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

[symbolman]

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?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. They are

he called for Shurbies head today

[ljm2002]

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.

[Rosco T.]

2. "Are they confusing everyone on purpose?"

you catch on quick kemosabe..

[symbolman]

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

[pinto]

4. think he meant Rummy. Said if he wasn't fired or resigned, Congress

should remove him...

[Spoon]

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.

[0007]

8. I think that's the way I heard it!

[Aunt Anti-bush]

6. He wants to impeach Rumsfeld...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/trail/07TRAIL-IRAQ.html?pagewanted=print

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)

[1amc]

7. BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT

Go to http://www.letsroll911.org/

[troublemaker]

9. That's sad.

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!

[napi21]

11. There was an earlier post that stated that isn't true.

They cited 2 Presidents were impeached, several judges and also mentioned secretaries.
Edit: here it is
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1540964&mesg_id=1541116&page=

Post #14

[troublemaker]

18. I stand corrected

very nice article on the topic:

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj49p1.htm#H2N3

[49jim]

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.

[calimary]

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...

[scrotim]

13. A large segment of the audience applauded too. Most were in shock

that someone finally said the "I" (impeachment) word.

[thecrow]

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.

[symbolman]

19. I saw that..

there were boos but there were more people clapping than boos..

[moof]

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.

[scrotim]

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.

[goclark]

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:

[zestfolly]

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.