Comments on: McGovern: Impeach Bush, Cheney Now

Former Democratic Candidate Says Crimes Of Current Administration Worse Than Nixon's

[neoconrcrazy]

Send your demand to impeach the disaster-duo :


http;//speaker.house.gov/contact/



tell her:

it''s your duty, not your choice.

[neoconrcrazy]

as bush guides the ship of state eyes-closed - all the while telling us to hunker down in fear -

the solution to avoid continued disaster lays open before us.

McGovern tells us simply to use the tool put in place by our Founders - seems so simple - impeach

and so necessary.

[simonsez40]

If only the yellow-belly Congress would take a stand and enforce the impeachment process - I agree with McGovern..........Impeach both of them!

[garnetrose7]

Hallelullia, Someone finally noticed the Emperor isn''t wearing any clothes.
This guy should have been outa here a long time ago.
He is a total madman, and I mean that in the true physiological use of the word. A compulsive liar, illusions of grandeur, extreme paranoia..!! and on.
This country is on the road to ruin...I just hope we can pull out of it.

[iceman_1960]

"Rampant interventionism didn"t work at the Bay of Pigs or in Vietnam."


There"s another name for it. American Imperialism.

Something George Washington wisely counselled Americans to avoid.

[iceman_1960]

Here we go again...

CBS Cookies Loading...

[crater7]

BRING BACK MCGOV, PUT HIM ON THE BALLOT,,,,O0BAMA-HUCKLEBERRY WHO?

DUBYA & CHANKEY, SHOULD TAKE A PAGE FROM SADDAM, AND GO UNDERGROUND....


HE-HE-HE-

[iceman_1960]

"The isolationism you seem to favor has never, ever worked in American history. We can''''t just ignore the rest of the world, it does not work. Our oceans can not protect us anymore."
- Posted by ourtomorrows at 01:44 AM : Jan 07, 2008

Going from one extreme to the other does not work.

Rampant interventionism didn"t work at the Bay of Pigs or in Vietnam.

We need an intelligent foreign policy, not a stupid kneejerk attitude that says that if one extreme is wrong, the other extreme must be right.

Not every foreign policy situation can be equated to Hitler and the apppeasement at Munich.

Kneejerk stupidity is the last thing we need in foreign policy.

[neoconrcrazy]

bush & henchmen have already been "impeached" by american public opinion, world opinion, and history, so who needs the congress?

they''re too worried about getting re-elected and less concerned about the state of the union.

[closethippy1]

Hee, hee, hee! Even if impeachment doesn''t happen I hope Bush and Cheney are worried about what might happen to them in the future.
If it''s this bad now wait till these two cretins leave office when they''ll have less protection against court proceedings.

[brianbwb-2009]

"United States that sat by while the ground work was laid for a struggle that cost over 48 million lives. We can not let that happen again."
Posted by ourtomorrows

Not only is the groundwork being laid again, but the corrupt officials in the US government are the principal ones laying it.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...the world still needs us." Posted by ourtomorrows

No debate there, but one cannot help others if one''s self is not fit, and by all measures, economic, social, educational, and political, we are far from fit.

We need to look inward, and address the corruption that is destroying our fabric as a nation, giving it our full attention, or else there will be no one else but the Russians and Chinese to help anyone, and we might ourselves be asking for that help.

[brianbwb-2009]

"We have a responsibility to the world and a duty that we must fulfill. Where would places in this world be with out the 10s of billions of dollars of American foreign aid." Posted by ourtomorrows

In my idealistic youth I would have agreed with you, but after years of seeing first hand American "help" being corrupted and kicked back to those who approved the expenditure, from working in "developing" countries and being an eyewitness to how the money never reaches the target, but watching the recipient countries held to service a debt on money they never saw, I am of the position that the US is now only a corrupt military superpower, without the US foreign aid, those countries would still be at worst just as poor as they are now, but at least without crushing interest debt. The lofty goals that we should live up to and help others to achieve, simply won''t be allowed to exist in the real world.

So let us quit lying to ourselves, save the billions, and put that money where it is needed at home. Later, when our own economy and social structure is strong enough, let our help be without strings, or loan shark like interest attached.

As for Paul, he talks, but he doesn''t walk, there is no way this "Black" man will vote for a John Bircher, who takes contributions from the kkk. And no Republicans, evermore...

[mick7744]

Doesn''''t he get it? If there was just cause to impeach President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney, Congress would have held hearings already. The Dems have been in charge for a year already and NOTHING has happened.
Posted by DemWatcher

Your argument seems erily like the one some half-wit Massachusetts judge put to the jury in the Sacco/Vanzeti trial.

"Do you think the state would go to all the trouble of holding a trial if these men weren''t guilty?"

You theorize that since a gutless congress is not holding hearings, no crime has been committed"

Talk about your half-wits...or are you just being paid to post such nonsense?

[ourtomorrows]

brianwb
If we followed your policy, which some of the candidates for President, like Ron Paul, share, in fact your wording is almost identical to a plank in his platform, the world we left behind for our children and grandchildren would potentially be as bleak as you envision.

We can not run from our responsibilities. It is fine to say let the world take care of itself, but, as arrogant as it may sound, the world still needs us. If we packed up our stuff and went home only popping out to do a bit of trade and maybe engage in a few climate treaties or something, we would be no better than the United States of the 1920s, a United States that sat by while the ground work was laid for a struggle that cost over 48 million lives. We can not let that happen again.

[ourtomorrows]

Brianbwb
Actually,what you are talking about is the same policy the United States had in the 1920s and it is is a form of text book isolationism. We engaged in the 20s in whatever was profitable for us and in our own self-interest, but we did not engage in world affairs to any degree. The let the world fend for itself attitude does not work. The United States is not like everybody else. For better or worse, we are the loan remaining super power and if you don''t agree with that, at the very least we are one of the reborn Great Powers. We have a responsibility to the world and a duty that we must fulfill. Where would places in this world be with out the 10s of billions of dollars of American foreign aid. Our money does help, perhaps in a small way, some of these nations to address their internal struggles. In other cases, we must be involved because there is no one else. It took belated American influence to halt the genocide in Yugoslavia, the European powers being seemingly content to let the blood flow. In my mind we are not doing nearly enough in Darfur. We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the face of the earth, we have an inherent responsibility to do whatever we can to assist other nations and to help maintain international security. If we do not do it, who will? Britain, France and Germany had their day, they are not up to the challenge anymore. Russia or China, I don''t think so.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by ourtomorrows

Isolationism? Hardly. Trade with them, engage them wherever possible, but leave them to solve their own problems, just as we had to, and still must solve ours.

America grew to become a major industrialized nation, not from globalization, but through using our own ideas, and our own labor to build it, internationalism only became a major part of US policy at WW2, and only then because it was found to be profitable for a few of the first really mega "war profiteers" (just ask Prescott Bush, he made a killing selling fuel to the Germans)

Yes, we had a gas crunch in the 70s, and, being from Detroit, I am well aware of mass layoffs, but if you think that was bad, the next couple of years will make you look fondly on those days, as gas settles permanently above $100 per, and even service jobs are outsourced to slave labor in other countries, or migrant slaves in this one, and in order to "compete", the government will remove all worker protections we have fought to gain over the last century, and send the US back to the days of $1 a day wages.

You have it better now, but your children and grandchildren won''t.

[talk2chief]

Highly intellectual.

Posted by george2221

Thanks professor! Twit...

[brianbwb-2009]

It would depend on the principle or act, kinda like choosing sides during the American Civil War.
Posted by talk2chief

We arrive at the crux of the matter, the evidence and subsequent events point to a false principle, advocated by the perpetrators, based on information that was known by them at the time to be false, but blasted (to this day) unceasingly by a compliant, or complicit mass media.

Some of us, who survived the civil rights struggles of the 60s were not fooled, we had heard the same lies before, directed at us. Those of us who survived Vietnam, even though we have known for a long time now that the Tonkin Gulf incident was a false flag event, now hear Mc Namara, the biggest chicken hawk of the day, saying that it was all BS, so as some of us knew even back then, 50,000 brave US children were sacrificed for the profits of Bechtel, Halliburton, and the other war profiteers of that day.

If you know that they lie, as we now know they did, how do you justify continuing to send soldiers to their deaths?

[talk2chief]

brianbwb, Brother I gotta go. I don''t necessarily agree with your point of view. But I do support your cause. Hopefully you will find a way to organize your efforts into a meaningful movement. Don''t waste your time protesting on the blogs, I believe personally, your efforts would reach more people in public protest rather than on a blog. After all, isn''t that why we served... "We may not like what someone has to say, but we would give our lives for them to say it."