No Rush to Impeachment (Op-Ed by Ranking Moonbat of House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers)

Washington Post ^ | May 18, 2006 | Representative John Conyers

[RWR8189]

As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials.

But none of these allegations can be proved or disproved until the administration answers questions. For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war, we need to know what information was made available to -- and actually read by -- decision makers and how views contradicting the case for war were treated.

We need to know the extent to which high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees. We need to know whether the leaking of the name of a covert CIA operative was deliberate or accidental, as well as the identity of those responsible.

[RWR8189]

I hope all of you FReepers and "true conservatives" are content to take moonbat Conyers at his word, when you sit on your hands and refuse to vote this November.

[msnimje]

I trust him.

[nwrep]

Why is this slimy pimp backing off? Perhaps he is afraid of the pubbie backlash?

[goodnesswins]

"We need to know the extent to which high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees. We need to know whether the leaking of the name of a covert CIA operative was deliberate or accidental, as well as the identity of those responsible."

No, Conyers....WE need to know who your COMMIE backers are....you traitor.

[Always Right]

But none of these allegations can be proved or disproved until the administration answers questions. For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war

Funny, I have heard thousands of Democrats say that matter of factly. Now Conyers the king moonbat, says it can not be proven. If they can't prove it, then Democrats are lying.

[JRios1968]

How do you know a Lib is lying?

In this case, the fingers are over the keyboard!

[umgud]

I respectfully disagree with the president on the border issue, I'm as big a border-bot as they come. I've never made denegrating remarks about the president here, never flamed others here, and I won't set out the '06 election. I will never never never ever vote for a dem or throw away a vote. I won't even vote for a good dem because any elected dem adds to the dem majority. And, when dems are in the majority people like Conyers get their way.

[RWR8189]

Not only do they get what they want, they chair important committees, and have real power.

The last thing this country needs is moonbat Conyers and Leaky Leahy chairing their chamber's respective Judiciary Committees.

[Republican Wildcat]

Conyers has already been holding mock impeachment hearings. Pelosi must have threatened to take away the chairmanship from him to get him to write this garbage.

[umgud]

How about lib judges, more gun control, eviro laws, weak national security......... I could go on and on.

[Jim_Curtis]

Is it possible that Bush is doing this amnesty/mass immigration thing as a peace offering to the Democrats to persuade them not to threaten impeachment?

I guess I'm desperately searching for an explanation.

[kylaka]

Well, maybe he's afraid of President Cheney. After spouting off about about impeachment, the dip shits have had time to think what happens afterward. .

[Political Junkie Too]

Democrat spokesperson Nathan Thurm: "I knew that! We never said we'd impeach the President. You said that. Why would we want to impeach the President? You said we wanted to impeach the President. We don't want to impeach the President."

-PJ

[LdSentinal]

As a New Yorker I'm very worried, because a Democrat-controlled House and Senate would lead to a mushroom cloud over Manhattan.

[hsalaw]

"The allegations I have raised are...based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials."

"Reliable," used to refer to "media reports" and "former administration" hacks? I don't think that word, "reliable," means what he thinks it means. He's crazy if he thinks he can make anyone believe the dems aren't going to immediately attack Pres. Bush, the War on Terror, the tax cuts, and anything else done in the past five years if they take the House.

[Nateman]

Stalin could learn a few tips from this RAT. ( Probably even still votes for him )

[Nateman]

Stalin could learn a few tips from this RAT. ( Probably even still votes for him )

[Nateman]

Stalin could learn a few tips from this RAT. ( Probably even still votes for him )

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Lucky for the Democrates, the Guest Worker Amnesty bill if signed into law will make a lot of us give a big *YAWN* to an impeachment of Bush, if that's the best reason the GOP campaign managers in Washington can come up with to vote for them, they're in more trouble then they realize.

I have no motivation to defend Bush's legacy, he's a big boy, he can worry about that.

[COEXERJ145]

And yet again we are presented with proof that some people on FR want to see the President impeached.