Ok, America. I warned you over and over again. You didn't listen, you voted for him. When he completely and totally lied about why we went to war, you somehow defended that (2,000 dead!) with Clinton lying about the BJ. This is not a parallel. Clinton lied about he BJ because he was married. You would have lied too, unless you are stupid. Of course, your concern is that he did it in the first place. Well, no one has died as a result of that story. When DeLay got rebuked last year, DeLay responded by having the ethics committee kicked off of the ethics committee. Best part about that, it was his OWN party members he had removed. Ask Colorado Republican Joel Hefley about that. He got kicked off the GOP held ethics committee for reporting ethics problems with Republicans. When your own people are narking you out, you might be a bad person.
Then, when they finally indicted DeLay like you knew they would... you said that was just Ronnie Earl being a starfucker. Even though Ronnie Earl has spent his career going after Democrats. You called it partisan politics... until today when DeLay starting admitting his campaign finance fabrications. So those are your leaders, and I want every single one of them deposed from power and indicted on war crimes.
How about Bill Frist? Remember his comment about how AIDS could be passed by kissing? Remember when he said he was a medical expert and testified that poor Terry Schiavo was not in a vegetative coma and should be left to live? Remember? Yeah, remember when the autopsy proved dramatically wrong and that she HAD been effectively dead for about 10 years? Guess what, he is being investigated for insider trading of his family's hospital stock. Insider Trading and lying to a jury, nice work Frist. Maybe they will give you Martha's cell.
Speaking of lying to a jury, let's segue way to Rove & Libby. Respectively, the number two men to Bush & Cheney. They look to be indicted on lying to a grand jury, obstruction of justice, and perhaps a little bonus of treason.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ebony Ghost
That's quite a rant, Lono. While impeachment of the President would be a proper move, It will never happen for"political" reasons. A reading of the Constitution would lead one to believe that the people of a particular State elect a citizen to represent them in the Congress. In practice, under our two party system, the people elect a politician to represent the Party in Congress. As a result there's nobody from (insert your State) who is going to stand up and say "This is wrong" about anything that's going on. (that's a general statement - there are a few notable exceptions - Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are a couple).
you were right to address your rant to the American people in general. The buck may stop at the President's desk, but the people are ultimately responsible for the quality of the individual they choose to sit behind it. The two parties have hijacked our Republic and they will keep it until the people demand free and open elections. In the meantime, the hijinks will continue. The politician will continue to pass bills without reading them. Unpopular or unwarranted bills will continue to be passed in the wee hours of the morning with only a handful of "representatives" present. Language will continue to be added to bills after they pass. There will continue to be bills passed before they're written. And the national debt, which recently cracked the $8 Trillion mark, will continue to rise.
The people of the United States are sleepwalking from one flag waving adventure to another. I only hope "the awakening" occurs in my lifetime.
2 - FL Voter
I agree with what you have said, but I am a realist in that Bush will 'never' be impeached, let alone convicted. Not while the Republicans have control of both houses of congress.
This business of Frist, Delay, Rove, Libby, Miers, Brown, and Cheney all coming together at the same time is the perfect storm to show how corrupt and inept this administration/regime is.
All I have to say to the american people is: You put these people into power...what did expect? Reform? Fiscal Conservatism? A change in the 'mood' in Washington? You've all been duped.
3 - Dave Nalle
The reason it will never happen is that you have to prove specific types of misbehavior, and there's no indication at all that Bush has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors by any accepted definition. IMO pinning an impeachment on Clinton just for perjury was a stretch too.
Sending soldiers to war is not a high crime or misdemeanor, btw. It's part of the job description.
Dave
4 - Nancy
Excellent rant, Lono, & I support you every syllable. 49% of us did NOT vote for this maggot & his posse of cheats, liars, & traitors. 49% of us at least did not have the wool pulled over our eyes. Whether the 2% difference honestly voted for him, or was "helped" along by yet-uncovered GOP malfeasance & dirty tricks remains to be seen, I suppose.
Sadly, I have to agree w/Ghost & FL, congress has set itself up so that it's members can pretty much ignore little things like honesty & integrity, and for the most part, get away with murder almost literally, thanks to protection from fellow party members - and this goes for BOTH parties. When Stevens very recently threw a fit when someone had the gall to propose using the congressional pork to pay for Katrina, instead of sticking it to the poor & middle class, 85 of his fellow senators - both parties - just rolled over and grovelled for daring to even entertain the heresy. Talk about craven, lick-spittle cowardice & selfishness on the part of the overprivileged and overcompensated, true "Special Interests" - the members of congress. They do NOT represent the interests of the voters, the public, their constituents; they never have. They represent only their own selfish ends & that of the thrice-damned parties. They all need to be removed, disenfranchised (i.e. no more ultra deluxe special medical & retirement bennies - they can live on medicare & social security like the rest of us)term limits imposed, access by lobbyists & special interests of ANY stripe criminalized, and oversight given to a non-political citizens' committee; this business of them policing themselves is a farce & a failure. If they can't be trusted to be decent, they certainly can't be trusted to oversee & judge their own behavior.
Meanwhile, add Kay Hutchinson to your list of Hall of Shame nominees. Anyone who would propose seriously that perjury is a little thing is so morally & ethically bankrupt as to not be fit to serve the public in any capacity whatsoever. If I were a Texan, I'd be livid at one more political swine destroying the reputation of me & my state. I don't know ... maybe Texans don't care, or are even proud of it? If not, they don't seem to protest very much.
5 - Guppusmaximus
It's sad that Bush has the power to send The Marines but The Congress has to give the green light for the other Departments of the Military. So, why should Bush be the only one to blame?? I know he told some "white" lies to get us over there but I love to see Sadam squirm in that courthouse...And where is Osama bin Laden?? Mr. Powerful isn't so powerful anymore,huh?? Unfortunately,no matter who you put in the white house isn't going to change much...The seat is already tainted.
6 - marc
So which is it, this:
Or this:If you were "holding it" how were we warned?And this is plain horse hockey:Maybe you would have, but unlike Clinton, you would have had a room in the Iron Bar Hotel. So call me stupid I wouldn't have lied to a grand jury or special prosecutor, would have continued to enjoy my overabundent BJ's from a female of my choice.
Meanwhile you would receive yours from "Bubba" during recreation hour in the yard.
7 - Nancy
Rumor has it that an announcement is coming from Al Qaeda #2 OBL is dead, since he hasn't been seen/heard from for quite awhile. I think that's wishful thinking, myself. But ... who knows, the earthquake may have gotten him. Wasn't he supposed to have cancer or something?
8 - phil
50%+ voted for Bush, I wish you guys would just shut up and learn to live with it. He won. Period. 1 or 2 percent is a fairly normal differential in an election. Bush's biggest problem has been dealing with the ineptitude and lies of his predassor. Clinton had built a house of cards ready to collapse, with the cuts he made to or military etc. The cry babys of the world can just shut up.
9 - Lono
Phil,
So are seriously blind. You want to pin the crimes, indictments, and scandals of this administration on the Democrats? Are you for real?
What are you talking about? The cry babies of the world? Are you talking about the fact that these men are all going to jail eventually? Is that the Democrats fault to? It couldn't possibly be, because right now the GOP holds everything. The supreme court, the house and the senate, the presidency, and even the majority of governorships.
So what does this have to do with the Democrats?
Anyone remember being explained 'separation of powers' or 'checks and balances' from high school civics class? Allow me to say this, those of you on the GOP side of the fence... do enjoy your reign right now, because it will be a LONG time before the American People allow you to be in charge of anything.
As for the President, allow me to put this in terms he can understand. I am not looking to impeach the President... I am simply placing myself in charge of looking for a qualified candidate who will impeach the president.
ok, I gotta to go work now but just saw the Meiers nomination was pulled. Love it!
10 - DJRadiohead
Nancy, I believe bin Laden's illness is kidney related.
I hadn't heard anything about this 'announcement.' I do agree that it seems somewhat suspicious. Granted, when that many people die in an earthquake in the region it is possible. Who knows?
11 - phil
Face it Lono, you and Nancy and several others on this blog site were in the minority in the past two elections and by that should see that the democratic party has disentegrated. Main stream America does not agree with you and your rhetoric is just as lame as John Kerry. The likes of Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy are washed out "has beens" and fortunately for everyone most voters see through their BS. These are very tough trying times on the world scene. Lets hear some constructive criticism for once. You don't impeach a president just because you disagree with his policies.
12 - Baronius
I also have been holding my tongue, warning you people over and over again, and it's time I said something: there's a difference between being wrong and lying.
Iraq started a war as the aggressor and never ended that war. They signed a cease-fire agreement, not a peace treaty, and proceeded to violate it. One of those violations was the barring of weapons inspectors. The Bush Administration, like prior administrations, believed that Iraq had WMD's. Any error on that point has got to fall on Hussein's regime. Australia/US/Britain were justified in removing Hussein from power according to international law, although their decision to do so involved faulty intelligence.
Bill Clinton didn't simply lie about sex. He lied in court about sex with a subordinate during a sexual harrassment trial, as the prosecution was attempting to establish a pattern of misconduct. Presumably Clinton knew that he was giving false information. Giving false information knowingly is lying.
13 - Anthony Grande
Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagon and BUSH - best presidents EVER.
14 - Lono
Phil said:
You don't impeach a president just because you disagree with his policies.
You are right. Instead you impeach him for filling his office with felons and allowing only cronies to run the world instead of capable and qualified individuals. As for the rest of you yahoos, allow me to reply to you with what I replied to my good friend Travis who was the only one who had a thoughtful response to my rant.
_______________________________________
Interesting points, thanks for writing. Know that my mention of the 2,000 troops was only 1/20th of my point on the President. I would never imagine the idea of belittling people serving our country and dying as well. Even if it was for something I did not believe in, I still have 1000% respect and love for those who sacrifice themselves so I can sit at home and bitch on my blog.
My point was that everything this president has touched has failed, and that everyone is his leadership group are proven felons and opportunists.
Indeed the Dems do need to start to show some real direction, I am with you on that. However, the GOP is failing so magnificently... I mean really historically... That perhaps they are waiting for this cardhouse to fall.
As for my principles and those of the Dems, I believe in exactly what we communicated in the 2004 election.
1. Stop subsidizing the offshoring of American jobs
2. leave gays alone
3. make health care a more reasonable option for more Americans *
* big problem with Kerry's approach, his numbers made absolutely NO sense to anyone.
4. A)the best way to help society's poorest is not to allow the rich to have free reign and assume it will trickle down to the poor
B) let's instead work on giving the poor a fair opportunity at things like education and health care.
C) by empowering the lower classes and underserved of society to succeed and prosper, you create more money in the tax base, and less crime.
Now of course, some folks will always be lazy and want a hand out, fuck them. We are talking about the working poor in America.
* one last thing, for Phil. Since every single one of the current President's failures rest solely on Clinton's shoulders.... please tell me you will join in blaming the next 10 years of everything on Bush? That would be retarded (though factually true). Stop covering and stop blaming. The people to discuss and hold accountable are the ones here right now. Be a man and stop handing off shit to the last guy.
15 - Dave Nalle
>>1. Stop subsidizing the offshoring of American jobs<<
They're already all for this - except that it's not a real issue. Offshoring is a very small factor in the economy, stable and not growing, and more than offset by jobs coming into the US from overseas and job growth resulting from increased efficiency associated with offshoring.
>>2. leave gays alone<<
Except that no major national candidate for the Dems has endorsed Gay marriage.
>>B) let's instead work on giving the poor a fair opportunity at things like education and health care.<<
You sound positively Republican.
>>C) by empowering the lower classes and underserved of society to succeed and prosper, you create more money in the tax base, and less crime.<<
Again, and even moreso, that's the Republican approach, and it's totally contrary to the tradition of the democrats, which is to give the poor handouts to keep them poor and dependent on the state.
So what you're basically saying is that the Democrats need to be more like Republicans.
Dave
16 - Lono
Dave,
You are a worthy adversary, which is what I was looking forward to. Firstly, your group doesn't believe in anything but set the rich free and society will be better for it.
secondly, the actual Repbulican dogma of:
smaller government, states' rights, and leave the individual alone sounds like the greatest thing in the whole wide world to me. Haven't seen it though.
I am super tired of the myth that Dems are hand out happy. Who was the first (and only) guy to restructure Welfare? Clinton! Who had the smallest government since Kennedy? Clinton!
Stop espousing shit until you can actually DO IT. That simply isn't your leadership, so stop defending them. You should be crying for a PROPER Republican to be put into office... as I am crying for a single Democrat besides myself to speak up and present a platform.
never the less, Dave. You are of a very small and articulate minority who writes from your side of the fence. As you intimated, we are probably closer in beliefs than we realize. If you ever get near Denver... let's have a beer
in the meantime, stop defending these dickwads and get some real leadership. trust me, as a Progressive I am saying the same thing to myself.
17 - Eric Berlin
Lono -- I've always thought that Howard Dean makes an extremely effective argument when he says that the Democratic Party is the party that can and will balance the budget. You're completely right in saying that the old and tired slogans just don't fit nowadays.
18 - Dave Nalle
>>You are a worthy adversary, which is what I was looking forward to. Firstly, your group doesn't believe in anything but set the rich free and society will be better for it.<<
What group do you think I belong to? The 'set the rich free' crap is just a ridiculous oversimplification of a much more comprehensive philosophy. It's standard Demo tactics. Reduce something serious to a super-simplified catch-phrase that displays only its worst aspect, and try to pass that off as the reality.
>>secondly, the actual Repbulican dogma of:
smaller government, states' rights, and leave the individual alone sounds like the greatest thing in the whole wide world to me. Haven't seen it though. <<
There are still a hell of a lot of us who believe in it. At least a quarter and probably a much larger part of the GOP. The problem is that we have to get along with the rest of the idiots in the party.
>>I am super tired of the myth that Dems are hand out happy. Who was the first (and only) guy to restructure Welfare? Clinton! Who had the smallest government since Kennedy? Clinton!<<
Actually, Nixon, Ford and Carter all had smaller governments than Johnson. And it's not that the Dems are handout happy, it's just that their approach to the poor is to help them by giving to them rather than encouraging them to do for themselves. Clinton DID break from that tradition. He stole all his ideas from TommyThompson, who's a Republican.
>>Stop espousing shit until you can actually DO IT. That simply isn't your leadership, so stop defending them. You should be crying for a PROPER Republican to be put into office... as I am crying for a single Democrat besides myself to speak up and present a platform.<<
We've got 3 years to go before we can make a change. I'm not a big Bush fan, but when he gets unfairly attacked, I feel obligated to defend him. He's done a lot of things wrong and failed me in more ways than he's failed you, but what he gets attacked for in most cases is NOT where he's really gone wrong.
>>never the less, Dave. You are of a very small and articulate minority who writes from your side of the fence. As you intimated, we are probably closer in beliefs than we realize. If you ever get near Denver... let's have a beer <<
I've been known to drink with a Democrat now and again, but you'd have to make your way out to the ski slopes to find me if I'm ever in Colorado.
>>in the meantime, stop defending these dickwads and get some real leadership. trust me, as a Progressive I am saying the same thing to myself.<<
The whole 'real leadership' thing isn't looking terribly good. Those who have real potential aren't prominent enough yet, and those who are prominent have serious issues. So instead of going for the ideal we're going to have to settle for a moderate Republican if we want to stop the extremists, and even there we've got problems galore. We've got the Crazed Geezer, the Cancerous Lecher and the Scary Schoolmarm. I wish we could put Bob Dole in the wayback machine or ressurect Barry Goldwater.
Dave
19 - Recovering Republican
What amazes me about Bush is how he is able to take credit for everything positive and able to shift blame for everything negative.
For example, the 1st bombing of the World Trade Center happened on February 26, 1993. Bill Clinton had been in office for 37 days, but the previous Pres. Bush (41) wasn't blamed for it. The 9/11/2001 attacks happened after the current Pres. Bush (43)had been in office for 134 days, but Clinton got the blame in spite of the August 6th briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." Clinton also received no credit for the "Millenium Bombing" of LAX not happening, but got the blame for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. When hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans I wondered how he would shift blame, but learned that it was all the fault of Louisiana Gov. Blanco and N.O. Mayor Nagin (of course, everything was A-OK in Mississappi because they elected a Republican Governor). And of course, loyalty is rewarded so Michael (you're doing a great job Brownie) Brown is STILL employed by FEMA.
I was very upset with Clinton("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"), but at least he knew how to balance a budget; in hindsight, he doesn't look so bad compared to George WMD Bush.
I understand the need for the military to follow orders, but when those orders are based upon a lie "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.", it makes me wonder why there are less than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan (remember Bin Laden?) and almost 140,000 in Iraq (I thought Saddam was captured). I guess Iraqi oil is more important than Bin Laden, Iran, or North Korea.
20 - Dave Nalle
>>I was very upset with Clinton("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"), but at least he knew how to balance a budget; in hindsight, he doesn't look so bad compared to George WMD Bush. <<
It's easy to balance a budget with a booming economy and high taxes. Personally I prefer a budget out of balance but manageable combined with lower taxes if the end result is a growing economy.
>>I understand the need for the military to follow orders, but when those orders are based upon a lie "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.", <<
A 'lie' which almost certainly originated in Iraq, and which was confirmed by Joe Wilson when he testified before the Senate - testimony he later repudiated when it was politically advantageous to do so.
>>it makes me wonder why there are less than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan (remember Bin Laden?) and almost 140,000 in Iraq (I thought Saddam was captured). I guess Iraqi oil is more important than Bin Laden, Iran, or North Korea.<<
Oil has nothing to do with it. There's more trouble to be dealt with in Iraq. Plus Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, he's in Iran. Perhaps you think that's where we should send out troops?
Dave
21 - Anthony Grande
"I guess Iraqi oil is more important than Bin Laden, Iran..."
I thought liberals stopped using this one a long time ago.
We are taking soooooo much oil from Iraq that our Gas prices are at par with Gas prices 10 years ago.
"...140,000 in Iraq (I thought Saddam was Captured)."
This guy really expects us to pull out and leave Iraq with no millitary or government!!!
22 - Recovering Republican
>>Oil has nothing to do with it. There's more trouble to be dealt with in Iraq. Plus Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, he's in Iran. Perhaps you think that's where we should send out troops?<<
So, there is more trouble to be dealt with in Iraq... why is that... maybe if the job was done right to begin with Bin Laden would have been caught by now instead of diverting resources so we could catch the guy who actually attacked us (4 years after being told he was wanted dead or alive, I am still waiting)
>>This guy really expects us to pull out and leave Iraq with no military or government!!!<<
Why dont you read what I said... I did not say we should pull out of Iraq, it's too late for that now... maybe we should have relied on FACTUAL statements and gotten some allies (besides Poland) like in 1990 before invading another country (as bad as that country may be)...
23 - Silas Kain
What’s it going to take for liberals and conservatives to shut up and start talking to each other? I’d love nothing more than to see this President step down because I believe his administration has been a complete failure and stain on America’s history. On the other side of the coin, his stepping down would be tragic and have political ramifications that would affect every corner of the globe. As a matter of national security, George W. Bush may better serve the national interest by governing for the next 3 years in a cooperative spirit with Congress.
One thing that stands out after watching so many newscasts this evening is that the consensus seems to be that Congress has failed miserably in exercising its duties under the Constitution. The GOP majority has been hesitant to question this President; however, faced with the prospect of resounding defeat next year, these Lemmings are slowly revealing their dissent. It’s a little too much, too late. This Congress had an opportunity after last year’s elections to do some great things. They could have worked with this President in taking advantage of the “political capital” he claims he achieved after the election.
It’s unfortunate that our expectations of this President are so low that any slightly intelligent execution of his job is greeted with universal applause. Have we lowered our expectations across the board? Is it easier to lower the bar than to work at excellence? In the end, who ultimately suffers? In this Information Age one would think that the abundance of information resources would cause us to be a better informed people. As much as I am opposed to Iraq, it’s obvious that we have a moral obligation to finish the job we started. Unfortunately, we’ve lost our ability to multitask. We can only handle one preoccupation per news cycle. Come Monday, Scooter Libby will be on page 20 while the President’s new nominee to SCOTUS will take the headlines. This nominee will delegate the news of the next American soldier’s death in Iraq to the back page. One issue at a time. That’s all we can handle and it seems that’s all we expect from the President. Perhaps life has become too complex in the Modern Era. Perhaps we expect too much from the Presidency. Perhaps Congress needs to start doing its job. Perhaps Americans need to start paying attention to what the government is up to.
24 - Matthew T. Sussman
What’s it going to take for liberals and conservatives to shut up and start talking to each other?
Delicious pancakes.
25 - Dave Nalle
>>So, there is more trouble to be dealt with in Iraq... why is that... maybe if the job was done right to begin with Bin Laden would have been caught by now instead of diverting resources so we could catch the guy who actually attacked us (4 years after being told he was wanted dead or alive, I am still waiting)<<
I guess you can fix the mistakes of the past with your magic wish machine. The rest of us just have to deal with current reality.
Dave