Impeachment Fever: America's Got It!

Cheney first. Please note, a VP does not have to be named to replace the Darth. US History shows precedent for leaving the office unfilled.

Another US agency suffering under the amBush-Chainlink leadership--feel safer?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1640668,00.html

It's amazing how few polls there have been on impeachment. And how little discussion of the possibility of impeachment there has been in the press. That after all is the check the founders envisioned for violations of the law by the executive (e.g. the warrantless eavesdropping program) and abuse of executive clemency (the Libby commutation).

I wonder what the numbers are for impeaching Gonzales?

Was Joe Klein in favor of impeaching Clinton? And where is he now? Is he still in Iraq?

I suspect it will be difficult to get real momentum for impeachment without a "smoking gun" type of revelation. One may well exist in all the emails that the WH is withholding. They need to ratchet up the pressure on these to prevent the WH from running out the clock.

Re "I find it especially interesting that the decision is even more unpopular with independents."

Depends on how you slice it: more Independents disapproved than Democrats. But also more Independents approved. Indies pulled off this seeming paradox by, ironically, being more decisive than Dems (1% undecided vs. 11%). Are Indies better informed? On the possibility of a full pardon, 7% of Dems approve vs a tiny 2% of Indies.

Remember when the liberal press (Matthews, Dowd, Broder, Quinn etc) was running around in full blown hysterics about Clinton lying about an affair?

The question never answered is why they thing WMD lies, warrantless wire tapping, torture, Geneva conventions, vote caging, politicization of justice is not as big a deal.

Clinton needed to resign. He ruined this town. Bush, not so much.

Ana,
Thanks for finally speaking the "unspeakable" that is the only legal means to stop this out of control regime.

I posted a link on another thread to General Odom's article regarding withdrawing our troops, and he, too, recommended impeaching Bush IF he does NOT cooperate in ending the debacle in Iraq.

Unlike him, I think we already have grounds to impeach Gonzales, Cheney, and Bush.

I, too, am a bit surprised that the Independents
are showing more guts than the Democrats. I think
some of the Democrats fear reprisal during the next election is the reason they are wavering.

I'm surprised how few Law and Order Republican pols there are. So far as I've seen, Chuck Hagel is the only one to come out firmly against the commutation. Gordon Smith is sort of equivocating, but from his backhanded slap at the Wilsons ("I feel bad for everyone, even the Plames") we get a sense of where his heart is. Surprisingly, I think McCain so far has refused comment; I wonder if he'll get away with that.

(TPM link at my handle for Hagel, Smith)

So tell me, can we get a discount if we impeach them as a two-for-the price of one package?

I am a registared Republican who tends to lean Independent. I bought the agruments made by the Republicans during Monicagate that lying to a jury undermines the rule of law. To hear the same people either remain silent or argue "it's different this time" or even worse "'Clinton did it too." Is pretty much a deal breaker to me. I wonder if the disapproving independents see it this way too.

Isn't it remarkable that the people who came into office insisting that they would be more moral and accountable than Clinton now try to excuse everything they do by saying "Clinton did it too"?

"Aug-Sept 1998 (Before Impeachment)
* Average support for impeachment and removal (10 polls): 26%
* Average support for hearings (6 polls): 36%"

There is a big difference.

In 1998 the American public was overwhelmingly opposed to impeachment but the Ruling Oligarchy, including the corporate media, favored impeachment.

We are seeing the opposite now.

Sorry, I am red-faced! I didn't look back at the poll while posting, and my memory is shot. I was obviously thinking the Independents were MORE in favor of Impeachment. Wrong poll.

Kathryn,

"lying to a jury undermines the rule of law."

Clinton didn't lie to a jury. He lied in a civil deposition, not a criminal case. On top of that that part of his testimony was ruled "not material" by the judge.

How about a cover story in the dead tree edition, tell Joe to get on that when gets back from wherever he is.

First rule in discussing the Bush administration - shut the f#ck up about Bill Clinton. Seriously. What are you people, like, 8 years old? BILL CLTINON ISN'T PRESIDENT, FOLKS. And these ass clowns WISH they were Bill Clinton, or had even just 1/4th of his political know-how.

Good, now that that's out of the way, the Democrats are friggin idiots for not having simply pledged to begin impeachment proceedings as soon as the election results were in. A real opposition party would have known this and used it as an issue to run on. They would have picked up even more seats. Instead we get Pelosi and Reid pledging over and over never to get to the bottom of things, thinking once again that this will make people like them more. It doesn't, you idiots, I hate you both. Not nearly as much as Bush, but would you two gimps please LEAVE your leadership positions in Congress? Anyway. Of course the American public wants this administration to be put on trial and punished. Americans know that if they behaved as these fascists have for the past 6 years, they would be severely punished and rightly so. It is time we start treating the Bush administration like the criminals they are. These are deeply, deeply anti-American people. And they rule our government. Of course the idea of throwing them out on their asses is popular. Nobody likes these idiots anymore.

Ana, this is a brave post. Kudos.

For everyone else, what is the use of talking about impeachment when there is zero chance of it getting out of the Senate? That isn't snark, but I really don't get it. We can't get any of the House legislation through GOP Senate obstruction, and they are going to allow an impeachment through? Sprinkle some of the fairy dust on me.

We need to win the 2008 Presidential election, and keep control of both houses. That should be the focus.

As certain as I am that the Country deserves justice via impeachement, there simply isn't enough courage or moral authority in the GOP to hold Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, & Rove accountable. Conservatives have made it clear that no amount of criminal activity, no matter the incompetence, nevermind science and "facts", they will support this President and his Jesters - they (the GOP) have allowed this all to happen and they cannot remove their egos from this folly long enough to save us. I'm afraid we've got this Administration until the very end - at great cost to our country - the Republicans won't do a thing about it...we'll have to hope for greater majorities in the next election...

Obviously the American People know who's REALLY running this country. And they want him fired.

Russ - you are correct, the Republicans in the Senate would not vote to hold anyone accountable.

Which is all the more reason impeachment proceedings should begin. Write up the charges, air out the dirty laundry - ALL of it - in hearings in the House, rouse the rabble...and then let the people take a good hard look at the criminal enablers they've elected to the Senate, men who won't put country above party even when all the facts are on the table, proven for all to see.

You want greater majorities in the next election? Well, I can't think of a better way to get them.

http://impeachcheney.org/

I confirm and understand that the majority of Americans are unserious and unfit to influence Washington, as determined by the Dean himself, David Broder.

No wonder Brody-boy is so worried about how dangerously beholden Washington is to public opinion...

Bush and Cheney could publically sodomize three year old boys on live TV and that would still not be enough of a motivator for the GOP slime in Congress to act to impeach them.

But But Clinton!

Apprentice to Darth Holden - Are you kidding? David Broder would be wondering why America kept bringing up such archaic things like 'child molestation' and 'statuatory rape', while the GOP in Congress would balk that, because some Democrat in some office somewhere changed his son's diaper, Democrats had no place to criticize.

what Apprentice said.

It's because of the press and media that it won't happen. It's disgusting.

Apparently killing many many thousands and lying to us daily and embroiling us in debacles and occupations, and spying on us, etc, is not enough.

Here's a find set of article for impeachment all drawn up, wouldn't have to change but a few dozen words:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/05/2299/

Ana,
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you.

Impeach. Impeach. Impeach.

amberglow - The press, especially the Washington Press, has one, overarching and overriding rule that colors the narrative, no matter what:

IOKIYAR.

No. Matter. What.

I have restored dishonour and indignity to the White House: GWB 2007.

And they're still trying to grab more power and will ignore this, i bet -- "... The House measure "stops this president or any president from seizing the power to rewrite almost every law that Congress passes, laws that protect public health, the environment, safety, civil rights, privacy and on and on," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., its sponsor. ..." -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_pr_wh/congress_executive_power

Impeachment --

-- forget the #s for a second. You know what's truly fascinating to me? How much the Beltway CW has become what economists call a "lagging indicator" regarding what the public thinks.

And more importantly, how they don't *get* that they are lagging indicator.

This isn't directed at AMC or really anyone in particular (I actually like Swampland). But at some point doesn't the Beltway crowd have to realize that there hasn't been a single moment throughout the Bush presidency that they have been ahead of public opinion?

More to the point, if they aren't prescient and they've been this tone deaf, what use is there for Beltway punditry? Isn't prescience regarding public opinion/politics their raison d'etre?

Impeachment is just the beginning.

It has to be a double impeachment or forced-resignation for Bush and Cheney so that Bush is blocked from choosing his successor and getting pardoned.

The reason we have this megadeath in Iraq is because Nixon was pardoned by Ford.

The Oval office must be taken from these traitors and they must not be protected from accountability.

www.pelosi2007.org

We can start here:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis

Isn't it ironic that only 1% of those who cannot pick a political party have no opinion on Libby?

Good on ya. Now if only the elite Beltway press and the Democrats and moderate Republicans in Congress would catch up with public opinion and the great unwashed electorate out here in flyover land.

That's a flawed comment on several levels, Lucius.

Broder's boy has regained his footing... all the way to 26% in the latest Newsweek poll!

I'm willing to lay money he'll break into the teens before January 2009.

The reason we have this megadeath in Iraq is because Nixon was pardoned by Ford.
*****
Yep! UNTIL we start holding our presidents accountable when they break the law, we will continue down the miserable path begun by Nixon, pardoned by Ford, and amplified by both Reagan
and Bush.

Oops! Left out Poppa Bush's pardon of some of the Iran-Contra villains.

I am hopeful that Articles of Impeachment will come this fall, possibly as soon as October. I predict Gonzales will be the first on the block.

ANY further revelations of malfeasance or missteps or crass political chicanery will only make it more likely.

Thank you, Ana, for saying what is unpalatable in the Beltway. Brava.

Apparently you're the only one in D.C. not still fixated on Clinton's sex life.

Snarky comment questioning John Edward's sexual preference as it relates to hair care goes here.

Thanks for posting this Ana, even on the back pages of this blog at least someone besides KO is aknowledging the cries of the populace.

Also, it's not very organized, but Wes Clark Jr is trying to get a nationwide weekly protest up and running at the great orange satan. Worth a peek if you've had enough of this administration.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/3/154627/3818?detail=f

"... America - you can rest at ease. The pundits are fighting to reclaim their relevance and supremacy - their "ocracy," if you will. They know that in order for this great country to soldier on in the face of the terrorists, D.C. must continue to remain a place where a third-rate Matlock actor can publicly equate a career of corporate lobbying to the lion-heartedness of General Washington crossing the Delaware - and be rewarded for such statements by being ordained a frontrunner for President of the United States of America. These pundits - these Glorious Protectors of the Nation - are working hard to make sure politicians don't - god forbid - listen to what YOU want, but listen only to what pundits deem is acceptable to THEM. These pundits' ownership of our democracy may be under attack, but rest assured the threat to the rule of the self-important bloviators will not go unchallenged. Our pundits will do all that they can to save themselves for the good of America, the world, and the universe." -- http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/07/america_can_sleep_easy_the_pun.html

Terry Waite just spoke out about 'extraordinary rendition'. He was comparing the US enemy combatant policy to his kidnapping. 'political prisoners without recourse'

Lemon was doing a live interview related to the release of Alan Johnston, BBC reporter held in the Gaza. Terry left Lemon hanging in a pregnant pause. Bet they won't rerun this interview 24/7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Waite

Remember, the chief pollster for the Washington Post thinks that asking about impeachment is beneath him, even though he had no trouble doing so ten years ago.

"what is the use of talking about impeachment when there is zero chance of it getting out of the Senate?"

Because if you don't try, then you basically declare impeachment off-limits for anything other than frivolous partisan BS. If you don't try, then any president only marginally better than Bush can say 'Bush was never impeached'. Because it's a tool that was meant to be used.

first impeachment
then war crimes trials

oh and by the way that run out the clock thingy...
we're not buying that

ITMFA!!!!

That said, it ain't gonna happen. I would love to see Darth Cheney and Abu Gonzales impeached and removed/forced to resign.

If it did happen, Congressman Nadler recently laid out the process. The rest of 2007 would pretty much be what it is now, only with the word impeachment in play. That is, investigations. Building the case, drawing up the articles. Mostly, it will be investigations (that the admin will attempt to stonewall at every turn). In early 2008, you'd have hearings on impeachment, and debate on the House floor. This would undoubtedly overshadow the primary process. Then, it would go to the Senate. Which would never vote for it, as Holy Joe and the rest of the Republicans would vote against removal.

Instead, Congressman Nadler says that we should continue the investigations, and then bring criminal charges against the current admin when they leave office in early 2009. Removal from office ain't gonna happen with a bare 51/49 majority (you need 60 votes to get anything done, and McConnell gleefully works to obstruct everything).

This time around, unlike with Iran-Contra, we need to make sure that the criminals get whats coming. A long time in prison. There's more than enough evidence out there to put pretty much the entire Bush administration behind bars for years to come. And seeing them in orange jumpsuits, for me, would be more satisfying than a doomed to fail attempt to remove this administration from office.

Should impeachment processes begin though, I'm on board 100%. I've asked my Congressman to jump on the impeachment bandwagon, especially in the case of Darth Cheney and Abu Gonzales.

http://www.alcatrazhistory.com/

Castle with moat and view. Will remodel to suit.

Well I will say that trying to drag the country through impeachment proceedings isn't going to win the democrats any popularity points, no matter what you think. If you are so disatisfied, why don't you focus on winning in 08?

Because investigations into their many many crimes will help in 08.

I repent. I have been in the cautious category, actually supporting Nancy Pelosi in "taking impeachment off the table." But this has been the moment for me. The commutation of I. Lewis Libby's rightful sentence, and the ensuing coverup of the felony committed by the vice president himself, is my Watergate burglary moment. Ecrasez l'infame!

And 10, and in 12, and in 14 and 16 and 18, etc.

Commuting a sentence isn't ammo for an impeachment hearing.

Intrepyd, because Scootie-Scoot perjured himself to the FBI and a grand jury, we will never know what Bush and Cheney knew about Valerie Plame's status, and what they ordered Scooter to do in regards to leaking this classified information.

By buying Scooter's silence, it absolutely is grounds for a hearing. There have been worse offenses of course. There has been Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, NSA, habeus corpus, warrantless wiretapping for a few examples.

However, none of these rise to the level of lying about a hummer. Right media?

Of all the issues facing the country, the one legacy the bloggers would like to leave is impeachment. I was sure the contrarian wing of the Democratic party would quiet down once elections drew near, but they continue to drown out any hope for a substantitve democratic platform.

I wonder how many would support executing the POTUS or VP for treason.

To everyone who thinks the American people are ahead of the beltway crowd on this--you're right.

To everyone who thinks that the American people are wiser than the beltway crowd but too damn stupid to figure out there's a difference between a blowjob and complete, utter incompetence and criminality--examine your logic, please.

I watched Craig Crawford last night mouthing just these thoughts: that the Dems can't, *can't* impeach because the Republicans were so unpopular after they did it to Clinton.

Well, the same beltway media and sexually repressed Republican idiots who worked over Bill Clinton are now crying foul over their even greater crimes. And within the next few months, those poll numbers on impeachment are going to go up, because Americans know who the bad guys are in both circumstances, and it's the same set of bad guys. (Remember where Clinton's popularity was during that whole benighted time).

If Cheney goes, Bush is a limp puppet. I don't know how that will play out, but it can't get much worse than it is now. (Oops, should not have even thought that).

Democrats have supported the Patriot Act.

Abu Ghraib was a criminal act of individual soldiers. The "water boarding" policies will not win you impeachment, and will not recruit Americans to your cause.

"Buying Scooter's silence" is your speculation. Shall they call you as a witness?

The real source of all this indignation about Libby is politics, as usual. Question: Where was all this furor when Sandy Berger stole and destroyed classified documents -- in his pants! Answer: It was waiting for a scandal (any scandal) with a more useful target. Politics as usual, there's nothing special about this time.

A reminder: "... Over the last six years of Bill Clinton's presidency, the House Government Reform Committee, led by Dan Burton (R-Ind.) unilaterally issued 1,089 subpoenas to investigate allegations of misconduct involving the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party.
Or, put another way, House Republicans issued a politically-inspired subpoena every other day for six consecutive years, including weekends, holidays, and congressional recesses. ..." --- http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_07/011636.php

"Well, the same beltway media and sexually repressed Republican idiots who worked over Bill Clinton are now crying foul over their even greater crimes."

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for adultery, he was impeached for lying -- just like Scooter.

Try to resist the "Republicans are sexually repressed" because your man had a tragic flaw of character.

intrepyd- I don't support the death penalty myself ,

But given Bush has no qualms about promoting executions (see Texas Death Memos and the DOJ's rather bloodthirsty advocacy of capital charges) maybe he will execute himself for treason.

I wasn't crazy about the idea of impeachment but now I think anyone who doesn't at least consider the idea hasn't paid enough attention. Read the Washington Post articles about Cheney and then we'll talk

get CHENEY OUT. The man's a scary, scary menace to the Constitution and to this country.

"But given Bush has no qualms about promoting executions (see Texas Death Memos and the DOJ's rather bloodthirsty advocacy of capital charges) maybe he will execute himself for treason."

Sounds great, let's send it to Ana so she can blog about it.

"Sounds great, let's send it to Ana so she can blog about it."

When 54% of Americans support it, maybe she will.

Here's a Media Matters post from 2005 about the refusal by WaPo's polling director, Richard Morin, to poll about impeachment of Bush (which he still has yet to do).

Morin had the same job in 1998, when he waited only two days after the revelation of the Lewinsky affair to being polling on impeachment of Clinton. His question was: "If this affair did happen and if Clinton did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?" In contrast, he has argued that polling on whether President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the Iraq war would be "biased and would produce a misleading result." He also said that impeachment of Bush is not a "serious option or a topic of considered discussion".

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240003#2

Via Steve Bennen at Washington Monthly (link on my handle).

But I must be imagining all this, because of course the media is liberally biased.

Can anyone even remember the last time Bush had an APPROVAL rating of at least 45%??? wtf. When twice as many people support your impeachment vs. your policies, perhaps it's time to, you know - RESIGN?

Scott Horton at Harper's:

****A clear majority favor the impeachment, trial and removal from office of Dick Cheney as Vice President. Americans are equally divided on whether George W. Bush should be impeached, tried and removed from office. It’s interesting. The Republicans made a major pass at Clinton and the media hyped it for a solid seven months with saturation broadcasts. The American public never bought into it, indeed it was dismissive of the idea. Now the media dismisses talk of impeachment of the president and vice president, but the media will have no talk of the matter. Who demonstrates more mature judgment, the people or the media? I’d say the answer is pretty obvious.****

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000456

Intrepyd said: "Abu Ghraib was a criminal act of individual soldiers."

Oh, please. The only difference between Abu Ghraib and Bagram and Gitmo is that there were pictures from Abu Ghraib. The exact same stuff has happened at US detention facilities around the world, reported by the interrogators themselves, criminal investigators, and the FBI. You think all these 'bad apples' got the exact same ideas for the same sort of outre mistreatment individually? Call for you on the white courtesy clue phone! They were doing precisely what they were told to do. The individual soldiers weren't punished for what they did, they were punished for getting caught.

How many lies per column are allowed at Time each week? -- http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/kristol-be-happy/

"... In total, the investigations into Clinton’s issuances of executive clemency took over a year to conclude. The House Government Reform Committee didn’t release its final report until March 2002, well over a year after President Clinton left office. The Justice Department didn’t close its investigation, in which it concluded “it wasn’t appropriate to bring charges against anybody,” until June 2002. ..." -- http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/snow-clinton-pardon-investigation/

OMG!

All of you all are just way too funny.

Bush is never going to be impeached.
Cheney is never going to be impeached.

Do you really want a President Pelosi that bad?

I mean, other than asking for a 757 to fly around in and carrying on a separate foriegn policy (with Syria) in direct violation of the Logan act I believe (maybe SHE needs to be impeached) she has pretty much done nothing, despite shutting the GOP out of most of what little she accomplished in the first 100 days.

It really is as simple as that.

Bush and Cheney will be out of office soon enough...

This does raise an interesting question though...

What will the liberals do when Fred Thompson wins over Comrade the Smartest Woman Ever or ObO? I know the game plan was to blame anything bad that would happen in CtSWE's or ObO's Adminstration on Bush, but if Thompson is President, do you still blame Bush or do you blame Thompson?

If I were you I would start planning some contingency strategies...

"It really is as simple as that."

For simple minds, simple thoughts.

I personally don't think anyone is going to be impeached, but that says nothing about whether they deserve it or not.

The Bush Administration's approval ratings are so low, but they continue to "stay the course" making it very clear that they aren't afraid or answerable to the American people. So, who are they answering to and how can evidence be obtained when the President and VP refuse to abide by the law or flant it?

What I find most interesting is how much support for impeachment has already formed *with virtually no help* from both the MSM and congress. It suggests that the issue, with a little TLC from these two entities, could gain a lot of strength.

Think about it: Half the country favors impeachment and nobody is even talking publicly about it. I find it tantalizing.

"What I find most interesting is how much support for impeachment has already formed *with virtually no help* from both the MSM and congress."

I'd go further than calling it "no help". There has been relentlessly active discouragement of the idea of impeachment from both the MSM and congress.

"It suggests that the issue, with a little TLC from these two entities, could gain a lot of strength."

Indeed. It would be unstoppable, if the MSM and Congress ever came around to doing their jobs.

"Half the country favors impeachment and nobody is even talking publicly about it."

It's the forbidden subject among the media.

Thinkerton--

B-b-but that would mean journalists have to--gasp!--make their own judgments, rather than simply report on judgments that have already been fed to them by political hacks and publicity professionals.

What's WRONG with you?

Don't you know that journalists are supposed to be those special kind of people who have transcended that distasteful human habit of making judgments?

That's only what the rest of us poor saps do. Lowly participants, not lofty "objective" spectators.

Wow--something good just happened today.

David Shuster is filling in on Hardball.

But since he's not a whiny punk who wears a bow tie, he'll never get his own show.

>> What's WRONG with you?

Yes, I know, I am clearly part of the "far left fringe," as Tony Snow would put it.

Gonzales first. A new DoJ leader will sweep the closet of cobwebs and let the light of oversight shine brightly...

If everyones' noses are kept to the grindstone during very complicated and difficult litigation and investigations and proceedings in the House, you could probably get a vote in favor of articles of impeachnment there, but the Senate would almost certainly acquit. Not worth it at this point no matter how deserving these two are and how satisfying it would be to throw them out onto Pennsyvania Avenue.

Posted by Enceladus
July 6, 2007
Wow--something good just happened today.

David Shuster is filling in on Hardball.

But since he's not a whiny punk who wears a bow tie, he'll never get his own show.
******
Enceladus,
He was GREAT! I wish Dan Abrams would replace Matthews with Shuster everyday. He didn't take any crap off the GOPers. He crawled all over Dan Burton and that weird guy who wrote the article comparing Scooter to one of our soldiers.

HOORAH for Shuster!

I don't care if impeachment and conviction occur one second before the end of Bush and Cheney's term -- it MUST happen. The country must establish for all time that that kind of behavior in office is simply unacceptable. Unless and until we do that, it will stand as business as usual, and our moral standing and authority in the rest of the world will continue to slide into the toilet.

I wonder if it's possible to impeach someone after their term of office is over? If not, I'll settle for criminal trials -- with all the due process that Bush & Co have denied for so many others. I recently re-read the four indictments given to the major German war criminals in 1945: 1. Conspiracy to commit aggressive war. 2. Carrying out an aggressive war. 3. War crimes. 4. Crimes against humanity. Reading the definitions of each one, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are clearly guilty of the first three. Gonzales is clearly guilty of the third. The only one that probably doesn't apply is #4, only because their transgressions don't come close to those of the Holocaust.

Small comfort, I guess.

All I can say about most of the posts on this thread is just.... wow.

This is a whole new strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome and it would almost be funny if most of you really didn't believe that there is a reason to impeach the President.

Bush Derangement Syndrome <==What the 26 percenters have and try to project upon the rest of the nation. :)

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwClwUjnzkM

"All I can say about most of the posts on this thread is just.... wow"

So many wingers like to use the "wow" cliche.

Did you read Ana's post? This thread isn't "wow," when you consider that we're just part of that 45/54 percent crowd.

But that there's so many of us? Now that's "wow."

I don't think impeachment's going to happen, though. The timing doesn't work. But if I were you, I would be worried about that prospect. For the next 18 months you're going to turning on a slow spit, since there's no citizens in sight to demonize except for yourself. What's a Republican supposed to do with no one to demonize?

Quote: "They will be held accountable."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwClwUjnzkM

Now there's a WOW for ya.

What's "Bush Derangement Syndrome"? Being deranged like George W. Bush? I doubt that really needs to be labeled as a syndrome, since it seems unique to one person (or at least I certainly hope it is). Those around him may be self-interested, opportunistic, sociopathic syncophants, but they don't suffer from the same combination of problems as Bush himself.

This is why no one takes you liberals seriously.

http://www.zombietime.com/anti-july_4th_sf/

Posted by Larry
July 6, 2007

This is why no one takes you liberals seriously.

------
Why we don't need pictures of skinheads flying Confederate and Nazi Party flags, to say that no one takes GOP Conservatives seriously:
_A Conservative compared Scooter to US troops being shot at and killed in Iraq.
_Rep Burton, a law and order Conservative, made the mistake of making outlandish statements about the Libby trial to David Shuster who covered the Libby trial and knew the facts cold. Burton's inanities were repelled repeatedly.
_Conservatives say Libby is an honorable man who did great service for his country. Libby is not a liar. Mark Rich, on the other hand is a bad man.
Libby said that Rich did nothing wrong. We extrapolate that since Libby is not a liar, Rich cannot be a bad man.
_Because Britain has universal health care, foreign medical graduates come into England and commit terrorist acts. The US doesn't have universal health care, but there are foreign medical graduates in the US, even at VA hospitals. We need to stop universal health care because it is a terrorist threat.

We don't need to track down pictures of fringe groups on the web, we just let Conservatives speak in front of cameras and microphones to record the fun.

Liberals take themselves seriously...no one else does!

Cintons first! guilty by association with Genociders like Thabo Mbeki! Carter for failing to react to Turkey invasion of Cyprus, Cuban invasion of Angola and Ethiopia, and Gore for distracting the publics attention from the current killing of babies, called abortions, by the millions in all the big left wing buddie countries...

And Con-self-servatists who never read the US Constitution ignoring executive order 51.

Whay say ye, American Patriots about Ex order 51?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Analysis:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sz6NEoKZRMY&mode=related&search=

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush December 18, 2000

Why do you CON servatives hate the Constitution?

Scooter libby did not commit a crime. Maybe one, serving President Bush who you liberals hate with a passion. It has colored your thinking. If you could set aside your hatrid of Bush for a minute, you would realize this. There was no underlying crime. Scooter did not reveal anything. SHE WORKED AT CIA HEADQUARTERS. SHE WAS NOT A COVERT SPY. It took guts for President Bush to commute the sentence. He new new he would take a lot of heat from the yellow journalists of the dinosour media.

I realize it's pointless to reply to people who type in all-caps and have bad spelling, but here goes anyway:

Scooter Libby did commit a crime. That's why he was found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to prison. Why is that so hard to understand?

I have heard intelligent people disagree about whether there was an "underlying crime", but the point of the investigation was to determine that. A Republican prosecutor -- appointed by a Republican Attorney General, appointed by a Republican President -- was in the process of gathering facts to determine that. Because Libby lied under oath during that investigation, he prevented that investigation from being carried out properly. That is why we punish people for doing what Libby did. Because of him, we still don't know what happened.

When was it ever okay for anyone to decide on their own when it is okay to tell the truth, or when to lie, under oath? Are you seriously advocating that?

The reason we have laws, a formal legal process, and professionals to execute it, is to ensure that the facts are gathered and considered properly. I am sure that any patriotic, clear-thinking American would want to ensure that members of our government are conducting themselves according to the law, so why would one advocate a person lying in a court of law?

Some of us think that respect for the law is not a partisan issue. Why should anyone assume that one who advocates for it is "liberal"? Please, can we set our standards a little higher?

Reality check for Post by Thomas, Peoria, AZ
July 7, 2007

1) Scooter Libby did not commit a crime
How about perjury, giving false statements to an FBI agent and obstruction of justice?

2) SHE WORKED AT CIA HEADQUARTERS. SHE WAS NOT A COVERT SPY.
You disagree with the CIA director, the judge and the Special Prosecutor. Conservatives all.
writing in caps does not change the facts

3) If you could set aside your hatrid of Bush for a minute.
Hatred has nothing to do with acknowledging that GW Bush is an arrogant idiot.

And now word salad from GW Bush 01/27/2007 NPR interview with Juan Williams:

MR. WILLIAMS: So, some people would say, well, if you believe in spending restraint, why haven't you vetoed one bill, you know, one appropriations bill?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Because the United States Congress that was controlled by Republicans exercised spending restraint. Now, I didn't particularly like – the size of the pie was what I requested. It's some of the pieces of the pie that I didn't particularly care for, but that is why the president needs a line-item veto, and that is why Congress has got to reform the earmark process. What the American people need to understand is that sometimes special projects get put into bills without ever having seen the light of the day. In other words, they don't get voted on; they just show up, and we need transparency in the earmark process, and expose the process to hearings and votes so that the American people will know that any project was fully heard on the floor of the House and the Senate.

He did not commit a crime. He had a meeting with one person. Both disagree on what was said. Special prosecutors have to justify their job. Prove they were needed. Oh, & by the way, just because juries find you innocent or guilty, does not make it the truth. Just ask OJ Simpson. He was found innocent in the criminal trial even though most people think he is guilty. Glad you liked the caps though.

Perjury and obstruction of justice aren't crimes if you are a member of the Bush White House.

??????????????????????????????????????????

So, why didn't Bush just pardon him and remove all jeopardy?

I'll tell you why.

So that Scootie would still be able to plead the fifth amendment at a Congressional Hearing and not have to tell what he knows to Congress.

The corruption is so deep to the core, they don't even try and hide it anymore.

Giving him a pardon does not change whether he testifies. It is a pardon for a specific verdict. Not everything & anything. His crime was too many meetings & a poor memory.

Thomas, you're obviously welcome to your opinion, but remember that a trial by jury is the accepted mechanism for determining whether a crime has been committed, and by all accounts this trial resulted in a very convincing determination of guilt. One can always question the credibility of a trial's outcome, but I don't see why the population should be so convinced by your assertions when the opinion of the judge, the jury, and subsequent appeals court judges showed virtually no doubt about the outcome.

Just because a person chooses to accept this outcome by trial does not make them "liberal" or confused. In fact, it's a perfectly fine basis for accepting Libby's guilt.

Getting back to the subject of Ana's post... This debate about Libby, Cheney, Bush and impeachment is not some crazy concoction by a left-wing fringe. It is how a clear majority of the population feels. You're with the minority opinion on this, and lacking credibility IMO.

@ Paul Sabino.

Thabo Mbeki a "genocider"? Where on earth do you get your info? A little elaboration please.

I recall Bush saying (in another moment of delusion) that Thabo Mbeki was "my man" in Africa.

I emailed my congressman this week, urging impeachment proceedings begin immediately for Cheney and Gonzalez, and then President Bush.

Sometimes I think one of the problems with blogs is the easy, immediate gratification of expressing opinions and venting, and that's where it stops.

The US House of Representatives does not care how many people voice opinions on blogs. Individual congressmen do care if their constituents inundate their offices demanding action.

Did you have a problem with Clinton pardoning felons, terrorists & murderers?

The answer to your question is: yes. I dislike any pardon which is politically sensitive or which does not correct a clear-cut miscarriage of justice. That is all subjective, but those are my own criteria. It applies to anyone, be it Clinton, or the first Bush (e.g. Caspar Weinberger), or whomever. I dislike any pardon which appears to be a personal or political favor, because it's disruptive for the country and can be distracting from more important business.

However, you are invoking current and simplistic rhetoric, which I have heard lately from those who support the Libby commutation. By that I mean describing the recipients of Clinton's pardons as "felons, terrorists & murderers". It obscures the complexities of each case, and encourages a black/white, good/evil view to pardons, which is certainly almost never the case. It also fixates unnecessarily on Clinton, when the question should more fairly be asked of any/all past presidents. I don't see this as a partisan issue.

Clinton's pardons (all this AFAIK) were all submitted to the Justice Department for review. In most cases, the recipients had served some or all of their time. (In fact, describing Clinton's pardon recipients as "felons" is a bit of misdirection, since so often the point of pardons is to clear a convicted felon's record, often for a non-violent felony for which time has been served.)

To reiterate what I already said, I would have preferred Clinton be more conservative with his pardons. The FALN terrorists and Marc Rich pardons, particularly, caused more controversy than they were worth, as I see it. But the FALN terrorists had already served a lot of time, and the Marc Rich pardon was thoroughly investigated after the fact. (Did I just read somewhere that Clinton waived executive privilege for that investigation?)

As has been the case with the current president, he seems to have taken usual practice to a new, abhorrent level. To commute the sentence of a member of his own administration, involved in an ongoing investigation of his administration, without consulting the Justice Department, before his serving time or even completing the appeals process, is quite worthy of criticism and, IMO, quite worse than any of Clinton's pardons or commutations.

How could he waive executive privilege if he pardoned him on his way out of office? It was just rewarding a crony. As for FALN, former terrorists & murders. Is that better? They are still scum that should have stayed in jail. By the way, Clinton was convicted of perjury. I did not see him go to jail. You are comparing one commuted sentence to hundred of pardons. It is not the same thing. I still say Scooter Libby is innocent. And by the way, the justice department was against the FALN pardons & the Rich pardon. Remember, he was a fugitive at the time.

Posted by Thomas
By the way, Clinton was convicted of perjury.

Reality check #2

Clinton was not convicted of perjury. To the contrary, two perjury allegations never even made it to the impeachment stage, and on the one perjury charge he actually faced, Clinton was acquitted—by a twenty-two vote margin (only 45 of 67 guilty votes needed).
You can have your own verdict if it makes you feel better.

The FALN members were not convicted of any violent crime. They had spent 19 years in jail. I agree that since they were linked to a terrorist group, it could be argued that they should have remained in jail.
Your pal Scooter felt Rich had done nothing wrong.

You can have your own position on an issue, but not your own facts. Clinton was not convicted of perjury. Libby was convicted of perjury. Plame was considered covert by the Director of the CIA.

Here are some excerpts from the Dick Morris column on the subject. As you recall, Morris was a Clinton insider when he was President. Read & learn.

The most outrageous Clinton pardons went to sixteen members of the terrorist gang, the FALN, a Puerto Rican nationalist group responsible for over 130 bombings in the U.S. — attacking the N.Y. office of the FBI, military recruiting headquarters, and even former president Jimmy Carter’s Chicago campaign office. Six people died and dozens more were injured as a result of FALN’s actions. These terrorists never even asked for a pardon, but because Hillary wanted to ingratiate herself with the Hispanic population in New York during her first Senate race, they were suddenly granted a commutation of their sentences.

Although the commutations were opposed by the FBI and the Clinton Justice Department, Bill Clinton granted them to all 16 terrorists. Once again, Hillary claimed to have “no involvement in or prior knowledge of the decision.” Her statement is ridiculous. Two days before the announcement of the pardons, New York City Councilman Jose Rivera personally presented Hillary with a packet of materials including a letter asking her to “speak to the president and ask him to consider granting executive clemency to the prisoners.” What a coincidence — the sentences were immediately commuted!

Joe Connor, the son of one of the innocent men killed by the FALN terrorists at the Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan, put it this way:

“The Clinton family traded the release of terrorists for votes, votes that were promised to be delivered by New York politicians to Hillary for senate and Gore for president. That was clear.”

That’s cronyism, Hillary.
I cannot imagine two people that were less suited for a presidential pardon than Marc Rich and Pincus Green[the co-defendant]. It is inconceivable that President Clinton chose to pardon the two biggest tax cheats in the history of the United States who had renounced their citizenship, been fugitives for seventeen years, and who had traded with the Iranians during the hostage crisis. While I do not know what motivated President Clinton to pardon Rich and Green, I can state that it is implausible that those pardons were based on his evaluation of the merits of the case.

LOL
After being found to be factually incorrect on several items, you want to educate me.
You use the FALN pardon which I agreed was questionable. I stated that FALN was a terrorist group. Do you have any information that the pardoned members conducted a violent act? That was the only factor in their favor in the pardon (that I said was questionable, remember).
Using Dick Morris as a source is something I question. Mr Morris predicted that Hillary was running for President in 2004 and that Hillary would face Condoleeza Rice in the 2008 Presidential campaign. As I recall he even wrote a book on the Hillary vs Condi matter.
So here's a summary
_Clinton was not convicted of perjury
_Libby was convicted of perjury
_Valerie Plame was covert according to the CIA
_Libby was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to an FBI agent
_The Rich and FALN pardons were controversial as is The Libby commutation
_Libby defended Rich and said that Rich had done nothing wrong.

Dick Cheney was the mastermind behind revealing an undercover American intelligence operative in order to attack and discredit a critic (the undercover operatives husband) who revealed that the Republican Bush administration had lied America into the Iraq War based on false claims of WMD. Why is it so difficult for Republicans to understand that this is bad for AMERICA and that in choosing to defend Republicans like Bush and Dick Cheney those defenders are make the entire Republican party appear complicit with the Republican leadership's crimes?

America is NOT served by Republican Dick Cheney: http://havenworks.com/people/a-z/c/cheney-dick

The FALN pardon was questionable? I thought they were found guilty by a jury? Or does that standard only apply to republicans? Who makes us safer to be out of jail, murders & terrorists or Scooter Libby?

"Who makes us safer to be out of jail, murders & terrorists or Scooter Libby?"

Jesus H. Christ, Thomas!

I don't think it is an either/or situation. You conveniently forget that the so-called
"terrorists" to which you allude had 10 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE RECIPIENTS lobbying on their behalf for a pardon/commutation. They were NOT convicted for terrorism. I'm NOT defending these guys or the commutation, but at least be honest.

Outing a CIA Operative whose primary function was tracking WMD is akin to treason in my estimation. Even old Poppa Bush said doing similar acts was a despicable act of treason.

Yeah! I know, SCOOTER was NOT convicted of outing a CIA Operative and destroying the Brewster-Jennings cover. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. That means HE LIED. That means HE FAILED TO TELL THE TRUTH so that the investigation could go forth to its logical conclusion.

Contrary to what you may think and many of the Scooter fans do think, SCOOTER is NOT equivalent to one of our soldiers left on the battlefield. SCOOTER is NOT some great patriot fighting for justice and freedom. He is first and foremost LOYAL to CHENEY and BUSH and to his political party. That does NOT make him LOYAL to his country, nor does it mean he believes that JUSTICE should be applied equally under the law for ALL.

This is NOT about what Clinton did. It is about what Bush told us all during this investigation versus Bush's actions in granting Libby a commutation. Bush told us that anyone responsible for leaking the name of a CIA agent would be taken care of. He also told us he wouldn't discuss it as long as the investigation and trial were ongoing. Well, we now fully understand exactly what that means. Rove still has security clearance, despite leaking Plame's name as well. Also, Bush intervened before LIBBY completed the appeals process.

Aberrations with Bush's commutation versus
"normal" commutations:
--Scooter did NOT apparently ask to have his sentence commuted because he was still in the process of appealing the jury verdict and sentence.
--Scooter had served NO PRISON TIME AT ALL.
Normally, commutation is granted after a good bit of prison time is served.
--Bush did NOT abide by the normal guidelines for commutations. Bush did NOT even consult with his own DOJ.
--Bush commuted the sentence of someone at the highest levels of his administration who may have committed a crime orchestrated by him and/or his VP. BUSH may have OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE himself by granting LIBBY a commutation.

Is there really that much difference between what Bush did and what Nixon did when he fired Archibald Cox?

At minimum what Bush did was MOST UNSEEMINGLY, giving more than the appearance that JUSTICE is NOT BLIND.

Posted by Thomas, in enemy territory liberalville
July 8, 2007
The FALN pardon was questionable? I thought they were found guilty by a jury?

Reality check #3
You can't pardon or commute the sentence of a person found not guilty by a jury.
The FALN folks AND Libby were found guilty.
Neither the Clinton decision or the Bush decision can be overturned.
Clinton at least sent the FALN pardon through DOJ.
Bush didn't send Libby's commutation through the Pardons division at the DOJ. Since Scooter never spent a day in jail, he may not have to serve any parole. The FALN served 19 years.

Just admit it is wrong to pardon murderers & terrorists. I do not think that is asking too much. It is obvious you will never live in reality. But admit that murderers belong in jail.

This simply proves something we europeans always knew about americans. Somehow you think that having sex, a normal biological function, is much more horrific than killing people.

So, Clinton lied about sex -> impeachment.
Bush lied about killing people -> nothing happens.

I just wonder where this leaves something like freedom. You americans always behave as if freedom is very important to you (or even an american invention), but when your own president starts to wiretap, throws people into prisons without any legal right, orders the CIA to torture and pardons his friends no matter what they did there is again no reaction?

Doesn't your constitution allow you to carry weapons for exactly this case?
What the USA seems to need are more parties as it seems that the Republicans and the Democrats only serve their own interest and the "democracy" in the USA has been reduced to "choose your dictator".

President Bush did not murder anyone. He did not lie & did not order any torture. You need to stop listening to the lies of the dinosour media & finding out what the truth is. We can carry weapons because this is a free country. He believed the intelligence reports. Some of these reports even came from Europe. The democrates received & believed the same reports. Also, it was European countries that were selling weapons to Irag when it was a terrorist nation. Specifically Germany, Russia, & France. The blood of innocent victoms are on the leaders of those countries, not President Bush.

Posted by Thomas, in enemy territory liberalville
July 9, 2007
Just admit it is wrong to pardon murderers & terrorists

Once again I'm going to point out that the pardoned FALN members never killed or maimed anyone. So yes, it is wrong to pardon people who have committed actual acts of terror or murdered people. However, the US justice system has a different set of rules. Patty Hearst did not kill or maim anyone when she was with the SLA. She is free despite being in a terrorist group. Murderers are released from jail all the time. It's the justice system. People serve their sentences, get time off for good behavior, are pardoned or commuted, and are released.
Some murderers, like Don King, become GOP cheerleaders. Other murderers, like OJ Simpson, have book deals and TV specials on how he murdered his wife created and paid for by people in Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
A select group, Scooter Libby, get convicted and have sentences commuted before spending a day in jail. The fact that no time was served may mean no parole time will be required. In this case it's the "just us" system.
So instead of evading the question, why don't you admit that the Libby commutation was questionable?
As for reality
_Clinton wasn't convicted of perjury
_Plame was covert
_The 16 FALN members did not murder or maim anyone.
_FALN has committed no more violent acts. In fact, FALN no longer exists.
_If GW Bush was going to be frugal with pardons, perhaps the two imprisoned Border agents were more worthy of his compassion even though they weren't Yalies.
_The Libby commutation gives the appearance that the WH is covering up misdeeds within the Oval ofice of the VP's office

Here we have someone who voted for Bush asking some thoughtful questions:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/galloway/v-print/story/17599.html

What happened to the George Bush who insisted on honest government?
Joseph L. Galloway

Why is it that the Bush administration, in its dying throes, looks remarkably more like an organized crime ring than one of the arms of the American government? A poorly organized and run crime ring, truly, but a crime ring nonetheless.

Why do I keep remembering the George Bush that I actually once voted for when he first ran for president — the one who talked of bringing in an administration that would look more like the face of America and of giving us a government whose appointees would be honest, upright, fair and moral.

Yes, that's the one. What happened to him? Where did that George Bush go? When did he go over to The Dark Side? What enticements did Vice President Darth Cheney offer him? Was it the vision of unlimited, unchecked power over the world?

How can it be that this man from Texas presides over a White House that shelters and provides cover for men like Karl Rove and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who clearly believe that the laws of our country are only meant to be imposed on lesser beings, the man in the street?

[...]

The whole article is worth reading!

Link to an article regarding the politicization of the DOJ, written by John S. Koppel who has been a civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6308408
Bush justice is a national disgrace

As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.

The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.

[...]

The whole article is worth reading.

Here is someone in the DOJ hollering loudly about the abuse of power by the BUSH Admin. It is NOT just the people on the Left who are outraged by what this administration has done.

Pelosi `07!

Fantastic ！！！Thanx，
We got the best m4v converter to convert m4v
A good helper with your converting…..m4v to avi m4v to wmv
Ultra QuickTime m4v to mpeg Converter is a powerful tool to help you convert，from m4v to mp4 and to many other formats。