After Impeaching Clinton, McCain Now Dismisses Idea Of Impeaching Bush: ‘I Do Not Agree With It’
After Impeaching Clinton, McCain Now Dismisses Idea Of Impeaching Bush: ‘I Do Not Agree With It’
Today during a town hall event at Xavier University, an attendee forced Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to respond to Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s (D-OH) impeachment articles against President Bush. McCain immediately brushed off the question, saying that he opposes them:
QUESTIONER: I appreciate this opportunity, Mr. McCain, to ask you a question. Part one is regards to the articles of impeachment brought up by Kucinich for Bush. What your stance is on that, regards to manipulated intelligence to form the policy. [...]
McCAIN: First of all, I do not agree with quote, articles of impeachment, and I can assure the majorities of both parties in both houses would not agree either.
Yet in 1999, he voted for the impeachment of President Clinton. At the time, McCain stressed that a president must be held “accountable to the rule of law“:
Presidents are not ordinary citizens. They are extraordinary, in that they are vested with so much more authority and power than the rest of us. We have a right; indeed, we have an obligation, to hold them strictly accountable to the rule of law. [...]
It is self-evident to us all, I hope, that we cannot overlook, dismiss or diminish the obstruction of justice by the very person we charge with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. It is self-evident to me.
Even a “good friend” of McCain’s, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), has raised the possibility of impeachment if the Bush administration attacks Iran. McCain is likely avoiding this subject because he too wants to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What a partisan hack! We need a POTUS who does not place party above country.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:15 pm#1 Uh, ya think.?..Any ideas.?…..Blessings
June 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pmSurely TP can do better than this for an attack McCain McThread, God knows he is a gaffe machine, but isn’t it pretty clear he supported Clinton’s impeachment but not Bush’s? Is that news?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pmOT but important. Feingold got them to hold off on the FISA vote until after their 4th of July vacation. That gives us some breathing room and the ability to influence the Senators who think the bill is a good idea.
Score one for the good guys. Thanks Russ.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pmcaption contest:
“Cut it out Lieberman, your tickling my balls! Stick to the other side of the taint like I showed you!”
June 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pmKeltoi:
“Is that news?”
You know what would be big news, McCant actually sticking to one side of an issue!
June 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pmOops, busted:
On McCain’s “Blog Interact” page, where the candidate’s supporters can find recommended blogs of all ideological stripes, the campaign is actually awarding points for trolling.
Help spread the word about John McCain on news and blog sites. Your efforts to help get the message out about John McCain’s policies and plan for the future is one of the most valuable things you can do for this campaign. You know why John McCain should be the next President of the United States and we need you to tell others why.
Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you’ve commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center.
The site even has “Today’s Talking Points” that McCain supporters can cut and paste into the comments sections of liberal blogs.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pmThat’s on C&L, by the way.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pmrogerse Says:
First of all, I do not agree with quote, articles of impeachment, and I can assure the majorities of both parties in both houses would not agree either.
and they don’t.
As usual the idiot troll doesn’t know what he is talking about. The issue has not come up before both parties in both houses so McCain has no idea whether or not the legislators agree with it. But, in the House they did vote to move Kucinich’s articles of impeachment to committee. Unfortunately our spineless leaders in the Democratic party won’t allow it to come up for a true vote. They are too busy trying to stop impeachment so that no one will know how complicit members like Pelosi, Harmon and Hoyer have been with the Republicans.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pmKeltoi Says:
Surely TP can do better than this for an attack McCain McThread, God knows he is a gaffe machine, but isn’t it pretty clear he supported Clinton’s impeachment but not Bush’s? Is that news?
Fair enough, K.
I am hopefull there may be some new folks who learn something about this issue. A private, consentual event turned into a circus (thanks to Clinton’s lie). McSame is always going to place his party over the good of the nation – we all know that. As president, his constituancy will be the entire country, so it is reasonable for folks to know how McSame’s mind works. You are right, this news is not news to folks who ‘keep up’, but sadly, lots of folks don’t ‘keep up’.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pmClassic IOKIYAR
Lie about a BJ and the Repukes Screem Impeachment.
Lie, murder, torture, corruption, by a Repuke and you get slaps on the back.
We have soooo many reasons to HATE Repukian Traitors.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pmBwwaahaahaaa! You call that a wide stance Larry Craig? Bwaahahaha! Let me show you a wide stance!
June 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pmBwahhahaha!!!
Kucinich is a Republican now? Who knew!
June 26th, 2008 at 3:26 pmBack where I come from we called this embracing a double standard.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:32 pmAlright TP, we know that McCain supported impeachment before and now doesn’t. We also know that Bush and Cheney leave office in about 7 months. We further know that the Democratic leadership in both house of Congress have determined that impeachment is off the table. Therefore, I’d request that you stop posting stories on impeachable offenses, discussions of impeachment or how anyone who might have a view on the subject views impeachment. If nothing is to be done – that’s it, end of story.
Why beat the dead horse you’ve chosen to never ride?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pmHaven’t we had enough of politicians who put their party above what is best for the public?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pmThey had no trouble impeaching Clinton for lying about consensual sex, but war crimes, defiling the Constitution, and taking the nation to war without reason is not impeachable?
McClone will say anything to keep his favor in the repugnican party — which, btw, is lessening every week.
#17…Your funny..ROFL…
June 26th, 2008 at 3:37 pmI doubt very seriously if Obama supported the impeachment trial “on Clinton” either.
See how consistency works?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:40 pmHey Pussy for Life. What about that intelligence assesment? Tell us again about the big hoax why don’t you?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm#17 it’s just the troll’s baiting people that think for themselve’s..They get ,10 cent’s a post…Blessings
June 26th, 2008 at 3:42 pmThis is no longer a case of for/against impeachment and the value of pursuing that course now — it is a matter of showing everyone the lack of character and integrity in McCain. This was a legitimate question at a town hall meeting – events where McCain often bares his true feelings in replies to such questions, betraying what truly motivates him. Honesty, integrity and high-mindedness not among them.
Did anyone ask him about his wife’s connections to lobbyists for the alcohol industry, the family’s opposition to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and their contributions to such efforts? Remember how the press made mountains from a molehill about ketchup and pickles with Teresa Heinz Kerry?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:42 pmKeltoi Says
June 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Surely TP can do better than this for an attack McCain McThread, God knows he is a gaffe machine, but isn’t it pretty clear he supported Clinton’s impeachment but not Bush’s? Is that news?
___________________________________________________________
You’re right — it’s not earth-shattering news, nor is it surprising. I suspect the only reason it’s here is to just add one more hypocrisy brick to the ever-growing pile.
And to be fair to McCain, he’s certainly not the only one who believes that Democratic presidents should be held accountable to the rule of law, but Republican presidents are pretty much allowed to lie, cheat, violate international law, trample all over the constitution, and politicize the entire government to their heart’s content. About a quarter of the people in this country believe this as well.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:45 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
And to be fair to McCain, he’s certainly not the only one who believes that Democratic presidents should be held accountable to the rule of law, but Republican presidents are pretty much allowed to lie, cheat, violate international law, trample all over the constitution, and politicize the entire government to their heart’s content. About a quarter of the people in this country believe this as well.
Isn’t it odd that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress, including all the leadership, seem to believe it too?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pmKeltoi, honestly…I don’t know what to make of you.
Sometimes, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent fellow, able to grasp the concepts of right and wrong, and you seem to ‘get’ that George Bush and his administration are criminals and traitors to America and the Constitution America was founded upon….
And then there are other times, like with your comment here, that seem to indicate that the above doesn’t bother you in the slightest.
My understanding of your comment is this: “Yeah, so? Bush is evil, what’s the big deal? Nothing new here, move along.”
I don’t get that. McCain is following in the very footsteps of Bush’s evil, and has promised that it will continue in *his* administration. Everything. The torture, the spying, the shredding of the Constitution. BushCo – and now McCain – are pure evil, and that fact MUST not ever be forgotten – or forgiven.
It sickens me that you seem to want to do both: forget AND forgive.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm#28 – Not so much odd, as revolting and something that should factor into every voters calculation on election day. Won’t happen, but if it did taking something off the table when that something has value – moral, strategic, political, you name it – is not a sign of leadership or courage. Rather, it is a sign of utter stupidity brought about, I dare say, the need to proetect their own backsides for their complicity during the time the US was playing catch up thanks to the Unitary Executive failing to take advantage of the tools at its disposal while its leader was vacationing.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pmAre we really equating perjury, a filed and documented felony as committed by Clinton, to dubious claims of “crimes against international law” that were committed by Bush? I’m not a Bush fan nor a detractor of Clinton’s, but let’s be reasonable. John McCain has a record of service five times as long as Obama’s. Yet somehow, Obama has managed to catch up to McCain in the flip-flop count in only that short time. I was warming to Obama until he pulled this campaign finance stunt. I’m getting a little tired of everything that inconveniences Obama being “obsolete, “broken,” or in need of “change”.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:00 pmWell said, Annie. Keltoi’s comment annoyed me, too, for the same reasons you elucidated.
I generally appreciate his contributions to this forum, but every once in a while he comes up with some reasoning so off the wall that I wonder if rogerse has snuck on to his computer.
Well, maybe not rogerse. That’s a bit harsh.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:06 pm“dubious” claims against Bush and Cheney?Q? Where you been man?
If the Executive Branch is Unitary – as in Unitary Executive then everything flows from the top. Everyone at the top has been implicated in:
1. outing a covert CIA agent during the GWOT
2. systematic violations of the 4th Amendment
3. torture of innocents (and guilty alike) caught on foreign soil and transported all over the world for various exercises in “enhanced interrogation techniques”
4. refusal to comply with a multitude of oversight and reporting requirements
5. faking / changing science to support administration wet dreams about this harmful product or that nuisance that is global warming
6. impermissably politicizing the DOJ (and likely most every other department in the federal government)
the list could go on. You just go on thinking the claims are dubious. They are only “dubious” because no one wants to do much of anything about them.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:08 pmYeah, you sure don’t sound like a partisan… much.
And no, we’re comparing McCain’s willingenss to remove a President for lying about a private, consesual sexual encounter to his unwillingness to even consider the same remedy for many potential violations of the Constitution — including the treasonous act of authorizing the outing of a covert agent’s identity during wartime.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:11 pmDang. I can’t remember the name of the guy who provided this quote, but, I would like to pass the message to every thinking person in the country:
“Impeachment is not the cause of Constitutional crisis. It’s the cure”.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:12 pmKeltoi Says:
Isn’t it odd that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress, including all the leadership, seem to believe it too?
So you have some evidence to support this? I mean, as opposed to the fact that the Democrats lack sufficient numbers in the House to impeach or the Senate to convict?
You’re really asserting that the “vast majority of Democrats” agree that Republican presidents can do no wrong?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Keltoi, honestly…I don’t know what to make of you.
My understanding of your comment is this: “Yeah, so? Bush is evil, what’s the big deal? Nothing new here, move along.”
I don’t get that. McCain is following in the very footsteps of Bush’s evil, and has promised that it will continue in *his* administration. Everything. The torture, the spying, the shredding of the Constitution. BushCo – and now McCain – are pure evil, and that fact MUST not ever be forgotten – or forgiven.
Well, until McCain actually is president, I think it a bit much to call his presidency evil.
As to your other point, as Ralph said a while back, I am a contrarian and I take my Troll duties here very seriously. A little gas on the fire spices up the thread.
I am also a pragmatist. CLEARLY, Bush is not going to be impeached, so why go on about it? I think the Democrats in Congress are a bit more qualified than you or I to judge whether impeachment is appropriate, justifiable or possible. Obviously, they have decided it is not.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:16 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
I generally appreciate his contributions to this forum, but every once in a while he comes up with some reasoning so off the wall that I wonder if rogerse has snuck on to his computer.
Well, maybe not rogerse. That’s a bit harsh.
Yeah, Cripes man, I am at least capable of expressing myself in complete sentences…
June 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pmCall me a partisan if you want, but at least I’m approaching the problem from a logical and legalistic point of view.
Clinton was approached about his illicit activity and said the infamous lines, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Let’s imagine for a moment that Bush directly lied about any of the activites listed in previous posts. Why, with a heavily democratic house, have articles not been passed?
It’s probably because most members of the House know the Constitution and can’t find an article that lists any of President Bushs’s actions as a high crime, felony, or misdemeanor.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:21 pmKeltoi Says:
Isn’t it odd that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress, including all the leadership, seem to believe it too?
So you have some evidence to support this? I mean, as opposed to the fact that the Democrats lack sufficient numbers in the House to impeach or the Senate to convict?
You’re really asserting that the “vast majority of Democrats” agree that Republican presidents can do no wrong?
Okay, “vast majority” was a stretch, but Pelosi could allow Kucinich to get his articles out of committee if she wanted to – obviously, she doesn’t.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:22 pmNo doubt. But you seem to have a habit of assuming that their inaction on the question is because they think it is not appropriate or justifiable, when it’s at least as likely that they consider impeachment not possible and, beyond that, politically risky.
Yes, it’s cowardly but at this point, it’s also pragmatic.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pmKeltoi – in a word, BULLSH*T.
I think the Democrats in Congress are a bit more qualified than you or I to judge whether impeachment is appropriate, justifiable or possible. Obviously, they have decided it is not.
That’s pure crap. Crap. Crap. Crap.
To me, it’s as simple as right and wrong.
The Congress has let many other issues override right and wrong; issues such as partisanship, expediency, politics, payback, blackmail (?), etc. guide their deeds – rather than the law.
Being a so-called “contrarian” is one thing; spewing sophomoric cliches to justify the non-action and, quite frankly, the betrayal of our Constitution by our elected officials is *quite* another.
If you want anyone here to take you seriously, cut the crap.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pmNo imagination needed:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pmbbierlein: see my post above:
The Congress has let many other issues override right and wrong; issues such as partisanship, expediency, politics, payback, blackmail (?), etc. guide their deeds – rather than the law.
It has been proven – beyond a shadow of a doubt – many times over, including by Bush’s own words, that he has lied and lied and lied and lied. To posit that he hasn’t lied because nobody has convicted him of perjury is complete bullshit, and childish to boot.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pmWhy do some of you here think that the Democrats in Congress know that impeachment is inappropriate. The better guess is that the Democrats in Congress want to use each and every wrongdoing by W against him for their own personal and petty political gains. Their actions are equally reprehensible because by doing what they are doing they are enabling the very lawlessness they profess to renounce, reject and just plain wish wouldn’t happen.
Crying the sky is falling, the sky is falling when its raining and you hold the umbrella to keep you dry does nothing for you or anyone else.
Frankly, the bare news reports of some of what has teken place in the WH – discussions about torture, the response to katrina, the DOJ and Plame scandal – they all plae in comparison to a blow job in the WH and then lying about it in a trumped up lawsuit that was later thrown out for lack of merit. But then y’all go on thinking that the Dems really know what they’re doing and Clinton’s “crime” deserved the time wasted on it but Bush’s misdeeds don’t even deserve a cursory looksie.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:33 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
I think the Democrats in Congress are a bit more qualified than you or I to judge whether impeachment is appropriate, justifiable or possible. Obviously, they have decided it is not.
No doubt. But you seem to have a habit of assuming that their inaction on the question is because they think it is not appropriate or justifiable, when it’s at least as likely that they consider impeachment not possible and, beyond that, politically risky.
I will concede your point, but the effect is the same.
Curious: do you believe the Repbublicans thought Clinton’s impeachment justifiable and appropriate, or was it purely the possibleness (is that a word?) that made them do it?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:33 pmThe latter. Of course. Obviously.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:35 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Being a so-called “contrarian” is one thing; spewing sophomoric cliches to justify the non-action and, quite frankly, the betrayal of our Constitution by our elected officials is *quite* another.
Um, I am not sure I did that, I was riffing off something missmolly wrote – impishly, I’ll admit it – and now you have me supporting the betrayal of the Constitution.
But – I know better than to argue with you on this topic, your passionate hatred of Bush blisters any caught in the crossfire.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pmChildish it may be, but it is the way that a lawful society works. Personally, I’m glad that in the eyes of the law, Bush is considered innocent until proven guilty as it reinforces that the duly ratified statutes and not the blogging mob enforces the definition of legality.
Frankly, if positing is all that Bush’s detractors can do after eight years of his administration, I give him credit. That no one can hold him accountable makes him either more slipperier than Ron Reagan or pretty much an innocent bystander in a more devious administration.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pmThe effect is the same”? So because the effect is the same, i.e., no impeachment, you get to claim that as proof that impeachment is unjustified?
I think the Republicans behind the impeachment of Clinton were petty divisive partisans and they thought that impeaching him would do themselves some good, politically. Obviously, they miscalculated since Clinton’s approval ratings were at their highest during the impeachment trial and the Republicans lost seats in the midterm election. They did, however, get an ancillary benefit in that they cheapened the institution of impeachment into a partisan tool, a development that i think plays some part in the reluctance of Democrats to pursue a case against Bush.
But I cannot give those Republicans the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they really believed they were protecting the nation, when they’re unwilling to hold a Republican president accountable to even a tenth of the degree to which they held Clinton.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:41 pmNice moral code you got there.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:42 pmKeltoi: again, I call BULLSH*T.
“My passionate hatred of Bush”…? So, tell me, Keltoi dear, is this your way of saying that I suffer from “Bush Derangement Syndrome”…? (Defined as “bind hatred of Bush for no justifiable reason.”)
Hmmm…..?
As for you, bbierlein: you’re just as evil as Bush if you defend him. It is not all they CAN do -it is all they are currently *willing* to do – there is a VAST difference.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:43 pmKeltoi Says
June 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Isn’t it odd that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress, including all the leadership, seem to believe it too?
_____________________________________________________________
Yes, it certainly is. And puzzling. I’m old enough to remember when Carl Albert and Peter Rodino did the right thing, and they felt it was the only thing they could do in the face of Nixon’s actions during the Watergate crisis.
So what happened? Why are Democrats rolling over and pretending that executive power isn’t being abused?
I honestly don’t know. I have some thoughts on possibilities:
1. Some are truly buying the line of “impeachment would take up too much of our time and keep us from more important business” (perhaps the ones who believe this are still newbies and their BS detectors aren’t fully operational yet).
2. Some believe that a better strategy is to allow Bushco to continue their rampage against this country because it will help Democrats in November. And Nancy Pelosi seems to fall into this “party before country” group. This is probably the most despicable position on the list. “Party before country” is wrong when the GOP does it, and it’s wrong when the Dems do it.
3. Some may be being blackmailed by Bushco and are acting like obedient puppies because they don’t want their skeletons to fall out of the closet. I have no doubt that Darth has a whole lot of information on everybody.
4. Some, like Kucinich, Waxman, McDermott, and several others, ARE actively pushing for impeachment because they believe this administration has committed offenses worth investigating, and impeachable if true.
Needless to say, those of us who are appalled at the track record of the Bush administration are even more appalled at the lack of action from those whom we elected to put a stop to it.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:43 pmCurious: do you believe the Repbublicans thought Clinton’s impeachment justifiable and appropriate, or was it purely the possibleness (is that a word?) that made them do it?
Leftside Annie Says:
The latter. Of course. Obviously.
Okay…I don’t think it is obvious, I think it is possible that some really felt Clinton had perjured himself and obstructed justice.
At any rate, Clinton handed them a weapon and they used it. Bush, according to you, has handed the Dems a much larger weapon and yet they don’t use it. That, as I said back in my first sophmoric spew in #28, is odd.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:44 pmKeltoi Says:
me: You’re really asserting that the “vast majority of Democrats” agree that Republican presidents can do no wrong?
Okay, “vast majority” was a stretch, but Pelosi could allow Kucinich to get his articles out of committee if she wanted to – obviously, she doesn’t.
I’m not referring to your numbers, but to your assertion of motivation. Only trolls have superpower mindreading abilities, Keltoi.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:46 pmDo you think that it was in the best interests of the nation that the Republicans used that weapon?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pmKeltoi: I maintain that the Republicans in their current form will do ANYTHING - anything at all, up to and including murder – to hold on to power, to give themselves more power, to scrap our Consitution and finally, to steal everything that isn’t nailed down.
Clear enough for you…?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pmLeftside Annie Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi: again, I call BULLSH*T.
“My passionate hatred of Bush”…? So, tell me, Keltoi dear, is this your way of saying that I suffer from “Bush Derangement Syndrome”…? (Defined as “bind hatred of Bush for no justifiable reason.”)
Hmmm…..?
NO! No, no, no no no no….(Keltoi darts glances around the chatroom, seeking a virtual window to jump out of should escape become necessary…)
June 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pmNO, NO, NO – you fail to understand the different between the words “can” and “will” (see “That no one can hold him accountable”). He could be held accountable. He would be held accountable, BUT FOR the fact that Democrats in Congress have their hands in some of his crap and don’t want to get it on their shiny white hats. That, and they think that by not pursuing impeachment, they get brownie points with the “independents” of this country who routinely elect not to pay attention to anything but sound bites and talking points and then complain because nothing gets done.
Just wait until next year. The rule of law will be back in fashion.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:49 pmGood. Because if you had said yes to that, Keltoi, well, I would have my virtual knife out to cut your virtual balls off.
Just sayin’.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:49 pmgummitch Says:
I’m not referring to your numbers, but to your assertion of motivation. Only trolls have superpower mindreading abilities, Keltoi.
I know! To quote John Travolta in ‘Broken Arrow’,
June 26th, 2008 at 4:50 pm“In’nt Cool?”
Leftside Annie Says:
My understanding of your comment is this: “Yeah, so? Bush is evil, what’s the big deal? Nothing new here, move along.”
A lot of Republicans have been driven to this point. I’m sure Keltoi was one of Bush’s flying monkeys for years. Now, like many other Bush apologists, are reduced to comments like, “Democrats are just as bad”, or like Keltoi’s lame rationalization in this thread. This all began after Katrina, when all but the most obtuse Bush zombie began to realize that their corrupt, Simian in Chief could no longer be defended. What you now see is their last ditch fall back position of ambivalence.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pmKeltoi Says:
At any rate, Clinton handed them a weapon and they used it. Bush, according to you, has handed the Dems a much larger weapon and yet they don’t use it. That, as I said back in my first sophmoric spew in #28, is odd.
I think it’s regrettable, but not necessarily “odd.” They lack the numbers and they appear to lack the will, not necessarily because impeachment isn’t justified but because it requires huge cojones to take on a president and vice president (especially this VP, with his personal ties to Beelzebub). The impeachment of Clinton was run by some pretty vicious infighters and heavily supported and funded by people like Richard Mellon Scaife. The Democrats seem to lack the leaders to whip them into a frenzy and always seem pretty incompetent in exploiting the backrooms of Congress.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Do you think that it was in the best interests of the nation that the Republicans used that weapon?
No.
I did think Clinton abusing his office, in the oval office, with an intern half his age was a travesty. And had I done it, I would have lied about it too. But I wouldn’t have done it.
The whole thing, soup to nuts, was an apalling charade. (Seriously, Ralph, could rogerse come up with that sentence if you put a gun to his head?) But it didn’t merit impeachment.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pmKeltoi is quoting John Travolta? This is a bad day to cut down on my drinking.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:55 pmAwwww, poor little Monica! Poor little abused, naive child Monica, abused by a big mean man twice her age!!
Oh, puh-lease, Keltoi. That’s especially gag-worthy, even coming from you.
Have you ever heard the term “belt-notcher”…?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:58 pmso getting a bj in the WH was an abuse of the oath of office he took when he became President. Funny, adultery typically is no longer a crime, although it is grounds for a divorce as you’ve broken a civil contract with another person, and sexual relations with a consenting adult are, well, sexual relations with a consenting adult.
Clinton’s “crime” was lying about getting the bj in the WH to avoid having to tell his wife and the nation what he’d done when he had to sit for a deposition financed by people with ulterior motives who found a pliable “plaintiff” who’s claims were later thrown out of court because they lacked merit. So, his crime was lying in a deposition that never should have happened in the first place.
Now that I’m thinking about it, Bush’s situation is a lot like Clinton’s. All of his crimes occurred during a presidency that shouldn’t have happened either and but for the interference of the SCOTUS wouldn’t have taken place at all.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pmKeltoi Says:
I did think Clinton abusing his office, in the oval office, with an intern half his age was a travesty. And had I done it, I would have lied about it too. But I wouldn’t have done it.
You’re also not the president of the yewnited states. People don’t get that far without some feeling of entitlement.
But you put your finger on the “perjury” silliness. I don’t know a single man who, busted with his johnson in an intern’s hand, wouldn’t deny doing anything at all. “No, no, she’s just helping me fix my zipper!” Of course he lied. We’d all lie like a rug, just as long as we could get away with it. If it wasn’t for some tacky woman hanging on to a spooged dress, he probably would have gotten away with it.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pmgummitch Says:
The impeachment of Clinton was run by some pretty vicious infighters and heavily supported and funded by people like Richard Mellon Scaife. The Democrats seem to lack the leaders to whip them into a frenzy and always seem pretty incompetent in exploiting the backrooms of Congress.
Yeah. Well, it comes down to the ends justifying the means, I suppose. On just a purely dog eat dog level, which is pretty much where D.C. is at, I think I would rather have the R’s on my side in a knife fight than the D’s. Do you guys find anything begrudgingly admirable about their cojones? You might well be rid of Bush if they had a bit more steel in their spine.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pmgummitch Says:
Keltoi is quoting John Travolta? This is a bad day to cut down on my drinking.
I know, I have been being an obnoxious little kid for the last 30 posts, but I love you guys and know you secretly enjoy muttering “that little bastard!” under your breath as you clicky-clack away.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:01 pmMissmolly at 53, sagacious and to the point as always.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:02 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Awwww, poor little Monica! Poor little abused, naive child Monica, abused by a big mean man twice her age!!
Oh, puh-lease, Keltoi. That’s especially gag-worthy, even coming from you.
Have you ever heard the term “belt-notcher”…?
No….but I am intrigued.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pmKeltoi Says:
Leftside Annie Says:
Awwww, poor little Monica! Poor little abused, naive child Monica, abused by a big mean man twice her age!!
Oh, puh-lease, Keltoi. That’s especially gag-worthy, even coming from you.
Have you ever heard the term “belt-notcher”…?
No….but I am intrigued.
It was pretty obvious that Monica set her sights on Bill; what bigger score is there than a President? I’ve heard a lot of Clinton-haters whimper about poor Monica, even going so far as to lie about her age as 19. Whatever else Monica may have been, she was a graduate of a very good college here in Portland, so no dummy and certainly no child. She was 23, and she certainly knew what she was doing.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pmKeltoi,
Taking Clinton out of the equation, do YOU believe that there has been enough evidence and/or do you believe they have been complicit in behavior damaging to this country, to bring impeachment against Dubya and Darth?
Be honest here.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pmupside99 Says:
Keltoi,
Taking Clinton out of the equation, do YOU believe that there has been enough evidence and/or do you believe they have been complicit in behavior damaging to this country, to bring impeachment against Dubya and Darth?
Be honest here.
No doubt they have damaged the country, especially the economy with their wild eyed spending, both in Iraq and during the Republican time in Congress. But that just makes them bad administrators, not necessarily criminals.
As far as the evidence goes, I don’t have access to that evidence, but I assume the Dems in Congress do, and they have judged it insufficient to proceed.
Let me ask you: if Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Murtha, et al HAD evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, do you think they would use it? I certainly do.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pmIn less than five months no one will give tow hoots about what John Sidney McCain thinks about anything. At his age, he should just retire and sit on the porch or one of his eight or nine houses and cuss at his wife and kick his dog….or vice versa.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:20 pmAs far as the evidence goes, I don’t have access to that evidence, but I assume the Dems in Congress do, and they have judged it insufficient to proceed.
Wow, Keltoi, you’re either being colossally naive – or deliberately obtuse here.
There is more than ample proof of Bush’s crimes everywhere you look. Bush himself has provided the evidence on multiple occasions.
The will of the Democrats to proceed has nothing whatsoever to do with the sufficiency of the evidence — and everything to do with political expediency, or worse, lack of spine.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:42 pmThank you. Might one then conclude that, given the limited time in which the Democrats have been in the majority in Congress and the stubbornness with which the administration has stonewalled every investigation, the Demcoratic leadership coulod easily have concluded that, in this situation, pursuing impeachment against this president would not be in the best interests of the nation?
(I would disagree on this question, except I recognize the limitations that time and the campaign season puts on this process, and the depressing lack of will that the leadership demonstrates.)
Also, I apologize for the rogerse crack. You deserve better. I did hesitate before posting it, but I was annoyed and I said “what the heck”. I know you’re probably teasing, and you have a right to. My bad.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:06 pmJeezus, Keltoi, you’re still doing it!
June 26th, 2008 at 6:09 pmYet in 1999, he voted for the impeachment of President Clinton. At the time, McCain stressed that a president must be held “accountable to the rule of law“
I guess it depends on which president.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 26th, 2008 at 6:09 pmKeltoi Says
June 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
As far as the evidence goes, I don’t have access to that evidence, but I assume the Dems in Congress do, and they have judged it insufficient to proceed.
__________________________________________________________
I don’t think the Dems in Congress have even a fraction of the slime under the rock at their fingertips. I haven’t seen any serious investigations going on, no Archibald Cox, no Ken Starr, no subpoenas with teeth, no contempt citations — nothing to indicate any serious effort is being made to OBTAIN evidence.
It’s a far stretch for the Democrats to make a judgment about sufficient evidence to proceed when they haven’t really made a serious push to get said evidence. They can’t seriously make this decision based solely on what has landed in their laps.
Which is why I believe their reasons for pretending nothing is going on are what I outlined in #52.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:35 pmI wish Keltoi and others who defend Bush against calls for impeachment would remember that the revelations about Monica only surfaced a couple of years into the farcical Whitewater investigation.
Had Democrats anything like that kind of opportunity to investigate the Bush administration, there’s little doubt that they would have turned up far worse crimes than a fellating intern.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pmMcCain is a HYPOCRITE and LIAR.
So what else is new?
June 26th, 2008 at 7:59 pmSit down and shut up John and take that big foot out of your mouth… and ass.
.
What McTORTURE means:
“We don’t bite the hand that feeds us.”
.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:22 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
How is it that John Conyers, author of George W. Bush versus The Constitution published in August 2006, became Chair of the House Judiciary in January of 2007 who promptly declared that there isn’t enough time to commence investigations on the activity of the Administration and lead a way toward impeachment and who has maintained this tow line, ver batum, while recently claiming that IF Bush attacks Iran one John Conyers would then move to impeach Bush… where would he find THAT time it’s gonna take?
.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:41 pmTechnically, he voted guilty on the articles of impeachment, not to impeach. That’s the House.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:05 pmHere we go again—Clinton did NOT lie. The prosecutors’ definition of sexual relations did not include what Bill and Monica did. But supposing he did lie—it still had nothing to do with the powers of the presidency and is not impeachable. If a president jaywalked, is that impeachable because “he must be held accountable to the rule of law”? NO it is not!
Kucinich gave 35 excellent reasons why Bush should be impeached. And he plans on giving 25 more. If we do not impeach Bush and Cheney, then we might as well take it out of the Constitution.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:48 am@ Keith: Take what out of what Constitution? Didn’t they burn that and sweep it under some Arab rug a few years back? Otherwise I agree with you.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:44 amthe democrats are just whining now because they have the majority now.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:24 amcan anyone say WASTE OF TIME.
and if bush is as dumb as everyone thinks, you shouldnt be worried about him messing anything up… he doesnt have enough of his staff still around to think for him.
War and Bush make McSame wet.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm