Tell it to Speaker Botox.
She's been given a laundry list of just reasons to order the Articles of Impeachment but instead, she has chosen to give Bush even more latitude to abuse the office of the president.
Posted by Christopher at July 18, 2007 03:40 AMThe Constitution demands that Bush/Cheney need to be impeached. It is also crucial that this Congress draw up articles of impeachment, but it's not going to take place. It's difficult knowing that crimes against "The Homeland" (we no longer call our Country America) are no longer seen as serious crimes by politicians.
Posted by Judith at July 18, 2007 04:10 AM"The Constitution demands that Bush/Cheney be impeached." (Haven't had any coffee yet).
Posted by Judith at July 18, 2007 04:13 AMRead WR Pitt's latest on Truthout about the filibuster. Who are the 22 Repubs up for re-election in 2008? Anybody know?
I watched and listened all night to the filibustering assholes who are pissed they have to work for a change. Political theater? A stunt? If we were a real democracy, filibusters would be the norm. If we were a real democracy, debate would be on network TV at least three times a week, but we have cable shows like that encourage mind degeneration.
It's all grand entertainment or publicity for the carpet in the Senate chamber? And it's all for naught. Ain't nobody getting out of Iraq anytime soon.
Our gut feeling knows it, but doesn't want to acknowledge it.
Posted by Mal Feasance at July 18, 2007 04:32 AMThose hyenas in the WH aren't leaving until the first week of Jan/09 and in the meantime they're going to keep the pedal to the metal on this joy ride. Hell, they have no plans to leave, period.
This gang is so contemptuous (npi) they don't even show up before a congressional hearing on serious, impeachable shit.
Congress thinks they can put a brake on this disaster without something stronger than a subpoena that the WH squatters regard as asswipe?
It would be different if the Rethugs didn't consider the 2000 elections as perpetual cart blanche for tyranny.
Posted by Ellie at July 18, 2007 04:38 AMWhat's even worse is that the elites of BOTH parties are very well aware that Bush has clear charateristics of an immature, mentally damaged religious fanatic, yet we continue with the charade that the government is continuing to function. And that "progress" is possible.
Whom to remove? Cheney for his crimes or Bush for his religious insanity and fanaticism? Questions of the day, to be pondered by the horrified and pushed into the corner by those who could do something about it, but prefer to run the risks for some perceived gain, (future electoral success?) which seems somewhat speculative to me.
Posted by euzoius at July 18, 2007 05:08 AMHere you go Mal, including Dems:
Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM)
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)
And the new Senator from Wyoming
Baucus, Max- (D - MT)
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE)
Durbin, Richard- (D - IL)
Harkin, Tom- (D - IA)
Johnson, Tim- (D - SD)
Kerry, John F.- (D - MA)
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA)
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR)
Reed, Jack- (D - RI)
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)
Mal, of course you are right. I am also sick to death of two words, "political theater". There isn't anything the Democrats do that isn't "political theater" according to the GOP.
Posted by Judith at July 18, 2007 05:27 AMEverytime a Republican accusers Democrats of "political theater", we should accuse the Republicans of "political grandstanding."
Posted by Judith at July 18, 2007 06:44 AMWhat if he is right?
Posted by at July 18, 2007 07:19 AMAs proof of Bush's fanaticism, could someone out there explain what precisely is the claimed theological basis for Bush's unshakeable conviction that GOD has promised POLITICAL freedom to "all"?
Where is this "gift" mentioned in the bible or new testament? Which "preacher" holds this out?
I believe this is made up out of whole cloth in the feeble, uninformed, mildly retarded "mind" of George Bush. Perhaps I'm ignorant. How am I wrong? Christians? Jews? Anyone?
Posted by euzoius at July 18, 2007 07:23 AMlet's see if we can convince the religions to meet and foment enough distrust and hatred for them to remove each other? Then we might be able to rebuild the shattered planet with logic and reason. alas. not enough killers among those that are logical and reasonable
Posted by oldtree at July 18, 2007 07:45 AMGod has promised political freedom to own slaves in the old testament.
HE goes on to say that you must not beat them so badly that they are unable to work, which does seem like a good business decision for a vintage plantation owner.
Posted by TIKI AL at July 18, 2007 07:45 AMWhat if he is right?
Hey, anon, let me help you on this one. Bush has not been right about ANYTHING since taking office. He was wrong not to pay attention to the PDB titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." He and all of his PNAC buds were 100% wrong about what would happen when we invaded and occupied Iraq. Why would anyone give him the benefit of the doubt on anything at this point? As Dr. Spock would say, "It is illogical."
Posted by ann at July 18, 2007 08:03 AMann Dr. Spock's the kid doc, Mr. Spock is logic-guy!
Just in case someone's not aware of the impeachment procedure, looseheadprop put together an excellent explanation.
Unfortunately, if you've seen Feingold's diary at dKos, he's also arguing against impeachment using the exact same wording as every other Dem, including Edwards on the radio yesterday: it's more important to work on ending the occupation (or more aptly: be seen working on it while exposing the reason why they haven't ended it - Bush vetoes and GOP obstruction) and shining a light on the myriad messes the GOP has inflicted on this country. The uniformity of this message could be seen as unusual for Dems and therefore a deliberate ploy to get Bush to overplay his hand by getting comfortable after which they'll slap him with Articles; or maybe they just want to run out the clock while showing the people how completely the GOP hates alls government and has conspired to weaken it while consolidating the power entirely in the hands of the much-hated VP (with a figurehead imbecile boy king).
It could be argued that the investigations that are going on right now are a part of an unannounced Impeachment Inquiry; if you look at looseheadprop's points of possible charges you'll see they line up with the investigations going on. And Pelosi has stressed many times that the intent is to get the wrongdoing on the record. But that's just speculation and wishful thinking, IMO. I don't believe impeachment will happen so close to the next election, and I don't believe it would stop the occupation before 2009 even if it did. Nothing is going to get Bush to pull out troops before he leaves - nothing. And while the Dems may not be perfect and do everything the far left demands, they are still better in office than a Guiliani or Thompson. The poseurs and actors have done enough damage, and it's not just a matter of deciding to leave and then leaving. A forced withdrawl in the hands of Bush would be disastrous and deadly all around; if you think the Iraqis and the AQ trainees are all going to stand quietly by as our troops pull out in an orderly fashion, you're nuts.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 18, 2007 08:54 AMThe uniformity of this message could be seen as unusual for Dems and therefore a deliberate ploy to get Bush to overplay his hand by getting comfortable after which they'll slap him with Articles;
That would be tantamount to giving a known psychotic arsonist gasoline and matches, then hoping they torch a preschool so that you have the evidence to convict them. The Dems have a resposibility to do what the Founding Fathers expected when they are confronted with a felon for a president.
The only power the Dems have at this point is funding Iraq. They either excercise their power of the purse and cut it off or they are complicit -as they have been in the past- with the entire debacle.
Posted by phidipides at July 18, 2007 09:18 AMThey either excercise their power of the purse and cut it off or they are complicit
What makes you think cutting off funding will make Bush pull out of Iraq? I guarantee it won't. And a compliant media would show bunches of sad pics of hungry troops being denied bullets for their guns, blah blah blah. Not only would the soldiers suffer even worse than they already are, but it would also dash the only semi-hope of them getting out of Iraq - a Dem White House in '09. Now, I know it's cathartic to flail about in anger at everyone who won't give you all your wishes and a puppydog, too; and I'm not saying you have to like it that they won't give you everything that's possible. But if Bush promises a unicorn and gives you a pile of shit; and a Dem promises a pony and delivers a Great Dane, it's still better than of fookin' pile o' shit, ain't it?
Posted by iamcoyote at July 18, 2007 09:58 AM"ann Dr. Spock's the kid doc, Mr. Spock is logic-guy!"
Oh.My.God. I typed a "D" instead of an "M." Alert the media!
Posted by ann at July 18, 2007 10:00 AMAlert the media!
Heh. I don't think you are aware that there are roving bands of Trekkers (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) that'll come down on your head like a ton o' bricks for that little faux pas! Not to mention the gangs of Dr. Spock acolytes who'll sic their dang over-indulged kids on your ass until you're begging for mercy. Oh wait, that'd be Bush, wouldn't it? Too late...
Posted by iamcoyote at July 18, 2007 10:07 AMSome of my best friends are Trekkies. They even go to the conventions. I try not to hold it against them.
Posted by ann at July 18, 2007 10:09 AMNow, back to our program:
Bush has been wrong about everything. Why would anyone think he might be right on anything at this point?
Posted by ann at July 18, 2007 10:11 AMMembers of Congress swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. Impeachment isn't an option for them, it is a duty. They are shirking.
Posted by biggerbox at July 18, 2007 10:17 AM"Yet if the entire country demanded Bush to stop the war, one wonders whether even that would be enough." -(Mary)
-You are right, those days are past.
"Yet if the entire country demanded Bush to stop the war, one wonders whether even that would be enough." -(iamcoyote)
-Correct again.
They would not be enough.
I don't believe religious fanaticism, personal psychosis, grotesque ego aggrandizement, delusional fantasies, willful, obdurate obstructionism, Neo-Con theories of the unitary executive or any other explanations of conveneince tells the whole story.
Amalgamated, they are most certainly a toxic brew whose suppuration only fertilizes grave, enduring tendencies in the larger culture. These are only variants or different 'looks.'They are mere temporal 'characteristics' which are separate from a dynamic which is deeply permanent.
The dynamic of primitive capital accumulation (plain old "robbery") is a tendency endemic to and a recurring, on going process quite essential to capitalism's continuing life; its logic is a neutral, structural dynamic, which has become hyper militarized under Neo Liberalism, when it becomes nationalized in its own image.
America thinks it can run the world and demand just that. This apparatus, this machinery was in place long before Bush, and certainly in Clinton. It is not something that can be explained by "personality disorders.
Do you think that these hundreds if not thousands of American military bases suddenly appeared with the advent of Bush?
What bothers me here is that the fiercely ignorant, exclusively Democratic party loyalism on this blog is incapable of critiquing the "Bush Phenomena" without ending up speculating and confining it to matters of his personal character.
Dislexia? Attention deficit disorder? Sure.
That gets so old.
"If only a Democrat would be President, then no war."
That is total bull.
To go beyond that would force you all to attack Capitalism itself, and its most virulent imperial, militarized exponent, the United States: You are incapable of going there. You don't want to go there.
But Judith, was right: This is not that type of blog, and that is fair enough.
Instead you all concentrate on the race in 2008, as if that meant anything-anything at all.
Your system is designed for permanent war, irrespective on who is President.
The two quotes I prefaced my posting with starting to get the picture.
95% of the American people don't want war but want National Health Care?
a hah a hahahahahhahahhh.........!
Get used to it.
Posted by Jill Bains at July 18, 2007 10:26 AMWhy would anyone think he might be right on anything at this point?
I don't think anyone does think he's right, even the ones "defending" him. They just don't know where else to turn at this point. And his job is to be the lightning rod for criticism so Cheney can continue his PNAC agenda undercover. If you'll notice, petey never defends Bush at all, he attacks Dems. It's not like any of these trolls have any real agenda anyhow, they just like being assholes. That's why trying to argue points is useless, they don't care about politics, they just want to taunt and poke; it makes 'em feel special.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 18, 2007 10:47 AM"But Judith, was right: This is not that type of blog, and that is fair enough."
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about Bains.
"What bothers me here is that the fiercely ignorant, exclusively Democratic party loyalism on this blog is incapable of critiquing the "Bush Phenomena" without ending up speculating and confining it to matters of his personal character."
Bains, you might try giving your viewpoint without telling everyone else that they are "ignorant and incapable of critiquing" Bush. I know you think highly of yourself, but the rest of us do not. How about trying "in my opinion," or "I think," instead of absolutes. I know you believe that your are right, but so does Bush.
Posted by Judith at July 18, 2007 11:05 AM"It's not like any of these trolls have any real agenda anyhow, they just like being assholes. That's why trying to argue points is useless, they don't care about politics, they just want to taunt and poke; it makes 'em feel special."
Iamcoyote, and that statement has been proven again and again by our little trolls. Trying to engage them in any rationale conversation is quite impossible.
Trying to engage them in any rationale conversation is quite impossible.
Exactly.
Which is why Jill is just as much a troll as any of 'em and should be ignored, or, more appropriately, laughed at. Imagine a marxist anarchist nihilist poseur looking down her nose at the rabble over a glass of pinot noir and foo-foo crap au gratin a la Antoine! Such a silly twit - amusing at first, and ultimately a bore. Yaaawnnnn. See, just writing about her almost put me to sleep!
Posted by iamcoyote at July 18, 2007 11:23 AMI think Bains was referring to this statement by me. Yep, we got another one Iamcoyote.
"You come to this site and the first thing you do is insult Steve Soto, the founder of this site. Not a good way to start out when you are new on a blog. I would suggest you move on to another site where your intellectual needs are met. We are just a group of people, trying to relate our feelings to one another, and all of us resent someone coming here dictating, with all their hubris on how, why and where we should post or whether or not we are right. We just got rid of one pain in the ass, and I have a feeling your not far behind."
Posted by Judith at July 18, 2007 11:31 AMSorry. Now back to the subject at hand.
Posted by Judith at July 18, 2007 11:32 AMDoes the "no call list" offset invading Iraq?
Posted by TIKI AL at July 18, 2007 11:57 AMbiggerbox is dead on. By NOT impeaching they are violating their oath of office, which means THEY should be impeached too!!
How's that for a legal conumdrum?
Apparently Pat Buchanaon is selling the idea that Bush is going to invade/attack/bpmb/nuke Iran in August ala some Persion Gulf of Tonkin incident.
While Pat is generally full of shit and pretty much an asshole, he has been right on occasion and isn't a supporter of the Occupation of Iraq, be that as it may, that's the best reason I can think of for impeaching Bush and Cheney, to keep them from starting something with Iran.
Why would Iran arm al Qaeda? Al Qaeda are Sunni, not Shia. Iran is Shia, just like Maliki. Iran would prefer Maliki to be successful than to fail. The Shia aren't killing us nearly as much as they're killing Sunni's, we're just in their way more often than not.
So there's no reason to attack Iran except that they're our "ENEMY" even though the rationale doesn't support the label.
And Bush continues to run free.
Posted by Duckman GR at July 18, 2007 12:08 PMThe ONLY thing Congress could could possibly succeed at is impeaching Bush and Cheney. That would score one for the House. Then put the GOP Senators front and center before the American people. Some of them would survive for hanging with GWB but many of them wouldn't.
Not to impeach gives the GOP a fighting chance in the next election and could easily create the backlash against DEMS that Reid and Pelosi fear.
Posted by Marie at July 18, 2007 04:14 PMThe awful truth is 9/11 was staged. Where is the Boeing 757-sized hole at the Pentagon? In fact, where is the Boeing 757? - http://i12.tinypic.com/6c7rm6t.jpg
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project.
"When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."
G.W. (Jerry) Longspaugh, MS Aerospace Engineering (1942 - 2006) – Retired Aerospace Engineer.
"The debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001."
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial airline pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years.
"It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."
Hundreds of Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, Government Officials, engineers, architects, professors and survivors question 9/11:
www.patriotsquestion911.com
Posted by Elaine Johnson at July 18, 2007 04:54 PMWhat makes you think cutting off funding will make Bush pull out of Iraq?
What makes you think it won't?
It'll work well. No money, no war. You think Cheney is going to pay for it or the private contrators will do it for free? Maybe you think the Air Force will give up some weapons programs? Riiiight! Besides, beyond impeachment -which Madam Sparkle Pelosi is dead set against as she pulls another trick for the lobbys- it's the only real control the Dem Congress has available to itself...well, beyond that "got the vapors" look Reid gets when he swoons over not enough votes.
Posted by phidipides at July 18, 2007 06:47 PMThe first sign of the skewered, the embarrassed and the aggrieved is their unremitting pursuit of an impossible vengeance.
Judith and Coyote, having already suffered a brutal, irrevocable 'take down' from which they know they cannot recover, persist, like children, to get back at their victorious interlocutor.
That little game was over a long time ago .And it should stay over. Its boring. Sure, we can play all day, but so what.
Spinning like apoplectic, frothing tops, they produce much heat, and little light- further debasing themselves as they go.
They should get back to their compound.
It's much safer there.
Among the company of the lurching 'undead.'
They are the Michael Novak's of the internet.