Wednesday, October 11, 2006

When Democrats failed to pursue impeachment

* warroom:
"There aren't a lot of people out there who think Dennis Hastert ought to be cut some slack on the Mark Foley scandal. But through hard work and dogged reporting, we've managed to find two of them, and we're pleased to introduce them to you now. Ladies and gentlemen, meet George W. Bush and Joseph Lieberman."
* John Nichols via David Swanson:
""When the congressional Democrats failed to pursue impeachment as the necessary response to the Iran-Contra revelations of rampant illegality in the Reagan White House – rejecting the advice of Henry B. Gonzalez, the wily Texas congressman who alone introduced the appropriate articles in 1987 – they thought they were positioning the party for victory in the coming presidential election. Instead, Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, having recovered from the gentle slap on the wrist he received from Congress for his own involvement in the scandal, was elected to the presidency in 1988 by a landslide, and expected Democratic advances in Congress failed to materialize.

"Pulling punches in a political battle usually results in a knockout, with the party that holds back collapsing to the mat and struggling, often for a very long time, to finally get up again. And the Democratic Party of the George Herbert Walker Bush years, with its inexplicable penchant for pulling punches, runs the very real risk of being flattened not once but repeatedly if it fails to confront the issue of rampant wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration."
* josh:
"Will someone come out and say what a monumental twit Condi Rice is as Secretary of State."
i can't remember how many times i've ranted about how much it drives me mad that condi's approval ratings are so high.

* kleiman:
"We have a higher proportion of our population in prison on drug law charges than any (other) civilized country has on all charges put together. The problem with ijncarcerating drug dealers (as opposed, say, to burglars) is that there is strong market pressure to replace them."


profmarcus said...

steve clemons offered up an op-ed from the haaretz newspaper authored by a mr. gideon levy, following condi's recent visit to israel and palestine, that pretty well sums up what i suspect are our collective feelings about ms. rice...

It happens once every few months. Like a periodic visit by an especially annoying relative from overseas, Condoleezza Rice was here again. The same declarations, the same texts devoid of content, the same sycophancy, the same official aircraft heading back to where it came from. The results were also the same: Israel promised in December, after a stormy night of discussions, to open the "safe passage" between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This time, in what was considered the "achievement" of the current visit, Israel also promised to open the Karni crossing. Karni will be open, one can assume, only slightly more than the "safe passage," which never opened following the previous futile visit.

Rice has been here six times in the course of a year and a half, and what has come of it? Has anyone asked her about this? Does she ask herself?

It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way. The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous and lengthiest conflict in our world? How is it that the world's only superpower, which has the power to quickly facilitate a solution, does not lift a finger to promote it?

well, golly... don't beat around the bush, mr. levy... tell us how you REALLY feel...

lukery said...

lol - thanks for that - i posted that article the other day

noise said...

How is it that the world's only superpower, which has the power to quickly facilitate a solution, does not lift a finger to promote it?

The conflict is good for business. Sick and cynical? Of course. True? Sure seems to be the case.

lukery said...

sick, cynical, and true.

Chris said...

Funny thing is, some of the strategists on our side almost want you asshats to win the House in November. Conyers would go nuts, and the Moonbat caucus would hold a torchlight parade past the Fuhrer's window (that would be Markos) every night, burning books by "Neocons" (you libs are too polite to actually say "Joooos", even though that's what you mean).

The last thing the Clintons wanted was for the Hard, Angry Left to be unleashed. What you people don't realize is that you are the mirror image of Newt Gingrich and the House Managers. I know. I'm a Republican. I lived through 1998.

George Bush will leave office with a 55 to 60 percent approval rating because of you people, and it will be President Giuliani and Vice President Rice in 2009.

How much is Karl paying you folks? Really? I want some of that RNC walking around money. I mean, I've heard of the 72 Hour Plan, but this is ridiculous!

lukery said...

thank you concern troll. please come back soon.