Skip to main content

Nine long time Republican Representatives have gone on record. They have vehemently and eloquently made a case for impeachment when we have a President who lies.
 I was very impressed at how outraged they were, how concerned they were about ensuring honor and integrity in the White House.  They believe that if the President continues such behavior it would ultimately destroy the fabric of our society and the foundations of our government for future generations.
They were quite firm in saying that such issues were above partisan politics.
If you don't have time to read it all, in summary they said that: A lying President is the antithesis of Truth, Justice and the American Way.
I am relieved, because now I know that they will have to impeach George W. Bush.

This will be the first of a series of diaries where I will share what I learned with you.

.......................................
Congressman DENNIS HASTERT (IL)
Mr. Speaker,
I am saddened that there is clear and convincing evidence
that the President lied. I look to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65, impeachment concerns `offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse of
violation of some public trust.' In this Nation, all men are created equal.
Simply put, the President in our representative democracy is not a sovereign who is above the law. The President's inability to abide by the law, the Constitution and my conscience have all led me to the solemn conclusion that impeachment articles must be passed.
.................................................................................................... ..... Congressman HENRY HYDE (IL)
Mr. Speaker,
Since we are a nation of laws, we must see to it that the laws are upheld and applied equally to all citizens. That principal is what this nation was built on; it is for what our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
And it is in this great legislative body that we are charged with making the laws that govern our nation. To permit the chief executive enforcing those laws to cast them aside as he pleases would, in effect, sanction such actions. To do nothing would be to place a stamp of approval on illicit conduct and transfer power to the executive branch, thus upsetting the system of checks and balances devised by the Framers. It would cheapen the law, which, in turn, would cheapen the work by this House.
A Republic is so difficult to maintain because it demands greater sacrifice and restraint on the part of the ruler and than the ruled. Part of this sacrifice is that our leaders are held to a higher standard of conduct as they set the example for the rest of the citizenry and are placed in a position of trust."
.................................................................................................... .....
Congressman JOHN BOEHNER (OH)
Mr. Speaker,
Under the Constitution that we swore to defend, these are serious crimes, crimes that our constituents would go to prison for, and do we hold the President, the top-ranking law enforcement official in our country, to a lower standard? John Locke once wrote, `Where the law ends, tyranny begins.'
Mr. Speaker, if we believe in our Constitution, then the law does not stop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In our constitutional democracy, no one, not even the President, is above the law. None of us sought the burden of impeachment when we ran for this office, but every one of us raised our right hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Who are we to ignore that obligation by turning a blind eye to crimes by the leader of our government?
.................................................................................................... .....
Congressman LAMAR SMITH (TX)
Mr. Speaker,
Our entire justice system rests on the rule of law. Without it,
we would not enjoy a civilized and democratic society. To carve out exceptions for anyone, particularly the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, would be to undermine this rule of law.

For the benefit of our country, to set an example for our children, our grandchildren and future generations, we must maintain our high ideals.
That the President has failed to meet the standard does not mean we should lower it.

It involves the most public of relationships, that between a citizen and the justice system, and that between the President and the American people. It is about honor and telling the truth. It is about respect for the law, respect for the office of the presidency, respect for the American people, respect for the officers of the court, respect for women, and ultimately, our own self respect.
.................................................................................................... .....
Congressman SAM JOHNSON (TX)
Mr. Speaker,
We have heard the argument that our military forces are fighting. Do my colleagues know what they are fighting for? They are fighting to uphold the Constitution and the oath that we took and they took.
As my colleagues know, when the President stands before God, puts his hand on the Bible and takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and lawfully carry out the duties of his office, he is promising to put the people and the Nation before his own interests. I believe the President violated the laws and beliefs he swore to uphold instead of following the law, respecting American people's values and honoring his office.

He chose to lie, cover up and evade the truth. His actions have made a mockery of the people who fought for this country and are fighting for this Nation today, the Constitution and the laws we live under, and because of the President's actions Congress must act as dictated by the Constitution.
.................................................................................................... .....
Congresswoman ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (FL)
Mr. Speaker,
Our courts of law and our legal system are the bedrock of our
democracy and of our system of individual rights...If we trivialize the role of truth in our judicial system by simply assuming that everyone will lie, then we trivialize the courts themselves, we trivialize the rule of law.
The greatest challenge of free peoples is to restrain abuses of governmental power. The power of the American presidency is awesome. When uncontrolled and abused, presidential power is a grave threat to our way of life, to our fundamental freedoms.
Clearly improper use of executive power by the President to cover-up and obstruct investigations of his public lying in our courts cannot be tolerated. If not checked, such abuses of power serve to legitimize the use of public power for private purposes.
In reviewing this grave matter of impeachment we must seek guidance in first principles. These principles are all based on the recognition of the social compact under which we as citizens join together in the American Republic.
The central promise or commitment of our compact is that our laws will be enforced equally with respect to all, that our civil rights and civil grievances will be fairly adjudicated in our courts, and that the powers we give up to government will be used only for governmental purposes related to the common good.
When these elements of the social compact are violated, the legitimacy of the exercise of governmental powers is brought into question and the underlying compact itself is threatened.
Each members of the compact--each citizen--received the guarantee, received the promise from his or her fellow citizens, that the compact would be honored and that the laws would not be sacrificed on a piecemeal basis for temporary harmony
or immediate gain of some (even in a majority) over others (even a minority).
None of us are free, for any reason of convenience or immediately avoidance of difficult issues, to ignore our promises to our fellow citizens. Our social compact does not permit the breaches of these commitments to our fellow
citizens, and to do so would directly deprive those citizens (whatever their voting strength or numbers) of our solemn promise of the rule of law.
.................................................................................................... .....
Congressman CHRIS CANNON (UT)
Mr. Speaker,
I am going to speak to a couple of key points. First, I would
like to create the context by sharing with my colleagues two statements, one by Founding Father John Jay and the other by President Kennedy.
John Jay said, `When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights become insecure.'
Four days before his death, President Kennedy visited Florida. There he made the following statement: `In this country I,' referring to the presidency, `carry out and execute the laws of the United States. I also have the obligation of implementing the orders of the courts of the United States.
I can assure you that whoever is president of the United States will do the same, because if he did not,' that is, he, the President, `He would begin to unwind this most extraordinary constitutional system of ours.'
The President's ability to unwind the constitutional system is significant. The President is the only individual charged with ensuring that our laws are faithfully executed. He is one of the few Americans who always are an example for good or ill.
.................................................................................................... .....
Congresswoman SUE KELLY (NY)
Mr. Speaker,
Perhaps we would all best be guided by the words of Edmund Burke who, in a speech to the Electors of Bristol on November 3, 1774 said,
`Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'
Certainly, the President has the same right as everyone else to the equal and unfettered protection of our judicial system. This process we undergo today is about whether we will ever
again be able to honestly say to ourselves and to our children that we live in a country where no one is above the law.
I still believe in that country. It's not a perfect country. Unfortunately, there is hypocrisy, there is dishonesty, there is evasion of laws. These things surely exist in that country I believe in.
But if by our actions today we sanction hypocrisy, if by our vote we ratify dishonesty, if by our vote we permit evasion of laws at the very highest level of our Government, then we will have forevermore surrendered the thing that makes us uniquely American--a free, yet legal, society.
..............................................................................
Congressman CLIFF STEARNS (FL)
Mr. Speaker,
Impeachment does not determine the guilt or innocence of the President. We do not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in order to move forward. Our duty in the House is to decide if the available evidence indicates that the Senate should consider removing the President from office.
............................................................................................

As you may have guessed, they were speaking in December of 1998, when they were called back for a special session to vote on impeaching President William Jefferson Clinton.

I focused on retrieving opinions of those who are still in Congress. A few that I've mentioned are now in the Senate. The rest are still serving in the House.

For obvious space reasons I could not copy their entire comments here. However, I want to make it clear that I did not cheat and pull words out of context to change their meaning or intent. The difference is the name of the President that they were discussing.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Source:
http://thomas.loc.gov/ from the Library of Congress. Click on `Congressional Record" 105th Congress, Second Session
These were taken from 12/18 and 12/19/1998 records.
Cross-posted at: Daily Kos, Booman Trib., TPM Cafe

My website
http://dialoguesandideologues.blogspot.com/

Originally posted to zesty grapher on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 08:56 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Haven't you heard? (4.00)
    It's okay if you are a Republican.

    I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH [-5.50, -4.69]

    by michael1104 on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 09:03:37 PM PST

    •  This should definitely run as a commercial - (4.00)
      just have their statements scrolling without revealing the date or which president they were talking about. If they want to come out in public and reveal their hypocrisy for the cameras, so be it, but I would run it over and over and over. Ad's in the NY times, and mid-country papers with quotes from all the relevant Republican scumbags we can find RE impeachment, indictment, and removal from office.

      Better yet, tie that in with Bob Barr and Pat Buchanan's recent statements - or any other Republican who may have said anything against the administration.

      Also, there are a lot of great quotes by Republicans against the Bosnian intervention. Ad in statements about "reckless spending by the administration" and you have a great campaign!

      I think, therefore I am NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

      by Reality Bites Back on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:20:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A few more juicy tidbits (4.00)
        Tom Delay -----

        "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world.  The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.  We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber." Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

        "So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of [sic] carrying it out.  I hope my colleagues will vote against this resolution." Floor Statement on S. Con. Res. 21, 4/15/99

        "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."  Floor Statement, 4/28/99

        And from other hypocritical anti-American Republican partie loyalist assholes:

        "We want to say, Mr. President, your relationship between the executive branch in this government and the Congress of the United States, the legislative branch of this government, comes before your relationship with allied nations; that in order to have a unified American government presence on any position we should take, Mr. President, we should come to agreement within this great government first."  Former Majority Leader Dick Armey (who voted against S.Con.Res. 21), Floor Statement, 4/28/99

        "Even though, as Commander in Chief, the President has the constitutional authority to commit United State soldiers to Bosnia, I cannot support a plan that does not minimize the risks to, and maximize the security of, our troops, especially a deployment that is not vital to our national security interest." Rep. Sam Brownback, Floor Statement, 12/14/03

        More here.

        I think, therefore I am NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

        by Reality Bites Back on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:32:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but but (4.00)
          But this is a POST-9/11 world!

          Don't you remember?! Post-9/11 means that nobody can be held accountable for things they did or said PRE-9/11!!!

          </snark>

          •  But they said those in a post April 19th world! (none)
            April 19th, 1995 - the day right wing fueled hatred of Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and countless others led Timothy McVeigh to attack the government of the United States and blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, murdering 168 people (including 19 children).

            At the time, President Clinton said of the right wing radio talks show hosts that were fueling domestic anti-American extremists

            "They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."

            Clearly, the remarks by Republicans attacking a President as he fought the war against American division, were seditious and anti-American - especially in the post April 19th world!

            I think, therefore I am NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

            by Reality Bites Back on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 12:50:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Good addition! (4.00)
          Thanks!

          It took a lot of time to do these --
          I have Senators and other stuff still to post.

          I also wanted to focus on those still in office,
          who might want to eat their words. For some reason I left out DeLay---guess I removed him from office in my mind!

          Old hippies never die; they just learn to blog.

          by zesty grapher on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:18:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you have anything (4.00)
            for Kay Bailey Hutchinson?  I need a good protest sign for the weekly protests outside her office in Dallas.

            The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

            by TXsharon on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:55:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Great to hear you protest that (none)
              person every week!! Bravo!! Can't stand her!!! she is a major bozo in every way isn't she?

              Whenever I hear about protests around the country I am cheered! They are never carried in the national media so one never knows what is going on. I live in Florida--Cliff Sterns R--now, and I have problems with legs that keep me from protesting actively. I write him lots and lots of emails though.

              Keep on keepin on!

            •  i was thinking the same thing (none)
              i'm remember cornyn & several texas GOPers got all high & mighty with Clinton but won't raise a peep about their fearless leader George.

              btw, here's your fearless leader as he has JUST learned a SECOND plane has hit the towers (he already knew Tower 1 was hit BEFORE he entered the photo op).

              is incompetence impeachable?

            •  Yes! (none)
              Here is what I pulled out on her. I hadn't quite decided how much I would use in my Senate diary, but I'm including it all here so that you can pick and choose what you would like to use. I cut and paste these out of the official record so as not to make any transcription errors. I don't have date (it would be during the Senate Trial in early '99) and page numbers handy, but if you need them just let me know. Also, I don't think Clinton was ever convicted of perjury, I still need to verify that. Just haven't had a chance.

              Senator Kay Hutchinson
              I do not hold to the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States.

              Manifest injury to the Office of the President, toour Nation, and to the American people, and gross abuses of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a
              leader.

              Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong. To be illegal, the lie must be willfully told, must be believed to be untrue, and must relate to a material matter. Title 18, Section 1621 and 1623, U.S. Code.

              Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force,threatens, or corruptly persuades another person,or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to--
                     (i) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
                     (ii) cause or induce any person to
                         (A) withhold testimony or evidence    from an official proceeding,              
                         (B) alter or destroy evidence in    an official proceeding;
                          (C) evade legal process summoning that person as a witness or produce evidence in an official proceeding to which the person has been summoned;
                     (iii) harass another person and thereby hinder, delay, prevent, or dissuade any person from attending or testifying in an official proceeding; or
                     (iv) corruptly influence, obstruct, or impede, or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice;
              is guilty of witness tampering and/or obstruction of justice.
                   Title 18, Sections 1512 and 1503, U.S. Code.

              The President of the United States engaged in a
              pattern of conduct, performed acts of willful deception, and told and disseminated massive falsehoods, including lies told directly to the American people, that were designed and corruptly calculated to impede, obstruct, and prevent the plaintiff in the Arkansas Federal sexual harassment case from seeking and obtaining justice in the Federal court system of
              the United States, and to further prevent the Federal grand jury from performing its functions and responsibilities under law,

              I, therefore, vote ``Guilty'' on Article II of the Articles of Impeachment of the President in this proceeding.

              Old hippies never die; they just learn to blog.

              by zesty grapher on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 12:34:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  You were projecting with DeLay - (none)
            He's like a roach that just won't go. You spray it with Raid, crush it, flush it down the toilet, and twenty seconds later, it pops up in the bowl still kicking...

            I think, therefore I am NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

            by Reality Bites Back on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 12:52:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes - it should be a commercial (none)
        but the Dim Dems would never do it!!
        Donna Bazarro would be greatly offended.

        It's time to be a Democrat!

        by annefrank on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 11:11:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  how to run it... (4.00)

        Still picture of the face of one of the Rs, with his name, party affiliation, and state shown above and to one side of his face.  Audio of him speaking, and as he speaks, the text runs across the screen below the picture (in case people have turned off the sound during commercials, and for deaf access).  

        After the quote, fade down the picture, fade up the words on the screen:  "There comes a time when you have to say, enough is enough." which are also read by an announcer.  

        Do a separate one for each quote.  

        And yes, it would be most interesting to see the Rs in question try to backpedal:  "No!, No!, I was talking about Clinton! and a below-job!"  For which the comeback is, "Bill Clinton lied about an affair.  George Bush lied us into a war!"

        •  I like this idea (4.00)
          I think it would be incredibly effective.

          I'm sending this to Howard Dean with my quote stuff. I think he'll appreciate it.

          Old hippies never die; they just learn to blog.

          by zesty grapher on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:30:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Precisely (none)
            Tie this horrid (p)resident's record around the very necks of his staunch supporters.  Force them to either sink with him, and lose their seats in 2006, or to do the right thing(s).

            40% has no coattails.


            He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot - Groucho Marx

            by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 10:54:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  plenty more where that came from (none)

            If you've got a direct channel to Dean, I have plenty more ad concepts where that one came from.  

            Pick any issue you like and I'll come up with something usable.  

            I'm going to send email to you at the address you have on your user page here.  You'll know it's me because my email address starts with my name in unix format and the domain has an obvious geek word in it; the subject header will be unambiguous.

      •  My commercial idea (4.00)
        I'd like to see a commerical that showing these "highlights" of the George W. Bush presidency:

        1. Chattin' it up during the longest presidential vacation in U.S. history in August 2001.
        2. Sitting and staring after being told "America is under attack."
        3. "Significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
        4. "I'll fire anyone involved in outing an undercover agent."
        5. Playing air guitar while New Orleans drowns.
        6. Spying on Americans.
        7. Chocking on a pretzel...
        8. Huge defits. Making it harder for working people to declare bancrupty and get medicine, etc...

        And at the end the voiceover says, "Back in 2000, there were those who were worried that George W. Bush was unqualified to be President of the United States. They were right."

        The only thing 9/11 changed is the standard of presidential failure.

        by thinkdouble on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 12:55:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sitting and staring after being told (4.00)
          Wasn't he told that the first plane hit even before he went into the classroom? It was only after the second plane hit that someone came into the classroom and told him. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

          Pointing out that I am not, in fact, clever at all, is neither original nor clever.

          by Not Clever At All on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:34:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Who cares about Bush (none)
          He won re-election.

          Let's work on the house and senate.  He will not (and in my opinion should not) be impeached, so forget about it.

          •  I'm curious as to why not. (none)
            Has he not committed high crimes and misdemeanors?  Or are you against it for political reasons?

            Granted, Bush should never have been elected in the first place, and that's mainly the people's fault.  Still, he should not continue to serve.

            Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

            by Cream Puff on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 08:06:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Unsure about the high crimes and misdemeanors bit (none)
              I don't know about any crimes - I hear spin on boths sides of the political fence on that one.  That remains to be seen in my opinion.

              However, from a practicality, what's best for the American People:

              Impeachment hurts the country, and it won't change any policy.  There will be no benefit.  Cheney would become President and follow the same policies.  Not only that, but the new VP would get some nice resume-building going into the 2008 elections.  And he/she would be part of the current Administration, so we would risk another 4-8 years of the current Administration's policies.

              All of that aside - it's a stupid idea to pursue.  The proof of crimes is currently lacking, it's a Republican Congress, and frankly, the case is weak.  As such, it will not happen.  Won't.  Not with the current Congress and not with the evidence as it is now.  Remember how retarded the Republicans looked when they went after Clinton?  We don't need that right now.  We need to stop focusing on partisan politics and get to the issues.

              So let's forget about it.  It's an all-around terrible idea.

              •  Well, Bush has admitted to wireless wiretapping (none)
                If a public confession is a weak piece of evidence, what would constitute strong evidence?  Bush has flat-out said that he can break Congressional rules in the name of the Constitution when the concept of doing so is contradictory.

                In Nixon's impeachment case, he was accused of illegal wiretapping in the White House and Nixon's defense was National Security.  Illegal wiretapping is definitely a misdemeanor and it's especially egregious because there are so many legal ways to legally wiretap: FISA, overseas wiretaps by third parties, etc.  John Dean, who would know about the illegality of wiretaps, has come right out and stated that Bush is the first president to admit to an impeachable offense.

                The Republicans looked stupid going after Clinton because everyone knew it was about sex and not about the budget.  The average Joe said "I wouldn't let the guy around my daughter, but he's taking care of the country."  But now, the average Joe is saying "I wouldn't let the guy around my phone line AND he's not taking care of the country."  If Bush isn't considered impeachable from a moral perspective, we're sending our presidency down the gutter.

                Does it harm the country more to go through impeachment or to set the precedent of a President being above the law?  To me, the latter is much more harmful to the concept of America.  If you give up the idea of the President as citizen, then America ceases to exist as the concept of democracy that we have always stood for since our inception.

                •  Precedent? (none)
                  I don't care about setting a precedent, or making an example out of Bush.

                  He's admitted to warrantless wiretaps, but not to breaking the law.  Until they finalize whether he's operating outside his authority or not, the case is weak.  Even if there is a ruling that he is outside his authority, it has to be abundantly clear that he was KNOWINGLY outside his authority for the people to back an impeachment.  I think the congressional authorization to fight terrorism will take away the "abundantly clear" portion of that requirement.  I think he'll have to stop the practice, but I doubt he'll be impeachable.

                  Regardless, you're getting screwed up here.  Nixon wasn't impeached over wiretapping.  The fiasco was over the cover-up.  Clinton wasn't impeached over sex with an intern, it was over the cover-up, i.e. perjury.  The fact that Bush admits to the wiretapping means we won't get him over perjury.

                  It's fruitless, and it won't do any good - Pres Cheney will follow the same policies.

                  •  Do you know what a warrant is? (none)
                    It would be setting precedent to allow a sitting President who has admitted a crime to go without impeachment procedures.  If you don't want to set precedent, you should be for impeachment, not against.  What's the argument that a warrantless search, in contravention to the Fourth Amendment, could not knowingly be outside the President's authority?  

                    Warrants are the tools necessary to conduct searches in the United States and they have to specifically mention what is being searched.  That's the Fourth Amendment.  It's incumbent on the President to show that he's allowed to break the Fourth Amendment, especially when one of the groups tapped was a Quaker group in Florida.  How does that fall into National Security, which is typically the reason the executive branch gives to supersede the Fourth Amendment?  The assumption under the Constitution is that warrantless wiretaps are outside his authority and the President's argument is that the unitary executive theory allows the President to do anything in the name of the country.

                    Outside of the White House, that's considered a very weak legal argument.  There have already been both rulings and legislation that assume that these actions are outside the President's authority.  If the President didn't "knowingly" know that this was outside his authority, it's either because his administration has an extremely poor grasp of the history of American executive power and constitutional law or that he's literally too stupid to know what is in his authority.  The President is under oath to protect the Constitution whether he "knowingly" understands it or not.

                    As for Nixon, the House Judiciary Committee recommended three Articles of Impeachment.  The second Article of Impeachment, which received the most votes out of the three Articles written by the Committee, included to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office  

                    Illegal wiretapping was explicitly part of the impeachment proceedings that would have been brought against Nixon if he hadn't resigned.  John Dean, Counsel to President Nixon, has pointed this out in speaking out against President Bush.  I suggest you take a look at the actual Articles pertaining to Nixon before insisting that I'm screwed up about this.

                    And even if President Cheney follows the same policies, there are still concepts of law and justice in the country.  Do you stop going after specific criminals because other people will commit the same crimes?  Or do you give up on the law when too many people break it?  I think we're first and foremost a country of laws with power granted by the consent of the people.  Just because "it won't do any good" doesn't mean that you give up on the Constitution.

            •  He should no longer serve (none)
              Exactly. He should no longer serve because he is incompetent. Period. If the Dems keep pounding that drum then a couple things might happen. One, Bush might actually get impeached or resign, especially if another huge blunder happens, which is quite possible. The other thing that might happen is that it would be harder for the Repubs to run on Bush's record in 2006 or 2008. And lastl, calling for Bush's impeachment is a way to repudiate the whole Bush/Cheney big money/neocon way of thinking.

              Risky? Difficult? Yes and yes. But if you shoot at a king you must kill him. The crimes and failures of this administration must have an equal redress, a means to balance the damage. Some Dems want to cure our body politic with herbs and mineral water, when what we need is strong medicine.

              The only thing 9/11 changed is the standard of presidential failure.

              by thinkdouble on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 08:58:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Homey - It's not about Bush (none)
            It's about Republican hypocrisy.  That could definitely help the Dems in 2006.

            Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known---Carl Sagan

            by LibChicAZ on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 01:54:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Should be "not choking on a pretzel" (none)
          If Bush had choked on the pretzel then Cheney would have been impeached by now.

          Pop-gun president lying with impunity, soundbyte policies and photo opportunities

          by Dave the Wave on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 08:30:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Send it to moveon........... (4.00)
        and others.  It would be a great ad.....Send it to the DCCC.  Send it to the "newbies" running against incumbents so they can use their words against them.  I hate GD REpublicans...............

        Dean speaks for me!

        by dkmich on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:14:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Make that commercial (none)
        and run it in their home districts/states come election time.

        I'm not black, but there are times when I wish I could say I'm not white. --Frank Zappa

        by Bob Quixote on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 09:36:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  actually it is not ok (none)
      Given the number of crimes GOPs made against
      american people, against our freedom and our way
      of life, it is not OK to be a republican.
      It is not ok to be a criminal! Republican party
      should be dissolved and banned from political life
      and many republicans should be jailed for their
      crimes. They are actual PUBLIC ENEMIES and
      real ENEMIES of THE STATE.
      •  Um... (none)
        it didn't say, "It's OK to be a Republican", it said "It's OK if you're a Republican", meaning, "it's OK to do things Democrats can't, if you're a Republican".

        This is sarcasm, often abbreviated as IOKIYAR.

        -8.25,-8.36 The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

        by sidnora on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 07:23:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hypocrisy sustains me. (4.00)
    thanks for the compilation.  Looking forward to the Compleat Works.
    •  If it weren't for double standards... (4.00)
      I'd have no standards at all...

      Gotta love how they spin and spin and spin.  Can't you see, it's different!  Clinton was lying about personal matters, about an affair!  How DARE he!  Good ol' GW just lies about matters of national security, in order to start a war, in order to justify doubling the national debt, in order to yadda yaada yadda... That's just business as usual!

      •  A gentleman (4.00)
        doesn't answer questions about his sex life.

        I expect anyone, when forced to answer questions about their sex life, to evade, to stonewall, even to lie.

        Nobody should ever have to be asked questions about their sex life.  

        I'm glad Clinton lied about his.

        I sure don't want to hear about the sex lives of anybody in Washington.   They can take it to their graves.  

        "Nordic, one of the most obnoxious people at Daily Kos." -- DHinMI

        by Nordic on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:53:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What Clinton should have done (4.00)

          Was to simply say, "I am not going to answer those questions because they are none of your business."  

          And then stand up for the right to keep one's marital issues private with one's partner, a right that people across the political spectrum would support.

          •  Careful ... (none)
            Remember that those issues were raised in the context of a sexual harassment complaint.

            Granted, the complaint was also politically motivated, and certainly the way the investigation unfolded was all out of hand.

            But liberals should not be too quick to say that sexual conduct can never be a matter for public scrutiny.  Not as long as women face harassment in the workplace, anyway, whether from Repubs or Democrats.

            "The heart of the matter is found not in the voting nor in the counting ... but in the process by which the majority is formed." ~ John Dewey

            by Theolog on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 07:15:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  If he did, he would have placed (none)
            himself above the law.  Look up the facts.  Clinton lied under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones case.  He had to answer the question as required by the court.
          •  What Bill Clinton (4.00)
            should have done was to restore the Fairness Doctrine as his first official act upon taking the oath of office.

            For those of you who don't know/don't remember, the Fairness Doctrine was an FCC policy that any radio or tv content of a partisan politcal nature had to be accompanied by opposing viewpoint(s). Reagan scrapped it in 1987. Then came the deluge. Limbaugh. Coulter. Fox News.Unbridled hate speech run amok. Clinton could have stopped it, held it back, slowed it down, or at least saw to it that the truth had a shot at being heard. He did'nt. Why not? I don't know, but contemplating that question is the kind of thinking that makes this Kossack root around in the kitchen for the tinfoil....

            Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

            by drewfromct on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 08:11:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  similarly (none)
          as Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC, has replied when asked if he was gay?

          oh, the irony....

  •  would love to see a video (4.00)
    with their words.. superimposed with a few of bush's most flagrant illegal acts/lies.
  •  If it's not a blow job, (none)
    forget it.

    Compared to Clinton's lasvicious behavior, Bush's trampling on the Constitution and lying about just about everything doesn't count?

    Who said Republicans count?

  •  Silly Rabbit! (4.00)
    Impeachment is for Dems!

    "I'm surprised Dick Cheney loves to hunt so much. The five times the government tried to give him a gun, he got a deferment." --Jay Leno

    by jazzmaniac on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:12:02 PM PST

  •  One can only imagine... (none)
    ...the rage in Today's America if only the little (R) after George W. Bush,(R) was a little (D).

    "Wonderful things can happen ... when you plant the seeds of distrust in a garden of Assholes" -- Elmore Leonard

    by Blue Shark on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:12:51 PM PST

  •  Clinton Lied (4.00)
    Bush had Intelligence Failure.

    Get it? Lying is OK, if you're a moron.

    (-9.13, -8.10) Political violence is a perfectly legitimate answer to the persecution handed down by dignitaries of the state. - Riven Turnbull

    by Florida Democrat on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:25:51 PM PST

  •  you ain't seen nothin' yet... (4.00)
    If you think impeachment gets them riled up, you should see what they think about not having an exit strategy, or holding votes open, or filibustering judges, etc....
    •  christ on a pogo stick (4.00)
      what do we have to do to get some people on the floors of the house and the senate calling this bullshit out?

      Do I have to start calling congress critters and telling them we are having a Tamifah auction and the congress critter who reads the most hypocritcal Repub statements on their floor gets to go on a date with Tamifah?

      "I will not trust Bush with the life of one Iraqi."

      by Tamifah on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:55:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh darn it (4.00)
    very catchy title (including 2 of my favorite words, Boehner and Impeachment) but horrible, horrible punchline.

    Help me retire to Hawaii by age 30! Pimp my site Simple Vegetarian Recipes!

    by OrangeClouds115 on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:45:51 PM PST

  •  gee, thanks for the reminder (none)
    of why I hate these bastards so much.

    Putting party and power above country.

    Hypocrisy unparalleled.

    Do they really wonder why we hate them so much?  Or do they know?   Sure is obvious to me.  Obvious to anyone with a brain.

    God I hate them.

    "Nordic, one of the most obnoxious people at Daily Kos." -- DHinMI

    by Nordic on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:51:05 PM PST

  •  Excellent work. (none)
    These people are only concerned, nay obsessed, with keeping themselves in power.

    Forget principle, forget the people, forget the basic teachings of fairness and honesty...they will do anything to stay in power.

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 10:57:02 PM PST

  •  Great research! (none)
    We all know it's out there, but it's sort of refreshing to read the actual words of these people.

    One thought, though, is use the <blockquote></blockquote> tag around quotes for that super-sexy grey box.

  •  Something we have to remember (4.00)
    Is that they impeached a president in his second term. And sure enough, it helped them steal the presidency thereafter; as the president was too wounded to be an effective campaigner for his successor.

    So there's more than a symbolc victory in impeaching the current criminal; guilty of a million crimes.

  •  I had to scroll down (4.00)
    to know it wasn't the 109th that was saying this stuff.

    You almost had me.

    Please e-mail this to the entire congress, esp the ones who said it. Send it to Russert & Steph.  I want to see the Repugs squirm next Sunday,

    Wow. In their own words

    Good work!  Reco'd.

    "What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea." Mohandas Gandhi

    by x on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 11:26:11 PM PST

  •  They didn't mean a Republican President (none)
    should be held accountable....they meant only Democratic Presidents....and they wonder why "the people" have such a low opinion of Congress, a Republican majority Congress, I mean..they're time is almost over....just a few more months. Be vigilant, I don't expect them to go quietly..they will try every dirty trick in the book to maintain their power....like the demon in the "Exorcist" ....
  •  excellent (none)
    hold them to their words. every last one of them. back in their faces.
  •  You've gotta love Bob Barr's Clinton's statement (4.00)
    Bob Barr's Inquiry of Impeachment:

    I believe in several fundamental premises. First, this is a rogue administration; consciously and systematically operating outside the bounds of the laws of this land, and outside the common and historical norms of political conduct for our country.

    Second, this President and his Administration must be held accountable for their misdeeds. If we in the House of Representatives, as the body charged with oversight of the executive branch, do not hold him accountable, then we have no legitimate claim to governing this country.

    Third, ... the President enjoys a relatively high approval rating because he has not yet been held accountable for his misdeeds. ... the appropriate step to be taken at this time is the filing of an Inquiry of Impeachment.

    [I]t would provide: "Whereas, considerable evidence has been developed from a broad array of credible sources that the President of The United States, has engaged in a systematic effort to obstruct, undermine and compromise the legitimate and proper functions and processes of the Executive Branch:  ...

    ... At the heart of this matter is "abuse of office," which is also at the heart of the notion of Impeachment in our Constitution, and which cannot, by any measure, be considered in any other form....

    ...Impeachment alone ... can protect us against abuse of power, ... It is designed to deal with "misconduct of public men," or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust that is "of a nature . . . political." ... in order to be sustained, the very notion of Impeachment explicitly was not intended to reach the same issues as conviction of a crime.

    ... we see a clear pattern of activity that establishes an intent or scheme to defraud the citizens of the honest and faithful services of their President; converting the Office of the President and the attributes thereof to the personal ... use of the President ...


    •  except (4.00)
      Barr wants congress to go after Bush.

      http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...


      Paul Craig Roberts, CounterPunch

      Last week's annual Conservative Political Action Conference signaled the transformation of American conservatism into brownshirtism. A former Justice Department official named Viet Dinh got a standing ovation when he told the CPAC audience that the rule of law mustn't get in the way of President Bush protecting Americans from Osama bin Laden.

      Former Republican congressman Bob Barr, who led the House impeachment of President Bill Clinton, reminded the CPAC audience that our first loyalty is to the U.S. Constitution, not to a leader. The question, Barr said, is not one of disloyalty to Bush, but whether America "will remain a nation subject to, and governed by, the rule of law or the whim of men."

      The CPAC audience answered that they preferred to be governed by Bush. According to Dana Milbank, a member of the CPAC audience named Richard Sorcinelli loudly booed Barr, declaring: "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say Bush is off course trying to defend the United States." A woman in the audience told Barr that the Constitution placed Bush above the law and above non-elected federal judges.


      When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

      by onanyes on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 05:07:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Psssssst (none)
    Republicans are partisan hypocrites. GOP power means we live in opposite land. The land where you claim to want to protect children and then proceed to cut money used to feed poor children, underfund education that gives a chance to escape poverty, and then get rid of funding that leaves many of their families without medical care. The same land that says we support our military by not bothering to make sure before we approve sending the troops into a conflict that there is sufficient reason or with a plan, not bothering to send them with proper equipment(They still haven't bothered to take Rumsfeld to task for not paying families back for body armor they provided at their own expense), ignoring PTSD problems for soldiers coming home, approving longer rotations for Guard members, cutting VA budget, and decreasing retirement benefits. GOP means hypocrisy over and over why should it be any different for their view on impeachment.
  •  Fear of losing congress? (none)
    At least that's what I was thinking until I read your clarification on dates - Yes, you had me! :-)
  •  Impeaching Cheney - Let's Get To Work (none)
    For the reasons listed in this diary and more it has become clear to me that we must work to bring impeachment preceeding against Cheney.

    Let's get to work:

       1. If you want to be involved in the effort, please leave your e-mail address below or send it to TheDemIM -at- gmail -dot- com.

       2.  Let's get the Kos community to help in writing proposed Articles of Impeachment specific to Cheney.

       3.  Begin forming lobbying groups in the states where it is most likely to bring such charges.

       4.  Ask every legislature and beg for every vote we can get.

       5.  If that doesn't work, lobby harder, and make sure they are on the record with the local press about their position.

    This is our chance to leave the world of fantasy politics and potentially make a real difference in the real world.  Anyone with me?

  •  Recommend.... (none)
    Nice job of research.   This diary and the diary on who actually served in the military and didn't - by party are both very informative reads.  Recommend.

    Dean speaks for me!

    by dkmich on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:19:43 AM PST

    •  agreed (none)
      I knew these no-talent ass-clowns would have made such statements about Clinton.

      It's up to us to make sure these chickens come home to roost (or some such cliche analogy).

      "I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stevenson

      by Scientician on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:57:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  moveon.org is good, but... (4.00)
    I think it's time to consider that if we want something done, and done right, we're going to literally have to do it ourselves. I'm sure there are a ton of creative and skilled people here at dkos and elsewhere in the blogosphere, what's to stop us from putting these things together ourselves, raising money, and getting exposure? It would be pretty easy for the neocon spin-machine to disregard anything put out by moveon.org, but they wouldn't have such an easy target if it was just a group of concerned citizens. Any idea how much it costs to get an ad in the New York Times? I don't see why we can't do these things ourselves. The DNC certainly won't do it, and just as so many have managed to share information here and elsewhere on the internet, it seems like we could take it farther and start saying things that the "mainstream" won't say because they don't want to lose their advertisers. Shit, let's become the advertisers.

    Pointing out that I am not, in fact, clever at all, is neither original nor clever.

    by Not Clever At All on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:39:41 AM PST

    •  Easy for you to say, (none)
      after all you wouldn't be required to do any thing!
      uh... I mean with you not being clever and all... um... nevermind. ; )
    •  That's an interesting idea (none)
      is there a way to do that through Kos?
      Maybe he (Hello-hint hint) would set up a fund
      for or account for contributions. With the huge readership here, it might work.

      That would be one powerful statement. Bloggers taking out an ad in the NYT!  

      Old hippies never die; they just learn to blog.

      by zesty grapher on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:25:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  make our own (none)
      I remember a while back the idea was floated to create a sort of co-op production company. I still think this is a viable idea. There are a lot of creative people in this community.

      Perhaps if there's enough interest again, we could revisit the idea. It would take some coordination, but we could do some good work.

      Feel free to contact me directly if you want to discuss this idea further.

      greg

      You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is full of crap - Bill Maher

      by pdxcutter on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 10:23:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yearly Kos? (none)
        Good topic for a working group discussion in my mind.  I'd contribute money, but as Mr. Dynamite might say, "I've got no skills!"

        Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known---Carl Sagan

        by LibChicAZ on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 02:03:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Send this to each Republican and .... (none)
    Dem legislator.  A simple action that would reap big rewards is to print this stuff out and send it snail mail to appropriate and interested leadership.  Send it to letters to the editor of your city or town.  Especially if it comes from local constituents, you get a better hearing if the info comes from "just folks" rather than an organization like MoveON.
    •  I do plan to send this around (4.00)
      however I can use all the help I can get.

      Anyone here should feel free to use this too--send it to the people who said it, and to people who should know that they said it. To newspapers, magazines, whatever you like. Put it on your own blogs. (A credit or link would be nice). But my main concern is that we let these hypocritical words reverberate every place possible.  

      I just don't have the time or money to do it all myself.

      Thanks!

      Old hippies never die; they just learn to blog.

      by zesty grapher on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:22:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  IMPEACHMENT is in the air (none)
    Can you smell it?
  •  We need much more of this! (4.00)
    I'd love to hear Democratic leaders saying things like:

    "I completely agree with what Rep. Hastert said. He said 'Simply put, the President in our representative democracy is not a sovereign who is above the law. The President's inability to abide by the law, the Constitution and my conscience have all led me to the solemn conclusion that impeachment articles must be passed.' I couldn't agree more."

    By using the words of Republicans like this, we can make it sound like there is bipartisan concern about the President's behavior and bipartisan support for impeachment. That will force those Republicans to be used like that or to go on record explaining why it's okay for Bush to lie, cheat, steal and subvert the Constitition that he swore an oath to God to defend, but wasn't okay for Clinton to lie to spare his family some embarrassment.

    More, more, more of this research!!!

    (Can you find anything my Congressman (Jim Gerlach, R., PA-06) might have said like this? He wasn't a Congressman at the time, but still might have made similar statements. I'd love to get any such info you might find to Lois Murphy's campaign.)

    "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." — Thomas Jefferson

    by schuylkill on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:20:24 AM PST

  •  how many of these diaries (none)
    Have been recommended?

    Is this worthy?  We know that politicians are partisanly hypocritical.

    If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

    by Yoshimi on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:33:55 AM PST

    •  Good comment.. (none)
      I also think the readers would be better served if diarists would immediately date the material they are using.
    •  it is good to occasionally review (none)
      the common level of political discourse and reveal its frank partisan hackery and insubstantial nature.  

      If representatives cannot be truly serious about war, if support for war only depends on whose party's leader starts war, which seems to be the case, then we are truly fucked as a nation, and we really don't deserve our former status in the world.

      While this diary focuses on republican hackery, a similar compilation could focus on dems.

      Politicians floating lofty ideals without principle or conviction is damaging us.

  •  The Sad Reality (4.00)
    If we had a media that was on the level, I honestly think we could shame Bush and Cheney out of office in 30 days. It's all about framing and pushing narratives, and the "impeachment" narrative is one that our corporate media will never embrace. They're making too much money to do otherwise.

    In 1998, the media latched on to the Lewinsky story and never, ever let go. 24/7. Every single day. They raised the issue at every press conference. It was above the fold. It was in our face. We couldn't avoid it no matter how hard we tried.

    Compare that to (for example) the Cheney shooting story. How long did that "firestorm" last? A week? There are a million unanswered questions, yet no one outside the blogosphere seems interested in even looking for the answers, let alone finding them and (gasp!) reporting them in the name of getting to the truth.

    We're told the country has "moved on" because Scott McClellan says so. They create their own reality day after day after day -- and the media never fails to let them get away with it.

    The media can't sustain anything. Or, more likely, they just don't want to.

    I have always resisted the idea the idea of creating a liberal/progressive counterbalance to the Fox News Channel, but we might not be left with any other choice. The corporate media has chosen sides, and it isn't ours.

    I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn -- Ron Burgundy

    by IndyScott on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:39:19 AM PST

  •  IOKIYAR (none)
    Memorize that.  It explains everything.

    This is a good diary, but I am long past expecting anyone powerful in the corporate-controlled media to call Rpgs on their hypocrisy re the grounds for the Clinton impeachment versus the obvious evil and crimes of the Bush Administration.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. IMPEACH

    by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 07:12:27 AM PST

  •  time for a citizen filibuster? (none)
    perhaps to be held simultaneously across the country on, say, the 4th of July?

    With readings of the Constitution, the quotes above, the statements linked in pb's post (http://www.dailykos.com/...) above?

    Just a thought.

  •  Has hypocrisy ever slowed these people down? (none)
    It didn't then and it won't now sad to say, but it is right to point it out.  Maybe someone will notice.

    -4.63,-3.54 If the people will lead the leaders will follow

    by calebfaux on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 07:41:51 AM PST

  •  Great idea (none)
    Do you have anything on Duncan (R-TN 2nd, Alexander (R-TN) or Frist? I write and call their offices often and would love to get a reaction to this.

    I'm asking because I stink at research. Seems I never find what I want and just get frustrated. Thanks

  •  Impossible to shame this scum (none)
    When partisan political hacks like Hastert, Hyde, Boehner, Delay, and others speak it is never out of a sense of personal conviction and principle. It is strictly to promote the party position du jour. It is not possible to shame men like these by pointing out the hypocrisy of their positions because their positions shift with the political tides. In fact, their words are so meaningless and so hollow that I'm sure they forget them almost as soon as they speak them. Their words and deeds are only meant to further their political careers and to court favor with the party elite.

    As for political commercials, this stuff is good, but too long for the general public, which seems to be suffering from ADD. You need sound bites of s sentence or two from each possibly alternating with a Bush lie that they should be condemning now. That might be slightly misleading in that the public might think they said it about Bush, but let them try and defend their prior spoken positions against the present reality.

  •  These people are..... (none)
    .... not that difficult to figure out.  Considering that they have been caught red handed in lies and scandals, they have a self-preservation interest in not pursuing charges against themselves.  They have a right to not incriminate themselves for it says so in the Constitution. They do not have a right to avoid prosecution.  
    There is an obligation by the powers in charge to investigate and punish those crimes, or at least to remove these people from office so that they can do no more evil to the people. Because the offenders are the people in charge, we have both competing interests and a conflict of interest.  I find the prosecutorial discretion being exercised most confusing.   The current situation seems to be the textbook definition of lack of accountability.  The question becomes....

    How long does it take to grow a spine?

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 08:58:39 AM PST

  •  Circulate (none)
    Circulate these and other speeches by Republicans.

    Put them under a headline "Bush must be impeached and removed from Office."

    Don't mention the comments were about Clinton.

    Rinse. Repeat.

  •  Smooth running pup (none)
    This diary is about as useful as a smooth running pup.

    Of course the Repubs would say impeach Clinton, and they did so.

    Of course the Repubs would not say that about Bush, however they may dislike him and/or distrust him.  They would not want to face rathful Rove.

    A diary that pinpointed stuff about Repubs not liking the present direction at the WH would be useful.  This diary is not.

  •  Excellent. n/t (none)

    You didn't do it.

    by Earl on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 01:40:35 PM PST

skybluewater, davidb1224, Alumbrados, zzyzx, buffalo soldier, Terri, pb, PhilK, nolalily, Kelk, Rayne, JoeWPgh, SarahLee, ks, Hornito, Marlboro Lite, Natural Anthem, Raybin, TrueBlueMajority, Unstable Isotope, saraswati, Maryscott OConnor, odum, Avila, Sprinkles, Stoy, billlaurelMD, cotterperson, SanJoseLady, democat, OLinda, Blue Shark, mpower1952, Mnemosyne, Dan Hrkman, kdub, x, DFWmom, exNYinTX, Gram E, zeitshabba, sclminc, memberofthejury, kissfan, rwsab, ReneInOregon, CoolAqua, macdust, SamSinister, annrose, nyceve, PlaneCrazy, HippyWitch, demokath, KBnNC, stevetat, mhale85, PBnJ, Glic, scamp, LickBush, roses, amberglow, peraspera, peeder, L0kI, cognitive dissonance, pdxcutter, Fe, ornerydad, maven98, not lois, Spindizzy, KCBearcat, arkdem, antirove, bobcatster, Alna Dem, celticshel, Reuel, Bob Quixote, menodoc, hhex65, Barbara Morrill, sockpuppet, marko, Subversive, draftchrisheinz, mrigney, crkrjx, Sycamore, TXsharon, applegal, Mrcia, Timbuk3, lcrp, dkmich, outragedinSF, ybruti, davybaby, GetSamuel, WisVoter, schuylkill, yorkdane, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Dr Seuss, Little Red Hen, rebirtha, DrewDown, American in Kathmandu, kd texan, BigBite, AlwaysDemocrat, solesse413, pat208, rapala, SteveK, MichDeb, madaprn, G2geek, Los Diablo, Fabian, chumley, historys mysteries, Bluesee, radarlady, farleftcoast, djesno, Bensch, feminatty, bargie23, el dorado gal, LarisaW, vinylgirl, archibaldtuttle, mjd in florida, OpherGopher, Doc Sarvis, d7000, fedupinca, Nordic, wasteedub, onp67, boofdah, KristyZ, btrflisoul, EconAtheist, thered1, skralyx, Overseas, annefrank, Skid, libbie, demmefatale, Cecile, RickE, Habanero, HiBob, IKIA, EeDan, sodalis, ew73, Riff, Spathiphyllum, proudprogressiveCA, sfdoug, bently, Reality Bites Back, Fruitcake, Strawberrybitch, occams hatchet, andreuccio, twoducks, PoppyRocks, Compound F, kraant, Keone Michaels, PatsBard, HoundDog, seefleur, Dvalkure, Scientician, Truza, buhdydharma, darkhart, greenearth, wild hair, Lashe, ekruegr, condoleaser, Wbythebay, ER Doc, Unitary Moonbat, ShubTsaddiq

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site