When it came to impeaching Clinton, “moderate” Mike Castle had no qualms
Check out Mike Castle’s statement (made in a joint letter sent with other “moderates”) on his vote to impeach Bill Clinton.
We write as Republicans who voted to impeach President Clinton. We cast that solemn vote because we believe that the President lied under oath and that such conduct is serious enough to merit impeachment and consideration of the case by the Senate.
Castle did not shrink from what he viewed as his duty to hold the President accountable.
Speaking on behalf of the group of Republican “moderate” Sherwood Boehlert said that they voted for impeachment so that the President’s behavior ”would not be swept under the rug.’‘
What ever happened to the man who was once for fired up to demand accountabiluty fromthe White House?
Come one lying about blowjobs and lying to the Congress and the American people about a war that has cost 3,000 US lives are two different things. Jeez.
3500 lives, but who is counting?
and that is just the american ones. Never mind those ungrateful Iraqi’s that just don’t seem to want us there spreading democracy like a New Orleans Hooker spreads her legs for a senator.
Castle’s vote isn’t that cut and dry. He lobbied for censure from the Senate, I always kind of liked him a little more because of that. This is long, but it’s good:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/22/impeachment/
The four, Sherwood Boehlert and Benjamin Gilman of New York, James Greenwood of Pennsylvania and Michael Castle of Delaware, all voted for the first article of impeachment, charging Clinton with perjury in his August 17 grand jury testimony.
Boehlert also voted for Article II, alleging perjury in the Paula Jones case, Greenwood and Gilman supported the obstruction of justice charge in Article III, and Castle voted against Articles II and IV, which alleged abuse of power.
“We are not convinced and do not want our votes interpreted to mean that we view removal from office as the only conclusion of this case,” their letter reads.
“In considering this matter,” the four representatives continue, “the Senate should take into account the subject of the President’s false testimony, the degree to which his conduct threatens the integrity and functioning of the Government of the United States, and the will of the American voters. We believe those factors may lead the Senate to conclude that a remedy short of removal is in order.”
They also recommended the censure “impose a fine and block any pardon.”
“I feel strongly that the president did not speak the truth…and in my judgment it had to go over to the Senate,” Castle told CNN Tuesday. “But I still feel the Senate which can look at and may want to go for a full trial should at least take this opportunity to look at the possibilities of censure and what can be done to bring this to a close.”
Wishy washy giving himself some wiggle room. Look at the vote which he defends in the letter.
He says, in effect, “my words speak louder than my actions.”
A real moderate Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut) voted against all the impeachment bills and four legit moderates voted against some. Castle cleaved to the Tom Delay wingnut majority in the Republican congress and does so even today.
I like this Levin quote about Castle’s mincing pussified after the fact letter trying to explain why he voted to impeach Bill Clinton.
“I’m disturbed that they didn’t say that before they voted in the House,” said Sen. Carl Levin. “That seems to me it would have been a more timely place and time to make that point. I sure wish they would have said that to their colleagues and to themselves, prior to the vote in the House.”
Wussy thy name is Castle.
Clinton had somebody in the White House who was NOT signed in. That’s a bigger issue than a blowjob. What if she killed him? Ever hear of jealous lovers?
It’s amazing we pay for all this Secret Service protection, but why bother? Oh, that’s right, he needed a blowjob that’s why.
Yes, I am reminding everybody of the last train wreck too. Don’t let Bush fade your memory.
Clinton was reckless beyond blowjobs in the White House. He was reckless with our defense…so i.e Twin Towers.
Clinton = 3k American killed
Bush = 3k American killed
Only difference is it took Bush longer.
J,
What-the-fuck-EVAR!
Killer Monica! Ha!
What exactly did Clinton do that comprimised the security of the Twin Towers?
What exactly did Bush do to increase the security of the Twin Towers?
Did you ever seee Basic Instinct? Can you rememeber any other scene other than the leg crossover? He’s just lucky there wasn’t a letter opener around. Ha!
If she was in there, anybody else could have been in there too and probably was.
Clinton implemented defense cuts in personnel, equipment, and an overall weakened image abroad. The later allowed for the extremists to fuck with us.
Bush was left to fuck up the diplomatic side after 9/11.
Combined the two set us back 75 years.
The defense cuts (under Clinton) were initiated, recommended, and supported by the Pentagon. The rest is just opinion and false at that too, since our influence at the time was never stronger (except for right after WWII).
Get your blaming straight, please.
Unlike the Republican majority, Castle opposed removing President Clinton from office. He did believe that the President should be punished accordingly for his crime of lying under oath.
Also, he and his fellow moderates delivered this letter after they cast their votes but before the Senate began to consider the case, which is perfectly appropriate timing, especially when considering the context of the letter.
Again, you’re getting a tremendous workout by running away from Castle’s record while simultaneously spinning select excerpts of his public statements to fit your propaganda. The old run and spin will allow you to work up quite a sweat.
J-
I didn’t know that one of the roles of the President was to be a guard of the White House as well.
Seriously though, are you ignoring all of Richard Clark’s testimony regarding how the Bush Administration failed to act prior to 9/11?
And while we’re at it — the so-called “Peace Dividend” cuts of the DoD were begun by Bush I and his own SecDef — Dick Cheney. (Scroll down to about half way to see the stuff on budgets)
And the state of Defense budgets would not have helped do better passenger screening at Logan, or gotten the FBI to pay attention to its agents who were concerned re: questionable flight training or gotten us a President who would pay attention to a PDB that said that Bin Laden Determined to Strike US.
Oh, SNAP! Forgot that Bush the Elder initiated that…good catch, OM!