Obama Just As Kooky As Kookcinich
Psst! You wanna know a dirty little secret? Barack Obama is just as kooky as Dennis Kucinich. The only difference between the two besides the fact that Kucinich is a marginalized figure and that Obama is a presumptive presidential nominee is that Kucinich wants to impeach members of the Bush administration for War Crimes while Obama wants to wait until he is president to prosecute officials of the previous administration as war criminals. Huh? You hadn't heard about this? That is because the MSM has covered up that dirty little aspect of the future plans of Mr. Unity. To get yourself up to speed on Obama's plans to prosecute members of the EVIL Bush Regime as war criminals, check out this NewsBusters STORY. Please be sure to also check out this PDF screencap from Obama's website. Magnify it so you can read the final sentence: "Take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq and hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes."
Do you think Obama means Al Qaeda when referring to "perpetrators of war crimes?" Ha! I think not. More like the people fighting AGAINST Al Qaeda which includes our own military personnel. Meanwhile the entire leftwing Blogosphere has once AGAIN worked themselves into an impeachment frenzy as you can see in this Daily KOs KOmmie THREAD titled, "BREAKING ON C-SPAN: Kucinich introducing impeachment." Of course, this impeachment resolution will go absolutely nowhere considering the known NUtcase who is introducing it. The real danger will come from an Obama presidency who will direct his attorney general to prosecute our own people as war criminals. One administration criminalizing the politics of a previous administration. This is a hallmark of a Banana Republic or, more precisely, an Obama Republic. So let us now watch the KOmmies cheer on Dennis Kucinich in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, noting that the Left need only to wait for an Obama presidency to achieve all that Kucinich wants and more, is in the [barackets]:
BREAKING ON C-SPAN: Kucinich introducing impeachment
[BREAKING ON C-SPAN: Obama's Attorney General indicts top Bush officials for war crimes.]
Dennis Kucinich is speaking on the floor of Congress (and on C-SPAN) right now, introducing articles of impeachment.
[Which will go nowhere but have patience, the Obama Chekha is soon to come.]
Go, Dennis!
[He will go nowhere but Obama will.]
Congressman Dennis Kucinich is on the floor of the House of Representatives right now introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.
[Notes being taken down by Eric Holder, future Obama AG, who will be prosecuting the Bush war criminals.]
Yes, 35. He'll be reading for a while. [Update: at an hour and a half, he's up to #14
[Is that the one about ripping tags off mattresses or the jaywalking one?]
Eleventh update: Four hours and forty minutes later, he's done, having listed every possible crime committed by the George W. Bush administration. Some may say a few of the 35 didn't exactly amount to high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe not. But they were certainly all crimes.
[Not to worry. We will just make overdue library books an impeachable offense. And now on to the impatient KOmmies who need only wait for President Obama's AG to indict Bush administration members and military personnel for war crimes...]
now that Bush has seven or eight months left in his term, I can't help but see this as primarily an attempt at theater that is designed at further damaging the Republican brand, and making sure that McCain, by association, is damaged right along with it. In other words, the main purpose of this, is to help Obama win the presidency, and the Democrats to get further control of Congress.
[A Kewpie Doll to you but this could end up HARMING Obama since it will bring unwanted attention to Obama's plans to prosecute the EVIL Bush war criminals.]
If these voilations go unpunished, we will see a repeat of this behavior at some point in the future.
[Don't worry. President Obama has promised the prosecution of non-Al Qaeda war criminals ]
Kucinich just saved Obama's AG a few months of work...
[BINGO! Thank you for being honest in revealing Obama's future plans to prosecute the "war criminals."]
One of the articles Dennis read has the illegal false prosecutions of Democratic candidates in an election season.
[Prosecution of candidates for any crime is only an impeachable offense if they are Democrats.]
Impeachment may be off the table, but it's no longer off the floor. That is a step towards the future.
[When Attorney General Eric Holder will conduct mass trials against the Bush Regime.]
and impeachment can happen even after they leave office.
[Posted the KOmmie Einstein.]
Congress should have a voice vote, "Impeach Bush, yes or no?" The Yes's have it, the President has been indicted. Senate, "all in favor of declaring Bush violated his oath of office, say yes." "Yes We Can". Sargent at Arms, escort former President Bush to the stockades awaiting transport to The Hague.
[Congrats for being the first KOmmie in this thread to reference The Hague.]
My other dream is that President Obama, immediately upon taking his oath to uphold the Constitution, turns to Bush and Cheney and says, You're under arrest.
[Not a dream but a reality according to Obama himself.]
This opens the door to a lot more against Bush, cheney and others associated with the crimes and misdemeanors of the executive branch... Though I also think it's a stretch that war crimes would be brought up against these individuals after they leave office.
[Not a stretch at all according to Obama himself.]
The clock does not run out on impeachment when the perp leaves office. The Republicans convinced a lot of people in the 90s that impeachment was just a political tool. It's not. It's a tool to punish criminals, too.
[Posted the KOmmie constitutional scholar.]
I think that even if this doesn't lead directly to impeachment, it'll at least start getting people used to thinking along the right lines... that Bush and his buddies are NOT above the law, and that people ARE gonna try to hold them accountable for their crimes.
[People like President Obama's Attorney General.]
Impeachment may guarantee Obama victory AND 60+ seats in the Senate, etc.
Or the complete opposite.
[Oops!]
35 articles of impeachment is too many...unless it's just a show speech. Regardless of how many things one thinks Bush has done, impeachment isn't the answer -- politically or whatever -- it never was. Maybe you disagree. But if someone thinks it is they really ought to target the articles more specifically and have a single case that can be won. The shotgun effect doesn't work when it's impeachment, especially when you're Dennis Kucinich.
[But...but can't we just impeach Bush because we don't like his politics?]
The next step would be to Extradite to the Hague for War Crimes trials, and criminal charges back home (in whichever order you please)
[Is that you, future Obama AG Eric Holder?]
better to wait until Obama's president and can institute an investigation into any criminal wrongdoings and then really throw the book at 'em!
[Better to wait for the advent of the Obama Republic so we can criminalize the politics of the previous administration.]
How do we have any guarantee Obama would do that?
he has already gone on the record that within the first 90 days he will convene a panel to investigate criminal wrongdoing in the bush admin and he has promised that if there is evidence, he will move to indict and prosecute. yaaaaah hhhhhhhooooooooo!
[The criminalization of the politics of the Bush administration during the Obama Republic. yaaaaah hhhhhhhooooooooo!]
I feel that an attempt should be made to prosecute Bush and company even after he leaves office. To allow them all to simply walk into the sunset is a crime in and of itself. It is setting an dangerous precedent. Perhaps a citizens arrest at the inauguration ?
[Good news! Your wish will come true under the Obama Republic.]
Specifics please? What exact laws did Bush break?
[KILLJOY!!!]
Somebody cite some specific high crime or misdemeanor that Bush has committed by accusing him of breaking some law (in an incontrovertible way) with conclusive evidence. Intellectual honesty anyone?
[LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]
the hearings will reveal the necessary proof
[Toss enough charges out there and maybe something will turn up at the hearings.]
He is on the record as saying before 2000 that if he became president he would be a war president because war presidents get re-elected. I belive that constitutes proof of intent.
[WOW! Real solid grounds for impeachment right there!]
I can believe cable news isn't covering this, but why isn't it breaking news on Huff Post? I just watched this man speak for 4 hours and 25 minutes. This is criminal that no one is covering it!
[It's criminal that the MSM isn't covering Obama's STATED intention to prosecute members of the previous administration as well as military personnel.]
posted by PJ-Comix at 6:49 AM
26 Comments:
"I just watched this man speak for 4 hours and 25 minutes."
Good G*d, waddya want, a cookie?!? That was 4 hrs and 25 minutes worth of your World of Warcraft time in your mom's basement you just wasted, moron.
Also, I'm not sure who had the PDF first, but I think Charles at Little Green Footballs found the open directory with the document... Along with many more revealing things.
These DUmmies just can't stand the fact that Bubba was impeached for, you know, actually breaking the law while they scream "impeachment!" for George Bush without understanding there must be a REASON to impeach (and no, the fact that they have to take more meds to cope is not reason enough).
Shouldn't Dennis K be in a tree somewhere making chocolate chip cookies?
I wonder what color the sky is in their world.....
I just watched this man speak for 4 hours and 25 minutes.
If Trog ever needed evidence that his fellow lefties were slackers (and masochists in this case) there it is.
This is why they have time for papier-mache puppet making and silly marches.
Somewhere a McDonalds is missing a french fry 'cook'
I was wondering what the Impeach Bush Moonbats were going to do with themselves after Bush left office. Looks like they're still going try and impeach him for not being a Moonbat. Then they want war crimes trials at THE HAGUE(OOOH!!).
Which make sense; keeping AL-Qaeda from winning and denying the Democrats their defeat in Iraq, would be a war crime to a left wing loon.
Of course Obama is just blowing smoke up their ass about going after the Bush Admin. if he wins. He's just keeping them frothing so they stay on the reservation. He'll scew them over just like Pelosi and Reid. Obama can't be so inexperienced to know that if he goes after the previous Admin., the same will happen to him after his term is up. Impeach Obama for links to terroists. Impeach Obama for being named like Osama. Investigate his ties to the Lightworkers Union. Send Obama to Guantanamo for Military tribunals...blah blah blah. Wouldn't take much to get the VRWC into gear.
"Psst! You wanna know a dirty little secret? Barack Obama is just as kooky as Dennis Kucinich."
Who's secret is this, PJ? Not that it matters, of course. Yours perhaps?
Obama says he'll..."Take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq and hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes."
Nothing noble about that, for Christ's sake. Notice Obama says "any perpetrators of war crimes" and PJ counters with "Do you think Obama means Al Qaeda when referring to "perpetrators of war crimes?" Ha! I think not."
How successful have the Bushies been at convicting Al Qaeda perpetrators of war crimes? Anyone? They've had 7 years. The answer's (Ha!) zero.
Keep up the good job dudes and tell me where you're getting the Kool Aid. I, troglaman, want.
How successful have the Bushies been at convicting Al Qaeda perpetrators of war crimes?
Perfect example of how lefties think terrorism can be solved by cops.
Exactly who do you think is being killed in Iraq by our guys? Cub Scouts?
If it were up to you and your fellow dumbasses, Marines would have to capture AQ for "trials".
"How successful have the Bushies been at convicting Al Qaeda perpetrators of war crimes? Anyone? They've had 7 years. The answer's (Ha!) zero."
Yes, you are correct, thank God.
Our boys rightly know how to KILL them so you douche-bags can't cry that we're violating "civil" rights by putting panties on their heads. ("Ha!" back at ya!)
On a serious note, it has long been argued over whether terrorism is a law enforcement issue or a military matter. The Democrats, believe it or not, tend to pick what is politically expedient at the time. Which is why Bill Clinton firing Tomahawk missiles into a Sudanese aspirin factory (thought it was a chem weapons plant..whoops) or into Afghan terrorist training camps is ok, or bombing Iraq daily for eight years, or blockading Iraq, or....well, yeah. Anyway, the point is that when Clinton used the military to go over terrorists it was alright, because he's a Dem. The left needs to be consistent on this. The double standard is an impediment to a serious discussion and policy regarding terrorism. Personally, I hold that terror plots are a law enforcement issue, while state-sponsored groups and active violence is a military issue. If a person or persons are caught preparing or planning an attack they should be tried. Furthermore, I argue that men captured on the battlefield in combat operations are not criminal defendants, but are in fact combat detainees. They aren't soldiers, because they don't meet the international definition laid down in Geneva, but they are not people to read Miranda rights to. They are people to be kept locked up for the duration of hostilities.
Fighting terrorism is something that takes place on many different fronts. Cops, soldiers, spies, and diplomats all have important roles to play. The Democrats should adopt a consistent policy of when they think it is a law enforcement issue and when they think it is a military issue.
I tend to agree with you Britt, with one notable exception.
Persons captured on the battlefield in combat operations and NOT IN UNIFORM are not criminal defendants or combat detainees.
They are spies and should be accorded one chance to cooperate fully or be executed on the spot.
Very Geneva.
"Fighting terrorism is something that takes place on many different fronts. Cops, soldiers, spies, and diplomats all have important roles to play." britt
God do I, troglaman, love it when someone says something intelligent around here.
This isn't an issue we can afford to bicker about. Knee-jerk responses are what these assholes are counting on.
Imagine this: We get a bin Ladin video in the next few weeks endorsing Obama. It happened during the last election with Kerry. Do any of you actually think that bin Ladin doesn't know that anyone he endorses will be buried by wingnuts because of his endorsement? Anyone? Does it occur to any of you that he knows what he's doing? I guarantee that if bin Ladin came out tomorrow for Obama, you guys would go friggin crazy. Your heads would explode. A dream come true. Knee-jerk. So simple.
And if a stupid cave-dweller like me knows this, then so does he. Us cave dwellers tend to think alike.
As britt says, this battle needs to smartly fought on all fronts. There's no other way. It can't be partisan. It can't be up to to a force of will. It can't be up to God or a belief or race or sex or age or Republican or Democrat or wingnut or moonbat or left or right or homosexual marriages and sex education. None of this bullshit matters. Relying on stances and beliefs won't cut it.
If I were God, I'd make this election based on smarts. No contest there. Let's hope that's how it breaks down.
Thanks for your comment, britt. I hope I haven't doomed you to an eternal hell by agreeing with you.
"They are spies and should be accorded one chance to cooperate fully or be executed on the spot. Very Geneva." anon
Scary spies without uniforms. Sooooo scary. Kill them.
You're a friggin tool, anon. Dumbassed chimp.
Do any of you actually think that bin Ladin doesn't know that anyone he endorses will be buried by wingnuts because of his endorsement?
Doubtful, even if it was true. For one, your moonbat politicians have expended precisely zero effort fighting Al Qaeda, because their focus is solely on beating Bushitler and the Rethuglicans.
Secondly, none of you are even capable of using Al Qaeda in a sentence with negative connotations, without adding "but" and going on to explain how US foreign policy caused them to become terrorists, and Americans are actually much worse and are war criminals.
What reason on earth would Bin Laden have to suspect anything other than that in you, he's got a friend?
Maybe he's terrified that the Democrats will surrender in Iraq?
Or maybe that's what he actually wants, and he knows that all you moonbats think much better of him than you do of Bush, so he's free to be open with his opinions.
Whaddya reckon?
Anonymous said...
"They are spies and should be accorded one chance to cooperate fully or be executed on the spot. Very Geneva." anon
Scary spies without uniforms. Sooooo scary. Kill them.
Yeah, don't you know the Geneva convention only applies when it supports terrorists?
The bits that make their methods illegal are fake, they were added on by Bushitler the same time as him and Karl Rove were inventing that phoney-baloney "second amendment" crap.
"What reason on earth would Bin Laden have to suspect anything other than that in you, he's got a friend?" dj
And so he endorses his friend knowing full well that his "friend" will be reviled and vilified.
You're an idiot. How bout this: bin Laden cleverly endorses someone he doesn't want to win. I know this may be a difficult concept for you, dj, but if you think about it for the next few days, it might come clear. One can only hope. Dumbass.
Check this out - Kayinsane says she will commit incest and pedophilia (and possibly much more) because Urkel Obama says we have to lower thermostats in the winter to gain world opinion *spit* cred:
I will survive this winter come hell or high water but if it gets tough and things are looking real bad for my son and I, then I will feed us a meal, go to bed together, snuggle tightly, we’ll tell each other how much we love each other and then go to sleep. Will we wake up the next morning? Not sure, but I would be prepared not to. Think I’m joking? I’m not.
"Do any of you actually think that bin Ladin doesn't know that anyone he endorses will be buried by wingnuts because of his endorsement?" (another brilliant observation by troglaman)
"Doubtful, even if it was true. For one, your moonbat politicians have expended precisely zero effort fighting Al Qaeda, because their focus is solely on beating Bushitler and the Rethuglicans." dj
Right. Osama Bin Lauden doesn't know Americans hate him. He has no friggin clue. None. He thinks he can come out and endorse a candidate and America will simply capitulate to his wishes. Is that what you're saying, dj? I think it is. That elevates your status to Platinum Dumbass. Congratulations! And extra kudos for believing in the American people.
Another obvious fact that dj ignores is that the Dems were pretty much all for invading Iraq and Afghanistan and going after Al Qaeda. I can prove it.
dj's a friggin tool. Gasbag. Nothing he say is true. Not one thing.
"How successful have the Bushies been at convicting Al Qaeda perpetrators of war crimes?" another super smart question by troglaman
"Perfect example of how lefties think terrorism can be solved by cops." another example of sham not really answering the question
I'm game. Hit me with your best shot, sham. Show me one thing that proves your assertion that lefties "think terrorism can be solved by cops."
Let's try again. How many Al Qaeda enemy combatants have been convicted? That's an easy question. Why not just answer it?
Let's try again. How many Al Qaeda enemy combatants have been convicted?
Very few, but not for lack of trying rather for interference from people (think Justice Kennedy) who insist those in Gitmo need habeus corpus rights that are guaranteed American citizens. So these foreign religious fanatics are now American citizens?
"How many Al Qaeda enemy combatants have been convicted?"
That's not an easy question, it's an absurd one. How do you convict an enemy combatant (AKA Prisoner Of War) in an American court? Be reasonable when answering that question.
"How many Al Qaeda enemy combatants have been convicted?" troglaman
"That's not an easy question, it's an absurd one." ray
Absurd to you, ray.
Habeus corpus, if you're a true American, applies to anyone and everyone. So sorry you can't grasp the concept, ray. That makes you a Dumbass.
Any other solution is communistic, fascist, totalitarian, or belongs in a dictatorship.
The accused have rights. If you have a problem with that then you're not down with the Constitution. It's as simple as that, ray. The accused have rights.
Are you so sure you would like to abandon this precept? Do you want the next president to be able to jail whomever he wants without the right of the accused to challenge the charges? Your guy has already made this true.
It's legal now. If the next president wants to throw you bunch of you nut cases in jail forever, he can. Ready for that? It's already legal. You all might about to become anti-American. Hope you're ready.
Are you sure you want to pursue this line of argument, ray? You're man has made it legal to lock you up forever. Happy with that?
dj's a friggin tool. Gasbag. Nothing he say is true. Not one thing.
I believe the epithet you are looking for would be "douche." It says so right in my screen name, for Obama's sake. Can't you get anything right?
Another obvious fact that dj ignores is that the Dems were pretty much all for invading Iraq and Afghanistan and going after Al Qaeda. I can prove it.
Most people even moderately clued-in to the U.S. political process are quite aware of this.
They are equally aware that since the invasion actually became a reality, the Democratic party and its supporters have done their level best to ensure that success is not achieved in any of the objectives Bush has pursued.
They may also be aware that Democratic supporters have even gone so far as to raise money for "insurgents" in Fallujah, and has described the "insurgency" as Minutemen.
Or that other major Democratic groups are explicitly onside with the U.S.' adversaries in Iraq.
I could go on.
But I don't think it'd be necessary to do so, as the old adage about lying with dogs and getting up with fleas has been fairly well borne out.
Once again, what on earth would Bin Laden stand to gain from a Democratic presidency?
A withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? Oh dear, he'd hate that!
Rescinding of the U.S. Patriot Act and other tightening security measures? Sure that'd hit him where it hurts too.
And don't bother trying to argue that Bin Laden is a bigger enemy to the American left than Bush is. Check out Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, or any other mainstream Democratic support site, do a search for Bin Laden and a search for Bush, and see what you come up with.
On the other hand, Bin Laden's endorsement of a candidate is sure to resonate throughout the Muslim world. And since Democratic supporters love nothing more than kowtowing to the wishes of Muslim groups in the U.S. in order to keep up the sham of not being racist, is it really far-fetched at all to think that an endorsement from someone like CAIR wouldn't be a bad thing for an American politician?
anonymous said...
2:20 AM
I'm game. Hit me with your best shot, sham. Show me one thing that proves your assertion that lefties "think terrorism can be solved by cops."
Noam Chomsky to Salon mag:
In the case of something like al-Qaida terrorism -- I presume like everyone else that al-Qaida was responsible for Sept. 11, or some network very much like it -- the right approach has been laid out by others. For example, in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, there's an article by the preeminent Anglo-American military historian, Michael Howard, a very conservative figure, who's very supportive of U.S. policy and British policy.
I don't agree with a lot of what Howard says about history, but his recommendation seems to make sense. He says that the right way to deal with criminal atrocities like the al-Qaida bombings is careful police work; a criminal investigation carried out by international authorities; the use of internationally sanctioned means, which could include force, to apprehend the criminals; bring the criminals to justice; ensure that they have fair trials and international tribunals. That sounds to me like sound judgement. It's also been proposed by the Vatican and innumerable others. So it's not only my opinion.
http://www.shtull-trauring.org/aron/Community/Articles/Noam_Chomsky.html
Oops, think I misattributed the source.
Also just as a disclaimer, was reading up on Chomsky's many idiocies and noticed the comment from anon. so posted the quote above, I am in no way related to the original poster.
I believe the epithet you are looking for would be "douche." It says so right in my screen name, for Obama's sake. Can't you get anything right?" dj
lol. OK, maybe just a col (chuckle out loud). But a chuckle it was.
"They are equally aware that since the invasion actually became a reality, the Democratic party and its supporters have done their level best to ensure that success is not achieved in any of the objectives Bush has pursued." dj
This doesn't make sense to troglaman. How have Dems foiled the supreme wisdom of W? This country, you and I, at W's behest, are going to end up spending close to 2 trillion dollars in Iraq. Do you honestly think that these petty contributions that you've referenced, by comparison, derailed W's big plans for Iraq? If you say 'yes', then you must admit that the 2 trillion we're dolling out was spent foolishly. If you say 'no', then you also have to admit that the 2 trillion we're dolling out is being spent by a bunch of drunk monkeys. Putting this fiasco on the Dems, especially Dems as obstructionists, is downright douchebag dumb.
"Once again, what on earth would Bin Laden stand to gain from a Democratic presidency?" dj
And if he stood to gain by a Democratic presidency, why would Osama bin fuckin Laudin endorse the Democrat knowing full well that whomever he endorses will be seen as the next AntiChrist? Don't you get this? Osama will endorse someone he doesn't want to win. Why is that so hard? It makes it look like he's smarter than you.
And if he stood to gain by a Democratic presidency, why would Osama bin fuckin Laudin endorse the Democrat knowing full well that whomever he endorses will be seen as the next AntiChrist? Don't you get this? Osama will endorse someone he doesn't want to win. Why is that so hard? It makes it look like he's smarter than you.
Um.. I meant to ask what he would stand to lose from a Dem presidency. Wires crossed.
Hopefully that makes more sense when put alongside the rest of the post, eg. troop withdrawals and looser national security measures in the US..
Putting this fiasco on the Dems, especially Dems as obstructionists, is downright douchebag dumb.
THANKyou for getting the name right.
The whole point of the post is that the Iraq war isn't a fiasco, but Dem supporters have convinced the public into thinking it is, for political gain.
Which intersects fairly neatly with Al Qaeda's propaganda aims, one imagines.
I'm not suggesting Dems are in league with Al Qaeda or anything so extreme.
Rather that they view opposition to terrorism as a lesser objective than opposition to the Republican party.
Post a Comment
<< Home