![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by caraher on June 10, 2008, at 21:28:30
Yesterday, Dennis Kucinich offered the following impeachment resolution:
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581
Of course, he introduced a similar resolution last summer regarding the vice president. And there's certainly very little coverage of this by the major media (at least compared attention devoted to Angelina Jolie's baby or Britney Spears' latest problems). Still, I'm grateful that he's put on record the very serious concerns of many Americans and other inhabitants of Planet Earth...
Posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2008, at 3:40:49
In reply to In the US House of Reps yesterday, posted by caraher on June 10, 2008, at 21:28:30
A vulgar marxist would miss the point of shopping.
It is not simply to protect the economy nor merely an ethical imperative.
It is a neoliberal dream that now now looks like it will not last out the decade, what with the oil price being what it is because third world countries are unable to properly exploit their oil resources.But tell me about the procedure for impeachment.
I see he has 35 counts.
One of which, I note, concerns rendition in which our government was complicit (Mamdou Habib).And how can I get an
'I never thought I'd miss Nixon'
bumpersticker?
Posted by caraher on June 11, 2008, at 11:54:19
In reply to Living Space in the Superstructure?, posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2008, at 3:40:49
The procedure calls for the impeachment resolution to go to the House Judiciary Committee, which then decides whether it merits consideration by the full House. If the House then votes (by simple majority) that any article merits a trial, the president is officially "impeached" and the Senate conducts a trial to determine whether remove the president from office.
Don't expect the Judiciary Committee to put the matter before the House. The "Democratic leadership" finds impeachment politically inexpedient at best and are not pleased with Kucinich.
"And how can I get an 'I never thought I'd miss Nixon'bumpersticker?"
That's not hard... http://www.cafepress.com/librants.25478755
Posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2008, at 16:12:51
In reply to In the US House of Reps yesterday, posted by caraher on June 10, 2008, at 21:28:30
Our previous government never said what it felt about the rendition of Mamdou Habib. I imagine they felt that with a name like that, rendition from the streets of Pakistan to torture in Egypt was to be expected. They knew all about it.
From "Black Mass Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia"
"The ferocity with which liberal societies have treated their enemies cannot be explained in terms of self defense alone. Liberal societies are worth defending, for they embody a type of civilised life in which rival beliefs can live in peace. When they become missionary regimes this achievement is put at risk. In waging war to promote their values actually existing liberal societies are corrupted. This is what happened when torture, whose prohibition was the result of an Enlightenment campaign that began in the eighteenth century, was used at the start of the twenty-first as a weapon in an Enlightenment crusade for universal democracy. Preserving the hard won restraints of civilisation is less exciting than throwing them away to realise impossible dreams. Barbarism has a certain charm, particularly when it comes clothed in virtue."
and
"The Iraq war has served an economic system that forbids long term committments. In the casino capitalism that prevails in the early twenty-first cntury, investment has been replaced by gambling, and it will surely not be long before the war is written off as just another bad debt. Even the wealth that has been extracted in the occupation has a spectral quality. If there is a symbol that captures America in Iraq, it is not the colonial institutions of former times. It is Enron, which vanished leaving nothing behind."
Posted by caraher on June 11, 2008, at 22:21:10
In reply to Re: In the US House of Reps yesterday, posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2008, at 16:12:51
The House voted to refer the matter to the judiciary committee, where it is supposed to rest until forgotten. But there's a report that Kucinich told the chair of the committee that if there is no action on the resolution within 30 days, he'll introduce another impeachment resolution, this time with 60 articles rather than 35. (By contrast, I think Clinton's had 4, two of which made it as far as the Senate trial. See http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/lewinsky/articles.of.impeachment/ )
But at least Bush didn't lie about sex... and fall victim of a $47 million taxpayer-funded perjury trap. Those are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," not all this fiddly stuff about how and why we got into a war, blah blah blah...
Posted by Sigismund on June 12, 2008, at 2:53:52
In reply to Re: Apparently Kucinich was holding back, posted by caraher on June 11, 2008, at 22:21:10
Who is the Democratic congressman who is now in favour of the draft with NO exceptions?
I heard him on the wireless here.
And was astonished to find that I agreed with him.
Posted by caraher on June 12, 2008, at 12:22:29
In reply to Re: Apparently Kucinich was holding back » caraher, posted by Sigismund on June 12, 2008, at 2:53:52
Probably Robert Wexler ( http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=117&Itemid=16 )
Posted by Sigismund on June 12, 2008, at 15:04:34
In reply to Re: Apparently Kucinich was holding back, posted by caraher on June 12, 2008, at 12:22:29
Does it not now seem amazing that Nixon was impeached for authorizing a break-in of a HOTEL ROOM?
With Clinton the idea of extramarital sex in the White House seemed enough.
This doesn't seem nearly as strange as it should.
The deaths of (is it?) maybe one million people not counting should no longer surprises me??
Maybe the Democrats have had enough of being wedged?
Life in the faith based reality hey? More fun for some than for others.
Posted by zeugma on July 26, 2008, at 1:29:34
In reply to Re: Apparently Kucinich was holding back, posted by Sigismund on June 12, 2008, at 15:04:34
'Impeachment a hot topic at 'not Impeachment' hearing'
I love this kind of Orwellian thing. But it gets better:
"A committee aide tells RAW STORY that members were cautioned to abide by the Rules of the House, which prohibit lawmakers from "impugning" the president's character during official debate. Some apparently took this to mean they could not explicitly call for Bush' impeachment. None of this would stop Republicans from accusing the committee's majority of seeking just that.
The prepared text of Conyers opening remarks referred to Congress's "power to impeach." When he spoke before the committee, Conyers modified that line to the "power to remove through the constitutional process" officials who abused their powers."
But not to worry, the hearing was apparently for our emotional health, and if anyone was being impeached, it wasn't the President [you can all relax now]:
"The committee's top Republican, Lamar Smith, mocked the proceedings, comparing them to last month's hearing featuring former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who recently wrote a tell-all memoir about his time as Bush's spokesman.
"If last month it appeared we hosted a 'book of the month club,' this week it seems that we are hosting an anger management class," Smith said. "Nothing is going to come out of this hearing with regard to impeachment of the President. I know it, the media knows it, even the Speaker knows it. ... This hearing will not cause us to impeach the President; it will only serve to impeach our own credibility."'
I would rather have Congress impeach its own credibility, than have President Bush's character 'impugned,' any day. Congress is impeaching itself, for its own good.....
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.