Democrats Should Join in Craig’s Departure
Since US Sen. Larry Craig did the right thing by resigning today, I would like to call upon the following Democrats to join him in resigning from Congress as well.
These are in the order of importance based on the damage they have done to the Congress and our nation as a whole.
1 – Jay Rockefeller. For illegally leaking classified intelligence material to the news media due to his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Such acts constitute treason in a time of war.
2 – Nancy Pelosi. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For conducting illegal foreign policy with a sworn enemy of the United States (Syria).
3 – Harry Reid. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition.
4 – John Murtha. For slandering the United States Marines in a time of war for accusing them of murder and rape in the Haditha incident where no charges were filed at the time, and where now most all charges have been dropped, and by all military investigatory accounts — no crimes were committed.
5 - Ted Kennedy. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For violating Senate ethics rules by serving in the US Senate for 30 years following his drunk driving murder of a young woman.
6 - Dick Durbin. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For slandering the US military in a time of war by equating them with Nazi storm troopers.
7 - William Jefferson. For blantant corruption in office and abuse of power during the Katrina disaster.
My hands are really getting too tired to go on, so please continue your own recommendations in the comment section!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
33 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
On a related note, it seems clear that Norman Hsu had his dirty hooks not just into Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but also was connected to a lot of other big name Kleptocrats including Eliot Spitzer, Gavin Newsom, and Antonio Villaraigosa,
Any chance the MSM will hound Democrats who received Hsu’s dirty money the way they hounded any Republican who so much as had lunch with Jack Abramoff? Yeah, about the same chance as Kenny Chesney taking Hip-Hop Artist of the Year at BET Source Awards.
Comment by V the K — September 1, 2007 @ 1:32 pm - September 1, 2007
Patrick Kennedy for assaulting a security officer. And for Driving while undr the influence. Both crimes.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 1, 2007 @ 3:39 pm - September 1, 2007
Yeah, I considered Teddy Kennedy Lite, Gene. But I’m not sure his crimes rise to the level of putting our nation at risk as the others I mentioned.
But good suggestion, nonetheless.
Comment by GayPatriot — September 1, 2007 @ 3:44 pm - September 1, 2007
AMEN, Brother! While the Dinosaur, Drive-by Mainstream Media has been focusing on Sen. Craig for, essentially, falling short of what he may believe, these people, Democrats, are out and out crooks and charlatans. The people of the United States could not be all that fooled that bringing the Democrats back to control congress would end the “Culture of corruption.” I mean, who better to show corruption that…Democrats! Oh, I am pushing my post in http://www.rightviewfromtheleftcoast.blogspot.com on “Who Are These People We Elect To Public Service.”
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — September 1, 2007 @ 5:50 pm - September 1, 2007
Let me add Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) for abuse of her office, violating House rules regarding treatment of staff, and for her “I-should-be-treated-like-a-queen” mentality.
Okay Sheila – we’ll pretend you are Marie Antoinette. Fair enough?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 1, 2007 @ 6:27 pm - September 1, 2007
How about all 435 members of the HoR and all remaining 99 Senators? Let’s just start fresh.
Comment by Mike — September 1, 2007 @ 6:31 pm - September 1, 2007
I know where you’re coming from, Mike, but I think we do have some good men and women in the bunch. From my state, Rep. Kline is pretty awesome—tends to be quite conservative without being extremist. Aside from their pre-election comments about homosexuality that were quite intemperate, Sen. Coburn and DeMint have been pretty awesome, IMHO.
It’s really impossible though to find perfect people to serve in Congress. But still, when you see some of the people that keep get reelected, what the heck?! Yeah, we should be able to do better.
Comment by cme — September 1, 2007 @ 7:23 pm - September 1, 2007
We have today the most corrupt government in history. There is no excuse why the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz cabal shouldn’t be on trial right now for the lies which led to our unjustified invasion & occupation of a sovereign Iraq. The Republicans, as personified by Dave Vitter, Larry Craig & others are criminal hypocrites who are destroying our country. They succeed by division – by subjugating women and attacking gays, immigrants, and secular progressives.
Comment by Bob Chicago — September 1, 2007 @ 8:16 pm - September 1, 2007
I have to disagree with you, Bruce, on #2&3 along with the first part of 5&6. These folks are asinine idiots but they haven’t committed sedition. As for the rest of them, you betcha.
Comment by John — September 1, 2007 @ 8:55 pm - September 1, 2007
Here is what oxymoronic gay Republicans are all about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILDoDPKjs0Q&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eblogactive%2Ecom%2F
Comment by Michael — September 1, 2007 @ 11:57 pm - September 1, 2007
Two words: term limits.
Comment by John in IL — September 2, 2007 @ 12:43 am - September 2, 2007
dianne feinstein for war profiteering, jim mcdermott for his participation in an illegal wiretapping scandal, anyone who took contributions from hsu, and patty murray for being the dumbest person in congress
Comment by Will (American Elephant) — September 2, 2007 @ 4:52 am - September 2, 2007
Amen! Jefferson should be the first to go. Only because if Kennedy were the first you might not be able to fit anyone else through the door.
And BTW gay patriot if you go to my Musings blog, I hope you don’t find my comments on the Democrats “Happy” debate offensive. Actually I hope you find them amusing. Here is the link, tell me what you think…
http://jjkaiser.blogspot.com/2007/08/as-you-all-know-by-now-democratic.html
Comment by John — September 2, 2007 @ 8:28 am - September 2, 2007
THIS IS A SONG ABOUT LIBERALS THAT WE CAN’T STAND by TRB:
Jimmy Carter & Ward Churchill;
Alec Baldwin & James Carville
Jeanean Garafola & Michael Moore;
The Reverend Jessie Jackson & Al Gore;
Barbara Box, George Clooney & then;
Diane Feinstien & Sean Penn!
Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy too.
The entire staff of the ACLU.
CHORUS
Nancy Pelosi & Robert Byrd;
Susan Sarandon & Whoopie Goldberg;
Chuckie Shumer & Martin Sheen;
His son Charlie & Howard Dean;
http://www.therightbrothers.com
Right music for the right times!
Comment by Good vs. Evil — September 2, 2007 @ 9:57 am - September 2, 2007
[...] at Gay Patriot, Bruce offers a few choice selections for the [...]
Pingback by Pirate’s Cove » >>Americans Never Quit » Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup — September 2, 2007 @ 10:16 am - September 2, 2007
Your click here should know that sex sells and Larry Craig was deep into it, so the other stuff you’re talking about no one gives a crap about.
I will agree with you on Jefferson, but he was re-elected by idiots in New Orleans. The rest is just criticism, I will be watching to see if you apply the same standard to either President Hillary Clinton or President Obama when they are being attacked by Republicans.
Comment by Dave — September 2, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - September 2, 2007
16: Idiots or not, that’s the constiuency that returned him to his seat.
And speaking of treason in a time of war, why is it so darned difficult to find out who orchestrated all that trouble against Wilson and Plame? Or came up with the fake info on going to war in Iraq?
Were statements against Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon seditious during Vietnam? It’s astounding how those in power will confuse sedition with the right to free speech in this country. Vietnam was a bad war for this nation (as history has proved in the last 30 years since) as will history show that this was a huge mistake – using Iraq as a flimsy excuse to not go after bin-laden
Comment by Kevin — September 2, 2007 @ 4:27 pm - September 2, 2007
Let me add:
George Voinavich, well for being George Voinavich.
Comment by The Livewire — September 2, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - September 2, 2007
What a kick-ass post. Bravo.
Here’s a long, almost a complete list:
http://tinyurl.com/2yhanp
Comment by Jeremayakovka — September 3, 2007 @ 4:30 am - September 3, 2007
Add the name of Henry Waxman to the list for being a tool of the phamceutical industry. Mucho dinero went into his coffers.
Comment by Roberto — September 3, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - September 3, 2007
dick cheney has nearly a million shares of halliburton stock; with all the no bid contracts awarded to halliburton, cheney’s direct profiting of this immoral war is treason. he should be executed. bush too, for all the no bid contracts to his pappy’s company.
the gop is a filthy and criminal organization. grasping at straws as you’ve done in your pathetic post only shows how little you grasp reality.
so sad.
Comment by rightiswrong — September 3, 2007 @ 8:55 pm - September 3, 2007
#21 – RIW, I think you’ve set a GayPatriot record for the most number of asinine conjectures and flat-out lies in one post. Give yourself a feel-good moment so beloved of libtards.
Let’s review, shall we?
1. “dick cheney has nearly a million shares of halliburton stock”
Really? How do you know this? I can say with certainty (and proof) that all elected officials at the federal level have their earnings and investments in a blind trust. So unless you or someone you know works for the VP’s financial group, you are blowing smoke.
Next:
2. “with all the no bid contracts awarded to halliburton, cheney’s direct profiting of this immoral war is treason. he should be executed.”
How many no-bid contracts really have been awarded, and do you know for certain that they ALL have gone to Halliburton? Plus, Cheney has not been with Halliburton for years; in fact, all he has left from his time there is stock options. So unless you can fully document this fact, I call bull$hit.
Oh, and for what it is worth – why do libtards always want to “execute” Bush and Cheney but freak out whenever we lawfully apply the death penalty here in Texas to convicted felons who deserve it? Can you say HYPOCRISY, class?
Moving on (which again is something libtards always fail to do):
3. “bush too, for all the no bid contracts to his pappy’s company.”
So you just contradicted statement #2 immediately, because you just said that Halliburton gets all the no-bid contracts. But then again, to the libtard brain, facts don’t get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Plus, RIW, I will give you bonus points if you can actually NAME the company that George H.W. Bush founded in 1993. Here’s a hint: it is a foundation, not an actual publicly owned company.
You’re doing about as well as UM did against App. State, kiddo. Finally:
4. “the gop is a filthy and criminal organization.”
Gee – I didn’t know Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Wm. Jefferson, and all of the others listed above were in the GOP! What a surprise! (Sarcasm)
Again, no proof – just you shooting off your mouth again. One of these days your mouth will write a check that your butt can’t cash.
Like shooting fish in a barrel – too easy.
To quote Ann Robinson: “You ARE the weakest link. Good bye.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 3, 2007 @ 9:36 pm - September 3, 2007
Peter, it IS easy sometimes, huh?
People like riw come here to vent their own spleen and folly. I wouldn’t have had the patience to read or refute it, but am glad you did.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 4, 2007 @ 11:14 am - September 4, 2007
Ditto, Peter.
Comment by Roberto — September 4, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - September 4, 2007
The irony of #20 is probably lost on so many of you poor readers.
Comment by Dan — September 4, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - September 4, 2007
dick cheney has nearly a million shares of halliburton stock;
How many does the Lady Bird Johnson estate hold? Can you show that no other liberals have any? Don’t forget Fat Bastard Moore has/had shares as well.
cheney’s direct profiting of this immoral war is treason. he should be executed.
Does the same go for DiFi and her husband?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 4, 2007 @ 9:04 pm - September 4, 2007
…For statements against the President in a time of war
With whom are we at war? My understanding is that Congress has not formally declared war since 1942. The President could easily have asked Congress for a declaration of war against Iraq; yet he chose not to.
This is not insignificant. If treason and sedition are, by definition, events that occur “during a time of war,” then a bright line must demarcate “times of war” from all other times–(“times of peace,” perhaps?)
Comment by Phil — September 5, 2007 @ 2:57 am - September 5, 2007
#27 – “My understanding is that Congress has not formally declared war since 1942.”
You understand zilch, Philly. The formal declaration of war was on December 8, 1941 – the day after Pearl Harbor.
But then again, why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?
Also – the very passage of the Patriot Act is in itself a type of declaration of war against “all those who wish to do us harm” (verbatim). The verbiage in the Patriot Act defines the protocol for defending the USA against terrorists – which makes you wonder why Reid, Pelosi et al want to “kill” the Act.
When you have a stateless entity like al-Qaeda pursuing the USA without any uniforms, clear-cut territories and unconventional weapons, how on earth do you “declare” war on them? On the countries that house them? You can’t – unless like Saddam Hussein, you are willingly sheltering them and providing them training camps. What more proof do you need?
Oh and BTW – it seems as though Iran is setting up similar ones in the Palestinian territories. Do we declare war on the Palestinian nation? No – we let Israel engage them. The PLO and its willing allies have plotted the destruction of Israel for decades. Even nowadays, they are targeting CHILDREN. Where is the outrage in the international community?
(Shaking head violently)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 5, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - September 5, 2007
Hi Peter,
You understand zilch, Philly. The formal declaration of war was on December 8, 1941…
Yes, we did declare war in 1941. But that wasn’t the last time Congress declared war–in 1942 Congress declared war on Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.
why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?
Indeed, but who’s espousing a conspiracy theory?
When you have a stateless entity like al-Qaeda pursuing the USA without any uniforms, clear-cut territories and unconventional weapons, how on earth do you “declare” war on them?
It’s true that we have to fight stateless entities. And those are important fights. But are they really wars? If we’re going to accept the “War on Terror” as an actual, literal war for the purposes of defining sedition and treason, then we have to accept that the United States is at war and will be at war for all of time. There is not peace treaty or formal cessation of military action when you’re fighting against a concept.
As such, the phrase “in a time of war” is still meaningless, isn’t it? Just as there are no lines to demarcate when we’re at war, there are no lines to identify when we’re not at war.
Further, Peter, are you suggesting, by your focus on terror, that we are not at war with Iraq? If we are, then why didn’t we declare it? We could have done so prior to, or after, the start of military action. The president, and Congress, chose not to. (Perhaps they had their reasons. But the war in Iraq is not a war against a stateless entity.)
I don’t think we disagree as much as you seem to think. I’m not advocating that we don’t protect ourselves. It may be that formal Congressional declarations of war are an anachronism, and that the definition of war is changing. If that’s the case, let’s define it! Our citizens deserve a solid, unambiguous definition of the wars we fight.
Comment by Phil — September 5, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - September 5, 2007
Phil, you don’t seem to understand the political and economic ramifications of Congress declaring war. Either that, or your education was woefully lacking in WWII history.
If Congress did indeed delcare war, it would mean the following:
a) total mobilization of all combat-eligible men and women
b) nationalization of private industry for the war effort
c) immediate rationing of foodstuffs and materiel for fighting the war
d) price controls to curb what would likely be runaway inflation
e) lockdown of all our borders including airspace for international travel unless designated an emergency
Do you REALLY think that today’s selfish, rootless, instant-gratification society is ready to accept that? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Declaring war is indeed a priviledge of Congress. However, with this priviledge comes responsibility. And I daresay there isn’t a responsible person on the Left side of the aisle who would be willing to undertake this.
Also, per your note: it is true that Congress did declare war on the “lesser Axis powers” after 1942. However, in the cases of those countries, two of them (Romania and Bulgaria) were already annexed into the Third Reich by 1941. Hungary (led by the Hovarthy government, a fascist group) fell to Nazi Germany in 1944. So it was pretty much “locking the barn door after the horse had been stolen.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 5, 2007 @ 2:43 pm - September 5, 2007
The back and forth between Peter and Phil is important to us all. We are indeed engaged in a fight for our security against terrorist attacks upon our civilian population by clandestine agents of radical Islam. We are using our military resources to ferret them out and to kill them. In so doing, we are bound by numerous treaties and international understandings and accords. The enemy, however, is largely stateless and totally ungoverned, except from within.
A formal declaration of war would require that we identify a state or states against whom we would mass our war effort. We came to the doorstep of a formal declaration of war when we offered Afghanistan the option of turning al-Qaeda (a stateless entity under the protection of Afghanistan) over to us. We cobbled together an “understanding” with the UN and we bombed the daylights out of Afghanistan. We remain there fighting the remnants of the former regime and of al-Qaeda.
We played along with the UN games and then used their status as intergalactic eunich to marshall our forces against Saddam Hussein. He defied our demands and the demands of the UN and continued to violate and even abrogate the provisions of the surrender treaty from the first Gulf War. By resorting to the terms of the UN, we were able to side-step the international treaty problems that would result if we took it upon ourselves to invade a nation as a preemptory strategy.
For many decades, the Palestinians have shown the world that our old fashioned notions of a formal declaration of war and our agreements and accords based on the traditional model of war are out of sync with reality.
So many want to get the Iraq complexities sifted down to being a mere civil war. The impetus for this is largely because our old war conventions and accords give fairly detailed road maps for dealing with “civil wars.” Namely, we walk away and let the chaos sort itself out. (Think Rwanda and Dafur.)
If a “civil war” were an acceptable solution, simple logic dictates that we dispense with the ground forces and simply destroy the government infrastructure from a distance. As power abhors a vaccuum, a new set of competing powers would soon arise internally that we could readily identify as combatants fighting a “civil war.”
Taking this course would make us hardly different from the terrorists we are fighting, just better equipped to maximize chaos.
Perhaps we should get serious on what constitutes a formal war in the world of today.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 5, 2007 @ 6:08 pm - September 5, 2007
intergalactic eunich
Ba-Zing!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 5, 2007 @ 9:10 pm - September 5, 2007
#32 – I agree completely; what a wonderful moniker for the UN!
Kudos, Heliotrope!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 6, 2007 @ 11:03 am - September 6, 2007