John Conyers' Fantasy World
Today, John Conyers writes that he's not rushing to impeach the President.
If he's for real, it looks like he's changed his tune pretty recently, perhaps in response to pleas from Nancy Pelosi. She apparently understands that having Conyers' moonbattery on display as the putative chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (if the Dems retake Congress) isn't the best way to instill confidence in lefty leadership.
Obviously, Conyers' assertions are disingenuous at best. He says he just wants to "get answers" from the Administration -- but judging from the fact that he has already introduced a package of censure resolutions about the President and Vice-President, it sounds like the questions are a mere formality. He's already played dress up for an impeachment hearing.
Conyers is hoping that his backpedaling will convince Americans that his plans are innocuous. But even if the naive and the foolish take his piece today at face value, it's important to understand what he's proposing. By his own admission, he wants to assemble a select committee to probe The White House during war time, and to ask once again the same old questions that were asked and answered endlessly during the 2004 campaign.
Clinton's partisans and his friends in the MSM bemoaned the "distraction" that the Monica Lewinsky investigation and impeachment had become. And that's the point: Investigations are, indeed, a distraction. Whatever the costs pre-9/11, they're infinitely greater now, in the wake of a terrorist attack when the country is at war.
Could it be that the Democrats don't understand this? Or do they understand, and just not care?
If he's for real, it looks like he's changed his tune pretty recently, perhaps in response to pleas from Nancy Pelosi. She apparently understands that having Conyers' moonbattery on display as the putative chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (if the Dems retake Congress) isn't the best way to instill confidence in lefty leadership.
Obviously, Conyers' assertions are disingenuous at best. He says he just wants to "get answers" from the Administration -- but judging from the fact that he has already introduced a package of censure resolutions about the President and Vice-President, it sounds like the questions are a mere formality. He's already played dress up for an impeachment hearing.
Conyers is hoping that his backpedaling will convince Americans that his plans are innocuous. But even if the naive and the foolish take his piece today at face value, it's important to understand what he's proposing. By his own admission, he wants to assemble a select committee to probe The White House during war time, and to ask once again the same old questions that were asked and answered endlessly during the 2004 campaign.
Clinton's partisans and his friends in the MSM bemoaned the "distraction" that the Monica Lewinsky investigation and impeachment had become. And that's the point: Investigations are, indeed, a distraction. Whatever the costs pre-9/11, they're infinitely greater now, in the wake of a terrorist attack when the country is at war.
Could it be that the Democrats don't understand this? Or do they understand, and just not care?
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:13 AM
4 Comments:
Is this really the best you have, Carol? Important mid-term elections are coming up and your campaign slogan is "Please re-elect Republicans because Democrats might ask questions." Color me impressed.
P.S. John Conyers says, "Boo."
"Clinton's partisans and his friends in the MSM bemoaned the "distraction" that the Monica Lewinsky investigation and impeachment had become."
I remember how you stood front and center claiming that Bill Clinton should not have to deal with the tawdry Paula Jones case while sitting as President. I recall all of your brilliant articles calling on your Republicans allies in Congress to step back from the brink and not push for impeachment. Oh that's right, you only think the President should be above question if he is a Republican.
Your Republican cronies impeached a popularly elected President over a blow job. You called it standing for the rule of law.
Now we are dealing with a President who sliced and diced the intelligence to foist upon the nation a war of choice. We have a President that proudly proclaims that he does not need to follow the Constitution because he is above the rule of law. So much criminality and you have the temerity to claim the Congrssional Republicans' attempt at a coup d'etat should innoculate a criminal administration from even being questioned by Congress?
You think lying under oath is nothing, and blow it off as a blow job? I do see that oaths and integrity mean nothing to the Godless.
How about that anyone else in America would have been fired for just a blow job at the office? And is there any possibility that the "Commander in Chief" might have some national security secrets that he'd be willing to divulge in exchange for endulging his wanton desires?
No, I don't follow Bush in everything he does, but you say "We have a President that proudly proclaims that he does not need to follow the Constitution because he is above the rule of law." And you and the MSM and Dems are the only ones saying it. The Constitutional lawyers are saying he didn't break the rule of law.
I hope the Dems do go for impeachment, because the situations are so diametrically opposed between Bush and Clinton.
CoPioneer claims, "No, I don't follow Bush in everything he does..."
I'm calling you out on this one CoPioneer. Name one example, link us to one post on this blog, give us the slightest bit of evidence that you have actually disagreed with this President on anything substantive.
Post a Comment
<< Home