Jack Cafferty Ponders 'Why Won’t Congress Consider Impeaching Pres. Bush?'

Photo of Terry Ann Rendon.

Sounding like an impeachment obsessed left-wing blogger Jack Cafferty asked
on CNN.com "Why won’t Congress consider impeaching Pres. Bush?" In his June 12th blog posting he writes, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi long ago made it known that impeachment is “off the table.” This is a joke. We have a president who has abused the power of his office over and over again. It’s what got the Democrats elected to the majority in Congress in 2006." It's funny how he never mentions exactly how George W. Bush has abused his power. It should somehow be evident to all of us. If a contributor to a news organization and their professional Web site is going to claim the president of the United States has abused his power and therefore should be impeached then shouldn't Cafferty back it up with some tangible proof. That's what a person with journalistic integrity would do. Impeachment talk by liberals is designed to rile up anger in people and if the comments attached his post are any indication that is exactly what Cafferty did.

Cafferty is not the only cable news personality talking about impeachment. On
Tuesday's episode of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann, " the host theorized that perhaps the impeachment trials of Bill Clinton were in some way done to immunize George W. Bush. Here's a partial transcript:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

OLBERMANN: But one political history, recent history, when President Clinton was impeached, the Republicans not only hobbled the sitting president, but they seemed to have succeeded in putting the Democrats on the defensive to the point that they would not even consider hearings on such a thing now, in the face of, at least, large volumes of evidence if not overwhelming evidence.

It‘s almost as if the impeachment of Clinton, if you want to be
utterly conspiratory (ph) on - I‘m not saying I‘m doing it this
way - but see, it reads as history, reading backwards, as if the
Clinton impeachment was arranged to preclude the impeachment of the, you know, completely malevolent Republican president who followed him.

Did the Republicans achieve pretty much everything they‘ve wanted, they could have dreamt of or maybe something couldn‘t have dreamt of by impeaching Bill Clinton?

FINEMAN: Yes. Well, I don‘t even think the most conspiratorial of them could have thought this scenario up. But it is true that we have about one impeachment in this (ph) generation, it seems.

Wow, Keith. So the evil Republicans knew George W. Bush was going to come in and commit "high crimes and misdemeanors," therefore, they decided to put Bill Clinton trial. Did these clairvoyant Republicans also know about the 9/11 terrorist attacks before they happened?


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The real question is "Why

The real question is "Why won't CNN fire Jack Cafferty"? There's lots of evidence and rational for doing so, so what's holding things up? Why hasn't Blitzer taken the first step? Why isn't the rest of cable news talking about this?

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Proof

Liberals don't need no stinkin proof. They have the word of God Hussein to back them up. I'll watch and wait until this comes back and bites them on the arse 'again'. They tried in on Nixon, he walked away, Slick Willie paid the price for their ignorance.

Old, Retired and glad of it.

"So the evil Republicans

"So the evil Republicans knew George W. Bush was going to come in and commit "high crimes and misdemeanors," therefore, they decided to put Bill Clinton trial."

No, but I bet there were Democrats who were looking to impeach Bush, as pay back for Clinton's impeachment, even before Bush took office.

Thank you, Terry; that was

Thank you, Terry; that was my thought exactly!

Where are the specifics of crimes committed? Saying "abused his power" over and over again may get the KosKids and MoveOn stirred up, but that's all.

They should listen to Her Speakerness. You know that if she thought impeachment would fly, she would be pushing it, particularly with the President's low approval ratings right now. If she says it's "off the table" it has to be because she knows they have nothing.

Unless the dnc is

Unless the dnc is paying for this 'advertisment' then it should fall under the campain laws.

Heck I am starting to thing that the fairness,,,,,,,,,,,never mind 

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

@general company: The late, great Ernie Kovacs

said it best:  "They call television a medium because nothing on it is rare and nothing on it is well done."

No Jack..this is a

No Jack..this is a President who hasn't backed down no matter what...you should be on your knees thanking the President for no attacks on this country since 9-11 with all the enemies within like you fighting him all the way.

Deal with it you wrinkled up arse kissing old man for CNN.

I remember once long ago when I enjoyed watching Jack...on CNBC....he should of stayed there...along with Lou Dobbs...(although the only thing I agree with Lou on is Illegal immigration.)

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

Liberals

And you can bet libs will blame President Bush if our nation is attacked under an Obama administration. I pray it doesn't occur. Michael Savage is correct when he states "liberalism is a mental illness".  Need proof?  Just read about today's SCOTUS decision regarding terrorist enemy combatants. 

Ofer

@capitolguy:  Don't worry about the Bush Administration going 0 for 3 in Supreme Court decisions on their attempts to re-write laws that have worked just fine for the past couple of hundred years...they are bound to win on appeal.

past couple of hundred years?

Aren't you forgetting that little tussle we had during the Civil War? You're probably not a fan of Abe Lincoln's either?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Old Abe

Actually, I'm quite a fan of Mr. Lincoln.  But he wasn't perfect.  He as the President - not a saint.  He made some mistakes - it took him a long time to come around to the point of view that freeing the slaves was a necessity.  And his views on hc weren't ideal, either...

So good...

you like Abe, that must mean you like Dubya. They are similar in many ways. per jfw:

1. Presidents, not saints.

2. made some mistakes.

3. took bush a while to be convinced invading Iraq was necessary.

4. and their views on hc weren't ideal.

conclusion: j. frank wilson thinks Abe Lincoln should have been impeached! Leme guess, your great great grandaddy was a plantation owner?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I love reading the logic

I love reading the logic that leads up to your fantastic conclusions!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

@BigMouth:

Yes, you can certainly compare President Bush with Abraham Lincoln - George H.W. Bush is no Abe Lincoln.  Sadly, 43rd can't come close to being the President 41st was.

I don't typically do this...

...but wilson, you are an uneducated idiot.

@OTR:

That's Mr. Wilson to you...

Mr. Moonbat to the rest of us.

Mr. Moonbat to the rest of us.

 

"I'm forty years old and living in my Mom's garage." --From J. Frank Moonbat's "About Me" page.

(and he probably isn't kidding)

When in the last couple of

When in the last couple of hundred years have foreign combatants siezed on or about the field of battle in wartime been afforded access to US Federal courts in matters regarding their detention as combatants?  The ignoramuses in the Media lap this pablum up and regurgitate it for the ignorant masses but that does not make a word of it true.

Link or slink.

capitolguy... I know...I

capitolguy...

I know...I have been furious since early this morning with this total un-american, terrorist loving decision....I posted on OT, I haven't been able to post here as usual because of my outrageous anger of what this all means ...

Here is Scalia's outrage....

I can barley post about this now without getting in trouble...this should be the number one news story tonight on the msm...it is more or less just an afterthought from what I have seen so far...a lot of the comments express exactly what I feel...I just wonder how many people are paying any attention to this from five of the treasonous black robed judges....

Deplorable...despicable...disgraceful.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

bt, I just read Scalia's

bt, I just read Scalia's dissent. He basically accused those in the majority of deliberately misapplying the precedents to come up with the support they wanted. Although it's not provided in the same place, the article says that Roberts' dissent does the same thing.

This is beyond outrageous. Scalia is right when he says we will live to regret this. But those majority judges won't care; better the country reduced to rubble than one terrorist be denied a civil trial.

Can you imagine how they will paralyze our courts with this now?

Thank you mb for reading

Thank you mb for reading it...Roberts of course isn't happy...

I had to wait all day to even post I am so outraged at the decision of the so-called Supreme know all be all Court...I head this early this morning here...I am still outraged, my blood is still boiling and wonder just how much this means to all of our military adn our freedom during a time of war...

I posted some on OT...

I am sorry...I am have no words of how disgustingly mad I am still.

btw...the comments there below made me feel not so alone and a lot better for a moment or two...if you know what I mean. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

Couldn't we just call them

Couldn't we just call them POW's?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Read Em & Weep

Instead of doing what you question when others do it (comment without facts or other useful information) why not just read the Articles and base your post on what they say?

The Washington Spectator and other publications have put together very cogent cases for Impeachment.  You may not agree, but you could discuss the actual Articles; or you could continue to rant and rave...

Oh frankie...long time no

Oh frankie...long time no see...let me count the ways I have missed you...

....0

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

WOW bt... You sure are in

WOW bt...

You sure are in a generous mood tonight.

;-)

"Abstain from McCain"

O-fer

Zero?  Zip?  Bagel?  Schneider?  Goose egg?  Zilch?  Nada?

 You mean, the same score the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the Bush Administration's attempts to make up the law as they go along?

0?

 

frankie... Listen you

frankie...

Listen you little piss ant twerp...you should be on your knees thanking God for President Bush and our fine military when it comes to fighting the enemy...or you wouldn't be here to show what an arse you are...

Gawd, you enemies within are going to be the death of all of us...sooner or later.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

Oh yeah, I forgot how

Oh yeah, I forgot how fantastic Bush has done. I especially liked the way he listened to those General's in 2001 that said we would need 100'000's of thousands MORE troops. I liked the way Bush ignored them the most :0) That is ONE TOUGH COWBOY! HEE HAW!

The icing on the cake was that "bring it on" tirade that made the enemies even more hostile. Oh wait, the BEST was that "major combat operations have ended..."

Well if you excuse me, I have to go fill up my tank with some $4.65/gallon unleaded; this war has been SO good for us.

No, it's congress.....

mrs,

The war has nothing to do with the cost of oil/gas.  But you would not understand that the increased demand from the developing countries is raising the price of oil now that demand is outstripping supply.  We have billions of barrels of oil and cubic yards of natural gas in and around the United States but people like you would rather let the Chinese and the Cubans drill off the Florida coast and deny the same opportunities to the American people.  No nukes, no drilling, no exploration = no increase in the fuel supply.  Hug a caribou and then hug a tree.  It makes you feel better doesn't it?

@expat:

FYI:  The Chinese/Cuban story has already been debunked.  Vice President Cheney's office has issued a statement that he was wrong.  That's what he gets for reading George (Ill) Will.

As to offshore drilling, if that were such a great idea why are 68,000,000 acres waiting to be explored with no takers?  I thought the oil companies wanted to look for more oil.

If you don't think the policies of the current administration have had a negative effect on the price of oil, compare where world is with the relationship between the United States and those countries.  Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq/Iran, even Mexico...gee, is there a pattern here?

And what has this Administration accomplished to reduce consumption and achieve energy independence?  Nada.

They can't

The reason those 68,000,000 acres are waiting to be explored is because they are not allowed to drill if they find anything.  Also, you have to drill to explore and drilling is not allowed.

Fortunately the enlightened Governors of S. Dakota and Montana are striking out and allowing exploration to occur in their states along with building new refineries.  Think maybe that if they refine more oil that the supply increases?  Maybe if the supply increases enough the price starts to fall?  Not saying that this is the panacea for our problems as we need to get the nukes running and looking for other alternatives.  Wind is not the answer nor is solar.  Kid yourself about that all that you want.

Ethanol?  Great idea there!  Use up your food supply to produce energy that is less efficient by 70% than what you are trying to replace or add to.  No, this administration has not done well in many arenas but the bottom line is that the price of gas is rising on the Dhimmicrat watch and they have no, zero, zilch, nada solutions to the problem other than to raise our taxes and to tell us to suck it up.  Good plan there!  Barry's plan?  No one knows because he talks in platitudes and has no concrete plan to put forward.

@expat:

Nope.  The 68,000,000 acres are leased and available.  Just as oil companies are "banking" some 10,000 permits to drill.

It is a right wingnut myth that the Federal government is not actively encouraging the development of oil resources within the United States.

If you want facts - and you're probably not going to see these numbers on Faux Noise - check this out:

http://courtney.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Natural%20Resources%20energy%20report.pdf

Perhaps you should change your handle to "x-facts."  Since you don't seem to have any...

J Frank acutally believes that we are allowed to drill

but just can't find any oil anywhere. He's way to wacked out and brainwashed to try to reason with. There is nothing getting through to this one.

@D.Bunk:

You must be a cousin of "X-facts" - as you have no facts, either.

Keep coughing up the cliches in lieu of information.  Such dazzing logic is simply impossible to overcome...

In the meantime, let the adults have a conversation based on numbers - such as almost 10,000 unused drilling permits, 60,000,000+ acres unused, the vast majority of Federal lands wide open to development - how much land in Alaska available and unexplored?

j. frank - a child could understand that unused permits

have been deemed unprofitable for the oil companies. They want to drill where they can make a profit. Corporations are in business to make money. They owe it to their stockholders not to pursue unprofitable endeavors.

They also need refineries. It's a little more complicated than your childish mind makes it out to be. They don't lobby to get drilling bans lifted just for the fun of it.

@deebunk:

You are , indeed, "de Bunk."  Worthless and without facts.  So you're saying the oil companies are so stupid they purchase permits and don't bother to explore and see what's there?  Read the report I cited - there are huge areas open and available - with far more potential than that little scrap of ANWAR.

The problem is you have no facts - so you spew meanspirited attacks in lieu of having something to say.  No surprise there...

j frank - you have no logic

anyone can spew out one-sided facts to support conspiracy claims. That is what all conspiracy nuts like the 9/11 truthers do. Your claim has no logic. Why would Oil companies be lobbying for lifting drilling bans if they had all the ones they needed? It makes no sense. Period. They don't do things for the fun of it, they do things to make money.

J. Frank's "facts" or any other liberals "facts" used to skew things is meaningless. They are in the business to make money. If there is money to be made then they will do it. There is no incentive for them not to. If they like to get the permits just for the heck of it and won't drill then you should have no problems with them getting permits anywhere.

The facts

may be found below. Please see "Allowed to drill?" - or, better yet, read the entire report.

Plenty of facts for all - liberal or conservative.

Dee: 3 ~~ Moonbat: nil

Dee Bunk: 3

j. frank moonbat: 0

 

"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker

I'm racking them up now - Thanks Free

It sure would be nice to have a worthy opponent though. J. Frank completely ignored what I said because he has no answer for it.

Allowed to drill?

From the cited report:

In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land; yet, in that same time, 18,954 wells were actually drilled. That means that companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production.

Further, despite the federal government's willingness to make public lands and waters available to energy developers, of the 47.5 million acres of on-shore federal lands that are currently being leased by oil and gas companies, only about 13 million acres are actually in production, or producing oil and gas (Figure 2). Similar trends are evident offshore as well (Figure 3), where only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are currently producing oil or gas.

Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land and waters that they are not producing oil and gas (Figure 4).

Oil and gas companies would not buy leases to this land without believing oil and gas can be produced there, yet these same companies are not producing oil or gas from these areas already under their control.

If we extrapolate from today's production rates on federal land and waters, we can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75%. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than a third, and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).1

Vast Majority of Federal Oil and Gas Resources Already Available for Development

Proponents of opening additional lands to oil and gas leasing assert that vast quantities of oil and gas are closed to energy development. In fact, according to the Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.

[figures and footnotes may be found in the original report]

It's like an icecream headache...

"The icing on the cake was that "bring it on" tirade that made the enemies even more hostile."

You seriously contend this one statement has made individuals who want to attack U.S. persons more hostile? That's just too out there to even comment on.

"Oh wait, the BEST was that "major combat operations have ended..."

Let's see, yep, guess you were out that day.

"Well if you excuse me, I have to go fill up my tank with some $4.65/gallon unleaded; this war has been SO good for us."

Guess you were out the past 27 years during all the blocking of efforts that put us here.  I find it so amusing that anything and everything is GW's fault, and I find it even more amusing that people push that thought.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

"bring it on" certainly

"bring it on" certainly made our liberals more hostile:)

I always find it amusing how Democrat bitching sounds exactly like terrorist bitching - exact same rehetoric - exact same disdain for Bush - and fundamentally for the exact same idiological reasons...

and I thought libs were supposed to be so educated, understanding different world cultures... 

the ME culture is not our culture

"bring it on" is the exact message that Western civilization needs to send to these pyshco-cavemen terrorists...

did it make these inbred ME hillbilly terrorists more hostile?

who the f*ck cares?

it certainly didn't make them any more psychotic, or less eager to seek our distruction...

but it damn well sent the perfect message...  

terrorists understand the hammer very well - its just too bad we don't smack em more often but our libbie friends drag us down on that - having such a soft heart for criminals - kindred spirits and all...

@bigtimer:

Do you include along with me the honest and honorable members of the United States military who refused to participate in a process they saw as deeply flawed?  Some risked their careers by opting out - some resigned their commissions.  I'm sure you saw that lengthly article in the Wall Street Journal about a year ago about the gentleman who simply couldn't in good conscience continue to part of a system that was so wrong.  Or the more recent Newsweek piece.

They are heroes in my book.

Quick....

Can you name a time in our history where someone didn't see a process as deeply flawed? History didn't begin eight years ago.....

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

JFW


Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the
other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons
of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of
chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and
organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent
the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on
providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens
there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a
rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us
or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress,
and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary
actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee,
I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological
weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein
has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made
a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United
Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that
time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports
indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam
Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the
region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is
building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue
for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in
October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since
embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological
warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking
nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for
decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."

John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the
United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm
Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam
Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will
likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course
of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded
that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability,
and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary
to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however,
that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be
compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number
of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of
weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive
regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with
weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by several Democrats.

Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by John Kerry.-source

So, should all of the above be brought up on charges or impeached as well?

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Thank you

For a great presentation of the "Enron Defense."  All those folks who bought Enron stock based on false and otherwise corrupted information claimed those who purchased the stock should have known better.  Same for all the "pre-war" discussions -

frankie... Talk to

frankie...

Talk to Clinton about all of that...he was bestest buddies with him...or don't you conviently remember?

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

@bigtimer:

You've got your US Presidents confused.  Enron executives were huge doners to George Bush's campaign.  "Kenny Boy" was not only a Pioneer but a major player in Mr. Bush's effort.  The ties between Enron and the Bush Administration have been well documented - they are long and deep.

J frank is ignoring you point BT - that's all he can do

Just because Bush had a relationship doesn't mean Clinton didn't. Enron was allowed to run loose during the Clinton years and was prosecuted during the Bush years.

Really the point is that neither of them really had anything to do with Enron's crimes but J Frank loves his far reaching conspiracies. We could easily make the same conspiracy with Clinton, only it would have a little more teeth since Enron wasn't convicted on his watch.

Time reports "Enron showed

Time reports "Enron showed its gratitude. At Christmas 1995, documents show, it donated an unknown sum of cash in O'Leary's name to a charity called "I Have a Dream." And when Clinton ran for re-election a year later, the company made its largest single contribution ever - $100,000 -to the Democrats.

According to columnist Robert Novak, "a bipartisan Senate Finance Committee investigation has found that Enron Corp., no paragon of free-market deregulation, gorged itself on corporate welfare. The Clinton administration gave more than $650 million in Export-Import Bank loans to Enron-related companies."

NewsMax.com/Jan. 17, 2002 "Enron Corp., cited by Democrats as a big giver to President Bush and the GOP, gave a cool $420,000 to Democrats when the corporation was desperate to get the Clinton administration's help in having the potentially disastrous Kyoto treaty made the law of the land."

From 1990 to 1994 Enron gave 42% of their donations to the Democrats according to The Center for Responsive Politics 3. -Lloyd Bensten, Clinton's first treasury secretary, was a recipient of Enron's money. At the time of his campaign for Senate, he received the second largest donation from Enron the Center for Responsive Politics reported

Clinton officials publicly helped Enron win a contract in India as well as in Indonesia. Enron had received U.S. government funds to build power plants in China, the Philippines and Turkey. Enron also won contracts in Pakistan and Russia while accompanying senior U.S. government officials on state trips. In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval to Enron's project, Lay's company gave $100,000 to the DNC, according to Time.

And so on... same old frank. same old shite.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

So let's get back on topic...

...the Supreme court caused the Enron debacle. I'm amazed you have the intelligence to turn on, type and then respond with your computer to these blogs.

You are unbelievable...no scratch that...you are a typical product of the dumbed down and failed liberal government run school system.

@ontheright:

It works better if you actually read the posts before you respond to them.

The "Enron Defense" means first you cook the books, spew out false and misleading information, and then later quote the poor saps who trusted you and believed when you get caught with your pants sitting on your shoe tops.

Uh-huh....

So Clinton was cooking the intelligence back in '98 and '99? That seems to be your argument. How else to explain why Albright, Pelosi, Berger, Kerry, Daschle, even Clinton were quoted from that time frame?

Or do you maintain that GWB was tweaking the intel even then?

@ Indiana Joe:

Iraq closed their program for the development of nuclear weapons (after the US had given them designs for the same - another neat CIA ploy).  Have you read James Risen's "State of War?"  At great personal risk we got 30 some Iraqi civilians to return to Iraq and visit with family members who had been involved in the weapons development program.  They all (100%) reported the program was closed.  The US simply refused to believe the intelligence we had gone to such great lengths to collect.

Read the book - it is as fascinating as it is chilling...

So silly J frank

Then why did the Clinton's who would have been privy to all of this, still support the war?

You read one sided after one sided book and article and make up your mind. Why bother? Just automatically hate all Republicans and do something better with your time. Learn another Language or something. You can still hate Republicans and Bush and at least gain some new knowledge.

J. Frank

How about some post-war discussion?

Try and make the Cyclosarin, Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, VX gas, and (tons of) Uranium go away. Come on . . . try. BTW, the UN has even admited that the "old" WMD found was not degraded.

J. Frank

I'll assume that means you can't make the WMD go away.

 

"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker

@freestinker:

You are an ass-toot student of the Bush Administration - you strive to fix the intelligence after the fact.  Clearly it was no secret that Iraq had chemical weapons.

We went over there under the guise of seeking genuine WMD - and there weren't any.  Remember "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?" and all the other speeches about how Saddam Insane was going to get "The Bomb" and the world would end?

Now in a pitiful attempt to justify a horribly misguided military effort you bring up this pathetic find of old stuff we already knew about?

Weak... 

 

J frank you are the "ass-toot" student

of the terrorists arguments. Bush always claimed that we couldn't be sure what he had especially in terms of nuclear. The only thing he was clear about was their nuclear ambitions and that WMD had been documented that they had not shown any proof of their destruction. His whole point was based on what EVERY Allied COUNTRY (as well as some enemies) knew they had. NO allied COUNTRY (or Russia, China and many other non allies) were satisfied that they got rid of them. It was completely logical to assume that they could have had more then they did before it was last documented.

Dee-

Doncha just love "genuine WMD"?

Sheesh....as if nerve gas isn't as lethal to a human being as a nuke.

j frank is just trolling.  Totally typical, and a total bore, too. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Yeah Blonde

These liberals have no logic. Only conspiracy theories and distorted selected facts that are the terrorists talking points. It's really strange how easily manipulated they are against their own country just because their party wasn't in control (even though the leaders of their party agreed and voted for the same thing).

True, Dee

An original thought and a cold glass of water would kill the libs.

Totally pathetic. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Yes Blonde - you should look at my recent comment to CP

It's unbelievable the illogical nonsense these libs fall for. It's so sad really, they can hate their country more than the enemies of it just because a different political party then their own is in charge.

the Supreme Court's

the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the Bush Administration's attempts to make up the law as they go along?

The Court struck down Congress's DTA and MCA.

Not the Bush Administration's "laws" (whatever that means).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you serious?

If you are, then you are thoroughly confused.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - you don't have a point, let along a position upon which to stand, so you're left grasping and gasping at thin air.

BT,Yes, I have misssed his

BT,

Yes, I have misssed his pompous blowhard-ish sounding counsel here, also. Perhaps he can offer his sage advice to Jack Cafferty, who really should know that policy disgreements and personal hatred aren't really grounds for impeachment.

Has Bush committed treason?

Has Bush committed treason? No. Has Bush bribed anyone? No. Has Bush commited a high crime (felony) or misdemeanor? No. 

IOW, there is no cogent case for impeachment.

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must