democrats threaten to use impeachment as blackmail

and that my friend is exactly why he is not the Majority Whip...

that among myriad of other reasons...
damn, every time he open his mouth it result in a two steps forward three steps back scenario.

---

Updated On: 4/30/07 at 02:10 AM

Blackmail or not, if it takes the threat of impeachment to possibly stop the needless killings, I say go for it.

---

"I can't imaine they could not bring the votes if they truly wanted them"

Have a word with the Republicans on that one. In case you did not know, there are not enough Democratic votes in the house or the Senate to override a veto.

---

Updated On: 4/30/07 at 03:30 AM

rad, they had to pack this bill with $20 bullion in pork (oh, i'm sorry, i mean "pet projects") to get it passed by the barest of bare minimums in the house and the senate. getting to 2/3 of both? not gonna happen. democrats may pander to the anti-war base and they may even believe that the war is lost and that to continue funding it is immoral. but they're terrified to call for a pull out because they can see that being used to tar and feather them and soft on national security.

as far as the american people, look at the cbs/nytimes poll:

"...should they try to withhold funding for the war until george w. bush accepts a timetable for troop withdrawal, or should they allow funding for the war, even if there is no timetable?"

56-36 say allow funding without a timeline. even though they want a timeline by a 64-32 majority, they are not willing to withhold funds and will blame the democrats if they do.

if the people really wanted out of iraq and were willing to do anything to get out, dennis kucinich would be miles ahead in the polling.

---

tell yer party to vote their conscience, pj, and the american people will reward them for their convictions. and tell johnny boy that he sounds like a low-rent version of paulie walnuts. i'm not whining about pork, i'm pointing out how much it cost yer party just to get to 218 and 51.

i don't think they've got the cash to bribe their members to get to 287 and 66, do you?

what makes you angier, pj? the billions lost or the fact that yer party had to so blatantly bribe it's members to get them to vote for the party's official position.

---

Anyone actually look at what was considered "pork" in this bill?

Fascinating, and it says a great deal about the state of the governmental conscious.

And it might be fun to compare the supposed "pork" in this bill to any of the previously rubber-stamped requests to underwrite Halliburton on an annual basis.

---

Go for it!

---

who is this "yourt" of whom you speak? i demand that you not pepper your commentary with middle english.

i'm sure you reject the notion. that doesn't change the fact that it took $20 billion with a b to get just enough democrats to sign on to this for it to pass. 218 in the house and 51 in the senate.

now then, do you support impeachment being used as a political tool? the threat of "if you don't do what we want we'll impeach you"? how's that gonna play? about as well as an immediate cut-off of funding.

i thought the democrats were going to clean up the congress?

---

like radigal said, there's a myriad of reasons for impeaching, but to threaten impeachment for not signing the war funding bill? that's a specific if/then proposition. that's blackmail.

so, is impeachment a legitimate means by which to "influence" a president?

---

Updated On: 4/30/07 at 11:08 AM

it's not a leading question, it's a direct response to a direct quote of rep. murtha. he states, very clearly, that impeachment is a means by which "influence" can be exerted on a president. i'm simply asking if you agree with his statement. but i grant you have spoken often on impeachment elsewhere.

---

i'm not talking about over the years, this is a specific statement tying impeachment to a specific vote and a quid pro quo.

---

so the conspiracy by the democrats to use impeachment to blackmail the president ranges further than this specific issue?

---