LJWorld.com weblogs Congressional Briefing

Moore: 'No chance' of impeaching Bush

Advertisement

Here are today's headlines from the Kansas congressional delegation:Rep. Dennis Moore (D) ![][1][(KC Star) The 'I-word' spreads, but most in politics dismiss the impeachment talk:][2] A fresh survey by the American Research Group, a Republican group, found that 45 percent of respondents said they supported launching impeachment proceedings against Bush while 46 percent said they opposed such a move. A majority of respondents, 55 percent, said they wanted Vice President Dick Cheney out; 40 percent said they did not. Yet those in the know say that impeachment is as unlikely as snow this month on Muchow's scorched fields. "I don't think there's a chance in the world," said Rep. Dennis Moore, a Kansas Democrat.Sen. Pat Roberts (R)![][3][(Aviation Week) Sen. Rockefeller Threatens GA Airspace Access:][4] Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) threatened Thursday to limit general aviation access to high-volume airspace if the GA community continues to oppose his legislation to establish a $25 per flight fee for turbine aircraft using controlled airspace. Rockefeller, along with Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), took center stage Thursday during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the future of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. ... Grassley's fellow Midwestern senator, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), took exception to some of the comments regarding general aviation, complaining that the other senators' introductory remarks were "45 minutes in favor of user fees" and not a "fair and balanced" assessment of the situation. Roberts lauded the essential role GA plays in meeting the country's air transportation needs, citing the charitable and humanitarian work of several organizations, including the Corporate Angel Network. Calling GA operators "good citizens," Roberts added, "I don't know what we would have done without GA in Kansas" during recent floods. "GA is not unreceptive to an increase in the gas tax," Roberts continued. "It's not the fee; it's the administrative costs and the structure of the user fee bureaucracy that the GA community is so concerned about."Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) ![][5][(Congressional Quarterly) Democrats Eye Politics of Farm Bill:][6] Now the House is knee-deep in writing a new farm bill (HR 2419), and the outlook isn't as rosy as it was earlier this year. While House Agriculture Committee members squabble over money and plot to fend off threats from outside the panel to overhaul agricultural policy, Pelosi and her circle face a bigger dilemma: The outcome of this year's farm bill could make or break the reelection of vulnerable freshman Democrats. ... Walz, for example, unseated six-term Republican and subsidy champion Gil Gutknecht by a 5.6 percent margin in 2006. Between 2003 and 2005, soy, corn and dairy farmers in Walz's district collected roughly $900 million in subsidies, about 2.6 percent of the national total, according to the Environmental Working Group's subsidy database. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., is in a similar situation. She defeated an incumbent by a 3.5 percent margin and represents farmers who collected about $225 million in subsidies between 2003 and 2005. ... Things are different in the districts represented by Agriculture Committee members Boyda, Walz and Indiana Democrat Brad Ellsworth, where it is crucial to keep producers of commodity crops from raising money to unseat them, the aide said. "The ones that benefit from the commodity money will throw you out of office," the aide said. "You piss these guys off, they'll make your life miserable." [1]: http://ljworld.com/specials/election04/primary/moore.jpg [2]: http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/190353.html [3]: http://roberts.senate.gov/Roberts-020405-18060-080-CFFflipped.jpg [4]: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SEN07167.xml&headline=Sen.%20Rockefeller%20Threatens%20GA%20Airspace%20Access&channel=busav [5]: http://ljworld.com/specials/election04/primary/boyda.jpg [6]: http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/07/16/cq_3085.html

Comments

jasonc_22 7 years, 8 months ago

i wish we could impeach them...but there are more important things to do.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

Yes, I'm sure that it will be wholly productive to attempt to reasonably explain things to someone who uses the term "fascist war criminal masters."

stuckinthemiddle 7 years, 8 months ago

jonas What part of "fascist war criminal masters" do you need explained?

stuckinthemiddle 7 years, 8 months ago

Agnostick Do you think any of those three things can be done while Bush and Cheney are in office? I don't think so.

b_asinbeer 7 years, 8 months ago

"Hunt down and eradictate"? I don't think that'll work Agnostick. The more you kill, the more followers and admirers you get...simple history lesson.

By the way, Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization according to the European Union...

ontheotherhand 7 years, 8 months ago

Everybody knows that there's no way you're gonna get impeached for ineptitude. It's about who you sleep with!!

CaptainChurch 7 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Jamesaust 7 years, 8 months ago

"...Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization according to the European Union."

That's misleading.

The European Union takes foreign policy actions by consensus. If any of its nearly 30 nation states object, there is no consensus and thus no policy. A more accurate statement would be that not all EU countries agree to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. (That's something akin to saying not all Americans believe in God - no doubt true, but not an accurate representation of the views of the vast majority.)

Speakout 7 years, 8 months ago

Hezbollah's goal was to push the Israelis and other foreign nationals out of Lebanon. They have achieved that at this point and are no threat to anyone else unless they attack or invade Lebanon. They have never attacked any other country because their goal is to keep Lebanon free of foreign intervention. Their tactics are ruthless, but they do to those who enter Lebanon illegally what the Israelis do to Palestinians who have lived their in their own homes forever.

Jamesaust 7 years, 8 months ago

Claim: Hezbollah's goal was to push the Israelis and other foreign nationals out of Lebanon. Truth: Hezbollah's goals were: (a) to push the agenda of Shiites in Lebanon against competing Muslim, Christian, and Druze factions in the Lebanese civil war, (b) remove any Western influence in one of the most Westernized countries in the Middle East, and (c) establish a Iranian-like theocratic government against the will of the Lebanese people.

Claim: They have achieved that at this point and are no threat to anyone else unless they attack or invade Lebanon. Truth: Hezbollah began shelling Israel just a year ago without any attack or invasion of Lebanon (apparently upon demand from Iran). What's more, Hezbollah is a direct threat to the elected Lebanese government, demanding of more power than they can achieve in elections, armed by foreigners to the teeth, the sole Lebanese faction to refuse to lay down their arms and submit to the authority of the Lebanese government (of which, confusing, they are a part) and violently resistant to the Lebanese government's control including refusal of the government's demand that they stop using Lebanese territory to launch missiles into Israel even at the cost of attracting overwhelming Israeli counterattacks.

Claim: They have never attacked any other country because their goal is to keep Lebanon free of foreign intervention. Truth: Hezbollah is a poodle to foreign masters: Syria, which seeks to dominate Lebanon and occupied most of the country for over a decade and continues in a series of assassinations of any Lebanese leader who opposes them (or so say the U.N. International Independent Investigation Commission, which has fingered Syria), and Iran, which seeks regional revolution particularly by Shiites. Hezbollah has attacked all other Lebanese factions. Hezbollah has not attacked Syria (perhaps because Syria has a history a dealing with such religious zealots via genocide; or perhaps because Syria finds it useful to undermine Lebanonese sovereignty by supplying Hezbollah with weapons). Lebanon has no other neighbors for Hezbollah to attack.

Claim: Their tactics are ruthless, but they do to those who enter Lebanon illegally what the Israelis do to Palestinians who have lived their in their own homes forever. Truth: Their tactic is terrorism but a dishonest person might merely term it "ruthless." Their concern is obviously not "illegal" entrance by foreign powers into Lebanon given the absence of "ruthlessness" towards a generation of Syrian occupation.

KS 7 years, 8 months ago

It would be suicide for the Dems to attempt to impeach Bush. It would be viewed as just trying to get even with the Republicans, after the Clinton impeachment, by the Amercian people.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

Windlass: Chuckles. I can't help but notice you refer to yourself as an intellectual superior, after failing to notice that I did not, in fact, ask you a question at all, much less a dumb one. If you can't tell the difference between interrogative and declarative sentences (it's pretty easy, there's usually a "?" at the end of them, just a hint) then I'm afraid that I find your claims to be somewhat dubious.

Stuckinmiddle: See above.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

(Oh, and KS has it pretty well summed up. I wouldn't call it suicide, but it wouldn't get there, since, thanks to the fine Repubs of the Clinton era, the process would now be totally politicized, the truths of the matter lost, and nothing accomplished. We were doomed to this when you allowed him to be re-elected by nominating an idiot corpse with a spastic wife as his competitor, because you got bamboozled by with three purple hearts. Welcome to the fall-out, it'll be over in two years.)

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho 7 years, 8 months ago

I think Bush uses the Jedi mind trick to get Democrats to do whatever he says. They fall for it every single time.

Bush: "You'll give me clearance to invade Iraq." Dems (except Kucinich): "You have our vote to invade Iraq."

Bush: "You'll give me more money for my war." Dems (except Kucinich): "Here's a blank check. Take as much as you'd like."

Bush: "You will not impeach me." Dems (except Kucinich): "Don't worry, we won't impeach you."

Bush: "Jump!" Dems (except Kucinich): "How high?!"

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

Wasn't there a Robot Chicken episode like that at some point? I seem to recall it being quite amusing.

ISRAELPARASITE 7 years, 8 months ago

Agnostic - Hamas and Hezbola are not terroritst organizations. Both were formed from the ashes of a raped country (THANKS ISRAEL) -- You should look at international law and see who the REAL criminals are.

Are you suggesting that the US wage war on Hamas - (youre going to kill thousands of civilians to get to a handful of resistance fighters.) -- an organization that averages 5 - 30 Israelis dead per year??? - THAT organization is a world threat???!!! (5-30 dead per year - for the past 15 years?) THAT IS A WORLD THREAT????

Last year Israeli soldiers killed 130 + Palestinian Children and injured/maimed THOUSANDS. -- Last year *1 Israeli child killed by Palestinians. --- Who is the #1 violator of international law?

The middle east is a mess because westerners have been raping her for the past 100 years or more.

ISRAELPARASITE 7 years, 8 months ago

Jamesaust -- The root problem is that Israel has IGNORED INTERNATIONAL LAW (with the blessings of the US) - for over 40 years.

Imagine if I started ignoring the law - committing crimes and the police did nothing about it. * (Home Demolitions, Curfews, Blocking Borders (aid, food, medicine, work, travel, etc...) - Deportations (refugee making), Airstrikes (against rock throwers kids...), Administrative detention (of children, women, elderly, etc... - no charges/no trials)

If I did any of those things to the American civilian population, do you think they would be unhappy with me? Especially if the police could do nothing????

Israel is the #1 violator of INTERNATIONAL LAW. -- Israel is the #1 Terrrorist. DESTROY AIPAC.

Jamesaust 7 years, 8 months ago

"The root problem is that Israel has ignored international law (with the blessings of the US) - for over 40 years."

While not wanting to continue such an off-topic conversation, I would only note in passing the falseness of such a statement. Invariably, persons tending toward this type of claim combine overstatement of what international law directs with understatement or complete silence on the integrated components of law for all acting parties.

This situation is typical: there is a non-mandatory U.N. Security Counsel Resolution that demands that Israel withdraw from unallocated territory occupied at the cessation (depends on your definition of cessation) of the '1967 war' in return for an end to Arab hostilities and recognition by the Arab states of Israel. These are not independent duties but rather dependent. We're all waiting for Israel to comply; we're all waiting for various Arab states to comply. Yet, certain people are foaming at the mouth over only part of this tangle. I wonder why.

Newell_Post 7 years, 8 months ago

There is zero chance of impeachment at this time. The Republicans don't want it because shrub is their boy. And the Dems don't want it because every time shrub opens his mouth he embarrasses the Republicans a little more thereby increasing the odds of a Democratic victory in '08.

costello 7 years, 8 months ago

Bruce Fein and John Nichols made some very compelling arguments as to why Bush and Cheney should be impeached on Bill Moyer's Journal last Friday evening.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced - walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." - Bruce Fein

"On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." - John Nichols

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

ISRAELPARASITE (Anonymous) says: The middle east is a mess because westerners have been raping her for the past 100 years or more.


Nope IP, the Middle East is a mess because they have not chosen to update themselves past 2,000 yrs ago. Their beliefs are outdated and they are frustrated in a world that does not hold to their outdated mode of thinking, including members of their own culture, like women and sane men. Couple that up with obvious inclinations toward radical/violence (shooting guns at weddings; stoning; calling for the eradication of entire cultures; easy recruitment of suicide bombers and general nutball behavior) and you have a bunch of people who can't get along with anyone, not even other similar religious beliefs within their own culture, and they're more than willing to kill to make their point. The middle east is way more trouble than it's worth.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

Windlass....."Scarlet O'Hara was not beautiful, but men seldom realized it when caught up in her charms as the Tarlton twins were on this beautiful Sunday......." as you finish your novel, I will as well....geeeeezzzzzzzzzzz...

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

"Nope IP, the Middle East is a mess because they have not chosen to update themselves past 2,000 yrs ago."

More like 500, but whatever. They were something of a beacon of civilization while Europe was mired in the Dark Ages, and much Greek and Roman knowledge only survived because of it's legacy kept and protected in the fall-out of the Eastern Empire.

Not to say that they've kept that up in recent centuries. But then, resource rich countries don't tend to progress to democratic institutions with much ease, because the resource wealth allows for a small oligarchy to control the region with the help of foreign investment, none of which is distributed in any way to the people down the chain of civilization, who are, as above posters have aptly said, "raped" in the process.

But then, who would think the problems, historical, economical, and social, of an entire regions would have some complexity to them? Get out'a town!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.