?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Jesus, Pelosi, how do you manage to continue breathing?? - Adventures in Engineering — LiveJournal
The wanderings of a modern ronin.

Ben Cantrick
  Date: 2008-08-03 13:29
  Subject:   Jesus, Pelosi, how do you manage to continue breathing??
Public
  Mood:(head-desk) (head-desk)
  Music:GWAR - Sick Of You
  Tags:  politics, reddit, usa not worth saving

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued her search for book sales, and it seems her search for a plausible rationale for personally blocking any impeachment investigation of President Bush. The latest explanation came in an interview with Time Magazine. It seems that she would not allow an investigation because Bush would never have supplied incriminating evidence against himself. It seems that House investigators rely on the accused to build an impeachment case.

Only last week, Pelosi used the august body of the hosts of The View to reveal her view on impeachment: there is simply no evidence of crimes committed by President Bush.

My understanding is that her office was inundated with copies of the various documented crimes alleged against Bush. Now, Pelosi is claiming a different rationale - they could not rely on the White House and GOP supplying the evidence needed to convict:

Pelosi: You can’t talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can’t have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration.


http://jonathanturley.org/2008/08/02/speaker-pelosis-latest-justification-for-barring-impeachment-bush-would-never-cooperate-with-his-own-impeachment/#more-2994

Nobody is this stupid. NOBODY. People this stupid forget to breathe, and fall over dead.
Post A Comment | 4 Comments | | Link






(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2008-08-04 00:22 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
"The CIA's intelligence matched Bush's claims"

I'm perfectly happy to let the director of the CIA twist on the same gallows as Dubya, Cheney, Rummy, et al. They're all responsible.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2008-08-04 08:53 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
So once again, your basic argument for impeachment is that they are not omnipotent.

No, my argument for impeachment is that when everyone, including them, realized they'd made a massive mistake that was killing tens of thousands of innocent people... they kept right on doing it. Instead of stopping.

Your basic argument for Bush instead of Clinton is what again?

When Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, tens of thousands of innocent people didn't die as a result.

After all they both did massive bombing campaigns, and had a official policy of regime change.

Yeah, but their ACTIONS were very different.

Your position is not supportable.

And yours is?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2008-08-04 18:44 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)

No, my argument for impeachment is that when everyone, including them, realized they'd made a massive mistake that was killing tens of thousands of innocent people... they kept right on doing it. Instead of stopping.


Have you ever looked at what happens in power vacuums? You got a taste when we invaded without enough troops. If we had withdrawn at the heart of the jihad, the casualties would have truly been a massacre beyond anything seen in the western world since World War II. And once again, it's a opinion difference, not a impeachable offense, unless differing from Mackys is impeachable.

When Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, tens of thousands of innocent people didn't die as a result. Clinton did a larger bombing campaign against Iraq during his presidency then Desert Storm. Be cute all you want, but his position, and Bush's position where both informed by the same bad intelligence. Instead of being out for political heads, might I suggest that you focus on the real problem - the incompetency and ineffectualness of the intelligence departments? You might understand my position on international wiretaps if you understood that.

Yeah, but their ACTIONS were very different. Where they really? Clinton tried to bring them down by sponsoring the Iraqi National Congress. This is the same group of villains that fed bad information into the intelligence departments in the first place.If Clinton's plan had worked (thankfully it didn't) we know know that it would hae been a even bigger mess because there would not have been the possibility of any surge to restore order and destroy Anser Al Islam (now called Al Qaeda in Iraq), Sadr's Shiites, the Badr Brigades and Sadaam al Fadeem (all groups that were formed and armed before America ever entered).

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2008-08-04 19:15 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Have you ever looked at what happens in power vacuums?

*We* created the power vacuum by invading!

And once again, it's a opinion difference, not a impeachable offense, unless differing from Mackys is impeachable.

An impeachable offense is anything you can get Half the house to agree is an impeachable offense. As was amply proven by the anti-Clinton witch hunt. Blowjobs are an impeachable offense, according to the Republicans.

Instead of being out for political heads, might I suggest that you focus on the real problem

If you're the president, the buck stops at your desk. You make the call to go to war, then no matter how bad your information was, you're responsible.

This also ignores the fact that once we knew there was no reason for us to be there, we didn't pull out. Why are we still in Iraq, five years later? There is no reason.

Clinton did a larger bombing campaign against Iraq during his presidency then Desert Storm.

Yes, I remember. You're projecting again - you assume that since Clinton was a Democrat, I automatically support every action he's ever taken. This is quite false, and I have told you about my (multiple) grievances with Clinton before.

Clinton tried to bring them down by sponsoring the Iraqi National Congress.

Although I don't agree with Clinton's actions in this case, the fact remains that sponsoring political opponents is nowhere near a full out invasion and years-long occupation.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
May 2015