Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CNN's Jack Cafferty Thinks Not Impeaching Is 'Strange'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 02:33 AM
Original message
CNN's Jack Cafferty Thinks Not Impeaching Is 'Strange'
http://impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com/2006/12/cnns-jack-cafferty-thinks-not.html

CNN's Jack Cafferty Thinks Not Impeaching is 'Strange'
Monday, December 11, 2006
From tonight's Situation Room on CNN, Jack Cafferty said:

"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."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. No, I don't think he did.
It looks like he was most likely talking about the entire situation in the House, including impeaching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. According to the transcript, Cafferty was referring to the fact that it has been taken off the table
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: How are 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. It 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 level of high crimes and misdemeanors. And yet the incoming House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said that impeachment of the president is "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 "has a duty to convene serious hearings" on the president's claims of what Jackson calls abuses to our constitution.

A poll that was taken right before the mid-term elections showed 28 percent of Americans say impeachment of President Bush should be a top priority. Twenty-three 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.


Here are the answers he read on the air later in the segment:

CAFFERTY: Wolf, the question this hour is: Is it wrong for the incoming Congress to simply rule out the impeachment of President Bush?

Allan writes from Oregon: "It's a pretty savvy strategy, actually, especially when you figure impeachment is too soft a landing for this president. War crimes against humanity is the charge Mr. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al, should be facing, and ultimately punished for. These are the real terrorists."

Willis in Georgia writes: "It's not wrong for the Congress to hold impeachment hearings on the president. One of the Republican congressmen has said that what has happened in Iraq may very well be criminal. The criminal in chief should be held accountable for the disaster in Iraq, which is his making." Jon in Philadelphia: "I don't think we should impeach for stupidity and tunnel-vision, any more than I thought we should have impeached for lying about sex. Let's get some of the people's work done, instead of political vendettas."

Mary in New York: "A bill to impeach Bush would never pass the current Congress. The better path is for the new Congress to hold hearings on the Iraq war, domestic spying, 9/11, habeas corpus, intelligence. Subpoena Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Powell, et cetera. Make them testify under oath on TV. That ought to take about two years. In January of 2009, when they all become private citizens, indict them on criminal charges."

B. writes: "No question about it. Compare Clinton's misdeeds with this man -- no comparison. The damage this president has caused to this nation is incalculable. We will be suffering his legacy for many, many years."

And, finally, Ron, in Kansas City: "Not only is it wrong. I think it's political suicide. First, we have Democrats that gave Bush a blank check for the war. And now, when it's time to balance the books, they want to distance themselves from the scrutiny that would come from an impeachment. It's shameful" -- Wolf.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/11/sitroom.01.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I like that last comment...
it's "political suicide" for Democrat's NOT to consider impeachment. Basically this is saying that high-level Democratic leadership is a "party" to the impeachable offenses. When the truth comes out and justice takes priority, Democrats could be hurt by this inaction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. The term "political suicide" would refer only to the 30% who don't see a problem with Bush.
Edited on Tue Dec-12-06 02:35 PM by 8_year_nightmare
The rest of us are on the edge of our seats, watching one of the greatest true-life mysteries unfold before our eyes. We're at the cliffhanger point where we're hoping the Democrats will become the heroes; we're anxiously awaiting for the next installment in January. If they ignore our cries for help & don't save this country from the villain, that's when "political suicide" enters the plot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Looks like you're correct. :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. "Strange" is a good word for it. It is strange. But then...
Our Democratic leaders have done a number of strange things:

1. Wholeheartedly, enthusiastically, with both hands open, supported electronic voting, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by private corporations with very close ties to the Bush Junta and to far rightwing causes (Diebold/ES&S), and spread like a cancer across the country, during the 2002-2004 period, with $3.9 billion in boondoggle funding from the Anthrax Congress, engineered by major crooks Tom Delay and Bob Ney (abetted by crooks who haven't been caught yet, such as Bilderberg Democrat Christopher Dodd). Funny how the "Help America Vote For War Act" of 2002 coincides in time with...

2. Half of them voted to give George Bush discretion to wage war against Iraq, and have time and again voted to fund billions and billions and billions of dollars in no-bid, cost-plus, unaccountable contracts to Halliburton and other Bush-Cheney buds.

3. Failed to raise a hair of suspicion about the 2004 election, despite a COMPLETELY NON-TRANSPARENT VOTING SYSTEM, fast-tracked into place with filthy money and lavish lobbying, and evidence that Kerry won so big, he outran the machine programming, and the Bushites had to resort to blatant, visible violations of the Voting Rights Act, including massive suppression of poor, black and other Democratic votes in Ohio, in order to keep Bush-Cheney in office, and keep the military contract hogpen on track.

There are winds of change in the Democratic Party, for sure. But they are not yet the hurricane needed to blow all the war profiteers, war criminals, liars, thieves of democracy, global corporate predators and Saudi Arabians out of Washington DC. 25% of Congress, to this point--half the Democratic representatives--has been trying to represent the majority of the American people, 56% of whom opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (Feb. '03) and 70% of whom oppose it now. They have borne a heavy burden, and they are none too clean themselves, most of them. They've been voting for bloated military budgets for decades (standing temptation to fascists), and have winked and nodded at the imperial presidency since Reagan. I remember them winking and nodding at Reagan's war on Nicaragua, after they expressly forbade him to conduct that war. I also remember them supporting the Reagan-era tax code rewrite (end of the progressive tax, to favor the rich). But some of them have a conscience, and try to be good public servants--as I said, about 25%; bump that the 30-35% in the recent Diebold/ES&S-run midterms. The good guys (relatively speaking) now have committee chairs (not planned by Diebold/ES&S, I think--the people outran the machines, to some extent), and about 30-35% of the seats in the House, and less in the Senate (with Lieberman as a pivotal vote for war and against impeachment). We still do not have a representative Congress. We have a greatly hampered Congress--with most the of Iraq vet candidates (and Colleen Rowley) mysteriously missing. And we have a recent history of the most irresponsible, toadying, corrupt, illegitimate, and disgusting "pod people" Congress in American history--a Congress with a 15% approval rating! --lower than Dick Cheney's! That's a deep hole to climb out of.

And there are some other important factors--for instance, Bush-Cheney pervasive domestic spying. Who have they been spying on? You can be sure it's Democrats and any others who would oppose them. They have dirt; they blackmail. They are dangerous rats--their bite is deadly. And frankly I think they sent the Anthrax packets to the Democrats in the Anthrax Congress, and killed Paul Wellstone as an example to them all. Gangsters. Mafia writ large. Maybe Pelosi has made a deal with them. I don't know. SOMETHING's going on. Maybe some good guys in the military and intel community are watching over our government. (I don't doubt it, actually--but they, too, have a "military-industrial complex" agenda, and are not exactly democrats with a small d.) What I suspect is that Bush-Cheney CANNOT be impeached. That is, Congress no longer has that power. If exercised, they will defy it. (Cheney has said he will not answer subpoenas; Bush has written hundreds of "signing statements" saying that he is not bound by Congress.) So, what do you DO in that situation? You try to CONTAIN it. You make a deal on whatever you CAN make a deal on (minimum wage, bringing the military budget out of the dungeon and back into the light), and work toward gradual re-empowerment of Congress as an equal branch of government.

I'm not apologizing for Pelosi and Conyers--who have now stated, in black and white, that they will not fulfill their oaths of office, and have set aside their only tool for curtailing out an-of-control president (impeachment). But we have never HAD a president that is THIS out-of-control. All I'm saying is that I sympathize with them. And the one thing I'm sure of is that there is a massive amount of HAIR-RAISING nightmare reality beneath the surface, in Washington DC, that never makes it into the war profiteering corporate news monopoly press, and that we, the people, don't know and can only guess at.

Nor am I saying be patient with them. Don't be! I think we should petition them mercilessly with our views. Just don't be surprised when we don't get much in return. And try to have some understanding for the few good guys who are trying to represent the many (all of us). By this, I mean, understanding of OUR position. Don't give in to demoralization and disempowerment. Bolster the good guys up all we can, and work steadily and with great hearts toward restoration of the democracy that Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine tried to give us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Wow -- your post is so damn good, I wish you had started a new thread with it.
Edited on Tue Dec-12-06 02:48 PM by 8_year_nightmare
It's an excellent commentary for those who wonder what the hell is going on in Washington. Everything that you've said is totally possible & makes sense of the free ride this administration has gotten. Since hope is all we have left, I can only hope that this new Democratic majority in both houses will renew our faith in the system.

I just can't get over the silence over HAVA & the last two presidential elections. And I've always believed that Paul Wellstone's death was murder. Now we're hearing about an FBI cover-up in the anthrax incidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. you know they still haven't figured out that anthrax thing yet
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC