There are always people who will sell out.

I hope there's a special place in hell for traitors like
Murray and Inslee.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments) on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 5:59:45 PM
 

No guts, no glory

That's our Congress in action, a big bunch of empty suits. Hundreds of thousands dead and it is all just part of the cost of doing 'bidness'. Non-binding resolutions must surely be the answer. I forget the question.

John Freeman

by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 388 comments) on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 7:56:00 PM
 

You forget the question. (LOL)

Can G.W.Bush finish what Hitler, Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen and Prescott Bush started years ago.
If Pelosi,Murray and Inslee and the rest of the Democrates let him get away with his war crimes.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 9:00:02 PM
 

D.C. is divisive

Washington D.C. is divided from the people -- it pursues the corporate agenda instead of representing We the People. The only way that Congress could think it is divisive to bring up impeachment is that they think only about their own closed club of politicians and corporate tycoons, and not the nation. Isn't that how we got into this mess?

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 9:04:22 PM
 

A perfect illustration of the Treachery of Democrats.

Reid & Pelosi should also be impeached. In fact, almost everyone in Congress deserves the same fate -- but one should probably start with the leaders.

The Dem position here is essentially that their stinking election prospects in '08 are more important than ending immoral wars, bringing world-class criminals to justice, or restoring some faint accountability to government.

Just try to wrap your mind around that. If it doesn't make you want to puke, you've got a stronger stomach than I do.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1216 comments) on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 10:51:44 PM
 

Impeach the Sub-human Scum

Bills are cooking in CA, IL and VT as well, Impeaching and trying the war criminals in the Bullshit Administration is just the beginning; once the skeletons start getting dragged out into the light of the Web (forget the MSM collaborators), public support for Nuremburg style proceedings will swell rapidly, and all the Republocrats will be called to account. Defending the Constitution is this nations's highest priority, they can take their minimum wage and sick version of "health care" and shove it up their plastic ass.

The Top 40
click here

by Better World Order (4 articles, 434 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 934 comments) on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 11:00:09 PM
 

It's all the people v. Pelosi and Reed

Dave, your focus is too narrow, it's not just the people of Washington who are being badly served by our Democratic leaders, it's all of us. As a life-long Democrat, I'm finally running out of patience and am about ready to serve notice that the party no longer represents us.

Howard Dean you and the DNC can take your crummy survey and use it for whatever you wish. Until you do the following two things, you and our elected officials are worthless. Both things can be done at the same time and should be started now: 1] Begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney and 2] develop and document our Party's Values from the grassroots up using the methodology[is this too big a word for you to understand?] I outlined in my OpEdNews.com article "Party Values". If you can't understand the value of Party member involvement at all levels, then there truly is no hope for you or any of us.

by Kenneth Briggs (133 articles, 88 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 112 comments) on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 12:55:04 PM
 

My E-serialized "The Bu$ch-Cheezey Impeachment Chronicles"

== Chapter 60. Putting Some Spring into the Impeachment Movement ==

By Larry W. Bryant

[Author's Note: "With few exceptions, our Congress is changing the drapes while the house is on fire." -- "Inspired1" (as excerpted from a pro-impeachment teacher's comment upon Dr. Carol S. Wolman's article "Why Impeachment Is Urgent," as posted at the Internet web site of OpEdNews.com ( http://www.tinyurl.com/2f25hv )) At this point in the Enron-ized hijacking of our government by the Bu$ch-Cheezey junta, the urgency of impeachment should be obvious to even the densest ninth-grade student of U. S. civics. Impeachment -- that antsy elephant sitting behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as she tries to exploit the lame-duckness of Herrs Bu$ch and Cheezey -- is retaking its rightful place at the table. Not because of any changed strategy on Pelosi's part -- but because the awakening giant of John Q. Public insists on being heard. John's vox populi already has been echoed 'round the world since the massive pro-impeachment demonstration in the nation's capital on Jan. 27, 2007. As various local and state legislative bodies continue to process resolutions for B-C impeachment, a coalition of activist groups are gearing up for another massive citizens march to question federal authority. This time, on March 17, 2007, they'll focus their energy on the war planners at the Pentagon, starting their march at -- fittingly enough -- the Vietnam Veterans Memorial across the Potomac River from Pentagonia. Fueled by the urgency of knowing that only impeachment proceedings can forestall the B-C plans for instigating IranNam as an extension of Iraqnam, these activists (like their anti-Vietnam-War counterparts of 40 years ago) won't settle for standing by as the House of Accountability burns to the ground. They also know that, as with the Vietnam War-era, it will take more than a few massive demonstrations to rouse the conscience of Congress. That's why some of them have formed the National Committee to Impeach for Peace. In a recent announcement, the committee declared its organizing of a "U. S. corporate shopping boycott April 15 (Tax day) to April 22 (Earth Day) to end the Iraq war and impeach Bush and Cheney." (To endorse the shopping boycott, visit the web site of http://www.wearenotbuyingit.org .) The announcement explains: "We are asking people to suspend corporate shopping for one week by delaying major purchases, avoiding chain stores and shopping malls, and finding local retailers and small business owners to support. The message to corporate America -- we are not buying it -- is a response to Bush's declaration after 9/11 to quietly go shopping. We are not going to be quiet in the face of torture, WMD lies, civil liberty losses, and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths." The committee's leadership includes Peter Phillips and Dennis Loo, co-editors of the book of essays titled "Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney" (Seven Stories Press -- 2006). On the heels of the boycott will come National Impeachment Day -- April 28. Sponsored by http://www.worldcantwait.org and kindred groups, this event will feature a demonstration including a group of 50 prominent citizens assembled upon the Capitol steps to demand impeachment (just in time for Congress's spring cleaning -- with a new set of drapes?).]

SCHMOE [dipping a finger into a jar of Pennsylvania-harvested honey]: Boy, this stuff is yummy! Wanna try some, Al? By the way, thanks for joining us today. When Bob Grates returns from his vacation in Paraguay, we're gonna recommend a vacation for YOU!

WALBOMB: Well, I'll pass on the honey, Tony -- too many calories. And I can't stay for long, but I do appreciate your warm welcome. Where'd you get the honey?

SCHMOE: From a little town several miles north of Lancaster. Drove up there for the weekend. And the trip certainly did help reduce my stress load.

BU$CH: Did you take yo' laptop with you?

SCHMOE: Yeah, but I left that ornery cell phone at home, on purpose. A man's gotta have SOME solitude sometime. And I rarely checked my e-mail -- just entered in a few notes about the Pa. ambience and scenery, etc. [Glancing down at his laptop and scrolling to a page of text.] Listen to this item:

I used a tanka gas
for a trip to Amish-land --
my spirit soothed by
the promise of light-'n'-choice
in this world of chaos-'n'-gloom

CHEEZEY: Oooo! Gettin' a bit fancy with that ancient Japanese poetry form -- are we now, Tony?

BU$CH [trying to out-smirk his mentor]: Yeah . . . I TANKA you oughta stick to AMERIKAN forms of expression, Tony-rio. After all, ain't that why we're wearin' these little USA flags on our lapels?

SCHMOE [ignoring both his critics]: Now, Al, what's this about Bryant's being read the riot act by his condo association?

WALBOMB: Well, several days ago, my drive-by under-cover team noticed that he was seen signing for a piece of certified mail. Turns out that the condo manager has followed our advice precisely -- by dispatching a letter reminding Bryant that his stapling an IMPEACH HIM yard sign to his unit's front door constitutes a gross breach of the condo rules on residential signage. Now that he's removed that intrusion upon the tranquility and neighborliness of Parkfairfax, our recon team can concentrate on how best to sabotage his so-called "Impeachmobile" -- which he insists on parking along that busy Martha Custis Drive, those back-seated yard signs blaring out their seditious message. So, we're gaining . . ..

TROVE [uh-huh-ing a self-satisfying interruption]: What's Bryant thinking with these stunts -- that, somehow, political speech merits more protection than commercial speech [such as condo-unit FOR SALE signs]?

WALBOMB: Not only that: he seems to think he can sell those IMPEACH HIM buttons anywhere he chooses, insisting that he does so only as part of the non-profit effort to buy those yard signs via the Washington Area Impeachment Fund, LLC. I've arranged to meet next week with officials of the National Park Service Police and the U. S. Capitol Police to have them dispatch a cease-and-desist letter to Bryant -- Parkfairfax-style.

BU$CH: Does he sell any of the yard signs?

WALBOMB: No. They're free to anyone who agrees to display 'em. Just last week, he managed to plant several more of them in various front yards in Hampton, Va. And, on Feb. 28th, he attended a demonstration outside the U. S. Supreme Court, which was hearing oral arguments on the Freedom from Religion Foundation's challenge to our administration's using taxpayer funds to support churches' various social-service programs. Those radicals refer to this support as "faith-based favoritism" and "taxation without representation."

CHEEZEY [rolling his eyes]: Oh, don't tell us -- he was selling buttons there?

WALBOMB: Yep. What's worse is that he was selling them to several hundred students lined up for a morning tour of the SCOTUS building. He must've sold at least 25 buttons. On a few occasions, he was seen posing with students as they snapped pictures of him with that IMPEACH HIM yard sign slung across his chest.

TROVE: How dare he poison the minds of those impressionable young people! We've got to expedite that official "notice letter" to him, Al. You know that he and his bosom buddy Alan McConnell will be canvassing for "donors" all day on March 17th -- during that pro-impeachment demonstration starting at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and culminating at the Pentagon. We simply must bring more pressure to bear -- and fast.

SCHMOE: Speaking of the Vietnam Memorial . . . isn't it time we start planning for an Iraqnam Memorial? Maybe we could build it in the Upper Senate Park (with a grant from, say, the Cheezeyburton Foundation). That way, we could be seen as discharging our moral obligation to permanently honor the memory of our fallen warriors while at the same time downplaying the historical perspective by having the memorial occupy such an obscure locale as that little park. Appoint a study commission for that initiative, will ya, Dubya? Meantime, Al, better zoom back to Fort Meade, now, and rev up your Project "Bryant Stifle." Tanka very much, guys!

http://www.petitiononline.com/gjprobe/petition.html

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/nmgrand/petition.html

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/arrest/petition.html

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/edlvega/petition.html

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/vaimp.html

http://www.bushbusiness.com/Bryant_OP.htm

http://www.waifllc.org

http://www.bushisover.org

http://www.impeachon.org

http://www.impeachcheney.org

http://www.impeachthem.com

larryB@jerrypippin.com

by LarryWBryant (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 57 comments) on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 1:01:46 PM
 

IMPEACHING

It seems the author of this piece and those who have responded to it have not thought through the situation. Below is copy of an email I sent this morning to a friend in Denver, who is just as gung ho on impeachment as anyone:

"both Jay Inslee and Patty Murray are both intelligent level-headed progressive Demos who may know what they are doing.

"I kind of agree with them, almost. There is nowhere near the votes in Congress to impeach; may not be enough to even get it off the ground. And
if it did and went to the Senate for conviction, things like Joe Lieberman and maybe Ken Salazar might ~ probably would ~ switch parties and turn the Senate back over to the Repiglicans. The argument by Inslee and Murray
that impeachment would only spur divisiveness may also be correct. With
no edge for Democrats, the contentious proceedings would only bottle up
everything else that the Dems wish to push.

"My position is that the House and Senate collect all the evidence they
want though hearings that are now going on and will continue and expand.
Then, if the Dems pick up enough congressional seats in the 2008 elections
to get a impeachment-proof majority, they will have between Jan. 3, 2009,
(when Congress convenes) and Jan. 20, 2009 (when a new president is
inaugurated) to impeach, convict and imprison all the miscreants in the
administration. And the way to handle any bill on the war is to follow
the Constitution that says all defense spending is to be done with taxes,
imposts, duties and excises (taxes all) and send that to Bush to either
raise the taxes to legally pay for the war or veto "funding for the
troops."

"The only valid argument or impeachment now is that once it becomes a "case of impeachment" under the Constitution Bush can not pardon anyone involved. Up until then, he could offer a blanket pardon to everyone, for
anything, just as Daddy Bush did regarding the Iran-contra subversion.

"People who are gung ho on impeachment don't take into consideration how
thin the Dems' hold on Congress is. What Inslee and Murray have in mind
is unknown, but I do know that no one in Congress will ever listen to what
I have to propose.

...................................

PS: We don't impeach members of Congress. That is restricted to the "President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States."
(Article II, Section 4)

by tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 261 comments) on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 1:19:38 PM
 

impeachment is all about investigation

You don't expect to have the votes to impeach at the time you initiate impeachment. You merely have to have enough members of the House who suspect there have been impeachable crimes to want to investigate. At the time Nixon's impeachment hearing began, only 25 percent of americans favored impeachment, and a bare majority in Congress favored starting the process. It is the hearings that expose the crimes for all to see.
Democrats are putting the cart before the mule now.
Let's defend the Constitution by initiating hearings, and see what comes out. If I'm right, we'll learn of such crimes that even Republicans, looking ahead to 2008, will want to throw this crew overboard like they did with Nixon.
Dave

By the way, you are right--any federal officer, including judges, can be impeached, but not members of congress. People don't always realize that.

by Dave Lindorff (354 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 163 comments) on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 1:36:09 PM
 

IMPEACHMENT & INVESTIGATION

But that is precisely what I advocated. Investigations to gather evidence first. Impeachment put aside until later. Then as the evidence accumulates, you see if enough of the other side comes over to your side. And if it doesn't, you don't subvert your agenda by pig-headedly charging ahead on an impeachment where there is no support in Congress for anything but failure.

Remember, in the Clinton impeachment, more than 60 percent of the public was against it. but the Repiglicans went ahead anyway. It is only the support in Congress that makes impeachment a viable action for Congress to take.

I did not say that conviction must be assured, only that there must be enough support that you don't create so much contention that you screw up everything else.

Inslee is one of the most-intelligent members of the House ~ he, by the way, is not my representative ~ so he likely has considered all the damage that could occur should the House precede recklessly.

The best alternative is to gather as much evidence as possible and turn it over to the World Court for war-crimes trials and skip impeachment all together. That would be the best way for the United States to recapture the worldwide admiration and good will that Bush/Cheney have squandered.

by tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 261 comments) on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 7:58:30 PM
 

Plain Talk

I think I understand what Patty Murray and Inslee are attempting to do. The problem is that they, particularly Sen. Murray, have done a poor job of getting their message across to those who want to impeach Bush and Cheney now. If the impeach now crowd were to be told as you have finally done in comment #11, in place of Murray and Inslee, that Impeachment or the World Court is the goal but timing for this is crucial and the investigation that Congress must do can and will be done prior to formal impeachment. If Murray and Inslee were to commit to this loudly and firmly without beating about the bush or using arguments that us plain folks can't understand, I think we could and would embrace your approach and recommended timing. Come on Patty and Jay, reveal your strategy in words we can understand and I for one will back off. I'll bet that, as usual, plain talk will win the day.

by Kenneth Briggs (133 articles, 88 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 112 comments) on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 1:33:21 PM
 

INSLEE & MURRAY

I haven't said that either Jay Inslee or Patty Murray were against impeachment. Their involvement was only to tell state politicians not to interfere in the national proceedings and screw them up.

There are problems with impeachment and considerations that must be addressed. Gung ho supports of immediate impeachment have not taken them into consideration because they are unaware of them; they instead call Inslee and Murray traitors to the cause, or sell-out or other terms.

There is the slight problem of the Supreme Court decision of Schenck v US in which the court ruled that the government can do during wartime what would be blatantly unconstitutional during peacetime. We do not know if that decision applies to this present-day situation.

I wrote about it at:

click here

It would be helpful if those who are impatient for immediate impeachment would familiarize themselves with our constitutional history.

by tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 261 comments) on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 1:58:10 PM