Former Senate Intel Chairman Graham: The Case For Impeachment ‘Is Even More Truthful Today’
Former Senate Intel Chairman Graham: The Case For Impeachment ‘Is Even More Truthful Today’
Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) was one of 23 Senators to have voted against the Iraq war resolution in October 2002. “With sadness,” he told his colleagues, “I predict we will live to regret this day, Oct. 10, 2002, the day we stood by and we allowed these terrorist organizations to continue growing in the shadows.”
Just four months after Bush launched the Iraq war, Graham floated the idea of impeachment. “Clearly, if the standard is now what the House of Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the actions of this president [are] much more serious in terms of dereliction of duty,” he said. In an interview this week with ThinkProgress, Graham said he stood by his 2003 statement:
How many Americans would say that it is a greater dereliction of duty as President of the United States to have a consensual sexual affair or to take the country to war under manipulated, fabricated, and largely untruthful representations which the President knew or should have known. I think the answer to that question is clear.
Graham added that it’s unlikely Bush would be impeached, explaining that he learned the word impeachment is an “incendiary word” that Americans shy away from. “Americans don’t like impeachment because it connotes the kind of instability that so many other countries around the world have known.” But he added that his original remark regarding impeachment “was a truthful statement at the time and it’s even more truthful today.”
CLICK HERE TO LISTENRight before the Senate vote on the Iraq resolution, the mild-mannered Graham sounded the alarms in unusually stark language. “If you believe that the American people are not going to be at additional threat,” he said, “then, frankly, my friends — to use a blunt term — blood is going to be on your hands.”
Asked to reflect on that statement today, Graham said, “There are 3,500 fewer American servicemen alive today in the world since the day I made that statement. There are tens of thousands of civilians who’ve lost their lives. The United States is at dramatically greater risk of terrorism… So I’m afraid that the blood has flown fuller, deeper, and redder that I thought it was going to.”
Graham also ridiculed Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s (I-CT) calls for taking “aggressive military action” against Iran:
I don’t know where we’re going to get the troops to take aggressive offensive action against Iran. Iran’s a country that’s approximately 2.5 times the population of Iraq. It has a GDP that’s twice that of Iraq. It is a much more significant force in the world. And we see how bogged down we are in Iraq, how in the world are we going to even consider using massive military force against Iran?
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
At least former Sen. Graham has the guts to say Pres. Bush should be impeached. The Senate should heed his words and impeach Bush now.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pmA great man who was ignored.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:33 pm…and China and Russia…
…have economic interests in Iran…
June 12th, 2007 at 2:34 pmLooks like this fool has moved from whiskey to cocaine.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pmOn what grounds ole moonbat fools?
June 12th, 2007 at 2:36 pmBetter than Impeachment : re-open 9/11 NOW and then, believe me, impeachment will follow…
June 12th, 2007 at 2:39 pmHint to the feigning ignorance Senator:
It starts with an “N” and ends with a mushroom cloud.
Listen to and believe the “senator” at your own peril. Granted he has been a voice of the resistance, but he has been a pathetic one at that. Which is why I am certain that he is not an “anti-war patriot”, but he is a pro-war mole placed to make certain that the anti-war effort remains toothless.
Well, it’s either that or he is just an insignificant peon that cannot get any results whatsoever. You choose.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:39 pmnot really OT … i asked this yesterday on the REID thread:
is LIEberman a mole or what? …
Comment by katy — June 11, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
i just found this at C&L:
Is Holy Joe Coordinating With The White House?
June 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pmBy: Logan Murphy @ 10:02 AM - PDT
Ned Lamont thinks it’s a real possibility and he’s not the only one. Monday morning on “The Young Turksâ€, Cenk Uygur spoke with Lamont about Joe Lieberman and his appearance on “Face The Nation†last Sunday in which he called for military action against Iran.
[…]
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ 2007/ 06/ 12/ is-holy-joe-coordinating-with-the-white-house/
…
Impeach the greatest supporter of Israel’s existence?!
The mastermind behind securing mid-east oil and protecting the promise land!!
Long live King George, and all his greatness!!!
June 12th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThe only one guzzling whiskey and snorting coke is Chimpy.
He’s off the wagon. Big time.
Stupid Repuke troll will never learn. Must be the inbreeding.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pmNot enuff time moonbats Pelosi blew it! Heh
June 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pmPut Graham in for LIEberman (R-CT).
June 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pmrefresh TP
June 12th, 2007 at 2:45 pmTom3 the homo hater
June 12th, 2007 at 2:46 pmalias “steeers and queeers” Tom3?
Bush decided to invade Iraq (some say before the 2000 elections in order to gain political power…Google Mickey Herskowitz for more); then the intelligence agencies, both legitimate and Doug Feith created, cooked the intel on Iraq in order to please Bush. They do after all, serve for Bush’s pleasure.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:46 pm.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pmWell, Flaco, I hate YOU.
So you must be a homo too.
For the record, I don’t bash all gays.
I only bash Repuke gays like you.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:48 pmEver notice that it’s always progressive leaders (MLK, Jr., Medgar Evers, both Kennedys, Clinton) who are asassinated or impeached? Never the right-wing? And if some one does attack a prominent winger, it’s always just a nut case, not someone with a political agenda?
My theory is that progessives believe in the goodness of people, perfectability, if you will, and are willing to legally oppose, hold fast to their beliefs, and make it thru the bad times (like the last 6 years.)
Whereas conservatives dislike and distrust anyone who wants to challenge the status quo - even folks like the so called Reagan Democrats who will vote against their own self interest to halt change.
If you think that everyone else is as greedy and self-centered as your philosophy permits you to be, you are more likely to apply base motives to your opponents - and to feel they need to be eliminated.
Or maybe being conservative just rots your brain eventually.
Hard to say.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pmI like how the troll’s only retort (# 4 & 5) to the former Senator’s point is to call him names.
Former Senator: “complex analysis of very diificult and dangerous problem facing nation.”
Troll: “your mama.”
Well done, troll.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pmHow many of our soldiers (and innocent Iraqis) died needlessly from Bill’s BJ? Oh, yeah…..NONE. The time to impeach is NOW!
June 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pmI repeat. On what grounds should President Bush be impeached?
June 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pmPerhaps Nancy needs a big, strong man to deliver her that table. Up for it, Senator Graham?
June 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pm“If you believe that the American people are not going to be at additional threat,†he said, “then, frankly, my friends — to use a blunt term — blood is going to be on your hands.â€
These words are more true than any of us who opposed the war anticipated.
ANYONE who supports this war today has blood on their hands.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pmImpeachment is never going to happen. Pelosi and Reid have made that abundantly clear.
There is no longer any legal recourse for dealing with the criminals that have hijacked our nation. The criminals have worked very hard to insure this.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm#15,
And the president serves at the peoples pleasure. A fact so many here choose to ignore so as to try to distance themselves from the responsibility for the actions of this nation and its government.
I don’t know if you’ve read the constitution or not but I would strongly advise doing so. It will help you to see what an ass you make of yourself when you complain that your employee is ruining your business.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pmStupid Repuke trolls, they are so in love with Chimpy that they think he can do no wrong. They lie and spin and deny the facts.
Chimpy is the worst President in American history, and if the Repukes were not all corrupt, they would have Chimpeached years ago.
Remember, it was the Republicans who got Nixon to quit.
Unfortunately, today’s Repukes put party before country.
Repukes are all lying, criminal, torturing TRAITORS.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pmComment by powkat — June 12, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
I choose “all of the above.” Oy…
June 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm3,000 Americans died on September 11 because Clinton was more interested in BJs than protecting the United States.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pmrefresh.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm..
June 12th, 2007 at 2:54 pm3,000 Americans died on September 11 because Clinton was more interested in BJs than protecting the United States.
Comment by Patrick1
So Bush was smoking Bill’s pole too? Thanks for the insight.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pmI repeat. On what grounds should President Bush be impeached?
Manipulated intelligence and lied to get us into war.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:56 pmDereliction of Duty.
That sums up Chimpy’s legacy.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:56 pmStupid Repuke troll must be functionally illiterate.
ARticles of Chimpeachment are all over the Internet.
And Kucinich filed them in Congress recently.
STupid troll isn’t paying attention. Probably watching the latest Paris Hilton “news” on FOX.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:59 pm…
June 12th, 2007 at 2:59 pm“How many Americans would say that it is a greater dereliction of duty as President of the United States to have a consensual sexual affair or to take the country to war under manipulated, fabricated, and largely untruthful representations which the President knew or should have known. I think the answer to that question is clear.â€
Comment by Bob Graham
It’s clear to rational and thinking people — not so much for the trolls.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:59 pmWell if it isn’t little Flacoputo! The little maricón with Bush’s smag on his breath.
Chingate en el culo joto.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pmSo you have no grounds other than moonbat talking points and lies? Thought so.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:01 pmI don’t love Democrats, but why would they want to back down from a party that always seems intent on kicking them while their down? Why would their leaders take ANY options off the table before they even investigate? I mean, the House leadership during the Clinton era stood up to him aggresively for lesser offenses, so why would Democrats back down on potentially higher-ranking ones on this administration?
Can somebody explain these disconnects?
June 12th, 2007 at 3:01 pmI miss Bob Graham. When I was a lowly civil servant with a parking place six blocks from the Florida Capitol I used to see him jogging with his security detail as I was trekking up the hill every morning. He’s a really nice guy and a real PATRIOT.
George W. Bush is a taint on the White House and a war criminal. Future generations will wonder why we allowed his administration to continue for so long.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:01 pm3,000 Americans died on September 11 because Clinton was more interested in BJs than protecting the United States.
Comment by Patrick1 — June 12, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
I must be confused. I thought Chimpy was in office on September 11… am i wrong?
You mean it was Bill Clinton who ignored a PDB entitled “bin Laden determined to strike on US soil” that August?
It was Bill Clinton who dismissed a CIA briefer bringing him news of terrorist threats with a casual “All right, you covered your ass”?
It was Bill Clinton’s administration that cut funding to fight terrorism on September 9, 2001?
Wow. I better read some more recent history. I had it all wrong.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:04 pmStuck with running-dog lackey Mel Martinez and Bill I-don’t-know-wtf-I’m-doing-half-the-time LieberNelson. Man, I miss Bob Graham’s sanity. Glad he’s still speaking out. Yeah, Bob, we’re up to our eyeballs in the blood of others. You tried, and with the 9-11 commish, too. You saved your own soul and got out.
I still think Clinton’s impeachment was DRUG out the way it was to prompt the exact reaction to even the thought of the word “impeachment.” (Sign of cross, garlic…) Sure turned out handy for bu$h, that “never again” attitude. Damned handy.
But it’s not working anymore, so we’re again being told what we think and how we are: we’re sick of impeachment. From “impeachment’s off the table,” to “everybody’s sick of impeachment,” it’s a frame. A setup. A lie. NO ONE here is sick of impeachment; who’s sick of impeachment?
The thugs spent all that money and had all the fun during BigDawg’s ordeal, so are THEY the ones tired of impeachment? How could that be? Nevermind.
Sign me, Always Delighted with Impeachment.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:05 pmIf Bill Clinton unzipped his pants, Chimpy would get on his knees.
Chimpy loves the cock.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:05 pmPatrick 1,
Please Please go some place else…You add nothing to the conversation, your questions aren’t even questions…”on what grounds should President Bush be impeached”–for one its in the article…cooking books to get us into ill-advised war.
Please leave, you will never add anything worth a damn to the conversation because you will not have a civil conversation and look at valid points with open eyes. Please leave.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:05 pmWhy are the trolls the only ones concerned with the page refreshing?
June 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pmAdvisory to Democratic voters: Get yourself some Roosevelt/Truman-quality politicians and take this age-old advice: grow a FREAKIN’ spine.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pmTypical Repuke troll. Lying his ass off.
Chimpy ignored over 50 warnings about 9-11.
Clinton went after Osama, and when Chimpy took over, Clinton warned him about Osama.
Chimpy ignored Clinton’s warning too.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pmCan somebody explain these disconnects?
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
The warrantless-domestic-wiretapping blackmail mechanism wasn’t in place back then.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pmRefresh
June 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pmComment by RoboTroll 2000
“Why are the trolls the only ones concerned with the page refreshing?”
You noticed that too?
June 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pmNever before has there been a stronger case for impeachment .
June 12th, 2007 at 3:11 pmThe Dick and his nephew Junior Samples should be on trial right now.
They’ve lied this country into an illegal invasion and they will pay the price.
You’d think Junior would welcome a bit of the ‘ol ‘Texas brand of Justice’.
Now, get a rope.
40. Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — If anyone ever answers that question let me know? I’ve been scratching my head wondering the same thing. When are the democrat’s going to grow some and stand up? Their not. It’s up to the people to take the country back.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:11 pmRefresherouserous
June 12th, 2007 at 3:13 pmRobotroll,
I can’t get comments to appear unless I type another comment. It seems like some do and some don’t have that problem. Any advice?
Maybe my comments are going through KKKarl’s office for possible retribution. Hope so.
Eat me KKKarl.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:14 pmComment by Patrick1 — June 12, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Thank you for your comments Patrick1. I had an epiphany earlier this week, and it involves you and your ilk. Thank you for your comments because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the conversation at hand. Such as this comment by Bob Graham;
“I don’t know where we’re going to get the troops to take aggressive offensive action against Iran. Iran’s a country that’s approximately 2.5 times the population of Iraq. It has a GDP that’s twice that of Iraq. It is a much more significant force in the world. And we see how bogged down we are in Iraq, how in the world are we going to even consider using massive military force against Iran?”
Guess who has just been appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? Adm. Mike Mullin. Why? Because he’s hawkish on Iran.
Why do we continue to wade down this self-destructive path? When, or better yet, will it ever end?
June 12th, 2007 at 3:14 pmPatrick - I think it would be far easier and take less time to post the reasons why Bush SHOULDN’T be impeached.
Put down the kool-aid, boy.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:15 pmPatrick 1,
Dubya should be impeached for all the crimes and misdemeanors of the thugs in the crime family. Take your pick, asswipe.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pmIs it Ilk season again?
Get my shotgun, Henrietta!!
Gonna hunt me some Ilk!
June 12th, 2007 at 3:21 pmrefresherize
June 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pmI see that Patrick1 is scraping bottom hard again. Some things in life are predictable.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:25 pmHow can you even talk to somebody so stupid that they cannot see all the impeachable things Chimpy and his cronies have done?
These Repuke idiots live in a Bizarro World of their own making.
Repuke trolls are psychotic and need inpatient treatment.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:27 pmPatrick1 has been living to long off the coast of Ship Bottom, New Jersey……….
June 12th, 2007 at 3:31 pmI am willing to wager that Patrick 1 doesn’t even know what Impeach means.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:31 pmAn excellent (must) read :
http://www.truthdig.com/ report/ print/ 20070531_repudiation_not_impeachment/
June 12th, 2007 at 3:31 pmImpeach this maniac or suffer the consequences. It’s coming down to that choice: resurrect the democracy or fall into anarchy.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pmKay: Thanks for the great article. It IS a “must read”. Repudiation is taking place on a massive scale today; impeachment, hopefully, is just around the corner.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pmAs Grahan articulated with great accuracy: Team Bush has a massive amount of “blood on their hands” right now and the blood thickens with each passing hour of this illegal, amoral, capricious war.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pmAn excellent (must) read :
http://www.truthdig.com/ report/ print/ 20070531_repudiation_not_impeachment/
Comment by Kay — June 12, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
An interesting article, but I disagree with it. Repudiation is a weak word, and it’s much like yesterdays’ ‘vote of no confidence’. BushCo is pure evil, and I don’t care how you stack it up, has cost this country plenty: up to, and including the destruction of America.
Repudiation? Not for me.
Repudiate:
refuse to acknowledge, ratify, or recognize as valid; “The woman repudiated the divorce settlement”
This smacks of shunning, or putting one’s head in the sand. (Ostrichism?) It’s a weak way to treat the evil empire, sort of what Congress is up to right now.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:42 pmThar you have it: This country is totally phucked! It’s worse to get a BJ in the Oval Office than to have one sitting there lying ad nauseum right in the faces of the people - resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths. And they have the nerve to call themselves “pro life”??? Ahem! Now that’s a very sick joke!
June 12th, 2007 at 3:42 pmNamtillaku: I don’t get the part where repudiation and impeachment seem to be mutually exclusive but perhaps I missed something along the way….can you please elucidate a bit?
June 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pmKiki: I agree with you on how we will be judged by our descendants. I presume it will be nothing short of the way we judged those folks who permitted the heinous torture and killing of the jews during Hitler’s reign. Actually, I believe that they will hold us in even greater contempt because we not only permitted it but we’re enabling it as well.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:45 pmmy homestate boy! we need him back in politics… hell, he could be president…
June 12th, 2007 at 3:45 pmDid anyone but me happen to notice that Barak Obama was “absent” from the symbolic vote yesterday? If he wasn’t on his death bed, I’d say that he’s totally shot himself in the foot with this choice and tanked his campaign. He was perhaps the only candidate who did not have nasty $hit in his background (votes for the war, etc.) but I fear that he’s totally blown it with the people now. At least that’s what I’m hearing all day from Democrats.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:47 pmI LOVE Bob Grahan! He’s one class act!
June 12th, 2007 at 3:47 pmMr. Conyers report The Constitution in Crisis” is available in full (350 pages) or in sections.
Ask the media to cover this.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:49 pmHow can you repudiate Chimpy?
Either impeach him now or wait it out.
There’s no Repudiation in the Constitution.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pmDid anyone but me happen to notice that Barak Obama was “absent†from the symbolic vote yesterday?
Comment by veritas
I agree, veritas. There better have been a high fever involved — his own, or his kid’s. I’d even accept 3rd grade graduation, but I need to hear something…..soon.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pmNamtillaku: I don’t get the part where repudiation and impeachment seem to be mutually exclusive but perhaps I missed something along the way….can you please elucidate a bit?
Comment by veritas — June 12, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
I didn’t say that they were mutually exclusive. Sorry, I can’t refer to the article now, as the link is broken, but you can see the link here still - this being part of it;
repudiation_not_impeachment
To me, I read the article to mean that we should include repudiation as a way to deal with Dubya rather than impeachment.
I don’t know how to make my comments any clearer; I repudiate repudiation, personally only accepting impeachment.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:53 pm…as my personal savior.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:54 pm,m,m
June 12th, 2007 at 3:58 pmHey Zooey! I haven’t heard anything but shock and horror from all Dems I know. He’d better have a good excuse for not showing up or his support will soon bail on him. As for me, my gut’s been guiding me to reserve my opinion on him - initially, I felt that he was not seasoned enough, not experienced enough….then suddenly he began articulating better….then he was swept into a wave of popularity….all the while, and more recently when I’ve watched him on the debates, I felt that he droned on and on and really wasn’t saying much of substance….perhaps even enjoying hearing the sound of his own voice a bit too much?? Oh well….keeping my ear to the ground in the hope of hearing something on his noticeable absence. If he doesn’t surface mighty quickly and provide some reason/rationale for it, I believe this “non vote” will go down in history right up there with Dean’s infamous “scream”.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pmp.l;
June 12th, 2007 at 4:05 pm#75 Sachem: I’d love to see media coverage of Conyer’s list of impeachable offenses! The sad reality is that the corporate media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP. Besides, after yesterday’s straw vote which failed miserably (and it was only a symbolic gesture, for cripe’s sakes!) I doubt that any impeachment anything will receive any media attention or gain much traction with the traitorious voting which went on yesterday.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:07 pmSeveral folks have asked what crimes Bush has committed to deserve impeachment. He has:
June 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pm- admitted to wiretapping in violation of the FISA law,
- championed torture and illegal detention in violation of US law and Geneva Convention
- deliberately misled Congress about the threat from Iraq.
All of these harmed our nation and violated the Constitution.
All are documented in detail here:
http://www.impeachbush.tv
Phil: Thanks for the website. It’s a good one. We all need to keep the information flowing although after yesterday (with three dems not showing up to vote!) I’m a bit disconcerted today (disillusioned and mortally wounded by their obvious lack of concern for the rule of law in this country) and am wondering whether it’s healthy to be so idealistic as to believe that anyone in Congress actually gives a damn about the people these days….
June 12th, 2007 at 4:20 pm#85 P.S. After the vote to begin the vote of “no Confidence” in the AG yesterday, I highly doubt that impeachment will even reach first base with the Bloc of GOP thugs blocking everything and critical Dems not even showing up to vote.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pmI’m sure Al Gore now regrets naming a weasel like “Tailgunner” Joe Loserman as his Veep when he could have picked Graham and easiliy won Florida.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pmThe Truth of kaneh bosm will set us free!
June 12th, 2007 at 4:22 pmIt’s easier to choose what Chimpo hasn’t done to impeach him for.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:23 pmYou, Know, three years or so ago, I made a comment about, and Told all my freinds that the real reason behind this crap was that George was desperately trying to Invoke the “End Times” and Armagaddon; In line with his Right wing Christain Cohorts. The Fact that the NeoCons, and The Military industrial Complex is Profitting so greatly from these efforts has not gone unnoticed, ether….. What a bunch of creeps at the head of this country….
June 12th, 2007 at 4:25 pmI thought the most important part of Scott Ritter’s article was that we need to find candidates who are capable of teamwork - a president who will work with congress to address the problems that seem insurmountable.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:27 pmblah, blah, moonbats…blah, blah, libtards…blah, blah, Clinton…blah, blah, ad infinitum…
June 12th, 2007 at 4:31 pmGraham added that it’s unlikely Bush would be impeached, explaining that he learned the word impeachment is an “incendiary word†that Americans shy away from. “Americans don’t like impeachment because it connotes the kind of instability that so many other countries around the world have known.†But he added that his original remark regarding impeachment “was a truthful statement at the time and it’s even more truthful today.â€
It is an incendiary word that Americans shy away from because of the way that Republicans used it against Clinton - as a device to stop legislation by Democrats from going forward and becoming law.
Before the midterm elections, polls indicated that the majority of Americans favored impeaching Bush. I haven’t seen any polling on that question since the elections, but Bush’s approval ratings haven’t improved - they’ve sunk to Nixon’s lowest numbers. I think it’s a safe bet to conclude that even more people support impeachment.
The only thing preventing impeachment is Congress. The question then becomes, “Why?” Are they lazy? Are they being blackmailed by information culled from one of the many secret surveillance programs that Bush-Cheney are operating outside of the law and judicial oversight?
Could it also be that a deal was made last year? That if the Democrats prevailed in the midterm elections and became the majority in the House, Republicans and Democrats would agree to a woman (Pelosi) becoming the first woman Speaker if Democrats dropped all plans to impeach Bush and Cheney? Because if both the President and Vice President were impeached, the Speaker of the House (Pelosi) would be next in line to become President. And that if a woman is to ever become President of the United States, it must be through a direct vote of the people.
What else could explain Pelosi’s announcement (”taking impeachment off the table”) before the midterm elections?
If I’m right, we traded letting Nancy Pelosi become the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives for allowing the most corrupt, thieving, murderous administration in the history of the nation remain in power, so that they could continue their assault on the Constitution, on civil liberties, rendition, torture, promote their preemptive war policies (for oil and other profiteering), attack Iran and expand the hostilities in the Middle East and around the world.
I can’t think of any other reasons to explain all that this Democratic Congress has failed to do. How many times must Rove and Gonzales and Rice (and Bush, Cheney, Secret Service) ignore subpoenas, refuse to appear or produce documents before you go to court to compel compliance? How can anyone explain a Democratic Congress allowing the Bush administration’s failure during Hurricane Katrina to go uninvestigated?
If Congress did proper oversight, all investigations of everything that Bush-Cheney have been up to these last six+years lead to misfeasance, malfeasance, corruption and impeachment. Why wouldn’t the Democrats (who are not stupid and just as politically motivated as Republicans) jump at these opportunities to score points at Republicans’ expense?
Something is preventing the Democrats. What?
June 12th, 2007 at 4:32 pmI was wondering if you could look into this theory I heard in Iran:
Osama Bin Laden’s plan on 9/11/01 was to provoke the United States to attack Iran. It is clearly mapped in his intentions in which he wanted to establish a Sunni Islamic rule over the Moslem countries, which is listed as his first priority. Why else would he attack U.S. when a right-winged president had control over a Republican congress. He was trying to induce an attack on the Shia country of Iran, since it is the only way he would have been able to topple the Islamic clerics in Iran and establish his Sunni Islamic rule over all the Islamic countries.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pmThe U.S. government states that he was trying to put pressure on America to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, which is listed in his intentions as his second priority. They try to brush off his plan to establish a Sunni Islamic rule over Moslem countries as an apocalyptic vision.
According to the theory, his plan was to induce U.S. to nuclear attack Iran (since it is the only way U.S. would be able to topple the clerics - which is even more confirmed after Hezbollah’s performance last summer). This would in turn increase terrorism in the U.S. from the over 1 million Iranians living there, which would in turn create enough pressure to cause U.S. to withdraw from the Arabian peninsula, and the middle east in general. Once U.S. leaves, the Saudi kings and princes are already prepared to leave as well (with all their wealth stored in U.S. and European banks - in the same manner as the Shah of Iran did after the Iranians began to revolt in 1979). After the religious fundamentalists establish rule in Saudi Arabia, they would be able to attack the now weakened Iran, and establish the Sunni rule over the Islamic countries.
lk
June 12th, 2007 at 4:37 pmTPs website admin guys are second rate.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:39 pmrefresh please:-]
The Fact that the NeoCons, and The Military industrial Complex is Profitting so greatly from these efforts has not gone unnoticed, ether….. What a bunch of creeps at the head of this country….
Comment by Bob Lewis — June 12, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
You’ve heard of the salaries and bonuses that ‘top executives’ are receiving these days? Bill Moyers had a good story on it this week, which was prompted by the airline executives at NW Airlines receiving upwards of $25 million dollars, while employees of NWA gave up concessions of 60% of their salaries. I can’t remember which company it was, but the highest paid executive was in the neighborhood of $40 million dollars in bonuses, stock options, and salary.
After seeing that show, I read an article (Huffington?) where two executives at Blackwater (military industrial complex anybody?) are receiving $250 million & $400 million!
Why was that we went to Iraq again?
June 12th, 2007 at 4:39 pmping
June 12th, 2007 at 4:42 pmPatrick1 is the goofiest troglodyte the knuckle draggers have to offer. I just scanned through a book at Borders about articles of chimpeachment, asswipe. Go read something and you may learn something. You are as goofy as anyone I have ever had dealings with. Get a life, 28%er.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:49 pmWhat’s the old saying - He’ll survive unless he’s found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy? With Bush in either case the Republican spin machine would go into overdrive, Chris Matthews would find a reason to excuse him, the character of the the boy and/or girl would be attacked, Senators with and R behind their name would block an investigation, Pat Robertson would announce that Jesus had told him it was a liberal plot and newspapers would editorialize on Clinton got a BJ, FDR and Harding had a mistress, Jefferson had children by a slave, etc.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:49 pmupdate
June 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pmComment by powkat — June 12, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Don’t forget Paris! Ahhh, I love Paris in the springtime.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:59 pmI’m sure Al Gore now regrets naming a weasel like “Tailgunner†Joe Loserman as his Veep when he could have picked Graham and easiliy won Florida.
Comment by cosmosis
IF He just WON Tennesee his home state.
ITS BUSHS FAULT…
June 12th, 2007 at 5:02 pmITS BUSHS FAULT…
ITS BUSHS FAULT…
OBAMA 08 anyone?
June 12th, 2007 at 5:03 pm:~)
June 12th, 2007 at 5:11 pmOBAMA 08 anyone?
What is it that you like about Obama? I see nothing in his votes that differentiate him from any other middle of the road politician. He didn’t vote for the war in Iraq because he wasn’t in the senate at the time, but his position about Iraq is “as long as we’re there NOW…” He’s like the rest of the candidates, seeing it as an opportunity to steal oil. He’s not for bringing all of the troops out of iraq. He’s consulting with Colin Powell who was for the war, too.
I don’t get what the love affair with Obama is about.
June 12th, 2007 at 5:18 pmonly that 25% of Americans supporting the untruthful pres would object to impeachment…. most Americans want impeachment and do not understand all the lies coming out of DC
June 12th, 2007 at 5:18 pmSomething Mr Graham forgot to point out regarding Lieberman’s Iran plan: For EIGHT freakin’ years, Iran held Iraq to a virtual standoff in the original “Gulf War”. EIGHT YEARS. This, despite the fact that the Iranian military in the early days of Khomeini’s Revolution was regarded as thoroughly inferior to Saddam’s military. Add in the fact that Saddam had financial backing from nearly every Arab government in the area and tons of chemical weapons (courtesy of Uncles Ronnie, George and Don), Iraq seemed to be undefeatable in the eyes of nearly every Western military analyst. (Iran also had a minor problem since its military hardware was, to a very large extent, manufactured and supplied by the US and it couldn’t receive replacement parts for that hardware following the break in US-Iranian diplomatic relations. Iraq, on the other hand, was receiving hardware from the Soviets AND US.)
June 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pmNow, if a POORLY-trained Iranian army, comprised largely of volunteers (willing to die for the Faith), could hold the much better-trained Iraqi army to something that amounted to a Middle East version of the WWI “Western Front” for almost 3 times as long, just imagine how the much-better prepared Iranians would stand against the Americans. And, given that most Western visitors to Iran continually point out that no matter how much young Iranians despise the mullahs’ restrictions, they’re highly unlikely to “welcome” an American military force.
Lieberman might also want to take into account that the Iraqi Shi’ites will be highly unlikely to sit still while their Shi’a brethren in Iran are being attacked. Any attack on Iran will likely lead the Iraqi Shi’ites to join the Iraqi Sunnis to oust the Americans.
—-
Graham added that it’s unlikely Bush would be impeached, explaining that he learned the word impeachment is an “incendiary word†that Americans shy away from.
—-
What the hell are you talking about? We love the word impeachment when it comes to Cheney, Bush and Gonzales.
- Tom
June 12th, 2007 at 5:45 pmSome things never change. Old Patrick 1 is still spewing his lame bullshit!
June 12th, 2007 at 6:14 pmAs far as the criminal Bush Administration is concerned: They should all be dragged out of the White House in chains, dragged through the angry crowds of protesters who should be waiting outside, beaten by those angry protesters, thrown into waiting police vans, taken to prison where they are locked up while waiting for trial, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by firing squad which would be the appropriate sentence for treason! Naw! That would be too quick for these scumbags! How about sentenced to failed executions! You know, ooops, rope not strong enough,
or, damn, not enough volts, guess we’ll have to try again! Get the idea?
I’m with you, TomR–
June 12th, 2007 at 6:16 pmIMPEACHMENT is my favorite word.
IMPEACHMENT is my favorite word.
It is too late sweetie. :
June 12th, 2007 at 6:40 pmToo late sweeties for impeachment.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:53 pmTPs website admin guys are second rate.
June 12th, 2007 at 7:04 pmrefresh please:-(
:’]
June 12th, 2007 at 7:58 pmPatrick1 and Flaco,
June 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pmI get the distinct impression that you guys have no friends so are spending all your free time here making hateful, irrelevant comments. What’s wrong? Were you rejected by some cute liberal girl or liberal guy recently? Don’t you have anything more worthwhile to do?
“The Senate should heed his words and impeach Bush now.”
For the gazillionth time.
The House has the power of impeachment. An impeachmemnt is an indictment.
The Senate then has a trial, the Constitution requires a two thirds vote to remove the offender from office.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:12 pmPATRICK1 post summary:
Folks, here are all the posts by Pee1 on this thread. They contain absolutely no content. Yet look at all the responses he got from you all! And he does this every day. He is doing a very successful job as a troll by taking over the thread with absolutely no thought or time expended.
Why do you all respond to him? To everyone who has responded to him, I would like to hear your justification for doing it! That is a challenge! Any takers?
(With apologies to you all for repeating all this useless garbage)
Looks like this fool has moved from whiskey to cocaine.
Comment by Patrick1 — June 12, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
On what grounds ole moonbat fools?
Comment by Patrick1 — June 12, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
.
Comment by Patrick1 — June 12, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
I repeat. On what grounds should President Bush be impeached?
Comment by Patrick1 — June 12, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
3,000 Americans died on September 11 because Clinton was more interested in BJs than protecting the United States.
Comment by Patrick1 — June 12, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
..
Comment by Patrick1 — June 12, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
3,000 Americans died on September 11 because Clinton was more interested in BJs than protecting the United States.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pmComment by Patrick1
…
Comment by Patrick1 — June 12, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
I cannot believe Bushwhore Martinez replaced Bob Graham. Ick.Sick.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:36 pmSen Graham was running for President, but he did not prostitute himself to appear tough!
If he knew that it was all a lie, and told it everywhere he could so people would not be stampeded into a senseless war!
Result, he was ignored, as all peace loving people were, and he was not even chosen for VP! He still has his conscience clean, and he is an admirable statesman. I wish someone in the party would listen to him.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:58 pm#64 Comment by Kay — June 12, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
An excellent (must) read :
Thanks, Kay, for the link!
#68 Comment by Namtillaku — June 12, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
You stated:
An interesting article, but I disagree with it. Repudiation is a weak word, and it’s much like yesterdays’ ‘vote of no confidence’.
With respect to your disagreement, I believe you missed the relavence of Ritter’s thrust. He is not against impeachment. He recognizes that unless the basic problem of malaise in the country including the Congress is addressed the same problem we now have will continue at a lower level. It will slip off the radar screen and be forgotten like a pain that is dulled by medication.
Ritter uses the word “repudiate” to represent a total and complete rejection of the things that got us into the mess we find ourselves today.
You state:
This smacks of shunning, or putting one’s head in the sand.
Absolutely not! His repudiation goes far deeper than just impeachment, which he includes in his proposal. He recognizes the rot that got us here and is addressing that. Reread his article all the way through and see that there is real depth here.
Creating the right frame for the ideas he mentions is not easy. He has chosen to use “Repudiation”. What word or phrase do you think would better represent his overall view, that would work to galvanize the people and the Congress that represents them?
June 12th, 2007 at 9:19 pmWhat is it that you like about Obama?
I don’t get what the love affair with Obama is about.
Comment by Jess #106
…for starters…
…he graduated from Harvard Law and was the first Black man to lead the Harvard Law Review…
…and after he graduated…
…instead of joining a big bucks law firm for big bucks…
…he moved to inner city Chicago…
…to give back to the least of these…
…YES, he’sinto politics…
…and when you grow up…
…you’ll understand that one has to play the (Ceeracka) game…
…to get things done…
…maybe if you tried to read his book…
…The Audacity of Hope…
…you might gain some insight…
June 12th, 2007 at 10:27 pmGreat thread, even the obligatory wingnuts’ blind parroting of their masters’ voices [although I have to admit, i get tired of the same idiot chants in the face of qualified evidence]
Something that jumped out to me:
From CompTROLLER V-1: Advisory to Democratic voters: Get yourself some Roosevelt/Truman-quality politicians and take this age-old advice: grow a FREAKIN’ spine.
Hear, hear! The Dems have played the Centrist game for so long, about 40 years now, the political center itself has shifted so far right, that mainstream concepts like civil rights and liberties, quality public education, health and infrastructure, and keeping corporation fraud in check are now the responsibility of villanized liberals.
There’s no such thing as a moderate nowadays, or conservatives either it seems. What exactly are they conserving, their own private bank accounts?
What’s left now seems to be mostly rational-thinking people [those with a spine and those who wither at the prospect of being demonized on tv/radio/the local watercooler] and the autocrats… er, wingnuts.
The tricky thing about overcoming the L-word in our current culture is mass media –you know, the so-called liberal one, which frankly has seen its ownership reduced about ten-fold since deregulation. That’s one of the reasons why Dems were hollering at Clinton in 1996. Clinton was a Centrist folks, not a liberal. That’s just what Gingrich, Limbaugh, etc, said… and unfortunately the lion share of media owners who directly benefited from dereg and now have a stranglehold on the outlets so many of our wingnut friends blindly subscribe to for their opinions.
My hope is, that sites and blogs such as this one gain the notoriety they deserve [in some ways reminds me of the early days of the newspaper wars… in some ways], gain readership and respect for reporting the unvarnished truth. From there, actually motivate people to act, do the right thing, to counter the effectiveness of our corporate media owners and religious zealots and their watercarriers. I just hope this can be successful before martial law is declared.
I used to think I was a moderate, but now I assume my role as a so-called evil dirty hippy liberal [like Jesus!], especially if it means a strong economy for all, access to quality education and health care, respect for the military, our allies and our enemies [although personally, it’ll take me some time to forgive Rove, Cheney for their ruthlessly unAmerican ideals].
There’s one thing I’m unabashedly ultra-conservative about: The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Don’t f*ck with it. I never imagined striking down Habeas Corpus would anything but a poly-sci experiment, never to see the light of day. Now it’s f*cking national policy?!
Aside from the relentless stream of political insults from this administration, this is perhaps the most unAmerican act I can think of.
And even though they didn’t have the votes to counter it, the Dems for the most part, just let it go in October, just before the elections. Nice.
It wasn’t even a GOP-Dem or Lib-Con issue to me. Habeas Corpus is the keystone to our Bill of Rights as a people. It set the tone, literally defining what we are legally as a nation.
My vote is for The Spines in ‘08.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:32 pmSorry for the double-post, but this one’s brief:
I have to admit, at least in the case of the Gonzales confidence vote, that the White House and friends were actually right, for once. It’s toothless, even if it were passed.
But there is a significantly more-effective course of action: impeachment.
OK, I think I’m back on-theme now. :)
June 12th, 2007 at 11:42 pm#121 Comment by big papa — June 12, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
I am a bit unsure of Obama’s ideology. Is he a DLC believer? I can’t read him past all the wonderful words. For instance, He was against the invasion yet now he appears to want to keep our troops there. This is confusing.
Can you explain his position in regard to the DLC ideology?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:58 pm3,000 Americans died on September 11 because Clinton was more interested in BJs than protecting the United States.
Comment by Patrick1
clinton had weekly meetings on terrorist threats. by september 2001 bush had had one meeting.
case closed.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
As an outsider looking in. its great to see such strong sentiment against the war. everyone now knows, but most refuse to truely acknowledge, that the war was based on lies. and plenty of people now recognise that the war was most likely based on energy/economic requirements.
the bottom line is, that america needs oil, badly. as the single highest consumer nation you do everything bar pour it on your cereal. thus the problem is not only the “military industrial complex” but what would be commonly considered as the american way of life or the “american dream”.
america does not need to become a revolutionary agrarian society, to end this fundemental problem, but it does need to change. otherwise your way of life will determine if you need to go to war again and again just to maintain that way of life.
its not an easy thing to say, but your level of comfort and day to day existence is part of the problem and effectively the root cause.
As cheney said. “the american way of life is not negotiable”. what he means is, everyone else in the world will die before he sees a need for change in how the average american joe lives.
What the hell am I on about?
well, here in ireland, if i need milk or a few items from the shop, we normally have a shop very close by, and i walk. i know this doesnt suit everybody but still in my experience of the US few people even consider the thought of walking to the store. 15 minute walk or 2 minute drive, no brainer really. but its the little things that have to change. there really is no need for revolutionary change.
you want to stop resource wars! start thinking about how you use the resources that the radicals are so keen to kill for.
the key is localisation. google it. there is probably a project in your area. americans are engaging this process themselves at grassroots level. if there isnt one. start one.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:47 amSenator Graham speaks truth to power.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:06 amCan you explain his position in regard to the DLC ideology?
Comment by Merlin #126
…in order to get anywhere NEAR the WH in ‘08…
…the candidates for president are going to have to appeal to…
…so-called “centrists Independents”…
…who in my book are just fence straddling Repulsivescum “semi-concious conservatives”…
…Obama realizes that already having a major strike against him…
…I’ll leave THAT one for your own analytical abilities to decipher…
…he MUST NOT appear “reactionary” and “emotional”…
…a’ la Howard Dean…
…but “thoughtful” and “rational”…
…ONLY rabid right wing White men (Guiliani) can get away with that sort of “emotionalism”…
…Obama also realizes that Iraq ISN’T a quick fix…
…like Powell said…
…”We (broke) it, we own it”…
…for better or worse…
June 13th, 2007 at 10:21 amThe reason Bush should be impeached is not past actions against Iraq, but the possibility action will be required against Iran.
If our President says “we must go to war” he must have the integrity for the country to believe him; Bush lost all integrity when he lied about Iraq.
Now we face an enemy we are told “is trying to build nuclear weapons;
Are they “deployable in 45 minutes”?
Are they “a strong threat to our security”?
Do we need to “fight them over there so we do not need to fight them over here”?
Due to the lies of President Bush about Iraq, our country may be attacked while we do not believe the threat exists.
President Bush and VP Cheney (and their entire gang) should step down to preserve our freedom and security in the face of this “grave threat” from Iran, due to their past lies.
We need a President that does not lie to the American people to be in charge during this crisis.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:21 amWhen I was at Florida State Univ we called Govenor Bob Graham “BBQ Bob”, in light of his bloodthirsty pursuit of keeping up with Texas as the state that executed the most inmates.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:39 amBush should be impeached now, regardless of any presumed disruption to the country. Think of the thousands of lives lost and the thousands to come in Iraq because the country won’t cooperate and do the right thing.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:16 amF@CK IT! Impeach the whole lot of those bastard conservatives.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pmAnyone ever notice that Patrick1’s posts, unless filled with a cut-and-pasted article, are limited to two “sentences” at the most? I use quotes due to the lack of synonyms for the word sentence. Buddy, get a life. Seriously.
We’re all fucked, unless we elect Kucinich Prez, and what are the odds of that? The Dems are as worthless as the Replicans are corrupt and greedy. I can’t hardly take it anymore. I’m moving back to Kauai already, where you don’t really here about all the crazy shit going on unless you’re looking for it. Good luck.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:11 amI’m afraid we’re to the point where lack of impeachment — when our very Constitution is being attacked, and our military destroyed — is a hell of a lot more “incendiary” than any word. Those of us who were raised to believe in democracy would love to know what the hell is wrong with those who currently occupy our nation’s Capitol against us.
WE THE PEOPLE, damn it.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:45 amWWW OPeration Mockingbird. WWW Operation 11110 WWW Norhwoods
June 20th, 2007 at 6:08 pm