Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Isn't Charlie Rangel calling for BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT? not Rummy.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 06:44 PM
Original message
Isn't Charlie Rangel calling for BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT? not Rummy.
I keep seeing these people like on Crossfire, Wolfie, etc and they show the clip and one Senator (Graham) told Wolfie that he didn't think RUMSFELD COULD be Impeached..

But when I see the clip it sure as hell sounds like he's calling for BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT if he doesn't FIRE RUMMY?

Anyone else getting this?

Are they confusing everyone on purpose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. They are
he called for Shurbies head today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-04 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. I agree.
I'm pretty sure that Rummy can't be impeached -- he can be forced to resign, but not impeached. On the other hand, * can be impeached. Therefore, when Rangel said that "he" should be impeached, he must have meant *.

QED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosco T. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. "Are they confusing everyone on purpose?"

you catch on quick kemosabe..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. What do you mean "we"
Kimosabe?

old joke :)

Yeah, this is an obvious deflection, it's amazing, no one catches this crap.. they don't EVEN want to open that can of worms I guess..

time to get this word out at Take Back the Media.com

thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. think he meant Rummy. Said if he wasn't fired or resigned, Congress
should remove him...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoon Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. You must have saw a short clip.
The one I saw (it was live or right after it happened), was quite clear. He said if Rumsfeld isn't fired or doesn't quit, he should be impeached for withholding information from the president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I think that's the way I heard it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aunt Anti-bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. He wants to impeach Rumsfeld...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/trail/07TRAI...

Representative Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, a longtime hunter of Mr. Rumsfeld's scalp, took the fight to a whole new level when he called for the defense secretary's impeachment.

"If the president does not fire Secretary Rumsfeld, or if he does not resign, I think it is the responsibility of this Congress to file articles of impeachment and force him out of office," said Mr. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War. "Then, the whole world will know not just the military not just Americans, but the whole world will know what we stand for."

(more)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1amc Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. That's sad.
Edited on Thu May-06-04 07:31 PM by troublemaker
I like Rangel, but he probably just didn't know congress cannot remove a Secretary.

That's what Andrew Johnson's impeachment was about (though kind of reversed)--that congress cannot control the cabinet. After surviving his impeachment trial by one vote Johnson's view of the constitutional conflict was eventually seconded by the Supreme Court.

Question: Since the President was being impeached by Congress ostensibly over a question of constitutional interpretation, why didn't the Supreme Court weigh in a little earlier?

Question 2: Given that precedent of disengagement and slowness, how proud should we be that our modern hi-tech Supreme Court was energetic enough to jump all over the 2000 election on a day-by-day basis? Now that's service!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. There was an earlier post that stated that isn't true.
Edited on Thu May-06-04 07:52 PM by napi21
They cited 2 Presidents were impeached, several judges and also mentioned secretaries.
Edit: here it is
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Post #14
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-04 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. I stand corrected
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
49jim Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. On Crossfire today the
democrat from Florida ( senator I think) was talking about the mess in Iraq and the photographs. He said that * should be impeached...Novack went nuts and got his panties all twisted up. The democrat said the standard of impeachment used on Clinton could be used on *. The audience booed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. The audience booed? They booed?
Shit. We ARE in deeper doo-doo with these dim-wits than I thought. I'd have been up on my feet, cheering.

Better call Rangel tomorrow and give him encouragement - use the TOLL FREE number in my sig line...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scrotim Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. A large segment of the audience applauded too. Most were in shock
that someone finally said the "I" (impeachment) word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thecrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I saw it on Cspan
and I believe he was calling for Smirky's impeachment.
He said that if Smirk didn't get Rummy to resign then they should begin drawing up the articles of impeacment.
But think about this.... if they impeach Smirk, that means we'd have the PuppetMaster as Prez. That's just too horrible to comprehend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-04 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. I saw that..
there were boos but there were more people clapping than boos..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
14. Heard him say it on ABC news
They played the tape of him on the house floor saying

"If the president does not fire Secretary Rumsfeld, or if he does not resign, I
think it is the responsibility of this Congress to file articles of impeachment and
force him out of office,"

Now not being a grammarian there is some room to say the "him"
may or not be the president, but in the tape it sure seemed like that the pResident should fire rummy if rummy did not resign and failing rumy being fired empeach the person that failed to fire him , that is
bu*sh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scrotim Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
15. I think you're right about the press purposefully reinterpereting this for
Rangle. I think he meant Bush, and I hope he takes the time to clarify that soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
17. Rangel is as sharp as a tack

He knows exactly what he is saying.

For sure he would like them both to get the hell out and take Chaney with them.

Rangel Rocks!!!!

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zestfolly Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-04 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
20. It was very confusing
I thought he said Rummy should be impeached but the lawyers said Congress doesn't have the authority to impeach a Secretary of Defense, only the President. Maybe he was thinking of a censure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 23rd 2014, 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC