This is absolutely ludicrous. I cannot believe that people will argue that Bush, with Kucinich's carefully documented high crimes and misdemeanors, will be allowed to walk from this things. Liberal Democrats are absolutely disgusting with their total disregard for the rule of law. If we don't hold Bush accountable, what is to prevent this from happening again? What good is the law? You're all absolutely sickening. You will be very f**king sorry for overlooking this should McCain manage to beat Obama.
Egads. Kucninich's constituents should be steaming mad right now. I know I would if I were one. We have bigger problems than taking on personal vendettas aimed at attempting to make a point. What's Kucinich done about energy costs? Food costs? Taxes, the environment? Is this really what we want people in Washington spending their time doing?
Did you read the 35 Articles of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, as well as their corresponding evidence? It's far from a personal vendetta. It's documentation of possibly the greatest political scandal in American history.
Whether right or wrong, HE WILL WALK! Washington does not want to perpetuate the idea that they can be held responsible for being bad at their jobs. Right left and in-between will give him a pass in exchange for being given a pass.
Because it is the truth? Or is the truth not important? Do you find that posting an opinion without the facts makes for better posts?
Yet no one has been charged with a crime and no one has presented any factual evidence of a crime being committed. Go figure.
The French and Germans have charged Donald Rumsfled with war crimes. As far as being charged, that sellout traitor Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat leadership refuse to perform their constitutional duty and impeach the President and Vice President. They know how much sympathy impeachment created for Clinton, they don't dare do that for Bush and the GOP before the elections. That said, you refuse to read the "factual evidence", I can only assume because you are in denial of reality, so for you to say there is no evidence, is absolutely ridiculous and without merit. The sad thing is, I disapprove of the UN and such global bodies, but our failure to act domestically, is going to lead to more countries than France and Germany conducting investigations and laying charges against Americans. The facts and evidence are not going away.
That's kinda like the phone company charing the cable company with predatory pricing. I think the Speaker recognized like many do, that there was no impeachable offense. I don't believe Clinton gained any sympathy from anyone. I think Americans were more concerned with the time wasted on the process, all of which could have been eliminated if Clinton would have said, "the bitch sucked my dick and I loved it".... Instead he - an attorney no less, lied under oath. It's kind of a big no no. He continued the lie publicly and as result drove a pretty bi-partisan effort to eliminate any doubt. It's the same hogwash that's been hinted to before. The same bunk that the Speaker refused to pursue, again, for the reasons I've previously stated. There's nothing there. Oh, but everything will be perfect if we just pursue that isolationist model provided by RP. Em, ok...
You can call it whatever you want. The EU and Asia are on track to overtake us. The arrogance of being the world's sole super power the last 20 years won't last indefinitely. That's not the Speaker's job. The are lawyers on the left AND THE RIGHT who think that impeachment is a must. You cannot allow the President to violate the Constitution and laws. This is simply stonewalling, and boy are the Dems going to look bad if McCain wins. Pelosi is a worthless piece of crap. I hope she loses her seat. Non-interventionist. And yes. Things would be significantly better.
The super power thing is more about military might than money. In that regard, I'm sure the US will remain in that position for my life time generations to come. And that is exactly who advised her, and why she chose not to pursue it. No Constitutional Laws have been broken. If they had, charges would have long since been filed, for real. Why, because she did not move to impeach the president? I'm not sure I follow the logic. Believe me, I would love to try it your way... I've had a recent discussion with some close friends on this very subject, and we'd all like to see that. We can be our own little island.
Do you understand that we are broke? Do you really think the baby boomers will choose guns over butter when the Chinese stop underwriting our empire? No. It's not up to her. She's burying it along with the Democratic leadership for the same reasons they never stopped the war. They are spineless traitors. The Congress and Senate has to impeach. the Attorney-General since Alberto Gonzales to the current POS sellout traitor Mukasey serve at the pleasure of the President. She does not impeach. Her job is to be the speaker. However, she's abused her position, and failed her constitutional duties. In my opinion, she should be impeached as well. It's time to clean out the scoundrels, cheats and liars. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Paul is not into isolation, and neither am I. Hundreds of countries around the world participate globally, but without being interventionist. It's not radical, untried or unique. Trade, talk and travel are always preferable to the wealth destruction of war and the distrust of espionage.
Realize: You have to live in the "real" world first to come to any realization. That said, I'm not stoned on Alex Jones and company. I'm not a pessimist. Nothing is being buried. There is just nothing there. And I did not say it was up to her either way. I'm just explaining why she urged others to let it go. There is nothing there. No, the US Constitution states that any official articles of impeachment must be introduced by a member of the President's cabinet or a member of the Senate or House of Representatives. The Speaker fits that qualification. I did not say she impeached. I said she would introduce articles of impeachment but after reviewing the facts has not. Yeah, lets just impeach everyone G... That's the solution. It's called a general election. When you reach voting age, I'd suggest registering and voting. To the contrary, Paul is an isolationist. His whole premise if founded on the belief that we (the US) should remove ourselves from every country on earth and let the world fend for itself. We should be involved domestically only. A non-interventionist is isolationism. From wiki: "Isolationism is nonintervention combined with economic nationalism (protectionism). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Is this supposed to mean something? The GAO has put out the numbers. We're broke. What is there to be pessimistic about? You still think earmarks are the problem, and your stimulus check is a tax refund. YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! If you haven't read the articles of impeachment, then how do you know that nothing is there? What do you think Dennis Kucinich is? This just illustrates how out of touch you are. You just totally fabricated that (unless you have a source). Last year Pelosi said they would not impeach, this was before there was evidence. She refuses to impeach under any circumstance, deserved or not? No, let's impeach people who do not do their jobs. Let's impeach people who betray the public trust, embezzle, lie and steal. If a government official breaks the law, they should be impeached. This is why the Founders added impeachment to the Constitution. It is our check and balance between electoral cycles. But we're not in every country. That's the fallacy. We're not providing world security or policing. We're picking and choosing where to maintain our empire, and doing so benefits the military industrial complex, as they bleed away your taxes and generate a debt burden on your son to facilitate it. Here is a question for you. Which other countries are not isolationist? Which one spends a 1/10th per capita on (sic) defense? Which ones have bases in 100 countries (last I checked, we were in 145). How about bases in 50 countries? 20 countries? Isolationism is used as a pejorative. The reality is, the rest of the world fits the description you are choosing to use this way. And if that is true, then why are so many of these so-called "isolationist" countries excelling on the global stage? I am the resident Ron Paul expert. I try to represent his views accurately. Your description of being involved only domestically is false. He wants to be no more regressive than Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia or any other member of the G8. Why didn't you quote the rest? Thanks for providing a like that contradicts your assertions. I think Washington and Jefferson are pretty good company.
Oh you mean the part where non-interventionism is defined as isolationism, unless it's "Ron Paul" we are talking about? Because, a spade is a spade... That's why. Partial isolationism is the same as isolationism. It's fairly evident that Paul would like to isolate us from rest of the world completely, military aside, you cannot say - "I'm only isolationist about things not related to free trade".... Without that military presence and other interests much of that trade would likely collapse. You do know that Paul suspended his campaign right? Someone finally told him that he lost, I guess.