to the Iraqi politicians that we’re going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service.

EH? You got into a country, overthrow the leader, disband the army, trash the civil service and ’shock and awe’ the populace and call it a baby-sitting service?

What is wrong with this picture?

Just one thought about impeachment; the Senate determines the final outcome, but the House issues the articles of Impeachment, and in the process, they can get to the bottom of all the “information” we yearn to uncover.

Whether Bush/Cheney actually get BOOSTED is secondary to whether we uncover their misdeeds, so it can never happen again.

While most of us would want those transgressions to lead to removal, it isn’t likely considering the current make-up of the Senate, which will no doubt change in 08′, but for now the twoo-thirds we need just isn’t there. So that leaves us with what the Reps can accomplish, adn anyone who thinks the threat of impeachment from the house wouldn’t make Bush buckle doesn’t know how badly he wants to go into history without a Clintonesque asterisk attached to his name.

Removal from office is not likely (unless the truth comes out that even Senate R’s must asknowledge as high crimes, which is actually something worth hoping for) but it is the House that initiates the impeachment process.

We have less than two years before W goes back to the ranch, if you think removal from office is the only goal worth reaching for, you disregard the fact that impeachment itself represents ultimate failure to someone like W (his daddy NEVER got impeached) and he is much more likely to bend to Democratic majority demands if he perceives his name will go down in history with an impeachment asterisk attached.

Also consider that the Senate would not get the Articles of Impeachment for another 10 – 12 months, smack dab midst an election that the tag Republican doesn’t bring much credit and hitching a goodly number of Republican seats at risk to a sinking “are-busted” administration, voting against impeachment isn’t in the best interest of most seeking re-election. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least 80% were for impeachment. The reputation of this administration is just not going to improve as information is gained by the public. Just a thought. All the best……

“When two guys fight over a woman, it’s the fight they want, not the woman.”

The Times pays this guy a million a year?

Nancy’s e-mail for out-of-state constituents

I just sent her a GO GIRL! We’ve got to ‘have her back’ on this. It’s tremendous what she’s done today. She herded cats!

cc in nm … genuine question here: if *this* was the best we could get, how does it lead to better or pressure to get out, etc? I really cannot follow that logic.

How does that lead to actual, real legislation that is stronger?

Siun @ 222

Hotflash …. thank you for that link!

Glad to see that at least some like McGovern and Johnson continue to speak up.

Hi Siun,

You’re welcome. Larry in that article says it is the 7th they have done, I am hunting around for the previous ones. What a valuable resource, intel analysis *better than the WH gets*. I want to find out a lot more about what they think is the proper course of action since we have made such an effing mess in the world.

wrt the not-good-enough-but-passed bill, one of the things it is good for is to give us an opportunity to support the reps who are getting better about this sort of thing. Send ‘em $5 everytime they do something good, it’s like a doggie treat. Eventually they will jump through that hoop.

Another thing is that it can reassure the reps that the world will not come to an end if they vote against the war and against Bush. I think there are a lot of pressures on reps that we don’t understand. I am *not* excusing them, since I don’t thinbk it’s principles or even funding, it’s blackmail. Mama Nancy has to let them know that going with R’s is certain death, but if they throw themselves on her mercy she might be able to save them a little bit.

What do I mean by blackmail? Probably just that. I khave no knowledge just hunches. For instance, you’re a press type. Didja ever wonder why Jannon/Guckert was so easy to rumble? As if they wanted someone to see him and know who he was? I have a nasty mind, I put it together with child prostitution rings. Was there anyone on either side of the aisle who made any unexpected concession around that time? I hope someday to hear what that was all about.

Re: Hillary — with her stance on staying in Iraq, I can’t, in good conscience, vote for her. Which is a pity…

I hope you don’t construe this statement as bashing HRC, since it isn’t meant that way.

Why apologize? People like Murtha, Obama, Nancy P — reveal Hilary for what she is…

I hope you don’t construe this statement as bashing HRC, since it isn’t meant that way.

HotFlash @ 204

Oklahoma kiddo @
48

Actually I’m inclined to vote for Hillary, though I detest the Senator’s policies, or non-policies (you decide) on the
Middle East, just to piss the Republicans off even more. Would these guys totally hate a President Hillary, or what. Tempting. Very
tempting.

OKiddo! You are in a good mood today!

I do not like Hillary’s vote for the war resolution. I did not like her stance on Iran a year ago (she has changed her tune on this issue).

One thing for sure Hillary will make sure our nation gets a national health care coverage plan once and for all. She is not talking about this issue much due to the pounding she received during her husbands adminstration. She will make sure there is National Health care and that is HUGE!

Sorry Kathleen. Hilary’s a moral lightweight & rank opportunist & not fit to lead. Obama can get you your healthcare as well as she can. She is not fit to lead.