Representative Ellison:
I’m one of your constituents.
OK, no. I’m not. I live in Saint Paul, a city that is not a morass of crime thanks to your party’s policies, thanks mostly to politicians like you – yet. But I’m a Minnesotan, and I have every right to address my concerns to you.
You’re on record as supporting impeachment. And I’m writing with one simple demand:
Get on the stick. Start the “impeachment” ball rolling. Now. The people who put you in office demand it, and they’re wondering where their campaign promise went:
At a rally in Loring Park in October, Ellison said Bush “has been running amok” and needs to be reined in: “There is one way that you can truly hold this president accountable, and it’s impeachment.”
But for the time being anyway, Ellison seems in no hurry to push the matter. “My opinions really have not changed over time, but the circumstances that I’m in have,” he said. He said that he’s “a step before impeachment,” adding that his emphasis as he learns the ropes in Congress is on a broader range of human and civil rights issues.
Keith! Your supporters didn’t merrily plug their ears and eyes and mouths, and the Strib didn’t gang-rape the “rules” and “ethics” of journalism to put you into office so you could sit and “learn”. You’re there for one reason only – to reflect the unfettered id of the DFL and their constituents!
Like this guy:
Mikael Rudolph of Minneapolis, co-founder of a group called ImpeachforPeace.org, wasn’t aware of Ellison’s appointment until he was contacted by a reporter. “That’s fabulous!” he said.
It’s for people like this that you’re in Washington, Mr. Ellison; the half-informed zealot. The knee-jerk ranter. The ill-informed, reflexive, unthinking “progressives”.
“Learning”, Mr. Ellison? Pfft.
Ellison’s appointment to the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over impeachment, has brought applause from the president’s fiercest critics. Democratic leaders have made clear they don’t intend to move to impeach Bush, and critics are disappointed, hoping Ellison will provide a loud voice to ignite their lonely crusade. Pro-impeachment groups plan to press their case for impeachment when they join anti-war demonstrators for a huge rally Saturday in Washington.
And, Mr. Ellison, you had best be there!
At the rally in Minneapolis, Ellison said it was time to “send the message to this Bush character that we’re not going to have it anymore.” He said that impeachment “would be a major undertaking and it would dominate the headlines for a long time” but that it was the right course.
Well, then start dominating the headlines, Representative Ellison! Get in the papers with your half-witted little plan! “Dominate” the headlines!
It’s what the Fifth District sent you to Washington for!
Yeah Keith! Take a cue from the Republicans in 1994! Following the lead from Newt Gingrich, they promised to impeach Clinton and damnit, they followed through on their promise!
And it wouldn’t hurt for you to follow the lead of your peers in the new Congress, like that media whore what’s her name in the 6th!
You need to get out there and make it all about you!
The judicious prosecutor may spend a long time investigating a person they are convinced is guilty in order to establish a clear case based on overwhelming evidence. Your party may be in the habit of starting big endeavors like impeachment or war without a plan for victory, but we Democrats prefer to win.
Keith Ellison is not a prosecutor. He’s a representative.
He made a campaign promise, and it looks like he’s going to weasel out of it. I want to HOLD him to it!
Keith! Deliver!
Doug,
As usual, you couldn’t find the point if you had it jammed down your shorts. Re-read the post. Note the deft irony.
Then get on your phone and call Ellison’s office.
” a 6.5 year witch hunt that only came up with an affair”
Keep telling yourself that PB. Maybe someday you’ll actually believe it.
Mitch said,
“As usual, you couldn’t find the point if you had it jammed down your shorts. Re-read the post. Note the deft irony.
Contrary to what you believe, I did get the point and there is no irony. Democrats overwhelmingly said they do not support impeachment at this time because there are more pressing issues to work on.
Since you’re so insistent on elected officials following through on campaign promises, I’d suggest you hop on the phone and talk to Mr. Bush about his campaign pledge not to get involved with nation building
PB…er, J…
Violent crime per capita in Saint Paul is vastly lower than in Minneapolis. I haven’t looked at the per capita violent crime stats in a while, but the last time I checked the murder rate per 100,000 in St. Paul was less than half that of Minneapolis. It varies by year, but as a rule Saint Paul is quite a bit less violent per capita.
I once recall you saying you don’t conduct ad hominem attacks (by and large) – you leave that to others… yeah..
Right. By and large. This time, I did. I can do that.
I can say without equivocation, he’s a helluva lot more committed to progress, decency, fairness and tact than any rightie blogger – including you.
Good. Go comment on his blog, then.
Seriously.
Since you’re so insistent on elected officials following through on campaign promises
Illogical even by your very self-indulgent standards, Doug.
The nation-building pledge happened before a certain terrorist incident. Perhaps you recall it. Then again, perhaps you don’t.
And of course you missed my point, Doug. I don’t care what Democrats at large support or don’t, or why. I want Ellison to follow through. Now.
That’s all.
“Democrats overwhelmingly said they do not support impeachment at this time because there are more pressing issues to work on.”
But Doug! You believe the administration is under the control of a bunch of wily, hook-nosed
Bilderbergersneocons. How can lowering the interest rate on student loans be more important than getting rid of Chimpy Haliburtonbushhiltler and his ghastly crew?Mitch,
Here’s how is works for DemocRATS like Ellison and Dougie the Burger-flipper:
Step 1: Poltificate or bloviate over a subject (Ellison for Impeachment; Dougie for being an “election observer”)
Step 2: When confronted with your own words, obfuscate or change the subject
Step 3: Once Step 2 doesn’t work, admit that what you said the first time is no longer true, but you REALLY meant to do the right thing.
jbauer: “Because Ellison isn’t out there making an ass of himself quite so well as Bachmann may be a reason for you to be pissed, but that’s still no reason for him to start.”
Isn’t Mitch just asking him to do what he promised to do? Did he promise to “go to Washington D.C. and learn, consider, and then decide if ‘this Bush character’ should be impeached”? Really? Tell me another one. Please, it’s obvious that you would defend any kind of behavior by our new MN 5 Rep and that ignoring his own campaign promises is OK with you, so stop with the long winded and meandering “argument” already.
Have you sent this letter to his office?
No.
Interesting concept, though.
“Jbauer”
Mitch is right, violent crime is much lower in St Paul.
Why don’t you apologize for lying to the people, you worthless piece of garbage?
Mitch said,
“The nation-building pledge happened before a certain terrorist incident. Perhaps you recall it. Then again, perhaps you don’t.”
The nation building pledge happened because it was what you lemmings wanted to hear after years of bitching about Clinton’s nation building.
It was going to happen regardless of a certain terrorist incident.
Again, another prediction many of us liberals made the day George Bush was handed the Presidency by the Supreme Court.
Obviously the SOB should be impeached, Doug. Why don’t you write Ellison and demand that he make good on his pledge?
It’s interesting that you guys are so insistent on Ellison pulling the trigger on impeachment proceedings. We’re finally moving toward the second half of the Iraq intelligence investigation and we’re finally looking at misappropriation of funds.
We’ve got 22 months before the next Presidential elections – all the time in the world to gather evidence before pursuing impeachment.
donkeyman1,
For the record, I am not a repub. Nor am I a Republican. Nor will I BELIEVE YOU MORE WHEN YOU USE CAPS. Thanks.
I read this:
“Ellison and Walter Mondale…BOTH of them admonished me, humbled me, and reminded me”
and then this:
“I don’t revere any of them, Ellison, Mondale,…”
and I think to myself:
“jbauer aka donkeyman1 aka PB (or whatever) is so full of it!”
Don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t mind. You are loads of fun wrapped in impenetrable paragraphs of nonsense.
Blather on, dude!
Doug wrote: “Democrats overwhelmingly said they do not support impeachment at this time because there are more pressing issues to work on.”
And then later he wrote: “We’ve got 22 months before the next Presidential elections – all the time in the world to gather evidence before pursuing impeachment.”
Which is it, Doug? More pressing issues or lack of “evidence”? You’re the guy who’s always right about everything. Why don’t you give us an exact date, Kreskin?
It’s interesting that you guys are so insistent on Ellison pulling the trigger on impeachment proceedings. We’re finally moving toward the second half of the Iraq intelligence investigation and we’re finally looking at misappropriation of funds.
Oh, hell – run ’em all!
Because there’s nothing to any of ’em. You guys are vastly more deranged than the GOP were in 1998.
Terry said,
Which is it, Doug?
let’s review what I said.
“Democrats overwhelmingly said they do not support impeachment at this time”
followed by;
“We’ve got 22 months before the next Presidential elections – all the time in the world to gather evidence…”
Nowhere did I cite a lack of evidence as a reason for not pursuing impeachment right now. I clearly said we’ve got plenty of time to continue to build a case AFTER we take care of the business at hand. Kind of like when we were saying we needed more time for inspections and diplomacy to work before invading Iraq – another thing we were right about and you guys were tragically wrong about. Although 1800 inspectors on the ground all saying there were no weapons was kind of a tip off.
Maybe you can explain for the class WHY it is such an urgency to start impeachment hearings NOW?
If your hairtrigger demands demonstrated in this thread is any indication of what your like in the sack, you guys must have some pretty frustrated wives. Or Ex-wives… Just a thought.
Also Terry, it doesn’t have to be an either or issue. We’re capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
“You’re the guy who’s always right about everything.
Yeah, funny how that’s worked out eh? And I wasn’t even trying. And Terry, really it’s not so much a matter of being right as it is a matter of listening and looking at the facts. Tommy Walker was less deaf, dumb and blind than you guys.
Mitch said,
“Because there’s nothing to any of ‘em.”
Thank you for that in depth analysis Nathan Thurm.
You guys are vastly more deranged than the GOP were in 1998″
Yeah? Well my dad can kick your dads ass. So there…
Thank you for that in depth analysis Nathan Thurm.
It’s as much depth as the fever swamp deserves.
Doug, do you really think the dems are going to impeach Bush for prosecuting a war that was voted for by more than half of democrat senators, and a solid minority of democrat congressman? Ellison will do what Nancy tells him to or no money for his district and a more cooperative democrat will be found to run against him in the 2008 5th district primary.
Terry Said,
“Doug, do you really think the dems are going to impeach Bush for prosecuting a war that was voted for by more than half of democrat senators, and a solid minority of democrat congressman?
Congress voted to give the President the authority to use force if needed. We know and have known absolutely since early 2003 that Iraq was not a threat, had no WMD’s and that their capabilities to make weapons had been destroyed. Both Ms. Rice and Colin Powell stated back in early 2001 that Hussein was no threat to America, Europe or the Middle East.
Congress gave Bush the authority. It’s not the Democrats fault that Bush lacks the wisdom, self-control and intelligence to know when and when not to use it.
Congress voted to give the President the authority to use force if needed. We know and have known absolutely since early 2003 that Iraq was not a threat, had no WMD’s and that their capabilities to make weapons had been destroyed.
We “knew” no such thing in early 2003 about WMDs, and Iraq’s threat wasn’t the issue; it was the safe haven and support they provided terrorists. Both of which have been amply proven (and destroyed).
Both Ms. Rice and Colin Powell stated back in early 2001 that Hussein was no threat to America, Europe or the Middle East.
Right. And cancer is no threat to your bowling ball. It’s a non-sequitur. Afghanistan was no threat to us, either; it’s the terrorists they harbored and supported.
Congress gave Bush the authority. It’s not the Democrats fault that Bush lacks the wisdom, self-control and intelligence to know when and when not to use it.
If it were true – and it wasn’t – then yes. It IS their fault; it’s Congress’ job to provide a check and balance on the President if they believe he’s wrong. They almost unanimously did not – a decision based on very nearly the same info the President had (and in the case of the leadership, exactly the same leadership).
Your statement is deeply cowardly, Doug, but to be fair it’s no worse than what the Dem mainstream is doing.
Er, that’s “in the case of the leadership, exactly the same information”.
Terry reflected
“Ellison will do what Nancy tells him to or no money for his district and a more cooperative democrat will be found to run against him in the 2008 5th district primary.”
Quite so. Nancy will show us ALL how a plantation is run. An you KNOW what I’m talkin’ about.
Mitch said,
“Your statement is deeply cowardly”
And your entire rebuttal is one long FOX News talking point. We know there no WMD’s and it was the threat to this country that drove this war.
And your statememt that the Congress had the same intelligence to work from is deeply dishonest.
Doug,
You are an idiot.
That is all.
And your entire rebuttal is one long FOX News talking point.
I’m rubber and you’re glue.
We know there no WMD’s and it was the threat to this country that drove this war.
Doug, we knew no such thing in march of ’03, and either you know it (and are repeating a MoveOn talking point, as seems likely) or you have truly been assimilated (assuming you were ever independent).
And your statememt that the Congress had the same intelligence to work from is deeply dishonest.
Take it to Norm Coleman, who is no adminstration whore but did in fact vouch for the intel Congress got to look at.
Give it up, Doug. You have neither facts nor the command of rhetoric to make people ignore it.
No weapons found by March ’03. Inspectors reporting that in all likelihood, none remained. Hussein contained according to our own state department going back to early 2001.
There were no weapons and we knew it. We were within weeks of the weapons inspectors declaring definitively that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction.
Bush pulled the trigger when he did because he was about to lose his opportunity to invade and start a war based purely on ideology. You support that action because you believe in the fantasy that a Jeffersonian Democracy will spring up in that part of the world. I don’t support it for all of the reasons I’ve stated dozens of time in this blog.
As for Congress having the same intel as the President? That’s complete bullshit.
While it’s technically accurate to say that Congress had the same intelligence as the President, it’s not full disclosure of the facts. It’s a game with symantics.
I have a Rogets Thesaurus and an Oxford English Dictionary so technically, I have the same reference material as the Minneapolis Public Library. But the Library has a lot more than I do. It’s the same thing as the war intelligence.
In addition, Congress never saw the intelligence from the office of Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation, the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy or from the Iraqi National Congress – all sources that the administration used to make it’s case for war. Congress did not have the same intelligence Mitch. Deal with it.
Phase two of the Committee on US pre-war Intelligence obviously has you guys freaked because I’m seeing a lot of the “congress had the intel” rhetoric out there lately.
Doug, Blix was not willing to certify that Iraq was free of WMD. That’s why we had, you know, a war. Your getting close to the point where you say 9/11 was an inside job. Better step back.
” I have a Rogets Thesaurus and an Oxford English Dictionary so technically, I have the same reference material as the Minneapolis Public Library.”
Congress approved the action. If the senators and congressmen had any doubt that their vote was less than the right thing to do they should have voted no. That is what they are there for. Once we’re in, we’re in. No room for back peddling or even more folks will get killed. This ain’t a game of hearts.
I have no idea what “phase two of the Committee on US pre-war Intelligence” is. I doubt if anything named named “phase two of the Committee on US pre-war Intelligence” can produce anything like truth, to be honest. This ain’t a history class any more than it’s a game of hearts. Somehow you lefties have forgotten that the most important thing about a war is that you win it — if you want recriminations there will be plenty of time for that later. After we’ve won.
As for the “If we had only given the inspectors more time!” meme, Doug, you should be smarter than that. We can’t keep a quarter million guys on the ground in Kuwait forever. Saddam was only motivated to give the low level of cooperation he did with the inspectors because of those 250,000 in Kuwait. Read a book on military history once a year or so fer crissakes.
Terry said,
“Somehow you lefties have forgotten that the most important thing about a war is that you win it”
Somehow you righties have forgotten that the most important thing about a war is that you don’t start it unless and until every alternative has been exhausted.
You guys believed it was going to be a cakewalk. Why did you think that Terry? Maybe It’s because you were told it was going to be all flowers, chocolates and a glorious new Jeffersonian democracy for the Middle East. I’ve got new for you Terry. There’s no Easted Bunny either.
We were saying it was going to lead to civil war, a flood of foreign insurgents and a bunch of really pissed off Iraqis. Oh, and a whole bunch of dead and severly wounded American soldiers.
And don’t even try the “every alternative was exhausted” crap. In February Blix and ElBaradei got concessions from Saddam Hussein allowing U-2 overflights and interviews with four top Iraqi scientists.
There were no weapons. We knew it and more importantly, Hussein knew that we had figured it out. Hussein was in a corner and he was powerless to do anything. Even if he had attempted to restart a weapons program, he wouldn’t have been able to.
I doubt if anything named named “phase two of the Committee on US pre-war Intelligence” can produce anything like truth, to be honest.
Really? It must be lonely for you being one of the last members of the Flat Earth Society.
Don’t tell me what I believed Doug. You clainm to know exactly what republicans think on a whole range of issues. Your powers of telepathy confirm your own prejudices. Funny, that.
Back in March 2003 I thought we were looking at 10,000 dead American soldiers and at least ten times that many dead Iraqi soldiers. I thought that CBW would be used on the battlefield as Saddam deployed his unaccounted for mustard gas and VX stockpiles.
Read your own words. If Iraq is in a state of civil war it’s a civil war unlike any in history. There are no armies in the field other than our own and our allies. Your ‘accurate predictions’ are no more than you rewriting the facts to fit your anti-Bush and anti-republican agenda. The current unrest would end tomorrow if it was not supported by Iran and Al Qaida.
The UN found again and again that Saddam had failed the test of full disclosure. In 1995, thanks to a defector, unscom found out that Saddam had been deceiving the inspectors all along — and that he had compromised the inspections process to the point where unscom’s own translator was an agent of the Iraqi government. In 1998 Saddam’s cooperation became nonexistent and the inspectors were withdrawn, leading to a host of warnings about the dangers of Iraq by Clinton, Gore, and a host of democrats.
We know that Saddam only allowed the inspectors to return when we put a quarter of a million soldiers on his doorstep. Five months later Blix said not only that he couldn’t certify that Iraq was free of WMD, but that the Iraqi authorities were not cooperating fully with his inspection team.
Your plea that the inspectors just needed more time is delusional. Saddam likely knew that he had nothing to hide, but he kept playing games with unscom anyhow. Since your in the mind reading business you might ask yourself why Saddam would not cooperate, since it would lead to the lifting of sanctions and a better future for his people.
How hypocritical is it for the writer of the “Open Letter to Keith Ellison” to base his slander of my knowledge and character entirely upon a single reference from the Star Tribune while in the same breath lambasting the very same newspaper for its “gang-rape” of the “rules” and “ethics” of journalism’?. He trusts a single mention by a Star Tribune reporter without question but flogs the Star Tribune for its lack of ethics and ‘gang-rape’ of journalistic rules in the nearly the same breath?:
~~~~~
//Keith! Your supporters didn’t merrily plug their ears and eyes and mouths, and the Strib didn’t gang-rape the “rules” and “ethics” of journalism to put you into office so you could sit and “learn”. You’re there for one reason only – to reflect the unfettered id of the DFL and their constituents!
Like this guy:
Mikael Rudolph of Minneapolis, co-founder of a group called http://www.ImpeachforPeace.org, wasn’t aware of Ellison’s appointment until he was contacted by a reporter. “That’s fabulous!” he said.
It’s for people like this that you’re in Washington, Mr. Ellison; the half-informed zealot. The knee-jerk ranter. The ill-informed, reflexive, unthinking “progressives”.
“Learning”, Mr. Ellison? Pfft.//
~~~~~
While you consider who is in actuality the “half-informed zealot, knee-jerk ranter, ill-informed, reflexive, unthinking” one ponder this:
I posted these entries on the MNspeak article entitled: “Ellison Named to Judiciary Committee” on January 20th:
//Listen to Keith Ellison calling for impeachment at the WorldCan’tWait/ImpeachforPeace rally on October 5th in Loring Park.
Representative Ellison is one Congressman that we can count on to honor his oath of office to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against enemies domestic and foreign”.
Domestic enemies to the Constitution and enemies to America Bush and Cheney must be investigated, indicted and impeached.”
»» Submitted by Mikael Rudolph at 10:58 PM on January 20
( http://www.mnspeak.com/mnspeak/archive/post-2682.cfm )
The Star Tribune interview that you are referring to was published on January 25th:
( http://www.startribune.com/587/v-print/story/960880.html )
I spent about 15-20 minutes on the phone with Rob Hotakainen a couple of days prior to the article being published. It was his interpretation of my reaction: “That’s fabulous!” to him mentioning that Ellison had been named to the House Judiciary Committee that led to his conclusion that I did not know of Mr. Ellison’s appointment.
He didn’t mention that I personally was the one that had informed ImpeachPAC of Representative Ellison’s impeachment support while a State Legislator which, in turn, had led to ImpeachPAC donating $1,000.00 to the Ellison election campaign.
He didn’t mention that when New Mexico State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino wanted procedural advice on how to initiate impeachment in his state’s legislature, he had legislative aide Desi Brown contact our offices and that we instructed Mr. Brown on how the Senator could get that done:
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=194
He didn’t mention how we of http://www.ImpeachforPeace.org had organized one of the largest protests in the history of Minneapolis on October 5th, 2006 in which over a thousand people gathered at the Federal Building downtown and marched down Hennepin Avenue calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for war crimes and misdemeanors as listed here:
http://impeachforpeace.org/evidence/
“Ill-informed”? Have you read the Military Commissions Act? I have – every disgusting, unconstitutional, neo-con fascistic word.
I will give Mr. Hotakainen the benefit of the doubt as to why he chose that single quote out of our entire conversation, but as to the writer of this pernicious piece, I only have this to say:
You are not in the majority anymore – as if you ever really were – so your political isolation is making you look more and more pathetic the more shrill your rant gets. This would be a good time for your to begin to learn diplomacy and other basic relational skills, because if you want the majority to listen to you, you will need to learn to give the respect that you obviously lack and crave desperately.
Mikael Rudolph
http://www.ImpeachforPeace.org
minneapolis@impeachforpeace.org