Don't know that I agree with all of this but it's interesting and
contains a nice giggle.
Impeach ***** Cheney, Democrats keep stalling.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4581
On November 6, a bizarre struggle took place over the resolution to
impeach Cheney, where Republicans first voted to table it but then
turned around and voted to get it to debate in order to "embarass
Democrats."
The resolution ended up buried in a judiciary committee, but what on
earth happened? Why would Democrats want to avoid debating the
resolution?
In the video above, David Swanson argues that 'the Democratic
leadership knows that if the conversation starts, the case against
[Cheney] is so solid that they will have to impeach him."
But, isn't that the whole point?
Obviously not.
Democrats don't want to impeach Cheney any more than Republicans do.
This whole thing is just another 'made for tv' political drama, meant
to give the appearance of accountability when no such thing exists.
Swanson offers two suggestions for why Democrats keep stalling: (1)
Democrats are afraid that they will be embarrassed because they too
voted for the war; but more importantly (2) Democrats want to 'play it
safe' by keeping the occupation of Iraq going and keeping Bush and
Cheney in office so that they 'can run against those three things in
2008' (since that 'worked so well in 2006').
I propose a third, far more likely reason why the Democratic shmucks
in congress won't impeach Bush and Cheney.
Nancy Pelosi, an ardent zionist, was told that Cheney must remain
exactly where he is because Bush simply can't launch another war
before he leaves office without him - he's too f*cking stupid.
Conyers and the rest of them "won't cross Pelosi," not because they're
afraid of her sorry *****, but because they're afraid of AIPAC, which
will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who dares impede their
insane plans to launch a war against Iran.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Democrats took impeachment from the table to the closet |
12 Nov 2007 02:45:16 AM |
|
|
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Don't know that I agree with all of this but it's
interesting and contains a nice giggle.
The Republicans, with a bigger majority in both houses,
tried to impeach Clinton. The result was the loss of not
one but two Republican speakers. Later, one of the
major forces in the house of Representatives pushing
for the impeachment -- Bob Barr -- was voted out of
office.
A second issue is that it clears the path for Bush to
hand pick the next GOP nominee. In the past 100 years
or more, the only Vice President to not win his party's
nomination was Dan Quayle. The Democrats certainly
don't want to do that for Bush.
Impeachment would be EXTREMELY popular amongst
many Democratic and left-wing (Greens and the
like) voters, but it would be highly unpopular with the
right. The middle would be apathetic (they see a great
need for real work to do done), and the Reich would
use their control of the media to drive the middle against
the Democrats.
Sorry, but, in the end, people really only hate you for
the things you do, not the things you don't do. The
Democratic leadership simply doesn't want to repeat
the mistakes made by the GOP leadership in the 1990s.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Democrats took impeachment from the table to the closet |
12 Nov 2007 04:02:24 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194857116.489666.322910@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Sorry, but, in the end, people really only hate you for
the things you do, not the things you don't do.
That's stinking monkey god *****. Americans will be hating those Dems they
hired to end the Iraq War if they don't end it as they promised.
However, I will admit we hate you for what you've done in this group, not
for what you haven't done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Democrats took impeachment from the table to the closet |
13 Nov 2007 03:10:28 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
That's
Dance, monkey. Nobody is inerested in what a multiple
personality disorder has to say. Dance, monkey.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Democrats took impeachment from the table to the closet |
13 Nov 2007 04:28:16 AM |
|
|
On 13 Nov, 09:10, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
That's
Dance, monkey. Nobody is inerested in what a multiple
personality disorder has to say. Dance, monkey.
Yes, about standard reply to Doc.
After all, his riposte just about summed everything up, was witty and
sharp and you are quite simply 'out-classed'.
In case you have forgotten already, Doc said, "However, I will admit
we hate you for what you've done in this group, not for what you
haven't done."
You are in the wrong class JTEM.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Democrats took impeachment from the table to the closet |
13 Nov 2007 04:45:00 AM |
|
|
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dance, monkey. Nobody is inerested in what a multiple
personality disorder has to say. Dance, monkey.
Yes, about
That "Yes, Master."
Practice it until you get it right, monkey.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pers3id" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Democrats took impeachment from the table to the closet |
11 Nov 2007 07:24:20 PM |
|
|
John Lemke <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in news:1194793260.666299.49550
@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
Don't know that I agree with all of this but it's interesting and
contains a nice giggle.
Impeach ***** Cheney, Democrats keep stalling.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4581
On November 6, a bizarre struggle took place over the resolution to
impeach Cheney, where Republicans first voted to table it but then
turned around and voted to get it to debate in order to "embarass
Democrats."
The resolution ended up buried in a judiciary committee, but what on
earth happened? Why would Democrats want to avoid debating the
resolution?
In the video above, David Swanson argues that 'the Democratic
leadership knows that if the conversation starts, the case against
[Cheney] is so solid that they will have to impeach him."
But, isn't that the whole point?
Obviously not.
Democrats don't want to impeach Cheney any more than Republicans do.
This whole thing is just another 'made for tv' political drama, meant
to give the appearance of accountability when no such thing exists.
Swanson offers two suggestions for why Democrats keep stalling: (1)
Democrats are afraid that they will be embarrassed because they too
voted for the war; but more importantly (2) Democrats want to 'play it
safe' by keeping the occupation of Iraq going and keeping Bush and
Cheney in office so that they 'can run against those three things in
2008' (since that 'worked so well in 2006').
I propose a third, far more likely reason why the Democratic shmucks
in congress won't impeach Bush and Cheney.
Nancy Pelosi, an ardent zionist, was told that Cheney must remain
exactly where he is because Bush simply can't launch another war
before he leaves office without him - he's too f*cking stupid.
It is quite sad and pathetic that upsetting the tremulous bush house of
cards at all would make everything much, much worse.. and it's already
about as bad as anyone wants to see happening.
Bush (with possible strategic help from the evil Darth Cheney) has
created a perverse reality around him where any possible course of
action would lead to a worse outcome than just letting him finish
his 2nd term. He's fucked up everything he's touched, and created a
poison-pill type of golden parachute for himself, as if to say,
go ahead take me out, I dare ya, it'll only make things far worse
for yourselves.. it's a doomsday pacemaker.. if his heart stops then
the tribulation starts.
Conyers and the rest of them "won't cross Pelosi," not because they're
afraid of her sorry *****, but because they're afraid of AIPAC, which
will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who dares impede their
insane plans to launch a war against Iran.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
