United States Rep. John Conyers, the Detroit Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has a rendezvous with destiny. He is uniquely placed to thrust a rod through the wheels of a White House juggernaut to war with Iran by commencing impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush.
A move to impeach would bolster the resistance to Bush among our senior military leaders who know that attacking Iran at this time would be the strategic equivalent of the marches into Russia by Napoleon and Hitler.
Since Conyers took the helm of Judiciary in January 2007, the train of abuses and usurpations by the Bush administration has gotten even longer. But oddly, Conyers has lost his earlier appetite for impeachment and begun offering all manner of transparent excuses not to proceed. On July 23, 2007, for example, Conyers told Cindy Sheehan, the Rev. Lennox Yearwood and me that he would need 218 votes in the House, and vociferously claimed the votes were not there.
Well, they are now. Last week, 251 members of the House voted to refer to Conyers' committee the 35 Articles of Impeachment offered by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. Conyers should take them up.
When bombs are falling on Iran, it will be too late -- and our commander in chief is likely to give that order within the next couple of months. As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan reminds us, when the president sets his mind on something, he is not going to let anything stop him.
What seems to be driving Bush comes through best when he ad-libs at press conferences. On June 10, in Slovenia, he was asked about the intensifying debate in Israel about a military option against the nuclear installations in Iran. Bush responded: "If you go to Israel and listen carefully, you'll hear the urgency in their voice."
What's so urgent? Israel's ambassador to the United States, speaking at an American Jewish Committee luncheon last Oct. 22, said the Iranians must not be permitted to conclude that, "come January '09 (after Bush leaves office), they have it their own way."
Vice President Dick Cheney last summer pushed for air strikes on Revolutionary Guards bases in Iran, but was thwarted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to J. Scott Carpenter, a senior State Department official working on the Middle East at the time.
The Joint Chiefs also have strongly opposed attacking Iran's nuclear sites, according to a former Iran specialist at the National Security Council, Hillary Mann, who has wide contacts among senior Pentagon officials. Mann reports that Admiral William Fallon, the former CENTCOM commander, joined the Joint Chiefs in opposing such an attack and made his views known to the White House. Fallon was forced to resign in March and will be replaced as CENTCOM commander by Gen. David Petraeus.
A "political general," Petraeus has already demonstrated his willingness to do Cheney's bidding -- by, for example, making demonstrably false claims about Iranian weaponry in Iraq. Nonetheless, the U.S. military in Baghdad apparently remains under orders to blame any serious violence on "special groups" -- code for those said to be supported by Iran.
Before the smoke had cleared after Tuesday's bombing in Baghdad that left at least 63 dead and 78 wounded, U.S. spokesman Lt. Col. Steven Stover announced that the U.S. command believed one of those "special groups" was behind the bombing.
The corporate media are already launched in their pre-attack mode, providing stenographic services for the White House to indoctrinate Americans on a synthetic "threat" from Iran. So far, though, we have been spared the "mushroom cloud" imagery. Neither Bush nor Cheney want to risk drawing attention to the fact that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last November that Iran stopped nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 and has not restarted it.
Conyers may say there's not enough time to begin impeachment, with only seven months left to this administration. But how could Conyers say this one day, and on the next say that if Bush attacks Iran, well then the House may move toward impeachment? His nonchalance regarding what an attack on Iran would mean is mind-boggling. You impeach the scoundrels before they start another war.
At a similarly critical juncture in our nation's history, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was characteristically direct: "There is such a thing as being too late. ... Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity. ... Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: 'Too late.'"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst, he chaired NIEs: he is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
CONGRESS AND THE SENATE ARE ALL GUILTY OF THE SAME CRIMES BUSH AND CHANEY ARE, THEY COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THIS WAR FROM HAPPENING. SO IF CONGRESS AND SENTATE START IMPEACHMENT HEARING, THEY WOULD BE IMPEACHING THEM SELFS. HOW CAN THE GUILTY IMPEACH THE GUILTY.
by
RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 7:12:27 AM
Impeacement must happen and why Conyers isn't proceeding is mindboggling. Here we have a situation where Iran has no nuclear missiles and Israel has about 200 of them. Don't we think the Iranian's are smart enough to realize an attack on Israel would wipe them all the map? It's suicide! I see it as being a question in who shall remain weak enough to be attacked and invaded at will by Israel(or the US) and who is doing something to insure they are not attacked. Since Iran has no nukes and only wants a nuclear energy program, a program sanctioned as legal by the nuclear non-proliferations treaty, why are we pushing for an attack to defend a nation who long ago and secretly broke that very treaty? I think the answers are obvious. Oil and Israeli expansion in that order.
As for November, I will be voting for Obama whether impeachment happens or not. However, the democrats won't receive a dime from me until they impeach. I've heard enough excuses by Conyers, Pelosi and others to last two lifetimes. The time to act is now.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 309 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 8:36:50 AM
The 251 House votes McGovern cites were voting to BURY the
impeachment resolution, not to support it. Most of them were cowardly Democrats, eager to strangle the whole discussion & consign it to a safe dark place where it will be permanently silenced.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1058 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 10:34:11 AM
Dennis K himself moved to have it sent to the Judiciary Committee, and he does not want it buried - He wants action on this. It is entirely possible that each and every person who voted to send it to the Committee was hoping, similarly, for the required action to be taken.
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 274 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 12:10:18 PM
You're entitled to your wrong opinion, but Kucinich's action
hardly "proves" that burying the resolution in committee is a sincere effort to impeach. Kucinich himself is a bit of a phony -- entirely too loyal to his party when the chips are down. In the last week (since he introduced the impeachment resolution, then voted himself to bury it in committee), he's been lavishing praise on Nancy Pelosi & John Conyers (see Amy Goodman's Kucinich interview last week, for example). Anyone serious about impeachment wouldn't do this. You'd have to sharply criticize figures like Pelosi & Conyers -- or you don't deserve to be taken seriously.
Similarly, Kucinich ran in 2004 as the "antiwar Democrat." But then he supported the prowar Kerry, just as this year, he will be loyal to Obama who is not an antiwar candidate either. Kucinich talks a good game, sometimes, but always folds when things get serious.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1058 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 3:09:38 PM
Richard you can't know what 251 individuals had in mind
you can't know that 251 individual people were voting to BURY the resolution rather than refer it to a place where it could be considered without necessarily crowding other things off the House agenda.
You don't have enough data to know their 251 separate motivations so you must be guessing.
Have you read Kucinich's 35 articles or have you just decided that it couldn't matter what they say specifically and what they charge specifically?
The reason I ask is because I think you are smart enough to make a difference on impeachment if you get specific but I don't know if you care enough or have enough confidence that you can.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 901 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 7:02:19 PM
The idea that it was sent there to be buried appeared first in the one 'big-media' report on it, - in the Washington Post. "They're burying it" is media's attempt to justify the wall of silence they're maintaining around the event, and around the question of impeachment.
That 'burying' concept serves them well - it is all that they have to hide behind, if ever they have to account for failing to let people know that these impeachment charges have been filed against the president. Most people don't know. Big media is trying to keep it that way, it seems.
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 274 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 9:13:14 PM
No Aurora, you don't quite have that right. Yes, it's true
that the media generally lies & distorts everything, but you're wrong to imply that the media & the Democrats would be on opposite sides of the impeachment issue. I get the sense that you're portraying the media here as "making the Dems look bad," or something of that nature. But the truth is, that the corruption of the media & the corruption of the Democrats is pretty much the same disease.
Also, though the media is deeply & thoroughly dishonest, that doesn't mean that every single word they say is false. In this case, the WaPo said the Dems were "burying" the bill -- and they were quite right. The WaPo approves of the Dems' action. The Dem Party opposes impeachment for the same reason that the media does -- it would discredit the political Establishment -- an outcome feared by media & Dems alike.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1058 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 11:25:05 PM
Reply to Brett's points: It's of course impossible to ever
really be certain about what's in someone else's mind. We can't even be sure what's in the minds of Bush or Cheney, let alone in the minds of quasi-nameless Congressmen. Nonetheless, certain highly probable conclusions may be drawn from relevant context.
Let's simply note that EVERY SINGLE Democrat voted to send this bill to committee. There wasn't a single Dem vote opposing that position. It is well known by now that there has never been a Congress so cowardly or afraid to rock the boat as the current Congress. So it's quite reasonable (though not conclusively proven) to assume that this vote reflects more of the same.
No doubt, the 24 Republicans who voted with the Democrats had motivations that were a bit different. Both were trying to protect Bush & Cheney, and the institutions of the 2-party system. But the D's were also trying to protect their own perceived November electoral prospects. The R's were divided on this issue, the 24 wanting to kill the bill outright; while the 166 calculated that they might be able to humiliate the Democrats, by forcing a debate of the issue on the House floor.
To interpret the vote as simply more Dem Party cowardice is indeed "guessing," in a sense. But it's no more "guessing," than, say, the inference (also not conclusively "proven") that Bush & Cheney are strongly considering attacking Iran.
I don't see why it would matter whether I've read Kucinich's 35 articles or not, in relation to my attempting to understand the Democrats' motivation in this vote. For what it's worth, though, I've read a condensed summary of all 35 points, & I saw his whole interview on Amy Goodman. My opinion is that Kucinich did an excellent job on drawing up the 35 points, but that he then handled the bill's disposition in a way calculated to lead nowhere. Furthermore, he went on various media shows last week to say only the nicest, sweetest things about how he "respects" the leadership of Speaker Pelosi. Someone who talks like that is not serious about impeachment (in my judgement).
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1058 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 11:13:55 PM
You and I seem to think alike but you are mistaken on this
and not just in a trivial way but in a potentially serious and harmful to your own interests way.
Without using the word "theory" you are outlining your own theories for why things happened and giving some supporting reasons.
Like you, I would have doubted the wisdom of Kucinich himself seeking to send his own resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, but unlike you I strongly suspect I did actually hear Dennis Kucinich's recent talk with Rob Kall on the radio. I think that had you heard that talk you probably would have a different view on the wisdom (and practical and political - from Dennis Kucinich's standpoint) of sending the 35 article document to the House Judiciary Committee rather than essentially grandstanding in the House as a way to create a political and media event.
Kucinich, it seems to me, is one of the genuinely good guys, genuinely acting on principle. (I'm no uncritical fan of the guy - I am just trying to give credit where it is due.) He is just one mortal man. He can better serve the cause of impeachment by behaving civilly and respecting the reality that congressional representatives can't, in good conscience vote on a resolution that they are seeing for the first time.
Giving them time to consider such serious charges, such specific charges - we are not talking about internet ranting here but about things which are about high crimes and misdemeanors and about possibly removing a sitting President of the United States during a time when the nation is engaged in a war in Iraq and in Afghanstan (that those may be wrong wars (Iraq is in my view as per Article VIII of Kucinich's articles which concords with my own reading and investigations) doesn't reduce the seriousness of impeaching a President in a time of war.
Richard, the articles are the specific charges. In a participatory democracy people like you, citizens like you, ought have an opportunity to look at those charges and to see whether they reflect your views and to discuss them with your congressional representative. You are, or ought be, (morally ought be) a player.
Now I am going to do a little theorising of my own.
I theorise that what stopped you from reading Kucinich's articles from front to back rather than in executive summary form, was that you thought you knew the essential substance of them, and that you thought you knew that they weren't going anywhere whether you read them or not. In short you, like most in the media and like most in the congress, were making political judgments and doing a bit of political armchair quarterbacking without looking at the specifics of the actual articles themselves.
But I have another theory, and that is that with a handful of people that really do read the articles and really do want to see impeachment happen exactly as the consitution says it should happen, that handful can make it happen.
Richard this issue of Bush's impeachment (or not) is about torture and about aggressive invasion. Its real its not theory.
If you read the articles and contact your congressman rather than some "quassi-nameless" congressman then you will be affecting the outcome of the experiment. That is what democracy is - an experiment. And you are in that experiment as well as observing it.
If you get specific and get personal. You have a particular congressman who has a particular phone number and office and, now, access to particular charges against Bush. You can make something happen. You can make your congressman accountable to you for what he or she does on a matter no less important than torture, aggressive invasion and the rule of law itself.
I am looking for collaborators in an experiment in practical PARTICIPATORY democracy. I want to forge an audit trail between constituents and the 40 members of the House Judiciary Committee who now have Kucinich's articles in their charge.
Let us not theorise only that things may be wrong, less us see specifically if things are wrong and less us document our experiment. Let us dare to hope that impeachment may be possible if the system is given a chance to work as a PARTICIPATORY system.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 901 comments)
on Friday, June 20, 2008 at 12:49:31 AM
Maybe they have pictures of him sexually abusing children? What would it take to make someone in a unique position to save his country (and others) from destruction, someone with a duty to save his country, someone who must know what the horrific consequences of his inaction will be, instead sit there and do nothing?
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 421 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 11:08:02 AM
Anther article on OEN, by 'George Washington' I think, suggested it was fear that impeachment proceedings would trigger an Iran or other nuke attack. If so, if the admin is holding Congress hostage with such threats, whether verbalised or not, then it is all the more reason to remove them asap.
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 274 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 12:27:16 PM
The Bushites are simply the public face of the Military Industrial Complex (Carlyle Group?) AND private mercenary forces such as (Blackwater, Custer Battles etc) (the "Secret Government"?) who are currently engaged in a well-planned attack to provide cover while they LOOT the Treasury. They are busily transferring fortunes from the public coffers to the private bank accounts of super-rich weapons makers.
What they "have" over Conyers, Pelosi, and others in Congress who are opposed to illegal wars and outright murder is simple: Cheney et all have made it perfectly clear that if the Democrats get "uppity" and try to impeach they will pull the trigger on their next big terror strike(s) on the Homeland which is already planned, staged and simply awaiting a "Go" signal from Cheney.
"IF YOU IMPEACH, WE WILL INITIATE THE NEXT 9/11 - and it will be so much bigger, the original attack will become a footnote."
The weapons are already loaded and locked on the target(s)... awaiting the signal from the Bushites to erase entire cities from the map...
We're talking about an administration that embodies UNMITIGATED EVIL - Do not doubt for a moment they would do it... They've already murdered thousands in broad daylight with the whole world watching - and they've gotten away with it.
by
mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 296 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 12:48:17 PM
The Bushites are simply the public face of the Military Industrial Complex (Carlyle Group?) AND private mercenary forces such as (Blackwater, Custer Battles etc) (the "Secret Government"?) who are currently engaged in a well-planned attack to provide cover while they LOOT the Treasury. They are busily transferring fortunes from the public coffers to the private bank accounts of super-rich weapons makers.
They are the puppets of PNAC, which is basically a branch of AIPAC. It was and is the Israeli Lobby that's pushing this agenda. The "weapons makers" don't need a self-destructive war to make money. They have enough political power to get all the money they need from sham weapons system development programs, unnecessary procurements, U.S. Military Aid to "allies", the "missile defense" racket, etc., etc., etc.
No, this is all about ideology, and the main idea seems to be to erect the Israeli Empire on the ruins of the U.S. Empire.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 421 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 1:26:59 PM
The Zionists DO have undue influence via AIPAC, the PNAC, and through assorted Judeo-Xtian religious propaganda etc.
However, since the end of WWII (1947) and the creation of the National Security State concept, the military/Pentagon/CIA~Wall Street cabal has called all the shots in this nation from executing JFK in order to have their war in SE Asia to making war on Liberation Theology in Latin America to staging a false flag attack on 9/11 to build public support for their decades long War on Terror. Their game is the classic Protection Racket. FIrst it was the Communists, now it's Islamo-Fascists (sic).
Hit this link: www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Security_State
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer identified seven characteristics of a National Security State In his book "Brave New World Order"
1. in a National Security State the military is the highest authority which not only guarantees the security of the state against all internal and external enemies, it also determines the overall direction of the society. In a National Security State the military exerts important influence over political, economic, as well as military affairs.
2. A second defining feature is that political democracy and democratic elections are viewed with suspicion, contempt, or in terms of political expediency. National Security States often maintain an appearance of democracy. However, ultimate power rests with the military or within a broader National Security Establishment.
3. A third characteristic is that the military and related sectors wield substantial political and economic power. They do so in the context of an ideology which stresses that 'freedom" and "development" are possible only when capital is concentrated in the hands of elites.
4. A fourth feature is its obsession with enemies. There are enemies of the state everywhere. Defending against external and/or internal enemies becomes a leading preoccupation of the state, a distorting factor in the economy, and a major source of national identity and purpose.
5. A fifth ideological foundation is that the enemies of the state are cunning and ruthless. Therefore, any means used to destroy or control these enemies is justified.
6. A sixth characteristic is that it restricts public debate and limits popular participation through secrecy or intimidation. Authentic democracy depends on participation of the people. National Security States limit such participation in a number of ways: They sow fear and thereby narrow the range of public debate; they restrict and distort information; and they define policies in secret and implement those policies through covert channels and clandestine activities. The state justifies such actions through rhetorical pleas of "higher purpose" and vague appeals to "national security."
** And Last - the church is expected to mobilize its financial, ideological, and theological resources in service to the National Security State agenda
The Zionists are exploiting the system but are only part of the picture. Money and power trump ideology.
by
mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 296 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 2:08:18 PM
Is Conyers a Traitor to Constitution for Refusing Hearings
//////////////////////// If Conyers or any other Democratic Congressman does not support hearings on impeachment they have violated their Oath Of Office and promise to the voters To Protect Our Constitution..
Every Voter who is a patriot should Not Vote For Conyers in November or any Democratic Congressman who refuses to Protect Our Constitution. If they took the Oath They Must Impeach. If they refuse, they are a Traitor To Our Constitution.
If they Refuse You should protest against them using as the theme of your signs that
"Since Conyers refuses to honor his Oath and hold impeachment hearings is he a Traitor to Our Constitution?
Do that against all Democratic Congressmen until Nov 4 and you will get hearings. They don't like the word Traitor!
Johnson escalated the Vietnam War & Nixon trampled on the Constitution.
Only Nixon was driven from office by Impeachment Hearings.
John H Kennedy, 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate
////////////////////////
by
John H Kennedy (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 95 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 2:39:04 PM
The fact is, that Bush and Cheney are ultimately responsible for their own actions. And puppet or not, lobbied or not, it is they who must be held responsible. Squarely ,fairly.
I would never blame the Israel lobby for:
Bush giggling the word "war" on Fahrenheit 911 when saying "I am a war president".
CHeney authorizing the leak of Plame's name out of revenge, a move which endangered her life and the life of other undercover agents internationally
Bush smiling viciously when walking up to the podium to announce the Iraq War escalation
Torture, war crimes immunity and taking advantage thereof, gag orders, wiretapping, etc...
Did the Israel Lobby do what Bush and Cheney did, or did Bush and Cheney do it themselves? Are Bush and Cheney remote control computers, without a mind of their own? Press the button and they do exactly as programmed, no thought, no feeling, no nothing?
I don't think so.
HOld the criminals themselves responsible, please. I get very upset when hearing the words "Puppet", "Lobby" etc. It's a way of saying "They aren't guilty". STUFF AND NONSENSE! AND WORSE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES!
Stop blaming others. Impeach and arrest Bush and Cheney, and throw them both into a psyche ward. They need intensive psychiatric care, and immediately! No kidding around about it! Mass murderers do not belong with nuclear weapons in their hands, and they need help beyond what the field of psychotherapy can offer them. The least we can do is to render two flying-high ducks lame: Tie their feet!
by
Kathryn Smith (85 articles, 2 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 312 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 3:17:21 PM
So, according to you, Bush planned and carried out 911 himself? The "dancing Israelis" thing and all the other evidence of Israeli involvement was just a coincidence? And the media complicity in this whole mess? Another coincidence? And the fact that Pelosi killed a part of a spending bill which would have prevented a war with Iran, after AIPAC demanded it? Another coincidence yet?
And no impeachment? Another coincidence?
Wake up. This is far, far bigger than Bush. Puppets Bush and Cheney are being protected by a powerful force. A force that has the run of the media and tells Congress what to do.
I've got some news for you: This whole show is being run by rabid Zionists.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 421 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 3:41:37 PM
Mr Rabid Zionist if he even exists other than as a fanciful stereotype isn't currently the President of the United States and wasn't the one that gave the orders that only a President and commander in chief could give.
The 35 articles of impeachments are charges against a specific individual who took a specific oath.
It doesn't matter how many conspiracies real or imaginery you subscribe to the question is now a specific one.
Do you support or oppose impeachment of George W Bush for HIS part. Do you support Kucinichs articles of impeachment? And does your congressional representative support or oppose HEARINGS?
It could almost be a criticism (or the political genius of) Kucinich's 35 articles that they offer a little something for every crack pot as well as something for people who aren't crack pots.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 901 comments)
on Friday, June 20, 2008 at 1:18:00 AM
LOL! Then apparently you don't know what "sense" is...
Kathryn is making more sense than you are on this
How would YOU know?
Mr Rabid Zion*$t if he even existsother than as a fanciful stereotype
Well then I suppose in the make-believe world you live in, anything's possible...so, knock your socks off...
isn't currently the President of the United States and wasn't the one that gave the orders that only a President and commander in chief could give.
ROTFL! Does your Mommy know you're at the computer again?
The 35 articles of impeachments are charges against a specific individual who took a specific oath.
Yo, Goober, at issue here is whether Bush is acting alone, or whether "The Lobby", in all it's manifestations, is pulling the strings and protecting him from the consequences of his actions.
It doesn't matter how many conspiracies real or imaginery you subscribe to the question is now a specific one.
What are you talking about? The evidence is all around you that this whole thing ia a massive conspiracy...it's becoming clearer by the day what's happening here. And that's apparently why we're having such a hard time impeaching or even just stopping Bush. Do you follow?
Do you support or oppose impeachment of George W Bush for HIS part.
LOL! Well of course I do, but that's not the issue. You will not stop the cancer as long as you to continue to pretend that its only a cold.
It could almost be a criticism (or the political genius of) Kucinich's 35 articles that they offer a little something for every crack pot as well as something for people who aren't crack pots.
I bet you'd be able to think a little bit better if you pull your head out of your butt and get some air.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 421 comments)
on Friday, June 20, 2008 at 7:43:16 AM
Conyers doesn't have what it takes to do this thing. He needs to be replaced somehow by someone with balls. Conyers handed in his spinal cord a long time ago.
by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 59 quicklinks, 137 diaries, 941 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 11:14:26 PM
