Slashdot Mirror
House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney
An anonymous reader writes "Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) yesterday successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee. 'Today's resolution from Kucinich (D-Ohio) was essentially the same as the legislation he introduced earlier this year, which included three articles of impeachment against Cheney based largely on allegations that he manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."'"
Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S.
But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also). Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?
Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Little wonder?
As for the riotously miss-leading heading - - -
I guess when folks are fed a diet of 'news' by the drive by media....
Well - no one ever accused techy nerds of rational thought and objective views.
And this story has WHAT TO DO with the Slashdot community?
Hummm
why is it always AC's who are embarrassed that they still believe in dick&dubya?
If you still like bush or cheney, you are mentally ill or criminal or both.
They're using their grammar skills there.
You mean the CIA non-spy? Who in fact was never going to get handed any undercover ops ever again after being posted at an embassy? After her husband had already through several public instances outed the fact that his husband was a CIA agent? And who had other internet searchable indicators of her employment? There was a reason that the only crime charged was over perjury. Which was a complete bullshit charge btw. It was over the exact day of something being said, and was literally one person's word against anothers. Not to mention the fact that the judge denied the defenses use of a memory expert to testify that in fact it is perfectly plausible that he wouldn't remember the exact day.
Way to counter my argument by just calling me a chicken-shit.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"He made false statements that helped send us to war, but he's not liable in any way because he didn't make them while under oath? "
True. Call it an unintended consequence of Slick Willie. Slick DID lie under oath, and it was found to be inadequate grounds for impeachment, or at least removal from office. So any statement not made under oath is not actionable at all.
Besides, politicians lie non-stop. You can't be a politician unless you can lie non-stop. Some of Slick's and Al's lies put thousands of people out of work. A good many of them were forced into poverty. Some fraction of them died. Now W's corpses are pretty easy to identify, while Slicks' were not. Dead is still dead though.
(Poverty is like low-level nuclear radiation, you can't say this person without doubt died of it, but you can say that there were N excess deaths per 100,000 of affected population.)
If you are wondering about the Slick and Al lies I was referring too, it was the War on the West, mining and logging were hammered badly to please environmentalist voters. I was on the pointy end of that stick. It wasn't pretty. It took until last year to get back to my 1994 income, even though I went back to school for a doctorate.
Maybe wait until there is actual proof these nations wish to launch rockets at the US/NATO.
Would a smoking crater that was a base or a city do? How about we just watch them chant 'death to america', watch them build nuclear weapons, and then make an inference based on data that's before us?
If you are suggesting that the US strikes before there is an actual threat then what is to stop other countries doing the same?
They're stopped by the knowledge that we have the capability and possibly the will to retaliate overwhelmingly. Power matters, and we have it. Might doesn't make right, but might does make..... drumroll..... might.
North Korea will have to launch because the US is a threat, same for everyone else.
Back to the aforementioned 'power matters.'
They attack us, they WILL be destroyed.
They don't attack us, they MIGHT be destroyed.
One might argue that equation isn't as valid for the sort of people who spawn suicide bombers, but Asians are generally known for being more circumspect.
There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later.
Sure there is. You're just ill-equipped to consider realistic alternatives.
I doubt you have evaluated the conditions that enable reliable, kume-by-ya-campfire-sing-a-long peace between a good 600-800 million people in the world. You are incapable of identifying the common values, principles, interests and practices that pretty much ensure the continued peaceful relations between Europe, the United States, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a whole bunch of other countries I'm forgetting about.
As you are unable, I imagine, to correctly identify what ensures the peace between so much of the world, you are unqualified to credibly issue alternatives to what you call 'shoot first and invent evidence later.'
You are welcome to prove me wrong about your inability to analyze the current peace that exists between so many nations. If you respond, I'm betting you'll drivel on about racism, exploitation of poor and or brown people and similar nonsense instead of showing you have an ounce of non-leftist thought.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
> Democrats can stop the war now.
They could have done that before the '06 elections. They had the votes then. They want the issue but don't want to accept the consequences for what would happen if they actually got their way.
Unlike the Kos Kids most people with enough working brain cells to actually win elected office realize what would happen if they defunded the War. Millions of dead bodies and Democrats unable to compete for the White House for a generation like happened after Vietnam (Carter being the exception because Ford was such a weak and politically damaged candidate) and will do anything to prevent it from happening again. They wouldn't give a rats ass about the dead bodies of course if they thought it would help them win, those are just disposable brown people[1]... but power is everything.
No, they will talk a good surrender and led encouragement to our enemies so as to keep the body count rising and fresh footage of dismembered corpses on the evening news so they can talk about how it is all Bush's fault of course. But notice how all the Democratic candidates who actually have a snowball's chance in hell of winning have already said they won't be doing a fast pullout starting minutes after swearing in, Hillary won't even commit to being out in her first term.
[1] Rememeber that the Democratic Party is the home of instituitional racism. Jim Crow? Democrat. Those guys with the firehoses back in the civil rights movement? Lifelong Democrats all. Only KKK member serving in Washington? Lifelong Democrat and former Kleagle of the KKK: The Honorable Senator Robert C. Byrd. Who was anklebiting Lincoln at every turn and attempting to sabotage that war effort? The Democratic Party. Just because they have some tame colored folks (Jesse Jackson & ilk come to mind) who keep the 'urban' vote solidly showing up on election day in exchange for largesse from the Treasury doesn't mean the average Democrat isn't a condescending bigot.
Democrat delenda est
"... our Children"?
You don't have any, and you never will, so don't call them "our" children.
You can barely take care of yourself without your parents. There is no way you will ever attract a girl and have kids with her. Never.
The hat fits
never let a man put his dirty how-do-you-do into your bajingo
"Yeah but the President of Iran is a crazy religious idiot." you might say. Fair comment, but then the same can be said about George Bush" You are the nut, if you really believe this why not renounce your citizenship and emigrate. Oh I guess you can't Iran doesn't allow homos.
I can asure you the US was in doldrums of international opinion long before Bush got into power.
Sense of proportion much? Attitudes from 10 years ago aren't in the same anti-American galaxy today.
Bush represents everything that liberals [inparticular from abroad] hate - hes a God-send to them. A right-wing Republican Texan with uneloquent speach.
If you're a conservative and have any respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, or a desire for a modicum of competence in your elected officials - you'll have a perfectly justified disgust for Bush. If not, you're just an IOKIYAR tool.
Really? They've broken the law numerous times?
Sounds serious.
So why aren't you're Democrat buddies in the House bringing impeachment articles up for debate in the house? I mean, the Republicans even voted for Rep. Kucinich's motion so that everyone could finally publically debate the issue on the floor of the House.
Why did the Democrats not take this golden opportunity to finally begin the impeachment process?
-john
From the Weekly Standard website:
"While the roll calls are not yet available, it seems there were plenty of Democrats who voted to go forward with impeachment when they thought it would fail, who suddenly voted against impeachment when it mattered."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/11/dems_outmaneuvered_on_impeachm.asp
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
Hi Bill,
It's Frank. Long time, eh?
I felt kind of bad leaving you on the side of the road after the show that night (you remember, right?) and thought I'd give a shout to say that I regret that you had to sleep outside (and I remember how cold it was...).
Anyway, drugs eventually wear off, so I wanted to ask you a kind of personal question:
Do you douche? And if so, do you use a vinegar based solution, or the baking soda? And what about fragrance? I'm trying to clean up my act (like you did) and I'm wondering if you think being a douchebag has helped you, and whether you would recommend douching to others?
Drive safely,
Frank
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutually%20exclusive
"mutually exclusive
adjective
unable to be both true at the same time [syn: contradictory]"
Whoops. Thanks for playing, Dumbo.
It's like 1982 all over again, back when the only position you needed to take politically to be 'hip' was to Hate Reagan.
No, common sense is all it took to hate Reagan. "Hipness" has nothing to do with it. He was a fascist cunt, a traitor, and one of the worst presidents we've ever had. That was obvious at the time to everybody with any sense and it's even more obvious now that many more of his chickens have come home to roost.
So, it's pretty sleazy of you to try and pretend that it was all about "hipness", but that's a coward's tactic.
You are incapable of defending your position so you make believe that other people hold their positions for the same idiotic delusional reasons that you hold yours. That ain't the case. Many people use reason to reach their positions. We know you don't because you couldn't have reached a position as ignorant and idiotic as that through reason.
Oh please. If we went into Iraq just to oust Saddam and then split, the Democrats would be constantly crying about how many Iraqi babies were being killed by the violence of a civil war and how Bush was a coward for not staying to finish the job. You KNOW that the NYT would be putting up daily front page stories about how Bush destabilized the region and how thousands were dying daily due to our NOT staying in Iraq.
Whatever course of action Bush took, the media and the democrats would find a way to complain about it. The whole issue of Iraq is just politics, plain and simple.