Nadler: In a ‘just system,’ Bush ‘would be impeached.’
By on Jul 15th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Nadler: In a ‘just system,’ Bush ‘would be impeached.’
Today, on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who has held several hearings on the Bush administration’s torture program, said that President Bush has committed “impeachable offenses”:
NADLER: If we had a just system and it weren’t overly political, the president would be impeached. I think he has committed impeachable offenses.
Watch it:
Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said that he may allow Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to present his impeachment articles against Bush before the August recess. “We’re not doing impeachment, but he can talk about it,” he said.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
71 Responses to “Nadler: In a ‘just system,’ Bush ‘would be impeached.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Fu(king Conyers. Fu(king Pelosi.
Conyers, get off your stupid a$$ and FORCE PELOSI TO RECUSE HERSELF. She is at best a material witness in impeachment proceedings stemming from the torture and wiretapping programs, and at worst an unindicted co-conspirator. She KNEW about the warrantless wiretapping and did NOTHING until after the NYT article broke. She KNEW about the torture programs and did NOTHING until after the Abu Ghraib scandal. She's almost as guilty as those who instituted this programs.
SHE HAS NO BUSINESS MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE OF HER OWN CULPABILITY!
But I guess that's the overall problem with our entire government isn't it?
July 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pmNADLER: If we had a just system and it weren’t overly political, the president would be impeached. He has committed impeachable offenses.
DAMMIT AMERICA! ARE YOU LISTENING???
July 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pmThanks
July 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pmhttp://www.softonlinesoft.com/vb/index.php
Lord knows he should be impeached, but even if he was, then we would get Cheney, and he is worse. The only way it would work is to impeach them both, and that is not going to happen.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pmIt would be another waste of money. That being said, 1/20/09 will be a good day.
NADLER: If we had a just system and it weren’t overly political, the president would be impeached. He has committed impeachable offenses.
- - Well, yeah. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Unicorns for everyone!
July 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pmDRxJ:
Of course not. What, are you kidding?
GO BACK TO BED AMERICA, YOUR GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL. GO BACK TO BED AMERICA. HERE'S LOVE CONNECTION, HERE'S AMERICAN IDOL, HERE'S AMERICAN GLADIATORS, HERE'S 56 HD CHANNELS OF IT. WATCH THIS AND GET FAT AND STUPID. KEEP DRINKING YOU MORONS. GO BACK TO BED AMERICA.
-paraphrasing and updating of Bill Hicks, may his soul forgive my augmentations of his genius.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pm"It would be another waste of money."
RIGHT. The Constitution's not worth the effort.
:P
July 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFcxPjw2f-g
July 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pmSo, what you're admitting, Jerry, is that we have an unjust system that is overly political.
I used to respect you, John Conyers, but after watching you sit back and let the most criminal, corrupt, and unconstitutional administration in our nation's history get off with virtual impunity, I can only hope you retire soon and turn your seat over to someone who will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."
July 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm.
LOL
Nadler IS part of that system...
.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pmAlmost got it right, let me try.
In a just system, the pResident would be tried for treason and war crimes and if found guilty, executed.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm.
Where is Nadler's Articles of Impeachment against George Worst Bush and Richard B. Cheney?
... besides nonexistent and absent?
Is Nadler a coward?
Why won't he insert the Rule of Law into this three ring circus?
Why does he give aide and comfort to war criminals?
Why does he abet lawlessness by refusing to lead a charge?
CONgress = COWARDS!
.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pmLarkohio, "It would be another waste of money." Are you serious?
July 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pmThank you, Ralph, for stating the obvious.
The problem seems to be that the obvious tends to get cast aside for political reasons.
Our system has been corrupted and needs to be fixed.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pmWouldn't that mean we would also have an Attorney General that did his job, instead of providing political cover for felonies committed by the Executive Branch?
As Badmoodman said:
July 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm"if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. Unicorns for everyone!"
SOOOOOOOOOO......
A president of a "just" system can be impeached over misleading a country over his private, adulterous affair, costing us millions of millions of dollars.
Yet a president who misleads us into war, not only costing us billions upon billions of dollars, but more importantly, cost us thousands of innocent lives, as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Who condoned and endorsed torture. Who outed a covert CIA agent. Who illegally spied upon us.
And we can't IMPEACH????
Mucking Forons!!!!
July 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pmAnd if pigs flew, we would be covered by pig feces.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pmIn a 'just system', Bush/Cheney & their ilk would be sent to the gallows.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pmoops -- I meant Jerrold Nadler. I just came off a Nader thread, and my brain still had Ralph on the brain.
Although I suspect that Nader would agree...
July 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pmConyers, "We're not doing impeachment.." as if he's making a fashion choice. And who are "We're", the people of the U.S., or a little club in congress?
July 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm#7 BnF and all, good post's....Ah yes the constitution, just a piece of paper according to many....Well, I'm to tired to add my usual rant, tired of being pegged as a troll or being shunned by many I admire for their thought's..Instead of throwing out more of my thought's will simply take another asprin and take a nap..Blessings
July 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pmIn a "just system" Bush would be . . . . oh nevermind -- the possibilities are too numerous to document here.
Just saying . . .
July 15th, 2008 at 2:58 pmLeave it to Nadler to be the one to actually bring this up and put it as simply and effectively as possible.....
http://liberalretort.blogspot.com/
July 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pmWitch1, sweet dreams.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pmI would love to ask every member of Congress exactly what they feel WOULD constitute impeachment. If not these two criminals then WHO? How about removing some of the politics from it and give us a secret vote on impeachment on the Hill?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pmLet's go Conyer's, start saying my motto over and over out loud until it sinks in:
"IMPEACHMENT...it's not just for blowjobs anymore!"
In a JUST system, he'd be hanged, publicly.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pmIt would be a waste of money because now, in July, the Congress is going to go on vacation, when they come back, they are going to think about the election. They would spend all this money for nothing. There is not enough time. If you wanted him impeached it should have happened a long time ago. As slow as Congress works, and all their red tape, the time would just totally run out. Bush would just delay giving information, delay the proceedings with lawyers filing this motion, and that motion, and it would just waste money. I stand by the fact that yes, he should be impeached, and no, we do not have the time it would take. That is why I say it is a waste of the taxpayers money.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pmno, congressman nadler. if this was a country that observed and abided by the rule of law, that lying, thieving, murderous cabal that has seized the government would have been turned over to the hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
you gutless puke.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pmmaybe we need some of those "bumper sticker" style slogans that the Repubs use all the time to get their message out to the sheeple.
"Impeachment fever...CATCH IT!"
"Bush's lies make baby Jesus cry"
anybody else?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pmMaybe we could just have Nadler eat Bush.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm28. Somehow, I think congress could make the time. Also, it's about accountability, or do you consider that just "playing the blame game"?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm.
Someone needs to inform CONgressman Nadler, that a "JUST" system would impeach...
... ergo, he is part of a broken system and, as it seems, he too refuses to insert justice into this corrupt system.
What's stopping Nadler from entering his own Articles of Impeachment?
A broken system...
Or a broken will?
.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm32 I totally agree they could make the time, but you and I both know they will not. He should be accountable is the one that screwed all this up. However, this is a no go, no matter how well deserved. Believe me, I think W is the worst president ever. I have no respect for him, but I simply think that impeaching him at this point is impractical and won't work.
You and I are on the same page in our opinion about the president, we just disagree about whether or not impeaching him is practical.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm.
Hey everyone, larkohio defends sheepishness and cowards.
.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pmSupposedly the reason impeachment is off the table is because of the distraction and damage to the country at a time of "war". I call bullshit on that, but it is another example of the handicap of being a Democrat. We will put the country ahead of Party and not pursue an impeachment even though if Bush isn't impeached, there should never be an impeachment. Ever.
The Repugnicunts don't have that problem, it's all Party, all the time, regardless of the impact to our country.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm35 I am just being practical here.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pmThe problem is indeed the system in place at the moment.
Let’s pretend a motion to impeach is passed.
Let’s pretend Bush actually show up for the impeachment process.
Let’s pretend that Bush performs so appallingly badly and that along with the evidence provided Bush is found both technically and in the court of public opinion, absolutely guilty of impeachable offences (which he is, of course).
Then we get to the Senate.
Let’s pretend that all the Dems and some of the Repubs vote Bush guilty (Lieberman will vote for ‘innocent’ of course and McCain won’t vote at all) and Bush is thus officially impeached. Yay!
So what’s Bush’s punishment? What punishment actually applies in an impeachment? It’s not life in jail, is it? 5 years?
And whilst that’s being decided Bush can ‘pardon’ everyone else who facilitated his high crimes and misdemeanors just as his daddy did with Caspar Weinberger before any of them are even charged!
OR
Before the guilty judgement is handed down Bush resigns, Cheney takes over and HE pardons Bush etc.
Impeachment can remove someone from power, but it isn’t justice.
IMHO Bush, Cheney and crew need to be tried under criminal statutes as ordinary citizens. That way they won’t have the powers and protections they can wield whilst still in office and they can be punished accordingly on dozens of ordinary laws and be given massive sentences as befits their crimes.
Pelosi is guilty as sin as an enabler of at least one of Bush’s crimes, and for that matter Obama isn’t doing the right thing with his FISA vote, either.
But I can’t see any justice in impeachment if it can’t be prosecuted to its just conclusion. Criminal trial is the only and best way and that will take until 2010 to set-up and to be effective.
(Oh yeah, and we'll probably need to get an Extradition Treaty with Paraguay and Saudi Arabia sorted-out before we start).
July 15th, 2008 at 3:20 pmI think Nader meant "functioning" system of government. DC has been broken for quite some time.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pmlark,
Congress and the President passed and signed into law the Terry Schivo bill in one weekend.
Yet we are told there hasn't been "enough time" for impeachment since November, 2006. Bull$hit. (Excuse my "french")
By acquiescing to "being practical" we, the people, have been complicit in international war crimes.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pmImpeachment would start a trial in the senate, and the public would become more aware of the crap the administration has pulled. It would increase the chances of a criminal trial. It would force the members of the House and Senate to make a public decision, and to explain that decision.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pmSo what’s Bush’s punishment? What punishment actually applies in an impeachment?
The punishment is removal from office. Once thus removed, an ex-President can be criminally charged.
And what prosecutor ever waits to go to trial until he knows to a certainty that s/he will gain a conviction? Would you have that as a measure for our criminal justice system?
Y'all anti-impeachment bloggers are falling in lockstep with the Republican talking points.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
just to add a bit to #38
Of course successful impeachment doesn't prevent pursuant criminal trial but certainly at this stage of the game it is an unnecessary step.
Pelosi was both morally wrong and politically stupid in declaring impeachment "off the table". Maintaining the threat and acting like the Dems might actually use it would have been a useful club to wave around in the general course of things--it's what the Repubs did to Clinton, basically via all the investigations pre-MBJ (Monica's BJ).
For criminal proceedings to apply properly the DOJ had to be gutted of its corruption and that can;t begin to happen until 2009. Trying Bush as a private citizen also means he wouldn't be using public resources to mount his defense--which he can whilst still in office.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm"In a just system ..." - Aaaaaaarghhh!
It is impeachment which is intended to keep the system just. In an unjust system, the President is above the law.
Impeachment is the solution, not the problem.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm"Don't impeach because we can't win" = "Don't protest the imminent invasion of Iraq, because Iraq is going to be invaded, anyway."
July 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pmWe should start replacing the Congressional Oath of Office with a reading from a comic strip.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm5th Estate,
Bush and Cheney can be impeached, convicted, removed from office, and still have to worry about going to prison (if not here, then elsewhere in the world).
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pmRUCerious Says:
We should start replacing the Congressional Oath of Office with a reading from a comic strip.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Instead of reciting their oaths of office, they might as well have been standing there playing a game of "I Spy with My Little Eye...". That's about how seriously most of them have taken their oaths of office.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:42 pmHussein McCain: [Impeachment] would increase the chances of a criminal trial. It would force the members of the House and Senate to make a public decision, and to explain that decision.
If only, HMcC!
Actualy you might be right about increasing the chances of a criminal trial but that would depend very much on how it was managed.
As you may have noticed most committee Senators and Congress-critters are hopeless as prosecutors. Experience suggests to me that they'd botch it.
If the issues and charges aren't articulated clearly the public will lose interest fast in the face of all the basic economic problems they are facing.
The politicians clearly aren't paying enough attention to public opinion NOW on present. so I don't see them being forced to take a postion on impeachment either--especially those who aren't facing an election campaign.
So bless you for your optimism and for caring about this, but whilst I care too, my glass is half empty I'm afraid. Frustrating isn't it? It makes me feel like part of the problem. Man, this is the longest year ever!
July 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm#47 Wayne...
Yeah, I understand that. But the DOJ has got to be cleaned up for the criminal proceedings to be professional and without interference, and that's going to need a new Prez first.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pmAmerica isn't the least bit just and hasn't been for a very long time. And don't hold your breathe that it is going to change anytime soon.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:06 pmIn a Just System he would have NEVER BEEN APPOINTED PRESIDENT BY A CORRUPT SUPREME COURT in the first place.
In a Just System he would have been IMPEACHED after his LIES were uncovered about Iraq.
In a Just System he would have been IMPEACHED after his outing of Plame.
IN A JUST SYSTEM HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SWINGING FROM THE GALLOWS FOR TORTURE AND WAR CRIMES.
We have a TOTALLY CORRUPT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, we have fallen to corruption by the republic party.
There is no justice anymore.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:08 pmBriseadh na Faire:
Y’all anti-impeachment bloggers are falling in lockstep with the Republican talking points.
It’s not about the outcome, it is about the process!
I agree with the sentiment but didn';t you noticed my complete layout about how the process can be easily manipulated because Bush and the Repubs STILL CONTROL IT. ?
My attitude that the impeachment process isn't enough doesn't prevent me from wearing my impeachbush t-shirt in public nor demanding justice, nor criticizing Pelosi, nor writing to congress critters asking them what the hell they think they are doing.
And what I wrote is not a Republican talking point.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pmNadler's premise is illogical. Let the investigations begin and let them take us where they will. Congress appears to not understand that there really is no choice but to begin impeachment hearings. It will take time - but that's okay - it should take time. In the end, GWB and Dick may be impeached, but there may be no time to try him in the Senate. So what. Impeachment must go forward even if it is only for the historical record.
Is it true that an impeached president cannot pardon anyone? Don't we want all the criminals who conspired against the Constitution and the American people to be held accountable?
July 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pmStill think conyers is greeeeeeeeeeeat?
July 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pmThe Clinton affair appeals to the low IQ masses who just can't get enough of these stories on tv.
But if you try to explain to them all the laws concerning the justice system, the constitution and being accountable to the people...they just completely zone out. Too much information for them, they can't process it. But sex? Hell yah! They understand that 100%!
Unfortunately, only those who inform themselves will be aware...and that is the minority of Americans who are not distracted by American Idol or Fox Noise, but instead read newspapers, books and diversify their source of information...oh yea...and are open minded! Most important!
July 15th, 2008 at 4:29 pmBut we CAN'T impeach - there was no consensual sex involved!
July 15th, 2008 at 4:31 pmI got an e-mail from Kucinich saying an article of impeachment will be read in the House at 5 Eastern Time (10 minutes).
July 15th, 2008 at 4:49 pmTalk, talk, talk. In a just world, all the Zionists would be deported to Israel.
As the representative from lower Manhattan, Mr.Nadler is one of the heroic figures who helped 200 Mossad agents escape from New York right after 9/11.
Go get 'em, Jerrold.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pmArmed revolt is ON THE TABLE!
July 15th, 2008 at 4:52 pmIn a sane society, he would have NEVER been installed as POTUS.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:25 pmYeah, but . . . . With nearly as many crooks in Congress as in the Administration, few are willing to cast stones first.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:28 pmLet's not forget about Ms. Harman's complicity as well as other "D's"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html?source=newsletter
From the article:
As we witness not just Republicans, but also Democrats in Congress, acting repeatedly to immunize executive branch lawbreaking and to obstruct investigations, it's vital to keep that fact in mind. With regard to illegal Bush programs of torture and eavesdropping, key Congressional Democrats were contemporaneously briefed on what the administration was doing (albeit, in fairness, often in unspecific ways). The fact that they did nothing to stop that illegality, and often explicitly approved of it, obviously incentivizes them to block any investigations or judicial proceedings into those illegal programs.
In December of last year, The Washington Post revealed:
Four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
The article noted that other Democratic members who received briefings on the CIA's interrogation program included Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman. While Harman sent a letter to the CIA asking questions about the legality of the program, none ever took any steps to stop or even restrict the interrogation program in any way.
Identically, numerous key Democrats in Congress -- including Rockefeller and Harman -- were told that Bush had ordered the NSA to spy on American without warrants and outside of FISA. None of them did anything to stop it. In fact, while Rockefeller wrote a sad, hostage-like, handwritten letter to Dick Cheney in 2003 (which he sent to nobody else) -- assuring Cheney that he would keep the letter locked away "to ensure that I have a record of this communication" -- Harman was a vocal supporter of the illegal NSA program. Here's what she told Time in January, 2006 in the wake of the NYT article revealing the NSA program:
Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California's Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."
July 15th, 2008 at 5:36 pmHarman then went on Fox News and pronounced that the NSA program was "legal and necessary" and proudly said: "I support the program." Even worse, in February, 2006, Harman went on "Meet the Press" and strongly suggested that the New York Times should be criminally prosecuted for having reported on the illegal program. And indeed, in 2004, Harman demanded that the NYT's Eric Lichtblau not write about the NSA program. As Lichtblau wrote in his recent book about a 2004 conversation with Harman:
"You should not be talking about that here," she scolded me in a whisper. "They don't even know about that," she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. "The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story," she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew -- namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn’t bite. "This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised,' she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn't be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn't go there either. "This is a valuable program," she repeated.
In light of this sordid history of active complicity, is it really any wonder that these leading Democrats are desperate to quash any investigations or judicial adjudications of Bush administration actions that they knew about and did nothing to stop, in some cases even actively supporting?
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE BEING READ NOW IN THE HOUSE ON C-SPAN.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:46 pmFinally a congressman aside from Kucinich who has some stones.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:52 pmThe two I have seen are ladies.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:57 pmI would direct your attention to this post. Read more, please.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pmhttp://www.tagg-lines.com/2008/07/from-andersonville-to-nuremberg-to-abu.html
Motion to refer the Articles of impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee:
July 15th, 2008 at 6:37 pmSo far: 236-181
I hear ya talkin' Jerry.
Did you bother signing on in support of Kucinich's articles of impeachment?
Failure to do so, given your statement that p(R)esident bush is an unindicted criminal, makes you an accomplice in the destruction of democracy in America.
One of the few Representatives in Congress I am aware of who were willing to stand with Kucinich was Lynn Woolsey. Good on her.
But as for you? . . .
July 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm.
IF we had a Just System...
IF it wasn't politicised...
IF CONGRESS WOULD DO THEIR JOBS...
... then Nadler wouldn't have to excuse his mental reservations about the climate he is a part of, thus leading to an eventual evasion of his Obligation to act and hold the criminals to account in contravention TO his own Oath of Office, an Oath which is his guarantee to the Republic and the people he serves, his FAITHFUL support and defense of the entire Constitution, not just the politically convenient parts. Talk about being politicised, Jerrod!
Yes, the mouth HAS two sides...
This good(?) CONgressman just told us that Bush IS impeachable and that Nadler won't commit to his Oath of Office.
Q U E S T I O N:
Does CONgress even have a choice as to whether or not to support and defend the Republic's Freedoms, Rights and Liberties? Then what good does an Oath of Office do anyways? At which point is CONgress declaring themselves NULL & VOID due to THEIR breaking of the contract they made to the Republic and their constituients? Or can the People declare...
E N O U G H!!!
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N!
p.s.
What else is a snake oil salesman but a CONgressman?
.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:58 amI guess he is saying that it's okay to just accept that we don't have a just system and that Bush et al wil just get away with their high crimes! Lets just elect Barak Obama and the problem will go away -right?
Whatever happened to accountability?
I will all the comments here carefully - this is becoming more alarming by the day. I expect the next move will be a "terrorist" attack on the US or Isreal "by Iran" - then a declaration of war, and martial law - then, guess what? NO ELECTIONS - as in "NATIONAL SECURITY". I am afraid impeachment is the only way to prevent (maybe) what may already in motion.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:47 am#71 gramarina Says:
THE PEOPLE SHALL REMEMBER,
COME VOTING TIME NOVEMBER!
... Let that be the accounting time!
.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:59 am