You know what I love about the nutroots? The sneaky way they manipulate from the top. Example:

Could Bush really be impeached? Yes, and we have a moral obligation to carry this through. It is not necessary for us to list here all of the High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by this White House. You know them all.

Sneaky. Of course they don't list them all: if they did, first off they'd have to actually put forth credible evidence for each charge. Also - since every barking moonbat has a different list of heinous offenses the Bush administration have committed - by being non-specific like this, they play directly into the fantasy of all the Bush-bashers at once.

I don't know what's worse, they fact that they pull this crap or the fact that so many people buy into it.

Actually, I fully endorse their effort.

Which Supreme Court justices are they talking about?

LOL! Good one, Parker!

I'd be tempter to replace mine with a big:

FY

Just checking, it's wrong to impeach Clinton for SPECIFIC reasons --- but impeaching Bush for vague ones is peachy?
-=Mike

NUTJOBS: FUCK OFF!

"Of course they don't list them all: if they did, first off they'd have to actually put forth credible evidence for each charge." -- JimK

Dude, you're not going to find such a list just checking posts on the blogosphere, as Bush's record of wrongdoing long ago became far too extensive. You're actually going to have to go out and read a book (e.g., The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky; Warrior King, by John Bonifaz; The Constitution in Crisis, by various members of Congress; Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, by the Center for Constitutional Rights, etc.) When you get done, let Bushie know that reading a book isn't all that bad! (You see, he doesn't like to wear out his puny little brain).

(You see, he doesn't like to wear out his puny little brain).

Posted by: Herman at August 20, 2006 10:20 AM

Is this the same puny little brain that has supposedly orchestrated massive voter fraud in Florida and Ohio during the last two elections?

Is this the same puny little brain that is accused of leading another conspiracy to convince the world and most of the Democratic leadership that Saddam Hussien hid weapons of Mass destruction?

Is this the same puny little brain that is presiding over the strongest economy in years?

Seems to me that the "puny little brain" is faring pretty well against the obviously well developed brains on the other side of the aisle.

Hmmm.

A complete waste of time.

Now if they proposed impeaching Bush for failing to secure the borders, that I could get behind.

Hey Herman,

If those books are so full of offenses deserving immpeachment, why couldn't you list a few? It shouldn't be that hard if you've read the books.

My view is let the moonbats do this. If they want to make themselves continue to look like fools, let them.

Better still, let 'em post away. First of all, there won't be that many of them (even 1,000 out of the millions (or even 100,000 for that matter) is an insignificant percentage of the whle. Moreover, it'll be so much easier to find the real idiots out there who REALLY want to play stuiid games. That way, the rest of us with any common sense and normality can all do Google for site with IMPEACH on them the day it happens and bookmark them with our own tags for future reference. Hell, they just made MY job easier...

I'd dig nothing more than to see DU, PuffHo, Kos and their ilk to go offline for a day.

Unforuntely, that won't happen. While these sites will definitely offer support for this action, the sheer economics won't allow it to happen.

24 hours without ad revenue?

No way. Lefties like the greenbacks as much, if not more, than anyone else. If they can't write off such a loss from their taxes, it ain't gonna' happen.

When forced to put their money where their mouths are ... their gag reflex kicks in.

As for an actual impeachment process, I say "bring it on."

First off, impeachment is simply a process - not a result. Being impeached is only to be put on trial.

Secondly, just because the likes of John Conyers don't understand the laws, doesn't mean Bush violated any.

Lastly, if Bush is guilty of anything, it's exposing the idiocy and hypocracy of the Democrats.

So, Dems ..., you wanna impeach .. please do. It should serve as the last nail in the coffin of a corpse that should have been buried, long ago.

Hey, Kirktoe!

Why don't you get off your lazy ass and find the reasons for impeachment yourself!! After all, I gave you the names of the books to read!! Or is it a conservative thing to expect others to do your work for you, and I wouldn't understand??

*************************************************

But for the sake of lazy conservatives everywhere, I shall give you one reason for impeachment, put forth by none other than George W. Bush himself:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way."

--George W. Bush, speaking to the good citizens of Buffalo, NY, April, 2004

Couple of weeks ago I was in San Francisco for to see friends. we had breakfast at the coffee shop/bookstore run by an internationally known and very successful self help organization. They have a blackboard in the (unisex) bathroom. The frame is made of softwood (pine) and unwilling to comment on the board someone had carved into the frame "empeach Bush". Impeach him they may but until these mooks learn to spell simple English words I'm not too worried about the future of the republic.

Uh, Herman, why would somebody who doesn't believe Bush should be impeached research why he should be impeached, when someone like you who does can't be bothered?
Seriously. If you cannot provide even a top 5, why should your contribution to the discussion be taken seriously?

Mitchell: Good arguement. Well thought out. And wonderfully illustrates the mentality of the activist left on the 'net.

It took a little doing, but Herman finally gave the perfect example of why it is unlikely that Bush will be impeached. The Democrats want to impeach Bush for the things they are too chicken to admit to believing. They want to impeach him for having the gall to go after the terrorists, and heaven forbid, listen in on their planning sessions via intercept. They can't admit to the voters that they would give the terrorists many more opportunities to strike if they were in charge.

They want to impeach him for doing to Saddam Hussein what Bill Clinton made U.S. policy in 1998 and implement regime change in Iraq. They want to impeach him for not being able to fully reconstitute the military Bill Clinton had cut to the bone, in the two years between when he took office and when we went into Iraq(nevermind that recovering from 9/11 and invading Afghanistan was sandwiched in between there) and for fighting with the less than perfect force and equipment we had.

If they wanted to impeach him for run away spending, or failing to secure the borders, they might have a prayer, but since the Democrats are so much worse on those issues, they certainly can't do that.

Nah, Lorie, we want to impeach Bush for breaking the law.

But you fail to understand this, right Lorie? So I advise you to read this again, and if you need help, let us know:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way."
-- Bush, speaking the truth for once in his life, all the while conducting warrantless surveillance

Lorie, Bush himself has made abundantly clear (in August 2004) that:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we" So don't you think he deserves impeachment?

"They want to impeach him for having the gall to go after the terrorists,..." -- Lorie

Lorie, trouble is that Bush stopped going after the terrorists who attacked us long ago. That "Dead or Alive" stuff? That was just Bushit. Bush finds it much easier to go after those who didn't attack us, rather than those who did. He would rather go after Saddam to show his daddy that he could do something Bush Sr. couldn't.

Don't you remember what Bush said Lorie? Here it is again:

"I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama Been Forgotten]" -- Bush, March 2002

(Yes, we know that Bush would later lie about this during one of the debates with Kerry, trying to deny it all ("I don't think I said that. That must be an exaggeration"), but the records show that he did in fact indicate he was unconcerned about Been Forgotten, and more importantly, he has convincingly proven it ever since spending the day fishing in August, 2001, the day the government memo, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" came out)

CNN is having a special this Wednesday evening which may well touch upon how after a half-assed attempt to catch Been Forgotten, Bush and Rummy outsourced the job of capturing Al Qaeda's leadership to Afghan warlords, and not surprisingly, Been Forgotten slipped away. I recommend seeing it.

Herman,
Are you seriously trying to repeat the Dems' dispicable attempt to take Bush's statement about bin Laden out of context and deceive the American people again? It didn't work the first time. He was re-elected. Of ocurse, maybe you think he really lost Ohio and Kerry is the real president.

Anyway, the next time you trot that one out, do the readers here who maybe weren't paying attention back then, the courtesy of quoting the entire exchange, in context, not just a few lines. It was obvious, when taken in context, what he was saying. If Bush is so horrible, why do you guys keep insisting on relying on half truths and mischaracterizations and things taken out of context? Just stick to the whole truth, without pulling out "gotcha" quotes. If Bush has so destroyed the country, that should be enough.

Herman left out the parts of that statement where Bush was talking about Americans talking to Americans. If it involves KNOWN TERRORIST CONTACTS, the Administration has always said warrants were NOT required.

There. Impeachable offense number one shot down.

C'mon Herman, let's have another. If there are SO many, start listing charges and evidence.

Herman, you realize that terrorists are dangerous regardless? Does a terrorist have to have ATTACKED us to be sought after? Why let ANY terrorist live? If it were up to me, heck go to Ireland and get rid of whatever is left of the IRA, too. Any group of people that resort to surprise violence against pure innocents to "get noticed" or to "further their cause" needs to die a slow horrible, painful death.

Oh and yo, their websites won't be "down", they will just change their front page to that message. There will be a small "enter" right underneath it where they will then click to the normal homepage.

Why don't you get off your lazy ass and find the reasons for impeachment yourself!!

Seeing as how you're calling for it, it is kinda up to you to provide an actual rationale for it.

After all, I gave you the names of the books to read!

Ahh, just blindly regurgitating things other people told you.

Not very intellectually curious of you.

Or is it a conservative thing to expect others to do your work for you, and I wouldn't understand??

Well, expecting logical reasoning out of a Dem does seem to be a lost cause.

CNN is having a special this Wednesday evening which may well touch upon how after a half-assed attempt to catch Been Forgotten, Bush and Rummy outsourced the job of capturing Al Qaeda's leadership to Afghan warlords, and not surprisingly, Been Forgotten slipped away. I recommend seeing it.

Democrat: Bush doesn't allow our allies to help.

Bush: Well, I did so in Afghanistan.

Democrat: You outsourced it! We should've done that alone!

Just to give you a heads up, it took us years to find Eric Rudolph IN THE US with far fewer supporters and much less money.

But if you wish to impeach because you lack comprehension skills, that is your prerogative.
-=Mike

Hey, I'm all for impeachment. It got Alcee Hastings, the bribe-taking crook, off the federal bench, didn't it?

It's a necessary tool - as long as they pick the right target.

;-)

Perhaps Herman should have a chat with his colleagues Hugh and field-negro, about whether the Left stands for impeachment or not?

Here's Herman, arguing passionately that there should be an impeachment, and just a coupla threads later, there's Hugh & Co saying there's no danger of impeachment, even if the Dems retake all of Congress.

It's a good thing we know what the Dems stand for, as we all prepare to go to the polls in November.

I think I'm going to do this, too. Only instead of having "IMPEACH", I'm going to have the words "PRESIDENT CHENEY".

Hmmm.

@ Herman

Trying to convince people that impeachment is correct by quoting Bush completely out of context ... yeah that's the ticket.

That oughta convince anybody. Next you'll be doing a Dowd and chopping bits out of phrases to hash up new quotes.

Not impressed.