‘Far stronger than Watergate’

Via ThinkProgress:

Last night, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) took to the House floor to urge the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment hearings into Vice President Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Wexler, who has already acquired nearly 190,000 supporters through his website, explained his next steps:

Tomorrow, I will deliver these names to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee with a letter to my friend, Chairman Conyers, calling for hearings. I will ask my colleagues to sign this letter … Continuing every day for months, I will publish in the Congressional Record several thousand names of supporters who signed up.

History demands that we take action, because the case against Vice President Cheney is far stronger than the illegality surrounding Watergate.

“In the history of our nation, we have never encountered a moment where the actions of a President or a Vice President have more strongly demanded the use of the power of impeachment,” Wexler said last night.

He delivered his remarks to a nearly empty House chamber, just after Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members left to attend a reception.

On DailyKos, Ralph Lopez has more.

Rep. Wexler’s petition is at WexlerWantsHearings.com

UPDATE: One result of Wexler’s speech– the media blackout on impeachment is no longer total.

UPDATE: Politico.com has a good story about Wexler’s speech. Check out the comments– the right is scared to death of this.

  1. #1 by jasonthe on January 16, 2008 - 2:58 pm

    Media ignorance of Wexler’s efforts confound me. It seems right up their alley, in the sense that it would make for “exciting teevee.”

    As a somewhat relevant tangent, I’m on the diary rescuing team at MyDD.com, and there is one diarist that each week writes eloquently about Wexler and the impeachment efforts. Most diaries there receive hundreds of comments each. The impeachment diaries often go unnoticed.

    Is this a taboo topic even for progressives? And why? I become less interested in impeachment talk as this administration wanes, but it has always peaked my curiosity that it was so quickly stomped by leadership and progressive media figures without a fight.

    Still, Wexler has put some serious work into this. That is a lot of signatures.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on January 16, 2008 - 8:56 pm

    If you were a jackass with nothing to say that made any sense you could say this:

    At the Republican National Committee, press secretary Alex Conant dismissed Wexler’s impeachment call as a “publicity stunt.”

    “Wexler is a partisan bomb-thrower hoping to earn points with the far Left,” Conant said. “His absurd calls for impeachment hearings are little more than a vain attempt to make himself relevant.”

    You forgot to call Wexler a conspiracy theorist and UFO nut who sees little green men and wears a tin foil hat that picks up signals from black helicopters.

    Alex seems desperate to me.

    Lets see now, they impeached Clinton for…

  3. #3 by Cliff on January 16, 2008 - 11:45 pm

    Thanks for posting this Richard.

  4. #4 by Cliff on January 16, 2008 - 11:50 pm

    Hey Larry,

    Leave the UFO thing out of it.

    Just go to YouTube and search UFO. It won’t take more than an hour to become convinced from the empirical evidence.

  5. #5 by caveat on January 17, 2008 - 6:18 am

    Cliff, from Conants perspective as chief propagandist, it’s… Kucinich….Wexler…Space-case, kifi-kifi (same, same).

    Fewer and fewer are making that purchace these days however. But you knew that.

    Why aren’t any of these ‘honorable’ men confessing, turning themselves in?

  6. #6 by glenn on January 17, 2008 - 9:18 am

    The evidence may be stronger than Watergate, but alas the opposition is not up to the task. With under a year to go, will punishing bush et al be nothing more than an exercise in legalism? What a waste to be so outraged at this stage of the game.

    So bush/cheney lied, people died, but most of the morons in congress agreed, didn’t care, or fell for it. Doesn’t speak much for our future, no matter who takes his place.

  7. #7 by Larry Bergan on January 17, 2008 - 2:57 pm

    Cliff:

    I’m not putting down people who claim to have seen a UFO. I’m just putting down the tactic of using these things against anybody who questions the authorities of America. It’s been working to their advantage for decades. It’s like a post hypnotic suggestion. All you have to do is say the acronym UFO and people start rolling their eyes.

    With that being said, Carl Sagan’s take on it was that he didn’t think aliens would care enough about earth to ever take the time to come here. I just don’t know.

    Going to YouTube is a laborious process for me because it takes a half hour to see each clip with dial-up.

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2008 - 3:22 pm

    glenn– You should be a lawyer. I can see it now: “Your honor, my client may be guilty, but punishing him for his crimes would be nothing more than an exercise in legalism.”

  9. #9 by glenn on January 17, 2008 - 7:57 pm

    Thanks Richard; Always make charges carried against your client at best Pyhrric victories. bush is the master.

    In order for there to be a speedy trial, the accused must be first charged, and the offended can’t seem to get it together. Maybe we can convict bush after he passes, retroactively, that would be easy. Look the barn door is open and he’s getting away.

  10. #10 by Larry Bergan on January 17, 2008 - 11:54 pm

    At this time, Wexler has almost 206,000 signatures. That’s really pathetic. Sometimes I don’t blame the Democratic leaders for not doing anything, (just sometimes), because you know there are hundreds of millions of people who would like to see Bush and his cronies fry, but they won’t click their mouse and fill in their name.

    Home of the brave, land of the free
    people are dying, don’t let it be me.

  11. #11 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2008 - 8:53 am

    Wexler set an initial goal of 50,000, and the response shot past that the first few days. I thought it might get to 500,000 but Wexler’s drive lost momentum. The news hasn’t gotten beyond the blogosphere.

  12. #12 by caveat on January 18, 2008 - 9:29 am

    Far stronger than ‘Monica-gate.

    It’s not only that I want to see the perpetrators of these crimes held accountable, in the sense of equal just under the law (certainly a large component), above and beyond the justice issue, I would really like to see the society that is the USA behaving a whole lot less fearfully, greedily and vengefully. And more honestly! We have been nurturing our own inner terrorist altogether too long and need to cultivate a better aspect of ourselves. We almost seem to be afraid to prop up our inner Peace-nik, but we must. Christ’s orders! The lengthening list of citizens who would promote accountability are the same ones seeking peace. While the ‘blogospere’ seems to be a distinct sub-layer of the broader society, it is not. Each and every blogger has numerous other connections and voices that will eradicate any sense of isolation. Soon our numbers and stance will gain the momentum to rule. It’s only a matter of time.

  13. #13 by glenn on January 18, 2008 - 10:21 am

    It can’t be stronger than Monicagate, because see that ended up in clintons’ impeachment. The charge against bush will be stronger only if he is impeached AND removed from office. Clocks ticking, there is no chance.

  14. #14 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2008 - 1:08 pm

    Interestingly enough, this month is the tenth anniversary of Monicagate. Check out the articles by Timothy Noah on Slate and one he links to, by Damian Whitworth of the London Times.

    In the latter article, Monica’s publicist Barbara Hutson makes an interesting point:

    She says the media were influenced by the White House to coin the phrases Monicagate and the Lewinsky scandal. It is hard to imagine that such nomenclature was uppermost in the minds of presidential aides at the time but Hutson believes “very simply they put it all on her and for ever that will haunt her. She is a private citizen and her name is mud, her family’s name. Why didn’t they call it Clintongate?”

    Lewinsky’s whereabouts are presently unknown to the news media.

  15. #15 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2008 - 2:06 pm

    In retrospect, it should be called “hypocritegate”

    Out of the gate came running Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrinch, Bob Livingston, Tom Delay, and Bob Barr.

    I don’t know whether Barr ever cheated on his wife, but in Michael Moore’s “The Awful Truth” DVD, there is a clip where Mike stops Barr to ask about whether the stories that he had licked whipped cream off of a ladies breast at a party were true. Bob, to his credit, doesn’t lie and says something like ‘Yeah, and everybody keeps bringing it up!’

    The good news is that none of these people are still in Washington. At least not officially.

  16. #16 by caveat on January 18, 2008 - 3:23 pm

    The bad news is that, as henous a crimes as licking whipped cream off someones boob, or even getting a blow job in front of the presidential seal are, GW can lie, lie, lie…kill kill kill and it’s all good. Makes me want to hurl.

  17. #17 by glenn on January 18, 2008 - 3:48 pm

    “It isn’t whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Progressive ideology

    “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”. neo con ideology.

    In a Machiavellian world…who “wins”?

    Do we need to ask? Stop being an idiotic doormat progressives with some trite “welcome, step on me” crap woven into it.

  18. #18 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2008 - 3:59 pm

    The neocons like to talk about “winning” and “victory” but they haven’t got a clue how to achieve their aims in the Middle East. Result: an unwinnable occupation of Iraq.

  19. #19 by glenn on January 18, 2008 - 5:11 pm

    Richard, there are no aims apart from funneling monies into fellow cronies pockets.

    “Result: an unwinnable occupation of Iraq”.

    That will cost the taxpayers a trillion dollars, maybe more if they can drag it out that long. The more “unwinnable” the better to a neo con. Mo money if you know what I mean. The whole point of unwinnable war is profit for minority.

  20. #20 by Larry Bergan on January 19, 2008 - 1:58 am

    glenn said:

    “It isn’t whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”. Progressive ideology

    “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”. neo con ideology.

    See, even you admit, there is a difference between the two ideologies. How you play the game is the most important in the end because without that you don’t really win anyway. It’s called cheating.

    If you lose trust, you lose everything eventually. That’s why we have to impeach these guys now, but I don’t think we can cheat to do it. We DO have to get more support and interest in it somehow.

    caveat:

    It really twists the mind, doesn’t it.

  21. #21 by Larry Bergan on January 19, 2008 - 2:14 am

    Richard:

    Greg Palast thinks the administration actually had a strategy of making sure not enough oil was produced in Iraq on purpose to keep the price high. What do you think about that theory?

  22. #22 by caveat on January 19, 2008 - 7:15 am

    Lar, Yes, as do my calls to the offices of Hatch and Matheson.

  23. #23 by glenn on January 19, 2008 - 9:15 am

    Larry, in all fairness, running the United States for your own purposes isn’t a game. There are no rules if seizing power is what you are up to, other than to crush opposition, and continue to “win”. This isn’t cheating, it is putsch, and we are in the big middle of it.

    Yes differences, one is a consistent winner, the other a consistent loser.

    The democrats that defeat reps often have winning as the only thing. You must win to effect change.

    Hey, one geo-political reason for the Iraq war was to deprive that source of oil to china. Oil is hard to transport, and the ME is the logical place the chinese would get what they need. As for keeping the price high, that the war does that is a great side benefit for the connected.

  24. #24 by Anonymous on January 19, 2008 - 10:52 am

    First they came for the gypsies, but, since we were not gypsies, we held our tounge. Then they came for the progressives, but since they hadn’t connected us to the progs, again we said nothing…Little by little, a little while later, with only a small shred of the natural world still intact, they, imbued as they were with the continued lust for blood, and incredibly lonely in the bargain, killed themselves. And then there were none. Is this not a good thing? Mother nature may be argumentative if you think not. But, then you already knew that.

  25. #25 by Larry Bergan on January 19, 2008 - 1:45 pm

    glenn:

    They’re winning the game, but it’s obvious to everyone now that they’ve lost the trust of the world and their own people. They can’t prop up any of their own arguments so they spend their time censoring others. We’re very close to a complete rejection of all ideologies that don’t make sense. The Pope got rejected from an appearance recently because of his 12th century ideas about the nature of the universe and Hucklebee just took himself out of the race for saying he wanted to base the constitution on the old testament.

    I think the professional liars are growing more tired by the day. Unfortunately, we’re all in for some rough times because it’s going to be hard to convince the world that we ever gave a crap about them. We did! It just doesn’t look that way because the control freaks wouldn’t allow us to get away from the fossil fuels infrastucture which was discredited 30 years ago when OPEC made people stand in line for their gas.

    Get rid of the House of Bush, (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the White House), and we can start down the path to redemption.

    Alright, it’s a little naive, but it still makes sense.

  26. #26 by Larry Bergan on January 19, 2008 - 1:52 pm

    caveat:

    Actually, the last time I called Hatch’s office, his receptionist was in adamant agreement with me about an issue you wouldn’t believe. I’m not even going to tell you what that issue was, because I know that person would be in trouble for agreeing and a cold chill would come over Mr. Hatch’s office.

  27. #27 by caveat on January 19, 2008 - 2:21 pm

    They are polite and receptive, yes, but then Orrin / Matty goes off and votes for / against the very proposition I just pitched against / for.

    I’m beginning to appreciate GW’s position that “… only if I’m the dictator”. Never really having a say…now, that’s another matter. And don’t call me ‘door-mat’.

  28. #28 by glenn on January 19, 2008 - 10:22 pm

    Stick with the rules for implementing foreign policy post bush, the rest of the world does.

    No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent self interest.

    Whatever our self interest is with regards to the world, we better figure it out.

    It isn’t a kumbayah circle.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: