View Story | 297 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
We need to keep the evidence of rampant criminal activity from being destroyed by Bush, Cheney and their associates.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:35:02 PM PDT
and then push back with contempt dharges every time they try to stall or hide behind bogus national security claims. I imagine that now that oil is selling for around $100/barrel more of the public would like to know about that secret energy panel and what was discussed regarding dividing up Iraqi oil fields. There's so much else to discover and this is the only way to force their hand. Thenks congressman Wexler and thanks for the diary Ralph.
by JohnB47 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:50:52 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
How do you know a Republican is lying? Ask one: If the Republicans can lower gas prices for 60 days before an election, why won't they do it all the time?
by ca democrat on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:37:43 PM PDT
The ones that McCain has been hiding relating to Abramoff and the WH. That would be interresting too.
by JohnB47 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:42:10 PM PDT
Jesus. I'm a huge proponent of impeaching this bunch of criminals. But this speech actually took place--after this GIANT petition drive--with little audience, a half-hour after everyone else leaves? Late at night? And there's little audience but that smiling Nancy?
This is not--I repeat NOT--a dis of the diarist or what Wexler is trying to do. We all know impeachment is appropriate. But dammit, something doesn't feel right here.
My memory is fuzzy that far back, but I seem to remember the call for Nixon's impeachment being done during a more accessible hour (if not a packed gallery), but someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong.
As much as I want this, and as much as I know everyone else wants this, I still smell a rat. Before I do a cynic flame-out, though, lemme hie my geek-ass over to C-Span/YouTube, to see what I can find/post. Maybe actually seeing this will change my mind or something...
On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place
by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM PDT
Or is this Nancy's way of showing how seriously she doesn't take the impeachment bill? I agree, this is Nancy's F-U directed at Wexler.
by Oxy Moron on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:47:31 PM PDT
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:19:27 PM PDT
The chamber was nearly empty, although a half hour before Wexler's speech it was full of glad-handing, back-slapping congressmen. I know because I was in the Gallery of the House of Representatives at this historic moment.
and
Then they all seemed to disappear ... into a room in back with what looked like the glow of a warm, giant fireplace where I personally bet a lot of drinking was going on.
by Oxy Moron on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:18:07 PM PDT
I didn't notice that everyone left. Did you watch the cspan coverage? Did you hear the people in the gallery applauding and being told to stop? I guess you didn't hear athe same thing I heard. Rat? What are you talking about?
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:18:58 PM PDT
the diary text, myself, as I did not see this on C-Span (and I am still trying to get to the link below @politico, and am having the same issue as others have noted):
The chamber was nearly empty, although a half hour before Wexler's speech it was full of glad-handing, back-slapping congressmen.
So...were there a lot of people there for this speech? And what happens next?
by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:53:58 PM PDT
reps and senators were actually there to hear it?
I have a news flash for them--ducking out on the speech ain't gonna make this issue go away.
by o the umanity on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:03:35 PM PDT
Oh, but you are so wrong. Their ducking the issue does make it go away since they're the ones responsible for carrying out the necessary actions.
It won't go away for you or me, but its potential realization vanishes when our so-called reps duck into their cozy lair.
message to the future
by CharlieHipHop on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:17:43 AM PDT
that it's up to us if it goes away or not, and my intention is to call, call, call, call, and call some more until Chairman Conyers holds hearings.
Some creative person can do a little project and create a multimedia DVD and we can take it to the offices and deliver it.
Did you watch the video? Congressman Wexler said he intends to publish our names (hope you signed the petition),a few thousand a day, "...for months and months."
Congressman Wexler and his three colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee are not forgetting.
Why don't you join us in ACTION? Today is National Call in Day. People throughout the country will be calling their representatives to join this important and timely effort. United for Peace and Justice urges you to be part of this day:
Visit this URL to look up your representative's local office numbers --
http://capwiz.com/... -- and/or call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-224-3121. The operator can tell you who your representative is if you don't know, and connect you to his or her office.
Ask your representative to urge Rep. Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to begin impeachment hearings against Dick Cheney.
Call the House Judiciary Committee and don’t forget to call the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi:
Pelosi: (202) 225-0100 & Pelosi e-mail: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee
You can also send an email to your representative:
http://www.democrats.com/...
Once you've made your phone call and sent your email, please urge everyone you know to do the same.
by victoria2dc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:17:35 AM PDT
just what the spineless are counting on. damn them all!
by gooddog on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM PDT
If there isn't a rat than at the very least Wexler needs a far far better PR/media team. I mean, come on!
by marchtoimpeach on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:51:21 PM PDT
The only rat(s) in this story is Dick Cheney. That's why we're asking Chairman Conyers to open hearings!
by victoria2dc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:18:55 AM PDT
Maybe that's a portent.
by Timbuk the Second on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:36:52 AM PDT
I'm thinking that members of the House had to wait until after all voting was done on scheduled legislation for the day before making their individual cases for future business. It is too bad that it couldn't have happened earlier in the day, and that members of the House left right after all the voting was finished.
But then it's too bad impeachment didn't happen earlier in this millenium, and that members of the House have their priorities so screwed up.
I'm willing to give Wexler a chance - today was just his statement to the House and the country on the business he intends to address in his committee.
by feline on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:13:31 AM PDT
When people and Congress called for the Nixon impeachment, it was reported in Lamestream Media. Back in those days media actually reported news. Some were even responsible for public information - I watched the entire Iran-Contra hearings in primetime afternoon hours in the mid-80s; soap operas were pre-empted. Nowadays Lamestream Media is in the business of infotainment... and if they don't talk about any "controversial" topics - like impeachment - the sin of omission means no one will talk about it, and few will realize there are others "out there" who are just as anxious to proceed with impeachment as we are.
The Sins of Omission on the part of Lamestream Media teleprompter readers and the endless drivel talked about by political bobbleheads directs the attention of sheeple away from anything remotely "controversial" like the lies and war crimes of Dickie and Georgie, like protest marches against their illegal war and torture, like calls for impeachment. The fact that polls have shown that over 70% of us KNOW impeachable offenses have been committed is totally overlooked in favor of staged "controversies" the bobbleheads and teleprompter readers (aka 'news' ancors) talk about as "important." Multitasking is out of their realm of ability. Lots of business got done while people were talking about impeachment during the Nixon years and while Clinton was being impeached.
To say there are 'more important' things for Congress to do is disingenuous and a blatant lie; nothing is more important than our Constitution!
Oh, and I share your concerns for reasons previously stated in other Wexler diaries over the last few weeks. I think that's because before election day '06 my Dem Rep signed on to Conyers' impeachment of Bush, I voted for my Rep again - he's been in office for years - and by Feb. '07 he'd suddenly changed his mind about impeachment, they 'had more important things to do,' 'feared Republican backlash,' and Conyers had tabled his impeachment papers of Georgie. I feel like I was snookered into voting for my Rep again, and I feel like a chump for having forgiven his other dumbass votes 'cuz he'd signed on as a co-sponsor to impeach Georgie, so that's why I voted for him. He recently voted for H. Res. 847, so now I'm wondering if he's losing his mind, too, and I think he should retire at the end of this current term.
We've been snookered before by being terribly supportive of Congress Critters only to have them turn around and capitulate on important legislation; it's become an irritating habit since the SCOTUS decision of 2000. Some have even sent them lots of money (I don't do that; they don't deserve money until AFTER they do their jobs, and right now they're not even earning their salaries, so I refuse to send extra money).
(¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)
by NonnyO on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:10:21 AM PDT
After normal business has gaveled out, anyone who has requested time can get up and say anything. No real votes or motions can be entertained during this free speech time.
I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat. -Will Rogers
by geez53 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:24:51 AM PDT
I understand the Republicans bugging out, but the democrats?? Does Cheney have something on Pelosi and Reid that we don't know about? Or is it simply a Neville Chamberlin attempt not to rock the boat duing the primaries? I'm beginning to think that maybe Ralph Nader was right in his observation that there is little difference between the two parties.
No being has inherent power, only the illusion of power granted by others who similarly have none.
by Mark701 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:27:16 AM PDT
I don't know how to do that... I've sent the information about dengre's work and links to the diaries to Melanie Sloan at CREW several times... not even a response.
I talked to dengre and he said they know him because he's worked with him before.
Go figure.
I've also sent messages and made calls to Harry Reid's office. No response
I've also contacted the Democratic Indian Affairs Committe Chairman, Senator Byron Dorgan. I sent him the information, the request at least five times. Again, no response.
Are you willing to follow-up on this? Any connections to tradtional media? Rawstory might do some investigating... Keith O? Can you do any of that type of follow-up? If yes, please contact me at my profile e-mail and we'll figure it out.
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:16:35 PM PDT
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:12:16 PM PDT
Wednesday, January 16, 2008, is National Call-In Day
Congressman Robert Wexler is organizing his colleagues to ask House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to begin Cheney impeachment hearings. Wexler is asking his fellow Judiciary Committee Members to co-sign a letter to Conyers. We support Wexler in this, and we are also asking congress members not on the committee to send their own letters to Conyers. Please Email your Congress Member here: http://www.democrats.com/...
Then please call the Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. They can tell you who your Congress Member is if you don't know, and they can connect you to their office. Ask your representative to urge Chairman Conyers to begin impeachment hearings against Dick Cheney. This is especially important if your representative is a member of the Judiciary Committee. Once you've sent your Email and made your phone call, please urge everyone you know to do the same. If you have further time to help advance impeachment, please call and Email the media.
by conchita on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:38:31 PM PDT
There are others. This one sends letters to your Congresscritters, as determined based on your home address. Cheney Impeachment Hearings Now!
Impeachment is a duty, not an option that can be taken off the table.
by bushondrugs on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:07:44 PM PDT
I'm so happy to see your enthusiasm for impeachment and Congressman Wexler's speech on the floor tonight! Was it full of energy? Yes. Was it an indication that he is going to win this battle for a hearing? Yes. Based upon what I heard, the Speaker and Congressman Conyers can no longer avoid the call for IMMEDIATE hearings on the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Did his speech make you want to do more to help? Yes. I'm willing to do whatever it takes.
I'm sad that my country has become what it is. I will not bother to mention everything that makes me sad because you already know. It probably makes you sad too, or does it make you angry? At this point, I don't care because either way (sad or angry) we have the power to support Congressman Wexler, who was given the responsibility to speak for us by the people in his congressional district.
I'm proud to have him speak for me. I hope you will join me in calling his office tomorrow and leave the following message:
I pledge to call, e-mail or fax and fax, e-mail or call members of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle.
Here's the number of his DC office:
Washington, D.C. Office 2241 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 phone: (202) 225-3001 fax: (202) 225-5974
Go for it! Let's let him hear our words of appreciation tomorrow.
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:11:34 PM PDT
for waiting until we're well into the election cycle to begin what you should have done when the dems took back the house in '06.
i see this as nothing more than another slick attempt to rile the base before elections. there will be no impeachment, no trial, no convictioins.
by robertlewiws on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:11:43 AM PDT
I applaud Wexler for standing up at all. Remember Anthrax? The threat is real. It takes guts these days to speak out. Those guys in our White House are killers. And we all know it. They'll stop at nothing. Challenging them is frightening stuff. It takes a lot of courage. BRAVO WEXLER!
At least LOOK at my fucking blog! ~ "At all costs, let's laugh!"
by Panda on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:14:21 AM PDT
demands it to.
Next stop should be The Hague.
Our current healthcare system is simple. Don't get sick.
by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:07:57 PM PDT
the one and ONLY thing that will save this country. And I believe that with my whole heart. Every Dem, especially ALL candidates had better step up and back this. It is time for them all to act like patriots.
Impeachment is the one and ONLY weapon we have to stop the impending catastrophic war with Iran.
We'd better use it.
Then, off to The Hague in manacles and chains.
You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.
by mattman on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:14:23 PM PDT
Did you watch the speech tonight? If you listened carefully you will hear him mention that impeachment is the remedy because they cannot wiggle out of producing documents and testifying... they can't use executive privilege with impeachment.
They have to do it and they will because our voice and our willingness to push them will cause them to realize that they have to.
Impeachment activists around the country are mobilizing to do a calling campaign that will shake them up. My goal is to shut down the congressional offices! My goal is to shut down the congressional switchboard. My goal is to push them, pressure them until they scream, "Uncle, uncle! I'll vote with Wexler."
I figure it will take 600,000 calls. It took 500,000 calls to get Harry to take the FISA/telecom immunity debate off the floor and go home for the holidays. We did that with fewer people than are ready and willing to fight for impeachment.
Everyone here who hasn't joined dailykos-ACTION_IMPEACH Yahoo group, please do it. We're getting things ready and we'll provide you with the tools you need to easily make the calls. I'll know more tomorrow after I speak with some people in NY about the software tool. We have techies and writers ready to get this tool up on the site and ready for you to use. We just need to work out the details before people can get to work on this tool and upload it to the site.
I'm excited. We will do this. As the congressman said, "It's an uphill battle." We all know that. However, I know that they will have no option but to do it because 600,000 unhappy Democrats = a slowdown on campaign donations, more competition in local races, and slowdown of real Democrats who are committed to the party and who will work to get out the vote. Why should we work like hell for people who aren't doing the work of WE THE PEOPLE?
Just a thought, but if I were a Democratic congressman/woman/leader, I would be paying attention to what Americans are saying.
And if I were Nancy Pelosi, I'd try to find some graceful way to set the table and invite the entire Democratic Party to a five course gourmet dinner with great wine and gooey dessert.
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:33:53 PM PDT
My phone, and fax and funds are ready to go.
I await instructions.
THANK YOU!
by mattman on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM PDT
please make sure you join the dailykos-ACTION_IMPEACH Yahoo group to make sure you are connected to the ACTION!!!!
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:53:06 PM PDT
If the Coastal Republic had believed in the existence of virtue, it could at least have aspired to hypocrisy. - Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age
by BehereBenow on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:07:06 AM PDT
by victoria2dc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:21:16 AM PDT
I was just at the ACLU's homepage following the reading of their great diary up now, regarding Free Speech Zones (a constitutional abrogation I have been subject to several times); why the hell isn't the ACLU promoting Impeachment of at least Cheney?
They are a "Civil Liberties Union," no?
Is it for fear of being labeled partisan? Is the Constitutional remedy fo Executive criminality and numerous Constitutional violations (many excellent examples of which reside conveniently on the ACLU website) out of bounds for them because those who are trashing destroying the document their organization is dedicated to belong to a political party?
"Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.
by nailbender on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM PDT
(this is a recycled comment from another diary)
Back in the day, the ACLU led the way to impeach Nixon, but now, not so! The ACLU prez Nadine Strossen is sitting on impeachment for all sorts of bogus reasons, but the local chapters are biting at the bit to impeach, because it would make their jobs oh so much easier.
Instead the ACLU is nibbling away at each individual impeachable offense separately, instead of doing what the U.S. Constitution says to do when there are impeachable offenses, which is to IMPEACH!!!
Should George Bush be impeached? DS: Do you think George Bush should be impeached? NS: I think there is a case for him to be impeached, but I don’t think it would be a good idea. The reason I say there is a case because partly under the Constitution it’s high crimes and misdemeanors, which are not defined and the latest precedent we have is having a blow job in the Oval Office and lying about it is considered to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Well, Bush, has clearly lied to Congress, the American People, to the media about much more serious infractions and violations of the Constitution. He’s had a view that as Commander-in-Chief he can do whatever he wants, that he’s above the law, that he doesn’t have to abide by the laws that are duly passed by Congress. In one breath he is signing them, and in another breath he is saying he doesn’t have to follow them. So, I think if what Clinton did can be considered a high crime and misdemeanor then what Bush did could be. Do I think it would be a good idea to impeach him? I think it would be a terrible idea to impeach him. Among other reasons, I think it would have the effect of placing disproportionate responsibility on to him when a lot of the blame for the violations I’m talking about rests in the hands of Congress. Congress did not have to vote for the Patriot Act, as they did almost unanimously in the Senate. Congress did not have to expand his domestic wire-tapping power this summer, even beyond what he was initially doing in his secret program. Congress did not have to roll over and play dead with respect to torture and rendition and Guantanamo and all the other human rights disasters. They really bear a lot of responsibility and we should not be letting them off the hook. By going after Bush, it deflects responsibility from Congress, it deflects responsibility from the courts, which have been issuing a lot of bad decisions, I think. It also deflects responsibility from the Democrats. It makes it too much of a partisan issue. There is bipartisan responsibility here. For that reason I strongly oppose it. I’m not speaking for the ACLU, I know some people in the ACLU would like to see it. DS: You just don’t think it would be productive. NS: I don’t think it would advance civil liberties.
Should George Bush be impeached?
DS: Do you think George Bush should be impeached?
NS: I think there is a case for him to be impeached, but I don’t think it would be a good idea. The reason I say there is a case because partly under the Constitution it’s high crimes and misdemeanors, which are not defined and the latest precedent we have is having a blow job in the Oval Office and lying about it is considered to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Well, Bush, has clearly lied to Congress, the American People, to the media about much more serious infractions and violations of the Constitution. He’s had a view that as Commander-in-Chief he can do whatever he wants, that he’s above the law, that he doesn’t have to abide by the laws that are duly passed by Congress. In one breath he is signing them, and in another breath he is saying he doesn’t have to follow them. So, I think if what Clinton did can be considered a high crime and misdemeanor then what Bush did could be.
Do I think it would be a good idea to impeach him? I think it would be a terrible idea to impeach him. Among other reasons, I think it would have the effect of placing disproportionate responsibility on to him when a lot of the blame for the violations I’m talking about rests in the hands of Congress. Congress did not have to vote for the Patriot Act, as they did almost unanimously in the Senate. Congress did not have to expand his domestic wire-tapping power this summer, even beyond what he was initially doing in his secret program. Congress did not have to roll over and play dead with respect to torture and rendition and Guantanamo and all the other human rights disasters. They really bear a lot of responsibility and we should not be letting them off the hook. By going after Bush, it deflects responsibility from Congress, it deflects responsibility from the courts, which have been issuing a lot of bad decisions, I think. It also deflects responsibility from the Democrats. It makes it too much of a partisan issue. There is bipartisan responsibility here. For that reason I strongly oppose it. I’m not speaking for the ACLU, I know some people in the ACLU would like to see it.
DS: You just don’t think it would be productive.
NS: I don’t think it would advance civil liberties.
So, LOBBY THE ACLU TO PUT IMPEACHMENT ON THEIR TABLE , WHERE IT BELONGS BY GOING TO THIS HERE LINK!!
"Information is the currency of democracy." ~ T.J.
by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:23:42 PM PDT
I strongly support impeachment as the first step in dealing with this criminal administration, but the point about the bipartisan responsibility of Congress is the first legitimate argument against impeachment that I've seen.
by artisan on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM PDT
states that when the Exec Office commits crimes against our Constitution, it is the responsibility of Congress to impeach. Not a prerogative, a responsibility.
Strossen's argument is illogical. It's a 2 wrongs makes a right fallacy. She knows better than that, being a legal scholar, but she also knows how to throw a good smoke screen. It's just obfuscation.
If someone robs your house and you call the cops, but one of the men in blue is guilty of smoking weed, does that absolve the criminal? Of course not.
The obstructionists to impeachment want to cover this up for a reason. They're afraid of what is under the rock and who it will expose. They also want to let Bush/Cheney do Iran.
by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:08:55 PM PDT
but I think it has merit. The Congress shares the guilt for the SAME crimes as Bush and Cheney. They couldn't have done it alone.
by artisan on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM PDT
there are no conditions. They must do it if they think that impeachable crimes or misdemeanors have taken place. Pelosi is dead wrong and has no right to take it off the table.
Damn woman better put it back because she is going to go down as the First Woman Speaker of the House and the Worst Speaker of the House in history if she doesn't wake up! She has blood on her hands and it's not going to go away. She too is accountable for her actions and Cindy Sheehan is right behind her hoping to take a big chunk out of her leg!
Go Cindy!
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:42:58 PM PDT
I follow what you are saying and agree with you. I'm also interested in your opinion regarding what Nadine's motive may be to throw a red herring on this issue?
by beans on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:27:55 AM PDT
to be president of the ACLU. The National Lawyers Guild has passed a resolution calling for impeachment. Her arguments against impeachment are specious, and whatever her motives are, this alone should give the ACLU chapters the basis to ask that she step down. They need to take a vote of no confidence in her pronto.
Impeachment is imperative. Our country's U.S. Constitution is at stake here, and the ACLU is just pussyfooting around about each infraction, but not doing what they should be doing, calling for impeachment. The ACLU is a disgrace to lady justice. Not demanding impeachment is grounds for disbarment. These so called lawyers are not abiding by the oaths they took to defend the Constitution.
I asked ACLU officials why they aren't going for impeachment, and they told me that they believed that the ACLU should back impeachment, and sheepsihly asked me to do something about it. They seemed cowed, so I think they are afraid to lose their jobs, but they need to put their country ahead of that fear. All they stand to lose is their jobs, but there are young men in the 18 - 25 year old age bracket, who will be drafted, if these maniacal criminals occupying the Exec. office have their way with Iran. They stand to lose limbs and their life. How these ACLU chapters can be so selfish about their jobs, when so many lives are at stake, American and Iranian civilians, boggles my mind.
I cannot venture to say why she is an obstructionist, because that would be pure conjecture. I'm not going to go there, but I will say that she should not be leading the ACLU, because she either has a conflict of interest or she is incompetent to take impeachment off the table for such bogus reasons.
I think that there are a whole lot of obstructionists, who are standing in the way of impeachment. Waxman is one. He talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. He should be calling them on not answering his call to testify. He has subpeona power, but he doesn't use it. He lets them off time and time again. He needs to go, too.
MoveOn is avoiding it, too. The leadership there needs to get the boot.
I think that these obstructionists need to be removed from their posts. Calling our Congressmen is one way, but we need to call the ACLU & MoveON and tell them to impeach or we will no longer support them. Tell them to get new leadership that understands how impeachment is the most important issue on their plate and is willing to do the right thing.
by CIndyCasella on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:19:57 AM PDT
and the letting bush-cheney do iran part is truly sad for our country.
by gooddog on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM PDT
That's what Bush has ON them and that is why it is not on the table; impeachment would tar them all with Cheney's Bush.
I've been turned into a cynic, but I think I've kept my sense of humor..
A society of sheep must beget in time a government of wolves. Bertrand de Jouvenel
by Little Red Hen on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:54:33 PM PDT
how much more of the job would yet to be done AFTER impeachment....
by skippythebox on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM PDT
Are you an attorney? Do you have access to any legal groups? I have a friend in Boulder who is an attorney. I can ask her to do that job. Wanna help her? I'm sure she will do it. If yes, contact me at my profile address please.
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:38:57 PM PDT
by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:47:45 PM PDT
and I do blame them, oh, hell yes, I do -- they merely opened the door wide enough for a "unitary executive" to drive through.
cheney-bush did not have to abuse the power and the trust; they did not have to lie to us; they did not have to authorize torture; they did not have to misuse provisions in the atrocious "PATRIOT" Act; they did not have to engage in warrantless spying; they did not have to gin up an occupation of Iraq... and that's not counting anything they may have done to support the profiteers who suck the blood of taxpayers.
If we DON'T impeach these bastards, the precedents they've set will excuse abuses by future regimes, which will push the envelope even further. Allowing them to walk away (assuming they will), would be perhaps the biggest mistake in American history.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall piss you off.
by Executive Odor on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:36:10 AM PDT
to forfeit their duty and allowing the abuse of power by exec branch is great danger to america and must be undone.
by gooddog on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:04:46 AM PDT
...discussing defrauding Congress and the nation to wage aggressive war against a country who was no threat to us.
by dov12348 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:54:38 AM PDT
By going after Bush, it deflects responsibility from Congress.
Irrelevant. The people are or should be aware of Congress' complicity. And those individuals should be separately thrown out of office.
A pretty bizarre excuse there, Ms. Strossen.
by dov12348 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:02:59 AM PDT
champions of the people and their power and putting in wishy-washy, excuse making apologist hacks even in an organization as historically brave and never-fearing-controversy as the ACLU, then really we are finished as a "free" nation.
Stick a fork in America as anything other than a piece of bread infested with the mold of creeping "soft" fascism* -- it's done.
Who the hell put this cowardly jellyfish in the spot to succeed someone as courageous and charismatic as Anthony Romero, anyways?
by homoaffectional on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:25:01 AM PDT
the ACLU president?
by CIndyCasella on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:26:40 AM PDT
... it's incumbent on us to find out. Surely someone here has contacts among the insiders in the ACLU leadership (s)election process.
by homoaffectional on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:08:24 PM PDT
definitely supporting impeachment. I heard that from a member of Wexler's staff... so I know it's true. However, I don't know which locations.
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:37:00 PM PDT
... before they can go after Pelosi and Bush, they have to oust their own new president, which means they will have to take on whoever the hell put her there in the first place. As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
by homoaffectional on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:26:57 AM PDT
Im sure its being destroyed as i type this.
by mjkelly on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:16:24 PM PDT
by victoria2dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:09:26 PM PDT
that and those lying fuks ! SIX BILLION/Month for bush-chaney Oil Occupation and WH cant afford fukin Blank Back-up tapes..! WTF Maybe thay can dig up Rosemary..Worse than Water Gate
"Better a little late, than a little never"..Julian Winston
by Johnny Rapture on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:48:37 AM PDT
points we can use to ask for hearings? I'd certainly like to have us ask this question to the people wer're calling. It's not just another thing to look at.
See today's great dailykos diary link:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
The AP is reporting that the White House has admitted it overwrote the backup tapes meant to archive the phone records. This should come as no surprise to anyone at this point.
It doesn't surprise me, but it certainly upsets me.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House has acknowledged recycling its backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, raising the possibility that many electronic messages - including those pertaining to the CIA leak case - have been taped over and are gone forever. The disclosure came minutes before midnight Tuesday under a court-ordered deadline that forced the White House to reveal information it has previously refused to provide.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House has acknowledged recycling its backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, raising the possibility that many electronic messages - including those pertaining to the CIA leak case - have been taped over and are gone forever.
The disclosure came minutes before midnight Tuesday under a court-ordered deadline that forced the White House to reveal information it has previously refused to provide.
by victoria2dc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:12:58 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 297 comments