Whoa, BG! First, we impeach him about Iraq, then we can impeach him for trying to make the Justice Dept an arm of the RNC! Priorities, man, priorities! We’ve only got to January, you know!
I am asserting that the Pubbies thought they could politically succed with an impeachment because they thought the rabble would be so worked up over the blowjob that they wouldn’t see that what was going on was a political coup attempt conducted via impeachment. That’s why they took such pains to make the blowjob a matter of public discourse. They wanted the rabble roused about it. Because of Republican conduct, the central fact of the impeachment was the blowjob, the business about lying under oath was just the legal hook on which they hung the blowjob, so to speak.
When Republicans and conservatives maintain that the impeachment was just a matter of lying under oath, they are trying to clean up the blot on the image of the Pubbies that was created by the disgusting, unwholesome, sleazy conduct of the Republican leadership back then. I don’t think they should be allowed to do so. I’m sure they dearly wish they had not behaved so badly in the blowjob impeachment, but they did, and I intend to see that the memory lingers like a stain on a dress left unwashed in the closet.
I’m quite calm.
Yes, I do.
You didn’t answer my question.
Do you contend that the action of referring Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to committee was intended to move the impeachment forward?
If you do, then at what date will you concede you were mistaken?
Two simple questions. I’m not asking what you want, what would be best, what would make the choirs of angels in heaven sing. I’m asking: Do you contend that the action of referring Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to committee was intended to move the impeachment forward? And if you do, then at what date will you concede you were mistaken?
You’re bluffing, you can’t hold a grudge that long.
Now, in the interim, I’ve read some news reports that suggest that Kucinich regards the Judiciary Committe as a* hindrance * to his effort…
Now, when he says the leadership is against it, that’s a whole different level of authority. I figure it must be so.
But I gotta ask, unless it will lead us into a contest of exquisite parsing of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, if Gee Dub doesn’t deserve to be impeached, what would it take?
This quote: “There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes,” Taguba says. “The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account.” sums it all up for me quite nicely.
You have a war criminal for President. Swell.
He’s Baaaaack, promising 25 more articles if the Judiciary Committee sits this out.
Only you and the Shadow know what is in your heart, 'luci…
Of course not…since this grand ‘evidence’ hasn’t been made public and weighed in a court or other structured setting (like Congressional hearing, say), it was a silly request on your part. However, I think we can deduce some things from the facts we DO know.
:dubious: Why shelve it then? Why aren’t the Republican’s exactly quaking in their boots over this? Why did the Republican’s in fact want to bring this out in the open while the Dems chose to shunt this to committee so it could die a quiet death…just like Chaney’s supposed impeachment already has?
Since I’m not at a computer and this post is probably a complete mess I’ll leave it to Bricker and his question to you…do you think this impeachment by Kucinich will actually have the effect you indicate? What time frame are you willing to look at this and say that it has in fact been shelved indefinitely and that this issue is dead…merely a grandstanding stunt? 1 year? 5 years? Through the entire Obama presidency? Some time this century?
-XT
So you now concede – without ever making it sound like a concession – that you were mistaken; that the move to the Judiciary Committee IS in fact intended to shelve the resolution.
Thanks.
A criminal act under US law.
18 and 40 in particular.
Too funny. I do have to concede that Kucinich probably isn’t grandstanding…he really IS a moonbat of the first order. You guys should have muzzled him when you had the chance…
And if those 35 don’t take, well…
And if THOSE 60 die then he will double it again to 120…and then to 240! Like a penny, if you double it every day eventually you’ll get an impeachment!
He will settle for just one though…just one. Just…someone to take him seriously on his own ‘side’! Blessed are they who believe without seeing…
I have to agree with Kucinich here…why would it be ‘political suicide’ if he in fact has all of this indisputable smoking gun proof? It doesn’t seem rational to me…especially in an election year when the Dems actually have their best chance in years to not only take the presidency but to control the house and senate to.
Agreed…unless of course the Democratic leadership is less sure of this massive evidence than Kucinich is of course. I can’t think of any other rational reason…well, unless the Dems (save Kucinich) are in on it to of course and are afraid if they impeach Bush it will splash on them to.
From the article I’ll leave it where they do…
-XT
Upon recent evidence. As noted above. I can speak for myself well enough, if I need your assistance, I will not hesitate to ask.
You’re welcome, of course, I only hope it won’t spoil your gloat if I tell you you had nothing to do with it.
A daunting standard. I only hope we can find persons of sufficient character to meet your rigorous demands.
There’s this thing called the ‘constitution.’ You may have heard of it.
Maybe I don’t have a lawyerly mind, but ISTM that if the Constitution is blatantly violated, then finding a statute that codifies the Constitution in the right way, and translates said violation into a felony, is merely icing on the cake.
Ditto for violation of the Geneva Conventions, which the Constitution says are part of the law of the land. Maybe none of the other signatories will ever hold Bush responsible, but there’s no reason we can’t say that crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity and deserve impeachment, even if there’s nothing in the U.S. code that criminalizes said crimes.
Your law strains a gnat and swallows a camel.
It isn’t. “High crimes and misdemeanors,” means acts that could be prosecuted as criminal. (It doesn’t have to mean this, of course – but the other “standard” is “whatever Congress says,” and Congress ain’t sayin’ anything, either.)
So that’s it. I’m asked what it would take – a criminal act. That’s what I’d need for my agreement that impeachment is warranted. Seems like Congress agrees.
Well, here we go to Parse City. Is “warranted” the same as “deserve”? Because “deserve” is what I asked.
I’m all for the truth to. I don’t think we are seeing ‘truth’ here though…rather I think we are seeing a lone nutball who is playing to the meme of the left. But, you know, if the Dems and/or Kucinich bring this into a structured setting and DO find Bush et al guilty of actual crimes I’m all for it.
Well, that’s all very poetic and hyperbolic…and it plays well to the same choir as Kucinich is playing to. What exactly did you want me to respond to here…that you can be as hyperbolic as he?
The thing is…are any of the less hyperbolic statements here actually illegal? IANAL but if they ARE illegal, and since there should be sufficient proof, then why aren’t the Dems moving on this stuff?
Well, that’s convenient, ehe? There is of course all this massive proof…but the Dems Congressional leadership (and most of the members) have ‘bought in’ to not doing a thing about it.
Assuming this is true and that Bush is guilty as sin but that the Dems in Congress won’t lift a finger, then what is the point? It’s over…the system is fucked beyond repair if a corrupt president can’t even be touched by the opposition party since they have ‘bought in’ to.
Of course there IS another explanation that doesn’t quite paint the Dems in such a bad light…though of course it puts Kucinich in a worse one. YMMV of course, but I think I know where my own Occam’s Razor cuts the issue.
Possibly. Or they may wonder how we because so blindly partisan that anyone ever took Kucinich seriously at all. Time will tell I expect.
If nothing is standing in the way of impeachment then I suppose we’ll see it happen, ehe? Perhaps in the end Kucinich is right and Bush is guilty…which would confirm to me several things…the biggest one being that both Dems and Pubs are as alike as I think they are, both cast really in the same slimy mold.
But, hope springs eternal, and perhaps the Dem leadership (and most of the Dem Congresscritters) know something that those on the screeching left don’t…so I won’t hold my breath waiting for the trials…
(BTW, sorry if the discussion has moved on…and also sorry I didn’t get to your other post. It’s really painful to post from my phone, even with a keyboard attached)
-XT
Is it not redundant to call war crimes, “crimes”? And do they not fall under US law? Because commit them he did. Again, for the hard of hearing:
General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes
Or is he a lefty moonbat as well?
It’s not the same. And in my view, no, he doesn’t deserve it, either.
I missed where that story says Bush (as opposed to “the administration”) did these heinous deeds.
Nixon personally approved the cover-up. Clinton personally lied under oath. Johnson personally fired Staunton.
Bush personally did… what?
I’d very much like to know that. How about you?