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.

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?

.

What McTORTURE means:
“We don’t bite the hand that feeds us.”

.

So what else is new?
Sit down and shut up John and take that big foot out of your mouth… and ass.

misshusseinmolly Says:

Keltoi 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 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.

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.

I guess it depends on which president.

http://progressiveworldreview.com

Keltoi Says:

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.

Jeezus, Keltoi, you’re still doing it!

Keltoi Says:

ralph 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.

Thank 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.

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.

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.

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….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.

Have you ever heard the term “belt-notcher”…?

No….but I am intrigued.