Monday, December 11, 2006

McKinney...the disgrace

McKinney proposes impeachment bill on last day of Congress

Thanks to my friend at Church and State for reminding me not to let her get away without a few words. I'm usually careful to show respect for elected representatives regardless of my disagreement with their policy, but I'm gonna have to bend the rules a little and thunder away at this sorry excuse for a "distinguished madam". Cynthia McKinney has set a standard for a new low in political behavior. On the last day of Congress, she proposes a bill of impeachment of George Bush. Now, what did that accomplish? Was she using her office in a respectable manner? No, it was nothing but cheap politics.

In a city full of imbeciles, Cynthia McKinney has risen above them all as the Queen Moron, and that's saying a lot considering her company. This woman has no more business representing hard-working Americans in Washington than Cindy Sheehan, whose tactics mirror those of McKinney. Which leads me to wonder, who actually voted for this woman? I never thought there were so many clueless voters in Georgia.

Let's review. In order for impeachment to occur, there must be evidence of the President breaking the law. Can anyone provide this evidence? I challenge Ms. McKinney to do so, and if she is unable then she should be held accountable. I'm tired of politicians behaving like children, no offense to all the children, many of whom have a better sense of decency than the cowards that call themselves Congressmen. I've yet to see ANY proof of Bush breaking the law, and believe if it were there we'd see it, yet I do believe that assaulted a Capitol police officer is a crime. Should we hold McKinney to the same standard as Bush? If so, she'd be unemployed.

Cheap politics does NOTHING....absolutely NOTHING for this country and it needs to stop NOW! And for the voters out there, we need to stop electing and re-electing people who behave this way. Good grief! What would our Founding Fathers have to say about the antics of our beloved Congress today? And for McKinney, who claims to champion civil rights, would Dr. King approve of this behavior? Of course not, because he had class, a trait that is becoming scarce in Washington. Shame on you all.

A new Congress takes seat in the new year, let's hope and pray they miraculously decide to take their offices seriously and start representing the people of this country and ditch the petty political nit-picking.

6 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

As I’m sure you’re aware, an impeachment is “the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment.”

So, by calling for impeachment, supporters are saying that there is sufficient evidence that a criminal investigation should be held. It is that investigation that would determine if there is sufficient evidence to convict.

For a list of the very legitimate charges against Bush, see:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html

So, Ms McKinney does not need to provide the evidence, as you call for. She needs to have some grounds in reality for bringing such charges - those grounds are laid out convincingly in that link (although I'm sure not convincingly enough for you).

A goodly number of the US citizenry think there is sufficient reason to pursue the legal process of impeachment. You wouldn't take our representation away from us, would you?

While I may be ambivalent about Ms McKinney's behavior, I appreciate SOMEONE speaking for those of us who've been unrepresented for so long now.

John The Patriot said...

Ok Dan, I'm a little surprised that you would put so much weight into one website that is clearly misguided and only meant to be slanderous. I took you for too critical a thinker to fall for such Kool-aid trickery. The sight you referenced literally made me laugh out loud at its dishonest claims and deceptive speech.

"Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment." Is there any proof that Bush knowingly did this, or ordered our troops to do it?

"Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council" In defiance? Did the UN tell us NOT to invade Iraq? Actually, they voted repeated resolutions to do what we did...disarm Iraq. Our invasion was meeting the terms of the cease-fire treaty from the 90s.

"Repeatedly manipulating the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda." I would like to see ONE single citation or quote in which the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11. Don't bother because it doesn't exist. He NEVER made that claim.

"Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq." PROOF please?

"Repeatedly ordering the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA" This has already been deemed LEGAL by the courts and well within the President's power. Clinton and Gore did the same. SHould we bring them up on charges also?

"Retaliating against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush." Again...Proof please?

"Directing millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO." Cheney ended his association with Halliburton before even accepting Bush's offer to be his running mate...at great personal cost. Halliburton was the ONLY company capable of doing the job being bidded on.

I could continue but for space sake I won't, you get the idea. Try to avoid these kinds of websites and stick to the facts.

Anonymous said...

You want a quote from the administration linking Iraq to 9/11? Here ya go (with an excerpt).

"While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

There are hundreds of others, just Google "bush links iraq to 9/11"
--Deano

John The Patriot said...

"Repeatedly manipulating the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda."

Dean, please explain to me how the quotes you cited confirm the above statement. Those statements basically say that Hussein and his regime had terrorist connections. Documents recovered in Baghdad have already confirmed this to be the true. Bush has always contended that Hussein was connected to terrorists, that Iraq was indeed part of the war on terror. However, NEVER has he stated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.

If he believed this, I think he would have stated it clearly from the beginning. Why insinuate or suggest? Why not just say "Iraq was connected to 9/11."? Wouldn't that be reason NUMBER ONE to go war? Wouldn't that be a good way to charge up the people in support of the war?

But you guys want to nit-pick from past quotes and say that he "suggested" or "insinuated" things. The fact is, you're wrong. Bush made it clear that Hussein was connected to terrorists, and he was. That is not manipulating the sentiments of the American people. This website is nothing more than hate-speech directed at the President with no facts backing their claims.

Dan Trabue said...

"Why insinuate or suggest? Why not just say "Iraq was connected to 9/11."?"

Because the facts didn't support that. It was easier, more efficient, and less likely to bring prosecution to insinuate.

Anonymous said...

We could be on this merry-go-round 'till we're dizzy and get absolutely nowhere...but I'll take one more ride. If this is some kind of broad, blanket "war on terror" and not specifically connected to 9/11 then how is it justified that we aren't attacking all the other oppressive governments with ties to terrorism?

My point from day one has been this: why not put all the effort into finding Osama and those DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for 9/11 and take care of Iraq afterward.

It's similar to the old saying about the NCAA, "they're so mad at Alabama, they put SMU on probation for two more years."
--Deano
p.s. Merry Christmas, John. Tell the family I said hello.