Will the MSM ever give up their quest to get Bush and Cheney impeached? Seemingly, no. And this time they have trotted out one of the biggest most, irrelevant losers in American electoral history like a performing monkey ready to sing impeachment to the MSM's organ grinding tune. The Washington Post rolls out George McGovern to beat the impeachment drum making fools of themselves doing it. McGovern gives us all the boring, ridiculous tropes of American defeatism that the left has mired themselves in since their loss in 2000, but he adds a new one to the list when he says that Bush is "worse than Nixon."
Not content just to let the WaPost give McGovern his platform, CBS uses McGovern's blather as a launching pad for their own advancement of the impeachment idea.
The former Democratic nominee for president who ran against a president later driven from office under threat of impeachment, today said that impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is "the rightful course for an American patriot."
McGovern using the word "patriot" is nothing short of obscene.
CBS goes on to quote more from McGovern's Washington Post editorial that he thinks "Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses," and that...
"They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' to use the constitutional standard."
Oh, brother. Can anyone take this stuff seriously? Apparently, though, CBS thought it was worthy to report on and that is even sadder than this aging relic of the failed counter culture days imagining that he is still relevant.
And McGovern claiming to use "Constitutional" standards reminds us how amusing it is that the far left wants to invoke the Constitution when it’s convenient for their own ends, but to ignore it the rest of the time.
Then, to prove he is completely uninformed about current events, CBS quotes McGovern's ridiculous editorial to show that he is completely unaware of what is even going on in Iraq.
"Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife."
Let me introduce you to a word, Mr. McGovern. It's called "Surge." And it's a little idea that general David Petraeus came up with to reverse the deteriorating situation in Iraq. And it's an idea that has pretty much proven a success.
Then McGovern really proves that he is not only uninformed, but merely interested in partisan talking points.
McGovern said any impeachment proceedings should also look at the "collapse of presidential leadership" in the face of Hurricane Katrina, "perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history."
Huh? Katrina was just a storm. The nation has had other, far worse disasters. But leave it to the convenient lack of memory by the left and the desire of the far left media to promulgate a lie. In fact, the actual "worst natural disaster in U.S. history" was the Galveston Hurricane, Sept. 8, 1900 in which at least 8,000 people died. And, no, there is no "perhaps" about it as the Galveston Hurricane killed many thousands more than Katrina did.
Seriously, has McGovern ever heard of the concept being a mindless demagogue? If he hasn't he sure discovered a knack for it it by accident.
Anyway, after finishing up with their pointless rehashing of McGovern's nonsense CBS goes on about various other irrelevant politicians, like Dennis Kucinich, who are pandering to the extreme left with the impeachment idea, knowing full well that it won't occur. Heck, even McGovern himself is at least not so senile as to imagine that impeachment will occur, saying that "Impeachment is unlikely, of course."
When you get right down to it, this whole report is a waste of time, but the Washington Post and CBS wasted all our time anyway. After all, asking George McGovern about politics and government is like consulting the guy who invented the flat earth theory after the first moon landing occurred!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Legend
January 6, 2008 - 21:54 ET by allanfMcGovern's accomplishment is unprecedented. He lost every state but MA.
$50000.00
January 7, 2008 - 01:10 ET by Jerry MackDid the residents of MA. get their $50000.00? Or was it $5000.00?
All I can say is....
January 7, 2008 - 08:31 ET by OldSailor88At least George Bush has the opportunity to be impeached.
Faciem durum cacantis habes
You're right
January 7, 2008 - 10:59 ET by FOXFANGood one OldSailor88, this loser did not even come close to being elected.
Not Dead Yet?
January 6, 2008 - 22:04 ET by dpc1212I thought this guy was dead!
Only time I have seen him
January 6, 2008 - 23:27 ET by Right2thePointOnly time I have seen him lately was when he endorsed Hillary
MSM is desperate. Can't wait
January 6, 2008 - 22:05 ET by rbosqueMSM is desperate. Can't wait to see them on the unemployment line.
Have you no shame, sir?
January 6, 2008 - 22:25 ET by SATerpYou'd think he'd be too embarrassed by his electoral repudiation to ever, EVER comment on ANYTHING political.
His mental defect is obvious
January 6, 2008 - 22:36 ET by Warner Todd HustonHis mental defect is obvious and it's one most leftists suffer from. Everything is always someone else's fault. THEY are innocent of failures.
And it's been noted that
January 6, 2008 - 22:35 ET by SMGalbraithAnd it's been noted that his statement that he didn't call for the impeachment of Nixon is false.
Links
Another fine example of those layers of fact-checking that Helen Thomas proudly says distinguishes "real journalists" from bloggers.
Policy as crime
January 6, 2008 - 22:36 ET by KC MulvilleThe left constantly paints every policy difference as a crime. They obviously believe that everyone who disagrees with them must be insane or criminal. They cannot conceive of an honest difference of opinion.
What's surprising is that McGovern freely admits that his own proposal has no chance. It is, therefore, a pointless gesture intended for show. He only makes the gesture when it no longer matters, thereby relieving him of any real responsibility.
KC...
January 7, 2008 - 10:29 ET by JerThe left constantly paints every policy difference as a crime. They obviously believe that everyone who disagrees with them must be insane or criminal. They cannot conceive of an honest difference of opinion.
It's truly amazing how often I encounter identical sentiments on liberal/progressive sites directed at the "right".
I wonder which side is correct.
Jer
Look at the evidence
January 7, 2008 - 10:44 ET by KC MulvilleNo need to wonder, Jer. Look at yourself. You've made it clear that you disagree with Bush on any number of issues, but (as I recall), you haven't descended to labeling everything Bush does as an act of conspiracy. You've made it clear that you have strong disagreements, but you don't automatically turn them into crimes. Even those who say that the waterboarding authorization was illegal make a distinction between an interpretation of law and an outright crime.
Now, contrast your own approach with the serial accusations from McGovern. In his words, the possibility that other countries might look less favorably on us is a "high crime and misdemeanor." That's a clear case of criminalizing policy differences. McGovern is literally accusing Bush of a crime because other countries disagree with us (even if Britain, Australia, and others agreed).
Did you turn your disagreements against Bush into accusations of a crime? No. McGovern did. Helen Thomas did. The liberal candidates do it all the time. Let that be the answer to your wondering.
I guess my objection, KC,
January 7, 2008 - 11:32 ET by JerI guess my objection, KC, concerns the broad rhetorical sweeps which are employed--by both sides--to brand or indict their ideological adversaries with some particular infamy.
Who or what is the "Left" which is guilty of the offenses you describe? Anyone this side of Reagan...or Limbaugh? Am I included? In view of your second post, I, thankfully, believe I am not. But there is a lot of indiscriminate generalization that occurs across the spectrum.
Jer
When opposition is disloyal
January 7, 2008 - 12:38 ET by KC MulvilleThe other day, after General Petraeus received a Man-of-the-Year award, I went back and read his counter-insurgency manual. I’d read it before the surge, but now that Petraeus’ theories seem to be bearing fruit, I went back to read it again. Why was this strategy bearing fruit? What was his secret? Smarter people than me can answer that, but I was struck by one recurring theme in Petraeus’ report: legitimacy. Insurgents seek to undermine the legitimacy of the existing government. The way to defeat that strategy is for the existing government to actually behave legitimately.
Every political theory addresses the legitimacy of its form of government. But let’s put that concept into plain English. On any given issue, a nation has multiple opinions. When a nation is required to take action, it’s inevitable that one opinion or faction will win, and the others will lose. When we talk about “legitimacy,” in practical terms, we’re talking about the willingness of the losing opinions to accept the decision and support it, even if it wasn’t what they themselves wanted to do. A nation can’t hold together if the losers refuse to support the majority decision.
You know what keeps the whole thing together? Process. It’s boring, mechanical, and dull, but the fact that we go through a prescribed process is extremely important. Why? Because the process proves that the majority respects the minority. It proves the winners won “fair and square.” The process ensures that the minority has a fair shot. And if the majority won, and they followed the process fairly, then the minority has no excuse to feel betrayed.
Whether you agree with the decisions or not, Bush’s decisions followed and respected the process. In the biggest example, he went to Congress before the Iraq war, and Congress gave him authority. Yet now, they’re calling for impeachment, and claiming that the war policy is a crime. They’re claiming that the existing government isn’t legitimate, which is why they call for impeachment instead of waiting for the electoral process to make a change.
Even though Bush has followed the process in every decision, these people are trying to undermine his legitimacy. What are we supposed to call that?
PS: There are plenty of people who think Bush is a moron and disagree with everything he decides, but who don't call for his impeachment. This isn't intended for them. This is for those who call for impeachment. In fact, it's also for anyone who sports a bumpersticker (Republican about Clinton, Democrat about Bush) that says "he's not my president." That's the attitude I think is disloyal.
KC...I agree with much if
January 7, 2008 - 15:23 ET by JerKC...I agree with much if not most of what you say. The very suggestion of impeachment is an absurdity. [However, I also thought the impeachment proceeding against Clinton was unwarranted, and that a Congressional censure would have been far more appropriate.]
I realize I've previously stated at least some of what follows, but it bears repeating:
--I fully supported Bush's actions--particularly the military intervention in Afghanistan--in the aftermath of 9/11 [although I was disturbed and incensed by the talk radio bluster which immediately, relentlessly, and vehemently (and wrongly) placed the entire blame for the attacks on Clinton]
--However, I had serious reservations about Iraq. No one could deny the monstrous thuggery of Saddam. But the precipitous use of military force to topple his government seemed to be fraught with risks that needed to be carefully deliberated--unless there was an urgent and immediate danger to our security [viz. an America-hating tyrant with nuclear weapons], or the establishment of an Al Quaeda-Hussein nexus.
--My paramount concern was and remains our national security--and what courses of action will provide the best chance that my son and his generation and the generations to follow will exist in a nation relatively free from the threat of future 9/11s or other manifestations of Islamic terrorism. It seemed to me that an invasion of Iraq would not only divert resources that would be otherwise available in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but, even more ominously, would serve as a continuing recuiting windfall for Al Quaeda, producing several potential terrorists for every one extinguished in Iraq.
--It was an issue of such monumental significance that it deserved to be debated fully, and as free as possible of politics recriminations. But, someone in this administration just could not pass up the obvious and exploitable electoral advantages, and, accordingly, pleas from Democrats to delay a war authorization vote until after November of 2002 were rejected. [Thus, Republican X could go on the campaign trail and tell a fearful electorate, haunted by still fresh images of collapsing World Trade towers, that "no voting" Democrat Y had essentially voted "yes" to Saddam and terrorists with nukes]
--I don't disagree with your views on "process" and the legitimacy thus attached to subsequent decisions and actions--and which deserve public support out of respect for that process. But, I don't think an observance of "process" demands permanent or unqualified support for those decisions. Indeed, the very strength of our democracy is the right of dissent...to voice concern when it is perceived the government is engaging in a failed policy. And one should be able to express dissenting views without being called unpatriotic.
--Can you name one foreign policy (military) initiative taken by Clinton which wasn't met with derision by Limbaugh Republicans? Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, bombing of Iraq, launching missiles at bin Laden? He was castigated each and every time by many on the "right". The only difference...I don't recall Democrats attacking their patriotism for doing so.
Anyway, as I said in a previous post, I am very pleased with the fact that the surge seems to be working, and I pray for its continued success, a stable Iraq, and that we are a safer nation because of it.
Jer
McGovern not relavant since WWII
January 6, 2008 - 22:44 ET by richb313McGovern was a B-24 bomber pilot during WWII, not a small accomplishment. I am afraid he has not been relavant since then. He has been wrong so many times it is better to use him as a kind of weathervane. Which ever way McGovern is pointing, head in the opposite direction.
B-24
January 6, 2008 - 23:41 ET by Del DolemonteIn fact, the B-24 was a horrible airplane, as it had several design defects that made it extremely dangerous to fly. He could have easily been killed even on a training mission in that sucker.
Of course, Dubyah Bush was certified to fly the F-102, which killed more pilots than just about any other plane in the 1960s-70s US military aircraft arsenal. But since he stole the 2000 election, his experience doesn't matter.
Hard to Fly
January 7, 2008 - 00:23 ET by richb313Yes the B-24 was a very difficult airplane to fly. Pilots would be worn out at the end of the mission from fighting the controls. On the upside the B-24 had a much greater payload and longer range than B-17. However the B-17 was the darling of the press and not the B-24. The B-17 had one very outstanding feature that the B-24 never could achieve. It could take more damage and somehow still remain in the air and get her crew home. That is a real plus, especially if you happen to be one of the guys who have to crew them.
I feel sorry for
January 6, 2008 - 23:01 ET by BlazerI feel sorry for McGovern. The After Downing Street crowd, Cindy Sheehan, David Lindorkkk, and Rep. Robert Wexler (D) Florida, decided to hi-jack great-grampa from the rest home and take him for one last joyride in the moonbat-mobile.
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Heh!
January 7, 2008 - 01:30 ET by drillanwr<Doing that sinister deep chuckling thing under my breath>
Another ancient Democrat rants on
January 7, 2008 - 00:14 ET by GalvanicMcGovern or Carter: It's hard to determine which one is more insufferable at this point. McGovern is still bitter for having lost to Nixon in one of the greatest landslides in Presidential election history. Carter's Presidency was the worst of the last century. Both would love to reform their legacies, but can't.
Perhaps the solution is to feature them on a reality TV show where they are set adrift together on a raft in the ocean with a bucket of drinking water and a package of Depends. Let 'em whine to each other and grapple over the Depends. The winner? Everyone who decides not to tune in to watch.
Second worst politician in history
January 7, 2008 - 00:42 ET by ScrapironOld, Retired and glad of it.
right behind Dimmy Carter, but not much behind, but at least he left no doubt and proved himself the loser he is. Funny that history's worst in all catagories are democrats.
I actually met George McGovern
January 7, 2008 - 00:48 ET by Lame CherryI actually met B 24 McGovern when I was 17 at my high school. While the rest of the awe struck minds full of mush were dazzled I instead assessed him.
What struck me most about this leader of liberalism, pretender to be president and pretender to actually have done anything good in the Senate.........was his suit was baggy and an odd pattern like Gramma would have on her wallpaper from 1930.
One would think in the presence of someone like this, you would feel greatness but I honestly just laughed at him and was puzzled by the masses.
George McGovern is not the rather reluctant B 24 pilot of long ago. There was nothing heroic about him in the war. He flew his missions and the last one his plane got plastered and limped home.
Perhaps it is having had to deal with him, his policy and then too many years of Dickhead Daschle that I will not even cut George any slack in being a veteran in how is so dense he screwed up so many people's lives.
I though can tell bloggers that I have experienced greatness and knew it as such. It was in President Bush when I never met him. I happen to pay attention to air flight patterns where I live and one day 2 years ago I was jet watching and I spotted plane flying not in typical route. Having been blessed with good eyes, I immediately had the Holy Spirit whisper to me that is was Air Force 1 due to it being a heavy and that beautiful blue only AF 1 has. Even at several miles up, that impressed me and struck me as greatness. To know that was my President flying above me was thrilling.
I doubt President Bush would ever think he impressed someone at several miles moving at 500 mph, but even at that distance he was more impressive than George McGovern in the flesh.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
What is it about ...
January 7, 2008 - 01:27 ET by drillanwr... STFU does this man NOT understand?
He's the male version of Helen Thomas.
McGovern and Iowa Dems a match
January 7, 2008 - 03:46 ET by Parker1227Famous antiwar Leftists: 1. McGovern 2. Lamont 3. Obama
The Congress has been in the
January 7, 2008 - 06:38 ET by jdhawkThe Congress has been in the dimocrats' hands since January 2007. So, if there is blame in the various and sundry "claims" of McLoser, the defeatocrats in Congress have to have at least some it. Yet, suprise suprise, McLoser doesn't give them a wiff of "credit."
For example, the defeatocrats whine on and on about torture of our enemies to save American lives. Yet, they have yet to pass legislation that defines what is or is not permissible.
McLoser's many claims remain bogus like the rest of the lame leftists that have made similiar charges against President Bush.
By the way, I too thought McLoser was dead! Drat!
McGovern for God's sake.
January 7, 2008 - 07:02 ET by ConservativeRexMcGovern for God's sake. Well that pretty much cinches it. When they've taken to quoting anything this fella says you know the left is more desperate than usual.
Good for them, keep dragging these old Marxist out and printing what they say. The Republicans couldn't ask for better publicity.
It makes you think that there is a Republican operative urging the MSM to prop these old leftist up and quote 'em. You couldn't ask for a better "show and tell" for young Conservatives then this. All that we have been saying for years about these Leftist is now right in front of our young people to see and hear. And learn.
Aside from the obvious reason
January 7, 2008 - 08:16 ET by StephCthat they don't have a case, if they did manage to trump up enough evidence to impeach both Cheney and Bush that would put Pelosi in charge of the nation. While she might be able to bully her way through Congress as Speaker of the House I believe even the Democrats know she'd be a disaster as President and they don't want to have to take responsibility for anything they've done since coming into power.
But's its an easy stone to throw, sitting back and using the impeachment card every now and then to throw Bush off balance, isn't it?
Most American's are asking ...
January 7, 2008 - 08:39 ET by CrashWHO?
When you have to send an archeologist through the way-back machine to chisel out a relic from elections past ... who cares what he thinks?
McLovin
January 7, 2008 - 09:51 ET by olesparkieI was going to waste time responding to McLovin's impeachment blather, but I just saw an office email saying there were fresh donuts in the conference room.......
Bunch of Inbred Maggots ...
January 7, 2008 - 09:54 ET by thoridfly... pounding each other in the _ss.
Whoops, i crapped my pants!
January 7, 2008 - 10:52 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhoops, i crapped my pants!
"McGovern Out Of Hibernation! Film at 11:00..."
January 7, 2008 - 11:55 ET by ratkinIn what way does McGovern opening his mouth and being an embarassment constitute news? Clearly the main reason the MSM loves him is that it means they have someone who still makes Jimmy Carter look like he has his wits about him.
Married to Helen?
January 7, 2008 - 13:34 ET by planetrepublicanHey, isn't McGovern married to Helen Thomas? Or are they related? They look alike.
McGovern
January 7, 2008 - 15:04 ET by PAPA LIgnorance knows no bounds. IMHO I think Mr. Cottah and McGovern are really having a stupid contest. Which one do you think should get the horse's ass prize?
A PROUD AMERICAN
Worse than Who?
January 7, 2008 - 18:20 ET by mattmNixon was not a bad president, but he did screw up in trying to cover-up what was really a minor crime. However, unlike Billy the Perjurer/Rapist/Witness-Tamperer/Swindler, Nixon eventually did the right thing by resigning.
Newsflash to Libs: You can't impeach someone because you disagree with them, there has to be a crime...and, too bad for you Clinton-Revenge seekers, there are no crimes in the Bush administration.
So just give it up.