Tag: impeachment

I am not reposting this now because I think it is great. I’m reposting this now, because I wrote it when we still had habeas corpus and to support Wexler’s Call for Cheney’s Impeachment.

(Condemn- to state that something or somebody is in some way wrong or unacceptable)

What would our forefathers say about the state of the nation today?

I imagine if they were alive now, they would say something similar to what I have written after they read this, at least.

ASSOCIATED PRESS:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14656812/

“In the eight months ending last May, Justice attorneys declined to prosecute more than nine out of every 10 terrorism cases sent to them by the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies. Nearly 4 in 10 of the rejected cases were scrapped because prosecutors found weak or insufficient evidence, no evidence of criminal intent or no evident federal crime.”

Robert Wexler (D-FL-19), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, is pushing forward to hold hearings on the impeachment of Dick Cheney!

His reasoning:

Wexler wants hearings!  You can sign up in support of the call for hearings on the impeachment of Dick Cheney!

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!

– Patrick Henry

I have not yet begun to fight!

– John Paul Jones

Impeachment is off the table.

– Nancy Pelosi

So, Joe Biden says he’d be for impeachment of W if we attack Iran.  Chris Dodd says he  might be for impeachment if Iran is attacked.

Bully boys, at least you are in the lead of the other candidates.

Well…not really.

You see, there’s Dennis Kucinich!

You see, I remember the last Iraq Occupation Supplemental.  I remember we’ll do it this one more time and draw the line in the sand in September.  Of course, September came and went, and we should be happy that there wasn’t any funding.  Same for October and November.  But now it’s December!

My Mom will be 78 on Tuesday.  She is a stiff-upper-lip Yankee, born and raised in a tiny town in Vermont.  This was the 4-room school she attended (and at which she received a superb education) and graduated from as the top 14 percent of her class of 7:

I’m feeling just about burned out with progressive activism.

The problem is that there are too many back-stabbers posing as progressives.

We can go all out in our efforts, only to be stepped on by scheming opportunists like a rung on their ladder financial independence.

Look at the big bloggers, how they’ve become beholden to the establishment.

The same guy, Markos Moulitsas, who wrote a book called “Crashing the Gates” is now against impeachment.

Markos lets guys like Dana Houle (DHinMI) – a paid political professional who lives in DC, lecture the real activists in condescending lectures about how dumb we are to expect to impeach Bush.

DHinMI can ban you if you talk back to him after he insults you like you’re a bratty kid and he’s your minder.

That’s what we get for all the time, effort, money we’ve contributed. We get treated like brats.

My message to those arrogant bloggers is this: Fuck you, assholes!

My message to the back-stabbing, Bush Dogs again is: Fuck you, assholes!

I no longer call myself a Democrat, and I probably never will again because some people have insisted on ruining it for the rest of us.

I’m not a Democrat, not a coward, not a torture and war-crime enabler. No, I’m not a Democrat.

This diary is going to consist primarily of partisan invective and vitriolic ad-hominem attacks.

It is intended to be divisive of the enemies and unifying for the base of the Democratic Party.

By “Surrendercrats” I mean Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and to some extent, John Edwards.

I’m deliberately leaving a bit of wiggle room for John Edwards because of the top three candidates whom are all uniformly disappointing, John Edwards is not as bad as Obama, whom himself is not as bad as Hillary.

I won’t vote for Hillary, but I probably would vote for Obama because he doesn’t have two terms of insulting the base of his party under his belt like the Clintons.

Ok, those are the “Surrendercrats”.

Kucinich stands in stark contrast to the “Surrendercrats”.

I sure like the way “Surrendercrats” sounds, BTW. I also call them “Republicrats” and “Bush-boot-licker-crats” as well.

Kucinich is the opposite of a “Surrendercrat”. Kucinich raps John Edwards for his vote for the Iraq War, the Patriot Treason Act. Kucinich raps Obama for voting to fund the Iraq occupation without any accountability from Bush. Kucinich raps Clinton for being the war-pimping skag and Bush-lover that she is.

Kucinich stands head and shoulders above his rivals. He is a DEMOCRAT. They are Surrendercrats.

Now, about the Bourgeoise Bloggers, Impeachment Obstructors, Sell-Outs, and enablers of the Surrendercrats…

These people tend to be “A-list” bloggers with over 100,000 visits per day. These bloggers have become shills for the Surrendercrats. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is a fine example of a Bourgeoise Blogger of the Blogger Aristocracy.

Markos is and always has been against impeachment. Why is that? Could it be related to the fact that he was once a registered Republican who worked for Henry Hyde?

Since when do real Democrats welcome Republicans to lead us by the nose against our better judgment? Markos is a sellout.

Also, Atrios is a wuss who only made the faintest noise in favor of impeachment.

There are other big bloggers who are also very weak and undeserving of their traffic.

They are our opposition now and they will remain our opposition after 2008. They have shown that they are sunshine patriots who are willing to sell out the constitution in favor of a little ad-revenue and higher traffic to their blog.

I’ll finish this screed with praise for Kucinich, long may he reign.

I beseech all readers of this diary to do the only ethical thing and to support Kucinich as he works to impeach Bush, Cheney, and humiliate the Surrendercrats who enable Bush and Cheney, and to make the Bourgeoise Bloggers who enable the Surrendercrats eat crow as they so richly deserve.

There was a good question about impeachment at my blog in response to this posting: http://rjones2818.blogspot.com…

Here’s the question:

RJones,

Do you have a view on removing all the roadblocks — as you see them — to an impeachment investigation?  

There’s a horrible phrase that we’ve heard a lot of since the election of 2006 – “impeachable offenses”.

“Impeachable” is probably not even a real word. The word “impeachable” makes me sick. From now on, when I hear someone use that word, I’m going to ask that they don’t use it any more.

“Impeachable” is a word that we should not use if we intend to further the process of impeachment.

The problem is this – the word “impeachable” implies we have two options – to impeach or not to impeach.

I’d like to see a contextual analysis of all the occurrences of the pseudo-word “impeachable”. I have a feeling the opponents of impeachment may be the ones pushing this word into the lexicon by repeating some variation of this excuse – “Yes Bush has committed impeachable offenses, but… [insert unpatriotic rationalization here]”

The fact is, Bush’s grave offenses against the constitution leave us no choice but to impeach, or to lose our freedom.

Bush and Cheney are not merely “impeachable”. They must be impeached. I wish I could think of a new word or phrase which means “impeachment is required or else we lose our freedom”.

I suppose there are offenses which might be accurately described as “impeachable”. That is to say – there are things Bush has done which make us think “perhaps we should impeach” or “maybe it’s a good idea”, but these things are trifles.

Legislation we don’t like is a fine reason to consider maybe impeaching Bush and Cheney.

I think maybe we should impeach just because the opposition party is pissing us off with their bad attitudes.

Maybe we should impeach their president just to see the veins in their ugly heads bulge, and with the hope that we may cause a few strokes or heart attacks among the senior members of the Republican Congress.

These are all fine reasons to impeach, but they’re optional, not required.

The real crimes of the Bush administration require impeachment for the preservation of freedom and democracy in America.

Please answer my poll to help choose new words or phrases which conveys the meaning – “impeachment-requiring” offenses.