It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:35 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Cindy to run against Pelosi- Debates DEM strategist, Ex-CIA
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:19 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 2533
She did it- she announced that since Pelosi won't put Impeachment on the table she will run against her. :compress: :cya: :evil3: :hello1: :cheers:

This is an interview she did on friday that was about the pro's and con's of impeachment. If you ever wonder what a gatekeeper is, listen to the Dem strategist. It was OK when she was backing the dems, but now.........?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... /27/144218

Cindy at some points has this guy searching and stammering for another excuse for inaction and tears down his logic until, it is obvious this person is a patsy. Even the Ex-CIA guy agrees with Cindy that there are certainly impeachable items in there that can get rid of Bush and Cheney, but why they won't do it is another shoulder shrugger? :dontknow:

Quote:
AMY GOODMAN: We're having a debate on impeachment, whether the Democrats should try to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Our guests are Cindy Sheehan, cofounder of Gold Star Families for Peace; Dan Gerstein, Democratic strategist, political commentator, regular columnist at the website Politico; Ray McGovern is with us in Washington, D.C., the twenty-seven-year career CIA analyst, cofounder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Ray McGovern, weigh in here. You've heard Dan Gerstein say this is impractical, that Democrats should be doing the people's business and not get waylaid by impeachment. Cindy Sheehan disagrees. You also got arrested at John Conyers's office.

RAY McGOVERN: Yes. Amy, I’d have to profess some unaccustomed humility here before the task: I feel a lot more comfortable talking about communist regimes that have long since imploded than I do about constitutional issues in this country. That having been said, what Cindy says makes a lot of sense to me. It seems to me the argument is between what is politically expedient and what is constitutionally faithful.

The Constitution doesn't make any bones about it. There's no subjunctive mood in what Section 4 of Article II says. It says the President, the Vice President shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Now, if people don't realize that there have been high crimes committed by this administration, well, I don't know where they've been. Maybe here I can talk with some authority. I’ve watched the intelligence being manufactured, being forged, being misrepresented, being made out of whole cloth to justify an unjustifiable war. It's documentarily proved. We have the Downing Street minutes. We know that Saddam Hussein's son-in-law told us in 1995 that all those weapons had been destroyed, and everything he told us turned out to be true. We had recruited -- that is, my colleagues, my former colleagues -- had recruited the acting Iraqi foreign minister, a fellow who was working for Saddam Hussein ostensibly but who had been turned to work for us. When we told the President that the foreign minister said there were no weapons of mass destruction, the President yawned and said, “Well, thank you very much. That's all I need to hear.” And they left with the admonition, “Please, no more about weapons of mass destruction from this source. It's about regime change.” So the evidence is compelling that high crimes have been made.

And so, what does the Constitution require? Well, this is not, as I say, subjunctive. It's indicative here. The Constitution requires impeachment for such crimes and misdemeanors, and it's Conyers's job to initiate those proceedings.

Now, when I asked John about that -- I gently tried to remind him about that with as much humility as I could summon, given his experience -- he said, “Oh, you know, there have been so many high crimes and misdemeanors around here that that's all my committee would end up doing the whole time, is impeaching people.” Well, that's not right. That's sort of reductio ad absurdum. That's a rhetorical technique that reduces everything to its most absurd.

What needs to happen here is the Democrats have to sort of wake up and say, “Look, we have a duty. We swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. This is what the Constitution calls for. And we need to do it for basically two reasons. Number one, that no president will ever be allowed to act like a king again.” I mean, after all, that's why the founders put impeachment in the Constitution six separate times. They came out of that English experience, where kings would march people off to war for their own good, of course, but with their having no say. And so, the framers of our Constitution were hell-bent and determined to put in, very upfront, that no president would have the authority to do this without the explicit approval of the Congress
.

There is a discussion about Nixon and whether they should have impeached him for his high crimes and not secretly pardoned himm on lesser charges and Cindy replied ththis way about Reagan-
Quote:
CINDY SHEEHAN: I think if Congress had impeached Ronald Reagan for Iran-Contra, we might have had a deterrent effect. I think that if we don't impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney, they've made a mockery of the Constitution, they've trampled on it. If we don't impeach them, take out the clauses or just -- we'll just forget we have a Constitution and a representative republic.
Reagan was another litmus test and we failed to get a positive result to that affair, but we were satisfied in spending four times what the 911 investigation cost to drag impeachment proceedings to satisfy our curiosity about whether Bill liked his hummer pimped. :roll: :roll: :roll: No wonder America is dumpster diving these days. :!: Reality? I don't think so!

Powerful woman and a leader who has been thrust into this role. She could be any one of us who woke up suddenly on a mission. But her mission is one that she won't let go of and won't compromise on. These are the qualities that we need in our leaders, not the creampuff warriors we have now, pretending to care for us but really caring only for themselves and their own interests first and foremost. Like getting re-elected first and foremost. I hope she rubs Nancy's face in her own crappy stance. :P

Go Cindy go. :D :D She could actually be the catalyist that drags America from the event horizon they're perched on over that sucking black hole of the dustbin of history.

_________________
Completely sane world
madness the only freedom

An ability to see both sides of a question
one of the marks of a mature mind

People don't choose to be dishonest
the choice chooses them

Now I know how Kusinich feels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
I can't help but often wonder what would have happened to our country, and to us, back in the early 70s if the then Congress had refused to consider impeaching Richard Nixon.

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:09 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
That is something I have often pondered. One thing they didn't like about him, was his mouth. He had a temper and often said things that got him in hot water. A lot of it the truth. My Grandfather used to say that Nixon didn't like being pushed around or bullied into things, and often vented his angers. I'll leave it at that.

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group