There is no crime worse than lying about sex.
Posted by myiq2xu at April 15, 2008 12:21 AMmaybe barack obama learned so much about bitterness from sittig in reverend wrights church for so long
Posted by dennis at April 15, 2008 02:50 AMDennis the troll - SYFPH!
Posted by at April 15, 2008 03:35 AMAnd then dennis, Barry Obama was talking to a bunch of upper crust old money types in SF. There's no way we common people ever get to see the insides of those houses unless we're working an event and then its only the back door. Two America's, Obama's and the rest of us hicks.
Posted by peter at April 15, 2008 03:54 AMI am just as concerned about the politization of the Department of Justice by Rove/Gonzalez; I really think we need a Special Prosecutor here.
Posted by bob h at April 15, 2008 03:58 AMbravely spoken..up above
Posted by dennis at April 15, 2008 04:05 AMmaybe barack obama learned so much about bitterness from sittig in reverend wrights church for so long...
"Bittergate" or the way the Democrats in this country enable torture...hmmm, which diversion would I choose if I were a Democrat...hmmm. Seems you and petey have a lot in common these days. It's why you'll both lose your elections. You might consider it the "head up your ass" phenomenon.
Posted by phidipides at April 15, 2008 04:45 AMGetting a blow job. Clearly that's impeachable because it doesn't involve the complicity of the Congress.
What should be a crime, though off topic, is the movie Expelled. Sort of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the rational process.
Posted by Moses at April 15, 2008 04:53 AMtalking about having your head up your ass
baracks comments were condesending and a serious gaffe..how serious we shall see.as they try to deflect the damage by deceit..i have no idea what you intend by the petey and i comments..but how is your soulmate bob in pacifica doing..such a cool guy..
Posted by dennis at April 15, 2008 05:04 AMMoses, there's nothing "off topic" in an open thread.
Dennis, funny how Democrats are now "trolls" too. Not me, you. Phid, I'd rather call it "hickgate". We're the hicks, those of us that live in the lower class of America. Republicans have now found the guy they can beat and beat easily, Barry Obama, thanks for giving. The election now becomes another 1980 result. Keep talking Barry and it goes to another 1988 result. Thanks again Democrats for giving us this pass. McOld will appreciate it on January 20th...next.
Well, we don't want any partisan witch hunts to occur....can't have that and plus you know there's illegal activities and then there's dumb policies (so we can't prosecute the latter of those). Apparently it's just that simple and hasn't occurred to some people, but dumb policies can be based on illegal and immoral actions. Jeebus. No wonder "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi likes people who think and talk like that.
And please do not argue what Bill Clinton did when he came into office, because last I checked he's not on the ballot in the primaries and is not running for preznit. (Plus, do you agree with everything your spouse says and does, I don't).
Posted by emal at April 15, 2008 06:28 AMAnd please do not argue what Bill Clinton did when he came into office...
You mean like who started the rendition process in the first place. ;)
Disclaimer: He didn't actually start it, it's been going on for years by the CIA under many other administrations.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 15, 2008 06:59 AM"...unless we're working an event and then it's only [by] the back door."
Peter pinhead, don't project your personal experiences working conservative Repub "events" in class-based Tex-ass onto the rest of the country. I'm sure you have indeed been treated like a low grade, second class hick by the wealthy conservative Repubs whose pockets you idiotically line with your cretinous voting and volunteering behavior and you are quite bitter over it. But don't think that your experience being told to shit into a hefty garbage bag at a Repub mansion while doin' Repub envelope stuffin' are universal!
It does appear that sexual misadventures are the sole basis for BushAmericans to believe that an elected official should be removed from office. The Europeans have got this sterotype of America's weird hypocrisy blended with puritanical prudery quite correctly.
Cheney has been the instigator and advocate of every single aspect of the serial illegal behavior by Bushco that has been uncovered so far. His approval rating has been under 20% for years. He has perverted the balance of powers, and expressed his complete and utter disdain for elected democracy.
That he is not impeached is a scandal that will undermine the entire theory of the constitution going forward. If the Dems don't commence impeachment against him, they no longer understand or care about the essential structure and obligations placed on them by the constitution.
Posted by at April 15, 2008 07:01 AMwhoops, that's me.
But peter pinhead prob'ly knew that!
Posted by euzoius at April 15, 2008 07:02 AMdennis is not a troll. He's been posting here for many years.
He's a clear Hillary supporter who dislikes Obama very, very, much. So much so, that he will not vote for Obama if he is the Democratic nominee.
Need any more support dennis?
Posted by Seven of Six at April 15, 2008 07:05 AMi believe that barack obama is not who he says he is...i do not think he is the right person for the job in this time of great need..i do not think he is a uniter..i believe quite the opposite..i do hate him...i believe hillary can beat john mccain..i do not believe barack can...i believe that with all my heart..it's that simple
Posted by dennis at April 15, 2008 07:22 AMwhoa!!!..i meant to say i do not hate him..i don't..
Posted by dennis at April 15, 2008 07:33 AMDoesn't matter dennis. When he's assassinated on the campaign trail the blood will still be on your, and apparently every Clinton supporters, hands.
Hope.
Unity.
Change.
A new kind of politics.
Indeed.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2008 07:36 AMwho the hell started this assassination bullshit?
Posted by dennis at April 15, 2008 07:50 AMPeter is one of theose 30% core Republican voters who have no shame in voting Republican even the country has been screwed by Bush administartion for last 7 years. For them party comes ahead of the country.
As for Dennis, he will not vote for Obama even though Hillary loses the nomonation fair and square. People like that complain about Bush administration policies but when time comes to take action would act stupidly.
Dennis, if McCain wins because of Hillary supporters like you do what you plan to do, then you deserve 4 more years of Bush policies. Do not come back here and complain about President McCain. You voted him in with your stupidity.
Posted by suresh at April 15, 2008 07:56 AMApparently, dennis, the Clinton's have so enflamed racial hatred in this country that it's a very real possibility, because of the Clinton's, that Obama will be murdered rather than allowed to take Hillary Clinton's spot in the White House. At least if you give any credency to members of the "hope, unity and change" crowd.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2008 07:57 AMGee, I recall Obama posting a diary on dkos saying that the admin didn't do anything impeachable. I went looking for it this morning, but couldn't find it. I did find a diary by him saying that it wasn't worth the fight to try to block Roberts from the supreme court. I think the founding fathers would be disappointed in Obama. I know I am.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 15, 2008 08:04 AMNo one cares if you "hate" Obama or not, dennis, that's meaningless.
Your unwillingness to ultimately vote for a perfectly acceptable Dem nominee is what destroys your credibility and reveals your dubious judgment.
Hillarian Extremists like dennis would be delighted see McCain beat Obama as a result of the Dem split, suresh---in their mind they're teaching the appalling Obamans a "lesson", the country be damned.
Posted by euzoius at April 15, 2008 08:16 AMWhile it's not a DailyKos diary this would seem to indicate that Obama does not believe impeaching Bush or Cheney would be a good thing.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2008 08:19 AMBoth articles came from over a year ago. Since the latest revelations on bu$h administration torture, Obama's been questioned, his latest response:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
I thought this pretty much reflected snark's view on impeachment last year.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 15, 2008 08:30 AMWhy is it that Tavis Smiley is getting so much grief that he's leaving his show? Seems there's a lot of pressure to vote for "your own kind" amongst Democrats. Seems women have been getting the same pressure for Clinton. I always thought it was a personal choice for the best candidate. What Democrats have brought us this year.
Suresh, wrong again...
..."perfectly acceptable Dem nominee", they've both said the 'other' isn't qualified to be president. How can one accept someone that doesn't qualify by whatever standard one has just because he's of a certain party?
Coyote (and others),
Digby has a good post up and link(might have scrolled down the page a bit) about some comments he made about what he'd have his AG do about it too. My read of it is that it is very middle of the road/wishy washy -and he uses some republican frames in it that appear very typical of Obama (and I'm being generous here, that's why I made the first sarcastic comment I did above).
Both articles came from over a year ago.
June of 2007 is over a year ago? Who knew?
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued.
So this is President Obama speaking. And if he's president than the idea of impeachment of Bush, the former president, would be moot, no?
I thought this pretty much reflected snark's view on impeachment last year.
It still reflects my views on impeachment. I think it's a bad idea.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2008 08:38 AM"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.
Yep, that's the line I remember! Thanks guys. And apparently, after Bush admits that the US is a torture nation, Obama is gonna use his "judgement" on whether he should have his AG go after Bush if he wins the prez.
My question: can Bush pre-emptively pardon himself and his cronies when he leaves office? 'Cos saying you're gonna have your AG "look into it" doesn't mean shit, as we all know.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 15, 2008 08:38 AMMy bad, meant to say "almost a year ago".
I haven't even drank wine yet. ;)
I thought this pretty much reflected snark's view on impeachment last year.
Mine, too, remember? And do you also remember the universal shit we took for it? I do. Apparently, since Obama has magically transformed into Mr. Hopey! it's okay that impeachment was off the table. 'Course, it's still okay to whine about "off-the-table-Pelosi," right? She's not under the magical umbrella of hope-n-unity.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 15, 2008 08:46 AMFrom Turkana's thread yesterday, "Get This Through Your Heads":
But Jack Balkin says the 2006 Military Commissions Act "effectively insulated government officials from liability for many of the violations of the War Crimes Act they might have committed during the period prior to 2006," so it's probably a moot point, anyway. And Marty Lederman is skeptical of the idea of a Department of Justice prosecuting people whose behavior was given legal clearance by a previous Department of Justice, so it's probably a moot point, anyway- twice over.
Certainly not what I want to hear. Didn't Greenwald or Marcy have a post about the bu$h justice dept. trying to cover their asses?
What's the down side of impeaching Cheney again?
He's the official most responsible for advocating and coming up with the crimes---by every press account It gives a massive front stage to Bushco's numerous crimes during an election year.
And most importantly it's the exclusive and necessary constitutional procedure when Congress is faced with evidence that a high executive official has broken federal law. You don't doubt that, do you?
Repubs misuse impeachment and Dems are afraid to properly use it. And we wonder why white working class voters are disgusted with Dem "weakness".
All articles of impeachment must commence in the House, Madam Speaker.
Posted by euzoius at April 15, 2008 09:00 AMWhatever the proper 'uses' of impeachment are, use it this year and there will be a backlash, a big one at that in November. Obviously, those sworn to uphold aren't seeing it the same way many of you have seen it. They haven't let the partisan divide flavor their judgments.
Posted by peter at April 15, 2008 09:31 AMOh jeebus....just read this about the McSame media bootlickers (courtesy and h/t Atrios)
We are effin doomed.
Posted by emal at April 15, 2008 09:32 AMAnd while we're still on the "lawbreakers in the WH" here's another angle about those legal eagles that signed off on breakin the law as a preemptive legal pardon tactic for those in the administration. There's a few comments I think are spot on...one of which says... premeditated war criminals...this has Cheney and Addington's fat slimy fingeprints all over it.
Posted by emal at April 15, 2008 09:50 AMrasmussen..my absolute favorite poll has hillary up by 9 and gaining...hillary time to quit
Posted by dennis at April 15, 2008 10:01 AMARG has her up by 20 after having the race tied at 45%! Yeah, she must quit, I want Barry Obama. Or "Obama bin Laden" as the head of AP says it(smile). Oops! I apologize if that's what I said.
Laura Bush will get to guest host the Today Show next Tuesday.
Posted by peter at April 15, 2008 10:09 AMDon't forget petie, Cindy McCain plagiarizes food recipes.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 15, 2008 10:14 AMseems that many pennsylvanians aren't quite as glib regarding his latest remarks as are the obama supporters
same poll also has mccain beating obama in fl 53-38%..and losing to hillary 45-44...keep talking barack..
Posted by dennis at April 15, 2008 10:16 AMWow.
That Dana Milbank piece is just absolutely horrible.
If that's any kind of bell weather for how this campaign is gonna unfold Obama is doomed.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2008 10:18 AMsnark...i don't know about doomed.. but he is certainly in trouble..and by his own words...not hillary's
Posted by dennis at April 15, 2008 10:29 AMIt takes 232KG of corn to fill a 12 and half gal. car with ethanol. That's enough to feed a child for a year.
Posted by peter at April 15, 2008 10:48 AMMoses: Thanks for the "Expelled" link.
Richard Dawkins wrote about this Ben Stein crock on his website.
From "Lying for Jesus"...observations on "Expelled" by Richard Dawkins:
"The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of Darwin (along with his very ungarbled understanding of the anti-semitism of Martin Luther, and of his own never-renounced Roman Catholic religion) but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did.
After reading this, I will have to replace the well worn phrase "Is the Pope a Catholic?" with "Was Hitler a Catholic?"
Posted by TIKI AL at April 15, 2008 01:13 PM