It appears that way too many DUers don't understand what happened in Congress today

[proud2BlibKansan]

Kucinich's impeachment resolution charging George Bush with war crimes was read into the official record. The House voted to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, which will now begin hearings. There will also likely be an investigation, but the investigation has already taken place. Congress knows what Bush is accused of doing. The Republicans and lame Democrats who have refused to support impeachment are in denial, but they know what the accusations are.

But the important thing that came out of today's events is that these hearings will be televised. Just like Watergate. Those of you old enough to remember Watergate, how can you forget those televised hearings with day after day after day of damning evidence? And remember how the American people reacted? Even the Republicans were screaming for Nixon's impeachment.

This is a HUGE victory. Even though the Democratic leaders are emphasizing that this is merely a "review", once the American public sees the evidence, they will demand accountability.

So yes, this is a big deal. And we owe Dennis Kucinich a medal of honor for pushing this in spite of being discouraged every step of the way.

Now tune up your VCRs, TIVOs and DVRs. You are going to want to see every minute of these televised hearings.

[malaise]

1. I don't intend to miss one minute of those hearings

Yow Dennis :yourock:

[liberalmuse]

2. I'll be watching.

I appreciate the update. It's been a long work day and I wasn't up to par. Thank god for Kucinich. This is really good news.

[cliffordu]

24. Kucinich needs to be the VP.

Or the Attorney General...

[awoke_in_2003]

75. No, we need him right where he is

He is one of only a handful of voices of reason in that body.

[puebloknot]

124. Obama does not support impeachment. Dennis needs to stay independent. nt

[kimmerspixelated]

213. I bet if he thought it would get him elected-he'd support it,

it's a tightrope some of the dems are walking, but still-I think that maybe Obama is secretly hoping that impeachment will occur, just so long as he doesn't lose any votes. If the facts are displayed officially, he'll jump in I bet!

[puebloknot]

214. John Conyers wrote a massive tome, outlining a plethora of ...

... impeachable offenses. Surely Obama is aware of that. Obama has said he does not think impeachable offenses have been committed. Now, Conyers doesn't seem to believe what he, himself, wrote.

I'm tired of "tightrope" politics and governance. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Yeah, that's it!

[bjobotts]

246. Keep in Mind dem leaders have immunized warrantless eavesdopping & torture already

[bjobotts]

247. And still there is overwhelmng evidence of mass murder from lying us into a war.

[puebloknot]

255. Right. Impeachment would catch a variety of fish in its net. nt

[Vidar]

184. Speaker of the House would be the best position for him, after Pelosi is jailed.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. k+r n/t

[Swamp Rat]

IMPEACH!!

:kick:

[1776Forever]

190. Now you are a Patriot Swamp Rat! IMPEACH BUSH in Red White & Blue!!!!

Yes Yes Yes!! For all the right reasons - For the true American Dream where all men are equal!

[BrklynLiberal]

207. Can we get a bumper sticker like that????

[Breeze54]

4. 'This is a HUGE victory' !!!! --- Absolutely !!!

After fighting tooth and nail, this IS a huge victory!!

The Watergate hearings had very American glued to their TV sets, day after day....

And then they turned on Nixon.... FINALLY!!!!

Pitchforks and all!!

Thanks, proud2Blib, for trying. ;)

:kick: & Recommended!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. My mom was about the age I am now

And she used all of her vacation time to stay home and watch the Watergate hearings live. I was in college and I thought my mom had lost her mind. I just didn't get it.

But I get it now. (AND I LOVE YOU, MOM!!! :loveya:)

It was amazing. After only a few weeks, EVERYONE was talking about Nixon and how evil he was. I can still remember my mom talking about her Republican neighbors telling her that Nixon needed to go. Even my friends, who had never paid much attention to politics, were watching those hearings and talking about what was being revealed.

America was livid. I will never ever forget it.

And I can't wait to see America pissed off once again. :bounce:

[Breeze54]

21. I was still in HS but I watched it when I got home from school with my family

The TV, which usually was off until after dinner, was on all day long!!

My parents were livid. I had 2 brothers drafted to 'Nam, so my family

was paying close attention. I even bought the Warren Report in hard cover. ;)

Thanks for posting this! :hug:

[wtmusic]

48. Me too, and my kids are about the age I was then.

Although it may not make as big a splash in this day and age, I sure as hell hope it will.

[caraher]

109. I was a 9 year old Watergate junkie

I didn't get to watch much of the hearings but I read everything in the newspapers.

I remember profound relief mixed with a little disappointment when Nixon resigned (I wanted a *conviction*, dammit!), followed by some befuddlement when my father mouthed the "Nixon has suffered enough" line the evening of his resignation. (He had weird politics I'd describe as mostly contrarian... voted for Wallace in the '72 primary "just to shake things up" and cast most of the last votes of his life for Libertarians. By the time I was voting I knew better than to take any of his political views too seriously - he'd read WAAY too much Ayn Rand!)

Different media today for sure!

[MadrasT]

112. Cheers!

I was a 9 year old Watergate junkie, too!!! (I was also the only 7 year old in my 2nd grade class who voted for McGovern in the 2nd grade mock election.)

:toast:

[Breeze54]

113. Woot!

I voted for McGovern too, in the 1st election that 18 yr olds got the right to vote!

Way to go!! :D

[barbtries]

120. i was 17

and heartbroken that i couldn't vote. my friend who was voting for the first time had a mcgovern sticker on her car then went inside and voted for nixon while i waited in her car. her boyfriend had told her mcgovern was going down in flames. so what?!

when nixon resigned i was 18 and had moved out. i went to my mom's house to watch it with her and gloat but she took all the fun out of it by crying and saying he was the best president we'd ever had. go figure

i think i looked at both of them both times like they were nuts. my mom's long dead but my friend, the last time we talked politics, told me saddam had WMDs and had secreted them in syria before the US military caught up with him. she basically warned me off of bashing the war. oh well.

i do love that some hearings will go on. for those of us who have been paying attention over the past several years impeachment is the least of the consequences bush etc should be facing right now. but apparently most americans have a lot of catching up to do.

i don't want to get too happy though. too many disappointments during this disastrous administration.

dennis kucinich is the closest thing to a saint alive today. imo

[zanne]

235. A day after I turned 21, 18 year-olds were given the right to vote.

I hitched from Keene NH to Manchester to vote for McGovern, even though I knew he didn't have a chance. I haven't missed a vote since.

[blue state liberal]

251. I voted for McGovern

and when I was in college I voted twice for Adlai Stevenson.
What fine Liberals they both were! Dennis Kucinich is wonderful and Robert Wexler has been working very hard for impeachment as well. Perhaps this time it will finally come to pass! As for Nixon I too was glued to the Watergate hearings and I certainly cannot wait to watch the Bush/Cheney Impeachment hearings! IF ONLY THIS COMES TRUE !!!!

[MotorCityMan]

141. I'm another one who was 9 years old during Watergate

Too funny! I was the only one who voted for McGovern when I was in 2nd grade! My dad NEVER trusted Nixon.

One thing I always remember was how upset my mother was during the hearings. She said to me at one point "This country really started going to hell after they killed Kennedy".

[peacetalksforall]

151. You're lucky to have her as a Mom. Great insight. I didn't see the

handbasket - I thought it was all the criminals in the Republican Party who never got defeated and who kept coming back. Can't remember when I started saying that it all started with the JKF assassination - but it did. She was right except the barons have been on their pursuit for a century. The politicians and their tax paid operatives got away with JFK and took King, then Robert Kennedy. Today, all the Iran-Contra criminals are running the White House, including North and Libby - because right wing hate radio is as valuable to brain washing and creating followers for Cheney-Bush and the barons as Condi and Abrams and Powell Baker and Skowcroft. Instead of Khashoggi, we have Chalabi and A. Q. Khan.

[MotorCityMan]

180. Yes, I am lucky and thank you for that nice comment

In fact, my parents are visiting here from Arizona, and I will share your thoughtful remarks. Both have been life long Democrats.

I did not understand my mother's comment then. I agree with her now. They got away with murdering a US president (I never believed Oswald acted alone), along with MLK and Bobby Kennedy.

Then Ford pardoned Nixon, letting slugs like Cheney and Rummy to continue their plans. Bush Sr. pardons the Iran Contra criminals and Clinton doesn't pursue it. Now they're all back with more power than they ever dreamed under *.

[coalition_unwilling]

198. I was the only one in 8th grade Social Studies voting for McGovern

Attended school in a farm town in southwestern Missouri (middle of the Bible Belt and Tornado Alley).

[coalition_unwilling]

202. The country really started going to hell after they killed Lincoln -n/t

[electropop]

150. Me three.

I was also a 9-year-old Watergate Junkie. I think we have a quorum for a support group.

However, I expect something more like a watered-down Iran-Contra hearing this time. A little heat and smoke, then everybody (except Kucinich) apologizes for troubling the "President" with these trivialities, and they all go home. :-(

[cyberswede]

152. LOL! Me too (1st grade) n/t

[roguevalley]

193. I watched them too and the show The Advocates that was on PBS.

It was a panel show with an audience that discussed the goings on in detail and Nixon always got trounced. Mike Dukakis was the moderator and everyone under the sun was on it. I had such a crush on Dukakis when he was moderator. Imagine my surprise when he later went into politics. :)

[coalition_unwilling]

197. I remember as a boy of 12-13 watching Charles Colson on

one of the Sunday a.m. talk shows (in 1972 perhaps) and, without fully understanding what I was seeing, having a visceral negative reaction to his slimy uxoriousness. Needless to say, I was not surprised when he eventually was convicted and served hard time.

[KamaAina]

222. Uxoriousness?

That would be "excessive fondness for, or submission to, a wife". Somehow that doesn't sound one bit like Colson... perhaps you were going for "unctuousness", which would go much better with "slimy"?

[BonnieJW]

186. I remember those hearings.

My husband and I were only married a couple of years and we had our first baby. I had always been an independent and my husband came from a VERY repub home. He did not believe any of the accusations against Nixon, but after watching the hearings, he HAD to believe them. Slowly, after fathering three little girls and being married to me, he became an independent too. Not so his stupid parents. They remained knuckle draggers.

[Rex]

5. Repukes will decide to just ignore those televised hearings.

They will call it bullshit or say they can't recall the details in the future. Same predictable shit from them. At least it is now in the official record. Once again, a few Dems are keeping it all together.

Congrats DK! :toast:

[Breeze54]

7. 238 is not a 'few' !

:P

[Rex]

9. I can name the few I'm thinking of that always oppose the BFEE

and it is not 238. Thank goodness for Dennis. :hi:

[jwirr]

71. They did back them also but most ordinary people listened and

learned.

[Rex]

118. I think their numbers are dwindling. The GOP 'brand' is bad for business.

Even their own PR slimeballs say it. I think with DK getting it on the books will remain big for years to come. There will be repercussions felt from such a strong vote. I think this will be the decline of Repukes. Hopefully for good.

[mmonk]

6. The difference being it will be only on C-Span

and print media will ignore it most likely (I hope I'm wrong). We were a different country then in that the media covered matters of importance and did not engage in cover up and propaganda. But yes, it's a victory in that maybe enough will see it.

[Breeze54]

8. Do you have a link to that meme?

:shrug:

[mmonk]

54. It was a guess.

After fighting these battles tooth and nail with phone calls, emails, faxes, and document dumps, I trend pessimistic

[truedelphi]

56. Sadly,, you rmeme goes along with what I know about the inner workings of the media

See my journal entry if you want the full skinny.

We shouldn't even be refering to it as a "media"

It is nothing more or less than a propaganda machine. "A ministry of truth."

That should have become obvious to every American when Dan Rather was forced into retirement, and Mary Mapes lost her place on "Sixty Minutes II." Her being blacklisted was her payback for being the first person to report on Abu Gharib.

[Breeze54]

58. So, now that we have made some headway, you want to dissuade those already on the ledge?

I don't get it. Why?

If you give negative, you get negative back.

We want positive action and not just from Congress. We want it from citizens too!!

Buck up!! Try to be positive. No one said the fight would be easy.

Thank gawd the founders didn't act and talk so defeated!

[Political Heretic]

223. um... "meme?"

It's a pretty reasonable guess.

[skyounkin]

253. You mean the meme that

avoided talking about Downing Street minutes?
avoided talking about Pentagon Propaganda
avoided talking about Torture autorizied by the White House
avoided talking about the white houses refusal to abide by the supreme court ruling on cheneys energy task force minutes?
avoided talking about Don Seigelman
avoided talking about Signing Statements
avoided talking about Warrents Wiretapping

Have I listed enough for you to get the point?

I'm not holding my breath that this wll go anywhere. I mean, I wish I could take 2 years to do my goddamn job like congress did- but whatever.

Good luck Dennis.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Where did you see it was going to only be on CSPAN?

[awoke_in_2003]

76. Has mainstream media

reported even a fraction of the things this admin has done for the last 7 years? They might speak of one here or there, but soon enough it drops of the radar screen. 7 years of this is a track record. They will gloss over it, and then some pretty white girl will disappear, thus captivating america for a month or so :sarcasm:

[verges]

83. The thing is...

that during Watergate, there were only ABC, NBC and CBS. And, all three of them were airing the hearings. If you were watching TV, you really had no choice but to watch. With today's hundreds of channels, even if CNN, MSNBC and FOX all give them full coverage (which I doubt), people will switch to HBO, Hallmark, Bravo, TCM etc.. I gaurantee those channels will not be covering them. It is a very different world

[Breeze54]

85. Yes there was a choice. You could turn it off. People actually valued their citizenship back then.

They actually discussed politics across the back yard fence with neighbors and at the dinner table.

[verges]

101. I did say...

"If you were watching television." And TV addiction isn't new. With network coverage, the message was sent to, and recieved by a great many people who otherwise wouldn't have noticed. Their modern equivalents will be missed this time, because they will still be able to watch American Idol and the latest on HBO.

There are two TV's where I work. I'd bet they will be tuned to ESPN.

[Dystopian]

216. I remember it well ; )

:hi:
Too rural for back yard fence....

Listened to my Catholic Dem father & Protestant Rep mother discussing politics at the dinner table.

More like....yelling at the dinner table!

It is no wonder that I'm an Independent Recovering Catholic ;)


peace~

[XOKCowboy]

57. It depends. If the hearings get juicy...

then I see the msm picking it up like with Clinton. I'm at the "I'll believe it when I see it on CBS News" stage right now.

[jazzjunkysue]

92. Even if just small tidbits get network airplay, it will rock the nation.

[puebloknot]

125. I was just wondering if mainstream stations will air it.

A lot of people don't have cable, or don't bother to tune in to C-Span. MSM will stage something really compelling, like a runaway bride or a great murder case to distract The Folks!

(I hope I'm wrong, too.)

[Tunkamerica]

126. 21 million americans recieve television over the air

which means they don't have cable. I am one such so unless they air it on the WB a lot of people won't see it.

[puebloknot]

200. Keith O. will likely draw attention to it. But that's not the same ...

... as watching it as it unfolds.

[Tunkamerica]

219. Olbermann is on cable

[puebloknot]

254. You're right. And cable is an "elitist" thing for many. nt

[northernlights]

134. don't give up now...

no mention on cnn, msnbc or abcnews so far. Although at least abcnews headlines that the taliban has overtaken the abandoned US post in Afghanistan. So they aren't 100% rw propoganda.

I suggest emailing all of the msm and asking why they haven't mentioned the impeachment hearings. And emailing all your favorite pundits and asking them about it as well. Is there a link to anything at all about it?

It will only take one or two to break down and go with it...and then the rest will follow.

Just keep pushing them. They are no longer 100% tools of the rw -- politically, they will go which ever way the wind blows. And once they smell blood, they'll be all over it.

[puebloknot]

199. True. And there's always YouTube. Welcome to DU! nt

[rucognizant]

131. I don't know........

CNN might carry it........worth e-mailing them with the request. Or KO &Dan Abrams?
NPR broadcast live, the Hill /THomas hearings...........I had moved 2 months prior, my Daughter was visiting the new home and the plumber came to install a new sink. The 3 of us sat around for most of the day listening, discussing it and having coffee. ( plumber only charged for his work time!)
That is when I began to identify & mentally bookmark the evil do-oersby their dialogues Like Orinn Hatch! still a mysoginest today!

[minnesota_liberal]

133. Exactly!

Well said.

[lark]

195. My paranoid thought

The BFEE killed Katherine Graham and all the other media fell into line. They realized two things - 1 - BFEE will do anything to anyone who gets in their way -hell, they even bought the SCOTUS!
2 - They didn't want to antagonize the folks that would let them expand their media empires if they just played along.
3 - Rules, like our constitution and even basic morality are meaningless to the slimballs running our government - only power matters.

[redstate_democrat]

10. This is a historic year.

How many other people are creating scrap book CDs too? I've been collecting news stories, magazines, youtube videos, everything and just putting them on CD for future enjoyment. All of the stuff collected now will be treasures years from now.

I will be taping every last minute of these hearings.

[BigBearJohn]

11. When do the hearings begin?? Anyone know?

[jeanpalmer]

119. could be next week

"Democratic aides said the hearing could take place as soon as next week."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/25483559.html?location_refer=Homepage:6

[BigBearJohn]

122. thanks!

p.s. Welcome to DU! :hi:

[samsingh]

12. where will they be airing?

[bluestateguy]

13. Sure they'll be televised

On C-SPAN3 on delay at 2AM.

This is just Conyers and Pelosi throwing a bone to the Left after the FISA capitulation. They know the votes aren't even close to being there, so they are going to put on this show in the hopes of keeping the MoveOn.org crowd in line.

[Canuckistanian]

17. Unfortunately, I share your skepticsim

Pelosi has given no clue that that she's willing to pursue impeachment, other than to pass that responsibility on to Conyers.

And he's been no help at all lately.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. LOL!!

[awoke_in_2003]

80. The poster is a republican

because they are skeptical of how Pelosi and the media will handle this? What has Pelosi done since she has been speaker that inspires belief that she will actually do the right thing for once?

[Breeze54]

81. He's always on the 'Debbie Downer' slant and is always

a negative force here at DU. He isn't being skeptical.

This is a way of life for BSG.

[awoke_in_2003]

88. Hadn't noticed the name before

but then again, I don't remember names easily. More of a face guy.

on edit: I can understand where genuine skepticism comes from. This congress has been very disappointing. When they were in the minority, they claimed they couldn't do anything because of it. When they got the majority, they claim they can't do anything because they don't have enough of a majority. Whatever happened to trying to do the right thing?

[f the letter]

194. i join the celebration with all of you too,

but BlueStateGuy has a point. i called my congresswoman and thanked her for her yea vote, sent some rejoicing emails around, and am thankful that there will at least be some hearings. But it's not enough, and it's not going to lead to anything with this useless congress. i don't think that stating that is a 'negative force' and there's no reason to be satisfied with hearings alone.

i am thankful for the small victory that this vote represents, and Dennis Kucinich is a badass. But we can't get complacent by winning small battles, and i think we should all keep working for the real prize : impeachment, indictment, imprisonment.

[Psyop Samurai]

86. Why don't you admit that you are running an op on this thread?

You have deliberately antagonized every poster that has tried to bring some kind of balance to an unwarranted proclamation of great celebration -- people who have been through the wringer for years, and consistently had their hopes dashed.

I'm sorry if you've been driven to this by genuine enthusiasm, but it's not gonna fly.

[Breeze54]

Who died and made you king and BTW? Start you're own nay sayer thread!

We've been working on this for years and today is a day to celebrate!

You want to be negative? Start you're own fucking thread.

You are assuming the rest of us, that are happy, don't know the history.

Pretty stupid assumption, on your part. :eyes:

[Psyop Samurai]

100. Enjoy yourself... nt

[LiberalFighter]

146. Did you respond to the right posting?

[kmac3]

The truth hurts . . .

Unfortunately I do believe you hit the nail on the head . . . this is just a teaspoon of sugar to settle the fury felt by the result of FISA vote.

[grace0418]

156. Yeah, back during Watergate there weren't a million stations, video games, computers, and

cell phones to distract everyone. Who'll be paying attention to these hearing besides the folks who are already interested? Everyone else will be to busy worrying about which celebrity is pregnant and what she's going to name the kid.

[elleng]

14. Somehow I suspect that it takes more than a mere vote

to refer to judiciary to begin hearings.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Somehow I suspect you don't understand how Congress works

[elleng]

23. I have a pretty good idea, proud.

Can you refer us to the specific rules/process at issue?

edit: See #35 below.

[Lex]

15. When's the 1st hearing?

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Don't know yet

I would imagine in a few weeks.

[Wwagsthedog]

22. DK rocks! nt

[tekisui]

26. KNR. Thank you Patriot Kucinich!

:patriot:

[flvegan]

27. Too many DUers need something to pitch a bitch about.

They'll sit here, waxing poetically about how Pelosi sucks and Bush should be Impeached...BUT, when someone actually does something, their panties go right up their fucking ass and they talk about how it doesn't work/won't matter, etc.

They NEED to be able to be fucking miserable. Fine, be miserable. Fuck you and get out of the fucking way!

[JackBeck]

29. ...

:applause:

I'm so fucking sick of all the whining and the countless polls condemning Congress, that end up meaning nothing at the end of the day.

As with many things that pass through this board, my advice is to sit back and just freakin' wait, since just a bit of patience can lead to the ultimate payoff.

[Occulus]

40. Exactly. We need to keep our powder dry. n/t

[JackBeck]

46. And build a case for impeachment.

Not start out convicting before any evidence has been gathered.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. And I think the evidence is there

Kucinich knows. And Conyers knows. Wexler knows. Probably Waxman too. They have seen the evidence and they know where it can lead.

[Breeze54]

33. You are right on target and on FIRE tonight!!

:hug:

Keep it up!! I like it! :D

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. MTE!!

My Thoughts Exactly. A freakin men.

It's an election year so all the fair weather Dems are out in force posting on all the blogs. Once the election is over, they will go back to watching American Idol and forget about politics for another 4 years.

I used to be one of them. So I know where their heads are at.

[Breeze54]

59. Up their collective .... um... (LOL!) You know where!!!

:rofl:

[Highway61]

154. Well said

VERY well said. No truer words spoken

[redqueen]

157. ...

:applause:

:loveya:

[f the letter]

196. This is a great start.

But it's not enough, and we shouldn't let rejoicing get in the way of pushing towards proper impeachment. Hearings are necessary, and i join with all other patriots in thanking Dennis Kucinich for all he does.

We need to do more. Hearings are not an adequate response to 100 articles of impeachment. This is not a panties-in-my-ass problem and i don't need to be miserable.. you'd have to be blind to see that this is a token move to keep us feeling partially vindicated so we don't do any serious stirring-up. i'll be watching those hearings and i'm glad that some of this administration's crimes will be televised, but i'll also be badgering my representatives and senators for _impeachment_ and not just hearings.

[crimsonblue]

28. the american people won't care

in 73, there were what, 10 tv channels? Now, we have too many distractions for anybody to care. Plus, Nixon didn't have his own apologist news channel.

[KaryninMiami]

30. Did anyone see this story picked up by the media? I didn't-

and that's a huge problem. This IS a major item and it does not appear (I could be wrong- only watched portions of CNN and MSNBC tonight). But it's not surprising- remember who we're dealing with. In all fairness, it might not have hit the wires until it was too late to make it on to the 8:00 shows- so maybe we'll see it tomorrow. Rachel or Keith will probably discuss it minimally- but will any other networks / journalists discuss it? Doubtful. Unfortunately. And there in lies the problem as we all know.

[Breeze54]

36. Oh, stop you're damn hand wringing. You have repeated this BS over and over after you know different

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,424 for Impeachment. (0.33 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 732 for Impeachment Kucinich. (0.21 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,286 for Impeachment bush. (0.31 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 665 for house votes for Impeachment of bush. (0.38 seconds)

[eowyn_of_rohan]

239. YOUR damn hand wringing

You're busted by the spelling cop

[AmyCamus]

31. Will this change any party leader's position on impeachment?

Dennis Kucinich needs backing from more powerful Democrats.

[LiberalFighter]

148. It will if done right. And more of their constituents demand action.

And it becomes clearer that the voters are seeing the truth and are pissed off.

The constituents that need to slam Pelosi are those that are in her district. They are the only ones that can vote for or against her in November. The same for any other Democrat that is standing aside from the issue.

[upi402]

32. Kucinich, history will show, is a great American hero

And not ONE "dem" boycotted a debate he was blackballed from.
Shame on all traitors, either party, any branch, and toss in the 4th estate vichy-French too.

[a la izquierda]

34. I am sure the Mexican media will cover this.

If anyone is interested, I would be happy to provide an outside view of the hearings, as I'll be down there soon.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[annabanana]

137. I would love that. I would like the International perspective of ANY of this.

It is pretty damn sure that everyone else in the world will have better access to this info than Americans will.

[DutchLiberal]

210. Well, it hasn't been mentioned in Dutch media thus far...

And neither were his former articles of impeachment against Cheney and Bush. :(

[elleng]

35. FYI

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich's single impeachment article will get a committee hearing — but not on removing President Bush from office.

The House on Tuesday voted 238-180 to send his article of impeachment — for Bush's reasoning for taking the country to war in Iraq — to the Judiciary Committee, which buried Kucinich's previous effort.

This time, the panel will open hearings. But House Democratic leaders emphatically said the proceedings will not be about Bush's impeachment, a first step in the Constitution's process of a removing a president from office.

Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review — possibly televised — of anything Democrats consider to be Bush's abuse of power. Kucinich, D-Ohio, is likely to testify. But so will several scholars and administration critics, Democrats said.

The hearing is a modest gesture by House Democratic leaders to members like Kucinich who insist that Bush's reasons for going to war meet the standard for impeachment. Kucinich had said that if his impeachment article is tabled he would just propose another one." >

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/25483559.html?location_refer=Homepage:6

[Breeze54]

38. Um.... did you think we all hadn't read that?

:eyes:

[elleng]

50. I provided what I think is useful and relevant info.

I have no idea what 'you all' had read, breeze.

[Breeze54]

60. You mean what I originally posted?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3624508&mesg_id=3624508

:shrug:

[greyl]

90. I never saw your "original" post.

Get over yourself.

[Breeze54]

93. Nothing to get over, Hon.

Try to keep up.

[Jim Lane]

168. I for one hadn't read it until elleng posted it

I thought it possible that some DUers were simply assuming that the referral to Judiciary meant that there would be a hearing -- an assumption that wouldn't always be correct. The linked article told me that there would indeed be a hearing, but not exactly a hearing on impeachment per se.

That's information I'm glad to have. You may be in touch enough to have known it already, but you didn't make sufficient allowance for the ability of some of us to overlook things! I don't mind if important stuff is occasionally posted twice.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. And your point is . . ?

[elleng]

51. Relevant facts.

Why would you ask?

[snot]

123. thank you. I had NOT read that --

i don't blame anyone here for having low expectations of the so-called media, or Pelosi, or even Conyers.

However, i do not understand the negativity from fellow du-er's toward someone attempting to post accurate info.

be of good cheer.

[elleng]

191. THANKS, snot!

Agreed; no reason for negativity here at all.

No reason to be disagreeable if one only disagrees, I tell my children!

[jtrockville]

41. So.... maybe the revolution WILL be televised???!?!?

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. It's a good possibility

:)

[mzmolly]

44. I believe this was always part of the plan. To gain the interest of the Public

and begin a mass outcry for impeachment. This kind of measure has to come from the ground/people on up.

Also remember when Pelosi said of impeachment, "let's see where the hearings take us"?

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. I have been saying this for 4 years now

As soon as the American public sees the evidence against Bush and Cheney, they will scream for justice.

[The Wizard]

171. Cheney has approval ratings

somewhere between small pox, anal vapors and hemorrhoids. Bush isn't much better. Only the House can impeach, and Pelosi the Speaker says no. We've been screaming for justice ever since Scalia stopped the Florida recount in 2000. I'm not losing my voice, but I, like many others, have been wearing out keyboards.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

45. K&R

[Rosa Luxemburg]

53. the media probably won't report it

good job Dennis!

[behave]

55. looks like a shell game every dem gets to appear progressive once a session but

the carefully calculated vote/math will never deliver the veto-proof progressive majority needed to do anything that would actually hurt the corporate and organized crime power in control of our totally corrupt congress. i keep flashing back to crazymonkey's 2005 state-of-the-union address and kucinich's wildly grinning visage vying with other dems to gladhand crazymonkey after the speech was over.

[flvegan]

61. Indeed.

mark.

Welcome (or something) to DU.

[behave]

64. thanks nt

[flvegan]

74. Yeah, um

you really shouldn't be thanking me.

It was out of spite. Sorry.

[behave]

79. well then thanks for your honesty

[emilyg]

63. Welcome to DU.

[behave]

70. thank-you nt

[Breeze54]

66. No, they get to DO THEIR JOB!!!!

Being "progressive" has nothing to do with it.

[DWilliamsamh]

189. Too bad they don't actually do their job: protecting our rights and our country

All the spineless cowards who call themselves Democrats (with some obvious exceptions like Feingold, Frank, Kennedy etc ) need to be replaced by REAL Democrats who actually have more than their next election at the top of their agenda.

[pnwmom]

62. It will probably be on C-span 3.

I'm not expecting anything like Watergate, when ALL three networks covered the hearings gavel to gavel.

[spag68]

65. I despise myself for saying this

but you better not be holding your breath waiting for those hearings. Our best hope is a landslide election and criminal charges later.

[jwirr]

67. I'm old enough and that is the way it happened with Watergate. We

had the television on all day no matter what we were doing. And you are correct - we will never forget it. For me the hearings are what is important.

[Divine Discontent]

68. hey proud2Blib

correct, I didn't know the full scope of what happened today, due to my own situation that keeps me busy, and I THANK you for politely describing the events, and what should occur - we can only hope it plays out as you state! I'll be watching when I can!

[Peace Patriot]

69. Throw Diebold, ES&S and all election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

It would be a lot more useful.

[underseasurveyor]

73. Both will be a start in the correct direction

Getting rid of the fraud machines or at least add a paper trail..
...AND...
televised hearings. YAY:bounce:

[Breeze54]

84. Hey, we're trying to keep the harbor clean!!!

:P

Just go ahead and torch the machines!!

You got a sledge hammer?

[earth mom]

72. K & R! nt

[progressoid]

77. I wouldn't hold my breath.

This won't amount to much of anything.

Televised...maybe. But not like Watergate. The big three networks aren't going to shut off moneymakers like soaps to televise it. CNN, Fox, etc aren't going to do much more than a cursory story if anything. A little C-span and a 15 second sound bite on the network news should just about do it in today's climate.

This is a different time and a different congress. Crime and corruption is commonplace in Washington. The days of being ashamed for lying, wrong-doing, hypocrisy, etc are over. In fact it's almost fashionable.

[theFrankFactor]

136. I said the same thing. Great minds...

[Mobius]

225. There is this thing called the internet

you may have heard of it.

[LaStrega]

78. *happy dance* k/r (on edit ...)

edit to add: I'm literally tearing up. I sent this link to my mother and my daughter, who both are vehemently anti-shrub. I'm so very proud to have contributed to Mr. Kucinich ... even if it was only $5 I could afford that month.

Every penny helped.

He is an American hero. And I salute him.

Thank you, Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.

[Breeze54]

91. I salute you, LaStrega !

For standing by him. No one said this would be easy but he keeps on trying.

I admire that and today was a victory, despite all the nay sayers.

:hug:

[LaStrega]

115. And I salute you, too!!! Dance with me? wheeeeeee!

[Breeze54]

116. LMAO!! Love the sig line!!

:toast:

Thanks for the PM. ;)

[Lorien]

82. Will it be televised on network TV and CNN, or just C-span?

I (vaguely) remember Watergate. That was when there were only three networks and far fewer distractions. Most Americans read one or even two daily newspapers. These days little gets much attention unless ALL the networks cover it; as both news, and routines on shows like Letterman and Kimmel. Still, here's hoping for the best positive outcome!

[MonkeyFunk]

87. Televised just like Watergate?

The networks will interrupt their daytime programming to carry them?

[Breeze54]

89. Nothing has been announced, so it's still up in the air.

I suggest we urge the M$M to air the hearings.

[MonkeyFunk]

95. The article the OP is based on

only says the hearings "may" be televised. And if they are, it'll be on C-SPAN.

The notion that this will be the equivalent of the Senate Watergate Hearings is just nonsensical.

[Breeze54]

96. No one has announced any decisions yet. So, you don't know.

The vote just took place at @ 7:30 PM tonight.

I suspect it's being discussed and we'll know sooner or later.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

103. OK

if nothing's been decided, then why does the OP say the hearing "will be televised"?

And you do realize that congress doesn't decide whether they're televised - the networks do.

[Breeze54]

105. Call them and ask.

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

106. I'd rather ask the OP

why he says the hearings will be televised, when the article this post is based on says nothing of the sort.

And I don't need to call the networks - I know their answer.

[Breeze54]

108. the panel will conduct an election-year review — possibly televised

Kucinich wins hearings but not on impeaching Bush

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE21FOVAfMfEbAE5LDwi...

30 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) —

Rep. Dennis Kucinich's single impeachment article will get a committee hearing

but not on removing President Bush from office.

The House on Tuesday voted 238-180 to send the article of impeachment — for Bush's
reasoning for taking the country to war in Iraq — to the Judiciary Committee,
which buried Kucinich's previous effort.

This time, the panel will open hearings. But House Democrats emphatically said they
will not be about Bush's impeachment, a first step in the Constitution's process of
a removing a president from office.

Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review — possibly televised — of
everything Democrats consider to be Bush's abuse of power. Kucinich, a Democrat from
Ohio, is likely to testify. But so will several scholars and administration critics,
Democrats said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3624508&mesg_id=3624508

[MonkeyFunk]

110. Yes, I know what the AP article says

and it doesn't say what the OP says. And by "televised", it doesn't mean the networks will carry it live.

I differed with the notion that it would be "just like Watergate".

[Breeze54]

111. Why don't you nitpik with the networks or the House and ask them to televise it on the M$M?

Why are you going after the OP for going with what they stated, as if the OP has any control over it?

[DWilliamsamh]

209. In other words this isn't CLOSE to a first step to impeachment. Not Even close.

I think plenty of people ON DU knew exactly what this was. The OP is way to snarky by half.

[Overseas]

94. I was definitely thrilled to watch it happen !! It will go to a hearing! YAAAAY!! /nt

[Breeze54]

97. You weren't alone!

:toast:

"The man who moved a mountain began by carrying away small stones." ;)

[Lugnut]

99. I'll be stocking up on DVD+Rs.

I didn't miss much of the Watergate hearings. I'll be celebrating these hearings while I am imploring future generations to take heed. We can't do this anymore.

[Imagevision]

102. Will Obama neglect to voice his opinion on the hearings? I don't think he will...

[tavalon]

104. Do you really think this will get the air time and the public attention that the Nixon hearings got?

We had three channels back then and an interested electorate and a fourth estate that kind of still remembered what their job was and how to do it. I see a lot of problems with this time around (see previous sentence). I'm not trying to be a killjoy but neither am I able to muster the whoo hoo energy yet. If it goes past the wonks (us), then I think I'll be pleased. Right now, I'm just trying to figure out what the solution is, leaving out the complacent public and the complicit media and of course, the co-conspiratorial Congress.

[Breeze54]

107. The only problem that I see is all the hand wringing over a WIN!!!

Don't sweat the unknowns.

We don't know yet how this will proceed!

But they did say it would be televised.

In the meantime, tonight, I'll celebrate this victory.

[tavalon]

221. I agree it's worth celebrating

Party on!

[iamthebandfanman]

114. i havent been around lately

when was it announced this hearing was actually happening?

as i recall impeachment has been sent to the committee several times only for it to be tabled indefinitely?

anywho, i feel this this article of impeachment is probably the easiest to deny... he can just blame the intelligence community...
now the other articles Dennis put forth last time had real evidence and proof that hes a war criminal. i dunno. maybe im just super skeptical of these things given the last 8 years... but i dont see this leading to anything :(

[eShirl]

117. F-ing Watergate hearings pre-empted my after-elementary-school reruns!

Ultimately, though, I placed 100% of the blame at Nixon's feet.

Now, in the civilized 21st century, we have streaming reruns on-demand over the internet.
So, BRING ON THE HEARINGS!!!!!!!!

[Norrin Radd]

121. kr

[snot]

127. Um, everyone, pls follow up with any specs re- where & when tv-ising

will occur -- so i can help publicize.

A personal email wouldn't hurt -- i'm desperately overworked these days, can't always check DU over the way I'd like.

[trusty elf]

128. Good news!

[rucognizant]

129. WHEN?

I talked to an Intern in Kucinich's office. late morning. SHe said she thought he would read the article before the hour late afternoon 5 ish when ever he got a chance to insert it. I was busy but I kept switching over to cspan , never saw it.
Good news!

[mother earth]

130. We owe Dennis Kucinich our undying gratitude for what he is

doing. This is the example all elected should follow. This is why we fight. Shame on Pelosi and anyone else who thinks this is not of the utmost importance!

[jjr5]

228. Agreed!

Dennis Kucinich is a national hero, even if the nation doesn't know it yet.

[dipsydoodle]

132. Oh happy, happy day.

:toast:

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pleah]

138. Well, it is about time they actually did something!

K&R

[onenote]

162. what exactly have they done that's any different than what has been done before

All that actually has been done is a vote to refer Kucinich's resolution to Judiciary. That has happened before, both with respect to his impeachment resolution against Cheney and his resolution against chimpy.

While there are reports that Judiciary will hold hearings on the failings and misdeeds of chimpy and gang, its being made clear that the hearings won't be "impeachment" hearings or hearings specifically on Kucinich's resolution. Kucinich will be invited to testify, but that's about it.

People are blowing this up into something more than it is. Having said that, I should add that I think holding hearings on the misdeeds and failings of the administration is a good thing and should have been done earlier. Its still a good thing, but its main purpose now is not to build support for an impeachment process but rather to help Democratic congressional candidates by keeping negative stories about chimpy in the news.

[pleah]

201. I suppose that I

just want something to happen so much.... Bummer.

[Freddie Stubbs]

139. How do you know that the hearings will be televised?

:shrug:

[onenote]

140. I think a lot of DUers understand exactly what happened today.

What happened today is a good thing, but anyone who equates it with a decision to conduct an impeachment inquiry or the Watergate hearings is fooling themselves. It is neither of those things and I think a lot of DUers realize that and also realize that (a) the hearings won't be televised live on broadcast network television, although some portions probably will be televised on CNN and/or MSNBC or even Faux; (b) the result of the hearings will not be a vote on anything.

As I said, holding hearings -- something I've long argued was needed -- is a good thing. But I think a lot of DUers realize that the chances that these hearings will lead to a vote on articles of impeachment are exceedingly low, approaching zero.

[paparush]

142. Faulty intelligence (tm) just isn't as interesting as blowjobs and cigars.

Much harder for 'Murkins to wrap their heads around willfully waging a campaign of disinformation.

Much easier for 'Murkins to wrap their heads around the boss is banging his secretary.

[DWilliamsamh]

143. I WISH you were correct

While Rep. Kucinich indeed read those charges into the record, and while his article was refereed to the Judiciary Committee, so have all his other articles of impeachment. Not ONE hearing has occurred. If Karl Rove can thumb his nose PUBLICLY at Congress and still remain a free man, while Conyers and the rest do absolutely NOTHING about it, what makes you think they will suddenly grow a spine and hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee, much less refer the matter to the full House?

You are dreaming. I WISH you were correct, but there is a snow ball's chance in hell that there will be hearings.

[proud2BlibKansan]

175. I can guarantee that if we the people don't demand hearings, they won't happen

I called Conyers and Kucinich this morning. Who have you called today?

[DWilliamsamh]

176. Take your judgmental snark.and call a representative with it.

I am TIRED of burning up the phone lines every time someone makes a gesture toward accountability and then watching as absolutely nothing actually happens and no one is held accountable. Our voices don't matter to more than about four members of congress. And none of them are in leadership. I will start calling them again when they actually bring some ACTION to bear. When the subpoena for Karl Rove is enforced would be a good start. Until then calls are a waste of time. I will spend my time and energy working to get Obama elected, and real democrats elected in the place of the cowards that hold office now. I donated to Russ Feingold's campaign committee, and called them to say he should be the majority leader. THAT is what I am doing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

179. The vote yesterday WAS action

And I called all morning. You chose to post nasty comments on the internet.

[onenote]

181. the vote yesterday was no different than the votes on DK's other resolutions

It was a vote to refer. It actually got far less support from repubs than the motion to refer DK's June resolution.

The only thing that has changed is that there apparently are going to be hearings to review the failings/misdeeds of chimpy and gang and DK will be given a chance to testify at those hearings. But the hearings are merely going to be oversight hearings, not hearings on DK's resolution and they won't result in a vote on DK's resolution or any other impeachment related process.

I think the hearings are a good thing, but its wise to keep them in perspective as to what they are and what yesterday's vote did and didn't really mean.

[DWilliamsamh]

185. Thank you...it is perspective that is missing in all the "excitement" about the vote yesterday.

That was my only point. This is just more of the same from the same people who at least used to talk a good game then do nothing. They don't even try to TALK a good game any more. I won't waste my time with them any more. Kucinich is to be admired, and that is why he is in congress and I am not: he is willing to keep fighting the fight and hope the cowards around him might grow some sac. As for me I will work to throw the cowards out and put more like Kucinich and Feingold, and Frank etc into office.

[DWilliamsamh]

187. It was action different from the previous referrals HOW exactly?

What was the result of the previous referrals to Judiciary? Nothing. Congratulations on your calls. I have not been nasty I have been telling the truth. Past results are the best predictor of future performance

[watercolors]

144. I hope they are soon!

I'll be watching intently, I so hope the public will send up a cry for impeachment. I want to see it done before he leaves office!!!

[Pooka Fey]

145. Thank you Dennis, once again for your efforts to protect our democracy.

[jeff30997]

147. I don't have cable!

(Up here in Canada,no cable means no American TV,at least where I live).

Do you think it will be on c-span live on the net?

I REALLY hope so.

[windoe]

149. Winning over the right on this issue is slow,

because the corporate spin on impeachment is that it is a Democratic Party move.

Impeachment is not a partisan issue. Crime is not a partisan issue--it is an American Issue.

[femrap]

153. I hope that CNN and the other

MSM's carry the hearings...or will they be doomed to c-span?

In the days of Watergate, there was no cable TV and America was FORCED to watch the hearings or not watch TV.

[Autumn Colors]

155. Watergate was pre-cable, this'll be relegated to CSPAN....

And who will actually watch it? You KNOW that any mentions on MSM will just be whatever snippets the propaganda machine can edit to make it look like the hearings are a farce.

Back in the 70s, "televised" meant all other programming was pre-empted. Now, with hundreds of channels to choose from, do you REALLY think most of the sheeple are going to choose CSPAN over American Idol or whatever lame-ass TV show is the rage now?

[LWolf]

158. I just need to know when the hearings begin.

Of course, it would help if the msm would report on the hearings as well.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Wednesdays]

159. Has there been ANY mention of this on television this morning

ANYWHERE, except for C-SPAN? :shrug:

My wife watched CBS all morning and she said there wasn't so much as a peep about it.

[reprehensor]

160. www.impeachthem.com

http://www.impeachthem.com/?q=node/2022

Keep the momentum up!

[no limit]

161. I can't believe this. Congress is actually going to hold hearings on this?

Holy shit!

[onenote]

163. Not exactly.

Conyers reportedly has indicated that he plans to hold hearings to "take a broad look at the behavior of the Bush administration." DK will be invited to testify at these hearings, but the hearings are not specifically going to be on his resolution and will not necessarily lead to a vote by the Committee on his resolution or to otherwise recommend the commencement of a formal impeachment process.

The hearings are a good thing, but people are getting ahead of themselves if they think these hearings will appreciably advance the impeachment process. They almost certainly won't.

[redqueen]

166. That's a huge if. Lots of speculation on your part.

I consider this more a chance to raise awareness than part of a plan to impeach.

[helderheid]

164. Where will it be televised? C-Span?

[slipslidingaway]

165. 202-225-3951 House Judiciary Committee -

Call and ask when the hearing will be scheduled

http://judiciary.house.gov/index.html

[Liberty Belle]

167. If it's only on CSPAN, the masses won't see it.

We need to contact all the major networks - CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and urge them all to carry this live. Also any Spanish-speaking media. That's how Watergate changed perceptions in America -- everyone was exposed to it all day every day until it was over and Nixon resigned in disgrace, his crimes known to the world.

[cyberpj]

169. I hope World News orgs would televise - even if MSM buries it

then at least we could get some world input on this and that would have to make some national news.

[cyberpj]

170. DU ACTIVISTS - Perhaps we need to reward Kucinich for perseverence and dedication?

Not roses, but SOMETHING.

thoughts?

[wryter2000]

172. I hope you're right

I watched all of the Watergate hearings. They were rivetting.

I think, maybe, you're giving the TV news media too much credit, though. Just as we don't have any real Republicans any longer, we also have no one interested in reporting anything more than corporate spin.

I'd be thrilled to be wrong about that. :evilgrin:

[cyberpj]

173. This article says IMPEACHMENT NOT ON AGENDA - then highlights spineless Dems:

Not that I care - at least this is a step to getting info into the spotlight - but people need to know this is not an impeachment hearing.

Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on Bush conduct, impeachment not on agenda
By LAURIE KELLMAN , Associated Press
Last update: July 15, 2008 - 6:42 PM

WASHINGTON - Rep. Dennis Kucinich's single impeachment article will get a committee hearing — but not on removing President Bush from office.

snip-
The impeachment resolution alleges that Bush misled the public into thinking that he had no choice but to wage war on Iraq and implied that Iraq had helped al-Qaida with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Democratic aides have widely suggested those gauging the bill's prospects look to a precedent: the impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney, which were sent to Conyers' committee in November. There's no evidence they will be considered before the Bush administration leaves office in January.

Those were Kucinich's, too. Republicans, seeing a chance to force Democrats into an embarrassing debate, voted to bring up the resolution. Democrats countered by pushing through a motion to scuttle the bill from the floor.

link:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/25483559.html?location_refer=Homepage:6

[quaker bill]

234. This sounds more accurate

off the floor and into committee, where hearings will eventually be scheduled. Likely as not, hearings to be held sometime after November 4.

[JimmyJubes]

174. Yes

he is a great guy!

[eleny]

177. I remember and we didn't even have C-Span or I-net

I'm sure that this has already been pointed out.

But I'm confident that more people will be at least aware of what's going on.

[CubicleGuy]

178. I want to believe

I really do. How many television channels existed at the time of Watergate? How many are there now? If we calculate relative percentages of the broadcast spectrum involved with televising each event, how small do you think the numbers will be now in comparison to then?

It's not the same United States today that it was 34 years ago. I want to believe that the American public will rise up in outrage, but this is one of those things that I will only believe once I see it for myself.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[Martin Eden]

182. "once the American public sees the evidence"

How many will SEE it and how many will register the fact that this president and his vice president are criminals that MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE if the United Sattes is to remain a nation of laws?

[xyouth]

183. Kucinich interview on truthout

This made me love the guy even more. He would be a great world leader.

http://www.truthout.org/article/interview-with-rep-dennis-kucinich:

patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Catherine Vincent]

188. Someone finally gave Bush a bj and he lied about it?

:-)

[1776Forever]

192. I went to DK's site and signed the petition yesterday & listened to CSPAN

and when the resolution was read into the record I got chills up my spin! It was awesome and the words just increased the horror I feel about this man and his ilk! It is truly beyond words for me to describe these horrendous crimes to humanity!

[fadedrose]

203. R & K nt

[xxqqqzme]

204. '...once the American public sees

he evidence, they will demand accountability....'

From your keyboard to the goddess' screen.

We were demanding no immunity for telecoms, as well as an end to the occupation. You have more faith than I.

We had our 'back to the land' farm then. I took the portable radio out to the garden w/ me everyday so I could tend the veggies and keep up. NPR at it's finest.

[defendandprotect]

205. I'd be looking forward to it --- about 6 months of HEARINGS . . . PLEASE . . !!!

We could fill the summer with hearings --- 24/7 --- and it still wouldn't be enough

to bring these people to justice!!

[BrklynLiberal]

206. Medal of Freedom for Kucinich - Perhaps Obama will present it.

[happygoluckytoyou]

208. IF THE GLOVE DONT FIT....

excellent----- this just made my day-----

only--- do you think we could get Adrian Monk in on the investigation ?

as long as they don't run the first season of this series against NASCAR there is a pretty good chance some Republicans will watch it

then they should get out their prayer rug, to protect their knees

pucker up

and kiss Kucinich's ass, because he is doing this for THEM TOO... they just don't know it

[geiger]

211. "The Republicans and lame Democrats who have refused to support impeachment are in denial"

no, they are complicit, along with most of the rest of the Congress. see kpete's post earlier today.

[Twist_U_Up]

212. 911 was an inside job. Never forget.

[indepat]

215. All days filled with TV coverage of these hearings will be happy days again

:D

[Dystopian]

217. Thank you..this is awesome! K&R

:hi:

peace~

[DesertRat]

218. Dennis Kucinich is my hero! n/t

[Auggie]

220. K&R

[rasputin1952]

224. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents former

officials of this nation from being indicted for crimes they might have committed while in office.

There are probably hundreds of things bush/cheney have done that could put them behind bars; it is a question of precedent now, bush would be the first former president to be indicted. Constitutionally, he could not fight it, it is a question of some people with guts and fortitude going forth to bring these bastards to Justice.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

226. They kept telling me the Revolution wasn't going to be televised.

I say it has some chance as of today.

Go Dennis, Blessings Be upon you.

:patriot: :loveya: :yourock:

[npincus]

227. tar and feather him

like they did to scumbags in the good old days.

[FunMe]

229. Could the 18% Congress be worried about reelection?

They better be. And this could be the reason many voted YEA.

Bring back the Watergate hearing a la 2008 and let's get ALL the bums out FOREVER!

[onenote]

236. the reason many voted yea is that it was the safest way to kill the resolution

Folks just refuse to get it. THere were three things that Congress could do with DK's resolution. Hold an up/down vote, entertain a motion to table (kill) the resolution, or entertain a motion to refer it to Judiciary where there is no obligation (and despite what some seem to think, no plan) to consider it any further.

When DK introduced articles against Cheney the vote to refer them to Judiciary passed with yea votes from nearly every Democrat and from 4 or 5 repubs.

When DK introduced his first set of articles against chimpy the vote to refer them to Judiciary passed without a single Democrat voting nay and with 24 repubs voting yea.

Yesterday's motion to refer DK's latest impeachment resolution was referred to Judiciary on a motion that passed without any Democrats voting nay and nine repubs votin yea.

Explain how the situation has appreciably changed? Yes, there are indications that Judiciary will conduct hearings this summer to review the misdeeds and failings of chimpy and his gang, but those hearings will be oversight hearings, not an impeachment hearing and there is no plan to seek a committee vote on any of DK's various resolutions.

Analogizing the situation to the Watergate hearings is simply a mis-read of the situation. ANd assuming that the vote yesterday means any more than the other votes to refer DK's resolution is equally a mis-read of the situation.

I think hearings are a good thing, but they aren't going to lead to impeachment.

[OwnedByFerrets]

240. They arent going to lead ANYWHERE!!

Ive come to believe its a farking waste of time.

[davidwparker]

230. I've worked all day and can't think right now. Explain is simple terms what

happened today and how this is different from what Dennis did before.

I'll read any replies tomorrow. Just getting a glass of wine and going to bed.

[and-justice-for-all]

231. Where and when to watch? nt

[Catamount]

232. Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! K&R n/t

[exothermic]

233. Televised...........probably on Channel Nine and Three Quarters

:silly:

[bluerum]

237. Dennis K. Persistent and principled. Deserves more than a medal.

[Political Heretic]

238. I think he makes a better congressman than he would even a president

That's not a criticism. I honestly think he is in a position to do the absolute most good for America where he is. I think he would have less effectiveness as president. So I honor the man's dedicated and unflinching service during such a trying period in american history.

[trickyguy]

241. Hope someone gives us the "highlights" here at DU. Don't

want to miss the big stuff and this is where I get most of it.

I really appreciate what Dennis has done here and hope it has the desired effect.
:bounce:

[cornermouse]

243. I'm going to take a moment to point out that

the DU poster who was meticulous and reliable about posting a blow by blow account of an event important to democrats was the former Rodeodance.

[Catherine Vincent]

245. I remember Rodeodance.

Did he leave DU?

[eagertolearn]

242. I was in high school and the only reason I knew it was

even going on was because my history teacher teased me about having Magruder as a last name. My kids are being raised differently and are very involved with everything so we will be watching all of it!

[HughMoran]

244. I hope The Hague is watching too

I know they are considering charging George W. Bush with war crimes - this evidence could be quite damning for Dumbya.

[redirish28]

248. My fear is that it will be televised ONLY on c-span 3. BUT if they are on major networks

WILL the congress than press for actual impeachment when the American public demand it. After all after the case is made there will be no talks about impeachment.

[ray of light]

249. I didn't hear...when will the hearings start. (And will my TIVO hold them all?)

[midnight]

250. Go Dennis Go!

[Maestro]

252. I was a kid but I remember those Watergate hearings

I'll be watching these too!