impeach bush for peace peach
(Go to our Main Page:ImpeachForPeace.org)

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

July 25, 2008

CNN Trashes “Impeachment” Hearings, and Thus The Effort to Restore the Constitution

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News — Jodin Morey @ 9:11 pm

willyloman.wordpress.com — (CNN, the same network that smeared George Carlin’s memory the day he died by calling him “indecent” in it’s headline about his passing, and owned by massive conglomerate Time-Warner/TBS-AOL, has posted a horribly biased and very brief blurb about the “impeachment” hearing today that would make the fiction writers at Fox News green with envy.

They chose this picture of Rep. Dennis Kucinich that can only be described as attempting to make him look either demented or mentally handicapped. What follows is their article, in it’s entirety. Though they claim Dennis was “the star witness”, Kucinich only spoke twice. The real star witnesses were Vincent Bugliosi, Liz Holtzman and Bruce Fein. But I guess CNN doesn’t want people searching YouTube for their names right now.

The article, from start to finish, is disingenuous at best and at worst, complete corporatist shill. During the “impeachment” hearing some great speakers put forth clear and compelling reasons to impeach for the greater good of this country. And this is what CNN, a “reputable” news source puts up? It’s a good thing they weren’t around during the Nixon administration. CNN is no better than Fox News.)

At a crowded Judiciary Committee hearing today, House Democrats talked about impeaching President Bush”¦. to the disgust of the committee’s Republicans.

It was purely stagecraft. The day’s star witness, Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, received a noisy ovation filled with cheering, clapping and whistling as he walked into the hearing room. Kucinich, who has introduced articles of impeachment, exhorted the committee to “support and defend the constitution that has been trampled time and again over the last seven years.”

The hearing, technically, was not about impeachment but about executive power and its constitutional limitations. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, ticked-down a list of items that included, in his words, “the politicization of the Department of Justice, the misuse of signing statements, the misuse of authority with regard to detention, interrogation and rendition, possible manipulation of intelligence regarding the Iraq war, improper retaliation against critics of the administration”¦ and excessive secrecy.”

While Conyers called the evidence “both credible and substantial,” Republicans scoffed.

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the committee, dismissed the hearings as “an anger management class.”

“This hearing will not cause us to impeach the president; it will only serve to impeach Congress’s credibility,” Smith said. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, went further with his criticism, saying Friday’s session “amuses our terrorist friends greatly,” and “would make Alice in Wonderland roll her eyes.”

In the end, the committee took no action toward beginning an impeachment inquiry.


1 Comment

  1. The picture they posted of Dennis Kucinich looks a lot like Trent Franks. I am in no way making jest at his birth defect (hair lip) as he has mastered to perfection his delivery of the english language in spite of his handicap.

    The raving lunitic, as I watched and listened to the speakers was Jeremy Rabkin – throwing his gyrating arms all around – distorting his mouth all the while blabbering like the village idiot. He is a professor in a college????????????????
    Leaves no doubt in my mind why some of our children are not receiving an education along with the handicap of the NCLB mandate the village idiots in the White House have issued to all the schools. If they will only allow the teachers to educate instead of grooming students to pass the efficiency test for the federal funding they will receive from the government.

    Bottom line – a few Republicans have awakened to smell the coffee. The ones who refuse to abandon their party proves to me they favor political juggernauts instead of placing their country and her citizens above their personal desire for complete control of the masses and the world.

    Comment by Dolores Young — July 27, 2008 @ 2:40 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"I just want you to know that,
when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Do-It-Yourself
Impeachment
Blog Categories
Our Whole Site

As heard on
the radio...
Bush hears the voices logo
KFAI radio interview
"I Hear The Voices"
Oct 5th Ad
• Oct 5th Interview
Mike Malloy
Peter Werbe
Get Impeach For Peace Stuff!
(pins, bumper stickers, hats, etc.)
Impeach Bush for Peace Stuff logo
protest picture
Calendar

Picts/Vid
Why Should Bush Have Been Impeached?Charges against Bush

Charges & Evidence


Videos

Bush's Defense
Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...

• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
The first impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

No matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.”
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

  • We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.
 
• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get anything accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

If your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn't make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there's so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn't matter how many laws Congress passes if they don't serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?

Besides, considering Bush's track-record of breaking laws, he can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.

Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he's broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush's actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.

• I'm a Democrat/
Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.

So, your party would rather win elections than do what's right for the country? I hope you're wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).

• Impeachment will never happen. Congress members will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on the floor of the House, and subsequently the national media outlets. The political pressure will become too great.

Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it's important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what's in their self-interest. Let's wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.

And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."

Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

(Read More)