A recent "news" report in the News & Observer from Raleigh, North Carolina is a perfect example of a pointless story with a predictable outcome all meant for the purpose of furthering a political end -- in this case to promulgate the impeachment of President Bush and VP Cheney. Staff writer Cheryl Johnston gives us a report on a "debate" that occurred in Carrboro, NC in which impeachment was the topic. The story attempts to create an air that the issue was fairly and legitimately debated, yet no one at the so-called debate was actually against impeachment. Not only were all present basically for impeachment, but the event was also staged by an impeachment advocacy group and attended solely by impeachment fans. Some, debate. Then the article claims that "Few in the audience appeared persuaded" to turn against trying to impeach Bush and Cheney as if anyone was there to actually hear a real debate and weren't there as impeachment activists already!
Johnston's story begins by informing us that "Michael Tomasky had a tough gig Tuesday night in Carrboro." She is referring to long time Washington "journalist" Michael Tomasky who didn't argue against impeachment as much as that impeachment is merely impractical. He did not argue that impeachment was wrong, just that it isn't going to happen so why bother to worry about it all? So much for the contrary position.
Tomasky is a long time leftie writer who penned the books Left for Dead: The Life, Death, and Possible Resurrection of Progressive Politics in America as well as Hillary's Turn: Inside Her Improbable, Victorious Senate Campaign.
For the pro impeachment position, Tomasky faced Bruce Fein who is an impeachment advocate and lawyer. Fein is also a counsel for the Ron Paul campaign and a writer for Slate Magazine.
This supposed "debate" was put on by the Coalition for the Constitution who's main purpose is seemingly to promote the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
So, the scene was set for an event put on by impeachment advocates, with guests that favor impeachment and attended by fans of impeachment. Yet, our intrepid staff writer of the News & Observer treats it all as if it was a real debate that sadly didn't seem to change anyone's mind.
Well, DUH!
After discussing the speakers at this impeachment rally, Johnston seems shocked that no one changed their minds.
Few in the audience appeared persuaded by Tomasky's stance on the reality of the political situation.
"Not at all," said Marcie Ferris as the debate wrapped up. "I think Americans have been so beaten down by this administration. It's all this fear-mongering."
Well, of course not. They all had their minds set in favor of impeachment before they even went to this "debate." No one went there to hear the issues, they only went to figure out how to better advertise for impeachment as can be seen with this bit from the article...
Audience members asked Fein and Tomasky for ideas on how to get the American public more engaged in the impeachment topic. With many more Americans now tuned into the primaries, neither debater could come up with the golden ticket.
Johnston also quotes one of the event organizers who ridiculously claims that the debate had a "twist."
Hodding Carter III, a UNC-Chapel Hill professor of leadership and public policy, moderated the event. He pointed out that the debate had a twist, with a Republican arguing for impeachment and a Democrat arguing against.
Is this supposed to make it seem as if things were "fair and balanced"? Let's recall that the "Republican" in the debate has been a vocal pro impeachment guy all along and the "Democrat" in the debate was NOT arguing against impeachment, but only saying it was impractical. And, who could be surprised that a University professor was a ring leader for impeachment here?
This News & Observer article does not waste any time fully informing the reader that the whole "debate" was put on to further impeachment and was in no way a serious discussion on the merits of both the pro and con positions. Worse, there wasn't even a single soul in attendance that was truly against impeachment. This article is a perfect example of a media outlet trying to assist this impeachment group to promote their ideas.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
P.R.C.H.
January 16, 2008 - 13:48 ET by mytwocentsHere in NC, we don't call it the "People's Republic of Chapel Hill" for nothing! A more liberal mecca exists nowhere on the planet
We also call it the "News & Disturber" - what a rag!.
Do the name ring a bell?
January 16, 2008 - 13:51 ET by dervishHodding Carter III. Think Carter administration.
Just more liberal mental you-know-what.
There will be no impeachment
January 16, 2008 - 13:53 ET by mattmNya nya nya nan nan nya! Sorry to be childish, but that's what all the impeachment talk has always only ever been about...the Libs can't get over Clinton's impeachment and they want revenge. But they won't get it because there are no crimes. There's no perjury, no subbornation of perjury, no obstruction of justice, etc.
The Impeach Bush crowd has always pushed the lie that Clinton was impeached over sex, and that Bush is guilty of conducting an illegal war and violating privacy, etc. etc. - which they say is far worse. The problem is, you can't impeach someone over policy differences, and Clinton was impeaced for basically trying to fix a court case in his own favor...not because he boinked a 22 year old intern.
Get over it, Libs...Clinton was/is a criminal, Bush is merely someone you disagree with.
No crimes?!
January 16, 2008 - 14:19 ET by DyneWhile I already know that I will most likely be typing these words in vain because of the hypocrisy of the right-wingers here being as narrow-minded as the ultra-liberals they love to bash, I- as a moderate who actually bothers to investigate both sides of an issue before coming to a conclustion- wish to present to you a small list of what Bush has done to warrant impeachment proceedings.
*Lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust, unconstitutional war.
*Allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq.
*Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.
*Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.
*Failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders.
*Selling out our national sovereignty for the purposes of creating a North American Union without any consent from Congress or We, the People.
Need I go on? While I've seen good counter-arguments for a few of these, the final three are ones I have yet to see any NBer refute.
While we're at it, let's impeach Cheney, Pelosi, McCain, Clinton, Ginsberg, Reid, etc.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -Matthew 7:20
Moderates don't impeach, that's for "radicals"
January 16, 2008 - 14:35 ET by Jack BauerI find that it's usually self-described "moderates" who are hypocrites. (See we can all make cheap cracks!)
Here's the thing though.
How could a moderate possibly be "for" the extreme measure of impeachment?
I refer you to the definition of a moderate from my OED.
I cannot think of anything more extreme than impeaching a sitting President.
So the fact that you want to go to the extreme of impeachment shows that you are not actually a "moderate."
Dyne, you are about as
January 16, 2008 - 14:34 ET by MikeBDyne, you are about as "moderate" as the fools at DailyKos and HuggintonPost. Many times have the quotes of Hillary and other Democrats been linked here where they all believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that he was rebuilding his chemical and biological weapons and delivery systems, and was working on nuclear weapons. Hillary claimed she voted to authorize force after she researched the intelligence (which intelligence was gathered on Billy's watch). Inasmuch as Congress, after reviewing and receiving testimony from the various intelligence organs of the federal government authorized the use of military force against Saddam Hussein, this war is neither unauthorized or unconstitutional.
You claim that certain corporations have profitted off the war in Iraq. So tell me, Dyne, were corporations such as KBR, Halliburton, etc., supposed to provide goods and services over there for free? Or, out of the goodness of their hearts? If you look into it, their profits have been rather thin in that area. But, of course, you'd much rather take your data from MoveOn, wouldn't you?
As for the Geneva Conventions, they apply only to uniformed combatants of the belligerant nations. They do not apply to soldiers dressed as civilians (spies), and they certainly do not apply to terrorists.
Dyne, you are so narrow minded that your shaving mirror is only one angstrom wide. Before you start throwing about lefty talking points, for God's sake do some research.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
An Answer
January 16, 2008 - 14:37 ET by Warner Todd HustonOK, here goes...
1. Lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust, unconstitutional war.
- This never happened. There were no knowing 'lies" in Bush's run up to war. Further, he bent over backwards to inform the UN and argue his case. No proof that anything was withheld exists. Additionally, if you want to fall back on the "no WMD" canard, a credible review of the time period before the war reveals that EVERY NATION ON EARTH thought Saddam had WMDs... INCLUDING his own generals!
2. Allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq.
-Nice claim. Now prove it. Your just saying so is not proof.
3. Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.
-Again, no actual violations of the Geneva Convention occurred because the gray areas of the treaty were utilized to support Bush's actions. No legitimate claim of violations have been proven or accepted by any authority. Besides that, the Geneva Convention ITSELF is a violation of US sovereignty and should never have been signed in the first place. But, guess what, Bush had nothing to do with creating it!! So, you act as if the Gen. Con. and it's throwing away of our sovereignty is just fine, but later on you want to get mad at Bush for the mythical NAUnion claim as a "selling out" of our sovereignty? How disingenuous of you.
4. Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.
-What nonsense. Again, this is your mere opinion, not fact. Show me the great numbers of Americans who have lost their Constitutional rights.
5. Failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders.
-Here is the only one you even came close to getting right. Still, it's a matter of policy that is nearly universally approved of by BOTH parties. So, it's a bit disingenuous for you to only blame Bush.
6. Selling out our national sovereignty for the purposes of creating a North American Union without any consent from Congress or We, the People.
- Are the black helicopters coming to take you away to the North American Union detention center?
You, sir, are no "moderate." You are a conspiracy fan who's arguments haven't a shred of credibility.
How's that for an answer?
A bit more on Rendition, Warner
January 16, 2008 - 16:33 ET by Gary Hall3. Rendition. That policy was ordered by President Clinton.
Gore, having his way with Clinton, so Clinton, via PDD #39 ordered the CIA to establish the US program of extroadinary rendition.
Torture: Let's face it, most of the torture, if any was done, was done in the course of snatching terorists and sending them off to Egypt -- and according to Gen. Hayden, as he described in a hour long interview with Charlie Rose, we did about as many of them before 9/11 as after.
Back to #1 - Lied about WMD's etc. All the links and quotes have been posted many times before, but briefly. In late 2002, Al Gore, stated that he was "absolutely, absolutely" convinced that they were there; in July 2003, Bill Clinton, on Larry King live, while defending Pres. Bush on the yellow cake deal - the infamous 16 words in the STOTU - went solidly on record in stating that he, they, thought that they were there. Defense Sec. Cohen was out in 2003, saying that they, the Iraqs's, were still probably just moving WMD's from place to place before we could find them. He said that's what they did when we were trying to find them. Clinton also made a strong plea that we, the American public, should stand behind Pres. Bush and bring democracy to Iraq, that we should all be in this together.
And the MSM went right out and never asked him about it again, and never quoted him on those views. Had the press put Bill Clinton's message out in the public for open discussion, I believe that there would have been a shift in how the war was going - much for the better, with the terroists hearing that back at home, we were unified. It's the loud opposition that gave heart to the terrorists, as their goal was to turn the confidence sour here.
Also John Edwards, gave a powerful statement on Meet the Press, where he solidly defended Bush on the view that everyone was looking at the same material, and Edwards stated that he went back to the Clinton folks and verified the facts before he voted for the Iraq resolution. He's about the only one out there who is dead honest about simply changing his mind - I'll grant him that.
*Authorizing torture and
January 16, 2008 - 14:51 ET by contrary*Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.
Am I to take it you mentioning POWs AND suspected terrorists means they are two separate and different groups. Why the distinction? Also, could you supply a link to the section of the Gen. Conv. and the corresponding US Policy that are at odds with each other?
*Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.
Since I haven't kept up... Can you show me which US Citizen was held with no charge, deprived a trial, and never allowed to face their accuser?
Just curious
Contrary, just to help make your point....
January 16, 2008 - 15:00 ET by fonzie2178Since I haven't kept up... Can you show me which US Citizen was held with no charge, deprived a trial, and never allowed to face their accuser?
Obviously he's referring to Club Gitmo, and last time I checked there were no US citizens being held there. How can President Bush violate the Constitutional rights of people who have none?
Heh, I said heh...
January 16, 2008 - 15:02 ET by Sua Sponte 75"While I already know that I will most likely be typing these words in vain because of the hypocrisy of the right-wingers here being as narrow-minded as the ultra-liberals they love to bash"
Yea, that line will get you a decent debate...How about if this was started with "I don't have the time to clue in clowns who are nothing more than a re-hash of KoS talking points".
*Lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust, unconstitutional war.
-Yawn....
*Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.
-Double yawn...
*Allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq.
-You mean Barb Boxer?
*Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.
-So you're going to provide the proof?
*Failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders.
-Oh how generic....
*Selling out our national sovereignty for the purposes of creating a North American Union without any consent from Congress or We, the People.
-Break out the tin foil hats!
Heh, moderate....moderately nutty..
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
I was going to say
January 17, 2008 - 17:09 ET by Roger the ShrubberI was going to say moderately retarded, but hey, that's just me.
*Lying and inducing
January 16, 2008 - 17:12 ET by BD*Lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust, unconstitutional war.
*Allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq.
*Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.
*Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.
*Failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders.
*Selling out our national sovereignty for the purposes of creating a North American Union without any consent from Congress or We, the People.
the final three are ones I have yet to see any NBer refute.
Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative. Then again I cannot disprove the fact that I personally have never been to the lunar landing site either as I cannot track every three day period over my entire life as well.
None of those items are
January 17, 2008 - 13:49 ET by mattmNone of those items are crimes.
Clinton's impeachment...
January 16, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Syrius...was revenge by Gingrich. Upset at the failure to win public support over the Gov't shut down of '95, Gingrich saw the opportunity to impeach Clinton on a moral issue.
Clinton lied, nobody died.
Bush lied...
...3900+ troops have died. We could throw in the Iraqi dead, but, who cares about them, right?
Syrius
You've made the accusation
January 16, 2008 - 14:45 ET by MikeBYou've made the accusation that Bush lied, now prove it. Link or slink, troll.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Mega-yawn.
January 16, 2008 - 14:46 ET by Jack BauerMega-yawn. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
"Clinton lied, nobody died."
January 16, 2008 - 14:50 ET by vrwc13"Clinton lied, nobody died."
Nice try...but how about 3,000 babies a day for over 40 years because he supports "woman's health (or is it woman's votes) over the "health"/life of a child?
v
Actually, a LOT of people
January 16, 2008 - 15:01 ET by Warner Todd HustonActually, a LOT of people died because of Clinton...
Clinton Lied and people DID die
Let me guess, you have never
January 16, 2008 - 14:49 ET by Roger the ShrubberLet me guess, you have never been accused of using fresh liberal talking-points, right?
oh really?
January 16, 2008 - 15:03 ET by UndercoverConservative"Clinton lied, nobody died"?
Ask the Bosnians before you pipe off with that bullsh*t soundbite. They'll tell you exactly how many died to cover Clinton's @ss at home by going to a UN sponsored, unconstitutional war, in a land with NO WMD's and that WAS NEVER EVEN REMOTELY a threat to America. Didn't even send over terrorists either.
http://www.jeffdunha...
"Dumb@ss!"
Check out...
January 16, 2008 - 15:12 ET by Warner Todd Huston...the link to one I wrote on just exactly that same subject!
Clinton Lied and People DID Die
Really syrius?
January 16, 2008 - 15:06 ET by Sua Sponte 75You might want to visit Arlington and tell that to my friends I lost in Somalia.
Throw in the WTC (1)
Throw in the two embassies also
Do a history check too since you seem to be a bit hazy about it....
"Don't you have somewhere else to be a clown?"
Remember the COLE
January 16, 2008 - 18:19 ET by LionKingDo you remember the USS Cole?
Wow, Syrius. I never
January 16, 2008 - 15:17 ET by tracheostomyWow, Syrius. I never actually thought you'd pull that old nut out. This whole time up until now, I actually took you for a thinking moderate. I must not have been reading all your posts closely enough. My mistake.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
the tired old "Bush lied, they died ...Ohm..." mantra
January 16, 2008 - 15:25 ET by lotrProtest-line catch-phrases that fit on a T-Shirt -- while having mnemonic value and very effective at getting an emotional response (whether positive or negative), they lack any genuine substance or credibility. Just what exactly did Bush say that was a lie? I have yet to understand where this baseless charge of the left-wing mob comes from.
Oh, yeah, I feel so beaten
January 16, 2008 - 13:54 ET by MikeBOh, yeah, I feel so beaten down by this administration. Isn't it obvious how this administration has gutted the first amendment by shutting down those newspapers who oppose their policies? What ever happened to the New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Post, and so on. All victims of the Bush gestapo. And, how about how Bush has shut down the internet and all the left leaning blogs? And how all the networks are now marching in lockstep with the Bush regime? Somebody needs to get a firm grip on reality.
As for impeachment of the President, I would like to know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" he has committed. Unlike his predecessor who committed perjury, suborned perjury, obstructed justice, and abused the power of his office by doing all of the above, Bush has not done anything like that. If Clinton's actions did not rise to the level of impeachment, certainly Bush's have not.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I hope these wackos get
January 16, 2008 - 13:55 ET by DCC1I hope these wackos get their wish, and the Demonocrats start some kind of impeachment hearings. It will show to the 70% of Americans that are not crazy just what these people are, political hacks! More worried about the other party than the enemy, literally.
Crazies to the left, and Whimps to the right
reality check time!
January 16, 2008 - 15:09 ET by UndercoverConservativewill somebody PLEASE tell the Democrats that Bush isn't running for President? they can stop campaigning against him ANY TIME NOW!
Or is it that they are so much of a idealogical, moral, and political vacuum that they still can't be "for" anything, but can only define themselves by being "against" something?
Actually this is great, let
January 16, 2008 - 16:43 ET by DCC1Actually this is great, let them run against Bush, bash Bush, try to impeach Bush I don't care, it just shows their true colors. What will be funny is that they keep this BS up, with their entire platform being hate Bush, GWB will get the last laugh when they lose the general election. So keep it up libs, your doing a great job, bring impeachment on!!!
Republicans couldn't get a better gift than Demonocrats bringing phoney impeachment hearings and let all America see the extent of BDS in the US congress.
Totally agree
January 16, 2008 - 18:15 ET by oregon_jiimBring on the hearings!!!
There aren't many Democrats in the House and Senate that will be left standing after they are called to testify and are up for cross examination.
So who wins if we have impeachment hearings? The American people of course. What is the chance of Bush actually being impeached: slim to none. What is the chance of dozens of Democrat's reputations/careers being severly dammaged after hearings(1 or 2 Republicans too): very high.
IMPEACH BUSH...IMPEACH BUSH...IMPEACH BUSH...IMPEACH BUSH...
"an endorsement of communism is an endorsement of slavery"