There, I said it.
President Bush is a gift to the Democratic Party. When he leaves office in 2009, Democrats have the chance to send at least four new Senators to DC. States MN, OR, ME and NH have vulnerable incumbents. Colorado is an open seat in a state which is trending blue. Hell, even Virginia, Kentucky, or even Mississippi could break our way.
In the House, Democrats are poised to hold seats won in ’06, while expanding their majority. Even the functionally retarded Sheriff Reichert is keeping his head down. This must be why, on the Eastside, you’re more likely to see the Zodiac Killer in public than Dave Reichert.
I understand why some of my Democratic friends are excited about impeachment, even if it’s all but impossible to do. Folks are pissed, and they want justice, Sergio Leone-style. But handing the GOP a stick to bash you with ain’t smart politics.
Besides, for the last six years, it’s been all about George W. Bush. Now that we’ve got Congress, it ought to be about the American people.
Just sayin’.
LIBBY JUROR: PARDON HIM
Wed Mar 07 2007 19:21:48 ET
MSNBC host Chris Matthews spoke with Libby juror Ann Redington on HARDBALL. Juror [#10] says she would support a Bush pardon for Libby.
Transcript:
Chris: You’re for a pardon out of sympathy for the defendant.
Ann: Yeah, I think in the big picture, um, it kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.
Chris: Which is the leaking of a CIA agents name.
Ann: Exactly.
End
Developing…
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
The pragmatist side of me agrees with you, Will, but there comes a time when we must put the national good above party politics, and this is one of those times.
We must go through the impeachment motions, even if impeachment has no chance in the Senate, for the sake of principle.
The principle at stake is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, no president is above the law, and a president who violates the Constitution will be held accountable by the people’s representatives in Congress.
There is very powerful symbolism involved in all of this. If we do not do this, the message we’ve sent to posterity is that any president can ignore or overall the Constitution and federal laws at will.
overrule not overall
@1 What else would you expect from Drudge?
@1 (continued) So, Richard, are you saying a guy who was convicted of 4 felonies, including lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice, should walk free? And you want the voters to elect you to a judgeship? You disappoint me.
And let’s not forget that Libby’s crimes involved preventing the prosecution of people who committed treason.
“The principle at stake is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, no president is above the law, and a president who violates the Constitution will be held accountable by the people’s representatives in Congress.”
What parts of the constitution has been violated by what acts of the president?
But enough of Richard’s attempt to deflect from the topic, and away with you Richard; let’s get back on topic, to wit, impeachment.
Bush has committed at least two offenses against the Constitution warranting removal from office:
1) Violating the constitutional rights of at least two U.S. citizens by arresting and imprisoning them without trial or access to lawyers or courts. I don’t give a rat’s ass how guilty Padilla is; that’s completely beside the point. EVERY American citizen is entitled to due process of law, no matter what he’s accused of doing, and when a president takes those rights away from ANY citizen, we are ALL in peril.
2) Violating the constitutional rights of American citizens who were spied on without a court warrant, which also was in express violation of a federal law that Congress enacted to prevent precisely such behavior by the executive branch. The fact Bush lied to the American public about not conducting warrantless eavesdropping does not add to the bill of particulars, but is an aggravating circumstance.
Impeachment should not be about whether you like, or dislike, Bush’s policies. In my view, it shouldn’t even be about Iraq. Right or wrong, warmongering and gaming the intelligence and bad judgment are not proscribed by the Constitution and are not impeachable offenses. Above all, impeachment should not be thought of as a revote or a popularity poll. This has nothing to do with Bush’s poll standings. Impeachment begins and ends with Bush’s provable disrespect for the Constitution and rule of law. The sole grounds, purpose, and justification for impeaching Bush is to enforce the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. If he didn’t violate the Constitution, or if the evidence doesn’t prove he did, end of story. If he did, it should be the end of the Bush presidency.
The problem with what you say, Roger, is that Fitz knew from the beginning of his “investigation” that no crime had been committed because Plame wasn’t covert, and that Richard Armitage had already admitted being the one to reveal her identity to Novak. So just what did Libby obstruct?
I agree with Will. Sometimes it is strategicly sound to keep giving them the rope with which they will hang themselves. In the case where that applies, fighting the good fight for merely its own sake when the net result is a loss, does no one any good, “party” politics or not.
Nor can it, or should it, be taken for granted that all Republican Senators would vote against removal. If impeachment turns into a partisan witch hunt, then yes, I expect they would. But if a proper and principled impeachment process is conducted, based on proper grounds, and if the case for removal is proven, then I think it may be difficult for principled GOP Senators to vote against removal. Nixon, after all, resigned upon being informed by Republican senators that he no longer had the support of his own party’s Senate delegation and would surely be removed. I’m unwilling to assume that all of our Republican Senators, confronted with proper grounds and convincing evidence, would put party above nation, partisanship above principle, Bush above the Constitution. It’s very hard for me to believe that, if a proper case for impeachment is made, there are not 67 votes in the Senate to enforce the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Our nation has no greater long-term interest; and this, surely, must supersede the politics of the moment. I would hope this is a uniting principle, above partisanship, on which all Senators can set aside party differences and vote as one for the good of the nation.
11 “principled GOP Senators”
Roger, for the most part (regrettably, I might add) that has become an oxymoron.
@7 Already answered, more than once.
I’m not going to waste my time responding to vacuous rhetorical questions from wingnuts who are uninterested in honest debate.
@9 The problem with what YOU say, Janet, is that (a) Plame WAS covert, and anything you say to the contrary is bullshit, and (b) Libby lied to a grand jury and obstructed the investigation, which are crimes in and of themselves.
Not to mention the fact your argument is utterly hypocritical, given that the whole GOP basis for impeaching Clinton was that he lied to a grand jury. Well, the shoe is on the other foot now, Janet Slut — one of your own has been convicted of lying to a grand jury. And you think he should walk? Fucking hypocrite.
@12 I would like to think that, in this situation, they might be better than we want to give them credit for.
@10 Thank God the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement never accepted that reasoning.
WILL YOU ARE AN IDIOT
The supremacy of the Constitution is not negotiable, no matter how long it takes, and how many defeats must be suffered.
Truman polled under 30%, but it would have been idiotic to impeach Truman for firing MacArthur, because Truman was right.
But Bush is not Truman; and Truman didn’t violate the Constitution, he protected it by not allowing a general to arrogate power to himself that the Constitution reserves to the elected civilian executive.
Will,
Obviously you don’t head over the the Eastside, South King County or East Pierce County very often.
You are, basically, right about impeachment though.
Bush surely deserves impeachment. He has a fundamental disrespect for little things like the separation of powers and the rule of law. Indeed, I don’t even believe he could define either phrase. He is authoritarian in a Stalinist mode. But, like Will, I don’t think impeachment is in the longterm interests of the nation. Rather, give the fuckers in the White House another 20 months to do what they’re doing, and the neocons might be wiped off the political map. We’d all benefit from that.
JANET S: YOU’VE STATED COUNTLESS TIMES THAT PLAME WAS NOT COVERT.
SO BASICALLY YOU’RE CALLING YOUR FELLOW REPUBLICAN FITZGERALD A LIAR.
I LOVE IT WHEN YOU REPUBLICANS EAT EACH OTHER.
Let’s just get this straight. Janet S is a lying cunt repeating Publican lies because talking out her ass is all she knows how to do.
Plame was indeed a covert agent. If not, why would the CIA be trying to stop her from publishing her book? She just wasn’t covert within the time frame required to trigger the statute regarding outing an ACTIVE covert agent.
Doesn’t mean it was moral or right or that our country’s intelligence wasn’t in jeopardy as a result of the Bush regime’s attempt to deflect the truth.
Too bad AIDS-infested whores like Janet S don’t have kids in Iraq. Maybe then she’d understand how attacking a CIA agent could endanger the life of true patriots.
By the way Janet S, Fitzgerald is a PUBLICAN. So tell us how it’s all a Democratic conspiracy.
Now call your daddy Limpdick Limbaugh and ask him what you should say next, since repeating his talking points is all you know how to do.
March 6, 1836
On that fateful day, Davy Crockett woke up and walked from his bunk on the floor of the Alamo up to the observation post on the west wall. William B. Travis and Jim Bowie were up there already. The three gazed at the hordes of Mexicans moving steadily towards them.
Davy turned to Bowie with a puzzled look on his face and said, “Jim, are we pouring concrete today?”
We all know you’re irrelevant, klake. You don’t need to prove it.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnb...../&fg=
FREE SCOOTER LIBBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@28 I see you’re positioning yourself as the soft-on-crime troll.
What a week for the inbred right….
The hypocrites who say they support our troops got caught letting them suffer at Walter Reed…
The highest ranking Publican to be convicted of a felony since the last totally corrupt Publican administration of Ronnie RayGun, gets justice and the fact that the Bush regime outed a CIA agent for political gain gets national attention…
The Bush recession kicks into high gear…
Even Publicans are talking about impeaching the Pretender and Thief.
Man I can’t wait to see what happens next week!
I think it’s better to continue investigations and actions to rein him in. I’d prefer an invitation to The Hague with the ink dry on January 21, 2009.
She just wasn’t covert within the time frame required to trigger the statute regarding outing an ACTIVE covert agent.
Dahhh. That’s the whole point. She wasnt covert when she sent her lying sack of crap husband out to investigate the niger deal. Wilson lied and said that Cheney sent him. I wish we could get the two liberal cowards on the stand but we wont. Liberals are lying pussies.
Democrats Announce a Comprehensive Terrorist Immigration Program!
Democrats Want Gitmo Prisoners Sent to U.S.
http://dyn.politico.com/prints.....47454E775D
I’m puzzled. Fitzgerald knew that Armitage leaked Plame’s name to Novak. He knew this almost immediately upon being named special prosecutor. So, if she was covert, why wasn’t Armitage indicted?
Oh, that’s right. There was no crime, because she wasn’t covert.
Where did I ever claim a left wing conspiracy? You guys are at your usual – when you have no argument, make it up and use lots of foul insults. Sure beats having facts.
Dan @ 32, Janet @ 34- So you agree the case against Clinton was BS? After all, oral sex is not a crime. The issue was what he said to the Grand Jury.
How is this different?
And when Clinton lied, nobody died.
Let’s get this straight – if Libby lied to the Grand Jury, he deserves to be convicted. I’ll be curious how this stands up on appeal. The jury was obviously confused about the testimony and the charges, but decided that they had evidence of lying.
Clinton didn’t lie about sex. He lied in a sexual harrassment case. I guess this means you all think it is okay to lie to cover up predatory behavior. Sure am glad I don’t work with any of you.
BACK ON TOPIC:
Will has it right. No, no, and no. Craven democrats who sniveled their opposition to and enabled Bush’s War need to resist now the partisan urge to poke a stick into the wasp’s nest of impeachment.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, (R. Neb.) in the current issue of Esquire:
Surprising words from a conservative Republican Senator occupying a safe seat. So why is impeachment a bad strategy?
Exactly. Impeaching this Chief Executive – let alone enduring the Senate trial to convict him – would be folly. It will hand the GOP exactly the ammunition they need to reload the Rovian Spin Cycle and shore up their coming vulnerability at the polls in 2008.
THE WORDS OF FITZ FROM OCT 2005:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.
FITZ TRIED TO FIND OUT WHO BLEW PLAME’S COVER. LIBBY INTERFERED WITH THAT. THAT IS A CRIME. LIBBY IS GUILTY.
No Janet. I’m not excusing lies. Libby was convicted of lying to the Grand Jury. That is a fact. There is no evidence they were confused. There was evidence of significant effort to discredit Wilson, no matter what was necessary. I see many on the right arguing what Libby did was no big deal, after their crusade against Clinton. Libby was CONVICTED of lying to the Grand Jury.
The jury was obviously confused about the testimony and the charges, but decided that they had evidence of lying.
THE JURY INCLUDED AN ATTORNEY, A CPA AND A FORMER WASHINGTON POST REPORTER. THESE ARE PEOPLE WELL SUITED TO SIFTING THROUGH DETAILS AND ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION. THEY TOOK THEIR TASK SERIOUSLY AND DELIBERATED FOR A LONG TIME.
THEY CLEARED LIBBY ON ONE COUNT – TOO MUCH REASONABLE DOUBT.
THEY FOUND HIM GUILTY OF THE REST. ‘NUFF SAID!
And to the thread, I agree that moving on impeachment AT THIS TIME is not the best strategy. Let’s move forward with hearings on the wide range of abuses which have been perpetuated these past six years. Look into veterans’ health care. Look into the politicization of the Justice Department. Listen to what those fired prosecutors said. There’s plenty more- energy policy? prescription drugs? Who knows what else. Build the case brick by brick how the republicans have abused the government process. Maybe impeachment comes later. There’s too much work to do now.
I wish we could get the two liberal cowards on the stand
DOOFUS, THERE’S A CIVIL CASE. PLAME AND WILSON ARE GOING TO PUT THE WHOLE LYING GANG OF CRIMINALS YOU WORSHIP ON THE STAND.
IT’S GOING TO BE SO MUCH FUN TO SEE YOU AND THE LIARS YOU WORSHIP TWIST IN THE WIND.
YOS LIBTARD Says
THE JURY INCLUDED AN ATTORNEY, A CPA AND A FORMER WASHINGTON POST REPORTER. THESE ARE PEOPLE WELL SUITED TO SIFTING THROUGH DETAILS AND ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION. THEY TOOK THEIR TASK SERIOUSLY AND DELIBERATED FOR A LONG TIME.
You mean the former Washinton Post Reporter Denis Collins, the same Denis Collins that was Tim Russerts backyard neighbor? The one who the day after the verdict posted a 7,900 word diary on the Left Wing Huffington Post?
Yeah, he didn’t have an agenda.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....ocs/libby/
38 – Fitz knew who leaked Plame’s name from the very beginning. Libby lied to the grand jury and possibly to the FBI. That was stupid, and he should have been smart enough to have a lawyer who would have told him to shut up. But the facts were already out there.
The telling fact is that Fitzgerald is moving on, no more indictments from this situation. That means no frog marching for Rove or Cheney getting charged. Case closed. End of politicization. Except for Denis Collins getting his 15 minutes of fame. If he keeps talking, he’s bound to get the whole thing thrown out on appeal.
ROBTARD, COLLINS WENT THROUGH THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. HE WAS ONE OF 9 JURORS.
AND HUFF POST IS SO LEFT WING DANIELLE CRITTENDEN, WIFE OF DAVID FRUM POSTS THERE.
MORON!
Denis Collins:
The gallery was not quite filled, but at the prosecution and defense tables there wasn’t a sliver of empty space. How many lawyers does it take to….
Judge Walton read the query sheet I’d marked earlier.
You know someone on the prospective witness list?
I do. Bob Woodward was my boss at the Washington Post for three or four years.
Would you tend to give his statements more credibility than the statements of other witnesses?
I immediately picture a party Woodward hosted at his Georgetown home for the Metro staff about 25 years ago. When I went looking for my girl friend, I found her with some copy aides and reporters in an attic piled high with boxes of files for one of his books.
“Unbelievable,” said one of the reporters. “Look at the file labels. This entire box is backup for one interview.”
But not infallible. Didn’t he write two different books about going to war in Iraq?
Know anyone else on the list?
Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. I don’t think I ever spoke to him during my 10 years at the Post, but twice in the last 14 months we talked at parties thrown by a mutual friend.
Anyone else?
Until a year or so ago, Tim Russert was a neighbor. His back yard and mine shared an alley and a basketball hoop where our sons played. I attended a few neighborhood barbecues in his back yard.
Attorneys at both tables are suppressing “ain’t this a small town” grins.
That means no frog marching for Rove or Cheney getting charged.
NICE TRY JANET. ONLY THE BEGINNING. THERE’S A CIVIL CASE. THEY’RE GOING TO PUT ALL THOSE LIARS ON THE STAND.
RE: 45, YOS LIBTARD, you take Moron to a whole new level. He actually was one of 12 jurors later reduced to 11. Did you go to public school in Seattle?
PUT ON YOUR TIN HAT ROBTARD AND POP YOUR MEDS!
Re: 49. I don’t have one could I borrow yours?
ALL RIGHT ONE OF 11. ANYTHING YOU SAY. NOW HIS VAST LEFT-WING INFLUENCE IS EVEN FURTHER REDUCED!
A MAJOR TEAM MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME ROBTARD – DEAL WITH IT.
I wonder if the Bush regime will make sure Libby has a “heart attack” just in case he’s tempted to roll over on the real traitors, Rove and Cheney.
LET COMPILE A LIST FOR ROBTARD: CUNNINGHAM, FRANKLIN, SAFAVIAN, ABRAMOFF, NEY, TOBIN AND NOW LIBBY. I KNOW I’VE MISSED A BUNCH MORE.
RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN LIARS AND CRIMINALS!
Re: 51. He has been convicted and if he was stupid enough to lie before a grand jury when there was no crime to lie about then he will be dealing with it, not me.
Re 52. Roll over for what?
Joe Wilson has been proven to be a liar by a bipartisan Senate report. Even Kerry fired him from his foreign policy team. I bet he will have lots of credibility in court. I can’t wait for the civil suit.
Actually, Wilson and Plame are smart enough to have taken you all in on their scam for publicity.
rob@46:
You do realize you just showed us how stupid Scooter and his lawyers were, don’t you? That exchange took place in open court, with them listening to every word. And they chose him to be on the jury.
Oh. That’s right; they’re Publicans, so they are certain to be stupid.
Oh, janet s, we both know how much you dream about sucking Joe Wilson’s cock, but you’ll never get the chance, neener-neener!
Re: 57, His attorney was an idiot but he is also a democrat. The judge should have kicked the liberal hack out but he didn’t, Collins will be an issue on appeal.
At least you agree that Collins should have never been on the jury.
Re: 58, Nice to see you showing your intelligence again Jenna? Now smoke some more pot and keep pretending.
I’m still waiting to hear how Hillary explains her vote to go into Iraq. She had access to information during her husband’s presidency, and she had full access to intelligence while being a Senator. So her excuse has to either be, I’m too stupid to think for myself and Bush deceived me, or I looked at all the intelligence and agreed at the time but now see that I was wrong. Her ego is too big to admit that she was wrong. So I guess she will go with stupid.
DID ROBTARD GIVE TO THE SCOOTER LIBBY DEFENSE FUND?
DID ROBTARD GIVE TO THE DREAM TEAM THAT ARGUED THE ELECTION CONTEST BEFORE REPUBLICAN BRIDGES?
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!!!
RE: 62. No to both.
JANET, HILARY’S NOT MY FIRST CHOICE SO I DON’T CARE. BUT THE TABLES WERE TURNED DURING WWII. WOULD REPUBLICANS TIE ROOSEVELT’S HANDS AFTER THE BOMBING OF PEARL HARBOR?
SIMPLE HISTORY AND POLITICS EXPLAINS HILARY AND OTHER DEMOCRAT’S DECISION ON IRAQ.
Re: 61. Janet, Here is a video of Hillary explaining her vote to the code pinkos. Try not to puke at the first part which shows how bizarre liberals are. Hillary goes on to explain how she made her decision independent of the Bush white house and made it because of her experiece in the Clinton White house and her 10 years of studying Iraq.
It gets good at the end when she wags her finger in the face of one of the code pinkos.
Enjoy,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8
I’m sorry but you are wrong Will. Only an idiot would not impeach a President that is polling at 30% when that President has violated the Constitution. On a purely political basis, there is a rational arguement. It would actually be the anti-thesis of what you are describing.
First, Clintons approval ratings weren’t high because the Republicans were trying to impeach him. The Republicans had problems impeaching Clinton because his approval ratings were so high. There was little pressure, other than their own self inflicted fears, on Democrats to impeach Clinton. Most of their constituents didn’t want that to occur. The approval numbers showed that the majority of Americans were against the impeachment as well. The opposite is true today.
Democrats were elected to make the President change his actions. That was a massive mandate from the previous election. The President has shown that he has no intention of changing his actions. The only check that the Congress truly holds over him, other than cutting funding, is to impeach him. He has already established that he will instruct his staff to ignore any law they don’t want to follow. He has made signing statements to that effect over and over again. His Attorney General has stated that even the Constitution doesn’t have authority over him.
Impeachment forces the Republicans to choose. Do they attempt to defend all of the corruption and incompetence of the Bush Administration? Because that is what they will have to do if they vote against the impeachment. Or do they realise that it is far better to act amazed and chagrined as all of the inquiries show that they shouldn’t have trusted him. They will turn on him as if their carreers in politics depend on it. Because it will. They won’t if the Democrats never put them in that position to begin with.
They will never work with the Democrats on creating a solution in Iraq if we don’t impeach Bush. It is not in their interest. They will create roadblock after roadblock. All the time pointing out to the public that the Democrats have done nothing about getting the troops out of Iraq. All the time pulling stunts like the Republicans did in the state legislature here.
Over and over again, the Republicans said they would vote for the overhaul on school levies if Democrats would include moving all school levies to the November ballot. The Democrats agreed and the Republicans renegged. That is what negotiations about Iraq are going to be like in the other Washington. It is in their political interests for the Democrats in Congress to fail in ending the Iraq war. They will do nothing to assist the Democrats whatsoever unless we impeach the President.
Michael Caine, nice diversionary tactic, but totally stupid. The dems are in overwhelming control of both state houses, and have the governership. Why should they care what the repubs say about simple majority? If they really think it should happen, then they should vote it out that way. Truth be told, their constituents don’t want it, so they hide behind the repubs and blame it on a hapless minority.
But like I said, nice try.
Her ego is too big to admit that she was wrong.
JANET, I’M SURPRISED AT YOU. YOU’RE IMPLYING HERE THAT POLITICIANS BOTH R AND D MADE THE WRONG DECISION TO VOTE FOR THE AUMF!
YOU’VE SEEN THE LIGHT. BETTER LATE THAN NEVER I SUPPOSE.
I was just pointing out the dilemma that Hillary faces. If she was honest, she’d admit that the facts supported her vote on Iraq. She knew what intelligence was saying during the previous administration, and had full access to the records as a Senator. She told the Code Pink gang as much a couple of years ago.
But this won’t do for the nutroots. She has to say she was wrong or she was duped. She can’t, under any circumstance, tell the world that her vote was correct and she stands by it. Even if that is the truth, and what she really believes.
Back in the days of Nixon, the Democrats, along with a few Republicans, first insisted on formal, open investigations of the President.
Those investigations brought out enough information that even the Republicans would have had to vote for impeachment. It ceased to be a party issue, and simply became a matter of facts. President Nixon was informed by people in his own party that he would have to either resign, or he would be impeached and convicted, and that some of those votes would be Republican.
If the President is going to be impeached, it must follow the same pattern. First, a thorough, open investigation of the facts. Then, once it is obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention that the evidence and the votes are there for impeachment, he either resigns or is impeached.
The Republicans did a great disservice to the country in using the impeachment process for solely political purposes. While I agree that Mr. Bush’s crimes are far worse than Mr. Clinton’s (or even Mr. Nixon’s, for that matter) it has to be done openly, for all the world to see.
Otherwise we will simply be starting a tradition that says whenever the President is not of the same political party as the Congress, impeachment is appropriate.
First, full, thorough investigations. Then, if the evidence supports it, impeachment. Personally, I think that there is little chance that the evidence will not support it.
But… Start with investigations, and we don’t pre-judge anything. The Republicans went on a witch-hunt, with secret investigations and threatened witnesses. We need to be scrupulously open and honest.
We KNOW Libby lied. A jury of his peers said he lied. That begs the question. Why? Who or what was he trying to protect? If the cowardly, right wing traitors’ mantra that Plame wasn’t covert were true, why would the White House go to all the trouble? If the claim that Rove wanted to hurt Wilson by outing his wife weren’t true, why would Libby face jail time? If the claim that the White House did this for political gain, why would Libby get told to fall on his sword?
You see righties, the rest of the world has figured out the scam. You can play word games and mind games with each other all you want. Any way you slice it, you traitors are like rats on a sinking ship. And things are only going to get worse for you. I can’t wait until we get more of you in jail where you belong.
Must really frost that cunt Janet S to see Senator Clinton doing so well in the polls.
And Janet S and her cowardly ilk will be forced to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights advocate in Rompin Rudy. Man that must hurt. HE HE!
Janet:
While Ms. Clinton is not my favorite candidate (quite frankly, I cannot fathom why she is the front runner) I will have to take issue with some of your comments.
Oh? Whatever you Republicans might think, she wasn’t the President during that period. She didn’t attend all the meetings, read all the reports and get all the background data. While she was a very active First Lady, she was still just the First Lady.
Data that we are now reasonably sure was “cooked” in order to put forward the case for war. In the end, the President looked us all in the eye and told us that he had proof that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction.
Many folks were sceptical, but believed that, regardless of party or philosophy, the President would not lie about something that important. While I was opposed to the war, even I did not believe that he was blatantly lying to us.
I was wrong.
Personally, I do not think that Ms. Clinton will be elected President. Why you Republicans seem to hate her so much, I cannot tell. She really hasn’t done enough to earn herself either the title of “front runner” or the ire of the Republicans.
Maybe she’ll just act as the target for all your attacks over the next year, then once we’re closer to the election, someone else can become the standard bearer, and she can become Ambassador to the UN or some such. (I think she would do well in that job.)
Michael Caine @ 66
I think we’re talking past one another. You want impeachment for things Bush did. America puts Bush at 30% for what he’s done and what they think he’ll do. The American people no longer trust this President on nearly every single issue.
I see it differently than you. Bush’s utter weakness puts Democrats in the driver’s seat. An organized Democratic push for impeachment puts Bush in a victim corner, as it gives him something to bounce back with. That’s no good.
You gotta think Sun-Zu “Art of War” on shit on this one, pal.
@ 22
Don, I don’t actually, but my sources in the 8th tell me Reichert is slippery. I’m not surprised you’ve sen him around. If I was Reichert’s political guy, I’d make sure you (and folks like you) were the ONLY people he saw at events.
What if the American people want to impeach Bush?
Will @74
That’s fine if all you want is to stop Bush from doing anything else, though he still seems to have the belief that as long as he is President he doesn’t need to listen to the people. However, if you actually want to accomplish anything in this Congressional cycle, not impeaching Bush will not help. What is the leverage that Democrats have on Republicans. Republicans and netroots have both managed to convince people that the Democrats promised to get us out the Iraq war. At this point, all the Republicans have to do is take occasional pot shots to prevent the Democrats from succeeding. There is no desire to work with Democrats because they know that “everybody” knows the Democrats are now in control. Ergo if the Democrats fail to solve the Iraq issue it won’t be because of the Republicans. That is what they are going to be hammering in ’08.
Politically, the best way to change the strategy in the Iraq War is to put a Democrat into the Whitehouse before the ’08 election. The only way to do that is to impeach. Again, that isn’t my reason for impeachment. However, if you are trying to Sun-Tzu Washington DC to end the Iraq War that would be the best strategy.
If you are trying to push Republicans in toss up districts exposing the depth of the corruption within the Republican Administration will make it hard for anyone to vote Republican for all but the most partisan of reasons. Even in the Republican safe districts you will see a lot of upsets.
Let the Republicans howl, and as the evidence of Bush’s illegal and treasonous actions mounts hammer them in commercials showing them fully supporting Bush. Make them defend the indefensible. They will crumble much faster that way than the current method of appeasing them.
In the end, impeachment would be a Win/Win scenario for the Democrats. Not only are they doing what is best for the future of our Democracy, establishing and maintaining the inviobility of the U.S. Constitution. They will showing the American people that Democrats can and will take a stand against the degradation of the Constitution and will defend it staunchly. That is a winning strategy for today’s elections as well.
In 2000 party strategists determined it was in the best interest of the party to not fight Bush’s thugs tooth and nail when they stole the election. In 2002 party strategists determined it was in the best interest of the party to not oppose Bush’s disastrous plans for war. In 2004 party strategists determined it was in the best interest of the party to not aggressively pursue voter fraud investigations. Now, those same party stategists have decided it’s not in the best interest of the party to pursue impeachment against an adminstration whose illegal activities have made Nixon’s gang look like amateurs.
At this point, I’m really sick of hearing about what’s in the best interest of the party. It’s way past time to start talking about what’s in the best interest of the country. And I think there’s a pretty damn good argument to be made that this country owes it to itself, not to mention the rest of the world, to demonstrate that it still values the principle of justice sufficiently to at least try to pursue justice against a truly rogue administration.
I really think that politically impeachment is a bad strategy…but it’s almost a mandatory expression of Congressional will at this point. They are being challenged on the very fundamentals of personal liberty and division of powers, and for Congress to sit and let the executive assert nonexistent authority is bad enough…but in this case, people are dying.
And that’s the bottom line. This ridiculous catatastrophuck of a war needs to end as soon as humanly possible. Every day wasted means more lives and treasure wasted. The President appears to have openly suggested that he will ignore any directive to withdraw troops that he doesn’t agree with. That’s a line in the sand, with soldiers’ lives in the balance. If the only way to change course is to change executives, it should be tried IMO. If Democrats lose in 2008, so be it. They led, appropriately.
doggril beat me to the punch to a great extent. Kudos and full agreement.
Look, losing an impeachment vote is stupid. How much did impeaching Clinton help the Republicans? Sure, it made their more rapid fans happy, but for everyone else it was a waste of time.
Up to 2006, Bush can plausibly claim that he wasn’t acting unilaterally — Congress was more than happy to go along with anything he wanted.
The right thing to do now is for the Democratic Congress to put its foot down. If they’re still ignored, then they’ll have cause for impeachment.
A good start would be to pass something, anything, over a veto. If they can’t pull that off, impeachment’s never going to happen.