« TINKLENBERG SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH | Home | MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: GRAMS MAY RUN IN 8TH; OBERSTAR MAY RETIRE »
MN GOP: TINKLENBERG’S REAL AGENDA: IMPEACHING PRESIDENT BUSH
By Michael B. Brodkorb | May 11, 2006
"With his reckless support for the impeachment of President Bush, the myth of the moderate Elwyn Tinklenberg is shattered. In his pandering to the far-left activists who dominate the DFL’s Sixth District, Tinklenberg has gone off the deep end.
"The citizens of the Sixth District deserve better than irresponsible calls for the impeachment of the President. There will be a clear choice in this race between Michele Bachmann’s common sense conservatism and Elwyn Tinklenberg’s and Patty Wetterling’s far-left records." -Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey
Elwyn Tinklenberg Supports Impeachment Of President Bush:
Tinklenberg: "I Would Support A Resolution For Impeachment If It Was Brought To Me. I Would Not Introduce One." (MPR’s "Midday," May 10, 2006)
Topics: Elwyn Tinklenberg, MN GOP, Patty Wetterling | 13 Comments »
13 Responses to “MN GOP: TINKLENBERG’S REAL AGENDA: IMPEACHING PRESIDENT BUSH”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:00 am
“I would not introduce one.”
So its not a problem unless there are any resolutions for impeachment introduced by others. Surely no one would do such an unpopular thing to a popular and fearless leader like our dear George W.?
If Clinton was impeached for lying about Monica and a blue dress, maybe its possible that W. and Cheney could be held accountable for their lies and crimes, too?
Again, Tinklenberg is sticking to the safe center, which is probably only a tenable position in the conservative 6th district.
I think MDE is secretly very much in love with Tinklenberg. If MDE could publically be honest and step outside of GOP party discipline, we could get him to admit that he’d choose Tinklenberg over Bachman.
Most sensible GOPers will have to stop worrying about shoring up W’s withering defenses, and start proposing policy that is not based on emotional wedge issues. The GOP base is not going to turn out just to prevent a possible impeachment.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Ready for civics 101?
Multiple Choice Question #1.
Q: Which would you consider to be a high crime and/or misdemeanor punishible by impeachment?
A) Tapping the phones of political opponents
B) Violating the Tenure of Office Act
C) Consentual Sex
D) Lying to Congress and the nation resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Q: Which would you consider to be a high crime and/or misdemeanor punishible by impeachment?
C) Consentual Sex
Slick Willie lied under oath during a sexual harrassment lawsuit. I know someone who was sexually harrassed on the job and didn’t get justice. It’s not the big joke the Democrats think it is. Wait until it happens to someone you know.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Multiple Choice Question #2
Would you rather have 2,000 of your friends:
A) Sexually harassed
B) DEAD
To suggest that sexual harassment is equal to thousands of dead soldiers is really pathetic.
Sit back and think about what you just wrote. I agree, sexual harassment is a serious issue, but Haliburton is getting rich just digging the graves for this war.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
“but Haliburton is getting rich just digging the graves for this war”
Actually Haliburtons return on investment related to their mideast work is minimal.
And if you think Bush liberated Afghanistan and Iraq to bring revenue to Haliburton, then I don’t think I can debate you intelligently.
Freeing 55 million people from tyranny is a good thing. I have 3 ancestors who fought for the North in the Civil War. They survived and either way I’d say it was worth it. Or would you tolerate slavery in the name of peace?
May 11th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
“Lying to Congress and the nation resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths.”
Oh, then why did your party vote to go to war in Iraq? And why did your party’s President bomb Serbia in the 1990s? And why did your party’s President bomb an aspirin factory in the Sudan? And why did your party’s President declare Saddam Hussein a threat? And why did your party’s President conduct air strikes on Iraq? And…on it goes.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Dave, there is still slavery in Afghanistan. There is still the Taliban in Afghanistan. Thee is still a huge and unacceptable rate of infant mortality in Afghanistan. Our work there was not over before the misadventure in Iraq began.
There is still kidnapping and torture in Iraq.
Mission accomplished? No. Worth the lies and the invasion of sovereign nations? No.
There was a better way to get bin Laden and Co. versus a wholesale invasion of Afghanistan. But invading Afghanistan was also a convienient way to serve big oil.
Is anti-terrorism worthwhile? Yes, if it is effective and doesn’t mean we have to throw away our own hard won freedoms. Was the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq an effective approach to tackling the real threat of international ‘jihadi’ terrorists? No. Was it a criminal enterprise that made money for war profiteers and promised big gains for big oil at the cost of young patriot’s lives? The jury hasn’t been convened yet, because Republicans in congress won’t cooperate with impeachment. So we replace those Congressmen with ones that may not advocate for impeachment, but at least won’ obstruct it. New Congressmen like Tinklenberg.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Iraq is located between Iran and Syria (check a map if you doubt me). This past week, Jordan arrested several terrorist suspects. They were recruiting people to go to those two countries to train for terrorists attacks in Jordan. Do you think the world would be safer if Saddamn was still in power? What about the Marsh Arabs that Saddamn was trying to exterminate (and the environmental disaster he was creating in efforts to do it).
And if you think Bush “lied”, then why did almost every prominent Democrat look at the same Clinton era intell and say the exact same things as Bush? Were all of them lying too?
May 11th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
How many times did Clinton invade Iraq?
May 11th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Clinton bombed Iraq, Serbia, the Sudan; invaded Haiti; and conducted military operations in Somalia. What’s your point?
May 11th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Dave,
Clinton era intell did not say the same thing as W. does. Please read “See No Evil” by Bob Baer, who is no fan of Clinton and Tony Lake, but actually was in Iraq as a CIA agent during that period.
We always had opportunities to overthrow Saddam without an invasion, but containment was the more sane strategy (versus occupation).
My point is that the invasion was unwise, illegal, and sold to the public with lies about WMDs. It had nothing to do with any global war on terror. It liberated no one.
Are the arrests that you refer to the arrest of “Monotheism and Jihad” operatives linked to the bombings in Egypt? There is a halfway decent article about that group here: http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=265992
Most of the Arab world seems to believe that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a CIA play actor. I actually don’t know, but there is recent criticism that Bush/Rumsfeld prevented operations against his organization before the invasion. We had pretty free ability to move and operate in Northern Iraq before the invasion began. He has been useful for the administration seeking to inflate a link between bin Laden and Iraq, since then. I hope the PR gains are worth the lives lost.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Clinton bombed Iraq, Serbia, the Sudan; invaded Haiti; and conducted military operations in Somalia. What’s your point?
My point is the same as Bill Maher’s point was. There is a certain amount of safety in lobbing missles from hundreds of miles away. During Clinton’s “war” with Iraq, we lost one soldier. He was a cook who had a heart attack. George Bush has sent thousands of troops to their death, and what do we have to show for it? Saddam is in custody, and now the civil war is making life much more treacherous for all the people we tried to save. Your analogy between the two actions is akin to me comparing the Korean war to a Korean restaurant on Snelling Avenue.
The closest thing Bush has done to what Clinton did was Afghanistan. We have like 11 troops in there looking for Osama. Remember when he was our target? Apparently the president doesn’t either.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Your lack of consistency is amazing. I love how the Left simply ignores the fact the same intelligence and rationale served as the bases for the military opertions of the Clinton administration as it did for the Bush administration, yet Bush is condemned for his decision-making.
Clinton ordered the U.S. military to bomb Iraq to enforce the U.N. no-fly zone rules and mitigate Hussein, who was a “threat.” Clinton ordered the U.S. military to invade Haiti to end the rule of Aristide and restore democracy. Clinton ordered the U.S. military to bomb Serbia to halt the genocide of Croats and Muslims and end the rule of Milosevic. Clinton used the military in this manner in an era of relative peace, when there was no apparent or real threat to the U.S. Moreover, there were not mass protests among the Left when Clinton did this.
9/11 occurs. The country is attacked on its soil and, sadly, thousands of Americans die. President Bush orders the U.S. to invade Afghanistan to end the rule of the Taliban (or essentially destroy the terrorist network) and promote democracy. President Bush then orders the U.S. military to invade Iraq to end Saddam Hussein as a threat, enforce the U.N. rules, promote democracy, and end genocide in Iraq. President Bush used the military in this manner in an era of conflict, in which the country has been attacked by a growing terrorist network.
The rationale for both Presidents’ military actions is the same: enforce the U.N. rules, end tyranncial rule, promote democracy, and end genocide. Where’s the consistency?