04-25-2007, 10:07 AM | #1 (permalink) |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney
Dennis Kucinich has followed through on the promise he's been making for the last few days. He's written up and posted Articles of Impeachment against Cheney, and will be presenting them at a news conference at 5:00 this afternoon.
The articles and related documents can be read here: http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm In short, there are three aspects: Cheney is accused of 1) manipulating intelligence to sell the Iraq war, 2) lying about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, and 3) Forwarding a plan to attack Iran without solid evidence of Iranian wrongdoing. Couple things seem funny to me about this. First, it's impossible not to put this in context of Kucinich's run for the Democratic nomination. There's a strong demand for impeachment in the middle-to-left segment of the party. Is this a play for nomination votes? Second, why Cheney and not Bush? I know Cheney's had a historically unparalleled amount of independence as VP, and he's been a key player in the administration in both policy and PR roles. Does Kuchinich think Cheney is really the man behind it all? Or is he just the low hanging fruit? The weak link that will break the chain of the whole administration? |
04-25-2007, 10:18 AM | #2 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
I think it is a combination of low hanging fruit and a realization that Cheney is probably responsible for a lot of the missteps. People don't think Bush is all that smart and they believe he is easily manipulated by people around him (Rove and Cheney).
This probably isn't going to go anywhere past the first couple of stages of the impeachment before it is tabled or removed. And if it does get serious it will be come highly partisan and then stall. |
04-25-2007, 12:07 PM | #4 (permalink) | |
Illusionary
|
In my opinion, this is a very well contemplated move, and likely the most damaging to republican chances in 2008. By bringing to light the "deficiencies" of the Cheney handling of his office they will inevitably lower the standing of his boss without actually damaging the credibility of the office of the POTUS directly. Instead it places the abilities of the MAN holding that position in question, and at the same time brings the obvious corruption of administration power to task.
If this manages to go anywhere (highly unlikely) it may very well accomplish something no one has managed, It might force truth from a deceitful group of people....or at the minimum force them to pull a Gonzalez. Quote:
Last edited by tecoyah; 04-25-2007 at 12:08 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
04-25-2007, 02:03 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
I dont doubt Kucinich in his sincerity that this is the right and justifiable thing to do, rather than having any political motivation to boost his (less than marginal) presidential campaign.
But much like his bill for a cabinet-level Department of Peace and Non-Violence, this impeachment resolution is going nowhere. The next step would be for the House Judiciary Committee to hold an impeachment inquiry hearing. Unlike other committee hearings, to hold an impeachment inquiry requires a majority vote of the full House, and at best, he has a handful of Dems who would vote "aye"
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
04-25-2007, 03:40 PM | #10 (permalink) | |
Insane
Location: rural Indiana
|
Quote:
__________________
Happy atheist |
|
04-25-2007, 04:17 PM | #11 (permalink) |
Illusionary
|
In truth, his ratings did go up.....though other factors likely led to this. After the impeachment trial was completed his ratings dropped significantly, Though he still enjoyed numbers double the current President.
"President Clinton's job-approval numbers enjoyed an uptick in the first national polls taken after NATO and Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic signed their tentative agreement. Even so, a successful accord may not solve a more systemic political problem facing the President. A growing public pessimism--about the country and where it is headed--exists independent of events in Kosovo and, for that matter, in spite of a strong economy and a booming stock market. President Clinton's highest-ever job-approval numbers in Gallup Organization polling for CNN and USA Today came in a survey taken on Dec. 19-20, 1998, the weekend that the House approved articles of impeachment against the President. Six Gallup polls taken during the Jan. 7-Feb. 12 Senate trial showed Clinton's job-approval rating consistently between 65 percent and 70 percent, with his disapproval rating ranging from 27 percent to 33 percent. Clinton enjoyed a postimpeachment halo for another month, with his Gallup job-approval ratings in four polls ranging from 66 percent to 68 percent. This is an extraordinary level for a President in his seventh year in office. Ronald Reagan's job- approval rating in the Gallup Poll, at this point in his second term, was only 48 percent; the very popular Dwight D. Eisenhower, the only other post-World War II President to serve two full terms, had a 64 percent approval rating at this point in his tenure. From mid-March to early May, eight Gallup polls showed Clinton's approval ratings dropping down into the 59 percent to 64 percent range. A May 23-24 poll showed it dropping even more, down to 53 percent, with 42 percent disapproving of his job performance. These were Clinton's worst numbers in the Gallup Poll since August 1996. His lowest approval rating came early in his first term, in June 1993, when only 37 percent approved of his performance, while 49 percent disapproved. In early September 1994, his disapproval rating climbed to 54 percent. Presidents with job-approval ratings below 50 percent tend to fall into the Rodney Dangerfield zone: They get no respect from political opponents, the media, or even other members of their own party." http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/1999/061299.php |
04-25-2007, 05:14 PM | #12 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Cheney's popularity according to the polls is less than 10%, and he is largely viewed as the directing influence of all that has come undone, within this administration. Cheney has done nothing to endear himself to Congress, so where will he find support in response to impeachment proceedings? Even Bush has put some distance between himself and his Vice President.
I think Kucinich made this move because he believes it is the appropriate thing to do, rather than for personal political advantage. Politics will be the major motivation in how others respond to this. I am inclined to think that Cheney, like Rumsfeld, has become a liability for the President, and that Cheney will resign soon due to medical reasons. This only serves as another distraction to far more important revelations and investigations that are not getting enough notice.
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 |
04-26-2007, 07:54 AM | #13 (permalink) | ||
Upright
|
Quote:
Quote:
As Nixon chose Ford as his Veep after Agnew was forced to resign. |
||
04-26-2007, 08:08 AM | #14 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
I think the 25th amendment (which primarily deals with the incapacitation of the Pres) would kick in here as well:
Amendment XXVConfirmation by both the House and Senate would make for an interesting scenario, particularly if we were to extend the scenario further with the thought that Bush could nominate someone like say, Condi Rice? But it aint gonna happen. Kucinich has ZERO co-sponsors for his impeachment resolution.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
04-26-2007, 08:39 AM | #15 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
If Bush and Cheney were removed from their offices, Pelosi would become president and choose her own vice.
Kucinich would do well to get better press on this and to get more proof. The more proof he has, the more likely he will have important supporters. He's got my vote if I ever life in Ohio. |
04-26-2007, 09:04 AM | #16 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
like others have said, i support this idea but without any illusions about its chances of getting anywhere at this point.
but the situation seems kinda volitile: for example it'll be interesting to see how the subpoena of rice drama plays out: if she testifies and and is forthcoming about the administration's political machinations in the run-up to the iraq debacle, then it would seem possible for this to move--but i do not expect forthcomingness---if she testifies and lies, then all bets are off and this could move forward. so i would expect a real fight over whether she testifies. while i suspect that the causal linkages above are drawn using a spirograph with lots of wishful thinking shapes included, it nonetheless seems to me that the fate of this initiative is a dependent variable...and that if situationally things move in a straight line, it is a gesture more than anything else...btu it is not obvious that the straight line is the only possible line. so i am waiting to see how other things play out.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
04-26-2007, 09:32 AM | #17 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
04-26-2007, 09:36 AM | #18 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-26-2007 at 09:38 AM.. |
|
04-26-2007, 09:47 AM | #19 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 04-26-2007 at 09:49 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||||
04-26-2007, 09:57 AM | #20 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
I have also said in every discussion here about impeachment, that the evidence is not there. There is plausible deniability by Bush and Cheney on charges like those in the Kucinich resolution. I believe they should be impeached, but I still havent seen the "smoking gun" that would justify an impeachment inquiry......yet.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
|
04-26-2007, 10:03 AM | #21 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
I am sure everyone already knows what I think, but just in case. This is a political move, designed for a boost in the polls and a boost in fund raising.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
04-26-2007, 10:33 AM | #22 (permalink) | |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Given that, how could anyone make a case against it? If you're only given the cherry-picked information and none of the conflicting information, you're only left with "feelings" and "suspicions", neither of which are particularly compelling. Kucinich has always been consistently against the war, and I don't think that he harbors any illussions about being elected President. Sure, these articles further his agenda, but it's an agenda he passionately believes in. What's wrong with that?
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
|
04-26-2007, 10:53 AM | #23 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|||
04-26-2007, 11:08 AM | #24 (permalink) | |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Quote:
|
|
04-26-2007, 11:18 AM | #25 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
04-26-2007, 11:26 AM | #26 (permalink) |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Ace, most members of Congress don't have the security clearance necessary to view most of the information. Without making any judgement on whether or not the intelligence was worthy of "top secret" status or not, anyone who sees it has to have gone through the necessary procedures required by law, including background checks, etc. That's not a part of being in either the House or the Senate, although it is to be on the Intelligence Committees. It's not like Congress could just google "Iraq Secret Chemical Weapons" and expect to get credible information of the type necessary to support (or not) the administration's arguement. There is no "Intelligence Consumer Reports" or "The Robb Report on Iraqi Weapons". Using any sort of consumer analogy is one big ol' strawman.
So many Democrats voted by using the "information available at the time". There was no possible way for Congress to do their "homework". The only information that they were allowed, by law, was what the administration was willing to tell them, and even that was supposed to be a major concession on the administration's part. That information proved to be false, and the problem is that the administration knew that. It would be one thing if there wasn't any intelligenct to the contrary, but there was plenty of it. If they didn't know, they should have. Hence the problem.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
04-26-2007, 11:31 AM | #27 (permalink) | |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
Quote:
as for kucinich, i agree that to say he doesn't have political motivations is definitely naive...he's a politician. if this issue keeps the questions about many of this administration's policies and procedures in the spot light and / or motivates others to seriously question them, then i think its a victory. just putting impeachment on the table is a big step. edit: mega-dittos to jazz too. /god, i love being able to type "mega-fucking-dittos" additionally, as for the political aspects; don't forget that its just as likely that such a move will lose him votes instead of gaining them. while a lot of people may think cheney is the spawn of satan, we tend to do a bit of rally-round-the-flagpole when its a question of military engagement. at least until it gets really bad, and frankly with the insulation most americans have from this war we're not at the point of losing faith completely on a national scale.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style Last edited by pig; 04-26-2007 at 11:36 AM.. |
|
04-26-2007, 11:40 AM | #28 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Psst! I want your vote to comit our country to a multi-billion dollar, bloody war that will cost American lives. I can't tell you exactly why I came to that conclusion, but Iraq is really, really, bad, oh and they are connected to other really, really bad people - trust me. What sould the average person do with that? What should elected officials do with that? What should the media do with that? I know I am simplifying this, but perhaps some folks in Congress should have insisted on seeing what Cheney and Bush saw, and report back to the rest. Oh, wait, they did that. Sorry. Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 04-26-2007 at 11:50 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
04-26-2007, 01:08 PM | #30 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
ace:
first off it is beyond ironic that you claim that you would not rely on cherry-picked information in the purchase of a car, but you seem to have relied on it when you decided to support the bush administration and its lurid little colonial adventure in iraq. but wait--you are inclined to trust the administration and so you assume their information is in general truthful--but you are not inclined to trust the car dealer because, well, "car dealer" is just a name in a sentence which does not and cannot refer to anyone in particular. the answer seems to me obvious--in the run-up to the iraq debacle,congress--republican controlled congress--was presented with manufactured evidence, tendentiously constructed evidence, false evidence from an administration which the then-majority supported politically and which the then-majority was inclined to trust. in 2003 conservatives, like their proxies in the then-majority in congress, were inclined to trust the administration. there are no objective rules that can obviate the fundamental role played in even the most tightly regulated administrative apparatus by trust, by personal relationships and the expectations built across them. you seem to want the iraq mess to devolve into mush now because it suits your political purposes to dissolve it into mush. but you know full well that congress reviewed "evidence" presented them by the administration. you know full well that while a thorough review was possible, it did not happen, and that a good explanation for why it did not happen is the trust the then-majority had in the good faith of the administration--it is just like, say, academic articles--it is always possible that one's footnotes could be wrong or made up--but generally, no-one checks. why? the name of the author is functionally a guarantee against such problems. why? because of the assumptions about the nature and integrity of review processes in refereed journals--but the broader social context of academic work in general informs this assumption. here too, one;s relation to evidence is fundamentally rooted in one's assumptions about the writer or speaker. and when it turns out that the rules have been violated, the fault lay with the writer or speaker. the writer is the person responsible for the selection and ordering of information--if the information is fucked up, it is the writer's fault--BEFORE it is the fault of the readers who believed the article was true. but this is self-evident, ace. i really do not see what your arguments are geared toward accomplishing. was congress remiss in accepting the administration's case? yes. whose fault is that? the administration's first and foremost, because they put forward the false evidence and then relied on (an abuse of) trust/credibility. is congress responsible for the iraq debacle? in part yes--but congress is not responsible for being lied to by the administration. but you already know all this, ace. i think you are being disengenous.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
04-26-2007, 01:23 PM | #31 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1A.pdf Quote:
Quote:
At this point - if I were sincerely against the war, my efforts would be focused on ending it, not retreading what got us into the war. If my concern was with Iran and statements coming from the White House on Iran, I would focus my efforts on setting the record straight. To focus on impeachment is either an error in judgement or purely political. But that is just me, Kuncinich is different and clearly smarter than me, I am sure he has a grand plan that I can not see at the moment. A plan that will be more meaningful than just a stunt to get publicity.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 04-26-2007 at 01:31 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||
04-26-2007, 01:47 PM | #32 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
ok so now the argument is different.
as for "taking out saddam hussein the first time"--there was no mandate for that. it couldnt have happened. you're dreaming if you think otherwise--as were those fine fellows at theproject for a new american century when they cooked up the idea of a second war--as much a fuck you to the united nations as one against iraq--to right the percieved wrong done to amurica and the john wayne for which it stands. on the second part---in a way i almost agree with you: the debacle in iraq should be ended. this is a priority, and there should be a showdown in the coming days over this, if bush vetoes the bill that the senate just passed. but this does not obviate the obvious fact that the administration presented a false case for war in the first place. the fact of the war in iraq is also a very considerable political liability for the united states internationally, and much is at stake in generating the impression--if not the reality--that the system can correct itself. so the administration absolutely should be held to account for the fact of the war itself. period. whether this can extend to impeachment or not, i dont know--i doubt that kucinich's articles will go anywhere at the momentm, but like i said earlier, the situation is not stable and parameters may well change. on iran: the idea of invading iran is pure and simple lunacy. the only reason to even consider such a move is transparently about the administration looking to prop itself up. but the consequences will be a fiasco that will make iraq look like a day in the park. there are no justifications for any such action in any event. ahmadinejad is in an even weaker political position than is george w bush: there is not reason to not expect that his government will fall WITHOUT an american action--though of course (again parallel with the american administration) the best thing that could happen to a weakened reactionary is a nice little war.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
04-26-2007, 02:13 PM | #33 (permalink) |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
I'm stunned at this attempt to put the blame for the administration's falsehoods on the Democrat members of congress, who a) weren't the ones who lied and who b) were in the very marginalized minority at the time.
"Yes, your honor, I sold the child the poison. And YES, I told him it was candy. But HE'S the idiot who ate it!" |
04-26-2007, 04:51 PM | #34 (permalink) | ||
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Ace, I have read others challenging your "proofs" as mere cherry picking, but I've seen it for myself with this bit:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyone interested in a full presentation of Kucinich's articles of impeachment should use the following link: http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 |
||
04-26-2007, 07:49 PM | #35 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
The elements of his plan are here (link). He has also made numerous floor speeches about Iran, often to correct a Bush lie (like Iran is the major source of arms for Iraqi insurgents) or the bellicose rhetoric from Cheney about Iran nuclear capability. Here is just one brief sample from last Sept: "Iran should not have nuclear weapons; and, along with the United States as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, should work with the community of nations to abolish all nuclear weapons, as is the express intent of the NPT.Wow...another Dem who can multi-task.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-26-2007 at 08:18 PM.. Reason: added link to Congressional Record |
|
04-27-2007, 09:46 AM | #36 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
IMO, articles of impeachment should be drawn up in the house for Bush and Cheney, immediately. George Tenet should be subpoenaed as a key witness, and kept in custody of the congress, in a "safe house".
Benjamin Ferencz should be enlisted by the house impeachment committee as their counsel, since the main charge agains the POTUS and his VP involve crimes against the US Constitution....willful violations of international treaties that the US senate has ratified, past POTUS's have signed, and that the US has been an enthusiastic party to, and enforcer of....for many years. I've detailed my support for the above in a new thread, here: <b>Poll: George Tenet's New Book: Is US in Iraq Similar "Aggressive War" Charged at Nuremberg</b> http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=116872 I don't know what more any of you, or anyone in congress with respect for the US Constitution, and of the principles that we in the U.S. all hold dear, would need before you would take Kucinich and his charges more seriously. I'm puzzled....are you worn down by cynicism....IMO, this is "it". Tenet lays it out simply and precisely in his new book: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
04-27-2007, 09:56 AM | #37 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
I think people who voted for the war knew all of the reasons they supported the war and had opportunities to take stands against the war before we actually went to war. To now say it is "Bush's war" without taking their fair share of the responsibility is wrong in my opinion. I don't consider our Congress child like, they are responsible adults. Quote:
Regarding the quote I cherry picked - I simply read the first submission. I did not go through each one, yet. However, if Kucinich is presenting his best case, and he leads with what I read, he made an error because most won't go through everything if there is no compelling proof to start with. I am going to read the rest. However, the question is on the table, how can anyone read what Chaney said and believe he directly connected Al Qeada and Iraq? Why was that document used? Perhaps I missed something. Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 04-27-2007 at 10:04 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||
04-27-2007, 10:10 AM | #38 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
uh...ace? isn't any gesture by any politico always done at one level or another because it feeds into the public image of that politico?
it seems a structural feature of being a politico at all. this seems to me like one of those variables that effectively cancels out as you move to solve an equation that initially involves it. of you are making a particular claim about kucinich that goes beyond the above--and it is obviously possible to do so in certain cases--then why not just make the claim?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
04-27-2007, 10:15 AM | #39 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
I just read the second exhibit posted by Kucinich. Here is were Cheney talks about weapons of mass destruction: Quote:
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1B.pdf
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 04-27-2007 at 10:25 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
04-27-2007, 10:55 AM | #40 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Posted May 2, 2006: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=63 Posted May 2, 2006: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=64 Posted June 26, 2006: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=22 Posted Sept. 9, 2006: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...93&postcount=7 Posted Sept. 15, 2006: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=47 .....and this article: Quote:
Quote:
Note how the Bush administration reacted to Sen. Levn's damning September 8, 2006 statement: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tags |
articles, cheney, dick, impeachment |
Thread Tools | |
|
|