Crazy Kucinich Attempts to Impeach Bush
Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, in another attempt to appear relevant, has introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.
Kucinich and other liberal Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), have sought the removal of the current administration, arguing that Bush and Cheney have lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the “War on Terror” following the 9/11 attacks.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are unlikely to impeach President Bush. Many democrats believe it would divide the party. Also, Bush leaves office in less than eight months.
If Kucinich and Ron Paul were to fight in a Mixed Martial Arts bout who would win?
Sphere: Related ContentScott McClellan Whacks Bush in New Book
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan in his best effort to pay for his retirement fund has released his new book about his days working for President Bush.
The book is called “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.”
Here are a few highlights from McClellan’s book:
- McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.
- He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.
- He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”
- The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.
- McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
- Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes.
- Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”
- “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”
- “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”
- McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.”
Do you believe the veracity of McClellan’s book or does he just have an axe to grind? I am sure it is parts truth mixed with large amounts of embellishment to help sell more books.
Sphere: Related ContentBush Aimed for Carter Not Obama
In private circles earlier this week I mentioned that I thought President Bush’s strong comments were directed at former resident President Jimmy Carter and not Barack Obama. Today Ed Gillespie said just that to the press.
Here is what Ed had to say:
“We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. … There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it.”
Here is what Bush said that riled up Obama so much:
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”
“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
It only makes sense being that Carter was just over there meeting with and literally kissing on Hamas.
One might say that Bush’s aim is about as accurate as V.P. Cheney’s.
Sphere: Related ContentGeorge Bush Caught in the Arms of Another Woman
Now, President George Bush has been caught in public with another woman, at the Traditional Easter Egg Roll on the Lawn of the White House. Being caught with another woman is becoming an increasingly popular trend amongst politicians.
Photo Source: TMZ
Sphere: Related ContentHouse Speaker Pelosi Asks For Bush Aides To Be Investigated
Speaker of the House-Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wants President Bush’s aides to be investigated for possible contempt of Congress. Pelosi, while may be well intentioned, comes off as someone seeking attention and she may end up hurting the democrats chances in November.
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked the Justice Department on Thursday to open a grand jury investigation into whether President Bush’s chief of staff and former counsel should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. Pelosi, D-Calif., demanded that the department pursue misdemeanor charges against former White House counsel Harriet Miers for refusing to testify to Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors in 2006 and against chief of staff Josh Bolten for failing to turn over White House documents related to the dismissals.
She gave Attorney General Michael Mukasey one week to respond and said refusal to take the matter to a grand jury will result in the House’s filing a civil lawsuit against the Bush administration.
Neither the department nor White House had an immediate comment.
The Democratic-controlled House voted two weeks ago to hold Bolten and Miers in contempt for failing to cooperate with committee investigations.
“There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a president unilaterally instructs them to do so,” Pelosi wrote Attorney General Michael Mukasey. She noted that Congress subpoenaed Miers to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the firings.
“Surely, your department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury,” Pelosi wrote.
She added: “Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a president to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.”
Pelosi sent an additional letter to U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor, the chief federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia, whose office would oversee the grand jury.
The letters point to sections of federal law that require the Justice Department to bring the House contempt citations before a grand jury to investigate.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, said he hoped Pelosi’s demand would spur the department to “put the partisan manipulation of our system of justice behind it” and take the issue to a grand jury. “To do otherwise would turn on its head the notion that we are all equally accountable under the law,” said Conyers, D-Mich.
The department long has resisted directing its prosecutors to enforce congressional subpoenas against White House officials.
The letter was the latest chapter in a yearlong saga that began with the firings of nine federal prosecutors and led to Alberto Gonzales’ resignation as attorney last August.
The House voted 223-32 this month to hold Miers and Bolten in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether the prosecutors’ firings were politically motivated. Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout in an unusually bitter scene even for the fractious House.
It was the first time in 25 years that a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt of Congress citation. The White House pointed out that it was the first time that such action had been taken against top White House officials who had been instructed by the president to remain silent to preserve executive privilege.
Source: Breitbart
Photo Source: LeatherneckM31
Sphere: Related ContentFidel Castro Resigns, Nothing Changes
Fidel Castro long time Dictator/President of Cuba has announced that he will not be seeking another term as citing poor health as the reason. Raul Castro (Fidel’s younger brother) will take over rule of Cuba. President Bush’s administration states that the U.S. has no plans to lift embargo sanctions at this time, but hopes that this does open the door for Democratic Rule in Cuba in the future. Chances are that nothing will change, at least not soon, what happens when something happens to Raul, he is 76? Is there another Castro waiting in the wings?
Administration officials led by President Bush expressed hope that Castro’s decision to step down would usher in a period of democratic transition on the communist-run island, but stressed they doubted that would happen under Raul Castro and said it was unlikely the nearly 50-year-old U.S. economic embargo on Cuba would be lifted.
“I can’t imagine that happening any time soon,” Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said when asked if Washington would lift the embargo, which has been the centerpiece of American policy toward Cuba since it was first imposed in 1960 and strengthened in 1962.
The ailing Castro, 81, who has called the trade embargo “criminal” and claims its impact has run into the tens of billions of dollars, announced earlier Tuesday he would not accept another term in office when parliament meets to elect a new president this weekend. Despite constant U.S. criticism and sanctions, Castro outlasted nine U.S. presidents.
In Rwanda, Bush said he hoped the end of Castro’s presidency will launch a transition to democracy for the Cuban people.
“They’re the ones who suffered under Fidel Castro,” he told a news conference. “They’re the ones who were put in prison because of their beliefs. They’re the ones who have been denied their right to live in a free society. So I view this as a period of transition and it should be the beginning of the democratic transition in Cuba.”
The State Department offered similar sentiments, but stressed it was not optimistic for any kind of quick change under Raul Castro, to whom Fidel ceded power temporarily in July 2006.
“It will be significant if in fact it leads to greater openness and freedom for the Cuban people and ultimately to a democratic transition,” he said. But, he cautioned that “the general analysis is that Raul Castro is ‘Fidel lite’.”"He is simply a continuation of the Castro regime, of the dictatorship,” Casey said, adding: “There are some very clear indications out there that what this transition would potentially become, or at least what Fidel and his minions would like it to become, is a transfer of authority and power from one dictator to dictator-lite, from Fidel to Raul.”
Casey said the United States stood ready, however, to assist the Cuban people in a true transition to democracy.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami-area Republican who was born in Havana, said Castro’s resignation was irrelevant because his regime had already “done great harm to the suffering Cuban people.”
“It matters nothing at all whether Fidel, Raul or any other thug is named head of anything in Cuba,” she said. “What the people want is freedom to vote in multiparty elections that are internationally supervised and freedom to express their dissent from the oppressive regime. The Communist machinery is enslaving them so it doesn’t matter who the thug of the moment will be.”
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who is of Cuban descent, said Castro’s resignation “is not the cause for celebration that some would believe.”
“This does not represent the replacement of totalitarianism with democracy. Instead, it is the replacement of one dictator with another,” he said in a statement.
The Coast Guard, meanwhile, has not added any additional patrols in light of Castro’s resignation, said Coast Guard spokesman Chris O’Neil.
Bush said he anticipates debate about Cuba’s future, and that some people will say “Let’s promote stability.”
“In the meantime, political prisoners will rot in prison and the human condition will remain pathetic in many cases,” he said.
Bush noted that he had met with the families of some of prisoners, and that their release should be the first step of any transition to democracy.
“It just breaks your heart to realize that people have been thrown in prisons because they dare speak out,” he said.
While Bush expressed hope for democratic change, Castro’s decision appeared to position his brother, Raul, 76, to succeed him as president.
“The international community should work with the Cuban people to begin to build institutions that are necessary for democracy,” Bush said.
“Eventually, this transition ought to lead to free and fair elections — and I mean free, and I mean fair — not these kind of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off as true democracy,” Bush said.
“The United States will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty,” Bush said
Source: Fox News
Photo Source: livinginperu.com
Sphere: Related ContentU.S. Backs Kosovo’s Sovernity
In a joint statement by Condoleleeza Rice and President Bush, the U.S. recognizes Kosovo’s status as an independent nation, on Monday. This will inevitably have some sort of diplomatic downfall as Russian President Vladimir Putin was against acknowledging Kosovo’s independence. Serbia pulled it’s Ambassador from Washington in protest of backing Kosovo’s Independence. Serbia really showed the United States.
PRISTINA, Kosovo - The United States formally recognized Kosovo’s independence Monday, and Europe’s major powers said they would do the same, setting up a confrontation with Serbia and its key ally, Russia.
Kosovo’s leaders had sent letters to 192 countries Monday seeking formal recognition of independence, and suspense gripped the capital as its citizens awaited backing from the key powers.
But the United States formally recognized Kosovo’s independence in a statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and President Bush said, “The Kosovars are now independent.”
Serbia responded by recalling its ambassador to Washington.
The foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany and Italy said those nations also would recognize Kosovo.
“A majority of (European Union) member states will recognise a democratic, multi-ethnic Kosovo founded on the rule of law,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after talks among EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
Tension as Serbs protest
A day after Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian leadership made its historic declaration of independence from Serbia, tensions flared in northern Kosovo, home to most of the territory’s 100,000 minority Serbs. An explosion damaged a U.N. vehicle outside the ethnically divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica, where thousands of Serbs demonstrated, chanting “this is Serbia!”The crowds marched to a bridge spanning a river dividing the town between the ethnic Albanian and Serbian sides. They were confronted by NATO peacekeepers guarding the bridge, but there was no violence.
Another 800 Serbs staged a noisy demonstration in the Serb-dominated enclave of Gracanica outside Pristina, waving Serbian flags and singing patriotic songs.
Source: MSNBC
Photo Source: Flickr
Sphere: Related ContentPresident Bush To Congress: Pass Wiretapping Law
President George W. Bush, held a brief conference Thursday, telling congress that they need to pass the new surveillance bill. This has been an ongoing silent battle in the House and Senate for quite some time. The Senate passed the bill earlier this week. It gives the telecommunications companies that cooperate with the government immunity from lawsuits. This is an iffy proposal at best that walks a fine line on the constitution, that some say it crosses.
WASHINGTON - President Bush pressured the House on Wednesday to pass new rules for monitoring terrorists’ communications, saying “terrorists are planning new attacks on our country … that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison.”
Bush said he would not agree to giving the House more time to debate a measure the Senate passed Tuesday governing the government’s ability to work with telecommunications companies to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between suspected terrorists. The bill gives phone companies retroactive protection from lawsuits filed on the basis of cooperation they gave the government without court permission — something Bush insisted was included in the bill.
About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws. The House did not include the immunity provision in a similar bill it passed last year.
“In order to be able to discover … the enemy’s plans, we need the cooperation of telecommunication companies,” Bush said. “If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won’t participate. They won’t help us. They won’t help protect America.”
The 68-29 Senate vote Tuesday to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act belied the nearly two months of stops and starts and bitter political wrangling that preceded it. The two sides had battled to balance civil liberties with the need to conduct surveillance on potential adversaries.
Bush said the Senate bill was passed with wide, bipartisan support and the House should pass it too — before the current law expires at midnight on Saturday.
“Congress has had over six months to discuss and deliberate,” said Bush, who stood alongside Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. “The time for debate is over. I will not accept any temporary extension. They have already been given a two-week extension.”
Source: MSNBC
Sphere: Related ContentPresident Passes Stimulus Plan Into Action
President Bush signed a stimulus plan Wednesday morning. This stimulus plan is estimated to cost $168 billion dollars. Most people in the country will get a “rebate” check that will range from $300-$1200, those checks will begin to be mailed out in May. This is a Band-Aid for a broken arm, and will probably harm the economy in the long run.
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday signed a multibillion-dollar economic rescue package on Wednesday that means $300 to $1,200 rebates for many American households.
Bush called the measure “a booster shot for our economy” to stave off a recession.
Several dozen members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, stood on the stage behind Bush as he signed the bill.
Rebates are to go out beginning in May to taxpayers and low-income people, including seniors living off of Social Security and veterans who depend on disability checks. Businesses would get tax breaks for investing in new plants and equipment.
Most taxpayers will receive a check of up to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for couples from the Internal Revenue Service, with an additional $300 per child. People earning at least $3,000 and those who owe little or no taxes would get $300 for singles, $600 for couples. Those making more than $75,000 and couples with income exceeding $150,000 are to get smaller rebates — $50 less per $1,000 they make over those thresholds.
Economic analysts generally believe the $168 billion package Bush signed will help prevent the current downturn from ballooning into a crisis. But if the rebates don’t spur a consumer spending spree strong enough to cure what ails the economy, Congress is ready to throw more money at the problem. Bush said the measure was “large enough to have an impact.”Democrats and Republicans who put aside deep differences to craft the plan and rush it to enactment joined the president at the White House for the signing ceremony in the East Room. The package is designed in part to inoculate lawmakers from voter blame should the economy continue to lag as the November elections bear down.
Congressional leaders already are considering more economic rescue measures that could include transportation spending, unemployment aid and measures to address the housing crunch that’s at the root of the current economic doldrums.
In the meantime, economists are debating how effective the rebates will be, with critics arguing that debt-burdened consumers will use the money to pay bills rather than spending the checks and spurring growth.
Source: MSNBC
Sphere: Related Content
Bush Announces The Largest Budget In History
President Bush announced a 3.1 trillion dollar budget proposal, which is the largest in the history of the United States. He sent the proposal on Monday, and the crying and moaning has already begun. Click here to view the budget.
WASHINGTON - President Bush sent the nation’s first-ever $3 trillion budget proposal to Congress on Monday, contending that the spending blueprint will fulfill his chief responsibility to keep America safe.
The $3.1 trillion proposed budget projects sizable increases in national security but forces the rest of government to pinch pennies. It seeks $196 billion in savings over five years in the government’s giant health care programs - Medicare and Medicaid.
But even with those restraints, the budget projects the deficits will soar to near-record levels of $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, driven higher in part by efforts to revive the sagging economy with a $145 billion stimulus package.
Bush called the document, which protects his signature tax cuts, “a good, solid budget” But Democrats, and even a top Republican, attacked the plan for using budgetary gimmicks to claim the budget can return to balance in 2012, three years after Bush leaves office.
Democrats called Bush’s final spending plan a continuation of this administration’s failed policies which wiped out a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion and replaced it with a record buildup in debt.
Source: MSNBC
Sphere: Related Content
President Bush Vows “No New Taxes”
Last night President George W. “Dubya” Bush vowed, during his State of the Union address, that he would not allow any new taxes to be legalized during the last year of his tenure. This isn’t the first time that we have heard that phrase or similar ones come from the mouth of a Bush President. The first President Bush uttered those words during his campaign and had to back track from them, and that more than likely cost him the 1992 election. “Dubya” said that he would veto any legislation that raised taxes. Take that Democrats, this is Ah ‘Merica
Photo Source: feedburner.com
Sphere: Related ContentLive Blogging: State of the Union (Democratic Response)
Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas will be giving the Democratic response to George W. Bush’s final State of the Union address. Check out our Live Blog of the State of the Union address.
Disclaimer: I think all responses to State of the Union addresses are silly, nitpicky, and extremely premeditated.
10:27 - God Bless and tomorrow let’s get to work! Has she not been working? I think the democrats could have provided someone to give a better response than that. Was she selling Mary Kay? Kathleen makes you amiss for John Kerry or even Barney Frank.
10:25 - What is this ‘New American Majority’ she keeps referring to? Was I left out this time? She says she is ready to work together but keeps asking President to join her.
10:22 - She has already about lost me. She keeps saying, “It’s time to get to work”. Keeps asking President to join them. As expected this is more of a speech than a response to the State of the Union address. The democratic majority is not ‘new’ as she keeps referring to. They lost their cherry over the past year. She is attacking Bush’s foreign policy and asking Bush to again join her.
10:20 - She asks President to get to work with her. She is off into health care. Asks President to join bill to help give health care to 10 million children.
10:17 PM - And here goes Kathleen! She is promising not a democratic response but an American response. Wow she is not speaking for everyone. What’s the over/under on her plastic surgeries?
Sphere: Related Content-
Search
-
Blogroll
