Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The Why Haven't You Impeached The President Tour

  1. #1
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,489

    Default The Why Haven't You Impeached The President Tour

    WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.

    As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.

    In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.

    Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.

    Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”

    That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.

    “There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!

    Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.

    While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.

    At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.

    And they do not.

    Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.

    And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

    “He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”

    Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.

    Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.

    The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.

    The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.

    While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.

    These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us...web-hulse.html
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  2. #2
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”
    Is she fucking brain damaged? There's 8 years of crimes all nicely tallied up, detailed and written.

    Stupid bitch. Die please. You're useless, a failure, and frankly either complicit in those crimes or utterly braindead. Either way, you should not be in office.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #3
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    She has turned out to be a real disappointment, as has the democratically controlled senate. Why do they keep giving W the $ for the war? What was the point of getting the Republicans out if these twits are just going to cave everytime?

  4. #4
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    because the repukes then say "oh you hate the troops" and instead of countering with something like "STOP USING THE TROOPS AS A PAWN" they simply cave.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #5
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    My feeling is, they should have sent W the funding bill with the withdrawal date. When he refused to sign it, that's it. "Well we tried to fund the troops, but the president wouldn't sign it". The End. Cant throw a war without the checkbook to pay for it.

  6. #6
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    They DID do that, and Bush said all that crap about hating the troops and hating freedom and how 'the situation on the ground would determine the pullout date, cuz if you say now it emboldens our enemiez" and Dems caves instantly.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  7. #7
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    My point was, the appropriate response would have been to not send him another appropriations bill, instead of reworking the first one to Bush's tune. Let W have been the one to explain why there was no more funding for W's war.

  8. #8
    Bronze Member beascott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scooter View Post
    My point was, the appropriate response would have been to not send him another appropriations bill, instead of reworking the first one to Bush's tune. Let W have been the one to explain why there was no more funding for W's war.
    Agreed. Though I just don't see this happening anytime soon.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. President Bush's legacy
    By AliceInWonderland in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: November 8th, 2007, 11:38 PM
  2. Death of a President
    By AliceInWonderland in forum Television and Movies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 14th, 2006, 01:39 PM
  3. MS President
    By IceQueen in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 16th, 2006, 04:18 AM
  4. When is Bush Getting Impeached?
    By glamazon in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: January 9th, 2006, 12:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •