Jack Cafferty, a vociferously anti-Bush CNN contributor, on Monday spoke approvingly of an impeachment bill introduced by outgoing Congresswoman, and fellow Bush hater, Cynthia McKinney. He found it "strange" that, unlike McKinney, so many Democrats are unwilling to consider impeachment. What’s strange is that Cafferty would cite McKinney as a rational source of information. This is, after all, a woman who previously wondered if President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened, attacked a Capitol Hill police officer and whose supporters blamed Jews for the Congresswoman’s 2006 primary defeat:
Jack Cafferty: "...Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill to impeach President Bush. It’s strictly symbolic and has no chance of going anywhere. She lost her congressional seat and is on her way back to civilian life. But McKinney isn’t the only person who thinks President Bush may have done things that rise to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors. And yet, the incoming House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said that impeachment of the President is, quote, ‘off the table.’ It’s all kind of strange."
Some might also find it odd to reference Cynthia McKinney legislation and then wonder why nobody is taking it seriously.
A transcript of the complete segment, which aired at 4:11pm on December 11, follows:
Wolf Blitzer: "Let’s go to Jack Cafferty. He’s standing by in New York. Another good week, Jack. Hi."
Jack Cafferty: "How you doing, Wolf? On her way out the door last week, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill to impeach President Bush. It’s strictly symbolic and has no chance of going anywhere. She lost her congressional seat and is on her way back to civilian life. But McKinney isn’t the only person who thinks President Bush may have done things that rise to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors. And yet, the incoming House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said that impeachment of the President is, quote, ‘off the table.’ It’s all kind of strange. The incoming House Judiciary Chairman, John Conyers, had earlier sponsored a bill to investigate grounds for possible impeachment. Now, Conyers has backed off and agreed with Pelosi to rule out impeachment. Jesse Jackson wrote last week that even if Conyers won’t consider impeachment of President Bush, he, quote, ‘has a duty to convene serious hearings,’ unquote, on the President’s claims and what Jackson calls abuses to our Constitution. A poll that was taken right before the midterm elections showed that 28 percent of Americans say impeachment of President Bush should be a top priority. 23 percent say it should be a lower priority. And 44 percent say it shouldn’t happen at all. So here’s the question this hour: ‘Is it wrong for the incoming Congress to simply rule out the impeachment of President Bush?’ E-mail your thoughts on that to CaffertyFile@cnn.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile. Wolf?"
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
A small part of me almost h
December 11, 2006 - 18:55 ET by John in CAA small part of me almost hopes the demos move forward with an impeachment agenda of Bush. Just to show that there is no foundation for all the demos have done proclaiming he's a criminal and needs to be impeached.
Of course, in the rational part of the demo brain (is that a stretch, or what) they know there is no legitimate grounds for impeachment and don't want to have that publicly proved.
It's just like almost everything else the demos have leveled at the President and Republicans. The idea of wrong doing is far more damaging than trying to prove it and having it become known that it's not so.
Besides, if Clinton couldn't get convicted of charges in the Senate, then George Bush surely couldn't be.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Pelosi and her buddies know t
December 12, 2006 - 10:01 ET by dscottPelosi and her buddies know they can't impeach Bush, because in doing so they will look like sore winners. There is one thing worse than a sore loser, that's a vendictive sore winner. As usual, the Dems overplayed their hand by over vilifying Rummy. When Rumsfeld resigned, he removed any justification for hearings. The bad thing now for the Dems is that the ultra left anti-war crowd is left without any meat to chew on. The rabble must be fed or else it turns on the leaders.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
ultra left
December 13, 2006 - 13:02 ET by Iconoclast421Where do you get off calling the anti war crowd "ultra left"? What does that mean? Or are you just parroting O'Limbannity?
The name Cindy Sheehan ring a
December 13, 2006 - 13:10 ET by bassndudeThe name Cindy Sheehan ring a bell? Stupid, ignorant and anti war. Typical ultra left.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Oh, I don't know...personal e
December 14, 2006 - 03:52 ET by UnsaneOh, I don't know...personal experience, the fact that the Left hates the military and believes the government is there to spoil and pamper them just like in the failing states of Europe...need I continue?
(Nice sideswipe at O'Reilly, by the way, but you may want to delete references to him. He is a populist, just as Lou Dobbs is...just from a different angle, but populist nonetheless.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Where do you get off callin
December 14, 2006 - 05:51 ET by Jack BauerWhere do you get off calling the anti war crowd "ultra left"?
You're right.
I call then loony left, myself.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
As an after thought, Caffer
December 11, 2006 - 18:58 ET by John in CAAs an after thought, Cafferty can advocate for McKinney's impeachment bill because like her, Cafferty is a certified loon.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
It has been said that politic
December 11, 2006 - 22:11 ET by BufordIt has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows,,,,,,,,,,,,Cafferty and McKinney? Great Scott that is a horrible thought, sorry just feeling a little ugly today.
Cafferty
December 11, 2006 - 18:59 ET by iveseenitallCafferty is a vicious, vile man who seeks the personal destruction of the President in order to fit his political agenda. He's a liberal!!!
NEVER, NEVER trust a liberal
Bush is a liberal
December 13, 2006 - 13:04 ET by Iconoclast421Never trust a liberal? Bush is a liberal! He tripled the size of the BATF and doubled the size of government in general, and nearly doubled the national debt. Sounds like a liberal to me, no?
If Cafferty's ratings continu
December 11, 2006 - 19:12 ET by mulerider24If Cafferty's ratings continue in their current trend, I imagine he will be joining her in "civilian life." Do you think the advertisers that immediately follow this segment get a tax write-off for their non-profit donation?
If she's on her bike, she mig
December 11, 2006 - 19:16 ET by KStormIf she's on her bike, she might want to be careful.
Touché
December 11, 2006 - 19:25 ET by mulerider24Touché
Poor Cafferty...
December 11, 2006 - 19:16 ET by Six String SpiffAwwww... No Impeachment? Poor wittiw wibwil.. You FOOL. Don't you understand that the Dems have sent out their sheeple dogs, and you are just part of the herd? How stupid can you be? The DEMS KNOW DAMN RIGHT WELL THAT THEY HAVE Z-E-R-O ground to stand on. The time of "we didn't know..." "...voted for it before I voted against it..." ...yeah Saddam had WMD but..." "We are the minority here, we don't have any say over the monarchy Bush has made..." Blah blah f*cking bLAH! IS OVER. It's called taking responsibility! ...Pathetic fool
Idiot...
Not all Muslims are Terrorists. However, all the Terrorists have been Muslim.
I love it--one kook showing
December 11, 2006 - 20:01 ET by Richard RomanoI love it--one kook showing support for another one. Truly, the emperor has no clothes, and no dress!
I would love to know what McK
December 11, 2006 - 20:09 ET by MerlinI would love to know what McKinney (or anyone else on the left) believe the basis for an impeachment would be. Just one valid point would do.
The lib's (or anyone else for that matter) does not need to agree with the President's policies, but for crying out loud, how about showing just a little respect for the office of the Presidency. I have never seen such wild and vicious attacks against a President in all my life. These folks are out of control!
Merlin,Seeing as you're new h
December 11, 2006 - 20:19 ET by BlondeMerlin,
Seeing as you're new here (welcome, BTW)....
Forget about "valid points"...the lefties don't have any....their talking points (which is all they have, actually) would run along the lines of "Bush Lied, People Died"....."no WMD's"...."he can't form an articulate sentence", etc., etc.
In other words, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
I hope they try it. They think they look stupid and inept now?
I agree Blonde. Thanks for
December 11, 2006 - 20:29 ET by MerlinI agree Blonde. Thanks for the welcome!
I just get real tired of hearing the same record being played over and over. Also, it doesn't take much for most lib's to look inept...they usually do a good job of that as soon as they speak.
Merlin,Welcome. As a recent N
December 12, 2006 - 09:24 ET by msh1973Merlin,
Welcome. As a recent NBer myself, I feel your pain. It does get rather disheartening to hear the same drum beat day after day. It does my heart good when I come to NB and see that there are others that share my point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
December 12, 2006 - 02:16 ET by polliwoghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_impeachment#Rationales_for_impeachment
Your views, please
December 12, 2006 - 02:37 ET by UnsaneWhat a great, time tested and true, and above all, easy-to-evaluate source wikipedia is.
Perhaps YOU should lay out for us the Articles of Impeachment you would file if you were a Representative.
(I personally hope they try it. ANYTHING to prevent these thieves from stealing from the successful in order to reward/coddle/babysit failure, to keep them from inviting terrorists home by surrendering a winnable war, etc.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
There are the arguments. Ev
December 12, 2006 - 07:05 ET by polliwogThere are the supposed rationales, as requested. Evaluate as you wish, or if it's too difficult for you, don't.
The only conclusion I can draw, sadly...
December 13, 2006 - 00:59 ET by UnsaneApparently, polliwog finds thinking for himself (and sharing his thoughts) too excruciatingly painful, so he has to resort to linking to a website of dubious quality. Of course, when called on it, instead of admitting his frailities, he whines.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
is flounder back in the news
December 11, 2006 - 20:44 ET by buddycis flounder back in the news again? will he never learn? fat dumb and drunk (close enough) is no way to go through life.
actually i love the guy. he is stupider, more full of hate and more booring than Olberman but has the same basic views. He is a great contributor to CNN's low ratings.
I could only wish for a full lineups of flounders. He keeps me strong in my views and helps me never forgot what this country would be like if his type of people were in total control.
He probably has concluded tha
December 12, 2006 - 01:03 ET by AJHe probably has concluded that since his ratings are so crappy that he might as well pour out his true feelings. Hey, why not? I mean, if the fire is destroying everything, why not add more fuel?
Poor Jack, he still hasn't go
December 11, 2006 - 21:30 ET by FastEdPoor Jack, he still hasn't gotten his head out ot the clouds from being a wheather man in NYC - seems a dumb front has stalled in his head.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
I never thought I'd find someone crazier than Rhayesbat, but...
December 11, 2006 - 22:24 ET by Free StinkerQ: What is the difference between the combination of Rhayesbat, LibertyOrMeds, and ThoughtLess vs. Jack Cafferty?
A: One is crazy, bitter, angry, ignorant, and demented, subject of severe mockery and derision while other is just the combination of Rhayesbat, LibertyOrMeds, and ThoughtLess (but they came in a close second)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Get a clue, Cafferty
December 12, 2006 - 01:17 ET by nkviking75Uh, Jack, just a thought here... If the Dems really go through with impeachment, it will probably help their cause to wait until they're the majority in the House. If they made a serious attempt at impeachment, the GOP would have shut it down instantly. A 2nd impeachment attempt would be much harder to sell to the public because it will look petty. OK, it IS petty, but a 2nd try would look worse. Why couldn't you figure that out, Jackie? Strange....