Letters to the Editor
kovie
Published Letters: 632
-
Not that you deserve a reply, bucky
[Read the article: Mike Allen, consummate Beltway "journalist"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]given how incredibly rudely and offensively you've treated some of this blog's longtime and most respected commenters. But I have to say that I found it curious that in the comment above in which you discussed the important role that the INVESTIGATIVE hearing stage of the senate's investigation into Watergate played in bringing to light the many crimes of the Nixon administration and in doing so creating a groundswell of support for impeachment, without which it could never have reached the actual impeachment stage (which of course began in the house, not senate, as per the constitution), you then go on to contradict yourself and assert that, before they've even completed the INVESTIGATIVE hearing stage of investigation BushCo's many crimes, they should skip this stage and just right ahead to the impeachment stage.
Huh?
First you rightly point out the importance and necessity of the investigative stage in setting the legal, public and political stage for impeachment, and then you step all over yourself and say that, well, this time we can and should just skip that stage and go right to impeachment, and that everything will be just fine if we do that. Why was investigation important and necessary then but not now? What is it about the present situation that in your mind makes impeachment without prior investigation more likely to succeed, not less, when you clearly argued the exact opposite with the Watergate example?
Again, huh?
You're not making any sense here. I agree that the investigative stage made the impeachment stage possible in Watergate. So why should it be any different now? And that is what all of us who are against impeachment NOW are arguing. First investigate, and only then, if it's legally warranted and politically possible, impeach. You were for this process with Watergate, but not now. Why? You owe us an explanation of this clearl contradiction if you expect to be taken seriously. And some major apologies. Otherwise, you make no sense and will be treated accordingly.
-
I'm this close from asking you the proverbial question
[Read the article: Mike Allen, consummate Beltway "journalist"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]asked of lunatics such as yourself--are you off your meds?
You insult anyone who disagrees with you--check.
You make shit up as you go along--check.
You cannot read and understand others' comments--check.
You cannot read and understand your own comments--check.
Yeah, I think it's time to refill that prescription.
And re-read your own comment. You want Dems to move right to impeachment now, before they've fully investigated. That is NOT how Watergate proceeded, as you yourself pointed out. Like I said, you contradict yourself in the very same comment. You want impeachment before investigation. Yes, and I want a pony (to take me to the moon) too.
And you're too dense to understand--despite its having been pointed out to you multiple times--that when Pelosi said that impeachment was off the table, it did not mean that it would never happen. If that's what she meant then that's what she would have said. (And it's interesting that she used this phrase because in politics, when you say that something is dead, you say that it's been tabled, not that it's off the table--hmm). She HAD to say it, to avoid looking like she was trying to score political points, and to keep angry Repubs from having a reason to vote. You really think she's that stupid, or do you need to be patted reassuringly on the head and have everything explained to you like a slow child?
But anyway, you seem to have a problem with opinions and views that differ with yours, and instead of responding with logic and facts, you resort to insulting people and calling them names. Very sane and mature. What a wonderful way to win friends and influence people.
Goodbye.