Comments on: Pick Which WH Press Secretary Is Lying

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 03:03:59 +0000

Hi phred. Thanks for reading closely. Actually I didn’t mean to imply that impeachment needed to wait for an impartial Congress to appear, in fact I was arguing the opposite, that Congress will never ever be impartial. In the impeachment context this is primarily due to party loyalties, so as a result, the bigger the D majority at the time of the actual impeachment vote, the better chance it will have. Put that in the context of the fall elections where a major increase in the D majorities is all but guaranteed, and it looks pretty clear that chances for a successful impeachment vote will be significantly better after the new Congress is seated. Of course seeing that logic should in no way minimize the fact that the longer the waiting, the more dead. And it doesn’t mean HJC shouldn’t get busy immediately if not sooner, obviously they should. The actual impeachment vote in the full House is the thing that most needs the opportune moment, because we only get one chance, and if it fails, then there will never be any rolling back of the precedents Bush years.

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:18:21 +0000

I was just trying to thread the needle and find a way that Pelosi might pursue impeachment.

Okay, got it — my earlier reading of your comment seemed very out of character for you,. Apologies if I misunderstood.

It is so difficult to watch Congress be ignored, stonewalled, and lied to. But Pelosi’s “You don’t know the half of it” suggests that at least someone(s) other than the bloggers are trying to connect the dots. Here’s hoping…

By: phred

phred — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:57:52 +0000

rOTL, I’m not entirely following you, but I think we’re in agreement. I was just trying to thread the needle and find a way that Pelosi might pursue impeachment. However, I entirely concur that any politician who has had a hand in the myriad lawbreaking of these last years all ought to be impeached. The catch is that only politicians can conduct impeachment, which is why the rest of us continue to sit here waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and…

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:19:32 +0000

phred,

First, putting this in a partisan context clouds the real issues involving national security. Further, they cloud the issues about what a so-called “Commander in Chief” OWES those in uniform, which is to cover their asses and in all deeds and actions conduct affairs in ways that honor their work. Frankly, if any Dem were in on outing Plame, my attitude is that they ought to damn well be impeached right along with any Republicans who conspired.

By: phred

phred — Sat, 31 May 2008 13:43:38 +0000

Great debate last night folks — I clearly turned in for the night much too soon ; )

Hmmm, you said a couple of things above that I just wanted to follow up on briefly, first that Congress won’t be impartial, and second that we need to wait for the opportune moment.

We don’t need, and with the current crop of legislators, can’t expect Congress to be impartial. In my view, impeachment is for the benefit of the public. The public will be watching and evaluating the proceedings. Impeachment is for our benefit, to inform us. It is why I am so convinced that with hearings the public will pressure members of Congress to do the right thing. So waiting for an impartial Congress will never get us where we need to be. And besides, members of Congress are in dire need of a reminder they work for us, having the public closely scrutinize the actions of each member during hearings would certainly help in that effort.

Second, I do believe this is the opportune moment. Just as the R’s set the bar for impeachment too low with Clinton, the D’s are setting it too high for Bush. If we fail to impeach Bush now, then what will be sufficient grounds for any succeeding President? And much worse, if Congress essentially lets all of the BushCo criminal conduct slide with no consequences of any kind, then how do we put a stop to the criminal conduct itself? To me, it is much more worrying that all of this just slides into the next Presidency, then all subsequent holders of that office will inherit what appear to be monarchical powers, pixie dust and all.

By: selise

selise — Sat, 31 May 2008 13:12:31 +0000

bmaz - i think pelosi has said it herself when mike stark asked her about impeachment during a conference call.

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:54:48 +0000

Complicit–too early in the AM

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:54:08 +0000

And then there’s this old phrase: “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” or “Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.” (George Bernard Shaw)

Complicet Americans who know nothing about Iraq and everything about “Sex and the City” are responsible for this killing in spades.

Nation as a whole guilty of self-deception at war’s outset

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:21:33 +0000

I pick option C

and I suggest that we now decide which lying press secretary deserves the Ron Ziegler award for distinguished lying

I do wish for the day when a presnit had to physically push these guys out on stage to tell the lies

the jump right out there now

By: BayStateLibrul

BayStateLibrul — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:18:28 +0000

Bush still has his cheerleading moves.
My God, the Prez, how did we fall so far, so fast.
He is a psychological time bomb.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....irman.html