Read More: 35 Articles Of Impeachment, Bush Appeasers, Democrats, Dennis Kucinich, George W. Bush, George W. Bush And Appeasement, George W. Bush And Impeachment, Impeachment, Nancy Pelosi, Neville Chamberlain, Republicans, Robert Wexler, Politics News
Show your support. Buzz this article up. Buzz up! Share Print View Comments Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address
I would never have thought there'd be any greater crimes than those of George W. Bush, nor any villain greater. I'm wrong. And no, it's not Dick Cheney, either, or anything he's perpetrated. Nor any of their colleagues.
It's Nancy Pelosi, and her colleagues, and what they seem quite literally hell-bent on doing.
Why at this late date do we still revile onetime British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in public as loudly, if not moreso, than we even condemn Adolf Hitler? Why, by now, has Neville Chamberlain has been positioned as the ultimate "My Pet Goat" of the 20th Century? Certainly he did not instigate the Final Solution. Surely he did not whip up the murderous furor of The Third Reich. But his name is still spoken with great villification and scorn, nonetheless.
Why?
Because he enabled. He let it all happen, with his now-tragically gullible decision to cave to Hitler when he could have taken a stand. He could have stopped one of the biggest living nightmares in human history, or at least slowed it down. Instead, he thoughtfully and cautiously stepped out of the way and invited it to rage ahead, much to all of our sorrow. He had the power to impede it, he was in position to be able to hobble it - even if only a little. He could have made a difference, perhaps sparing millions of lives, and decades of grief. He chose not to. Oh, he knew better.
By his negligence, cowardice, short-sightedness, and lousy strategizing, Chamberlain helped Hitler along the way to Damnation, surely earning himself a place in the Fuhrer's boat across the River Styx. Never mind the so-called Saddam or al Qaeda "appeasers" now -- whose names are belched out of Republican/arch-conservative hate-radio boombox mouths as "appeasers", as though the speakers had just been issued their orders for vigorous exercise of the new vocabulary word of the day. THAT move by Chamberlain was appeasement. That was the geniune article. That was then.
This is now.
Nancy Pelosi is the Neville Chamberlain of this day, in this country. She and her colleagues in the 110th Congress will likely be remembered by history in dramatically more disturbing ways than they had ever wanted or imagined. Some constitutional scholars have historians beat -- they've already arrived at that conclusion. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has already warned that history will look very harshly on those Democrats who did nothing to hold the worst criminals ever to blight the Executive Branch accountable for anything they've perpetrated. Failing to follow through on the 35 Articles of Impeachment as presented by Representative Dennis Kucinich and cosponsored by colleague Robert Wexler has put a permanent mark on Pelosi's political soul, and on her record. And she's not just failing to follow through on even one of these impeachment resolutions, she's actively discouraging and suppressing them all. Even worse!
George W. Bush should be impeached. Absolutely and without question. It should already have been a done deal -- long ago. NO individual ever occupying the office of President of the United States has deserved it more. What he has done to defy, ignore, and utterly trash the Separation of Powers, the Rule of Law, the parameters of the Constitution, bringing ruin to our good name as Americans and reestablishing us as a rogue nation not to be trusted but rather reviled across the globe is the stuff of near legend by now. That it's been permitted to fester like an oozing bubonic boil, unchecked and unchallenged, is a crime in and of itself. The Presidential Oath of Office declares the following "...to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." There's a reason why the verb "preserve" is listed first. Because the President is supposed to ensure that the Constitution is kept, not tinkered with, followed, not flouted, and absolutely not viewed as a mere nuisance to be gotten around.
Madame Speaker, you were not hired, or promoted, to be a collaborator. But, evidently, that is something you seem grimly determined to become.
Democrats are supposed to be different. In the quagmire of lies, deceit, cheating, bullying, spin, and calculated manipulation that are hallmarks by now of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party was supposed to offer an alternative, to be the antithesis of the opposing mob. Ours was supposed to be the better, more noble, more lawful, certainly more truthful way. The way that didn't involve trampling on the Constitution with muddy track shoes and then using whatever's left for toilet paper. There is more flagrant and widespread obstruction of justice here than there are dirty tricks in Karl Rove's little black book.
But no. We have to pull our punches one more time, and let the worst and most glaring perpetrators of un-Constitutional criminality get away with it all. Our valiant Dems seem to feel compelled to allow Bush and company dance off into the sunset without so much as a slap on the wrist.
...But, but, but... we're at war. Yes. A war that's a lie. Well established and documented by now from Senate committee reports to inside eye-witness testimony (Scott McClellan only the most recent).
... But, but, but ... we don't have the votes. Maybe. Does this REALLY matter? Isn't it more important to Take A Stand? Isn't it important to stand up before all of America and all of history and put yourself on record against this epic display of abuse of power and the public's trust by saying "NO!"? You really think, after enough of a stink is made in Congress about each of the THIRTY-FIVE Articles of Impeachment and all that they mean, enough to force extended media coverage and some long overdue enlightenment of the constituents, that you actually would not have the votes of a majority of their representatives?
... But, but, but ... we might lose the election. How? By showing backbone for a change? By taking a stand? By speaking the ultimate truth to the ultimate powermongers? By doing what public opinion polls show the voters support in increasingly large majorities? See the paragraph above.
... But, but, but ... it might take too long. For a vote in the House of Reps? You can do that in a day. See that same paragraph two up. It doesn't even matter if it only goes so far as passing the House but becoming stalled in the Senate. It would pass the House and go onto the books forever. If any of this got a full hearing, out in the open, in the sunshine and fresh air that so famously disinfects, you don't think it could be decided in a heartbeat? And aren't crimes this heinous and this nauseatingly extensive worth taking the time to examine?
It's no wonder, by now, that too many Americans scoff at the Democrats as the "do-nothing party" no different than the opposition. And it's a damned shame that the first woman ever to break this high a glass ceiling, to rise to the level that Pelosi has achieved -- as Speaker of the House -- may be remembered most prominently in history for this, instead.
By kicking the Kucinich resolutions on impeachment to the corner again, the Democrats will earn their place in history as the party that stood by, ever so cautiously and with all their carefully-considered rationales, and let mad men run amok. In effect, the Dems will go down in history as party to those crimes. We will share the blame because we did nothing to stop it. It's THE perfect opportunity for Democrats to step away from the muck and show the whole world how we do NOT stand with it, we do NOT think it's okay, we do NOT condone it, we are NOT in ANY WAY its partners, and we will NOT sit back and just let it run its course -- for whatever reason or excuse, especially as we seek to show voters how far apart we stand from the horrors that Republican rule has wrought. It's still a crime, and it's a sin. At least 35 sins, for starters. And we Democrats should absolutely not have a single fingerprint left on it. Unfortunately, Pelosi and pals seem hell-bent on making sure we do. And we are therefore self-rendered just as culpable, just as historically damned.
We as Democrats don't need that for our party, and we as Americans absolutely do not need it for our country.
posted
Dunno if you've thought of this yet? But... What if... They are all in on it? Imagine that? Both "sides" are in fact... One side. Far fetched notion I guess. I remember a month or two back Rush mentioned something about Hope being a horrible thing. Simply because of hope, so many do nothing. Sure did occur to me that he was guilty of spreading hope to his listeners in just this way that I will now describe. There is a routine in police work called "Good cop/Bad cop". This routine is also played in government. The democratic party's "policies" have been created as a result of polling and various other methods designed to figure out what roughly half the population wants. The Republican party was created in much the same way with the other half's ideals. Now I don't propose that these same party names have always been a creation of some evil ruler's dreams.. I do suspect that the parties were evolved into this certain organization over time but were not always jesters in our court. Back to the game. There is a pendulum in Washington.. we all know that.. a period of time when Republicans are in office and then periods of time when Democrats are in office. The notion of hope is that we have something to look forward to when "our" party once again regains the legislative or executive branch... Forces it away from those evil doers in that other party.. just before they ruin the country. Ohhh then we are saved. I don't propose that every government worker and representative is in on the scam... I know full well that most elected officials are merely puppets who don't know who is pulling their string.. much less that they even have strings. But.. the game is far too obvious for it to be a whim in my mind. Every party liner is a part of the game whether they know it or not. Rush too.. even though he really did hit the nail on the head with his comments about hope being evil's tool. So when you wonder why all these democrats that seemingly hate Bush do nothing about his blatantly evil deeds... you should know that they do nothing because they are in on it.. or they are blinded by hope.
IP: Logged |
posted
No rest for the weary, Big. Been working on the spring projects in my spare time. Laid some cement out front (I hate flower beds), remodeling the kitchen and bathrooms, and a couple other 'make the house a home' stuff.
On topic...Pelosi lost her spine the moment she became Speaker. Realty set in and she figured out nothing gets done without working with the President, whoever he is. Still, they did keep Dean to spew the Party lines.
As to Bush's impeachment, they can't even agree that he's broken any laws they can charge him with. Let alone one's that rise the level of impeachment. It'll be batted around till December and then it'll go away just like it did with Clinton.
IP: Logged |
posted
after Bush leaves office? he'll be at the mercy of the new President whoever that is...
Bah, no modern-day pres is going to spend any time in jail. They know where too many bodies are buried. Both sides have too much dirty laundry to actually take it to the mat. That's why Clinton's impeachment never went any further in my opinion.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Technically, yes. Your'e right. But as most people consider the term to mean impeachment, conviction, and removal; Clinton wasn't.
technically?
lol, isn't that like being *technically* pregnant?
Anyway, Bush should be convicted of treason.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
Never happen. There isn't a jury in America who will convict a President for authoring bills that passed Congress legally. Even his programs that didn't get put up for a vote have yet to be declared officially criminal. So, you have a standing president acting in the best interests of the nation (by his standards) in ways that aren't legally illegal (there's a mind bender).
I actually agree with you on this one SF. The impeachment won't go anywhere.
I do think that if Clinton can be impeached for being creative with a cigar (yes...I know he lied under oath but that is what it boils down to. Besides Bush would be instructed by Cheny to claim executive privilege and not go under oath)
Whereas Bush started a war that he didn't have authorisation to start and is responsible for the deaths of over 4000 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqi's. Take all the lies about WMD's out of the equation and he is still in violation of the law. He should be removed and the republicans should support it, if for no other reason (such as the truth) as to save face that he claims to be a member of their party.
If democrats win the next election (which I nearly always hope for) it won't half be because their party lines as it is a reaction to the last 8 years of bungling.
I'll accept that but it is still sad that it takes such destruction to find our way to forward thinking.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
posted
SF, i beleive you are missing the point here. the president enjoys immunity from prosecution because he is the BOSS of the Justice Dept, i.e. head honcho of law enforcement... Prosecutor in Chief etc..... in other words there is nobody to prosecute him
It is apparently a fact of law that the president is immune form civil cases too...
posted
Whereas Bush started a war that he didn't have authorisation to start
Not true, Big. Congress voted and granted him the powers to act against Iraq. For all of her 'first I was against, then for, then against' bologna, even Hillary voted to grant him that power.
If democrats win the next election (which I nearly always hope for) it won't half be because their party lines as it is a reaction to the last 8 years of bungling.
Sadly...I agree.
Glass,
the Dems, by not impeaching him are signaling that they expect the same "courtesy" extended to them in the future...
posted
If it were MOST any other country that waged a war under what turned out to be false allegations I believe the term "WAR CRIMES" would be thrown around alot.......
"Dunno if you've thought of this yet? But... What if... They are all in on it? Imagine that? Both "sides" are in fact... One side."
I am starting to feel the same way... But nobody wanted to get on the Ron Paul wagon
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
posted
it is quite possible that this single instance alone would have been enough, if the Congress had any guts.
Bush says feds can open mail without warrant
By James Gordon Meek Thursday, January 4, 2007 -
New York Daily News
WASHINGTON — President Bush quietly has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant.
Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.
A White House spokeswoman disputed claims that the move gives Bush any new powers, saying the Constitution allows such searches.
Still, the move, one year after The New York Times' disclosure of a secret program that allowed warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mail, caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
"Despite the president's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
"The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
"You have to be concerned," a senior U.S. official agreed. "It takes executive-branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."
A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised a review of Bush's move.
"It's something we're going to look into," the aide said.
Yet, in his statement, Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."
Bush cited as examples the need to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."
White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming new authority.
"In certain circumstances — such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' — the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said.
Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances" that could refer to an imminent danger or a long-standing state of emergency.
posted
"Dunno if you've thought of this yet? But... What if... They are all in on it? Imagine that? Both "sides" are in fact... One side."
They are one side, Rim, lol.
(ominous voice)
THE POWERS THAT BE!!!
Seriously though, your right. The parties have kept americans at each others' throats to keep themselves in power. It's not about what's right. It's about what will keep them in control.
I am starting to feel the same way... But nobody wanted to get on the Ron Paul wagon
I liked several of his views, but I'm not sure the world is ready for the full libertarian lifestyle he wanted.
IP: Logged |
posted
Signing statements aren't new, Glass, as I'm sure you know. Neither are they in and of themselves wrong. Even though he asserts this mail checking authority, it would have to be challenged on a case by case basis. In some instances, it would be appropriate. Hence the 'ticking bomb' reference. Otherwise, it would be for the courts to decide.
posted
Not true, Big. Congress voted and granted him the powers to act against Iraq. For all of her 'first I was against, then for, then against' bologna, even Hillary voted to grant him that power.
GOOD POINT,
BUT?
he definitely violated international law. and as signers to the UN? we are obliged to follow that treatylaw..
it's complicated, but Bush did violate US Law, even tho the congress passed that resolution.
as for the Congressional aproval?
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.
that's from the day it was passed...
he did allow it to get in the way of hunting al-Queda, and he most definitely told the the UN Weapons inspectors to get out because he was invading Iraq...
you may have forgotten this:
Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq Along With All Other U.N. Personnel, By Orders Of Kofi Annan
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 18, 2003 AP) U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.
A plane carrying the inspectors took off from Saddam International Airport at 10:25 a.m. It landed an hour and a half later in Laranca, Cyprus where the inspectors have a base.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.
U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki said 56 inspectors as well as support staff were on board Tuesday. Reporters at the airport saw about 80 people boarding buses for the plane, and officials earlier estimated the total number of U.N. evacuees at about 150.
After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.
posted
he definitely violated international law. and as signers to to UN? we are obliged to follow that treatylaw..
Bah! Did you forget that 1441 was a UNANIMOUS resolution? That it mentioned the WMD's that everyone claims Bush made up? That it offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". Note the final in it's wording?
Also, you speak as if we were the only U.N. nation to act. Several U.N. members had troops involved. I don't see anyone clammering for their heads. Now, why is that?
he did alow it to get in the way of hunting al-Queda,
Matter of opinion, Glass. Pure opinion.
After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.
You mean he actually ACTED on the U.N. threats? That after more than 10 resolutions had been ignored he(and several allied countries) actually did something.
Diplomacy was tried. Diplomacy failed.
IP: Logged |
posted
Also, you speak as if we were the only U.N. nation to act. Several U.N. members had troops involved. I don't see anyone clammering for their heads. Now, why is that?
you are joking right? the UN was broken by that Iraq invasion. ask anybody in the world.
i beleive you are still in denial about what actually happened... the UN did not approve our invasion. UN inspectors were on the ground when Bush told them to leave so we could invade...
you obviously did not read the whole page you linked...
diplomacy failed because Bush is a chickenhawk.
BTW? i am not anti-war, i am anti-stupidity, and the Iraq war will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders ever made.
if you read thru the Intel reports by the Presidents own commission you'll find that Bush was either lied to, or he lied himself... here's the same basic report from the Senate:
posted
you are joking right? the UN was broken by that Iraq invasion. ask anybody in the world.
The U.N. has been broken for a long time, Glass. Don't kid yourself that it was working just fine till Bush came along. It has an almost unblemished record of being completely useless.
Or, wait. Maybe raping the people it's supposed to be protecting IS it's purpose.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: you are joking right? the UN was broken by that Iraq invasion. ask anybody in the world.
The U.N. has been broken for a long time, Glass. Don't kid yourself that it was working just fine till Bush came along. It has an almost unblemished record of being completely useless.
Or, wait. Maybe raping the people it's supposed to be protecting IS it's purpose.
posted
Other than a massive resource drain on the U.S. which funds more than half of it's budget, what has the U.N. really done?
i assume you mean that rhetorically? i'm not a big fan of the UN myself..
what i am big fan of is following thru on your word and being honest.
please don't try to tell me that you think Bush is/was honest?
this isn't like Clintons chickenchit lying about monica, people are dying... alot of 'em..
No, it failed because Sadam knew the U.N. had no balls or teeth.
LOL.. once again? you are forgetting that Sadam actually did comply with the WMD sanctions and it's been proven by our own USArmy after we invaded.. ... Sadam hid the truth from the world to survive....
Bush COULD be legtimately impeached for violating Congress's resolutions, it really is that simple... but he wouldn't be convicted because the GOP has more than 1/3 of the Senate.... it's that simple too...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Time always tells, Tex. We are looking at this with only a short time to judge the consequences.
Looking at the American Civil War during the conflict, you would have a hard time calling it anything buy a waste of life and resources. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous at the time. Today, while still regretted, they are seen as stopping the loss of hundreds of thousands more lives buy truncating the war.
Judge if you will, and I know most already have; but I still feel we will only know the true effects given time.
IP: Logged |
posted
LOL.. once again? you are forgetting that Sadam actually did comply with the WMD sanctions and it's been prove by our own USArmy after we invaded.. ...
That article I linked listed eleven resolutions that he was NOT following before 1441 was even drafted, Glass.
How is that compliance?
Sadam hid the truth from the world to survive....
I'll make the mindreader joke later. Good excuse though.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
...![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
) the Shiites will eventually unite...
