Bring It On!

Change Is In the Wind

June 18th, 2008 | by Liberal Jarhead |

In the “Too Little Too Late But Definitely Better Than Nothing” category, the House passed Representative Dennis Kucinich’s HR 1258 and voted 251-166 to refer impeachment charges against George W. Bush to the Judiciary Committee.

It may get bogged down until he stumbles out of office about seven months from now, or the Senate may acquit him, but this still puts him in a small and un-elite group, only the third president to have received this dubious (Dubyaous?) distinction, after Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. No doubt he’ll take heart from the fact that the Senate didn’t convict either of them; maybe Bill will call to commiserate. (Nixon would have been impeached too but skipped town just in time.)

Now if only they had likewise honored Darth Cheney. After all, if Dubya is removed from office, we will be treated to the wondrous sight of Big Dick taking the oath as our 44th president. But there’s still time to impeach him too.

After the long dark night of the past seven and a half years, could we be seeing an actual return to the rule of law? What a concept!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 17 Responses to “Change Is In the Wind”

  2. By Tom Harper on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    It may be a day late and a dollar short, but this is still exciting news. I don’t know if this move will be beneficial politically, but it needs to be done. We need to at least go through the motions of looking like we’re still a nation of laws.

  3. By Liberal Jarhead on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    If McCain is trying hard to distance himself from Bush now, imagine how painful he’ll find that association if Bush’s impeachment is dominating the news through most of the campaign…

    An interesting tidbit to me was that even though two of my state’s three Representatives are conservative Republicans, they voted for impeachment along with the moderate Democrat. Bush may turn out to be Obama’s most effective campaigner.

    And with this weird Oedipal thing Dubya has dragged the world along with while he’s devoted American blood and treasure to trying to outdo Daddy for seven and a half years, I wonder how he’ll deal with the fact that Daddy didn’t get impeached?

  4. By mr bigstuff on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    i must not have been paying attention for the last 8 years. did w commit the society-destroying, earth-shattering, felonious mortal sin of getting a blow job? i hope it was from a woman and not a man like all the other republicans i have been reading about. do tell.

  5. By manapp99 on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    I have been saying this all along. I hope the Dems will go all out with impeachment hearings. Nothing would be better for the GOP than seeing the donkeys trying to defend the lies they have put out in the MSM about impeachable charges that will not stand up to scrutiny. Like the supposed lies about intel on WMD. Putting the trial on cable T.V. day after day will show how petty and vile the left wing kooks in the Democrat party have become.

  6. By Liberal Jarhead on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    Yeah, that must be why both of the conservative Republican Representatives in my state’s Congressional delegation (Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce), along with a bunch of other Republicans, voted for impeachment.

    And I’m sure the Republican-owned MSM (basically all the major TV networks, Clear Channel radio and billboards, most major newspapers) has been presenting the stories about the imaginary WMDs, the imaginary Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, the White House staff treason and perjury of Plamegate, and so on because they like to be sued, which is what would happen if those things weren’t factual and evidence-based.

    You want to talk about petty and vile? Outing a working CIA agent, thereby endangering that agent’s life and the lives of the intelligence sources with whom the agent was working, because the agent’s spouse pissed you off by blowing the whistle on a big lie in the State of the Union address… that would be petty and vile, yes. For that matter, the Gingrich & Starr Blow Job Impeachment circus, and the Contract On America gang shutting down the economy because Newty had to use the back hatch instead of the front one on Air Force One and his feelings were hurt, yeah, that’s petty and vile too. At least that’s the way all us left wing kooks in the Marine Corps and the other branches of the military felt about it when our operations were basically shut down and we didn’t know whether we were going to get paid the next payday. But then, the troops are notorious for being that kind of left wing kooks; can’t take them seriously, as the current administration clearly understands.

  7. By Lisa on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    Mann remember the 9-11 commission went from a “Blame Bush” to let’s see how we can improve things when perhaps democrats had to bear some of the responsibility. The problem is the media will protect the democats like they always do and do their best to divert from the lies they told as well.
    This is why they want to shut down “free speech” under the guise of the Fairness Doctrine.
    They don’t want to be exposed for the “crooks and liars” that they really are. They have the majority of the news networks now but they want it all and want Americans to only hear them. Unfortunately they are organized and have the money to make it happen.

  8. By Lisa on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    LJ-Do you think Obama would have half a chance in hell if the media was controlled by the right wing?

  9. By Lisa on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    I guess the it’s right wing media who pushng this right wing Obama in our face.

  10. By manapp99 on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    They did not vote for impeachment. They voted to send it to committee where, after 30 days, it will die. Big difference.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0608/Impeachment_measure_sent_to_Judiciary_Committee_Kuci
    nich_vows_to_fight_on.html

    “The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the measure to the House Judiciary Committee, a procedure that is often used to kill controversial legislation. Interestingly, 24 Republicans voted with the Democrats to refer the bill to the committee.”

  11. By manapp99 on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    “Outing a working CIA agent, thereby endangering that agent’s life and the lives of the intelligence sources with whom the agent was working, because the agent’s spouse pissed you off by blowing the whistle on a big lie in the State of the Union address…”

    Exactly the kind of baseless arguments I am refering to. After millions of dollars wasted no one was even charged with this much less convicted. You would never get impeachment charges agaist Bush on this.

  12. By mr bigstuff on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    napp,
    do you really believe everything w has done is within the guidelines of the constitution? do you really believe that he has been truthful about the reasons to invade and stay in iraq? do you really believe that w is anything but a corrupt miserable failure? if so, you need to take it on down to the nearest recruiting station and if you’re too old or infirm to qualify under the loose enlistment requirements they have now send your resume to halliburtin. both would welcome you and your blind, deaf and dumb obedience. you obviously have been shielded from the debacle in iraq, the worst economy since the depression, $4-$5/gallon gasoline, and the laughingstock america has become worldwide. does w inspire confidence in you? do you anxiously hang on every word slurred and stuttered from his childish paranoid mouth? if all above is true, you are less aware than helen keller.

  13. By Lisa on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE

    MB-Do you really believe everything you say as well?
    Noice how things are getting worse since the democrats took over congress.
    Be careful what you wish for. “Change” is not always for the better.

  14. By Ken Grandlund on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    Manapp said, “Exactly the kind of baseless arguments I am refering to. After millions of dollars wasted no one was even charged with this much less convicted. You would never get impeachment charges agaist Bush on this.”

    So I suppose you think Nixon didn’t commit any crimes either since he resigned and was then preemptorily pardoned?

    Or maybe Hitler didn’t commit any war crimes because he was never hauled in front of the Nuremburg judges?

    The fact that a person is not charged does not mean they are innocent of criminal behavior. In the case of politicians charged with judging another, its often a case of cowardice than of truth whether or not a trial occurs.

    Of course, the millions wasted by Starr proved nothing either, yet the “right” continues to heap accusations on that man.

    Double standard anyone???

  15. By Liberal Jarhead on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    I am noticing that manapp and Lisa are definitely limited in their debate repertoires; you can count on them to:
    (1) immediately try to change the subject, so that if someone points out something Bush does wrong, they immediately yell “But look at (fill in the blank)!”, and then:
    (2) The Big Lie - just deny any inconvenient facts, and make up any that would strengthen their argument, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. It’s like the kid caught with his hand in the cooky jar who won’t admit he was grabbing a cookie; denying it doesn’t keep it from being true. For example, does anyone think the ownership of all the mass media in the US is not a matter of public record? Or do you think Rupert Murdoch is a liberal, maybe? and then they will usually:

    (3) Throw out a bunch of dramatic-sounding but unsubstantive verbiage like “throwing Obama in our faces.” The man is one of the two major candidates for a presidential election that will take place in four and a half months! Covering that is called reporting the news, not propaganda. Or do you think that their being conservative, or more accurately corporate, would mean they would just not talk about the election, or only admit there was one candidate?
    It’s kind of funny to see you argue that when conservative Republicans had a choice between voting for or against articles of impeachment - an up or down vote - they voted “aye”, that means they were really trying to keep the impeachment from happening. Of course they voted to send the articles to the Judiciary Committee - that’s how the process works! (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States ) That’s how they get to the Senate. They may indeed get stalled in committee, but that’s not what happened in the cases of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton. The Committee voted to send the Articles to the Senate in all those cases, though Nixon bailed at that point and Ford pardoned him, ending the matter.

    Bottom line, the truth doesn’t care whether you believe it or not; it just sits there grinning at you, being true.

  16. By mr bigstuff on Jun 20, 2008 | Reply

    lisa,
    if i didn’t believe it, i wouldn’t say it. unless of course i am practicing sarcasm. but you gotta figure out which is which on your own. anybody ever seen the monty python skit where the pyrhanna brothers victims tell the police that they are victims of the brothers sarcasm? if so, you’re laughing right now.

  17. By Lisa on Jun 20, 2008 | Reply

    LJ-Did you ever think that the impeachment movemnet and the Bush lied movement is getting to be redundant?
    I mean when you keep harping on the same thing over and over there is little left to debate.

  18. By Windspike on Jun 20, 2008 | Reply

    Lisa,

    Since when is following the Constitution of the USA redundant?

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel