Kerry Calls for Bush Impeachment if Dems Retake House

[PennyMan]

MA. Sen. John Kerry said last night that if Dems retake the House, there's a "solid case" to bring "articles of impeachment"
against President Bush for allegedly misleading the country about pre-war intelligence, according to several Dems who attended.
Kerry was speaking at a holiday party for alumni of his WH '04 bid.

Here Is The Link:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/13004

[NYCGirl]

1. Kerry's office stated he was "just joking."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fowler/kerry-calls-for-impeachme_b_12327.html

[BuyingThyme]

3. Flip

Flop.

Mr. Kerry,

Go away.

[paulk]

4. thanx for repeating right wing talking points

karl is pleased....

and asides from that

what possible good does your post do?

Really?

That's a serious question.

Why in the world are you making a post like this?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TayTay]

12. At least he's not attacking someone over a joke

at a Christmas Party. You do understand that you are reacting exactly the way the RNC wants you to, by taking a non-issue and reacting to it in a serious way.

More points for the RNC and the people who drink their kool-aid. Another controversy that detracts from Hurricane Katrina and getting funding to it's victims so they can rebuild their lies. (Hey, Kerry was pushing again for a release of funds for SBA loans today. Care to comment?) Kerry called last week for 100,000 troops out of Iraq by next Dec. (Care to comment?)

Secret society? Bite me. We didn't need a secret society to wind up debt, in Iraq and shit-out-of-luck in the aftermath of Katrina. We just needed the Republican Party and it's enablers in the so-called liberal wing of the Democratic Party to continue to eat their own.

This needs to end.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Our enemies move unseen strings,

and without even knowing it is not their idea, some on the left start to dance. They tell themselves that it's because they just happen to like this particular tune, even if they normally find the band itself generally heinous. "Even the worst band can have a catchy tune once in a while, and besides, the borrowed the lyrics from us, didn't they."

Thus we do the ABB two-step.

Surely it's time for a new song.

[BuyingThyme]

25. I could use a good joke.

Please share it with us. I don't get it.

Then explain what "Secret society? Bite me" means.

Can you really support somebody who refuses to even speak of Skull & Bones while running for frigging president of the United States? Can you really support somebody who says to you, "Fuck you, I don't have to tell you who I am or for whom I work."

I can't think of a less qualified person than one refuses to tell you who he is yet has gall enough to ask for your vote. Can you imagine what it takes for a person to have such disdain for democracy? For him to believe he's of a superior breed?

What a fucking coward this man is.

[uppityperson]

26. Here's a joke for you

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing.

He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

(sorry, I'll slink off now)

[BuyingThyme]

28. I love that one.

I think I first heard it on the Bernie Ward show about a month or two ago.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. Why don't you go start your own Kerry bashing thread?

And bugger off.

[BuyingThyme]

34. If you don't like debate,

bugger off.

[paulk]

47. you call what you do "debate"?

debate would be actually addressing the substance of this thread.

which you have yet to do...

[BuyingThyme]

49. Thank you for responding to the substance of my posts which

were made in response to the substance of the thread.

Next time, ask somebody to help you come up with some substance of your own.

Good luck.

[paulk]

56. your posts have no substance

they are meant to disrupt, nothing more

you do nothing but come into these threads

and insult people

it's a child's pastime

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[globalvillage]

15. What's cowardly is making vacuous statements

against someone who has served this country honorably for the past 35 years.
What's even more fucked up is doing it behind the curtain of anonymity on a democratic forum.
Do your own homework. Then post something of substance.
I'll give you a head start:
Against this one.
Against.
Fighting.
Bwahahahaha.
What needs to end is the attacks against Democrats on a democratic forum. Go fight the bad guys if you want to do something meaningful. Senator Kerry is not one of them.

[BuyingThyme]

22. You post childish nonsense and ask for substance?

Are you really unable to read what you write? Is this a joke?

[globalvillage]

24. Please point to the 'childish nonsense'

I can read quite well, thank you for asking. I can also tell a coward from a hero.

[BuyingThyme]

27. Childish nonsense is pretending

that people with whom you disagree are cowards if they post to a forum. Childish nonsense is providing nothing of substance while demanding substance from others. Childish nonsense is demanding "homework" when you haven't done any. Childish nonsense is "Bwahahahaha."

Thanks for asking.

[globalvillage]

29. Bwahahaha.

You call the Senator a coward because he says something you don't agree with, then use it as your argument when it's turned back on you.
You look for substance in reply to a post with none. Sorry, you get what you give.
I know what the Senator stands for. The homework was for your own edification.
Bwahaha is my response to S&B. It's a bullshit fraternity for kids not old enough to know any better.
I have met the Senator, and he's no coward.

I have my evidence.

[BuyingThyme]

30. I called the Senator a coward because I know him to be a coward.

He proves it every few weeks. I see it right there on my TV. I don't judge him because of one cowardly thing he did, but because of many cowardly things he does.

And in regards to the substance I posted about Skull & Bones: Fraternities don't recruit people on their ways out of college, they recruit them as they settle into college. If you do a little homework, you won't make so many mistakes.

And the next time you meet a coward, he'll still be a coward even after you meet him.

[globalvillage]

35. Till we meet again, then. n/t

[karynnj]

17. I feel certain if you compared your life to Kerry's

- you would find that he has stood up for more at more risk to himself than you. He took on the entire paranoid Nixon administration as a 27 year old kid. He fought Reagan/ bush when they allowed the Contras to bring drugs into this country. He fought Bush I and some corrupt Democrats who were "bought" by the terrorist bank, BCCI. Judge Kerry on these actions not any clubs he joined when he was 20 years old. (I don't know you but I can't think of anyone who took more risky principled stands than Kerry did. I would include myself as having stood for far less.)

Read his statements he was against the war before it started. He was one of the strongest opponents in the summer of 2002. He chose to fight it by constraining what Bush could do by the resolution and pushing him to go to the UN. As he has said, he was wrong to think they had any honor. There may be others who voted for other reasons - and Kerry's attempt to reduce the likelihood of war failed. But =, there would have been war even if every Democrat (except Lieberman) voted against it. (In fact there likely would have been war even if the resolution failed.)

[BuyingThyme]

21. By virtue of your comparison between Kerry and me,

and the need to point to what he used to be, you make my case very well. That is, unless you're asking me to run for the Senate or the presidency.

I know what he said before he gave * the power to wage war. I also know what he said after * went to war. I also know what he said after what he said about giving * the power to wage war. His values have apparently worn with time.

What will he say next? Whatever it is, he'll run away from it soon after.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. If you don't have anything to contribute than go away

You're really getting annoying.

[BuyingThyme]

33. Thank you for that contribution.

[globalvillage]

7. Oh, for chrissakes

Why would we want him to go away? Listen to the man, already.
That flip flop shit is so tired.
Either he was making a joke to a group of former staff or he wasn't. Either way, what's your bitch? My complaint is that whichever it was, it should have stayed in the room.

Here. LISTEN TO THE MAN. He should NOT 'go away'.

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/video//2005/12-8-05_Kerry.mp3

[rox63]

13. He's putting the impeachment meme out there

And that's a good thing, even if the context was just a joke at a party. If he didn't want the statement connected to him at all, he wouldn't have said it. Geez, you can't just beat an idea into everyone's heads. Sometimes a bit of strategy and subtlety is called for. No one will be getting impeached while the House is in Republican hands.

Edit: I meant this as a response to another post in this thread, not yours GV. I accidentally stuck it in the wrong place. Oops...

[globalvillage]

16. Good thing, my friend.

'Cause I'm in a fightin mood tonight.
;-)

I agree with you, BTW.

[paulk]

48. I think you're exactly right

same with off the cuff remarks about stolen elections...

These are meant to tell the base what he's really thinking, but can't say officially.

It's a pretty common tactic, really - the Republicans do this sort of thing all the time.

The difference is - their "base" gets it... too many in ours - with their own political axes to grind -

use it as an excuse to smear...

[rodeodance]

5. he did not 'call for" impeachment.

[NYCGirl]

9. I didn't say he did. I just reiterated what his office responded with. NT

[rodeodance]

6. there is nothing in this comment that says 'calling for"

The Washington DC crowd must be all atwitter with fear. Another Democrat has dared to call for real accountability by the White House ... at least until the handlers got to correcting the record. According to DC political newsletter "The Hotline" (published by the National Journal), John Kerry on Wednesday night said that if Democrats retake the House, there's a "solid case" to bring "articles of impeachment" against President Bush for allegedly misleading the country about pre-war intelligence.

[bklyncowgirl]

10. Oh for Chrissakes. Why not just say the guy got drunk ...

...and instead of dancing on a table with a lampshade on his head he decided to talk impeachment.

This reminds me of Kerry's quickly retracted remark that he believed the election was stolen.

I like John Kerrey but he has got to stop listening to his handlers.

[TayTay]

19. Excuse me, but when did making a joke at a party

become an excuse for dumping on someone. Have you ever made a joke about the Rethugs? It was a friggin Holiday party, ferchrissakes. Who makes serious political commentary at a Christmas Party? If he wanted to talk seriously about impeachment, don't you think it would have been at a serous venue and not at a friggin Holiday party for staffers?

Honestly, some people will use any excuse to dump on Kerry.

[BuyingThyme]

54. He didn't make a joke. That was a LIE told by his handlers.

He pays people to LIE for him because he's too cowardly to stand behind his own words.

It's time for people to stop listening to John Kerry AND his liars.

These are not attacks against John Kerry; they are facts.

[karendc]

20. SIGH...

...since I was there, and saw and heard exactly what was said, and how, let me say to you:

not drunk
not running at the mouth

completely focused
completely enjoying himself among friends
talking through the issues
mentioning the "i" word with a twinkle in his eye, 'cause he knew people were thinking about it

Does anyone care to know the truth?

No *handlers* were spotted, BTW. It was almost all friends, except of course for whomever decided their own ego needed elevating via Wonkette. yeeccchhh. Off to wash my hands now...

[globalvillage]

23. To answer your question

Most of us, yes. And thank you for posting it.

[bklyncowgirl]

45. I wasn't implying that Kerry was drunk

I'll take your word for it that he was indeed joking around and that some idiot decided to go rushing off to the first blog that would carry his gossip to the world.

Since the retraction when the joke became public was inevetible, he or she put Kerry in a terrible position and reinforced the unfortunate image that Karl Rove spent alot of time and effort in creating for him--i.e. the flip flopper. That's reprehensible.

My frustration is that whenever a Democrat says something bold whether in a public statement or a private joke, that he is immediately forced to retract that statement. Alot of people believe that Bush has committed impeachable offenses. I'd rather have seen Kerry take the opportunity to point out a few of these offenses and acknowledge that there are real concerns and the need for real investigations.

Let's stop pussyfooting around.

[globalvillage]

46. The frustrating part of all this is that he has been calling out bush*

and Rummy and Rove and Cheney et al.
He's called for Rumsfeld and Rove to be fired multiple times.
He's said that no one has less credibility on Iraq than Dick Cheney.
He has said over and over again that we were misled into war.
And he continues to push for investigations.
But it's difficult to find evidence of that. Yet, the party joke lights up the boards like Christmas. Where are the half dozen threads about his floor speech yesterday on SBA loans? Not juicy enough, I guess. He pointed out the incompetence again, but who listened?
So, he didn't call for impeachment at the bar with his staff that night. I don't think that's why they gathered. I think it was supposed to be a holiday party for staffers, not a press conference or a major speech.
Maybe it was just a joke. Maybe it was strategic. In either case, it was no reason for him to be attacked by people who are saying the same thing.

I agree that whoever leaked, unless it was planned (not ruling that out completely), is no friend of the Senator. I hope he knows who did it.

[BuyingThyme]

58. Very nice. Attack people who speak the truth.

I guess that's what it takes to be a Kerry supporter these days. You make a great case.

Very nice.

[libodem]

2. woo hoo

:woohoo:

[Karenina]

8. Kerry needs to read a bit more

of Harold Pinter.

[karynnj]

18. He likely has read quite a bit

but as to Pinter's political comments, Kerry doesn't need lessons from him.

[In Truth We Trust]

36. IF?!? WTF.... whether or not there is a "solid case" for impeachment has

NOTHING to do with who is in the majority!! Either there is a "solid case" or there isn't. Can you say PRINCIPLE? Damn, get a fucking backbone or stfu!

[LittleClarkie]

38. Riiiiight. We'll just toddle over to the Republican majority and make

the case.

I'm sure they'll just hop to it and get the ball rolling. You DO realize that the House has to get the ball rolling, don't you? You know, the House of Representatives? The one with the Republican majority?

Yeah, they'll get right on it, I'm sure.

[In Truth We Trust]

39. Love your sarcasm. But seriously, did you not understand the meaning of my

post? I am fully aware of constitutional law as it relates to articles of impeachment and I am aware of the current corrupt majority as well. My point is that the op indicated that Sen Kerry said: "if" democrats gain a majority then there is a "solid case" for articles of impeachment. I'm tired of his pragmatism and would prefer a principled stance which should be something on the order of demanding it on the Senate floor and not stop demanding it regardless of who controls the House.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe Bush** et al should be impeached? If so then are you not advocating it because there is a repuke majority in the House and Senate? Just wondering why people compromise their principles so much when it comes to "their" party. If everyone voted principle instead of pragmatically perhaps we wouldn't be in this postion today (remember "electability" bs).

[LittleClarkie]

40. That might be good. However, a party is probably not where

one should expect a "principled stance". The Senate floor perhaps. At a tavern, not so much.

People like to announce what Kerry says at parties for some reason. It perplexes me.

[In Truth We Trust]

41. Great observation.... it does seem to happen frequently. I too would prefe

r the well of the Senate but if it were me I'd do it NOW! Not wait til a majority shift should occur. With evoting that day will never come anyway until we the people hurl the damnable machines into the street and do a freedom two step with a little sledge hammer action on them.

[mtnsnake]

50. Exactly. We should impeach regardless of what happens in 2006

not just "if we retake the House" like Kerry said the other day...oh, I mean like he joked or something.

[KingFlorez]

37. Impeachment isn't really possible

We can't enough seats in the Senate for that. Exposure is the key, call the hearings on everything from 9/11 to Katrina to Plamegate and once the damning evidence Bush's numbers will drop terribly and he'll end up like Nixon.

[mtnsnake]

52. You don't need enough seats in the Senate to impeach

You just need enough seats in the House to impeach. There weren't enough Republican seats in the Senate either, but Clinton got impeached. He just didn't get enough votes in the Senate to oust him.

BTW, you don't even need enough seats in the House to bring up articles of impeachment. Any House member can do that, regardless of who's got the majority. Then a committee is normally set up to see if official impeachment hearings should take place. The main thing is that we bring up Articles of Impeachment in 2007, whether or not we have enough votes to actually impeach.

[Zambero]

42. Impeachment is over-rated

Impeachment is not a conviction. It's an indictment, no more, no less. If the House impeaches the President and the Senate acquits (as was the case with Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson earlier), there is a certain vindication that goes along with it. Of course the wing-nuts love to tout their attempted coup as "proof" that Clinton was Satan incarnate, but one also has to consider the source.

If a future Democratic House majority was to impeach Bush, it is highly unlikely that the Senate would provide the super-majority necessary for removal from office. So what's the point of going through an impeachment ritual when the likely outcome would only have Bush walking away acting as if he was the victim of overzealous partisans?

[In Truth We Trust]

43. Valid point but still a neccesary principled move to make. The refer them

to the Hague!

[tammywammy]

44. Thanks

that's what I think too...only you said it better than I would.

[paineinthearse]

51. if Dems retake the House, there's a "solid case" to bring "articles of imp

:wtf:

There's a "solid case" to bring "articles of impeachment" even if the Dems do not retake the House!

When is one of congress critters going to show some backbone and introduce an article of impeachment?

[Virginian]

55. If Dems retake the House so that the next POTUS is a DEM!

Removing Bush from office would require someone else replace him. I am presuming that Cheney would be removed ahead of Bush, so we don't end up with President Dick Cheney. With no Vice President, the line of succession would then tap the Speaker of the House who is a member of the majority party.

I don't think any of us want Bush to be President, but remember, the devil you know is sometimes better than the devil you don't know. His poll numbers are dropping, his party is distancing themselves from him. They are no longer ALL in lock step with him. Impeachment would galvanize them and we wouldn't be able to stop them. It is all in the timing.

[natrat]

53. i dont know how any of you all can trust anybody in washington

blind faith i guess