Kucinich Will Impeach Cheney...

[and-justice-for-all]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 333 in April to impeach Vice President Cheney for his pre-war lies about Iraq and for threatening an invasion of Iran. And thanks to your heroic grassroots efforts, there are 21 co-sponsors.

Speaker Pelosi blocked Judiciary Committee hearings on the bill, but Rep. Kucinich will force a floor vote on Tuesday using his right of personal privilege.

Kucinich's courageous act will put members of the House on record. Are they going to fulfill their oath of office to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? Or will they support a Vice President whose lies about Iraq cost the lives of nearly 4,000 Americans and possibly $2.4 trillion in our tax dollars - and whose lies about Iran threaten to start World War III?

Call your Representative (not Senators) and tell them to support Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney, H.Res. 333:
800-828-0498, 800-862-5530, 800-833-6354

More actions to support Kucinich's impeachment resolution:
http://impeachcheney.org

Kucinich explains this week's vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSbGUOOQCpU

Brave New Films Video about Cheney's impeachable offenses:
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/4987-impeach-dick-cheney

Also tell your Senators to oppose Mukasey:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/122

Call the undecided Senators and report their responses:
http://www.democrats.com/mukasey-judiciary-whip

Join the Democratic Donor Strike against Chuck Schumer's DSCC:
http://www.democrats.com/donor-strike-2007

Tell your Senators to support Chris Dodd's filibuster of warrantless wiretapping:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/114

[demnan]

1. I have a personal connect to Kucinich prior to introducing this bill

Some of my friends in our Impeachment Group and I went to Capitol Hill in April and we worked our way into a PDA meeting with Dennis. I gave him a little button that said Impeach Him.

Dennis talked a long time about not doing things in anger (sensed my anger) and Elizabeth was there as well.

One week later he introduced House Res 333.

I'm going to be there Tuesday to support him and now I'm working for his campaign.

Is that the rest of the story? yep!

[Gregorian]

14. Could you ask him something?

First, thank you. And second, I'm so jealous!

I called Rep. Hinchey's office last week. I mentioned impeaching Cheney. I also mentioned HR 333. His office aide claims that HR 333 subverts the judiciary process. And for that reason Hinchey wants to introduce, or support already pending, censure resolutions.

I mention this because I believe investigations and impeachment are not important for punishment as much as for revealing facts and the truth. And Hinchey's office says HR 333 would not allow for adequate investigations.

I really don't understand it. I reread HR 333, and it might just be that what they're talking about is implicit. Because it sure isn't obvious.

Thanks.

[mmonk]

17. If you thought the Iran/Contra hearings solved anything

or resulted in any justice or stained the Reagan administration with the public at large then support Hinchey's position. If you think the public at large is aware of all the crimes of the administration or things such as the Office of Special Plans, etc., or understand the assault and dismantling of the constitution that has taken place, then support Hinchey's explanation. If you think the media is informing the people adequately currently, then support Hinchey's position. If you think one of the most impeachable administrations in the history of this country should not be held responsible for anything, then stay with the "judiciary" hearings. But if you want people to know what has happened in this country, your constitutional rights restored and defended at some point because I'm going to tell you a secret (not enough people even know about the hearings much less impeachable offenses), and you want to avoid a repeat of what has happened and you want constitutional checks and balances to come back, then choose that which the founders of this nation provided to the citizens of this country for this very EXACT thing. Go with impeachment so our grandchildren will be free.

[Gregorian]

33. I'm all for impeachment.

But what I want to know is what Hinchey's justification is for saying what he did.

I do not see anything in HR 333 that would exclude investigations. I just doesn't make sense. But I don't know much about Hinchey other than what his aide said.

I am thinking this is going to finally be a week worth waiting for. Please! :)

[H2O Man]

51. Although I was not

part of the conversation between you and Hinchey's aide, I think that the most obvious explanation is that there was an error in communication. Representative Hinchey needs to back the move to impeach Cheney. He hasn't given a good reason why he hasn't yet.

He is focused on the bill he has introduced in the House (and Russ Feingold in the Senate) to censure the president. Hinchey's position is that censure is the first step towards impeachment; Feingold says he believes that censure alone may be adequate. See:

http://feingold.senate.gov/opinion/07/20070729.htm

In the House, the proposals for impeachment can go through a process that takes longer than the vote on the censure resoltion. Hence, what I believe that the aide was trying to say was that the Hinchey method is a quicker way to get to the point where the House will act on calls to impeach Bush and/or Cheney.

Again, I am basing my opinion soley on conversations I have had with aides in Rep. Hinchey's office.

[Gregorian]

98. Thank you.

I didn't know Hinchey was part of that censure resolution. Now I can see why he has an attachment to that process.

I disagree. There is nothing but time. And I would even say the time that Congress has spent in the last few years has not been time well spent.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

41. It's a good job the founding fathers wrote this impeachment thing into the constitution

:toast:

[Orsino]

64. Impeach in anger.

Not in the heat of the moment, but from outrage piled upon outrage over the years, spiced with the Administration's constant and visible contempt for democracy.

Few other things are worth getting angry about.

[LakeSamish706]

2. I see Kucinich as the only one that will seriously take this band of criminals on...

If we have a Dennis Kucinich in the White House, I don't think that Bush/Cheney and the entire Administration will walk away unscathed. To me he is our only hope of both restoring this country and bringing to justice these criminals...

[demnan]

3. Please get active in the campaign!

PM me with your state and email and I'll help you with that. I have some connections.

Nancy

[datavg]

86. Does Anyone Here...

...think before they post?

Kucinich can't win the White House because he can't win five states in the south. It's simple math. Electorally speaking, he isn't even worth a second thought.

He'd never win Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida...and among these, he would need two out of three.

The party will be lucky if it can get elect Hillary, because of the extent to which she is hated by the Republican base. I can't think of anything more galvanizing to the Republican base than the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton.

Democrats cannot continue to be the party of the west coast, the upper midwest, Chicago, the northeast, the mid-Atlantic and Maryland!

Not only that but if the split between the moderates and progressives isn't healed, we could lose control of the House.

The country is NOT progressive! It never has been. The United States was a corporation before it became a nation!

When was the last time a Kucinich-like figure was elected to the Presidency? When was the last time we elected someone who was openly beholden to the leftmost wing of the Democratic party?

NEVER. Not even during the Sixties. Johnson HATED the campus left. And that's as far as we've ever gone.

Don't any of you understand that?

Finally, do you think for a minute that the Federal Reserve would put up with a President Kucinich? Don't you think that with all their money and all their power and all their connections, they'd do everything and anything to keep that from happening?

THINK!

[Webster Green]

91. What's your point?

Should I not vote for Dennis in the primary?

Not vote at all?

Slit my wrists?

[timtom]

97. As painful as they are

you raise some very good points.

But I still want to close my eyes, click my heels together 3 times and *presto*! Kucinich is president.

[datavg]

99. No Argument...

...but there's a time for dreaming and a time for clear thinking.

[humbled_opinion]

100. You see you are exactly the Problem...

This country needs real change and all you talk about is how a Progressive like Dennis Kucinich can't get it done and how we'll be LUCKY to have Hillary win...

Your nuts... I think Hillary is as divisive as Bush and will make as bad a President as he has so NO MORE CLINTONS in the WH ....

Obama is a real chance for Change and I would love to see an OBAMA/EDWARDS or OBAMA/KUCINICH ticket.

[datavg]

105. We...

...will be lucky to get Hillary, because that's as good as it's gonna get!

I'm not here to dream with you. I'm here to speak the truth.

I keep saying a lot of hard core progressives will leave in the coming years. I stand behind every word because I don't think there's going to be an alternative.

Wall Street runs the show. I don't think it's always been this bad but if you consider the number of people who today own stocks and other equities versus twenty years ago, it's a fait accompli that the financial sector would eventually have this much clout. You can thank Reagan, Bush and Clinton for that. It also has a lot to do with globalism and advances in information technology but that's a topic for another post.

[humbled_opinion]

107. Money the root of all evil... Welcom to the Facist States Of America... Point taken..n/t

[datavg]

108. So...

...greed is the deadliest of the seven deadly sins.

Tell me something I don't know.

But, this is how it is. And it ain't gonna change.

And if you can't handle it, you'll move. Many progressives are considering doing precisely that.

My wife and I have the cars paid off, have pledged not to spend more than we can afford for anything and that's how we're gonna live our lives.

Maybe we'll get to retire someday. Maybe we won't...but if that's the case, we like what we do for a living. We don't have to have European vacations or a fancy lifestyle.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. kick.

:kick:

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Strange headline....

no single representative can impeach... only the whole House can.

Kucinich will introduce a bill to impeach. It will be defeated handily, sadly.

[cali]

7. that's true, but it will be interesting to see how many dems vote

against tabling his resolution.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Is that what the vote actually is?

To table it or not? It's not an up or down vote on impeachment?

That gives them more cover.

[cali]

12. yes, it's a vote to table, though I'm not sure I see how that in itself

gives them more cover.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Because a vote to table is not a vote against...

it means "we don't have the evidence yet".

[onenote]

79. I'm not sure why it would necessarily be a vote to table. It could be a vote to refer it back to

committee, I think.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. No, Dennis will introduce it and (hopefully) a Repo, not a Dem will move to table.

Then there will be a vote on whether to table or not is the scenario I expect.

But at least it will be back on the table, so to speak.

But the resolution is to impeach.

[Nederland]

10. I predict a majority of Dems

...and all Repubs will vote to table.

[Divine Discontent]

81. exactly, cali

and that will tell me how many of them have something big to hide... this IS the most impeachable adm. in this nation's history, and if people vote against the evidence that is clearly collected and presented, well, that sure says to me they're either scared of the adm. or they know they've got something to hide that could take them down... I really support Dennis on this, and if he gets Cheney impeached, I'm putting him right up there with Edwards in my admiration of candidates in '08, I would love if John's campaign caught fire and he selected Dennis as his running mate, to me, Dennis is as honest and loving a man as Jimmy Carter seems to be.

[DCKit]

8. Even if it fails, it will have exposed the Dino's. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

11. One can be a real democrat

and oppose impeachment on the grounds that it's bound to fail.

Not every "No" vote on Tuesday will be from a DINO.

[rjones2818]

19. But those Dems who vote for

tableing will be forever branded as not being willing to stand up for the Constitution. That's a good thing.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Nah

it'll be seen as a cheap political stunt with no chance of success, and will have no long-term impact on anyone who votes against it.

[harun]

66. I don't know if you have watched CSPAN lately but there

isn't much that goes in the House or Senate that isn't a political stunt.

It will out those Dem's we are concerned with that support this policy. That is important when we send money so we know who NOT to send money to.

[H2O Man]

53. Those who swore

to uphold and protect the Constitution will be exposed as what they are.

[Moochy]

60. Not If primate smell's 8 ball is right

[bdamomma]

80. it should be interesting to say the least.

so call your Representatives now and tell them to support HR 333 and not to table the resolution.

[Orsino]

65. The nays will come from those willing to look the other way...

...for personal--or party--political gain. Those concerns are significant, certainly, but if these representatives are not DINOs, then that term has no meaning in the face of the crimes of the * Administration.

I would be ashamed not to follow Kucinich's courageous example. Get 'em all on the record, I say, and never trust the nays again.

[Ian_rd]

70. Bound to fail how?

Because ... too many will vote against it? Wow, what a dumb thing to say. Sorry, but wow.

I'm voting no on this Bill because ... too many other people will vote no on it, therefore ... somehow, it is failing not because I'M voting no on it, but only because people other than me are voting no on it. Yea ... uh, get it?

[ronnykmarshall]

85. What about this DINO?

[AverageJoe]

96. I don't understand your logic

Why would it be justified to do the wrong thing just because the right thing might fail? A vote against the impeachment of Cheney is a vote against the United States Constitution. Period. This is so regardless of the final vote tally.

[H2O Man]

52. True.

And it exposes the people who will attempt to justify their cowardly behavior.

[youthere]

73. Well put...was goingto be my point exactly.

[wildbilln864]

6. K&R #11! eom.

[Double T]

13. Kucinich is one of very few Democrats that has real guts and real convictions..........

Dennis will get my vote in the Primary then in the General Elections if I have to write it in. Most of the Democrats are no better than their do nothing brethren on the other side of the isle; they are a disgrace to the Party.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. If he had real guts and real conviction

why isn't he proposing articles to impeach Bush?

[Double T]

18. Dennis has already explained his position for impeaching cheney FIRST.

Hypothetically, if Dennis' proposal were to be successful in impeaching bush FIRST, cheney would become President. Dennis' proposal is to successfully impeach cheney, BEFORE Dennis' begins the proposal to successfully impeach bush. The only thing worse than bush, would be cheney as President. Some Democrats actually THINK THINGS THROUGH BEFORE they act!

[MonkeyFunk]

23. So talk me through this....

Cheney is impeached and removed (in fantasy-land).

Then Bush appoints a new VP - Rice, perhaps? Or does Kucinich believe he can then remove Bush without a VP in place?

Then Bush is impeached. Does Kucinich believe that 17 Republicans in the Senate will vote to remove the President with no VP in place, thus making Nancy Pelosi president?

[pnwmom]

28. No one thinks that. If Cheney is impeached, Bush will probably nominate

someone uncontroversial to be V.P., as Nixon nominated Gerald Ford.

[Double T]

35. An ATTEMPT is better than what has been offered by any other Dem.......

which is less than NOTHING.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. I disagree

an attempt that fails is hurtful to Dems. That's worse than doing nothing.

The real answer is to beat their asses next year.

[Double T]

37. Do nothing will lead to defeat in 2008; voters are tired of EXCUSES.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. There really isn't a national

drive to impeach.


Impeaching and failing will hurt Democrats more than not impeaching. We need to investigate and build a case, present the evidence to the American people.

[Truth2Tell]

40. failing will hurt Democrats more than not impeaching?

In opposite world maybe. In the real world not impeaching hurts America and is maybe a wash for the Democrats. If we had the guts to actually make the case for impeachment before the American people we might just have a shot. But we quake in fear of being labeled by the media and the opposition. Chicken shits.

Not to mention that a political calculus that prioritizes Democratic political gains over real human lives and the U.S. Constitution is downright sickening.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. Yes

the realities of politics can be sickening for those with weak dispositions. You'd best take up stamp-collecting.

[Truth2Tell]

43. Wow

Just wow.

At least you're honest about your priorities. Too bad Pelosi and Reid can't be so honest.

I'm off to puke on my stamp collection.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Go ahead....

I never understood why moral purists concern themselves with a pursuit like politics when the priesthood is available - it's bound to lead to disappointment.

[me b zola]

46. It's a damned shame that you weren't around

...when Jefferson & the boys thought it was a good idea to stand up to the other king george. You could've stopped them from making asses of themselves with all of that "fantasy" talk about the rule of law and representative government and all. As it turned out they all turned to the priesthood after their embarrassing "disappointment".

[H2O Man]

55. Checkmate.

Well said.

[frylock]

77. well played!

:applause:

[tiptoe]

94. i hear ya!

:yourock:

[Ian_rd]

71. I never considered myself a moral purist for wanting criminals to be prosecuted

... but hell, maybe you're right. Maybe the people who think Cheney should be impeached are no different psychologically than religious fundamentalists. "Moral purists" ... please.

Y'know, MonkeyFunk, not everything is a ball game where you only bet to win. Sometimes in real life you have to do what's right. And maybe, just maybe *gasp* you might actually accomplish something worthwhile.

[frylock]

76. thinking like yours is what is driving the democratic party into obsolescence..

talk about weak dispositions.

[rockybelt]

59. Investigate and build a case?

The case for impeachment is absolutely rock solid. How much more evidence do you need?

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. A failed attempt may embolden Bush to believe that he can get away with even more

[Amonester]

87. Let's try to "define" what that "more" could be, in all due respect:

Here's my take:

1. Bomb Iran. (HRC will do it too just to show she can be as "tough" as king george pissypants.)
2. ?
3. ?

(Help me with the ??s)

So, let's all be VERY VERY afraid, and full of FEAR about what MORE an embolden Bush could get away with. NOT!

[rjones2818]

20. You must want to see Dick as President.

:evilgrin:

:hide:

[pnwmom]

26. It makes logistical sense to go after Cheney first. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

32. what sense does it make?

do you believe

a) the House will pass articles of impeachment against Cheney and

b) the Senate will vote to remove him?

[Crabby Appleton]

72. no on both

this motion will be tabled as well.

[H2O Man]

54. It sure does.

And it's a giggle to see anyone argue otherwise.

[harun]

67. It's much better to impeach Cheney than B*sh (n/t)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

21. Dennis is a large voice for those of us feeling betrayed.

K & R

[pnwmom]

24. Here's a list of the co-sponsors.

Articles of Impeachment Against Dick Cheney, is sponsored by the following Members of Congress: Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Dennis Kucinich, Yvette Clarke, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Bob Filner, Sam Farr, Robert Brady, Tammy Baldwin, Donald Payne, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Ed Towns, Diane Watson.

I'm happy, though not surprised, to see Jim McDermott on the list.

[Quixote1818]

27. GOOD FOR THEM!!!! We should write all of them and thank them! nt

[tritsofme]

29. I can't imagine more than 40 will oppose tabling the resolution.

That's my gut feeling.

[bigwillq]

30. Go get 'em Dennis!

:bounce:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

31. Dear Sir Kucinich,...Godspeed to you and your courage.

I'll never forget.

Now, let us hold on tight to each other over the next 6 months and know we will survive.

[Swamp Rat]

34. k&r

[lonestarnot]

39. R R R R R and kick

[Buns_of_Fire]

45. Is debate allowed on a Motion to Table?

Or is it just a straight up-and-down vote?

I'd LOVE to hear the reasons -- pro and con -- stated publicly, and on the record!

[iamthebandfanman]

47. theyll side with cheney

god forbid we ruffle anybodys feathers,
especially with something so silly as the truth.

they are all war criminals who have committed acts of treason....
but they will never be held accountable.

[upi402]

48. contacted, kicked and recomended! n/t

[rAVES]

49. Yea, No suprise that a Clinton supporter is dismissing it...

GO DENNIS!

[deacon]

50. k + r

[AzDar]

56. K & R....

:kick:

[JDPriestly]

57. I e-mailed my congressman.

[L. Coyote]

58. DO NOT Join the Democratic Donor Strike against Chuck Schumer's DSCC:

Even Pavlov knows that you train dogs with treats.

[trogdor]

75. Nice try.

Dogs get treats AFTER they do what you ask, not before.

[timtom]

61. Just called Alcee Hastings

to "beg him" to vote "NO" on tabling the resolution.

[bobthedrummer]

62. Called this morning. Kick.

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST-IMPEACH CHENEY NOW!

[Dying Eagle]

63. I just called

Rep. Kagen of WI(8th)

KICK!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Correction: Kucinich will try to get the House to impeach Cheney

That attempt will be unsuccessful.

[ray of light]

74. Get busy! ;-)

[onenote]

78. "Speaker Pelosi blocked Judiciary Committee hearings on the bill" Link?

Link for the claim that Pelosi "blocked" the Judiciary Committee from holding hearings on Kucinich's resolution?

[mystwoman]

82. Can the Dems peach Cheney and win?

Maybe it's a Dem party strategy so the anger of Americans at this corrupt administration will funnel to the voting booth, and not feel satisfied by Cheney mouthing some photo call platitudes.

However, if Cheney does go into the big house, "Hail to the Chief" will be playing on the loudspeakers.

I am surprised SNL has not made a Sopranos spoof using White House characters like Dubya, Rice, Cheney, Rove, and other nameles people who got out long ago.

[fenriswolf]

83. if you have any faith in the democratic process

you will support this bill. The case is not if cheney and bush need to be impeached, i'm sure everyone on this board would love to see it. The question is will they be impeached. Since that is the question their are two choices, either the idealistical "if we all get on our representatives it might happen" or the "it will be killed as soon as it hits the floor" those in the later group somehow feel that this will make the dems loose power or give power to bush. Bush has all the power he is going to get, this bill will not "embolden" him or cheney. at the very least what this bill will do will allow the american people to know once and for all who to kick out the next election cycle.

[eggplant]

84. I called my rep

Gillibrand's office said they had no idea what her thoughts on the matter are, which I found a bit disheartening. But they were happy to take my info so they could "send me a letter". Sigh.

[spindoctor]

88. So, Cheney impeached yet?

[rhett o rick]

89. Which day will he introduce the bill?? nm

[Eurobabe]

90. K&R and I wrote to Gerlach

although that email stands a snowball's chance in hell of ever crossing his desk. :shrug:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

92. IT'S KUCINICH or CHENEY

if they don't support Kucinich that means they support Cheney!

This will come back to haunt them if they support Cheney

THE CHENEY DEMOCRATS!

[me b zola]

93. Just called Congressman Earl Blumenhauer's office

I politely told the person who answered the phone to that I was from his district and that I was calling to express my desire for Blumenhauer to support HR333 and to vote against any motion to table the bill. I then asked if he knew if Blumenhauer had changed his mind regarding HR333 and the aid said that he didn't think so, although he doesn't know where the congressman stands upon the vote to table the bill.



I'm frustrated because I live in a very progressive district and Blumenhauer would have the support of his constituents if he supported the Kucinich bill for impeachment. Now to be sure Earl has a strong progressive record, and I am mostly happy with how he represents us. What I don't understand--or respect--is when he clearly has political cover in a deeply blue district why he hasn't been loudly outspoken about the criminal activities of this administration.

[DesEtoiles]

103. I called this morning and the staffer took my email address and

seemed to indicate an email was imminent.

Haven't seen it yet.

[me b zola]

106. You may have made a strong case!

I wasn't asked. Usually, though, they ask for my name & address/zip code (I think to confirm that I am a constituent), this time they didn't. The staffer who took my call was a male and didn't ask me anything.

Let me know if you hear back from Blumenhauer's office. In the meantime, I will call again in the morning.

[crickets]

95. Three calls

I spoke to John Barrow's office, and the intern claimed no specific knowledge of whether Rep Barrow would support or oppose H.Res. 333. He was unable to ask anyone for clarification as all staffers were attending a weekly staff meeting. He offered to take my phone number and have someone call me back. I stated my view that we had been lied into a war in Iraq, that our troops need to come home, and that there was no way we should be saber rattling about Iran. I also made it clear that I considered lying us into a war and allowing torture to be used by our military and private contractors to be legally and morally wrong. I urged support of the resolution and told him I would call back tomorrow morning for more information. This intern was quite pleasant and as helpful as possible given the circumstances, even going so far as to look it up on the computer and read about it before discussing it with me.

Also spoke to Jim Marshall's office. Jim Marshall is my actual Rep, but I called John first because he's a distant cousin and a friend of the family. I figured that his would be the easiest and most pleasant call and I was right. Not only could I not get a straight answer from Marshall's office, the intern claimed the resolution would not be coming up for a vote on Tuesday as it was still in subcommittee and had yet to go to committee before going to the floor. He kept offering to send me a letter. I didn't question or argue as I got the distinct impression I was talking to someone who just wanted me to give up and go away. Again stated my views before ending the call. Will call back tomorrow.

Called Saxby Chambliss's office about Mukasey. First intern had no clue and put me on hold. I listened to the strains of John Phillips Sousa while waiting. Surreal. Next staffer gave me a rambling answer about how the Senator would have to listen to the floor debate before making up his mind. The staffer stated firmly that Chambliss is against torture but wouldn't agree that waterboarding is torture because there was nothing about it "in the military code." WTF? I stated just as firmly (but politely) that claiming not to know whether waterboarding is torture or not is ridiculous, that one didn't need to read the military code to understand torture. Also told him that I was very disappointed to hear this opinion coming from a Senator and that to hear it from a potential Attorney General was unacceptable. I stated that torture is against federal and international law as well as the Geneva Convention, and that the office of Attorney General should be undertaken by someone who understood that. More wishy-washy noise about floor debates, have a nice day.

I tried. :þ

[Rex]

101. I'm all for it DK.

:thumbsup:

[ileus]

102. All by his lonesome??? n/t

[bdamomma]

104. I called both of Reps and I do not think neither people who I

talked to knew what HR 333 was, I just said let both Reps vote in favor of this.