House waves off impeachment measure against Bush »
Posted By libsRfunny 4 months ago in NewsThe House has voted to send articles of impeachment against President Bush to a committee that is not likely to hold hearings before the end of his term. By 251-166, House members dispatched the measure to a committee on Wednesday--a procedure often used to kill legislation.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 306
-
-
0%
libsRfunny4 months ago
I wonder if this news will get the same treatment as the story about Kucinich submitting article of impeachment did yesterday on Propeller. Will the anchors recommend it?
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib4 months ago
You know the answer to that. We'll never hear about the issue again on Propeller. Kusonofabitch is used to losing though so I wouldn't feel too bad for him. The Dems will have to focus on obstructing oil drilling offshore and in Alaska.
Reply-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago
Your left wing conspiracy was quickly disproven.
If you'd stop making assumptions before you hear anyone out (you remember when America was once an open democracy and encouraged debate?)you'd realize that this was an impractical
proposal that should not have been used to consume Congress' time . The administration is nearly over, the nation has many serious unresolved matters and no one should do more than respect the fact that accusations are now permanently on record. No impeachment was realistic.
He'll be gone the natural way and you can keep making your personal assaults towards all who merely want to undo Bush's mess and make America as great as it once was..
You'd rather believe the excuses of a captain on a sinking ship and point fingers at all who try to save as many as possible by calling them names, you go right ahead..
Most of us aren't going to stand by and watch Bush sail away in his gold plated dinghy!
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy4 months ago
"you'd realize that this was an impractical proposal that should not have been used to consume Congress' time"
I totally agree. Since there is no evidence Kucinich then did it to fan the super lib flames. Just look at the result on the story of his bringing the articles of impeachment. Also the first and foremost point was "Bush lied". That is a lie that has been argument ad Nauseum. The super libs favorite lie.
Reply-
-
0%
libsRfunny4 months ago
"It astonishes me that the liberal media wasn't the least bit interested in this Impeachment, concerning lies, murder and the loss of our Constitution, But creamed all over themselves in covering the Clinton impeachment."
That's because the press corps has been around longer than many people holding office and know how Washington works better than most. They knew Kucinich had neither the votes nor the pull to get anything done with it.
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez34 months ago
"They knew Kucinich had neither the votes nor the pull to get anything done with it."
Yep, facts don't matter at all to the 'liberal' press. It's all in the vote or pull. (or being kicked out of the press corps for reporting what they don't want reported.)
Reply
-
-
0%
injest4 months ago
"It astonishes me that the liberal media wasn't the least bit interested in this Impeachment, concerning lies, murder and the loss of our Constitution, But creamed all over themselves in covering the Clinton impeachment"
Until someone ACTUALLY grows a pair and files charges, presents evidence of some kind of crime this is just gutter snipping for gutless morons.
"It astonishes me that the liberal media wasn't the least bit interested in this Impeachment"
Uhmmm What Impeachment?
No impeachment, what is the "liberal media" suppose to cover?
Headline:
In the latest call, number 487 since Jan 18th 2001, for impeachment, failed once again to pass the laugh testâ;¦.
Reply
-
-
0%
hdthehn4 months ago
Endo
""Bush lied". That is a lie that has been argument ad Nauseum (sic)."
So when Bush said Saddam had WMD he was telling the truth?
Why have we found no WMD in Iraq?
Similarly, Bush lied when he publicly stated "We do not torture." in the face of the pictures from Abu Ghraib.
Now if you believe we don't torture see this web site
http://www.pen.org/downloads/documents/adminstr...
and pay attention to page A-187 which is a Department of Defense autopsy report that lists the manner of death of an Afgan National in custody of the military as homicide. Repeat, homicide!!! AKA MURDERED
Reply-
0%
hdthehn4 months ago
Beating a prisoner so severely that he dies is torture plain and simple so if you and Bush want to lie and deny about it go ahead but we all recognize you for who and what you are: liars.
The DOD autopsy report when coupled with the statement of yours above that I quoted is proof positive that you my friend are a liar.
I would love to provide numerous other instances of Bush's lies but it is time to watch Keith Olbermann make a$$es of your ilk. {:) Have a nice day and a pleasant tomorrow.
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn4 months ago
hdthehn - You are wasting your time my friend these are people that voids themselves of reality. If bush came out on TV and said he did it they will tell you what he meant to say was...like the opening statement of all of FOX reporting. They cannot stand the fact that they made this colossal mistake. So it's better to lie to themselves with the hope that it will all go away than to admit they made a mistake!
Sad part is I think he will get away with this because winning the presidency has taken on more meaning than the laws of the country. We are now heading to hell in a hand basket because they have shifted the grounds for punishing wrong dowers to a inter party negotiation. They are4 bargaining our country into hell, I hope Obama wind!
Reply -
0%
injest4 months ago
Hdthehn
""Bush lied". That is a lie that has been argument ad Nauseum (sic)."
"So when Bush said Saddam had WMD he was telling the truth?"
To the best of his knowledge yes.
Example:
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clint...
that means on the day Clinton turned over the office it was believed by all that Saddam had wmd's.
Was Clinton lying? After all the stockpiles he speaks of were destroyed in 1994.
Reply-
0%
injest4 months ago
How bout Joe Wilson? Ever hear of him? Ya know his wife worked for the CIA on WMD's in the Middle East!
Check it out! Just days before the invasion he is claiming that Saddam Has WMD's and will use them!
"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."
Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/
opinion/la...
"Why have we found no WMD in Iraq?"
We found no WMD stockpiles cause they had been destroyed in 1994
I got hundreds more examples if you need them. All I want is something to back up your claim that Bush lied.
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn4 months ago
Injest _ They knew ex CIAZ director said they all knew. Anyone can get a link from the Internet to support any thought process that is why I don't even bother to click to them anymore. If it is not a Video or an official site I don't care what they say they all twist the truth or lies to their way of thinking and not the truth. Only Keith on NBC tells the truth or gives you the story as it is or the BBC these days...outside of him and BBC they all make ****** up.
TRUTH IS BUSH LIED AND HE AND THEY ALL KNEW THEY WERE.
WMD's was a spinner...if the real stuff wasn't there we can always say that we meant the gas he already used on his people the ones we sold to him!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago
yeah, and you know "super libs" better than they know themselves..YOU know them so well you can even detect ones who don't even distinguish themselves as ones, because after all you are a true conservative following a true conservative president, right??
Here's your conflict..BUSH is NOT a true conservative and anyone who still believe that he is doesn't understand the
meaning...
Why don't you join the real conservatives like Wm. F. Buckley,
Pat Buchanan, Robert Barr and thousands of others and admit the truth? It's so refreshing, try it! It's better than continuing to lie to yourself and shouting "LIBERAL" at everyone!
Don't you know conservatives are supposed to be intelligent and not easily fooled?
What's your excuse??
Reply
-
-
0%
injest4 months ago
MrCoffee
"If you'd stop making assumptions before you hear anyone out (you remember when America was once an open democracy and encouraged debate?)you'd realize that this was an impractical"
"remember when America was once an open democracy"
Enlighten me, exactly when was our REPUBLIC a democracy?
Reply-
-
0%
injest4 months ago
"After McCarthy we had a few good years of open debate, compromise and honesty in Washington..But generally, you're right.>From slavery, blacklisting and segregation to Nixon, Vietnam and Bush..it's been tough to find it.."
Try again.
Your claiming the United States of America is a DEMOCRACY.
The United States of America has NEVER been a DEMOCRACY.
The United States of America IS as it always has been a REPUBLIC.
You lack of such BASIC knowledge just might be the root of all your frustration, Ya Think?
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago
I'm frustrated? Thanks doctor..You've cured me..Bush is great .>hail Bush!
Yeah, I know, we're a Republic..Just like Russia wasn't communist, they were Socialist, but I play along because that is the common terminology when discussing America (as a democracy)I'm using it as 99.9% use it in discusssion..But ok, you're right..and I know the difference..
Reply-
0%
injest4 months ago
MRcoffee
"I play along because that is the common terminology when discussing America (as a democracy)I'm using it as 99.9% use it in discusssion..But ok, you're right..and I know the difference"
So why are you NOT calling the 99.9% liars?
Just because 99.9% believe it to be true, America is a Democracy when in fact it 's not.
Or do you believe just because their wrong doesn't make them liars?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez34 months ago
Nope just want to stop the abuse of public airwaives by mega media corporations that only allow such lying shrills as Rush, Hannity, and other politcally motivated shows airtime. Balance in the political spectrum is all.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
injest4 months ago
"you'd realize that this was an impractical proposal that should not have been used to consume Congress' time . The administration is nearly over,"
Yawn, spoken like a true bobblehead.
If you believe a crime has been committed then WTF would an election cycle have to do with it?
Didn't DK bring this up about a year ago?
Didn't the Dems scramble to kill it once the Repubs Said ya lets do this!
At what point do the useful idiots the Dems used to get control of congress back realize you've been bamboozled?
Blahhhhhhhhhhhaaa
ROFLMAO!
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago
Lying to the American public is not a crime..
Sorry if my pragmatism makes you sleepy!
I didn't say Bush committed a crime. He has just proven to be a bad president and there's nothing we can do about it.
(you can go back to sleep)
Go look at the "I'm voting republican" video just posted. then you can ROFLMAO all you want..It's more like we should be crying for what Bush has done to us.
Did you ever ask 'why are his approval ratings so low"?
Or is that question only appropriate for the 77% bobbleheads who believe that way?
Reply-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago
He's beating out Hitler and BinLaden too..what a lofty goal!
Oh yeah, pedophiles have a low approval rating too..he's beating them out..he has that going for him too!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
DropkickaLib4 months ago
MRURINALCAKE,
Your political positions are routinely disproven so I wouldn't crow about it if I were you. Why sail in a dinghy when Pelosi can get you a seat on a military flight?
Reply -
0%
jordan114 months ago
you'd realize that this was an impractical
proposal that should not have been used to consume Congress' time . >>>>
I disagree. I think the democratic leadership doesn't WANT this to come under scrutiny, because some of THEM knew about illegal goings on and kept their mouths shut. Such as...the illegal torture of prisoners. Seems to me Pelosi was on a committee that was apprised of torture 'techniques' and even toured a facility. For the longest time I have wondered why they're not up in arms over what this administration has done, but now it looks more and more like they blew it themselves....some of them anyway.
Reply
-
0%
slate4 months ago
I heard that Mr. K was a force to be reconded with just a day or two ago,,,,, interesting turn of events.
Reply-
-
0%
slate4 months ago
LOL after all the space wasted by things you write you think mine is a waste?
I won't say who said that K was a force, I'd most likely be accused of being a liar or something,,,, but look in the thread that you guys were in just yesterday about the same said subject and I thin kyou can figure out who said K was a force. Psssttt page 5
Reply-
-
0%
santa04 months ago
i don't know anything about Crow Slate. I didn't read the last thread.
but you and other posters seem to celebrating this. like it is a huge turn of events and some sort of retribution or 'see i told you so.'
i think thats a horrible sign, that you have a president who has a favorability rating of 22 percent or something and has led us into the lowest point of my life-time, and his standing is so shameful that his NOT being impeached is seen as a victory.
is that how you judge your leaders now? if they are NOT impeached... if they are not tried for crimes against the nation than they are successful in your eyes.
honestly this should be a sad day for everyone involved. when 160 United States Congressman think that you are not only not fit to lead, but a convictable criminal, then that is nothing to be excited about.
If the house took a vote on MY behavior... and even ONE of them thought that I was a criminal, i would be deeply hurt.
Reply-
0%
slate4 months ago
but you and other posters seem to celebrating this. like it is a huge turn of events and some sort of retribution or 'see i told you so.'
Celibrating? In a sense I guess, because the tough talking Dems have been doing this song and dance for how many years now but have done nothing.
BTW the Crow was for Coffee and him asking about who said K was a force
I've said enough times that I want each and every politician held responsible if they have 'proof' of wrong doing, as of now it's only wishful thinking or Bush would have been out long ago, they only have accusation at this point in time,,,, you get proof and I'll be with you , until then I see it as just pay back for Clinton and Pandering.
You do know why they passed? Because they were culpable in the same action,,,, the 'he lied to us' stance is only a convient CYA tactic. They had a chance to read the same Intel before they voted to give Bush the power to use force.
Reply-
0%
slate4 months ago
What you should be truly SAD about, is the fact that the Dems has enough votes to get this rolling and they let those that want impeachment down again. Why are you not angry and feel just the fact that some voted for it and it's on record is enough of a victory for you?
Why do you settle for partial satisfaction if you truly believe the accusations levied against a sitting president?
Reply-
-
0%
santa04 months ago
well i havent read it so i cant say that i believe or disbelieve the accusations in it. but your argument of 'the burden of proof' is silly because thats what an impeachment is. its a formal accusation saying that there is neough suspicion to warrant an investigation for proof. not to mention that there are plenty of pieces of first hand testimony that suggest knowing desception.
and the congress did not have the same evidence as the president. thats simply not true. the congress had a packet of information that was selected and presented to the congress. they saw only what the white house, for what ever reason, wanted them to see.
i dont think that many people want retribution for clinton. i personally hold a lot of ill will towards clinton for doing something so stupid. and i dont like the idea of just trading impeachments. but i do think that this admin. appears to have done many illegal things and to uphold they importance of the office they need to be investigated.
Reply-
0%
slate4 months ago
Heck then I guess we can call for an Impeachment investigation anytime we don't like something. There has to be a bit of meat with the tatters before anyone in congress will vote for an Impeachment, so they won't look like fools if it comes up with nadda in the end.
In the end you and I sort agree,,,,,
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago
I re-read the article and reviewed all 715 comments and NOWHERE did ANYONE call kucinich a "force to be reckoned with" or ANY comment similar...You have not only proven your inability to comprehend what a bad president Bush is, but you are now proving, before our very eyes to be a "revisionist"..
Not even a good try!
I'm glad you're lol'ing..We're lol'ing AT YOU with another classic example of "if it can't be proven, make it up"
Now we better understand why you love Bush so much..he's your role model for deception! Nice!..but typical!
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago
ok..somewhere in the middle (page 5) a newcomer here (eco) that is a Ron Paul supporter said it..and NO ONE concurred..
There were no supporting comments to that ridiculous statement and it does not deserve elaboration, does it?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
slate4 months ago
((ok..somewhere in the middle (page 5) a newcomer here (eco) that is a Ron Paul supporter said it..and NO ONE concurred.. DANG I TRIED TO TELL YOU WHAT PAGE
One more thing you and the rest of you dastardly lefties can stick it,,,,,, the 'liar' accusations are beneith even you worms,,,, or I thought so,,,,, since you made a mistake shall we assume that you 'lied'? to get your point accross Cake?
Pointing fingers and calling liars,,,,, making claims that I've read all 700 posts yada yada and saw not ONE post,,,,,, ooopppssssss pretty tall tale there Paul Bunyan
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
mivan44 months ago
Ah, don't forget the Florida offshore drilling the democrats struck down also; even while knowing China had a deal with Cuba to drill in the very same region! Now we have China drilling for oil in our back yard with the worst environmental record while we sit idly by. Thank you Democrats! We know your plan for lower oil prices let China have it and blame the Republicans for it! NO wonder China's economy is booming while ours is Sinking!
Reply-
0%
david_nwpa4 months ago
Could you let the now extinct Caribbean Monk Seal know how grateful you are? How about telling the manatees of Florida that they will need to find new breeding and swimming habitats, because you want us to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Thanks, I will wait while you do that. As a nation, we are abysmal caretakers of this planet. No need to get all high and mighty about the Chinese.
Reply-
-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
lfergie8124 months ago
"Manatees do not swim or breed where drilling would occur,"
The last I heard the manatee is native of Florida and they want to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Florida is on the Gulf unless Bush moved it. Could be because they stole it so they might have moved it.
http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/man...
Any idiot that thinks that drilling for oil will bring down the price of gasoline is dumber than I thought. The price of oil is not going up because of shortage, it's going up because of greed. The oil companies refuse to build a new refinery to replace the ones that are out dated and inefficient.
http://wp2.medina-gazette.com/2008/06/11/news/p...
The Saudi oil minister has already stated that there is enough oil being delivered to meet demands.
Reply-
0%
david_nwpa4 months ago
We do better at cleaning up our messes? Could you mention that when you pass by Love Canal or Three Mile Island? How about the disaster that was the Exxon Valdez? That disaster is still leaving ramifications in Alaska. Far as I am concerned, it shoots the idea of your oil drilling up there. Why are we shipping oil out of Alaska if we have the pipeline?
Keep the ANWR closed, thank you.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Blackacereturn4 months ago
Well said old dog, a good solder and a smarter man, they have yet to make. At ease solder!
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn4 months ago
Well said old dog, a good solder and a smarter man, they have yet to make. At ease solder!
Reply -
0%
mivan44 months ago
Oh, so Clinton declaring China "Most favored nation" regarding trading had NOTHING to do with it, but Bush is to blame and he didn't have anything to do with it ! Wake UP; BUT BUSH did put trade RESTRICTIONS on CHINESE STEEL which pretty much saved our steel industry. I bet you libs conveniently FORGOT about that.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Blackacereturn4 months ago
I am sorry Mr. Kucinich was left out there to hang so to speak. He had a very good Idea very bad timing. The house didn't call this off because of lack of guilt, they infact call this off for political reasons (let's hope it doesn't byte them in the ass), and for the good of this country because it will only seem like you get me now I get you back, and where will that leave us.
Reply
-
-
0%
Beau78904 months ago
Heh. It's 24 minutes since you submitted the story. Have you looked at the home page recently?
We all knew the impeachment resolution wasn't going to go anywhere. I'm still glad it was introduced and read into the public record.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny4 months ago
"Heh. It's 24 minutes since you submitted the story. Have you looked at the home page recently?"
Beau, it might surprise you, but I know what I am doing ;)
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
lfergie8124 months ago
Thanks for submitting the story lib. It lets people know what a liar this president really is. Sure it's too late to finish the job but it has been put before the readers.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago
maybe you know what you're doing elsewhere in your life, but not politically..
You have no tolerance for liberals, moderates, or even true conservatives who want border protection, a balanced budget, a strong dollar, proper healthcare for veterans, a lower deficit and smaller government..
You obviously have bought the Bush scam lock, stock and barrel
and have continued to defend what has proven to be his anti-conservative wolf in sheep's clothing administration.
So No, we don't think you know what you're doing.
Signed,
another former Republican
(thanks for helping chase us away)
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny4 months ago
"maybe you know what you're doing elsewhere in your life, but not politically.."
I know light years more than you ;)
"You have no tolerance for liberals, moderates, or even true conservatives who want border protection, a balanced budget, a strong dollar, proper healthcare for veterans, a lower deficit and smaller government.."
Clearly, you don't know crap about me. but feel free to stick your sizable foot in your even larger mouth.
"another former Republican"
I doubt that very much.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago
Of course you "doubt" anything that confuses you.
I was at Reagan's victory party in DC, a delegate at the Mass. Repub. State Convention 3 times and on Gov. Bill Weld's committees. What have you done except blow fake conservative hot air?
About you: I only go by what YOU put in YOUR OWN words HERE..
and YOU have done NOTHING but assault ALL who question Bush.
If you "know light years more than" me, then why can't you even KNOW what a bad president Bush is?? Even 4th graders know that!
How can you still believe he's a good president?
What are you still waiting for him to do something so grand that it digs you out of the deep hole that you've dug for yourself?? THAT is called stubbornness and foolishness.
The stakes are too high and your defense of him has caused too much damage, but you just keep believing that you're smarter than me..By the way, 74% of the country would disagree. (the rest are hillbillies or selfish rich people)
Hope you enjoy their respect!
Reply-
0%
lfergie8124 months ago
That's all right MRCOFFEECAKE. Libs cannot tell the difference between an honest to goodness conservative that is disillusioned with the present administration and a far left wing Bush basher. They seem to be saying the same thing.
Reply
-
-
0%
mesodude4 months ago
"I know light years more than you ;)"
--This is your idea of meaningful debate?
"Clearly, you don't know crap about me. but feel free to stick your sizable foot in your even larger mouth."
--So enlighten us...In what ways are Mr C's comments off the mark?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Beau78904 months ago
I'm sure you'll see this--I didn't see a response when I posted it on another thread.
If you're going to keep saying that about ML and he's going to keep denying it, why don't you prove your point by posting a link to that comment?
Otherwise, it looks pretty much just like the smear about the non-existent tape of Michelle Obama going on a rant that never happened.
Reply-
0%
Beau78904 months ago
What else would you expect? He learned that trick from the best--Karl Rove, Floyd Brown, Joseph Goebbels...
But that's why I try not to let unsubstantiated smears--especially ones that would be simple to prove, if they were true--remain uncountered. So that if his buddies do read the comments, there could be a slight chance they'll listen to reason. It worked with the non-existent Michelle Obama tape.
Reply
-
-
ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
JamesMarcus4 months ago
I'm surprised that 166 House members had the gall to vote for it. But they knew it would vanish into committee without a trace, so perhaps this was ultimately a vote writ on water.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny4 months ago
It's called pandering to a constituency. Nothing is safer than casting a useless vote just so you can say you did it to appease voters back home.
Reply-
0%
JamesMarcus4 months ago
Pandering or not, nearly 40 percent of the House voted to impeach a sitting president. I find that an interesting statistic. Needless to say, impeachment was a non-starter from the beginning.
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib4 months ago
I used to work in legislative government. It's not unusual for one house to vote for a bill knowing that it's already arranged to kill it when it gets to the other house. Some bills are designed to send a political message without any hope of being passed.
Reply-
0%
gamahuche4 months ago
Precisely and the political message has been sent - and read into the record.
The sponsor of this story refers above to:
"pandering to a constituency."
Of course he is exactly correct - and a very large constituency it is!
Now today we have an interview with the not even yet ex-president:
Bush Regrets His Legacy As Man Who Wanted War
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/11/...
What the heck are you guys going to be doing when he is offering a mea culpa and doesn't even WANT you to defend him any more?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
