are not legitimate complaints, Israel is not the cause of the problems in the Middle East, their enemies are. By the way, I can argue all day long why that is so if you post back with standard lib stuff about I am ingorant, or whatever and you know better about that than me. And I am being arrogant about that because I am right. And I know I am being childish by saying I am right but since I am right, why not?

Just thowing some of the penalty flags on myself that come as normal practice when a Conservative posts on The Nation. After all, you libs have your hands full with your obsession on how to get George W. Bush impeached.

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 3:41pm
Hello ibbleblibble,

The reason I made the comment about frog marching was that back during the Valerie Plame nonsense I had memory of a lib wanting Karl Rove frog marched out of the White House. I couldn't remember who it was.

Of course, it turned out to be Richard Armitage, a deputy of Colin Powell who did the "leaking", so no frog-marching for Karl Rove.

I did a quick Internet search to see if I could find out who it was. My result shows it was the liar, Joesph Wilson.

=============================

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/060613

=================

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 3:46pm
What the U.N. does or does not think, or what the U.N. does or does not do, concerns me how?

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 1:18pm

So, it's OK for YOU to completely disregard the UN, but when Hussein does, it justifies a US invasion - without UN authorization?

Pretty twisty logic, JR.

Posted by Hman23 at 07/11/2008 @ 4:10pm
C'mon JOHN NICHOLS, come up with your own line for Bush. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is Ann Coulters against Clinton.

Constitutional Violations & Illegal Adventurism?

Posted by william.harry13 at 07/11/2008 @ 4:31pm
Hello Hman23

You said:

"So, it's OK for YOU to completely disregard the UN, but when Hussein does, it justifies a US invasion - without UN authorization?

Pretty twisty logic, JR."

=================================

I have pointed out where the UN falls short, and why they should be ingnored when they do.

Saddam was not ingnoring the UN because he thought the UN fell short about something, he was ignoring the UN because he was wrong.

It was right for the UN to have resolutions and sanctions against Saddam. It was wrong for the UN to have no intention of enforcing them.

The logic isn't twisty. When we ignore the UN it is because the UN is wrong. Saddam was ingoring the UN because he was wrong.

So my logic is against the party that is wrong in each case - the logic is thus consistent.

If you want twisty, go have some pretzels and a beer!

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 4:50pm
Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 3:46pm

Actually didn't rOve/lIbby leaked it to a now unavailable to testify and suddenly deceased major MSM moderator/commentator...

er, is Cooper still alive?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/8/13191/83603

Speaking of interviewers-- how can we ever forget:

http://tinyurl.com/5k9cme

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008 @ 5:39pm
If Phony Pelosi decides to let Impeachment slide back on the table now it is just a ploy to avert further criticism of her failed leadership. The time for impeachment was 3 years ago. What can be done now, with less then 6 months left in the Bush/Cheney regime? All this talk of putting impeachment back on the table is just a further distraction from the disgraceful track record of recent Congressional votes which continued another year of of funding for Bush's illegal wars of agression and yesterday's FISA bill vote, which has basicaly negated our precious 4th Amendment. Pelosi is a fraud. She has been criminaly negligent of her duties to uphold the US Constitution. She doesn't represent the will of the voters anymore than Bush does. The real issue facing us is how can we restore the rule of law in this country. Will Obama have the balls (or "nuts") to see that Cheney, Bush, Rumsfield, Rice, Gonzales, and the rest, will be prosecuted for their high crimes and treason? Frankly, I doubt that this is the kind of "Change we can count on".

Posted by Smokeyspam at 07/11/2008 @ 5:45pm
Yeah why not:

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

"Bush's approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon (22 percent and 24 percent, respectively) but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s," Holland added. "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 66 percent disapproval in January 1952."

CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider adds, "He is more unpopular than Richard Nixon was just before he resigned from the presidency in August 1974." President Nixon's disapproval rating in August 1974 stood at 67 percent."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33169

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008 @ 6:28pm
The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.

Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 66% of Democrats favored impeachment, as did 59% of Independents, and even 23% of Republicans.

By ideology, impeachment was supported by Progressives (90%), Libertarians (71%), Liberals (65%), and Moderates (58%), but not by Conservatives (33%) or Very Conservatives (28%).

Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 74% of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 47% of those 31-49, 49% of those 50-64, and 40% of those over 65. 55% of women favored impeachment, compared to 49% of men.

Among African Americans, 75% favored impeachment, as did 56% of Hispanics and 47% of whites.

Majorities of Catholics, Jews, and Others favored impeachment, while 44% of Protestants and 38% of Born Again Christians did so.

Majorities favored impeachment in every region: the East (54%), South (53%) and West (52%), and Central states (50%).

In large cities, 56% support impeachment; in small cities, 58%; in suburbs, 46%; in rural areas, 46%."

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

Only problem was that the poll was conducted during a repub controlled congress in 2006... And don't forget that the poll numbers to impeach Clinton were way way lower. Even Nixon had better poll numbers; that is-- before he was impeached.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008 @ 6:43pm
I hope I'm wrong, but seems I made a mistake by subscribing to The Nation. That is, based on what I've read, the nation is nothing more than an arm of the Democratic faction of the Corporate party. As such The Nation's articles seem to do little more than apologize for, and/or ignore, the spineless actions of Pelosi, Obama, et al.

For instance has the Nation taken umbrage for the over $8000. Pelosi and other Representatives took from Big Telco Lobby to craft the FISA bill which plays directly to Bush and Telco?

The Nation also seem to have ready excuses for Obama, who in 2007 said he'd defend the constitution by filibustering any proposed immunity of Teleco, then voted for the thing. It seems to me the Nation spends more time excusing Obama than railing against his cowardly about face on that important issue.

Again, I hope I'll be proved wrong, but it seems to me The Nation is too busy promoting Pelosi and the other bought and paid for Democratic Representatives to actually point out the terrible loss of integrity of both factions, Democrats and Republicans, in our one Corporate, fascist Party.

So if any of the above rings true, then what the hell kind of journal is hiding under the banner of The Nation and its so-called left wing articles? Still, maybe the country has moved so far to the right, that what was once considered right of center is now considered the far left.

Posted by bbbear at 07/11/2008 @ 7:21pm
"President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from former White House aides Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers," the Associated Press writes. According to AP, the White House "offered once more to make the pair available for private, off-the-record interviews on any role the White House might have played in the firings of several U.S. attorneys."

...

Meanwhile, as On Deadline noted Friday, a new American Research Group poll shows 45% of those surveyed favor the beginning of impeachment proceedings against Bush, while 46% are against. Asked about Vice President Cheney: 54% favor impeachment, 40% oppose.

......

Rasmussen Reports says one of its latest national automated telephone surveys found that 39% of Americans "now believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office ... (while) 49% disagree (and) 12% are not sure."

http://tinyurl.com/56oet4

Note that Gallup poll numbers are a lot more similar to those calling for the investigation for impeachment of Nixon than Clinton...

http://tinyurl.com/5nvofg

Also note the dif in Gallup's numbers before and after impeachment (articles)...

Nixon: 6/1973 - Approve 44% - Disapprove 45%, 1/1974 - Approve 27% - Disapprove 63%

Clinton: 7/1998 - Approve 64% - Disapprove 29% , 8/1974 - Approve 24% - Disapprove 66%

http://tinyurl.com/eytw5

What this says is that the American public can tell the dif between a fake impeachment and a real one. hsuB is a real impeachable petty dic'tator. I say congress is asking for irrelevance big time if it doesn't go for it. 'We the people' want to be relevant again.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008 @ 7:46pm
re:

Also note the dif in Gallup's numbers before and after impeachment (articles)...

Nixon: 6/1973 - Approve 44% - Disapprove 45%, 8/1974 - Approve 24% - Disapprove 66%

Clinton: 7/1998 - Approve 64% - Disapprove 29% , 12/1998 - Approve 66% - Disapprove 30%

http://tinyurl.com/eytw5

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008 @ 7:51pm
Posted by william.harry13 at 07/11/2008 @ 4:31pm

"C'mon JOHN NICHOLS, come up with your own line for Bush. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is Ann Coulters against Clinton.

Constitutional Violations & Illegal Adventurism?"

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is the phrase the Constitution uses to define impeachable offenses, you moron.

Posted by oisin at 07/11/2008 @ 8:31pm
at 07/10/2008 @ 5:19pm, midnight04 wrote: "The fact that impeachment was off the table for too long to make a difference in this administration is sad but impeachment also has a prophylactic effect on future POTUSes."

"Prophylactic" is exactly the effect that the impeachment of Andrew Johnson had on future POTUSes--at least until the administrations of Cleveland, McKinley and TR. And it was undertaken close to the end of his term, and was not even followed by conviction.

Our Congress must do it. A republic can survive dictatorship, as the Romans proved, but not for longer than a few months.

Posted by weverdell at 07/11/2008 @ 11:23pm
Better all together:

"President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from former White House aides Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers," the Associated Press writes. According to AP, the White House "offered once more to make the pair available for private, off-the-record interviews on any role the White House might have played in the firings of several U.S. attorneys." ... Meanwhile, as On Deadline noted Friday, a new American Research Group poll shows 45% of those surveyed favor the beginning of impeachment proceedings against Bush, while 46% are against. Asked about Vice President Cheney: 54% favor impeachment, 40% oppose. ...... Rasmussen Reports says one of its latest national automated telephone surveys found that 39% of Americans "now believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office ... (while) 49% disagree (and) 12% are not sure."

http://tinyurl.com/56oet4

Note that Gallup poll numbers are a lot more similar to those calling for the investigation for impeachment of Nixon than Clinton...

http://tinyurl.com/5nvofg

Also note the dif in Gallup's numbers before and after impeachment (articles)...

Nixon: 6/1973 - Approve 44% - Disapprove 45%, 8/1974 - Approve 24% - Disapprove 66%

Clinton: 7/1998 - Approve 64% - Disapprove 29% , 12/1998 - Approve 66% - Disapprove 30%

http://tinyurl.com/eytw5

What this says is that the American public can tell the dif between a fake impeachment and a real one. hsuB is a real impeachable petty dic'tator. I say congress is asking for irrelevance big time if it doesn't go for it. 'We the people' want to be relevant again.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008 @ 7:46pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/12/2008 @ 12:42pm
I say congress is asking for irrelevance big time if it doesn't go for it. 'We the people' want to be relevant again. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2008

Impeachment now is essential if future criminal behavior by the executive is to be discouraged.

Impeachment cannot be prevented by the pardon power, the way indictable offenses can be pardoned by the executive. Moreover, impeachment proceedings can continue, even be initiated, after CheneyBush have left office. Other sanctions are still available, but most importantly impeachment will inhibit future presidents from committing similar high crimes. Without impeachment, future presidents will see a wink & a nod, and behave accordingly.

Posted by sloper at 07/12/2008 @ 1:35pm
And another reason:

"For me, a competent investigation would have to look at who is trying to make it look like Condit did the impossible, kidnapped and murdered a woman that we didn't know whether she was dead or kidnapped in the first place while he was meeting with the Vice President, and why. That would have been her parents and the law firm they hired to get the news media stirred up about her disappearance. And since her parents loved her and were in California when she disappeared, we can rule them out as suspects. So that leaves who was responsible for the PR campaign, the law firm Blank Rome, one of the biggest in the nation so we know they not fools yet they were leading a serious investigation into the whereabouts of a young girl in a seriously flawed direction when no one had any idea what truly happened to her. But we have no evidence they had anything to do with her disappearance or motive to cover up the truth either. So we're left with what Condit was doing at the time she disappeared as the only source of information for why they would try to lead the investigation in an all too obvious wrong direction.

But the thing about that is it's hard to look into what transpired between Condit and the Vice President because Cheney still refuses to give up the records on his meetings regarding his "energy task force" that included some with Enron officials, which we know how at that time, Enron was begging President Bush to bail them out of the trouble they'd gotten into that lead to the company crashing a few months later. So even without the minutes of the meeting between Condit and Cheney, I am looking at evidence that something about Cheney's energy task force was dark and mysterious because he has fought so hard for so many years to keep anyone from knowing what he was doing. And with the state of energy policy in this country now, I can only imagine what he was talking about in all his secret meetings. But the mere idea that Condit was in a secret meeting with the Vice President at the time of Chandra's disappearance where would never have known who he was much less where he was when she disappeared if someone wasn't trying to make it look like he had something to do with what happened to her. From my perspective, the shadiest character in the room when looking for suspects in Chandra Levy's murder at this point would be Cheney. So I would want to know what Condit had to do with these shady dealings with the Vice President. It's been my experience that where there's smoke, there's fire. And there certainly seems to have been a lot of smoke coming from Pennsylvania Avenue at the time Chandra disappeared, we've just never been told what was burning, although a lot of people are wondering now that gasoline is over four dollars a gallon and the nations is falling apart.

So what are the facts we do have regarding Cheney and his secret meetings. We know Enron has something to do with whatever Cheney doesn't want anyone to know about, that it's central to what he's trying to protect from public scrutiny because he's most viscous in his attempts to keep his energy task force records confidential when it comes to the Enron meetings. And we know Enron contributed more money to Bush's presidential campaign than any other single source over the prior election year and wanted him to bail them out of all the trouble they were in. This is important because at the time Chandra went missing, there were what was called "rolling blackouts" going on back in Condit and Levy's hometown distract in California that we now know were being caused by Enron's energy online traders who were gaming the energy market driving the price of their products up so they made billions of dollars they had no right to think they deserved while putting California through extremely harrowing times to steal it. So of course you would expected Levy and Condit communicated closely over the issue being in Washington DC so far from everyone they cared the most about who were going through something that perhaps Condit was the only person that could do anything about.

...

Both Democrats and Republicans as well as environmentalists had supported MTBE being added to gasoline. It was the brainstorm of Halliburton, Ken Lay of Enron, and old man George Bush. Its use was forced on us as a mandate in the Clean Air Act of 1990. By 1999, everyone was happy with it because it was said to have gotten rid of smog. So the fact that it polluted groundwater wherever it was used, and even where it wasn't because it came done in rain polluting regions fortunate enough to have escaped it leaking from underground storage tanks, the truth about it was systematically ignored being by everyone we trust would have warned us about that kind of problem and done something about it.

...

The thing you have to understand is that if it weren't for the state of California making so much noise about MTBE polluting groundwater, in particular coming most loudly from Condit and Levy's districts, even more so, from Condit himself who was actively sponsoring some of the most damaging MTBE legislation in the country at the time. This was certainly discussed at the meeting with Cheney, and between Condit and Levy before the meeting as a matter of mutual concern. That along with the rolling blackouts going on at that same time being caused by Enron paints a much darker picture of that meeting and why Cheney won't allow the records of those meeting to be released. See Enron was trying to steal money from California to try to pay their bills for pretending to be using MTBE when it wasn't being used, which of course they chose to do this to California because if it weren't for Californians being so vocal about MTBE, hardly anyone would have known what it was.

...

So as I watched how the investigation into her disappearance was unfolding where there was a media frenzy nationwide for months on end about facts that when put together made absolutely no sense while it should have been plainly obvious to people even other than me that there might be a connection to what happened to her and Condits business with the Vice President. My opinion was that she was still alive at the time, or Condit was made to think it because he failed to stand up for himself over the obvious misplaced focus put on him having anything to do with her disappearing, which his silence was only leading everyone to think he was guilty even though he couldn't have been because he was with the Vice President when she disappeared.

So I played a little game with the law firm Blank Rome here in Washington DC who her parents hired to oversee the investigation into finding their daughter. It just so happened that they also represented the interests of the MTBE industry lobbying for it to be added to national gasoline supplies in 1990 by discreetly supporting the notion that future MTBE lawsuits over polluted groundwater could be mitigated by keeping federal testing standards from ever being done. They continue to do to this today where as recently as last year they published an article titled "Public Nuisance in MTBE Litigation: An Attempt to Expand Tort Law beyond Its Historical Parameters" In it they describe people who have been made sick by MTBE as not being able to even prove that MTBE made the(m) sick calling them a nuisance to big industry. It's true however that we can't prove what made us sick, but that's because they've never done the required testing that would afford us being able to substantiate that their product is indeed poison. Of course we can assume that they've done the testing themselves so what their article does is simply mock people MTBE destroyed the lives of for not being able to prove what they already knew all along.

...

But before I could take this new direction in my efforts to expose the whole truth about MTBE, after over four months of hearing pretty much nothing else talked about in Washington DC except Chandra Levy, on September 11, 2001, 4 jet liners were highjacked and flown into two of the World Trade Centers in New York City, the Pentagon, while a fourth plane heading for the White House was retaken by heroic passengers and flown into the ground.

...

Look at what just came out yesterday. Actually it came out in March but we didn't know who was behind it then. California applied to the EPA for a waiver on federal emissions standards so they could write their own stricter rules because their cities suffer from such horrible pollution. One of the areas they wanted to beef up was in how they regulate low level ozone forming pollutants which ethanol being added to gasoline the way it's being done now would be threatened if they were allowed to follow the direction they wanted to go. So they were denied their request while there was evidence that someone in the White House was working very hard to hide the truth about how bad low level ozone is for human health and plants growing in the environment.

It was known that the Bush administration had systematically undermined the protocols the EPA follows for such requests by personally changing or deleting information in the EPA's report to try to justify why they were denying the request where the consensus at the EPA before this White House interference was that there was no justification for not letting California have what it wanted in reducing ozone pollutants. "

http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/content/view/445/27/

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/12/2008 @ 2:26pm
Not only can't ¬>¬ speak in tongues-- he can't type in one much either.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/13/2008 @ 01:34am
Impeach Bush! Support Al Qaeda!

Posted by abell12ct at 07/11/2008 @ 12:56pm

Really? How pathetic. That's Republicans' claim to faim. Yeah, you sure have kept us safer.

Katrina

Iraq

Subprime Loans

Dropping Dollar

Dropping Stocks

As Cheney would say, "So!"

Your line is as old and crusty as your leadership!

Obama '08

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/13/2008 @ 02:44am
Remember, Pelosi's phone and email are almost certainly tapped, along with other key members of Congress. That's the classic use of warrantless wiretapping, historically. I imagine if she tries to move on impeachment, something embarassing will come out about her.

Posted by pair at 07/13/2008 @ 02:57am
Little Johnny Nichols and Little Dennis Kucinich---Brothers in Loserdome. It would be funny to read and listen to these guys if weren't so damn sad.

Posted by Len Mosse at 07/13/2008 @ 8:28pm
People...lying about a bj is grounds for impeachment, not about the reasons for starting a war...duh!!!

Posted by danconstan at 07/16/2008 @ 10:18am