That's right, I know you never thought that you'd read it on this blog, but I want to impeach Bush now!!!! I really don't care what charges you want to do it on - lying to the American people about WMD's (which he didn't); spying on Americans in this country (which he didn't); the fact that his ears stick out too far or the fact that he can't say the word "nuclear". I don't care, go to any lefty blog, pick a reason and let's impeach him.
Why? Well, with Bush gone we get Cheney - and all he has to do is bring his trusty 28 gauge with him to any and all negotiations. I'd love to see him in negotiations with ANY of the democratic clowns. He could invite Pelosi, Kennedy and Reid out for a quail hunt; heck, while he's at it he could invite Dan Quayle too (he never was good for the republican party).
Later he could go down and have a hunt and talk with Chavez from Venezuela, then maybe he could thaw the spat between Cuba and the U.S. - This tactic can get some real legs under it!!!
So what do you think? Was the story about Cheney much ado over nothing? As one reporter suggested, should the VP resign over this (although this was the same reporter that asked would the incident be more important if the person shot died - duh)? Was it just a real slow news day and the press had nothing else to do? Was it the liberal press hoping and praying for something that they could smear the Bush administration with?
Opinions and comments welcome.
More Later
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
It would be great if they attempted to impeach the VP because of his failing to buy the tag for small birds on private property. You know the anti-gun crowd would love to prosecute. Wouldn't it be a great news-cycle cluster-f about nothing if the President pardoned Cheney from having to pay the small fine just to cheese off the liberal gun-grabbers. That would be serious comedy.
What I also caught my attention with this unfortunate hunting accident was how the media showed how little they knew about guns. Cheney even said it in a press conference. Something to the effect: There are more readers of newspapers than hunt than reporters for newspapers who do. I feel safe knowing that the public understands what happened whether you reporters do.
Cheney also pointed out that one of the reporters was just pissed off that he went to the local newspaper first before the east-coast establishment because a member of their community had been shot. Seriously - Cheney was pretty much flippant - "your just angry that I called a small paper first." (this is a paraphrase)
I thought it was extrememly funny and made me glad I had c-span radio.
For second I saw the title and got very confused and scared.
Barbara Boxer should join Cheney on the quail hunt as well.
In fact, let's get him a guard post at Bush's ranch when Sheehan shows up! That'd be awesome!
I'm there.
What a brilliant idea. You are truly a twisted genius!
Here, I was hoping that Cheney would step down so Condi Rice could be appointed to his position. Then she could run in '08 as the incumbent.
I'd be interrested in your explanation of hoe Bush DIDN'T lie about the reasons for invadeing Iraq, or how he ISN'T spying on Americans.
Sorry, how.
I was just surfing blog explosion and came across your blog. Excellent work. I couldn't agree with you more on how overblown the whole affair was.
Jim -
I will humor you and answer your questions, although I believe you've seen/heard these arguments before and basically refuse to believe them; however here we go:
How did Bush not lie about the WMD's? If you are told something by a usually reliable source, and that same something is confirmed by other reliable sources; which you later state as fact (even identifying the sources - in this case the intelligence agencies of several countries). Later it appears that the info might have been wrong, are YOU the liar? Let's see, if I tell you the statue of Liberty can be seen when you are in the state of New York I'm merely stating what reliable sources have relayed to me. I have neither the means nor the where withall to check it out myself. If that assertion turned out to be wrong, would I be guilty of a lie?
Second, can you prove to me that Saddam didn't have WMD's? Just because they weren't found didn't mean they weren't moved prior to the war; in fact there is some very persuasive evidence that they were moved just prior to the war (to another country) and recent reports from some of the Iraqi higher ups now claim that he did have them. I can go on, but you know the drill (I assume).
As for the wiretapping - if it's in the interest of national security (see September 11, 2001) then I'll grant the President just about anything he wants, because I don't want 9/11 to EVER happen again (and I assume you don't either). He can tap my phone, email, whatever all he wants, since I don't advocate against America, he's welcome to it - do you have some reason why we shouldn't be seeing what you email and talk about? The ultimate ruling will evidently have to clarified in written law as the President does seem to have the authority based on a national security issue. Those who hate America would like to know exactly when and who is being watched - as dumb an idea as setting a timetable to leave Iraq.
Anyway, agree or disagree I feel I answered your questions Jim. I do appreciate your stopping by and leaving a comment.
Michael, that's a good response to Jim. Does he have the capacity to understand it?
" He can tap my phone, email, whatever all he wants,"
Wow, that was the most un-American thing I've ever heard in my life. Why don't you go live in China?
If there is one thing that makes America great is it's freedom, and last time I checked that included PRIVACY!
The thing about Dead-eye-Dick is that a vice president of the United States has only shot another man on one other occasion in history so it's a big deal. The 24 hour news network made it seem like a really big deal, but it was a newsworthy event.
Lawryde -
While China is slowly coming around to capitalism, they are still way too committed to the communist way for my tastes; however communism isn't far from socialism so maybe it's a match for you.
Again, as I said, I'm NOT anti-American; wanna waste some taxpayer money? Go ahead and tap my phone and email. However, further facts have shown that you had to have had contact with folks outside the US (bad guys for the most part) who don't like the US to get on the radar screen to get your phone tapped. I don't know folks outside the US so I won't be able to qualify. Besides, I love America!!!
I suppose you're cool with Bush and friends hiring a Arab country owned company with multiple human rights violations to guard American ports as well?
Please, I'd love to see how you're going to defend this one. Even Republican members of Congress can't believe he did this.
Oh yeah, and remember this one
"I will never hand over America's security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America's interests at heart."
This was during a debate with Kerry. What a F****** liar flip-flopping d***. It should have read more like this
I will never hand over America's security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies, unless of course they are my old oil buddies and I owe them a big favor.
Lawryde -
Actually, that's not the case - ever see the big picture? The company that presently runs those ports, which was owned by a British firm was (and is) the only firm that has bid on running them when the present contract is up. This firm has changed hands and is now owned by UAE. So the company is still the same one! Folks who work for that company (Americans) will still keep their jobs, unionized long shoremen will still unload the containers, etc.
The folks in charge of security for ships coming in is the Coast Guard. Last I saw no one "owns" them, they are an arm of the US military.
Turns out Bush didn't even know about the deal - maybe he has a few other things on his mind? However, liberals don't care about that.
Finally, the liberals have decreed that "thou shalt not profile" yet why are they making such a big deal about this business deal? Any proof that the UAE or this company out of the UAE wants to do us harm? Outside of the fact that they are Arabian, what other reason is there that you are all excited about this? Isn't this 'profiling'?
Great Post. And what a sneeky idea. I love it. You know, Democrats just don't have a sense of humor, that's part of their problem (a SMALL part, heh).
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
Post a Comment