CNN’s (Jack) Cafferty on Dems Rejecting Push to Impeach Bush: ‘Strange’

http://newsbusters.org/ ^ | December 11, 2006 | Scott Whitlock

[lowbridge]

CNN’s Cafferty on Dems Rejecting Push to Impeach Bush: ‘Strange’

Posted by Scott Whitlock on December 11, 2006 - 17:32.

Jack Cafferty, a vociferously anti-Bush CNN contributor, on Monday spoke approvingly of an impeachment bill introduced by outgoing Congresswoman, and fellow Bush hater, Cynthia McKinney. He found it "strange" that, unlike McKinney, so many Democrats are unwilling to consider impeachment. What’s strange is that Cafferty would cite McKinney as a rational source of information. This is, after all, a woman who previously wondered if President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened, attacked a Capitol Hill police officer and whose supporters blamed Jews for the Congresswoman’s 2006 primary defeat:

Jack Cafferty: "...Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill to impeach President Bush. It’s strictly symbolic and has no chance of going anywhere. She lost her congressional seat and is on her way back to civilian life. But McKinney isn’t the only person who thinks President Bush may have done things that rise to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors. And yet, the incoming House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said that impeachment of the President is, quote, ‘off the table.’ It’s all kind of strange."

Some might also find it odd to reference Cynthia McKinney legislation and then wonder why nobody is taking it seriously.

A transcript of the complete segment, which aired at 4:11pm on December 11, follows:

Wolf Blitzer: "Let’s go to Jack Cafferty. He’s standing by in New York. Another good week, Jack. Hi."

Jack Cafferty: "How you doing, Wolf? On her way out the door last week, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill to impeach President Bush. It’s strictly symbolic and has no chance of going anywhere. She lost her congressional seat and is on her way back to civilian life. But McKinney isn’t the only person who thinks President Bush may have done things that rise to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors. And yet, the incoming House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said that impeachment of the President is, quote, ‘off the table.’ It’s all kind of strange. The incoming House Judiciary Chairman, John Conyers, had earlier sponsored a bill to investigate grounds for possible impeachment. Now, Conyers has backed off and agreed with Pelosi to rule out impeachment. Jesse Jackson wrote last week that even if Conyers won’t consider impeachment of President Bush, he, quote, ‘has a duty to convene serious hearings,’ unquote, on the President’s claims and what Jackson calls abuses to our Constitution. A poll that was taken right before the midterm elections showed that 28 percent of Americans say impeachment of President Bush should be a top priority. 23 percent say it should be a lower priority. And 44 percent say it shouldn’t happen at all. So here’s the question this hour: ‘Is it wrong for the incoming Congress to simply rule out the impeachment of President Bush?’ E-mail your thoughts on that to CaffertyFile@cnn.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile. Wolf?"

[syriacus]

Jack spends his time on mindless cavils
Like Bush's mileage during travels
Persnickety Jack Cafferty
Makes me want to laff-erty

CNN: Is Bush Spending Too Much Time on the Disasters? Or Too Little? , (FR 10/02/2005)

[SuziQ]

"She lost her congressional seat and is on her way back to civilian life. But McKinney isn’t the only person who thinks President Bush may have done things that rise to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors. "

Yeah, Cynthia is joined in her desire to get rid of Bush by all the other liberal moonbats. Maybe Bela Pelosi figured it would be stupid to touch it.

[Verginius Rufus]

I wonder about a poll that shows over 50% of the public actually favoring impeaching President Bush (differing only in how high a priority they regard it) and only 44% against. Maybe the questions were worded in such a way that people who had never given the question a moment's thought believed that's what they were "supposed" to say.

The hyper-partisan Democrats who think perjury, intimidation of witnesses, destruction of evidence, even murder, are OK as long as they serve the cause of keeping Democrats in power (or preserving abortion on demand) are convinced that Bush has committed a slew of criminal offenses.

If the Democrats did push ahead with impeachment, the media would work overtime to convince the public they had a case, but what do they have to work with? Wiretapping conversations of terrorists? Abu Ghraib? The Joe Wilson nonsense? Invading Iraq without Kofi Annan's approval?