Comments on: No Rush to Impeachment

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 19 May 2006 02:13:26 +0000

Let me explain Conyers’ statement.

they be censured by Congress based on indisputable evidence of unaccounted for misstatements and abuse of power in the public record

Here he’s saying he’s got indisputable evidence to support censure. I don’t doubt him for a minute, since anyone with 10 fingers could do the necessary research to dig up such evidence from the White House web site alone.

Representative Conyers, Donâ€™t backtrack from your press release. You said that you had â€œindisputable evidence of unaccounted for misstatements and abuse of power in the public record.â€

Gary, you need to read these statements a bit more carefully before commenting about something that wasn’t said. In his statement today, Conyers said he wouldn’t immediately pursue impeachement. The way I read it, he said he’d pursue investigations, followed by impeachment if warranted. On the other hand, in his previous statement, he said he supported censure now. Can you understand the distinction?

Representative Conyers is seething with Bush-hatred. Heâ€™s totally consumed with the most vile of motivations imaginable.

If restoring the rule of law in this country is the most vile of motivations imaginable, then you are sick. I assume you supported Clinton’s impeachement, so that makes you a hypocrite to boot. But look at it this way: If BushCo aren’t guilty of anything, they have no reason to worry about investigations, right? Right? I mean, that’s the rationale they give us for their NSA spying scheme.

By: Lex

Lex — Thu, 18 May 2006 13:50:35 +0000

Conyers may well be lying, but you haven’t proved that he is. You have merely conflated “investigation” with “impeachment.”

By: Wirro

Wirro — Thu, 18 May 2006 13:16:27 +0000

Since when is censure the same as impeachment?

And are you admitting that “a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses” would actually find these offenses?

In the words of you right-wing extremists regarding surveillance “You’ve got nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide”. So unless the administration has something to hide, they should welcome a real investigation (not a Pat Roberts whitewash) to prove the likes of Conyers wrong.

What are you afraid of?

By: Neo

Neo — Thu, 18 May 2006 13:08:57 +0000

I believe he will wait a week or two before starting.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 18 May 2006 11:41:22 +0000

Generally speaking, I find most accusations of “lying” made on blogs to be unethical hyperbole. A valid accusation of lying requires solid supporting evidence, as well as motivation. It is often a high bar to clear.

Unfortunately for Rep. Conyers, you have cleared that bar easily.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Thu, 18 May 2006 08:03:44 +0000

I agree with the comment about conyers, he is a liar, to say that he will not start impeachment hearings, that is what he lives for, the audacity to even write the article, this is what i have been saying all along, we republicans even thought we may not agree with congress or BUSH all the time, we better get out in november or we are going to have a speaker polosi, chairman conyers, chairman rangel, and leader reid, what a nightmare it will be, all these gop that say they are angry and are going to stay home, what is wrong with you, do you actually think it will be better with the democrats in charge, like RUSH said today, we better not do that, we have to go out and vote in november and we will work it out , but to let the democrats get in charge is wrong, and they are so sure they are going to win, they have the press and media behind them, they are all salivating over winning in nov, i do not beleive these polls at all, so republicans you better think before you do not show up to vote, do you really want the democrats in power?????????????