James,
Twisted intelligence? Now is that an oxymoron? Intelligence is what it is; nothing else. Bill Clinton didnt have time to do much more than lie about his many affairs. You need to provide proof of your allegations not just your belief.

I hope the pbs and msnbc websites are up and running.

They'll be used extensively to provide proof positive this lte has credence. Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews has the real scoop that trumps anything the CIA has to offer...

NCP:

Agreed Intelligence is what it is, and usually it is incomplete at best .. but like the Tonkin Resolution and as witnessed by the Pentagon Papers .. what was known was dissed because it did not support preconceived expectations, so if Cheney's solution of getting it himself and then culling what he didn't like is not "twisting" - then you'll have to explain it to me.

Kitty:

I don't know about Olbermann or Mathews. I watched an Olbermann clip on youtube .. ONCE.

As for PBS - damm straight. With what do you counter besides your personal convictions - which are as far as I can tell have as an only basis, "once-they-spat-upon-others-that-had-been-crunching-rice-while-I-was-aboard-ship" left over 'nam memories ?

I know I know - everything contrary to your personal convictions come from those "dismissed because of incompetence and are bitter because of it". Whatever.

I would think that if the Dems had just the slightest chance of introducing an impeachment bill that would not make them look like bigger idiots, than they would do it without reserve. You cannot give me one reason why they would not go that route if they thought they had a chance at thwarting the present administration. As far as I’m concerned, this surrender timetable they tried to pass was a bigger embarrassment than any impeachment bill they could ever put together.

Didn't mean to preempt your pbs strike cRock-o-...feller.

Please continue.

Rock: for at least the second time -- what's your Iraq plan?

Here's GWB's as I understand it: Victory as in .. the present government gains stability and becomes self-sufficient. Fine. The present government is a Shi'ite fundamentalist coalition comprised of groups openly supportive of Iran.

Am I missing something?

=

Meow: Thanks. I'll let PBS speak for itself and wait until hell freezes over for you (or anyone else) to dispute what happened (we're talking "twisted intelligence") .. 'cause you and no-one else can ) dispute what happened.

You can dispute the earth orbits the sun, but you'll be full of crap. It's a 'nam thing I guess.

Pretty weak letter, James. At least give us something to chew on in our consideration to support your position.

Here's a link to the articles of impeachment drawn up by the hippies over at GQ magazine (linked to a republishing of the article because the link at GQ was spread out on about 8 pages, making for annoying clickthroughs.. Don't say I never did anything nice for you)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022207N.shtml

Or even little man Kucinich's impeachment resolution as submitted recently:
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf

Calling into question the valid points both documents make might help your case, and prove more persuasive than your three sentences.

Had to laugh at the Republican candidates response to Scooter Libby questions. The irony was very deep in that they skewered their own party's reasons for Clinton impeachment by their answers on Libby.

Impeachment of Cheney/Bush is much more compelling than lying about getting your goop gobbled. The current administration has "outed" an undercover CIA agent, and lied to take us to war. Although Dems don't have the testicles to do it, they should be going forward with "Energy Task Force" investigation too.

That weird little man, Kucinich, at least has the order of Impeachment correct. Start with Cheney.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/12/22/impeach/index.html

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1639

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0402-16.htm

Rock,

Although I know you were talking about the democratic congress, speaking as a registered democrat I say you are full of yourself. The republican party would like nothing more than for the democrats to start impeachment proceedings. Then the could wag their collective incompetent fingers and say "See the democrats don't care about America either."

Bush/Chaney deserve to be kicked out, as does most of this administration. They have earned it in spades. However, bad as they are, impeachment would not be good for America. It would take too much money and too much focus off the truly important issues facing us (America). This would not serve our best interest. Besides, by the time impeachment proceedings were over, it would be time for the incompetents to vacate the WH anyways.

By not starting proceedings, the democrats are showing a more important focus. And I say bully for them for not getting sucked into a lose/lose situation.

Yvonne, good points; you speak my mind!

Shalom

What are the democrats waiting for? They have the reins now and control what takes place on the hill. If they have the goods on Bush/Cheney why not go ahead and start impeachment proceedings immediately?

Either they have polling data to suggest this won't fly...or they lack the stones to move forward with it.

I suspect both.

Just a guess, but here's my take on why the Democrats won't start impeachment proceedings. Picture this scenario:

Articles of impeachment are drawn up against EITHER President Bush OR Vice President Cheney or BOTH, as suggested by the LttE writer.

Vice President Cheney immediately retires for "health reasons."

President Bush nominates a VIABLE Republican to serve the balance of the term. Purely as an example, let's say former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee.

The House and Senate have very little legitimate reason to fight this viable nominee, so Thompson becomes Vice President of the United States.

SHAZAM ... a highly electable Republican has just been provided with the "bully pulpit" of the Vice Presidency for the duration of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Talk about worst case scenario for the Democrats!

We don't have time for impeachment. The Republicans have spent the last 12 years dividing this country & the Democrats now have the opportunity to either show us they're better than the Republicans or that they're no different. Unfortunately incompetence & being untruthful to the people aren't high crimes or misdemeanors so we have to put up with these people & do what we can to minimize the damage that they do to the country.

The surrender bill that Rock talks about is what we elected these guys to do so if they're wrong to do it we're wrong to send them up to do it. It's nice to have someone up there that listens. Folks have looked at the Iraq war and found it pointless. We need to be out of there yesterday.

JA,

Fred Thompson. That's funny. It's only the weakness of the Republican field that makes someone that has absolutely no accomplishments (in the public sector) but looks the part seem electable. Republicans had better accelerate the Reagan cloning program. Invoking his name every other sentence just didn't seem enough last night. At least he'd have enough sense to cut & run in Iraq. The bozos (sorry to the clowns I've offended) that we have in office now confuse stubbornness with strength.

"The bozos (sorry to the clowns I've offended) that we have in office now confuse stubbornness with strength."

AMEN!

Bush has all the answers and feels no need to reach concensus. He knows all, and thinks the rest of the world is out of step. Hard to believe the REPs impeached Clinton for lying about a hum job....they were really serious about the problems of America! lol!

Rufus_T.Firefly:

Perhaps I should have PREFACED my funny reference to Fred Thompson with something like, "Purely as an example ...."

Then you might have recognized that I was simply picking out a known Republican, not currently running for the Presidency, who was also not likely to be "Borked" by the Democratically controlled Congress.

So look back and just ADD that preface to the reference sentence.

I'll try to be more lucid in the future.

Sorry Jack,

I meant no offense.

It's just I find the Fred Thompson flurry of attention fascinating. In a way it's not that different from Obama but he's not skilled to the same degree Obama is and nobody really knows him that well. He's at the stage where everyone see in him what they want to see.

LibCon,

The Republicans of the '90s didn't give a flip about America, only about power (that didn't change much in the '00s). Impeaching Clinton was tremendously destructive to the country but they didn't really care. That's why I'm against impeachment now. The Dems need to be better than the Republicans. This job has to be about more than the accumulation of power and paying back blood debts. If the Dems keep their heads in their jobs and out of their you know what they'll keep their majority. Otherwise it's back to the wilderness for them and all of us.

Rufus,
I agree 100%. While I do not support impeachment, I do think Bush has committed far more egregious crimes than lying about having his goop gobbled.

Funny how the GOP debated exposed the hypocrisy of the party when it comes to crime. They all advocated, in some way or another, pardoning Libby. Some attacked the special prosecutor and even went so far as to say that he did not stick to the original purpose of the investigation----Lah Day Freaking DA! How did an investigation into real estate turn into exploring a President's sex life? Seems this batch of candidates has gotten up to speed on the hypocrisy scale.

"Can you fix my car?"
"Looks like you've blown a seal."
"No. I just spilled ice cream on my shirt."

Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE May 2, 2007 8:52 PM
*************************************************

"I do think (he) has committed far more egregious crimes than lying about having his goop gobbled."

Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE May 5, 2007 10:52 AM
**************************************************

It certainly doesn't take a Federico Fellini to fathom what's uppermost on YOUR mind, THE LIBERAL CON. Is it any wonder that you prefer President Clinton?

John Larsh, aka Jack Armstrong,
How can an out of work, washed up DJ support the party that opposes your own interests at every turn? Glad that you and Dan are infatuated with me to the point of reading, and re-reading my posts! What you need is to create your own blog---you AND Dan. It would be the crown jewel in your narcissistic crown.

Nah!

Just reading your and James D. Rockefeller's posts is about all of the "Keystone Cops" routine I can stand. No need to create another blog. I picture you as the Ford Sterling character and James D. Rockefeller as the Roscoe Arbuckle character.

Your duets are fine knee-slappers at first, but pathetically tedious after a very short while.