Jennifer Hudson Sings 'Happy Birthday' to Obama (Video)

 

Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment, Richard B. Cheney

Dennis Kucinich has big plans, big stupid plans.

Dana Milbank of The Washington Post writes:

"I do not stand alone," Dennis Kucinich said as he stood, alone, in front of a cluster of microphones yesterday evening.

The Ohio congressman, a Democratic presidential candidate, was holding a news conference outside the Capitol to announce that he had just filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. But subsequent questioning quickly revealed that Kucinich had not yet persuaded any of his 434 colleagues to be a cosponsor, that he had not even discussed the matter with House Democratic leaders, and that he had not raised the subject with the Judiciary Committee.

I'm confident in saying that I do not stand alone in thinking that Kucinich is mentally unstable.

...It was not an auspicious beginning for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney. Kucinich had called his news conference for noon on the terrace of the Cannon building. But minutes before the event, his office sent out a statement: "News reports this morning indicate the Vice President was experiencing a medical crisis. Until the vice president's condition is clarified, I am placing any action on hold."

This was odd, because the vice president's spokeswoman had already announced that Cheney had merely gone to a doctor's office to check on a blood clot in his leg, which is improving. Cheney himself, far from suffering a medical crisis, joined Senate Republicans for lunch at the Capitol. "The leg's doing good," Cheney announced after lunch, his lips in his trademark snarl. Indeed, he was feeling so well that he chose to start a new fight with congressional Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was not only "uninformed and misleading," but also practicing "defeatism," Cheney said. Democrats are guilty of "political calculation" and "blind opposition."

Reid visited the same microphones minutes later to return the playground taunts: "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating." And: "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog."

How weird!

Kucinich is certainly out of the loop.

"News reports this morning indicate the Vice President was experiencing a medical crisis. Until the vice president's condition is clarified, I am placing any action on hold."

What was that about?

Did Kucinich think he could use the "medical crisis" excuse to postpone his impeachment announcement because the odds are good that the Vice Presient would be experiencing health crisis?

Why would he say something so easily shown to be utterly false?

Regarding the Cheney-Reid feud, I wouldn't call it an exchange of "playground taunts."

I think Reid is actually doing far more to harm Cheney, and thereby the nation, than Kucinich's impeachment dance.

Reid is the majority leader of the Senate, not one of hundreds of U.S. representatives.

Cheney didn't engage in name-calling. He was merely responding to Reid's disgraceful declaration that the war in Iraq is lost. Cheney was criticizing Reid's comments and rightfully so.

Reid, on the other hand, acted in a bullying, childish manner. Taunting the Vice President and calling him an "attack dog" is highly inappropriate. Reid continues to reveal himself as severely lacking in terms of civility and principles and just common decency.

Kucinich evidently realized there was no reason for him to get cold feet just because of Cheney's leg. A few minutes after the Cheney-Reid showdown, the congressman arrived in the Speaker's Lobby off the House floor, handing out news releases to any reporter he could find: "Kucinich to Move Forward with Impeachment News Conference."

Washingtonpost.com's Paul Kane showed the news release to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who declined to endorse the Kucinich crusade. "He was busily engaged in handing that out," Hoyer observed. "Beyond that, I don't have any thought about it."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, was equally dismissive -- "Dennis can do what he wants; I'm not going to support it" -- but used the occasion to try out some Cheney material: "This is the biggest setback for the vice president since oil went under 65 bucks a barrel."

Kucinich's relationship with his fellow Dems reminds me of the way a family grudgingly tolerates that strange bachelor uncle at holiday gatherings and other family functions. He's kind of an embarrassment, but he belongs to them.

Kucinich, however, did not find humor in the matter. Standing perhaps 5 feet 6 inches tall in shoes, he wore a solemn face as he approached the microphones, which nearly reached his eye level. He beckoned to aides, who handed out thick binders detailing the case.

Kucinich read at length from his articles of impeachment, undeterred by rush-hour traffic noise on Independence Avenue ("I'll wait till the truck goes by here," he said at one point) and wind that ruffled his text and the few strands of his hair that were insufficiently weighted by Brylcreem. Tom Ferraro of Reuters asked Kucinich if any other lawmakers supported impeachment.

"Because this resolution is so weighty in its import, it's going to be important for members of Congress to have sufficient time to study the articles," Kucinich answered.

Milbank gets rather personal.

Was it really necessary to "taunt" Kucinich about his height and his hair?

We'll take that as a no. "So at this point you stand alone?" Ferraro pressed.

"I believe I stand with millions of Americans," Kucinich parried.

I don't know about millions, but there definitely are Americans that are so rabid in their hatred for President Bush and his administration that they've lost their ability to reason.

Someone else asked why Kucinich targeted Cheney but not Cheney's boss. "There's a practical reason," the congressman explained. "If we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president. . . . You would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."

I wondered why Kucinich was going after Cheney before Bush.

Yes, it would be "constitutional agony" to impeach two presidents consectutively.

I guess he thinks it's a lesser agony to impeach a vice president and then a president.

That's much less painful.

DEMS' MARCH MADNESS

David Obey and "idiot liberals"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., right, accompanied by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., center, and Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., walk to the Speaker's office on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, March 23, 2007, after a sharply divided House voted to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)


"This is better than a CODEPINK picnic."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., center, celebrates with Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., left, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, March 23, 2007. Both Murphy and Walz are Iraq War veterans. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)


"Voting for America's defeat is fun!"

Democrats celebrate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, March 23, 2007. From left are, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of S.C., Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, of Calif., and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)


"Whatever Nancy wants, Nancy gets."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., right, accompanied by fellow House democrats, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, March 23, 2007. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

Democrats are celebrating their March Madness victory.

I imagine that so is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Bashar al-Assad, and Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda, Hamas, and every other anti-American terroist regime and tyrant are thrilled. Jihadists the world over have reason to cheer.

The Dems, once again, are doing the bidding of our enemies.

WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

Just over an hour later, an angry Bush accused Democrats of staging nothing more than political theater and said that if the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, troops and their families "will face significant disruptions."

Ignoring Bush's promised veto, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

I hope that the American people see the reality of Democrats in control of the House. DISASTER.


Pelosi strikes a Hitlerian pose.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., second from right, accompanied by fellow House Democrats. From left are, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

Pelosi doesn't speak for me.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war."

She has no right to say that. It's not true.

She can say some of the American people or even most of the American people have lost faith; but she cannot say the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Some of us understand the importance of victory in Iraq.

Far too many of the Dems do not.

I support everything that President Bush said in response to the Dems' idiocy.

Read the President's remarks.

President Bush Discusses Iraq War Emergency Supplemental

Bush is angry. He should be.


President Bush speaks in the Diplomatic Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, March 23, 2007, on the Iraq War Emergency Supplemental. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Americans should join him. We should be angry at the Dems for their utterly irresponsible actions.

Bush said:

The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

This is what the Dems and their allies (tyrants, terrorists, America haters) are applauding.

It's disgusting.

The President is urging Congress to send him a "clean bill that [he] can sign without delay."

Bush said, "I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people."

The Dems are derelict in their duty.

Pelosi and her minions shouldn't be proud.

They're an absolute disgrace.

Demanding Defeat in Iraq

What's the big news from President Bush's address to the nation on Wednesday night?

If you get your spin (or news) from the lib media, the most important thing that Bush said was this:

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

Why is that so shocking?

I'm not surprised by that statement at all.

I'm also not surprised by the libs' spin on Bush's speech.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that he erred by not ordering a military buildup in Iraq last year and said he was increasing U.S. troops by 21,500 to quell the country's near-anarchy.

...The buildup puts Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress and pushes the American troop presence in Iraq toward its highest level. It also runs counter to widespread anti-war passions among Americans and the advice of some top generals.

In a prime-time address to the nation, Bush pushed back against the Democrats' calls to end the unpopular war. He said that "to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."

...There was criticism from Republicans, as well. "This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran and potential GOP presidential candidate.

After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush's last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion.

Senate and House Democrats are arranging votes urging the president not to send more troops. While lacking the force of law, the measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.

Usually loath to admit error, Bush said it also was a mistake to have allowed American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government, which tried to prevent U.S. military operations against fighters controlled by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful political ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The president said al-Maliki had assured him that from now on, "political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."

Do you detect a little bias in the reporting?

After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush's last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion.

--We're nearing "four years of bloody combat."

--This is Bush's last credible chance to convince "Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war."

--The American death toll has reached three thousand.

--The war has cost over $400 billion.

--And, of course, Bush is a stubborn jackass, "loath to admit error."

Fair and balanced? I don't think so.

That's what concerns me. The coverage is so slanted.

We can't lose in Iraq, but the Dems and their lib media allies are demanding defeat.

Watching the speech, I had an uneasy feeling.

Listening to Brian Williams and Tim Russert's discussion after the speech, I felt sick.

The mainstream media and the Dems (synonyms) are pounding away, delivering the message that the plan Bush laid out is doomed.

The war is lost. Americans want out of Iraq right now. It's an uphill battle for Bush. Bush is the biggest loser.

Our enemies are loving all of this. Whether they're from the Middle East, Asia, Europe, South America, or anti-American Americans, our enemies believe, and with good reason, that America will be defeated.

What absolutely bugs the hell out of me are the Americans that want us to lose in Iraq.

I really can't stand it.

I was so troubled listening to the President.

I imagined the hate-filled libs foaming at the mouth, growling at their TVs as they watched President Bush.

I kept thinking what buffoons like Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi had been saying the past couple of days -- VIETNAM, VIETNAM, VIETNAM; DEFEAT, DEFEAT, DEFEAT.

The roar of the criticism is deafening. It even spilled into late night TV talk.

Presidential candidate John Edwards was Jay Leno's guest on Wednesday night. Although the speech hadn't aired at the time the show was taped, Leno asked Edwards about the troop surge.

Edwards declared that the President's plan was "dead wrong."

People applauded.

Then, I had the misfortune of watching Charlie Rose. He had a number of guests on his program to analyze the President's speech.

Rose asked if the President was sufficiently contrite about his mistakes?

Ken Duberstein said that we didn't see the typical Bush "bravado," but he didn't go far enough in acknowledging his mistakes.

Good grief. What more was Bush supposed to say? "I resign"? "I'm the worst president in the history of the United States"? Would that have satisfied the pundits?

Perhaps Bush should volunteer to be executed. I doubt that would pacify his critics.

Rose asked, "Is the war lost?"

Rahm Emanuel said that he wouldn't say it's lost, but "we're not going to have a victory here."

Huh?

What a load of defeatist crap!

Can you imagine what it would have been like if jerks like these were around during World War II?

I think the stakes are just as high now as they were then.

I sincerely believe that too many Americans think we can cut and run from Iraq without dire consequences.

They've forgotten that our country was attacked. Planes were hijacked and flown into our buildings and those buildings crumbled. Thousands died -- including women, children, and the elderly.

I don't know how things will play out in Iraq. At this point, I'm not optimistic because we are not united in our pursuit of victory.

Far too many Americans mistakenly believe that everything will be hunky dory if we pull out of Iraq. They don't understand the consequences.

That's the mistake that's newsworthy, not Bush taking responsibility for his errors.

Pelosi Loses

Doug Mills/The New York Times

Look at that smile on Nancy Pelosi's face. Is that a smile or is it a grimace?

Whatever it is, she's not happy.

Steny Hoyer, on the other hand, is looking very pleased. He has the expression of a winner.

John "Total crap" Murtha, standing in the background, is pouting. Poor Murtha.

Twenty-six years ago, he predicted that he would be in a position of leadership.

Watch and listen to Murtha brag about his tremendous influence in Washington here.

He thought he had the votes to be elected. He thought he was so close to becoming majority leader in the House that he could taste it.

Murtha was wrong, REALLY WRONG.

Steny Hoyer was voted to be the majority leader by a vote of 149-86.

That's a massive defeat for Murtha.

It's a disastrous defeat for Pelosi.

Her fellow Dems decided that putting the ethically-challenged, McGovern-esque Murtha in such a high profile position would be giving the Republicans a gift.

They determined it would be better to hand Pelosi an absolutely humiliating defeat rather than let Murtha speak for the Dems.

From The New York Times:

House Democrats chose Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland as their majority leader today after a bruising fight that cast a cloud over the party’s post-election celebration.

The election of Mr. Hoyer over Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, by a vote of 149 to 86, was an embarrassing setback for Representative Nancy J. Pelosi of California, who will be Speaker of the House in the new Congress and who had backed Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Hoyer, 67, is in his 13th term in Congress and his second as party whip under Ms. Pelosi, who has been the Democratic minority leader. She was put in line to become speaker when Democrats regained control of the House in last week’s elections.

After the vote, Ms. Pelosi smiled broadly and offered “great congratulations” to Mr. Hoyer. “I look forward to working with him in a very unified way to bring our country to a new direction for all Americans, not just the privileged few,” Ms. Pelosi said.

“We’ve had our debates,” she continued. “We’ve had our disagreements in that room, and now that is over. As I said to my colleagues, as we say in church, let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with us. Let the healing begin.”

Oh, how lame!

"Let there be peace on Earth." The next line is "and let it begin with ME," not "us."

When was the last time Pelosi went to church? I mean to worship, not campaign.

Anyway, she has called for the healing to begin.

I think that's going to take a while.

It's a safe bet to assume that Pelosi hasn't been this battered and bruised since her last cosmetic surgicial procedure.

...Ms. Pelosi was chosen unanimously by her Democratic colleagues to be speaker in the 110th Congress, which convenes in January. Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina becomes the new Democratic whip, while Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois will be chairman of the Democratic Caucus, making him No. 4 in the Democratic hierarchy in the House.

Mr. Emanuel’s promotion paid tribute to his role in this year’s Congressional campaigns. Intending the words as a compliment, Ms. Pelosi described him as “cold-blooded, capable, calculating in terms of winning an election.”

HAHAHAHA

The Times needed to stress to its readers that when Pelosi refers to Emanuel, "cold-blooded" is a compliment.

...When Ms. Pelosi was asked what the election of Mr. Hoyer said about the wisdom of her backing of Mr. Murtha, she said she still stood “very, very proudly” behind her support of Mr. Murtha because of his opposition to the war in Iraq.

And did she have any regrets? “No,” she said. “I’m not a person who has regrets.”

Maybe that's her problem.

She should regret her stunningly stupid move to back Murtha.

Why is it that a Dem without regrets is a hero, but a Republican without regrets is stubborn and close-minded and unintelligent?

Another double standard at play.

I regret something. My regret is that the battle for majority leader is over.

The Dems' implosion over the leadership position was very entertaining.

If only it could have lasted just a little while longer...

Curb Your Enthusiasm, Tim Russert

Did you watch Meet the Press this morning?

Tim Russert was absolutely giddy.

He doesn't have the champagne chilling. He's already popped the cork.

Russert's guests were National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Rep. Tom Reynolds.

As usual, the partisan Russert would occasionally toss a jab at the Dems, but for the most part, he was attacking the Republicans.

While I watched most of the program, I didn't give it my undivided attention.

But to the best of my knowledge, Russert did not challenge Schumer on his DSCC's dirty and illegal use of Michael Steele's social security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report.

Read about the Schumer DSCC scandal that the lib media barely noticed here and here.

The AP quickly jumped on a comment made by Dole and splashed it.

WASHINGTON -- The head of the GOP Senate campaigns on Sunday sought to deflect growing criticism about the war in Iraq, saying her party will prevail in Tuesday's elections partly because "Democrats appear to be content with losing."

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., acknowledged that Republicans face a tight race to maintain control of the Senate, but that voters will focus more narrowly on local issues. Democrats need to take six seats to gain power in the 100-member Senate.

...On Iraq, she said: "We need to win the war, and it would be disastrous to lose."

"It's like they're content with losing. To pull out and withdraw is losing. The Democrats appear to be content with losing," she said.

The AP account doesn't give an adequate description of Dole's remarks.

Before Dole finished explaining her comment, the rude Russert interrupted her. She clearly hadn't concluded her statement.

He refused to let her speak, saying something to the effect that she had made a very strong comment and he had to let Emanuel respond immediately.

There was a lot of crosstalk, due to the fact that Russert was being so unfair in the way he was moderating the discussion.

Eventually, Russert raised his voice and said, "Time out, time out...," while playing ref and gesturing the time out hand signal.

Funny that Dems can make virtually any "strong" comment bashing Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld and Russert never interrupts to allow a Republican to counter.

Of course, Dem cheerleader Russert never really gave Dole the opportunity to expound on her statement. He attacked and moved on, pulling a hit and run on cut and run.

Naturally, Russert failed to consider the validity of Dole's remark.

In reality, the Dem plan to "redeploy" is a plan for defeat. Redeploy, as Cardin said on Meet the Press last weekend, means redeploy the troops in Iraq to the United States, bring them home.

FACT: There is no question that bringing the troops home at this stage would be viewed by our enemies as a loss for America.

If the Dems want to retreat now, they most certainly appear to be content with losing, as Dole said.

The Dems' short-sightedness may work for them politically this Tuesday, but it will be devastating for our country in the long run.
________________________________

Read about Russert's sleazy attempt to attribute a "Rumsfeld must go" editorial running in military newspapers to members of the military here.

Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters writes:

[RNCC Chairman Tom] Reynolds exposed those so-called "military newspapers" as nothing more than cogs in the Gannett chain, a member-in-good-standing of the MSM whose flagship paper is the reliably-liberal USA Today.

Russert flashed the panel of the editorial shown here, and asked Reynolds:



"Do you believe it would be helpful [to have] a change at the top of the Pentagon?"

That's when Reynolds unleashed this salvo:

"First of all, the Army Times editorial is written by its Gannett-owned newspaper, which is well-positioned [on the 'anti' side] in other editorial comment relative to the war. And so the editorial writers may be coming from Virginia rather from the military, particularly because it's owned by Gannett."

Russert really has lost it.

I think he's letting his loathing for Bush and especially Rumsfeld diminish his integrity as a journalist.

I doubt that he cares.