Postman has been giving some thorough coverage of the impeachment issue brewing in the liberal grassroots, including discussion of Danny Westneat's intriguing column yesterday. Westneat said:
Regardless of whether Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying under oath about an affair, there's no question the proceedings turned Congress into a dysfunctional mess.
That's true. Thus, Democrats should we wary of starting a process that would severely curtail their ability to otherwise govern, something they need desperately to do since their majority was made by votes against Republicans, not votes for a Democratic agenda.
Postman adds a quote from Chad (the Left) Shue lamenting such hesitation:
Damn you Bill Clinton! Because you were impeached for sex, Bush walks free for lying to Congress, illegal wiretapping of American citizens, violations of international laws against torture and kidnapping -- all of this while ordering thousands to their deaths in a "war of choice."
Which brings us to the rub. Whether one agrees with impeaching Clinton or not he did commit a felony, an impeachable offense. That felony earned him a five year disbarment from the Arkansas bar, and a suspension from the Supreme Court bar (he resigned the bar shortly thereafter rather than risk disbarment by that Court). This is not a trivial matter for a lawyer.
Meanwhile, Shue ticks off a list of grievances he seems to think are worthy of impeachment. Some of those offenses, particularly "illegal wiretapping" would be quite serious if the tale told by the liberal left on such matters is true. Indeed, Congress would be obligated to act if there actually was a criminal element to such disagreements. Yet, Democrats in DC are not exactly lining up to get an impeachment investigation rolling in the House.
All this leads to a final question, mostly to the liberal grassroots. The current state of affairs on impeachment means Democrats in Congress are either shirking their duty or they recognize complaints like Shue's are serious policy differences, not actual crimes, which would be worthy of impeachment. Which is it?
Posted by Eric Earling at March 01, 2007 08:09 AM | Email ThisI believe that for her activities including Travelgate and other "dirty tricks" during the Clinton administration, Republicans should be calling for the impeachment of Hillary Clinton.
And the politcal damage in bringing the government to a halt wouldn't be worth it even to Chad, that is if he can get over the emotion and think it through. Apparently, the DC Dems have.
Posted by: swatter on March 1, 2007 08:35 AM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Island Activists Get Game Plan for Getting Out of Iraq
By Rachel Pritchett
rpritchett@kitsapsun.com
Bainbridge Island
Strains from a guitar and man singing John Lennon's "Imagine" met some 50 Bainbridge Island residents Tuesday night as they filed into a Winslow meeting room to discuss ways to end the war in Iraq.
Signs like "I Want It! Do You? Bush Is Over" and "We The People" lined the perimeter.
The mood was somber, even grave.
"We need to bring this country around, in some way," said organizer Jeff Moore.
Moore and others urged the audience of young and old, Women in Black and activists to contact their U.S. representatives by Friday to voice support of HR 508.
Sponsored by U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., and a host of other democrats but none from Washington state, the measure would pull troops out in six months and would prohibit further funding for troops and permanent military bases there, among other things.
"Today, we say 'stop' and we want the war ended now," said Kathryn Keve.
The measure is in committee.
Bainbridge has a strong activist tradition, but the anti-war effort has only about a half a dozen loosely organized core members. An aim of the meeting, and it wasn't the first, was to galvanize the group for action.
Moore called it "a Bainbridge-centric effort to move this country forward."
Also on the agenda was support for a pending memorial in Olympia, SJM 8016, to investigate grounds for impeaching the president and vice president, also in committee.
"We can give a little backbone to our legislators by doing this," David Mitchell said. "We need to take our country back."
An audience member asked who would be the commander-in-chief if George Bush and Dick Cheney were removed.
Nancy Pelosi, some responded.
Moore called the proposal memorial a move "to impeach a completely out-of-control executive."
Members talked about convincing the Bainbridge Island City Council to adopt a resolution against the war. Council member Kjell Stoknes was in the audience, as was candidate Barry Peters.
Finally, there was a call from Moore and others to protest the war, with several Seattle protests planned for March and April in Seattle. Signs and pickets were there for the taking.
"We have to protest," Moore said to applause from the group.
Posted by: James M. Olsen on March 1, 2007 09:34 AMSince impeachment isn't going to happen, I wonder how soon we are going to get the next Global Warming Update.
Look at what those liberals at The National Arbor Day Foundation are saying about America's changing climate:
Differences Between 1990 and 2006
It seems very much like the climate is changing. But winter still remains winter, if you know what I mean ...
Posted by: David Mathews on March 1, 2007 10:03 AMThis graphic is more dramatic than the map:
Hardiness Zones Shift, 1990-2000
Seems like the climate really is changing, and these are just the beginning. I wonder how these maps will look in twenty-five and fifty years.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 1, 2007 10:08 AMCharen's name "useful idiots" is apt. The sad part of the impeachment and BI mess is that there is a significant portion of the population that is incapble of making any kind of moral judgement.
Medved had a piece in Townhall yesterday about why liberals hate the Ten Commandments:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/02/28/why_liberals_are_right_to_hate_the_ten_commandments
I left the dem party and became an indie because of Clinton. If one cannot hold the Commander in Chief accountable for lying under oath and his awful behavior with Lewinsky, then one really doesn't want a "leader." We now have a generation of kids who think oral sex isn't sex and STDs are so prevalent we want to vacinate all girls.
Regarding the idiots on BI, they can't and will never believe that there are committed terrorists who want to kill everyone of any religion who doesn't subscribe to their views. They should read the stories of the pre-WWII students at Cambridge and the meaning of "fifth column."
It will be up to the remainder of the population with any common sense and moxy to in the end save their sorry asses from themselves.
Now, Bruce, Ivan, and David Mathews, et al. have at it.
Posted by: WVH on March 1, 2007 10:13 AMIt's all politics. In reality Dubya is going to stay put because he's already a lame duck, his poll numbers are in the toilet, and with elections season already heating up nothing is going to get accomplished once we enter 2008. If Dubya decides he wants to attack Iran, then he will be impeached.
In the meantime Dubya just has to sit back and try not to screw up the entire country more than he already has.
I know that I will be corrected and I have to leave so I will check in later.
1. There is a question in my mind not whether we should have gone to war, but my thesis is this, the war was bungled in the handling.
3. General Shensi (sp) the Commander in chief who was forced out said that there should have been close to 400,000 troops initially. Powell's dictim that there should be overhelming force.
My thesis is this Rumsfield tried to do the war on the cheap. Bush never really prepared the population for the fact that this is a 100 year war. Bremer replaced all Baatist (sp) and there was no internal insitutional structure to work with that would have made the country liveable and safe.
I don't quarel with the decision to invade, the execution and the leveling with the US population about what the war on terror really means is what I quarrel with. Paging David, et al.
As for impeachment. I think the Democrats should persue it with vigor. It would be a very difficult process, and it would severely test the patience of the electorate, and hamper their ability to govern.
A hampered congress is a good congress. Let them gridlock on impeachment and other dead ends, and then they won't be passing legislation to squander tax dollars and limit freedoms.
Democrats, go big. Behind you all the way.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 1, 2007 10:47 AMIf you truly believe so, then it appears suicide is your only choice.
Just don't ruin your tinfoil hat in the process.....
And, poor Cato, you are soooo right-a conservative who believes in democracy, free enterprise, and actually is willing to defend the aforementioned is far more dangerous than Islamofascists with a nuclear bomb hell bent on destroying Western civilization. Oh wait, your type wants to destroy Western democracy, free enterprise, our prosperity, and install socialism...
You cant fool us, boys......
Posted by: Hank on March 1, 2007 10:53 AMYou're partly correct. Al Gore would not have gotten us into this war because he would given the terrorists anything they wanted. Afghanistan would still be run by the Taliban, Al-Queda would have joined Libya, Iran, Syria and Lebanon to eliminate the state of Israel, Saddam would still be getting rich with the help of the UN in the Oil-for-Food scandal and he would have nuclear capability.
So you're right... Gore would not have gotten us into war, but the alternatives were much worse.
Posted by: Ken on March 1, 2007 10:58 AMStay on topic. I know it's hard when you don't agree.
Posted by: Chris on March 1, 2007 11:24 AMIraq committed no such act of terrorism. It was not even a treat to the US or it's allies. Yet here we are in the middle of a bungled war with no end in sight. It's a shame Bush won't be impeached for misleading the public into the Iraq war.
Al-Queda would have joined Libya, Iran, Syria and Lebanon to eliminate the state of Israel
Umm yeah...Al-Queda is still hell bent on destroying Israel (and the US too). Nothing has changed in this scenario under Bush except that we are now "friends" with Lybia & Pakistan.
BTW, Dubya doesn't seem all that eager to wage war in Somalia, that country is a known haven for Al-Queda and other Islamofascist types.
How about these apples from the Antartic Drilling project:
"Samples of rock drilled out of the Antarctic seabed show there has been a surprisingly wide variation in the world's climate over the past 3.5 million years, a German geo- scientist said on Tuesday.
"It's blown away the prevailing wisdom that we had a steady cold phase during this era," said Lothar Viereck-Goette, a professor at the University of Jena who is examining rock raised by the four-nation Antarctic Geological Drilling (Andrill) project.
"That means that climate variation is something normal, not out of the ordinary," he said.
The drill site was in the seabed under the Ross Ice Shelf, where sediment provides evidence of expanding and contracting ice sheets."
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443
On the other hand, Medved's article is inane, and if you truly "left the Democratic party" (whatever that means in a state without party membership) because of Bill Clinton's sex life and blame him for the popularity of the cervical cancer vaccine, well, what can I say...
Posted by: Bruce on March 1, 2007 12:20 PMShhh...don't tell the truth. The people who post here don't want to hear the truth. You can't attribute anything good to Clinton or accuse Bush II of being a lousy President.
Not a war, but were doing something about it.
Posted by: Andrew S. on March 1, 2007 01:13 PM"This Nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy. We will defend our freedom." - George W. Bush, June 28, 2005.
Not quite the same as:
The US has carried out at least two air strikes in southern Somalia targeting Islamist fighters, who the US believes include members of an al-Qaeda cell.
Bombing a "suspected camp" is not the same as seeking out and killing the evildoers, the destroyers of freedom.
You mean like those recent military strikes there? I guess that doesn't count.
Of course if Bill wouldn't have run away with his tail between his legs, then they wouldn't have a stronghold there either.
"Al-Queda is still hell bent on destroying Israel (and the US too). Nothing has changed in this scenario under Bush except that we are now "friends" with Lybia & Pakistan."
So am I to understand that having two of these countries on our side now is a bad thing? I think Israel would disagree with you on that.
The argument is not whether Afghanistan was or was not a just wasr. The argument is that Gore would never have gone there in the first place. He would have capitulated and made the enemy stronger.
Posted by: Ken on March 1, 2007 01:57 PMI'm gonna run and tell Sean Penn. Or is it George Clooney?
p.s. Harry Reid is A Mormon!
Posted by: Rey Smith on March 1, 2007 02:11 PMI generally lump you in with Ivan, Cato, and David et al. because that is where you are. Regarding the money I gave to the DNC, you mean that didn't ID me as a dem. You mean that little card they sent was phony. I want my money back.
Medved must have struck a cord. Oh, since we don't have to identify ourselves as dem or republican now, which I refuse to do, does that mean I get to vote in the primary for other than non-partisan races?
Apparently you can't chew gum and walk at the same time. Not all here are party members. I am an indie. Bush, in my opinion, was correct in targeting Iraq. His handling of the war was deficient:
1. Rumsfield made an incorrect judgement about troop strength necessary to pursue the objective.
2. Bush never prepared the public for the length of the battle with terrorism.
3. Bremer should have kept some rements of the prior government.
Bush made grave errors in judgement, but they are not impeachable offenses. Didn't Hillary vote for the resolution on Iraq?
Lybia never was a treat after Clinto imposed santions on the country in '92.
Pakistan is a funny country to be friends with, after all Pakistans military and intelegence agency created the Taliban. Pakistans president is not exactly promoting democracy and freedom in his country. They're also a nuclear state accused of helping Iran with it's nuke production. Are they really our friends or just jumping on the bandwagon for USA finacial aid?
One thing they teach about battle plans- after ten minutes of battle, you can throw the things away.
I would have liked us to be a little more aggressive.
The thing that bugs me about the military is that they are so darned slow to change. I suppose that is good in a conventional war, but not so good in a guerrilla war. Maybe, just maybe, that is what Rummy was up to when he wanted a mobile military; but he was thwarted by his generals.
Posted by: swatter on March 1, 2007 03:10 PMBack in the day, when I was at WAZZU, I took a Byzantine history course from one of the best profs I ever had. The Byzantine diplomatic motto:
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I know for the Striesand/Clooney types that don't live in the real world and have no clue about how tribal cultures operate, it is probably anathema. For many of the countries that operate in the UN both on the security council and in the human rights council, I believe Libya is on that, it is their code.
Which terrorist act did the sovereign nation of Afghanistan commit?
It's my understanding that the attacks on 9-11 were commited by Al-Queda. True, there were Al-Queda members living in Afghanistan. But since Afghanistan didn't attack us, doesn't that mean that the war in Afghanistan is also illegal- at least using your logic? Unless of course, the mere presense of Al-Queda members is justification for war. But if their presense is justification for that war, why isn't it justification for the war in Iraq?
Posted by: David on March 1, 2007 03:28 PM1) How many of these "protestors" have real jobs & pay taxes?
2) How many of these "protestors" were members of the ACORN group that submitted over 1000 fraudulent Voter Registrations?
3) How many of these "protestors" live in Washington State?
4) How many of these "protestors" are receiving or have received government subsidies?
5) How many of these "protestors" are paying for the cost of their "protest"?
6) How many of these "protestors" voted for Bush?
Gee whiz David....is this really newsworthy??
Isn't the fact our State Retirement Fund is underfunded by nearly $6 Billion a bit more newsworthy?
> Trolls, this is not a global warming thread. Stay on topic.
You need to relax, Jeff, I posted the link because it was newsworthy not for the purpose of making this thread into a Global Warming argument.
As to the impeachment question: Ain't going to happen. End of Story.
Why argue about impossible things?
George W. Bush will be out of office in 2009, between now and then he will remain a lame duck president. In other words: America has already solved its George W. Bush problem. The Democrats have the House and Senate.
Impeachment would do great harm to America and that it why it is beyond consideration. George W. Bush will be out of office soon enough. No need to rush.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 1, 2007 07:39 PMI guess Kuwait didnt matter????
Posted by: ronk on March 1, 2007 09:21 PMWell I'm glad you were able to muster up enough brain power to post a reply...
By the way, I am NOT any-bodies alter ego. What you see is THE original.
So would you care to refute my earlier post or are you going to just make personal attacks, and run?
Posted by: David on March 1, 2007 09:44 PMI had hoped to point out to Cato the gaping hole in his logic (see posts 14, and 31). When WVH jumped in with his mouth, but not his brain- I responded.
Katomar- I don't know where you stand on the issue, and at this point I DON'T CARE! If you can't post on subject- PLEASE DON'T POST!
Posted by: David on March 1, 2007 10:23 PMWhen I refer to David Mathews, it is David, et al.
I don't even know who you are. Have you been posting here longer than a minute?
"Well I'm glad you were able to muster up enough brain power to post a reply..."
Let's see doctorate, law degree, and MBA in economics. Your brain power is.....?
Oh by the way, "I had hoped to point out to Cato the gaping hole in his logic (see posts 14, and 31). When WVH jumped in with his mouth, but not his brain- I responded."
I have no intent of getting a sex change, I'm a she. So much for your knowledge of all things, genius.
Posted by: WVH on March 1, 2007 11:03 PMI was under the impression that I was talking to a Liberal as you seemed to be trying to defend Cato.
If the comments you made in post 39 directed to David were meant for David Matthews, then I apologize.
If not, then I would ask you to look at this from my perspective. I have someone, who I don't know, apparently making personal attacks against me. If you wish to debate, please do. Otherwise, I respectfully ask that you stay on topic.
Posted by: David on March 1, 2007 11:29 PMWhere to begin...
Apologies for assuming you were refering to me.
Yes, I have posted here before- although not very often. Normally I let others do the debating, and only jump in when I feel strongly about a given subject.
Apologies for the personal attack on your intelligence.
And finally, apologies for guessing the wrong gender when refering to you.
Posted by: David on March 1, 2007 11:37 PMApology accepted and to all a good night.
Posted by: WVH on March 1, 2007 11:41 PM