Obama must recuse himself

[MonkeyFunk]

from something or other. He doesn't support impeachment, therefore he's a complicit war criminal. Or something.

Howard Dean must step down. He doesn't support impeachment. He's complicit.

Al Gore, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, etc. etc.... they're all tools of the BFEE, because they can count to 67.

The over-the-top declarations here have become just plain idiotic.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. We actually agree on something. Can't you feel the love?

:D

[MonkeyFunk]

4. we always did agree on most things, LV...

in fact, I probably agree on most things with everybody here.

[terrya]

2. Well, I'll recommend this.

Because it deserves to be on the Greatest Page.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Thank you my friend...

nice to see you :D

[terrya]

7. Always nice to see you, my friend.

:-)

[rhett o rick]

45. Hey, hey don't John McStrange have a lock on "my friend". nm

[gateley]

3. Agree. If all who weren't in support of it stepped down,

we'd REALLY be hurting in the House and Senate.

[rwenos]

5. A Culture of Overstatement

I sympathize with your frustration. Everybody nowadays feels they have to overstate things to such a shrill degree -- like I do when my wife and kid won't "listen to" me at the dinner table. As if shouting will help!

People seeking rhetorical power can't think of any way to make their point more forceful than to make the most extreme statements. "Obama is a terrorist." "Pelosi is a traitor."

Political rhetoric is better conducted with a scalpel than a meataxe, friends. The meataxe approach is what the other side does.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. good point

I compare it to what people say should happen to certain criminals.

Say a pedophile is caught and convicted - saying he should be jailed for life isn't adequate to convey the revulsion people feel about the crime. They say he should be killed. They say he should be raped and then killed. They say he should be raped until he dies. They say he should be raped until he dies while his eyes are gouged out.

It seems one can't express how much one dislikes a crime without becoming animalistic about it. Anything less is supporting child-rape.

Similarly, any attempt to say that Nancy Pelosi isn't a war criminal is immediately read as support for Bush. It's just emotional empty-headed drivel.

[rwenos]

19. An example of Non-Emptyheaded Non-drivel

On target, Mate. My personal favorite "fuck you" quote comes from Jack London, describing a union scab thus:

"After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab."

"A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles."

"When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out."

"No man (or woman) has a right to scab so long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in, or a rope long enough to hang his body with. Judas was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his master, he had character enough to hang himself." A scab has not.

"Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Judas sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver. Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commision in the british army." The scab sells his birthright, country, his wife, his children and his fellowmen for an unfulfilled promise from his employer.

Esau was a traitor to himself; Judas was a traitor to his God; Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country; a scab is a traitor to his God, his country, his family and his class."

Can't we just substitute "Republican" for "scab"?

[JackRiddler]

36. The passage from London basically seals the case that he would today support impeachment.

Thanks!

[Lasher]

10. If I've told MonkeyFunk once, I've told him a million times...

not to exaggerate.

[dorkulon]

22. TRAITOR!!!1!

Excellent observation. There is a hell of a lot of this at DU.

[rhett o rick]

42. I agree, but want to point out it feels so good to shout. Just sayin. nm

[Bucky]

9. I call upon MonkeyFunk to recuse himself from calling on others to recuse themselves.

He is unfit to fling poop.

[rhett o rick]

43. I believe you misunderstood the post. The monkey is not asking Obama to recuse himself

he is mocking those that do. "The over-the-top declarations here have become just plain idiotic."

No comment on the flinging poop.

[Uben]

11. I would recommend, but....

....I am a direct descendant of Monkeys, so I must recuse myself!

[elocs]

12. Amen and your 1st Rec (don't expect too many from this crowd though).

On edit: I stand corrected about the Recs (I never would have believed you would get to 7).

But why, oh why do you hate the Constitution!!?

There is a narrow-minded segment of Liberals who are judgmental and god forbid that you do not see things exactly as they do, otherwise you are a DINO, a complicit war criminal, you must hate the Constitution. This group accepts no opinions or points of view that differ from theirs and will condemn or vilify anybody who thinks differently. There will be a lot of exploding heads here come next January. Counting to 67 means nothing to them. Apparently, when it comes to sex, they believe that the act itself is everything and orgasm is inconsequential.

If you remember, impeachment was all the rage last summer, but then it died down. It really has already started to die down now, but all it takes is for Kucinich to introduce articles of impeachment and they go nuts. Why didn't Kucinich introduce these articles last fall when there was more time? How about even in January when there was a lot of attention on Democrats running for the nomination, even himself, why didn't he introduce them then?

[BlooInBloo]

13. rec'd.

[sam sarrha]

14. is this what those idiots are talking about..>>LINK>>

http://www.alternet.org/story/70218/
snip..."Is it possible that many Democratic leaders have been informed by the Bush administration over the years about its doubtfully legal activities?

If so, are they therefore complicit in the Bush administration's lawlessness?

It's just been disclosed that Representative Jane Harmon and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were briefed by the Bush administration on the use of waterboarding. Harmon objected but Pelosi did not -- and when she became speaker of the house, she rejected Harmon for chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

The Administration has frequently responded to charges of Executive usurpation by saying the Congressional leaders were fully briefed on such questionable practices as NSA surveillance, extraordinary rendition, and enhanced interrogation techniques. ...snip"


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/09/5720/
snip"...The Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration, beginning in 2002, repeatedly briefed leading Congressional Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees — including, at various times, Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and Jane Harman — regarding the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation methods,” including details about waterboarding and other torture measures. With one exception (Harman, who vaguely claims to have sent a letter to the CIA), these lawmakers not only failed to object to these policies, but affirmatively supported them.

This information was almost certainly leaked to the Post by intelligence officials who are highly irritated — understandably so — from watching the manipulative spectacle whereby these Democrats now prance around as outraged victims of policies to which they deliberately acquiesced, when they weren’t fully supporting them. Numerous liberal bloggers are already drawing the only conclusions that can be drawn, and expressing their outrage and horror at the Democratic Party leadership. Those sentiments are indisputably appropriate, and I just want to add a few more points to them.

Jay Rockefeller was one of the key Democrats briefed on the torture methods who never objected. But it’s far worse than that. In September, 2006, Rockefeller was one of 12 Senate Democrats to vote in favor of the Military Commissions Act, one of the principal purposes of which was to explicitly authorize the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation program” to proceed (even though it continues to be illegal under the Geneva Conventions). Thus, not only did Rockefeller remain silent when continuously briefed on illegal torture methods by the CIA, he then voted to legalize those methods by voting in favor of one of the most Draconian laws in modern American history. That law also retroactively immunized government officials from any liability for past lawbreaking.snip"...

[Joe the Revelator]

15. I agree with you Monkeyfunk

[NNN0LHI]

16. Recommended

[Rick Myers]

17. Mass madness... WTF is going on?

I can safely say DU is as strange as I've ever seen it this weekend, and I've been here a long time...

[davidinalameda]

18. how about Hillary and Bill?

let's thrown Chelsea in for good measure!

[MonkeyFunk]

20. well

evidently Bill should be put in prison to be buttraped, Hillary... well we all know what should be done with her (I'm lighting the pyre as I type) and Chelsea is redeemable, as long as she promises to be Kucinich's fourth wife.

[davidinalameda]

33. I never know whether to take you seriously or not

I'm choosing not to

[tandot]

21. Well...I didn't want to sign on anymore because it has gotten so ridiculous here

I still read DU once a day and there are a few DUers who post reasonable stuff. I usually sign on just to K & R or post to counter someone's absurd BS.

"The over-the-top declarations here have become just plain idiotic" ... I totally agree with your post, MonkeyFunk

[anonymous171]

23. lol rec nt

:)

[Fire Walk With Me]

24. Sorry MF, but the list of crimes that we are given them a pass for, are too deep to ignore

or to continue allowing them a pass.

If things aren't bad enough yet, just wait while they are allowed to make them even worse. Which they'll do unless immediately removed. It's that simple. Leave them in power, they'll cause things to get even worse. Who here wants things to get worse? They can get a lot worse, indeed.

:shrug:

[PeaceNikki]

25. WAR MONGERS, THE LOT OF 'EM!!!!!!!

I'm actually attending a Feingold listening session next Saturday. My question is all prepared:

"Will you marry me?"

[Occam Bandage]

26. Just remember: If Democrats

are not willing to cede control of Congress to Republicans in order to make an ineffectual symbolic stance against the policies of Republicans, then they are no different than Republicans.

[JI7]

27. that's because getting real change requires hard work

we could try to help candidates get elected but that is very tough and after everything you put in there is a chance you might lose.

it's easier to just support something that isn't possible for your own ego and then piss about anyone who doesn't as being like the others. they know it's not possible anyways but it makes them feel morally superior to say they support it while others don't. they can feel good about themselves.

[The Doctor.]

28. Although I catch yer drift... Obama has actually stated that he plans to hold investigations.

He has no reason to lie, as it is potentially hazardous to make such a proclamation. One might say that he's trying to pick up the pro-transparency crowd, but mentioning outright support for impeachment would get him a full frontal assault not just by the RW, but it would give the media carte-blanche to pull out the stops.

Though I am thoroughly in favor of Impeachment, and although I agree with your every characterization but one, I would far rather that the Democratic candidate were savvy enough to let us know they're for it without saying it. He's done that.

Now... if I were a journalist, that would be one sweet, juicy question to ask the candidate; "Senator, given all the support from the left, if a resolution for impeachment arrived at the Senate, would you vote for it or against it?"

Oh... and I can imagine the follow-ups.

Good Post MF.

[PeaceNikki]

29. And any Senator would respond as Feingold has:

"It is the role of the Senate to try impeachments. But the Constitution left it up to the judgment of members of Congress whether or not moving forward with impeachment is best for the country.

I would have a specific role to play as a sworn, impartial juror should an impeachment be tried in the Senate. If charges come to the Senate, I will approach them and the trial with the same seriousness that I had when I participated in the Clinton impeachment trial. I would not prejudge the case one way or the other should it come to this."

[The Doctor.]

31. Of course...

I suppose I was being fanciful, but that is exactly correct.

[Zhade]

30. Hey, I'd be happy to trade impeachment for b*s* going to the Hague.

It's trading up!

[The Doctor.]

34. With certainty.

[slipslidingaway]

35. Do you have a link where he states that he will hold

investigations? Thanks.

Here is his statement from April 2008.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33622

and

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve. So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies.

And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

[madokie]

39. In other word that he doesn't have a preconcieved notion of guilt

that in itself makes him a BIG MAN in my book :hi:

[babsbunny]

32. wow, your right

What are we going to do?

[HamdenRice]

37. Sorry, but this post is making a dumb analogy while attempting to call others dumb

This is a common disease on DU.

The call for Pelosi to recuse herself is based on common judicial and political practice -- that a public official should not make public policy decisions when that person's specific, personal interests will be affected.

This is why judges, for example, recuse themselves in corporate cases when they have investments, even passive investments, in the shares of affected corporations.

The idea is that if Pelosi was informed as part of the Congressional leadership of illegal programs carried out by the Bush administration, then she is potentially criminally liable. She would have an overwhelming incentive not to investigate Bush through impeachment, because it could expose her criminal liability at the same time.

There are no allegations that Obama or Dean were informed, and therefore no allegations that they bear potential criminal liability. Therefore they are entitled to participate in decisions about whether to impeach Bush.

The people who call for Pelosi to recuse herself aren't asking her to recuse herself because she disagrees with pro-impeachment forces; it's that she should recuse herself because she has a direct interest in the outcome of the case if, as has been widely reported, she was informed of the illegal activities that form the basis for impeachment.

Your simplifying that issue to such a stupifyingly low level tends to rebound back at you.

[rhett o rick]

41. It would be wonderful if members of Congress would all recuse themselves when there

was a conflict of interest. However, nothing would happen, because they would all have to recuse themselves.

[ColbertWatcher]

38. I 'm not sure why your OP angers me, but...

...for some reason, I feel compelled to go out and buy a Hummer, some guns and Vienna sausages.

Not the non-Vienna variety, they make me mad too for some reason.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. No one is forcing you to vote for him

[rhett o rick]

44. Either you missed the point of the post or I did. The monk is mocking those that make such

outlandish statements as "Obama must recuse himself..". His last statement was: "The over-the-top declarations here have become just plain idiotic."

That's how i read it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. And I noticed he failed to post any links to prove those statements were made

I also know that he is a Hillary supporter who has not changed his avatar.

Do the math. It's not that complicated. :)

[rhett o rick]

49. "Do the Math. It's not complicated." So let me understand YOUR math.

You believe Mr. Monk is trying to get Obama to recluse himself from something but doesn't even mention what? My math says that he is mocking those that make those statements. And I would say most of us understand what he means. He isn't trying to prove anything so links aren't needed. If you don't believe that people are asking Nancy to recluse herself, it's your problem. Do your own research.

I disagreed with him a lot during the primary battle, sometime fairly strenuously, but I appreciate his passion. I don't support Sen Clinton but respect those that do. I think those Obama supporter that want Sen Clinton supporters to knuckle under by removing their Hillary avatar, are bad winners. It is time to heal the party and defeat McShame.

[11 Bravo]

46. K&R (And I wish I could recommend it twice.)

Nicely said and right on target!

[KharmaTrain]

47. Gotta Love The Lack Of Nuance

Yep, it's all for or nothing. A rigid standard is applied...either you want to impeach now or else you're trampling on the constitution, a defeatist, a traitor, an enabler, a nasty, bad person. There's no dispute here...it's gotta be here and now or nothing at all. The country must be ground to a halt as vindication must be the supreme job of Democrats. Enough of the investigations, there's enough, let's just stop everything and impeach. Anyone who tries to throw any reality or alternatievs are dismissed and that emotion is all that matters here. Nothing will change their minds...it's hellbent on immediate retribution...and with it goes the chance of it actually happening.

Impeachment can be a viable option in several ways...some organization and patience is needed, but it can and should happen. A strong Democratic win in November means a lame duck session that will have a real lame duck. It'll send a shiver to the GOOP that could shake up their power structure. With the elections behind, many who are now hesitant in moving this through the Judiciary and the House may now be willing to go on the record. While I still see the Senate letting this bastard off the hook, a post-election impeachment could clean up some messes to enable the new Democratic administration to start fresh and prevent this regime from doing any further damage.

[SidneyCarton]

50. Thank You.

Aaah, at last a voice of sanity. We all seem to want our way, or the nuclear option all the time. "Compromise? Never! I get my will implemented in full or the nation will BURN!!!!!" Those who resort to the over-the-top declarations should consider the idea of a Pyhrric Victory, sometimes winning at all costs is really losing.
K/R

[beachmom]

51. Not only that, it is the House that impeaches a president, not the Senate.

Thanks, MonkeyFunk.