Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:
PDF File of House Record :


http://www.c-span.org/pdf/bush_impeach.pdf

Begins near bottom of page one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:
PDF File of House Record :


http://www.c-span.org/pdf/bush_impeach.pdf

Begins near bottom of page one.

---

He does one of these every year.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:
PDF File of House Record :


http://www.c-span.org/pdf/bush_impeach.pdf

Begins near bottom of page one.

---

He does one of these every year.

Helps remind us all that he is a silly little man.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:
Per your point , it should also be noted that Mr. Bush issues 'Executive Orders' every year...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
It's a smart move by the Dems.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
It's a smart move by the Dems.

---

Its meaningless and only a handful of Dems would support a full hearing on the matter.

It would be great for the election season. Imagine all those commercials playing Pelosi's promise not to impeach the President. Questions of 'why now'. Barrack forced to support it (meaning he is part an parcel to a huge election year stunt with no real chance of success and which his party vowed not to partake and which they are pursuing instead of meaningful legislation). Meanwhile John McCain out there talking about how we are winning in Iraq and how we should put the past behind us and focus on getting things done from where we stand today.

If Barrack does not support it he loses the left wing of his party. If he does support it he loses the moderates and sees an otherwise lackluster Republican base suddenly get VERY interested in defeating anyone with a big (D).

So go for it. My prediction...this will be ignored, again.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:
PDF File of House Record :


http://www.c-span.org/pdf/bush_impeach.pdf

Begins near bottom of page one.

---

He does one of these every year.

H

---

He may get some traction this year...In view of everything else that is going on.

Per your point , it should also be noted that Mr. Bush issues 'Executive Orders' every year...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
What is going on this year that would warrant Moonbeam Kucinich's idiotic impeachment effort getting more traction ??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
If you look cheap political stunt up on Wikipedia you'll see a picture of the Democratic National Committee.

I say we turn it around and impeach Kucinich.

I wonder which resolution will get more support?

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by deadlockvictim:

---

Quote:

---

Approval ratings for the Pelosi/Reid Congress are lower than Bush's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Barrack forced to support it...

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile John McCain out there talking about how we are winning in Iraq and how we should put the past behind us...

---

Quote:

---

If Barrack does not support it he loses the left wing of his party.

So go for it. My prediction...this will be ignored, again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Jongstraw, your take is incorrect


Pelosi, along with most house members attempted to table the resolution that Kucinich brought forth impeaching Cheney...they don't like the idea, because they are only looking to the upcoming elections..

they don't want it to look politically motivated, so they'd prefer to let bygones be bygones, at least until after the election, at which point they really will stop looking back.

Approval rating for congress is bad,but dems are still poised to pick up more seats. All signs point to that...dems are banking that while approval ratings are low, most people accept taht it is because the democratic majority has still been stifled by the even split in the Senate, and that this only means they need more seats to be effective.

Their approval ratings are low in my circles precisely because they have not efforted to clean up washington in favor of political expedience. Add that to the economy they did inherit, and that explains why the whole branch is sucking with independants and middle of the roaders, and come on...repubs aren't in the majority so they aren't going to approve. That doesn't leave much. It was to be expected.

Dems are still approved of more than republicans at the moment, so the line of reasoning that this is staged is flawed.

Just to note, it wasn't voted on, it was sent away to the judiciary commitee again, just like the last one was after the repubs decided that they thought it would be embarassing for the dems if they voted against the tabling of the bill.

My take on why the Dems know this is dangerous territory, whether the man deserves to be impeached or not, (and incase you're wondering where I stand, he does), is because the Republicans have already succesfully turned the tool of impeachment into a device of partisanship. That means that regardless of the real reasons for impeachment, so long as nobody crosses party lines, it can be sold to the american people as a political stunt.

The Clinton impeachment succesfully innoculated Bush from such proceedings.

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

y the way, you seem a little less lock-step so I'm surprised you don't see any merit by now in impeachment proceedings against that man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Weird... I looked it up, and it showed Bush standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier, in front of a big banner that said something or other was accomplished...


Are you REALLY sure you want to throw around smack about cheap political stunts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

It took the criminals quite a while to recover from Watergate. If we don't put these away, that's just telling the next lot to push the envelope that much farther.

---

Quote:

---

I note for the record that Bush did not make his historic landing on the carrier during an election year. I also note for the record that the carrier in question completed a successful deployment and accomplished its mission of supporting the successful invasion of Iraq.

While some people complain about the war's conduct it really has three phases (so far). Invasion...highly successful. Post invasion...not quite successful. Surge...highly successful. So from a military-historical perspective...the Iraq war is going quite well (in other words, you can't judge a war by the outcome of a single battle or campaign, imagine if we had simply given up and gone home after the disasterous Civil War campaigns in 1861, 1862, and 1863 or even following the horrific casaulty rates of 1864...or just called it off in Africa after getting our).

The next phase will be post-surge and the success of that will depend greatly on the next election since strategy options for the post-surge phase are so different between candidates (one wants to surrender, the other wants to win).

---

Quote:

---

Invasion...highly successful. Post invasion...not quite successful. Surge...highly successful.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

Quote:

---

Invasion...highly successful. Post invasion...not quite successful. Surge...highly successful.

---

Post invasion "not quite successful"? So how was the Challenger launch, Mister NASA Guy? "Not quite successful."

Other than that, how was the show, Mrs. Lincoln?

Other than that, how was Dallas, Mrs. Kennedy?

EC/TCB

"I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat-" - King Crimson, Indiscipline

---

Quote:

---

"Your enemy is not surrounding your country – your enemy is ruling your country. This dictator, who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons, has already used them on whole villages – leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained – by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."
—George Bush Jr, State of the Union Address 2003
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2003.html

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, heh heh heh, just so long as I'm the dictator, heh heh heh."
-George W Bush

"If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren't speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here. On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it ten times that "someone should put a bullet in his head." In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty. Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people [sic - 2.5-million by Bush Sr and Clinton] in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers [sic - over 80,000] killed in the [18-year] war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life ("Please don't kill me," Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson). In Bush's two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom only killed one single person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of."
-Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W Bush for Murder, May 2008
www.ProsecutionOfBush.com
www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/09/8834/


Dick "Tater" Cheney is next

---

Quote:

---

Actually it was immensely successful from a looter's or roadside bomb placer's or a head cutter-offer's perspective.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
PN: While we may have our differences, thanks for the quote from Bugliosi's book. It looks like it might be quite a read.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
PN: While we may have our differences, thanks for the quote from Bugliosi's book. It looks like it might be quite a read.

---

He was just on Mike Malloy's show tonight. Turns out he's the guy who prosecuted Charles Manson. Figures.

---