Dennis Kucinich introduces 35 articles of impeachment

[Vanguard]

YAY, DENNIS! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4167427.shtml)

Kucinich Web site crashes, he cites 'suspicious circumstances' (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/10/kucinich-web-site-crashes-he-cites-suspicious-circumstances/)

Inspirational firebrand, or just trying to get on Obama's short list at the last minute? You decide :)

[TuNnL]

Inspirational firebrand, or just trying to get on Obama's short list at the last minute? You decide :)Considering how many people love Dennis (http://starbulletin.com/2007/09/15/news/story09.html) Kucinich in Hawai‘i, his selection as VP would likely give the Obama ticket an Inouye-esque percentage of the island vote.

But seriously, since Kucinich has already introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042401542.html), Dubya is the next logical step, in light of Scott McClellan’s recent announcement (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902586.html) he will testify.

[Walkoff Balk]

As long as he brings his better half. The camera loves her eyes.

[TuNnL]

As long as he brings his better half. The camera loves her eyes.If you’re talking about Elizabeth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR_yyrcHRDM), you aren’t the only “camera.” ;)

[Frankie's Market]

Inspirational firebrand, or just trying to get on Obama's short list at the last minute? You decide :)

I don't think so. Obama wants nothing to do with impeaching Bush. Neither do the Democratic leadership in Congress.

Kucinich/Wexler's resolution calling for impeachment is essentially a symbolic gesture. The resolution will likely get stuck in the Judiciary committee and not acted upon this year. By next year, with a new President in the White House, this whole thing becomes moot.

[Kalalau]

I can't help but recall all the man-years of coverage the "press" gave to President Clinton's absolutely 100% irrelevant escapade with Monica Lewinsky. Yet zero coverage by the "press" of the infinitely more serious charges against Mr. Bush. Gee, could the "press" possibly be biased? Maybe its just me. Maybe a stained dress actually is more important than the failure to prevent 9-11, the failure to protect the levees of New Orleans or to rescue Katrina victims (did you know the first rescue workers into the city were Royal CANADIAN Mounted Police?), bankrupting a previously healthy (that Clinton surplus, you recall) economy, and those 4,100 dead American military and what is it now?--650,000 dead Iraqis? The "press" is a pathetic joke. The punch line--the press is considered to have a liberal bias. Very amusing.

[TuNnL]

I can't help but recall all the man-years of coverage the "press" gave to President Clinton's absolutely 100% irrelevant escapade with Monica Lewinsky.First of all, the relevance of the Lewinsky episode, is that it demonstrated a pattern of abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Chronicles) by Clinton. He made promises of employment (http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/bill-richardson-caught-in-clinton-undertow/) to a young intern, based on sex. He has done this with dozens of women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troopergate) (and some would say that is a conservative estimate). “The press” only covered the incident because it was part of an investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr) of Clinton by the Office of the Independent Council.

Yet zero coverage by the "press" of the infinitely more serious charges against Mr. Bush.First of all, C-Span covered the entire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0mWVxlSysM) 4 1/2-hour impeachment reading by Dennis Kucinich. Obviously no live event gets that kind of coverage on the commercial stations, but the MSM did give it more than zero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3-ZRnB_5k8).

More importantly, it would be all over “the press,” if it was likely Congress would act on Kucinich’s articles. It isn’t. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi AND Senate President Harry Reid have publicly stated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZL8-XQsgiA) that impeachment is “off the table.” That doesn’t make it right. It also doesn't make it newsworthy.

The "press" is a pathetic joke.It’s easy to criticize the media when you’re sitting on the sidelines and have contributed nothing. If you think you can do a better job, why don’t you tell it to their face (http://hawaiithreads.com/forumdisplay.php?f=67)? :rolleyes:

[Leo Lakio]

Kucinich/Wexler's resolution calling for impeachment is essentially a symbolic gesture.Bingo. But a symbolic gesture that makes half of America smile anyway.
Gee, could the "press" possibly be biased? Maybe its just me. Maybe a stained dress actually is more important than ...Sex sells papers, friend. Fortunately, there are so many more "press" outlets these days than ever before, so you'll find the coverage that speaks to you these days.

[Kalalau]

I believe the charge that President Clinton engaged in the pattern of behavior described was based on testimony from Arkansas State Troopers, who later recanted their statements. They had been manipulated into lying. This shows only that the "press" dutifully reported every slanderous lie against President Clinton for their wealthy masters. Read some of special prosecutor Starr's investigation, none of it is relevant to governance of a country, its all about private personal conduct. Yet all the facts that the voters needed to avoid this Bush disaster were available, you can see them in "Shrub" by Molly Ivins (Read It!), but the "press" never shared with the public any of these totally important background facts about Mr. Bush's competence, intelligence, honesty, or his unbroken record of failure. No, it reported that Vice President Gore sighed. Wow, what heavy reporting. So if you are looking for the villains responsible for the collapse of the American economy, the "press" is right at the top of the list. If the collapse of the late USSR tells us anything, it is that no country is immune from the laws of economics. That includes this one. Maybe America can dig itself out of this morass, maybe not. But it would not be where it is today without the malignant influence of the "press". I am sure somebody will do a statistical breakdown of the amount of time the "press" spent on Monica's stained dress v. the amount of coverage of the impeachment of Mr. Bush, it ought to run well over 500 to 1, wouldn't you think?

[TuNnL]

I believe the charge that President Clinton engaged in the pattern of behavior described was based on testimony from Arkansas State Troopers, who later recanted their statements.Did you ever consider that they feared for their life (http://www.etherzone.com/body.html) and/or were threatened if they didn’t recant?

Read some of special prosecutor Starr's investigation, none of it is relevant to governance of a country, its all about private personal conduct.Kenneth Starr was the independent counsel, not special prosecutor. Starr was placed on the case because the special prosecutor position held by Robert Fiske (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Fiske) was eliminated by a three judge panel. Fiske's deputy had found much more damaging (http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1995/6/19/205434) and relevant information about Clinton, and the change saved Clinton’s @ss by appointing Starr, who was apparently more interested in sex, then Whitewater or the suspicious death of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster).

Yet all the facts that the voters needed to avoid this Bush disaster were available, you can see them in "Shrub" by Molly Ivins (Read It!), but the "press" never shared with the public any of these totally important background factsYou just contradicted yourself, Kalalau. Molly Ivins was a member of “the press.” As a member of “the press,” she shared with the public these important background facts. That’s why you know about it. :rolleyes:

[timkona]

It was fun yesterday to watch Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Kucinich agree that speculators were crippling the oil markets.

[Kalihiboy]

How old is Kucinich's wife? I have to give Dennis credit at least he has made some campaign stops in Hawaii before, cannot say the same for the other candidates. I bet Nixon and Kennedy were the last Prez candidates to visit the islands.

Aj

[Kalalau]

Molly Ivins was indeed a journalist, she did what journalists in a truly free press are supposed to do, report facts. If the press had done its job, Mr. Bush would have enjoyed a happy life yachting and playing polo with his rich friends, and our treasury might still be solvent, our country at peace, still respected and admired around the world, our workforce still gainfully employed, the dollar still worth a dollar and gasoline still worth around $2 a gallon.

The Arkansas troopers feared for their lives? They saw what the Clintons did to Vince Foster and the Oklahoma City Federal Building and knew they'd better play along. Somehow that never scared Ken Starr.

[TuNnL]

Molly Ivins was indeed a journalist, she did what journalists in a truly free press are supposed to do, report facts. If the press had done its jobI hate to keep pointing out the obvious, but you just contradicted yourself again. Molly Ivins = journalist (press). Ivins = reported facts. Therefore, press = did its job. Get it? Maybe more private citizens like yourself should have paid attention to what was being reported.

They saw what the Clintons did to Vince Foster and the Oklahoma City Federal Building and knew they'd better play along. Somehow that never scared Ken Starr.You’re making a huge assumption. If Ken Starr wasn’t scared, why did he take (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/starr_report/) the easy way out (Presidential blowjob) instead of covering up (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html) the death of Vince Foster? I’ll tell you why. He didn’t want to end up like Vince (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Kvm6N3WuA). :eek:

[Kalalau]

I hate to keep pointing out the obvious, too...Molly Ivins wrote a book and she wrote for a newspaper. Her coverage extended to perhaps a tenth of one per cent of the American public. The other 99.9% of the media continually talked about the stain on Monica's dress. Honestly, how important is that stacked up against the 4,100 dead (needlessly dead) American troops in Iraq, the 3,000 dead at 9-11 because Mr. Bush went on vacation for a month before the attack perhaps without reading his intelligence briefing that predicted the attack (another worthwhile question the "press" still has somehow neglected to investigate)...and on and on, the tanked economy, perhaps a trillion dollars stolen...where to stop. And the "press" enthusiastically provides endless team coverage of Britney Speers latest eye shadow. Truly, no industry has ever invested so much energy in making itself irrelevant. Utterly, pathetically irrelevant.

So...its like saying a person who robs banks, but only is involved in robbing banks for a tenth of a percent of their lifetime is not a bank robber. Sure, Molly Ivins did a great job, but her great job absolutely does not mean that the other 99.9 % of the press did its job.

Example. The intelligence report I referred to was titled "Al Qaeda Determined To Strike Inside U.S.". Ever hear of it? If so, where. If not, why not? Regular press? Probably not. Maybe on the congressional hearings when Condoleza Rice was hemming and hawing and trying to evade even naming it.

[TuNnL]

Molly Ivins wrote a book and she wrote for a newspaper. Her coverage extended to perhaps a tenth of one per cent of the American public. The other 99.9% of the media continually talked about the stain on Monica's dress.Molly Ivins worked for several papers including the NY Times, before becoming a nationally syndicated news columnist in 2001 (just in time for the run-up to Dubya’s Iraq War). Strange that you don’t know this, since you claim to have read her book. To say she wrote for a newspaper that extended to a tenth of one percent of readers, is insulting and inaccurate.

Sure, Molly Ivins did a great job, but her great job absolutely does not mean that the other 99.9 % of the press did its job.They should have done a better job, but your characterization is unfair and misleading. Several journalists including Bob Simon (http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021004.asp) and Warren Strobel (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2847) did in fact question the Bush administration's case and were very critical in their reporting. As I said before, the truth was available, but few readers and viewers bothered to pay attention.

Honestly, Kalalau, I think the way you shoot from the hip with your broad indictments is similar to Bush. :(

[Kalalau]

In addition to being a true journalist Molly Ivins had a wonderful sense of humor. From Shrub...Gays in west Texas were afraid to let on that they were gay because they were afraid the people there would think they were Democrats. And in one interview, the interviewer introduced her as one of Mr. Bush's harshest critics..."Oh heavens no, not me", she said, "I am far from the harshest." She claimed to have actually liked Mr. Bush. She said he was a nice fellow on a personal level and from what I have heard, that is true.

If anyone wishes to read "Shrub" be sure to pay special attention to the chapter about Mr. Bush's environmental record as gov. of Texas, I believe it is titled "We're Number One". If anything should have warned the public about Mr. Bush, that would have been it. But of course the press was too busy reporting about dress stains to bother with anything actually relevant.

[TuNnL]

Anyhow, Kalalau, keep reading through my links and educate yourself. Getting back on topic...

It was fun yesterday to watch Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Kucinich agree that speculators were crippling the oil markets.Oh, you mean this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgbYgAfVh0A)? Indeed, one of those rare moments. (Although I think Kucinich held his own against Bill in the impeachment discussion)

I have to give Dennis credit at least he has made some campaign stops in Hawaii before, cannot say the same for the other candidates. I bet Nixon and Kennedy were the last Prez candidates to visit the islands.The last visit I know of that Obama made is discussed here (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=11428). He still hadn’t declared his candidacy at that point, though he was already a U.S. Senator.