lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Kucinich still trying to impeach Cheney (Is there a psychiatrist in the house?)

2007-11-07
By

Could there possibly be anything more absurd than the presidential candidacy of congressional munchkin, Dennis Kucinich? Actually, yes, there is. It is his tireless — and brainless — campaign to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney (also known as Darth Vader in paranoid liberal circles).

And what exactly are the charges with which Kukucinich hopes to nail the malevolent vice president? Well, according to a congressional resolution offered up on Nov. 6, he accused Cheney of being “in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president” and said that Cheney had “purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests.”

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. Where are the men in the white suits with the butterfly nets when you need them? And by the way, why Cheney and not Bush? Because everyone knows Cheney is the evil puppet master and the real power in this administration. A president who can’t put together two consecutive grammatically correct sentences couldn’t possibly have conceived and orchestrated the plot himself.

Back on Planet Earth, these lame charges of lying, fabricating and manipulating continue to strain the credulity of all sentient beings not afflicted with Cheney Derangement Syndrome. How many times does it have to be said that every reputable intelligence agency on earth believed Saddam had WMD, that Cheney could not possibly have manipulated them all and that Saddam’s behavior gave every indication that he had them?

In addition, how many quotes from prominent Democrats during the latter part of the Clinton administration need to be cited in which they said Saddam had WMD and huffed and puffed about regime change, even if they never quite did anything to actually make it happen?

Apparently there is a large pool of Bush- and Cheney-haters out there who don’t specifically remember a 1998 congressional resolution which Democratic Senator Tom Daschle said would “send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law.”

President Clinton himself asked the nation to consider the question: What would happen if Saddam “fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.”

Clinton went on to say that “if we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

Of course, there was no regime change then. UN chief Kofi Annan struck up an inspections deal with Saddam, temporarily saving his hide. Less than a year later, Saddam kicked out all the inspectors for good. After that, there was a pinprick bombing here and a missile lobbing there and some more hot air and that was about it. It took the Bush administration to do what Clinton and his fellow Democrats said needed doing.

And now, a bizarre and deluded little fellow named Kucinich is simultaneously seeking to impeach the current vice president while seeking the presidency himself. As they say, it could only happen in America.

Greg Strange provides conservative commentary with plenty of acerbic wit on the people, politics, events and absurdities of our time. See more at his website: http://www.greg-strange.com/.

3 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    Do you deny that the particular entry to which I responded contained any use of the logical fallacy of ad hominem?

    Bridger – you are shadowboxing.

    Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent,

    The erroneous presumption here is that Greg Strange and Dennis Kucinich are involved in a “debate” of some sort. But that is not the case. The author of the commentary is simply expressing opinions, which he is allowed to do.

    Since Greg Strange is not debating anyone, you cannot apply the ad hominem argument to anyone except yourself.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    In fact, the department “The Office of Special Plan” was set up, not to collect intelligence in an effort to set policy, but to collect intelligence to justify policy.

    This is speculative.

    This is a backwards approach and the only possible explanation for doing it this way would be to deceive Congress and the public into believing that Bush administration policies were appropriate, when often credible evidence would show that they were not.

    This reminds me of Claude Raines character in Casablanca…. since when are we supposed to be “shocked, shocked” to find politics going on in the streets of Washington DC?

    Seems to me you need to get a bigger shovel.

    Couple this deceptive measure with the violation of wiretap laws, promoting the use of torture, encouraging war profiteering, outing classified information for political gain, presenting false information to congress, falsifying government statistics for political gain, and more….

    That’s a nice rhetorical laundry list — but it’s not proof of anything except your interest in promoting a vendetta against the an executive administration that you disagree with.

    Heck, I disagree with them too, but visions of ‘frog-marching’ these people out of the Whitehouse and into a life-time term in ‘federal prison’ is no cure at all.

    And BTW, IMPEACHMENT in itself won’t put anyone in prison, if that’s your heart’s desire.

  • 103reasons

    It seems odd to me that the party of smaller government under Cheney’s direction would create an entirely new intelligence department, duplicating the work of other intelligence agencies and Greg Strange wouldn’t find this a bit strange. In fact, the department “The Office of Special Plan” was set up, not to collect intelligence in an effort to set policy, but to collect intelligence to justify policy. The idea here is to set a policy, and then find information to support it, even if that information is not credible. This is a backwards approach and the only possible explanation for doing it this way would be to deceive Congress and the public into believing that Bush administration policies were appropriate, when often credible evidence would show that they were not. Couple this deceptive measure with the violation of wiretap laws, promoting the use of torture, encouraging war profiteering, outing classified information for political gain, presenting false information to congress, falsifying government statistics for political gain, and more, not only means that Cheney should be impeached, but that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others should be spending the rest of their day in federal prison. When Clinton lied about a personal indiscretion that was an embarrassment at best, people were shouting impeachment from the rooftops. Now we are dealing with lies that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, yet people are afraid of the dreaded “I” word – IMPEACHMENT.

  • bridger

    Mr. Strange,

    I was certainly not practicing any form of antagonism. I was making an informed critique based on reading a number of your entries. It turns out I was correct in my analysis, as you haven’t either the courage or intellect to properly respond to my post. Is it fair to assume that my words rang a bit too true for you to even attempt a response? Do you deny that the particular entry to which I responded contained any use of the logical fallacy of ad hominem?

    As for the double post, I believed my first post did not go through properly and attempted to repost. My apologies for this error.

    Sincerely,
    bridger

  • bridger

    Mr. Strange,
    Your writing style is laughable. Have you ever considered taking a college course in logic 101? It would dramatically improve your critical writing skills. !– Editor’s note: Commenter now spamming thread. –!

    A blurb from wiki:

    Ad hominem abusive or ad personam

    Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent’s.

    Sincerely,
    bridger

  • bridger

    Mr. Strange,

    Your writing style is laughable. Is this really how you earn your keep here on planet earth? !– Editor’s note: commenter’s topic sentence is obvious antagonism. The remaining post is tainted and moot. –!

    A blurb from Wiki:

    Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent’s.

    Better luck in the next life. Peace.

    Bridger

  • ProfJoey212

    Mr. Strange,

    Excuse me but while you were sleeping…

    Dick Cheney:

    1. purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests

    2. purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests

    3. openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States

    What part of “These are TREASONOUS and IMPEACHABLE offenses” don’t you idiots understand? !– Editor’s note: this hyperbolic language is made with an obvious intent to antagonize. Be advised that the onus is on you as a commenter to present your counterpoints on the merits only. Your antagonistic language confers “loser” status upon you out of the gate. — !

  • ProfJoey212

    Dick Cheney:

    1) Lied to Congress
    2) Condoned use of torture
    3) Outed a CIA operative

    What part of “All three of these are impeachable acts,” (CRIMES) don’t you morons get? !– Editor’s note: be advised to control your hyperbole and your emotions. –

  • dtm

    Kucinich said:
    Cheney had “purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests.”

    Ok fellas, I know it’s hard to remember a few years back. But I remember when Bush/Cheney were touting that Iraq was dealing to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger? Valerie Plame Wilson was exposed as an undercover operative for the CIA to discredit Joe Wilson’s op-ed article in the New York Times? Remember that? Joe Wilson was sent by Cheney himself to Africa to find out the truth. And when Joe came back with his report, it was shelved by Cheney. Lies were fabricated to promote war resolutions from Congress and the US public. The 23 words in the state of the union speech… Remember? Scooter Libby was sent to jail because of the way vice president Cheney dealt with that situation. Libby was the scapegoat for that whole scenario/nightmare and he ended up with a fine and no jail time.

    Interesting I read such hatrid for liberals in Greg Stranges article when the lying and manipulating are dispersed throughout the print media and indeed into todays lack of coverage by this two-bit internet news page.

    Impeach Cheney….maybe Bush will get the hint!

  • Ouderkirk

    Ccrash…What the f**k are you blathering about?

    While Richard Cheney may be a little to firm for you, he has been and is within his duties and within the letter of the constitution. You talk like a DUmmie or a KOSsucker.

  • http://www.utterbullshit.com CcrashModem

    This fight is not about Bill Clinton…. never has been. This fight is about the unconsionable usurpation of governmental powers by the Executive Branch and the Dick Branch. This fight is about transparency in government. This fight is about upholding the Constitution against enemies both foreign AND domestic. This fight is about holding our government responsible for its actions.
    Cheney has overstepped the bounds of power granted by the people in the form of the Constitution. Just remember, if you allow the Dick Branch these powers now, Hillary’s Veep will have the same powers in a little over a year. Do any of us, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, really want that? I submit to you- this is a precedent in opposition of everything that the Founding Fathers stood for, and it will shape our form of government for the forseeable future. Belittling Mr. Kucinich won’t change that or Mr. Cheney’s treasonous actions.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search