NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush's impeachable offense

By Michelle Goldberg

Dec. 22, 2005 | On Tuesday, Dec. 20, Washington Post polling editor
Richard Morin participated in an online chat with readers. The liberal
blog MyDD urged its users to take part, and evidently they did. Inprevious days, legal experts had declared that Bush had committed a
federal crime by authorizing the surveillance of American citizens
without a court order, and Morin was grilled about the issue of
impeachment.

First, someone from Naperville, Ill., asked Morin why the Post hasn't
polled on public support for impeaching Bush. "This question makes me
mad," Morin replied. Someone else repeated the question and Morin typed,
"Getting madder." It came up again, and he wrote, "Madder still."

Finally, a fourth person asked it, and he answered: "[W]e do not ask
about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of
considered discussion -- witness the fact that no member of
congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic
presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's impeachment.
When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls."

Morin was wrong. It may be exceedingly unlikely that President Bush will
be impeached, but in the past few days, the I-word has become a topic of
considered discussion among constitutional scholars, former intelligence
officers and even a few politicians.

"If you listen carefully, you can hear the word 'impeachment,'"
curmudgeonly commentator Jack Cafferty said on CNN. "Two congressional
Democrats are using it. And they're not the only ones."

Indeed, speaking on the Diane Rehm show on public radio, Norman
Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute,
said, "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this
really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to
when impeachment was discussed."

On Dec. 17, after the story of Bush's domestic spying broke in the New
York Times, the president conceded that he had ordered the National
Security Agency to intercept Americans' communications without seeking
judicial approval. Unrepentant, the White House insisted that Bush had
been granted such authority by the post-9/11 congressional resolution
authorizing "all necessary force" in the fight against terrorism, and
that the president would continue to order warrantless searches.

The next day, during a public discussion with Sen. Barbara Boxer,
D-Calif., former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush "the
first president to admit to an impeachable offense." Boxer took Dean
seriously enough to consult four presidential scholars about
impeachment.

"This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he
experienced firsthand the executive abuse of power and a presidential
scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens," she wrote
to them. "Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area
of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and
thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement."

Boxer has not made public any of the responses yet. But other political
scholars have weighed in. "The American public has to understand that a
crime has been committed, a serious crime," Chris Pyle, a professor of
politics at Mount Holyoke College and an expert on government
surveillance of civilians, tells Salon. "Looking at this controversy
objectively, you inevitably end up with a question of impeachment," says
Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School
of Law.

On Dec. 18, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the highest-ranking Democrat on
the House Judiciary Committee, released a 250-page report detailing
Bush's misconduct and, on his Web site, called for the creation of a
select committee to investigate "those offenses which appear to rise to
the level of impeachment." Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., said in a radio
interview that he would support trying Bush. "If there is a move to
impeach the president, I will sign that bill of impeachment," he said.
Assessing the controversy, Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter wrote on
Dec. 19, "This will all play out eventually in congressional committees
and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control
of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced.
Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought
against Richard Nixon in 1974."

It was bracing to see impeachment mentioned as a possibility in the
mainstream media. But experts say it's not unreasonable. According to
Turley, there's little question Bush committed a federal crime by
violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The act authorizes a secret court to issue warrants to eavesdrop on
potential suspects, or anyone even remotely connected to them, inside
the United States. The bar to obtain a FISA warrant is low; more than
15,000 have been granted, with only four requests denied since 1979.
In emergency situations, the government can even apply for FISA warrants
retroactively. Nevertheless, Bush chose not to comply with FISA's
minimal requirements.

"The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear," Turley says. "At the
heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already
conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at
least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes
and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."

Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of
Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in
that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule
of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm
surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this
case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not
just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For
Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal
crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For
Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."

Of course, that may be exactly the problem. While noted experts --
including a few Republicans -- are saying Bush should be impeached, few
think he will be. It's not clear that the political will exists to hold
the president to account. "We have finally reached the constitutional
Rubicon," Turley says. "If Congress cannot stand firm against the open
violation of federal law by the president, then we have truly become an
autocracy."

Similar fears are voiced by Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy
attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. Fein is very much a
member of the right. He once published a column arguing that "President
George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with
philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and
defeated nominee Robert H. Bork."

Suddenly, though, Fein is talking about Bush as a threat to America.
"President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law,"
he wrote in the right-wing Washington Times on Dec. 20. "He cannot be
trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent
respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses.
Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr.
Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure
that would materially impair individual freedoms."

What alarms Fein is not only that Bush has broken laws but also that he
has repeatedly shown contempt for the separation of powers. Fein wants
to see congressional hearings that would explore whether Bush accepts
any constitutional limitation on his own authority.

"The most important thing to me, in terms of thinking about the issue of
impeachment, is to recognize that the Constitution does place a value on
continuity," Fein says. "We don't want to have a situation where you
make a single error, and you're exposed to an impeachment proceeding."

Fein says Congress should probe Bush on whether he plans to keep
"skating the edge" of federal law by trying to concentrate power in the
executive branch. "That's the key. It's that probing that's essential to
knowing whether we're dealing with somebody who's really a dangerous
guy. If he maintains this disregard or contempt for the coordinate
branches of government, it's that conception of an omnipotent presidency
that makes the occupant a dangerous person. We just can't sacrifice our
liberties for ourselves and our posterity by permitting someone who
thinks the state is him, and nobody else, to continue in office."

In fact, though, that may be exactly what America is permitting Bush to
do. "Politically, I see no possibility that impeachment will succeed,"
says Jonathan Entin, a professor of political science and law at Case
Western Reserve University.

"The Democrats are a minority in both houses of Congress," Entin says.
"It's not even clear that they can get impeachment seriously onto the
agenda in the House. Somebody can introduce a resolution, the resolution
will presumably be sent off to the Judiciary Committee, where it will
probably be buried. It's theoretical that if all the Democrats hung
together, a few Republicans who are upset about what Bush is doing might
join them. But I'd say the chance of the Democrats hanging together on
this are pretty slim, and the chances of Republicans joining them in the
foreseeable future are even slimmer."

"The only question here is the political one," says Pyle of Mount
Holyoke College. A former military intelligence officer, Pyle blew the
whistle on the U.S. Army's domestic spying program during the Vietnam
War. He believes that Bush has committed an impeachable offense -- and
that right now there's no prospect he will be impeached. "This president
has admitted committing the crime. He just claims he's above the law,"
Pyle says. "So the issue is: Is the president above the law?"

If so, Pyle continues, "then we need not argue over the PATRIOT Act.
We do not need the PATRIOT Act, because the president can do anything he
wants in time of war. He can ignore all the criminal laws of the United
States, including the laws against indefinite detention and against
torture. I don't think we want to go down that road."

But aren't we already down that road? "We may be," Pyle says. "Maybe
it's time to call a halt."


(please note- the above article is not by me. My thoughts start now)



So, what do you think? Should Bush be impeached? If so, why, and if not, why not?

I've got to run, it's pretty late in my time zone, but I just wanted to get the ball rolling on what other people think. I personally believe that he should be impeached, but the democrats are too few in number and don't have the coordination to do it. If they get back the house or the senate, though...

(Ok, there's been some confusion on this note. I'm not asking if impeachment is possible, only if you would support it)

So, what do you think? Should Bush be impeached? If so, why, and if not, why not?
I can probably write down a list right now of who wants him impeached and who doesn't.

I would like to see it happen - but I probably wouldn't like him to be actually kicked out, because Cheney would take over. The important thing is that Bush gets another blemish on his miserable record, so that Americans in the future will be warned of voting for his type.

I am slightly with neop on this except i see somthing more. If pres bush were to be impeached channey would get hit first so both would go and the person from both the senate and the house who would take over are in trouble so we would realy get condy. horer of horers

He has been elected fair and square so at the next elections the Americans must think a bit better who they are electing. But impeaching.... no!!!:headbang:

He has been elected fair and square so at the next elections the Americans must think a bit better who they are electing. But impeaching.... no!!!:headbang:

Clinton was elected fair and square too. That didn't make him immune to impeachable offenses and neither should Bush. If they can make the charges stick, impeachment would be required unless someone slipped a few extra lines in the constitution making presidents untouchable by law when no one was looking.

Bush needs to go, but I'm willing to wait for 08, just so Cheney doesn't step up. I'm sure he'd love that.

That man scares me.

I can probably write down a list right now of who wants him impeached and who doesn't.

I would like to see it happen - but I probably wouldn't like him to be actually kicked out, because Cheney would take over. The important thing is that Bush gets another blemish on his miserable record, so that Americans in the future will be warned of voting for his type.


:D

It would never happen. There are only a few in Congress who want to, but they aren't enough. Conyers is that nutty congresscritter who think's the American People want him gone.



She's wrong.


NEXT!

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?

Pro:
Me
The Nazz
Gymoor II
OceanDrive3
Cat-Tribes (probably)
CanuckHaven
ChineseRepublics
Straughn

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)

Who didn't I think of?

As much as I hate Bush, not only for his War on Iraq, but making the government bigger, it would be impossible to impeach him. The Reupblican party controls both House of Republic and Senate, theres no way it's going to happen. You are forgetting that when Clinton was impeached, the Republican controlled Congress then too, so yea.

My God, impeach Bush by any means nessecary. Let history teach the future Americans that none of our Presidents are above the law no matter what war we are in.

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?

Pro:
Me
The Nazz
Gymoor II
OceanDrive3
Cat-Tribes (probably)
CanuckHaven
ChineseRepublics
Straughn

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)

Who didn't I think of?

Me, I'm pro-impeach!

so stupid, he will never be impeached in a republican congress

As much as I hate Bush, not only for his War on Iraq, but making the government bigger, it would be impossible to impeach him. The Reupblican party controls both House of Republic and Senate, theres no way it's going to happen. You are forgetting that when Clinton was impeached, the Republican controlled Congress then too, so yea.


please note, I'm not saying that such a thing could or will happen, I'm just asking whether you would support it or not.

I think the article said it all. He quite clearly broke the law, he clearly should be impeached, but he will not be.

America has for some time been quickly losing the values it was founded on. Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his gravem and the slave woman on top of him :p

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?

Pro:
Me
The Nazz
Gymoor II
OceanDrive3
Cat-Tribes (probably)
CanuckHaven
ChineseRepublics
Straughn

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)

Who didn't I think of?

Me under pro-impeachment

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?

Pro:
Me
The Nazz
Gymoor II
OceanDrive3
Cat-Tribes (probably)
CanuckHaven
ChineseRepublics
Straughn

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)

Who didn't I think of?

Me under pro-impeachment

I would say impeach him, or at least raise the threat to keep him in line, except fuck it; the American people voted for him, so he's their problem.

I think the article said it all. He quite clearly broke the law, he clearly should be impeached, but he will not be.

America has for some time been quickly losing the values it was founded on. Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his gravem and the slave woman on top of him :p

He did like the taste of chocolate! :p

I would say impeach him, or at least raise the threat to keep him in line, except fuck it; the American people voted for him, so he's their problem.

Yea, but your leader is following him, so he's your problem too, indirectly.

He has been elected fair and square so at the next elections the Americans must think a bit better who they are electing. But impeaching.... no!!!:headbang:

(God, I hate that smiley... It always makes it look as if the poster is braindead somehow.)

The fact that he was elected does not, under law, make him immune from impeachment. Otherwise impeachment would never happen, now, would it? And yet the procedure exists.

He has admitted to a Federal crime. Objectively, he has committed an impeachable offense. I'd say get the process rolling, but it's not going to happen.

Yea, but your leader is following him, so he's your problem too, indirectly.

Howard was a dick before Bush got in anyway. Even if you get rid of Bush, we're stuck with him. Thus Bush is not my concern.

Bush should be kicked out of office and so should his Poodle Blair. As for Bush being elected fair and square, I'm convinced that is not true.

there are really only a couple reasonable alternatives at this point:

1) impeachment of the entire administration followed by sending some of them off to the icc and the rest to face trial here (along with some of their significant allies in the legislative branch).


2)
http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/6378/mussolini2ks.jpg

Pro Impechement

And Pro putting Bush and Cheeny on Trial for Treason against the United States for going to war for a lie.

Bush should be kicked out of office and so should his Poodle Blair. As for Bush being elected fair and square, I'm convinced that is not true.
NO HE MUST BE ELECTED ONLY HE CAN SAVE THE RELIGIOUS FROM THE EBIL GEYS!!!! PHEER THE GAYS!!! ONLY BUSH CAN PROTECT US!!11!

That's why the son of a got elected. Morons in the Religious right who ignored how badly the War on Terror was going to pay attention to ****ing Gay Marriage. I'd like to beat the crap out of every one of them.

Meh. You put Clinton up for impeachment. So yeah. It sould at least be put before whichever panel on monkey's decides these things...

Sign me up for the Chimpeachment Express.

I'm of the opinion that.

Those electronic voting machines where rigged :)

Bush should have been impeached for his WMD lies he should be impeached for this as well. I don't want to wait till 2008 get rid of him now.

yeah he should be but it deffinitely wont happen

Impeached, gagged, fondled, molested, tortured with a fluffy brush, shot in the ass... Do whatever it takes to punish him (besides death, as he's caused quite enough of that as it is).

2)
http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/6378/mussolini2ks.jpg

Letting them age by hanging them from a ceiling so we can harvest their innards for meat? Brilliant!

The mere fact that he hasnt already been impeached for Iraq sickens me.
The continuing fact that he will not be impeached for that, nor the crime of spying without warrants, sickens me even futher.

If he broke the law, he should be punished.

Period.

If he broke the law, he should be punished.

Period.

well, he's led a military coup (with the complicity of congress), so i'm not sure it works like that anymore.

This is off thread but I didn't want to start a new thread. I just found out one reason why Bush signed the anti-torture law so "easily"

Reuters:
The U.S. Justice Department will seek to dismiss more than 180 cases involving inmates at Guantanamo Bay who have challenged their detention in court, court documents showed on Tuesday...
...The notice comes a week after President George W. Bush signed new legislation banning cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The anti-torture law also curbs the ability of prisoners being held at the U.S. Naval Base in Cuba to challenge their detention in federal court.
...They can only go to an appeals court once they have gone through a military court process.

the whole article: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-01-04T053038Z_01_KWA382884_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-GUANTANAMO.xml

Should he be impeached? Yes. Will he be? No. Why? because not enough people think that what Bush did was a violation of the law. Between the people I've seen on this board saying that the wiretapping was either not illegal, or justified in the wake of 9/11 and the people I've seen actually telling other to "stop bitching about your 'so-called' rights", if the nation at large is of like mind and Congress remains timid, impeachment is probably a long shot.

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?

Pro:
Me
The Nazz
Gymoor II
OceanDrive3
Cat-Tribes (probably)
CanuckHaven
ChineseRepublics
Straughn

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)

Who didn't I think of?

Include me with all the other commie liberals. :)

Also, in what way would Bush in office be preferable to Cheney taking over? Would it actually make a difference?

Include me with all the other commie liberals. :)

Also, in what way would Bush in office be preferable to Cheney taking over? Would it actually make a difference?

If nothing else, it would reduce the influence of the evangelicals.

2)
http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/6378/mussolini2ks.jpg
yes... they shoot horses, don't they?

no

no

Your reason better be good.

Impeach... I suppose... it won't change anything.

no

Why not?

At the very least, this neds to be discssed. The President took an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Fisrt and foremost, he is supposed to be the PRIME safeguard against tyrrany of government. The fact that he is approving a policy that undermines The Constitution is dangerous.

I feel more threatened by this than I do by terrorists. Historically, more people have been dragged out of their homes and shot by their presiding authority than by any invading force.

At the very least, this neds to be discssed. The President took an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Fisrt and foremost, he is supposed to be the PRIME safeguard against tyrrany of government. The fact that he is approving a policy that undermines The Constitution is dangerous.

I feel more threatened by this than I do by terrorists. Historically, more people have been dragged out of their homes and shot by their presiding authority than by any invading force.

Well, maybe not historically, but at least from like the 18th century on.

so stupid, he will never be impeached in a republican congress
That's the problem with the whole impeachment business. Why should what is essentially a judicial process be in the hands of a political body? It may have made sense in Britain, where the House of Lords in the High Court of Parliament was also the supreme judicial authority, but it doesn't in the US, where there is supposed to be a separation of legislative and judicial functions.

Ooh yeah and then stoned to death.

Ooh yeah and then stoned to death.

I thought he stopped using cocaine. :p

I thought he stopped using cocaine. :p

Officially :) :D

I'm actually of two minds about this. In theory, of course, impeachment ought to be considered, because I personally think that wholesale violation of the FISA statute rises to the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as called for in Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution. If deliberately violating a federal law more than 20 times doesn't rise to that level, then what does?

But here's where the pragmatic side of me steps in. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats win control of both Houses of Congress in 2006. Let's even grant that they take the Senate by an overwhelming margin--they capture 60 seats (which will never happen, but hey, it's my hypothetical). In order to remove Bush) and by extension, elevate Cheney, they need 7 Republican Senators to switch sides. Now, if the Democrats win such a resounding victory, they might get those votes, but they probably wouldn't. But since the odds are that if the Democrats win back the Senate, they'll do so with no more than 51-2 seats, that means they'd need 15 Senators to switch, and no way does a third of the caucus cross party lines.

I think that's important to consider, because I'm a firm believer in the adage "you come at the king, you best not miss" (Omar, from The Wire). The only thing that happens to Bush if you try to impeach him and don't get him out of office is that he becomes stronger. For a good exampe of this, look at Hugo Chavez in Venezuela--the coup attempt in 2002 failed, and now the opposition is left holding their dicks in their hands. Hell, look at Clinton in 1999--he beat back impeachment and wound up leaving office with a 60+% approval rating.

So any talk of impeachment has to be considered in the light of whether or not you can actually get the office holder out.

Now, if you want to talk about an interesting impeachment option, remember that the President isn't the only one who can be impeached--the Constitution says the President, the Vice President and civil officers can be removed. I'd say the Attorney General is a civil officer, and he's as deep in this thing as Bush is. Impeach Alberto Gonzales.

Bush needs to go, but I'm willing to wait for 08, just so Cheney doesn't step up. I'm sure he'd love that.

That man scares me.

This is the most intelligent forum post I've seen in a long time. Boy, could Free Republic use you (except you wouldn't last more than one post).

Hell yeah! Bush's impeachment is long overdue already! :mad:
Get rid of that retard already!

He should be tried for war crimes in my opinion.
(In case it's necessary, just to clarify, that would be a yes vote for impeachment ;) )

Impeached? Is that all we are considering? The very fact that we aren't discussing imprisoning him shows how low American standards have sunk.

Impeached? Is that all we are considering? The very fact that we aren't discussing imprisoning him shows how low American standards have sunk.In a republican dominated congress, "impeached" is shooting at a pretty distant target...

Impeached? Is that all we are considering? The very fact that we aren't discussing imprisoning him shows how low American standards have sunk.Well, he can't be tossed in jail until after he's out of office, so that has to come first.

Well, he can't be tossed in jail until after he's out of office, so that has to come first.
Fair enough, I suppose. I thought that it went without saying that Bush should be out of office, but I forgot that there are still people nutty enough to worship the drunken Shrub and that many of those people have enough money to buy congressional representation for themselves.

impeach the whole administration and start over with a new election.

i know that will probably never happen but a man can dream.

Speaking from a non-American POV I think Bush should be impeached. Clinton got impeached, but at least he had the guts to stand up and say "OK, I lied!" and the people backed him for it. He showed he was human and not a zombie (which is what Bush reminds me off, as well as a chimpanzee). Over here though we do it a little different.

In Britain a member of parliament sits in what is known as the commons (lower than the house or Lords which is where all the peers sit) and if the scent of scandal is even vaguely detected around them they fall on their metaphorical sword and resign. If Blair had been caught 'spying' on us over here then there would have been absolute uproar and we would have either been gearing up for a new election in April or someone else would be leading this country.

At the end of the day Bush seems to be promoting democracy and freedom of speech by simply removing democracy and freedom of speech.

If Blair had been caught 'spying' on us over here then there would have been absolute uproar and we would have either been gearing up for a new election in April or someone else would be leading this country.
Not to be a kill-joy, but don't you have pending legislation to put cameras on every street corner, literally.

Not to be a kill-joy, but don't you have pending legislation to put cameras on every street corner, literally.
The cameras are already in place in most urban and shopping areas in London. I believe the additional cameras are supposed to be along every road, complete with software to identify and catalog every license plate, day or night.

Unlike the US, there is no Constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy in the UK.

Not that a Constitution makes a true guarantee - if there's no enforcement of its provisions, or the judiciary is of a mind to change the interpretation of the words, there go your rights out the window.

Unlike the US, there is no Constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy in the UK.



Hmmm, isn't it pointed out ad nauseum by many people of Conservative persuation in relation to arguments over Roe V. Wade and issues regarding the Patriot Act etc that there is NO stated right to privacy in the US Constitution? and that any such implied "right" has only come about due to judicial activism?

I only awnsered he should be impeaced because Execution wasnt an option :) Oh why oh why do we have a SecretBallot? why cant we find out who the hell elected that idiot so we can line them up?
Vote him in once, thats okaaayyyy everyone makes mistakes.
Twice and you know some family trees must be intersecting...

:D

It would never happen. There are only a few in Congress who want to, but they aren't enough. Conyers is that nutty congresscritter who think's the American People want him gone.



She's wrong.


NEXT!

You called Congressman Conyers nutty and then declared that he was a she. This not only shows your ignorance and apathy, but should make it irrelivent for you to comment. We must, however, allow you to comment for ntohing more than proving what kind of "support" Bush truly has. I guess this is why Cheney said too much education is a bad thing. They like to use the KISS method with their contituency who typically are composed of the last two S's.

Speaking from a non-American POV I think Bush should be impeached. Clinton got impeached, but at least he had the guts to stand up and say "OK, I lied!" and the people backed him for it. He showed he was human and not a zombie (which is what Bush reminds me off, as well as a chimpanzee). Over here though we do it a little different.

In Britain a member of parliament sits in what is known as the commons (lower than the house or Lords which is where all the peers sit) and if the scent of scandal is even vaguely detected around them they fall on their metaphorical sword and resign. If Blair had been caught 'spying' on us over here then there would have been absolute uproar and we would have either been gearing up for a new election in April or someone else would be leading this country.

At the end of the day Bush seems to be promoting democracy and freedom of speech by simply removing democracy and freedom of speech.

The United States for the most part has become a Personality Cult worshipping Bush, the same way North Korea worships Kim Jong-Il. It's a tragedy and if Bush ever handpicked a successor, you bet the Busheviks would flock to him as well.

Why should he be impeached? only wrong-doers need be worried when surveyed...

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?

Pro:
Me
The Nazz
Gymoor II
OceanDrive3
Cat-Tribes (probably)
CanuckHaven
ChineseRepublics
Straughn

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)

Who didn't I think of?
I had to laugh when i read this. We're among the most vocal about this topicline, and i wasn't surprised IN THE SLIGHTEST in the scales.
:D

Your reason better be good.
It may be against his religion to question things like that.

You called Congressman Conyers nutty and then declared that he was a she. This not only shows your ignorance and apathy, but should make it irrelivent for you to comment. We must, however, allow you to comment for ntohing more than proving what kind of "support" Bush truly has. I guess this is why Cheney said too much education is a bad thing. They like to use the KISS method with their contituency who typically are composed of the last two S's.
Good post. :D
Good luck to you! *bows*

The United States for the most part has become a Personality Cult worshipping Bush, the same way North Korea worships Kim Jong-Il. It's a tragedy and if Bush ever handpicked a successor, you bet the Busheviks would flock to him as well.

I know only two people who voted for Bush:

My father.

And the roommate of one of my friend's last year. But I swear he was cracked....

Everyone else I know hates the man's guts. And I live in Montana!

Not only should he be impeached, he should be tarred, feathered, and have scalding hot tea poured down his throat, like what the Americans did to the British tax payers.

Him and the rest of his scumbag administration...

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?

Pro:
Me
The Nazz
Gymoor II
OceanDrive3
Cat-Tribes (probably)
CanuckHaven
ChineseRepublics
Straughn

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)

Who didn't I think of?
Add me to the pro list. As much as I'd like to see the problems that his administration have created resolved, there is a cynical sadistic part of me that wants to see him, the GOP and the neocons squeel and struggle until their mandate runs out.

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?

Pro:
Me
The Nazz
Gymoor II
OceanDrive3
Cat-Tribes (probably)
CanuckHaven
ChineseRepublics
Straughn

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)

Who didn't I think of?

Woot!

You called Congressman Conyers nutty and then declared that he was a she. This not only shows your ignorance and apathy, but should make it irrelivent for you to comment. We must, however, allow you to comment for ntohing more than proving what kind of "support" Bush truly has. I guess this is why Cheney said too much education is a bad thing. They like to use the KISS method with their contituency who typically are composed of the last two S's.


Wasnt conyers that crazy black woman from california? Or am I getting congrescritters confused?

no he should not be impeached although he should be made to fear the possibility every day until he leaves office.

as we saw from the idiotic impeachment of clinton, it brings the government to a screaching halt. things that should be done, dont get done. while that is somewhat of a good thing considering what bush has been doing, over all its a very bad idea to cripple the president while we are at war. even if the war was started on a lie.


and secondly

it leaves cheney as president.

No, unless the Supreme Court (preferably) and/or an independent determine for certain through investigation and legal review that Bush broke the law, and that these actions constitute an impeachable offense. Otherwise, it's nothing more than partisan bullshit...we do not need another repeat of a Clinton-esque witch hunt by Bush opponents, so the legality of the action must be established by the Supreme Court and/or investigation before impeachment can even remotely be considered.

I'm with the Impeach him with a capital I but leave him in office crowd. I want to see him punished for acting like a King that doesnt't have to care what the country thinks.

No, unless the Supreme Court (preferably) and/or an independent determine for certain through investigation and legal review that Bush broke the law, and that these actions constitute an impeachable offense. Otherwise, it's nothing more than partisan bullshit...we do not need another repeat of a Clinton-esque witch hunt by Bush opponents, so the legality of the action must be established by the Supreme Court and/or investigation before impeachment can even remotely be considered.
Nah, more than enough has transpired that the proceedings can begin. That's been covered already, independent of "partisan bullsh*t. That "head-in-the-sand" thinking needs to come to an abrupt and all-too-overdue halt.
Your thinking would end up leaving the investigation on back burner until "war" is "over", which won't be during Bush's administration at all. And then whoever comes next gives him the pardon and you'll only hear about it offhandedly, and then quickly bait-and-switched to attack the Clinton administration YET AGAIN.

Will he be impeached? Probably not. The mainstream media is still too spineless to state the truth in unambiguous terms: the President not only repeatedly broke the law, but did so willingly and out of a view that the law does not apply to the President. Moreover, there are still too many people who will follow Bush anywhere but reality.

That being said, should he be impeached? Absolutely. He has run roughshod over the very thing that he gave an oath to uphold: the Constitution.

Nah, more than enough has transpired that the proceedings can begin. That's been covered already, independent of "partisan bullsh*t. That "head-in-the-sand" thinking needs to come to an abrupt and all-too-overdue halt.Your thinking would end up leaving the investigation on back burner until "war" is "over", which won't be during Bush's administration at all. And then whoever comes next gives him the pardon and you'll only hear about it offhandedly, and then quickly bait-and-switched to attack the Clinton administration YET AGAIN.

The investigation needs to occur immediately, or the case needs to be brought before the supreme court immediately. If they aren't, then the Congress should begin impeachment procedings immediately.

Sure, why not. Beats 'Survivor: Disneyworld' or 'Trading Species' or whatever other sad excuse for entertainment everybody at your office involves themselves with.

The investigation needs to occur immediately, or the case needs to be brought before the supreme court immediately. If they aren't, then the Congress should begin impeachment procedings immediately.
Fair enough. Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

there are really only a couple reasonable alternatives at this point:

1) impeachment of the entire administration followed by sending some of them off to the icc and the rest to face trial here (along with some of their significant allies in the legislative branch).

Minor problem. They didn't commit any warcrimes. On top of that, we haven't signed onto the ICC so they cannot be sent to the ICC.

As to Bush being Impeached, he's done nothing impeachable. His duty is to protect this nation in a time of war. That is what we are in, wether it is declared or not.

I could pull out what alot of Presidents did during wartime and I doubt anyone here would like it to much.

Pro Impechement

And Pro putting Bush and Cheeny on Trial for Treason against the United States for going to war for a lie.

No treason committed here. Move along.

I'm of the opinion that.

Those electronic voting machines where rigged :)

Bush should have been impeached for his WMD lies he should be impeached for this as well. I don't want to wait till 2008 get rid of him now.

Problem was, it was the intelligence that was bad. Nothing more than that.

I think that if he violates Constitutional rights in another area, I would.

Minor problem. They didn't commit any warcrimes. On top of that, we haven't signed onto the ICC so they cannot be sent to the ICC.

As to Bush being Impeached, he's done nothing impeachable. His duty is to protect this nation in a time of war. That is what we are in, wether it is declared or not.

I could pull out what alot of Presidents did during wartime and I doubt anyone here would like it to much.

I wouldn't like it if an American was sent to an international court, especially the commander in cheif.

Oh, and +1.

The mere fact that he hasnt already been impeached for Iraq sickens me.
The continuing fact that he will not be impeached for that, nor the crime of spying without warrants, sickens me even futher.

If he broke the law, he should be punished.

Period.

Welcome to war Backwoods. Was Lincoln impeached? FDR? What about Wilson?

well, he's led a military coup (with the complicity of congress), so i'm not sure it works like that anymore.

When did this happen?

Welcome to war Backwoods. Was Lincoln impeached? FDR? What about Wilson?
What about NIXON?

Minor problem. They didn't commit any warcrimes. On top of that, we haven't signed onto the ICC so they cannot be sent to the ICC.

As to Bush being Impeached, he's done nothing impeachable. His duty is to protect this nation in a time of war. That is what we are in, wether it is declared or not.

I could pull out what alot of Presidents did during wartime and I doubt anyone here would like it to much.
Corny! You're losing your shine. We're already this many pages in.

As to Bush being Impeached, he's done nothing impeachable. :rolleyes:
Oh please. DO some research. One would think you might have already learned something by now.

That is what we are in, wether it is declared or not.
So you're saying we should finish off N. Korea, right? That's what you mean?

I could pull out what alot of Presidents did during wartime and I doubt anyone here would like it to much.
Again with the bait-and-switch following the vacuous, frail spittle-post.
Clarification for you: people wouldn't like it much because you wouldn't be dealing with the subject at hand.

Someone didn't make a significant new year's resolution for the benefit of hisself and the rest of the NS posters.
But guess what i did? :fluffle:

At the very least, this neds to be discssed. The President took an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Guess what? We're in a war. The Constitution goes out in warfare.

Fisrt and foremost, he is supposed to be the PRIME safeguard against tyrrany of government.

Only half right. He's the Prime safeguard of the country.

The fact that he is approving a policy that undermines The Constitution is dangerous.

We're in a war. Lincoln did the samething that people are claiming Bush is doing and guess what? Lincoln was not impeached.

Ooh yeah and then stoned to death.

Violation of the 8th amendment.

Problem was, it was the intelligence that was bad. Nothing more than that.
Problem was, READ THE F*CKING DUELFER REPORT.
Problem was, the ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T USE THE INTELLIGENCE IT WAS GIVEN BY ANYBODY OTHER THAN THE "CURVEBALL" LINK. Yeah, CHALABI, the PROP.
Your posts are even worse than usual, Corny. For shame.

We're in a war. Lincoln did the samething that people are claiming Bush is doing and guess what? Lincoln was not impeached.
Lincoln didn't tap people's phone-lines, dude.:rolleyes:

He should be tried for war crimes in my opinion.
(In case it's necessary, just to clarify, that would be a yes vote for impeachment ;) )

What warcrimes? Bush hasn't committed any warcrimes.

The United States for the most part has become a Personality Cult worshipping Bush, the same way North Korea worships Kim Jong-Il. It's a tragedy and if Bush ever handpicked a successor, you bet the Busheviks would flock to him as well.

Proof please?

No, unless the Supreme Court (preferably) and/or an independent determine for certain through investigation and legal review that Bush broke the law, and that these actions constitute an impeachable offense. Otherwise, it's nothing more than partisan bullshit...we do not need another repeat of a Clinton-esque witch hunt by Bush opponents, so the legality of the action must be established by the Supreme Court and/or investigation before impeachment can even remotely be considered.

Well said Vetalia. Well said and accurate.

As much as I hate Bush, not only for his War on Iraq, but making the government bigger, it would be impossible to impeach him. The Reupblican party controls both House of Republic and Senate, theres no way it's going to happen. You are forgetting that when Clinton was impeached, the Republican controlled Congress then too, so yea.



Yall forget one thing he didn t break a law.

What about NIXON?

That was Watergate and he Resigned before the Impeachment articles could be brought to the floor. It wasn't during a war that this occured.

I was talking about wartime presidents doing unorthodox things while a war was going on. Lincoln, FDR, and to a lesser extent Wilson are guilty of exceeding constitutional authority (However, Lincoln was a totally different case for obvious reasons) and were not punished at all for it.

Well said Vetalia. Well said and accurate.
It's weird how you're just appearing to talk to posters who said things eight or nine hours ago. I guess you're sticking your fingers in your ears as far as what people are saying to you while you're here right now are concerned?

Weird, man. Weird.

Corny! You're losing your shine. We're already this many pages in.

As to Bush being Impeached, he's done nothing impeachable. :rolleyes:
Oh please. DO some research. One would think you might have already learned something by now.[/quote[]

I have done research. He isn't doing anything that other leaders have done while a war was going on.

[quote]That is what we are in, wether it is declared or not.
So you're saying we should finish off N. Korea, right? That's what you mean?

Imply it however you wish Straughn. However, I was talking more about the fight against terrorism.

I could pull out what alot of Presidents did during wartime and I doubt anyone here would like it to much.
Again with the bait-and-switch following the vacuous, frail spittle-post.
Clarification for you: people wouldn't like it much because you wouldn't be dealing with the subject at hand.

There hasn't been a bait and switch. Presidents have been doing this long before Bush and with Congressional approval too I might add and nothing was done to them. The President has the duty to defend this nation by any means necessary in a time of war. So care to point out the bait and switch?

That was Watergate and he Resigned before the Impeachment articles could be brought to the floor. It wasn't during a war that this occured.
So what were all the soldiers and guns and ammo in aid of in Vietnam at the time? A fireworks display?

Nice to see you could take time out from your busy schedule of addressing posts from lunchtime onward, btw.

Problem was, READ THE F*CKING DUELFER REPORT.
Problem was, the ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T USE THE INTELLIGENCE IT WAS GIVEN BY ANYBODY OTHER THAN THE "CURVEBALL" LINK. Yeah, CHALABI, the PROP.
Your posts are even worse than usual, Corny. For shame.

*sighs*

Straughn, go back to school and actually study history. Apparentl you have a lack of knowledge in that area.

As much as I hate Bush, not only for his War on Iraq, but making the government bigger, it would be impossible to impeach him. The Reupblican party controls both House of Republic and Senate, theres no way it's going to happen. You are forgetting that when Clinton was impeached, the Republican controlled Congress then too, so yea.

Concurred on every point. The republican leadership in the Senate sold out the House Judiciary Committee, and the Democratic leadership screwed their ethics to protect one of their own. Both parties are more interested in covering their ass. The Republicans will vote party lines, and there will be lots of Dems voting to keep Bush for various reasons.

It will not happen. Personally, I don't think it should happen, but even if I did, it won't.

Lincoln didn't tap people's phone-lines, dude.:rolleyes:

No he just shut down anything that was pro-confederate and suspended habius corpus as well as the Constitution of the United States of America.

[QUOTE=CorneliuI have done research. He isn't doing anything that other leaders have done while a war was going on.[/QUOTE]
So all the Prezzies you tossed off in your speech tapped people's phone lines? Even Lincoln?

and what has he done worth impeacing?

nothing presidents before him havn't done.

besides do we REALLY want dick in charge of our country? :p

So what were all the soldiers and guns and ammo in aid of in Vietnam at the time? A fireworks display?

Well, duh. The Viet Kong liked to play airsoft! Silly fool you are. :p

No he just shut down anything that was pro-confederate and suspended habius corpus as well as the Constitution of the United States of America.
That's not the same thing, dude. Not even close to being the same thing.

Justify your man Bush doing THAT.

It's weird how you're just appearing to talk to posters who said things eight or nine hours ago. I guess you're sticking your fingers in your ears as far as what people are saying to you while you're here right now are concerned?

Weird, man. Weird.

Sorry was offline for awhile and saw this thread when I got back on. Excuse me for having a time delayed reaction.

That was Watergate and he Resigned before the Impeachment articles could be brought to the floor. It wasn't during a war that this occured.
You find me a declaration of war by Congress and you can spout "during a war" until your face turns blue, and in fact I would encourage that.

When Corneliu logs on to it's like the Magic Hour.
I can see switch boards lighting up all across the globe. :D

Against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Guess what? We're in a war. The Constitution goes out in warfare.


The Constitution never goes out. God, what a scared little child you are if you think people set up America so that there'd be an INCENTIVE for a power hungry President to start a war. The Constitution was set up because the founders feared exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment goes out the door if we're at war as well?

"So, ya say that if we're in war time, my powers are unlimited? Hmmmm. What country with oil has the weakest army? Okay, besides south American countries. Hmmm. Ya don't say? Sounds good to me. Let's roll."

My god, how far people will go to defend Bush. You simply can't be serious Corny. This can't be real. No real person can think this way.

So what were all the soldiers and guns and ammo in aid of in Vietnam at the time? A fireworks display?

He order the break in of the DNC. What does that have to do with Vietnam? NOTHING! If ya want someone to go after, then try all the presidents up to Nixon.

Nice to see you could take time out from your busy schedule of addressing posts from lunchtime onward, btw.

I'll answer whatever post I want to answer. There is no crime in that.

The problem, Gymoor, is that people will go to every length possible to destroy the man, too.

and what has he done worth impeacing?

nothing presidents before him havn't done.

besides do we REALLY want dick in charge of our country? :p

And Jefferson owned slaves. Does that mean I get slaves if I'm President? What a dummy Clinton was then. He should have just banged a slave. Then no one could be upset.

So all the Prezzies you tossed off in your speech tapped people's phone lines? Even Lincoln?

Just violating constitutional authority through various means. Lincoln suspended the Constitution, FDR imprisioned Japs because he feared sabatage. The latter was declared unconstitutional and the Japanese were compensated. Lincoln should've been impeached as well as FDR because they exceeded constitutional authority.

Bush is doing what is necessary to defend this country in an act of war. I'd be calling for his impeachment if he WASN'T doing all he can to defend the nation of my birth.

That's not the same thing, dude. Not even close to being the same thing.

Justify your man Bush doing THAT.

Bobs Own Pipe, it is precisely the samething. Ever hear of the 1st Amendment and the thing we call Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech? Guess what? Those went out the window. Habius Corpus went with it. Clear violation of the Constitution of the United States don't you not agree?

That is what we're arguing here. People say that Bush violated the Constitution of the United States and should be impeached.

You find me a declaration of war by Congress and you can spout "during a war" until your face turns blue, and in fact I would encourage that.

Show me where I said declaration of war and mind you, I will know if you misquote me or hack off the rest of my quote.

The problem, Gymoor, is that people will go to every length possible to destroy the man, too.

That's immaterial to what I was saying. What other people do or say has nothing to do with the points I am currently making.

Furthermore, I'm not the one suggesting we shred the Constitution so that we can attack the man. Corny is suggesting we shred the Constitution to protect the man. See the difference?

When Corneliu logs on to it's like the Magic Hour.
I can see switch boards lighting up all across the globe. :D

LOL!!

The Constitution never goes out.

Tell that to Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

God, what a scared little child you are if you think people set up America so that there'd be an INCENTIVE for a power hungry President to start a war.

Scared? HAHA!! Not scared dude. Just pointing out that Constitutional violations happen while a war is going on. Apparently no one has grasped that logic yet.

The Constitution was set up because the founders feared exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment goes out the door if we're at war as well?

If the Constitution gets suspended.......

My god, how far people will go to defend Bush. You simply can't be serious Corny. This can't be real. No real person can think this way.

I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out that Bush isn't the first one to do what was necessary while a war was going on. Lincoln did it. FDR did it too. This is nothing new whatsoever.

Show me where I said declaration of war and mind you, I will know if you misquote me or hack off the rest of my quote.
Only Congress can declare war, thus there is no war without a declaration by Congress. You can double-talk all you want, that doesn't change facts.

And you know what does say "declaration of war by Congress?" The section of FISA that applies to war time abilities of the president.

That's immaterial to what I was saying.

No it ain't.

Furthermore, I'm not the one suggesting we shred the Constitution so that we can attack the man. Corny is suggesting we shred the Constitution to protect the man. See the difference?

I guess people here don't seem to understand that THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

Bobs Own Pipe, it is precisely the samething. Ever hear of the 1st Amendment and the thing we call Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech? Guess what? Those went out the window. Habius Corpus went with it. Clear violation of the Constitution of the United States don't you not agree?

That is what we're arguing here. People say that Bush violated the Constitution of the United States and should be impeached.

Tell you what Corny. You go 80 on the freeway next to a CHP. When he pulls you over, give him a list of other people who have speeded and got away with it (pretty much everyone,) and explain to him that he shouldn't give you a ticket. Let me know how well it works.

Lotsa things happened in the 1860's that shouldn't exactly be repeated, Right?

Lotsa things happened in the 1860's that shouldn't exactly be repeated, Right?
I think some convincing arguments could be made to contrary.

Unfortunately.

Only Congress can declare war, thus there is no war without a declaration by Congress. You can double-talk all you want, that doesn't change facts.

Under the War Powers Act, the President can send in military forces for upto about 60 days but prior to that he has to tell congress and after those 60 days, if Congress doesn't approve, the troops have to come home. Besides that, The President is the Commander in Chief.

And if ya noticed, the President had the authority FROM Congress to use force in Iraq. So you can't even hang him on that.

And you know what does say "declaration of war by Congress?" The section of FISA that applies to war time abilities of the president.

And you noticed i said declared or not. We have only declared war 5 times in our history I hope. The rest of the conflicts have been ordered by the President of the United States, and THAT is a long list, or he had the Authorization from Congress to use force somewhere.

Tell you what Corny. You go 80 on the freeway next to a CHP. When he pulls you over, give him a list of other people who have speeded and got away with it (pretty much everyone,) and explain to him that he shouldn't give you a ticket. Let me know how well it works.

Cop pulls me over, I'll hand him my license and registration, go to court and pay the fine and be on my way.

Lotsa things happened in the 1860's that shouldn't exactly be repeated, Right?

I know what Lincoln did as President. Do you?

Tell that to Abraham Lincoln and FDR./[quote]

I can't, because they're dead. Also, they both were President a long time ago. Times change. I'm sure you wouldn't defend a President who commited genocide, would you? Let me acquaint you with the name Andrew Jackson.


[QUOTE]
Scared? HAHA!! Not scared dude. Just pointing out that Constitutional violations happen while a war is going on. Apparently no one has grasped that logic yet.

And apparently you don't grasp that being okay with your constitutional rights being taken for any reason is the height of cowardice. Waaaaaaa! The government will protect me!


I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out that Bush isn't the first one to do what was necessary while a war was going on. Lincoln did it. FDR did it too. This is nothing new whatsoever.

So? Hanging a black man for being seen alone with a white girl isn't new either...and a lot of people got away with doing it a lot more recently than the 1940's...should people be allowed to get away with it today?

I know what Lincoln did as President. Do you?
I believe he was painting on a broader canvas with his allusion to that particular time-period, dear.

I know what Lincoln did as President. Do you?

WHATEVER he did, good or bad, is immaterial to this argument. Lots of things happened in the 1860's, societally and governmentally, that would not be accepted today.

Earth to Corny. We don't live in the 1860's or the 1940's. This is 2006, the era formerly known as the future. In this time, we learn form our mistakes and...you know, try not to repeat them.

(pats Corny on the head)

LOL!!
In all honestly I would favour his impeachment only if it implied the US administration's improvement. If he is impeached and removed from office I understand that this wouldn't really change anything.

I don't have a clue if he's done anything that could warrant impeachment. I'm not an american constitutional guru. In Canada he could be impeached due to a conflict with one simple phrase in our constitution. Peace, Order and good government. Bush has provided none of the above in my opinion.

I can't, because they're dead. Also, they both were President a long time ago. Times change. I'm sure you wouldn't defend a President who commited genocide, would you? Let me acquaint you with the name Andrew Jackson.

One of the worst presidents in our history because of that.

And apparently you don't grasp that being okay with your constitutional rights being taken for any reason is the height of cowardice. Waaaaaaa! The government will protect me!

I don't need the government to protect me. I can protect myself. I guess you can't grasp that knowledge.

So? Hanging a black man for being seen alone with a white girl isn't new either...and a lot of people got away with doing it a lot more recently than the 1940's...should people be allowed to get away with it today?

Since lynching as far as I know is against the law, the answer is no.

In all honestly I would favour his impeachment only if it implied the US administration's improvement. If he is impeached and removed from office I understand that this wouldn't really change anything.

I don't have a clue if he's done anything that could warrant impeachment. I'm not an american constitutional guru. In Canada he could be impeached due to a conflict with one simple phrase in our constitution. Peace, Order and good government. Bush has provided none of the above in my opinion.

If this is investigating (and they are investigating on who LEAKED IT and not wether it was constitutional) then I'll wait on their decision and read what they came up with. If they say its a violation of the Constitution, then and only then would I support impeaching him. Until then, I won't support such a move since an investigation has to be done first.

WHATEVER he did, good or bad, is immaterial to this argument.

Actually it isn't since we're talking about the Constitution of the United States. It is very relevent.

Lots of things happened in the 1860's, societally and governmentally, that would not be accepted today.

Shouldn't have been acceptable back then either but then again, we were in the middle of a Civil War.

Earth to Corny. We don't live in the 1860's or the 1940's. This is 2006, the era formerly known as the future. In this time, we learn form our mistakes and...you know, try not to repeat them.

(pats Corny on the head)

And last time I checked, the President is supposed to defend the Country of the United States.

If this is investigating (and they are investigating on who LEAKED IT and not wether it was constitutional) then I'll wait on their decision and read what they came up with. If they say its a violation of the Constitution, then and only then would I support impeaching him. Until then, I won't support such a move since an investigation has to be done first.
Fair enough. A reasonable, thought out idea. Good post Corneliu.

Under the War Powers Act, the President can send in military forces for upto about 60 days but prior to that he has to tell congress and after those 60 days, if Congress doesn't approve, the troops have to come home. Besides that, The President is the Commander in Chief.

And if ya noticed, the President had the authority FROM Congress to use force in Iraq. So you can't even hang him on that.
Your point being what?

Are you saying, since he is president, he can bypass any law, even those specifically worded to prevent his bypassing of them under the circumstances you say allows him to bypass them?

All hail the emperor of the United States! It's a war you unpatriotic traitors!

Fair enough. A reasonable, thought out idea. Good post Corneliu.

I just hate the fact that people are condemning him prior to it being investigated. That is why I'm saying what I'm saying.

In reality, I want it investigated to put this whole affair to rest.

I'm off. I'll be back to answer tomorrow.

I don't need the government to protect me. I can protect myself. I guess you can't grasp that knowledge.

No, I can't grasp that. You're saying that you are so afraid that you're okay with the Conmstitution being nullified in times of national danger. I find that pathetic, shortsighted and craven. I find the idea of a Kingship in Times of War (which is basically what a President is, when you take his Constitutional limitations away,) to be a spit in the eye of every man and boy, woman and girl who has dies to protect our way of life.

Corny? Why do you hate America? Why do you hate our troops?

Corny? Why do you hate America? Why do you hate our troops?

I love America and I love our troops. Why are you against defending this Country from those that want to destroy it?

So long for now.

Not only should he be impeached, but shot for treason as well. Don't know what I'm talking about? Shame on you! That and I just don't post more than once on these things, sorry.

I just hate the fact that people are condemning him prior to it being investigated. That is why I'm saying what I'm saying.

In reality, I want it investigated to put this whole affair to rest.

I'm off. I'll be back to answer tomorrow.

Okay, this I agree with. I still had to strenuously object to your contention that war nullifies the Constitution.

Why are you against defending this Country from those that want to destroy it?
Yeah, you treasonous towelhead.

I love America and I love our troops. Why are you against defending this Country from those that want to destroy it?

So long for now.

Because not all of those who want to destroy the country, now or in the future, come from outside. If it is acceptible that the Constitution is nullified diuring times of war, be assured that SOME president down the road (if you're not willing to believe that the current one is,) will use that power in unconscionable way. Perhaps it'll be a liberal. Perhaps a libertarian. Who knows? That's why we have the Constitutional protections we have. Look at Congress and the executive branch and tell me they don't already try as hard as they can (all parties,) to expand and abuse their powers as it is. Giving them unlimited power, even during wartime, is basically suicidal.

yes, him and everyone in congress who supported the NSA (so just about everyone)

realisticly though, this would present a problem. if we impeached everyone who overstepped their bounds, and impeachment suceeded, our government would seize to exist.

I just hate the fact that people are condemning him prior to it being investigated. That is why I'm saying what I'm saying.

In reality, I want it investigated to put this whole affair to rest.

I'm off. I'll be back to answer tomorrow.
Of course it's probably no secret that I have great sympathy for the US Democratic Party, the US liberal left, etc. However I have read from several sources recounts written with great detail and analytical precision how Clinton's impeachment process put a choke hold on anything significant that Clinton was trying to acomplish at the time. The military strikes ordered on Iraq and the Taliban Afghanistan at the time were labelled by republicans in congress as attempts to draw attention away from the ridiculous Lewinsky scandal, when in fact the Al-Qaeda was his number one security priority. Richard Clarke says that the republican party utilized a "crushing and terrorist rhetoric" on Clinton during this time.

I'd hate to see the same thing happen over again especially when lives are at stake in the middle east.

I think George W. should be impeached, or have some fun with it and run him out of the whitehouse....Coup d'etat!!!

Canada waits with anticipation!!!:sniper:

I have done research. He isn't doing anything that other leaders have done while a war was going on.
Then you have no memory. You must be working on that axiom of happiness, so you're shooting for good health?
There have been at least a DOZEN posters here who have shot myriad holes in your talking-point bilge. Do we need to gravedig here?


Imply it however you wish Straughn. However, I was talking more about the fight against terrorism.
Yes, the fight that, in an extremely RARE moment of clarity and honesty, the "president" HIMSELF said was something he didn't think we could win.
And then the very next day his public integrity again dropped down into the dank and septic depths that ... well, your posts sometimes garner.



There hasn't been a bait and switch. care to point out the bait and switch?
Yes, we're talking about Bush and the things he's done and the impeachability. As far as other leaders are concerned, the integrity of their administrations and the results for the most part speak about the things that they did, and yes, if they broke the law they should have paid the price. The difference is the stakes in this issue as compared to those, and certainly in that regard, Bush comes out down in those sludgy septic depths i just mentioned.

*sighs*

Straughn, go back to school and actually study history. Apparentl you have a lack of knowledge in that area.
Show me up Corny. I'm already out of the school age and by your own admission you aren't even through it yet. Study history AND THE HISTORY BEING MADE yourself, and then get back to me.
Come on, tell me a little about the Duelfer Report. Tell me a little bit about what was actually reported by the inspectors. Tell me about what the Germans had to say about it. Tell me about what the people WHOSE JOB IT IS TO KNOW about those things had to say.
Oh, that's right, THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF RESEARCH YOU DO. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU MEAN BY "HISTORY".
The difference is i'm not so easily swain by avaricious promises by neocons and f*cked up aggressive mentalities at my age, and I bother to research. So if you have *ANYTHING* feasible for which to rebut, now's the time to ante up and PROVE you aren't just a talking-point parrot.

Hey, guess what? :fluffle:

Look at Congress and the executive branch and tell me they don't already try as hard as they can (all parties,) to expand and abuse their powers as it is. Giving them unlimited power, even during wartime, is basically suicidal.
But vital to the success of the PNAC's agenda in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, and if they have their way, the rest of the world.

So all the Prezzies you tossed off in your speech tapped people's phone lines? Even Lincoln?
....that would be an example of a classic Corny tactic, bait-and-switching.

Tell that to Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out that Bush isn't the first one to do what was necessary while a war was going on. Lincoln did it. FDR did it too. This is nothing new whatsoever.
When a rational, REASONABLE person reads this, then they come to the conclusion, as i have, that you are attempting a bait-and-switch to the specific integrity and nature of this thread, which is about BUSH and what BUSH does.

There hasn't been a bait and switch. care to point out the bait and switch?
Done and done. Move along please.

I can protect myself. I guess you can't grasp that knowledge.

Certainly you don't mean in a court of law, seeing as how it could be guessed that you can't grasp facts well.

:fluffle: back at ya!

....that would be an example of a classic Corny tactic, bait-and-switching.
Why thank-you for noticing, Straughn. I thought irony was dead around here.

He should be impeached, but he won't...the republicans are too powerful...If the democrats were as good as the republicans at fighting dirty, they might get more done...but they won't...they're weak.

I just hate the fact that people are condemning him prior to it being investigated. That is why I'm saying what I'm saying.

In reality, I want it investigated to put this whole affair to rest.

what's to investigate? he openly said "i'm in charge of the military, therefore your laws don't apply to me. I broke them, am breaking them, and will continue to break them. get used to it." what we've seen amounts to a military coup. impeachment is the least they should do.

Your point being what?

Are you saying, since he is president, he can bypass any law, even those specifically worded to prevent his bypassing of them under the circumstances you say allows him to bypass them?

All hail the emperor of the United States! It's a war you unpatriotic traitors!

That certainly seems to be the angle of the talking-point parrots these days, especially since there's this angle to consider:


*ahem*

Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the
torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under
his powers as commander in chief.
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" --
an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a
new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the
context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush
believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal
specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with
the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief,"
Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared
objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American
people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing
statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone
unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about
whether he intends to follow the law.

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the
statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman,
said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in
special situations involving national security.

''We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush,
when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will
construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We
consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition
on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to
waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect
national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario,
in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a
planned terrorist attack.

''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, (but) he
also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander
in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each
case," the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two
responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in
executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush
believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees
fit.

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I
want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's
important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I
have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' "
he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it
doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been
following what's going on."
(NOTE: Corneliu, you listening now? -Ed.)
Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's
decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic
wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency
to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a
court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander
in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect
national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the
attacks.

Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement
and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that
claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and
holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal.

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong,
robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands
it. . . . I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally
appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the
president."

Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to
bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners
captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any
US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access
to an attorney.

And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that
Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when
necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the
press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version,
but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to
ignore a law.

The issue heated up again in January 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed
that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at
overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad.

In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment
to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman,
and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of
where they are held.

McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied
Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush
threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive
authority over war policy.

But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush
called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he
would accept it.
(Commonly known as a Flip-flop ;) - Ed.)

Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into
question his comments at the press conference.

''The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole," said
Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the
Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the
loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of
the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism."

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's
signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.

''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of
government that provide checks and balances on each other is being
fundamentally rejected by this executive branch," she said.

''Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee
abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's
impotent. It's quite a radical view."
---
And, just because this line of thinking ISN'T an "isolated incident" ...

Bush removal ended Guam investigation
US attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist
By Walter F. Roche Jr., Los Angeles Times | August 8, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of
controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after.
(Can we say "activism"? - Ed.)
The previously undisclosed Guam inquiry is separate from a federal grand
jury in the District of Columbia that is investigating allegations that
Abramoff bilked Indian tribes out of millions of dollars.

In Guam, a US territory in the Pacific, investigators were looking into
Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against
a court reform bill then pending in Congress. The legislation, since
approved, gave the Guam Supreme Court authority over the Superior Court.

In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an unusual
arrangement for a public agency. The Los Angeles Times reported in May that
Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through a Laguna
Beach, Calif., lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the Guam
court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work.

Guam court officials have never explained the contractual arrangement. At
the time, Abramoff was a well-known lobbying figure in the Pacific islands
because of his work for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and
Saipan garment manufacturers, accused of employing workers in what critics
called sweatshop conditions.

Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum said the lobbyist ''has no recollection of
his being investigated in Guam in 2002. If he had been aware of an
investigation, he would have cooperated fully." Blum declined to respond to
detailed questions.

The transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov. 18,
2002, according to the subpoena. It demanded that Anthony Sanchez,
administrative director of the Guam Superior Court, turn over all records
involving the lobbying contract, including bills and payments.

A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had
launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release
announced that Bush was replacing Black.

The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status
as the acting US attorney, Black had held the assignment for more than a
decade.

The acting US attorney was a controversial official in Guam. At the time he
was replaced, Black was directing a long-term investigation into allegations
of public corruption in the administration of then-Governor Carl Gutierrez.
The probe produced numerous indictments, including some of the governor's
political associates and top aides.

Black, 56, had served as acting US attorney for Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands since 1991, when he was named to the post by the president's
father, President George H. W. Bush.

The career prosecutor, who held a senior position as first assistant before
accepting the acting US attorney job, was demoted to a staff post. Black's
demotion came after an intensive lobbying effort by supporters of Gutierrez,
who had been publicly critical of Black and his investigative efforts.

Black declined to comment for this article.

His replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, was confirmed in May 2003 without any
debate. Rapadas had been recommended for the job by the Guam Republican
Party. Fred Radewagen, a lobbyist who had been under contract to the
Gutierrez administration, said he carried that recommendation to top Bush
aide Karl Rove in early 2003.
(Ah, there's that name again ... -Ed.)

After taking office, Rapadas recused himself from the public corruption case
involving Gutierrez. The new US attorney was a cousin of ''one of the main
targets," according to a confidential memo to Justice Department officials.

Rapadas declined to comment and referred questions about his recusal to
Justice Department officials who did not respond to requests for comment.

Why thank-you for noticing, Straughn. I thought irony was dead around here.
Well, as much as Corny and the other Bush-fellaters attempt to bludgeon indifference to his nature to us, i still catch an inflection or two. And i usually tear the subtlety out of it. Often, with Corny and the aforementioned, there's certain philosophical attributes that work somewhat when dealing with them ...
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-George W. Bush, May 24, 2005
Also, for contrast (to be fair and balanced) ...
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
-Joseph Goebbels

He should be impeached, but he won't...the republicans are too powerful...If the democrats were as good as the republicans at fighting dirty, they might get more done...but they won't...they're weak.
For the most part, agreed, sadly. :(

Well, as much as Corny and the other Bush-fellaters attempt to bludgeon indifference to his nature to us, i still catch an inflection or two. And i usually tear the subtlety out of it. Often, with Corny and the aforementioned, there's certain philosophical attributes that work somewhat when dealing with them ...
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-George W. Bush, May 24, 2005
Also, for contrast (to be fair and balanced) ...
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
-Joseph Goebbels

And they're all but card-carrying members of the Shrub Cult of Personality too. Notice how the more they fellate him, the more they claim to be centrist or libertarian?

Why are you against defending this Country from those that want to destroy it?

who, those ineffectual losers who have mangaged to kill fewer people in 20 years than swimming pools claim every year? i just can't bring myself to wet my bed over them with you and your terrified 'tough guy' pals.

Straughn, that is ridiculous, but it doesn't mean he can bypass FISA especially when there are specific war related parts.

He should be impeached, but he won't...the republicans are too powerful...If the democrats were as good as the republicans at fighting dirty, they might get more done...but they won't...they're weak.For the most part, agreed, sadly. :(

in that case, what are we going to do about it?

In answer to the topic question:

YES!!!!!

in that case, what are we going to do about it?
Well, a thought occurred; it seemed kinda 'hippy' to me at first, but it's I think starting to grow on me a little. Suppose the NSA or the FBI or whoever is listening in on phone calls. I assume that other than assigning people to manually monitor certain phone lines, that they're using audio recognition software to flag particular words by frequency of use or by word-association, etc.

So what if a concerted effort was made, en masse, unannounced (or as nearly so as possible), to clot up all the eavesdropping spybots with a bewildering amount of seemingly-ordinary conversations with flagworthy words like anthrax or phrases like death to the non-believers sprinkled liberally throughout.

If he doesn't crap his pants and declare Martial Law before realizing he's been had by his own peasa- erm, his own citizenry, it will at the very least, keep several law enforcement agencies very busy for a very long while sifting through a whole Helluva lotta crap. Of their own making.

Frickin' paranoiac Dictators. Vive El Presidente Boosh!

Edit: Anyway, that was my thought. Sorry if it's too hippy. It's late. I need to go to bed.

Straughn, that is ridiculous, but it doesn't mean he can bypass FISA especially when there are specific war related parts.
Come again? Which part is ridiculous? What i posted or if i agree or don't with it?
Because I don't agree with it. He declared "war" which he has no power to do, and he'll perpetuate it as long as it works for him. So far he's doing *great* :rolleyes:
As per the FISA, i've already researched that somewhat and gotten almost no helpful responses of interpretation. I argued that with Greenlander on another thread. I'll post it here when i find it on the Archives.

And they're all but card-carrying members of the Shrub Cult of Personality too. Notice how the more they fellate him, the more they claim to be centrist or libertarian?
I've noticed since at one point i could call myself *relatively* centrist without having to explain myself into a conniption fit. :(
Yep, i noticed alright. This is indeed a disturbing trend.

Well, a thought occurred; it seemed kinda 'hippy' to me at first, but it's I think starting to grow on me a little. Suppose the NSA or the FBI or whoever is listening in on phone calls. I assume that other than assigning people to manually monitor certain phone lines, that they're using audio recognition software to flag particular words by frequency of use or by word-association, etc.

So what if a concerted effort was made, en masse, unannounced (or as nearly so as possible), to clot up all the eavesdropping spybots with a bewildering amount of seemingly-ordinary conversations with flagworthy words like anthrax or phrases like death to the non-believers sprinkled liberally throughout.

If he doesn't crap his pants and declare Martial Law before realizing he's been had by his own peasa- erm, his own citizenry, it will at the very least, keep several law enforcement agencies very busy for a very long while sifting through a whole Helluva lotta crap. Of their own making.

Frickin' paranoiac Dictators. Vive El Presidente Boosh!

Edit: Anyway, that was my thought. Sorry if it's too hippy. It's late. I need to go to bed.

I like yer style, pardner. *bows*
Again, i should expect as much from a 'frop smoker. :D

In answer to the topic question:

YES!!!!!

I'll start a list, feel free to add.

Should Bush be impeached?
...

Contra:
Deep Kimchi
-Maghda-
Greenlander
Corneliu
ARF of course
Penlandia
Eutrusca (how could he possibly go against Bush, hey?)


huh? :confused:

in that case, what are we going to do about it?
I vote, argue, inform, and basically make a social pariah out of myself in my relatively-conservative little podunk town in AK (the Red State of Ted "The Hulk" Stevens :) )
As far as anything else, i would garner the name "terrorist", under current nomenclature, and the few liberties i can dance around with now can be bereaved of me and i can turn more evil/vindictive as i plot some things that basically aren't meant for normal and civilized folk. With some work it won't come to that.

I dont agree with Bush on many issues, nor do I agree with alot of his actions, but if Bush is impeached, the US would have to find another president and I do not see any possible cantidate which could actually fix what Bush has broken. However, if the Americans wait until their next election in 08, it gives time for other to rise and show off thier merit(or money) as leaders. Impeaching Bush, I think, would do more harm than good for the time being. If he gets to far out it would be a more likely proposition, but not at this current time.

huh? :confused:
Yeah, looks like I got that one wrong...funny how people don't behave like their stereotypes sometimes.

-Maghda-...is that Roachbusters?

The government has always had the power to spy on its people. For to be legal all the government has to do is tout national security issues. Phone lines and communications are often flagged if certain key words are found: bomb, assassination, etc. But it is only now, when Bush is in office, that suddenly everyone wants to denounce this method as unconstitutional and criminal. Demonise Bush on this issue, you demonize every adminstration that has existed in the USA.

And to help Corneliu out a bit here... what Bush has done does not even compare to what Lincoln and FDR did. FDR and his own concentration camps and Lincoln revoking the entire constitution in order to maintain his so called "unity". But I guess trampling on the very ideals of the constitution and state controlled government is alright as long as we have the "Free the Slaves" facade to comfort ourselves.

You tighten the reigns too tightly on our rights in favour of security you tighten the grip of tyranny, but you tighten the reigns on security too tightly for our rights then you tighten the noose around our throats.

Some liberties must be sacrificed to be safe and secure, fact of history.

huh? :confused:

Dude, I'm not a fucking neocon. Don't be surprised.

what Bush has done does not even compare to what Lincoln and FDR did.

This isn't JUST about wiretapping so don't be so superficial.
Some liberties must be sacrificed to be safe and secure, fact of history.
Then take your philosophy somewhere were fascist responses are appopriate, and leave the decision to the governed, which is the whole point of the United States, even if it has been so misaligned. Someone has to stand for it. Obviously you don't. So consider hiking off to some other country.

Actually when congress passed the stupid Patriot Act he got all kinds of loop holes to do the spying. He will not be impeached.

This isn't JUST about wiretapping so don't be so superficial.

Then take your philosophy somewhere were fascist responses are appopriate, and leave the decision to the governed, which is the whole point of the United States, even if it has been so misaligned. Someone has to stand for it. Obviously you don't. So consider hiking off to some other country.

Complete freedom is anarchy. Last time I checked humans are still much to impulsive and stupid to govern themselves. In order to maintain a semblence of order there are laws which restrict freedom to some extent (speed laws, theft, murder, statutory rape, etc). But that isn't fascism, that is just common sense.

well...i answered other, and its really the only appropriate category, as there isnt much more wrong with bush thats not wrong with many of the other presidents of the last century. the main reason would be for the unconstitutional suspension of rights (wire tappings etc.), which might i add was first done by abraham lincoln (he shouldve been impeached as well), with the suspension of habeus corpus. these statist policies will never result in good, and will only bring exploitation coercion etc etc. as someone (i wish i could remember hwo becaues they are propably famous) once said
'anyone who would sacrifice a little freedom for security deserves neither, and will lose both'

'anyone who would sacrifice a little freedom for security deserves neither, and will lose both'

And vice versa. Without security we are dead. Without freedom we are worthless. Tight line to avoid crossing either way.

i wish i could remember hwo becaues they are propably famous
Ben Franklin.

Some liberties must be sacrificed to be safe and secure, fact of history.

"please daddy, give me security! i think i just pissed myself." - patrick henry

Ben Franklin.
i really should have known that, thx
And vice versa. Without security we are dead. Without freedom we are worthless. Tight line to avoid crossing either way..
hmmm, i can agree that to a point freedom must be sacrificed for security...i dont mind paying tax dollars for policemen, however (i currently live in canda) i do mind paying for 'peacekeeping missions' (so many catastrophies, so little success), canadian soldiers in iraq, anything done by CSIS (canadian CIA), missile defense (this ones a little more complicated, but im still against it in principle, though i cant understand the practical arguments in favour.)
i am also against things like (i lived in california as well as connecticut for several years, and have spent alot of time all over the USA) the wiretapping, the unofficial policy of the usa that in times of war or crises you do not have civil rights etc etc

The last time people had freedom completely was after the world had shattered. It took over 800 hundred years for the world to climb out of that dark pit.

Come to me about how security is not worth sacrificing some freedoms when some random schmuck runs into your house kills your family and there are no measures to stop it or bring justice to the killer. O wait, I believe that happened on... O god what was the date?... September 11th 2001. Let's have that day happen over and over and over just so we may have our little freedoms.

The last time people had freedom completely was after the world had shattered. It took over 800 hundred years for the world to climb out of that dark pit.

Come to me about how security is not worth sacrificing some freedoms when some random schmuck runs into your house kills your family and there are no measures to stop it or bring justice to the killer. O wait, I believe that happened on... O god what was the date?... September 11th 2001. Let's have that day happen over and over and over just so we may have our little freedoms.
im a firm believer that september 11th was the result of an interventionist policy abroad and a statist one at home, both of these policies are largely a product of 'security'

i really should have known that, thx

hmmm, i can agree that to a point freedom must be sacrificed for security...i dont mind paying tax dollars for policemen, however (i currently live in canda) i do mind paying for 'peacekeeping missions' (so many catastrophies, so little success), canadian soldiers in iraq, anything done by CSIS (canadian CIA), missile defense (this ones a little more complicated, but im still against it in principle, though i cant understand the practical arguments in favour.)
i am also against things like (i lived in california as well as connecticut for several years, and have spent alot of time all over the USA) the wiretapping, the unofficial policy of the usa that in times of war or crises you do not have civil rights etc etc

Non restricted wiretapping should never be allowed. But if I am calling to someone in Iran, a country of terrorists, I think the reasonable cause is created in order to tap that line. I mean if I am not calling to talk to a terrorist then I could care less that they hear what I am saying.

im a firm believer that september 11th was the result of an interventionist policy abroad and a statist one at home, both of these policies are largely a product of 'security'

So we should completely ignore terrorsit hot beds like the middle east that HAVE attacked us on this soil before and leave them to their own devices? Do you not understand that these people think it is thier DIVINE duty to wipe out the western infidels? We should cut them off before they can attack the USA.

So we should completely ignore terrorsit hot beds like the middle east that HAVE attacked us on this soil before and leave them to their own devices? Do you not understand that these people think it is thier DIVINE duty to wipe out the western infidels? We should cut them off before they can attack the USA.
they would not feel that way if the US had not adopted an interventionish policy abroad since the end of the first world war. if USA had not supported the zionists, if USA had not fought the soviet in the middle east, if USA had not worked to protect its oil interests in the middle east, things would be very different
edit: yes i knwo this is all hypothetic, sorry for the lack of practicality

The last time people had freedom completely was after the world had shattered. It took over 800 hundred years for the world to climb out of that dark pit.

Huh? :confused:

they would not feel that way if the US had not adopted an interventionish policy abroad since the end of the first world war. if USA had not supported the zionists, if USA had not fought the soviet in the middle east, if USA had not worked to protect its oil interests in the middle east, things would be very different
edit: yes i knwo this is all hypothetic, sorry for the lack of practicality

Or we could be living in a post apocalyptic nightmare. The what ifs in these scenerios are much too many and too broad. IE If we didn't "fight" the Soviets in the M.E. then we are now speaking Russian because they were allowed to amass wealth and arms to mass a full scale assualt on the USA. If we didn't protect our oil interests in the M.E. then our enemies would have control of our primary source of energy for not only our cars, but our military. What if, what if...

Huh? :confused:

The fall of Rome, anarchy reigns, the dark ages...

Complete freedom is anarchy. Last time I checked humans are still much to impulsive and stupid to govern themselves. In order to maintain a semblence of order there are laws which restrict freedom to some extent (speed laws, theft, murder, statutory rape, etc). But that isn't fascism, that is just common sense.
And note i didn't say ANYTHING about complete freedom. That's a sophomoric and disingenuous reply, and i would even say a low-brow Corneliu-esque attempt to bait-and-switch.
You're talking about allowing it to achieve fascist capacity while still arguing "common sense" of your perspective. That is a dangerous dichotomy. Feel free to join the nature of this thread when you're done giving yourself credit for other people's axioms.

And note i didn't say ANYTHING about complete freedom. That's a sophomoric and disingenuous reply, and i would even say a low-brow Corneliu-esque attempt to bait-and-switch.
You're talking about allowing it to achieve fascist capacity while still arguing "common sense" of your perspective. That is a dangerous dichotomy. Feel free to join the nature of this thread when you're done giving yourself credit for other people's axioms.

If you do not have complete freedom then you must have sacrificed some of that freedom. You hated the remark on sacrificing freedom for security so you must have wanted complete freedom. Simple logical step.

The last time people had freedom completely was after the world had shattered. It took over 800 hundred years for the world to climb out of that dark pit.

Come to me about how security is not worth sacrificing some freedoms when some random schmuck runs into your house kills your family and there are no measures to stop it or bring justice to the killer. O wait, I believe that happened on... O god what was the date?... September 11th 2001. Let's have that day happen over and over and over just so we may have our little freedoms.
Send that little gem to the administration and sign it,
Love, Osama Bin Laden, the leader of a bunch of Saudis who had nothing to do with Iraq.
And then you can feel good about spending all this effort on invading a *COMPLETELY* uninvolved country.
You want to invoke 9/11? Then jump sh*t on the f*cking administration that is fleecing you and your fragile allegiance. Jump sh*t on the SAME PRESIDENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT for his "theories" on OPEN BORDERS AND WORK VISAS.
And don't forget to point out how much has been spent on making sure a civil war happens in a country while Bin Laden laughs at the ignorant f*cks who think he's gonna be stopped by attacking somewhere he's not.

And, as of yet, you don't get a fluffle.

Or we could be living in a post apocalyptic nightmare. The what ifs in these scenerios are much too many and too broad. IE If we didn't "fight" the Soviets in the M.E. then we are now speaking Russian because they were allowed to amass wealth and arms to mass a full scale assualt on the USA. If we didn't protect our oil interests in the M.E. then our enemies would have control of our primary source of energy for not only our cars, but our military. What if, what if...
communism didnt need our help to collapse.
The fall of Rome, anarchy reigns, the dark ages......
i dont know what your talking about, anarchy did not reign at the fall of rome, in the east there was still the eastern empire, followed by the ottomens, and in the west a myriad of 'barbarian kingdoms' many of which by the 8th or 9th century had grown into larger states (for example the franks)

If you do not have complete freedom then you must have sacrificed some of that freedom. You hated the remark on sacrificing freedom for security so you must have wanted complete freedom. Simple logical step.
Well you could obviously never pass calculus with that mentality, so it's probably a stretch to assume you passed rudimentary logic as well. But you used the word so you caught my attention, good for you and your 2nd grade oratory skills.
Again, i implore you move your bullsh*t mentality out of a country where people govern on the issues with FACTS.

Send that little gem to the administration and sign it,
Love, Osama Bin Laden, the leader of a bunch of Saudis who had nothing to do with Iraq.
And then you can feel good about spending all this effort on invading a *COMPLETELY* uninvolved country.
You want to invoke 9/11? Then jump sh*t on the f*cking administration that is fleecing you and your fragile allegiance. Jump sh*t on the SAME PRESIDENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT for his "theories" on OPEN BORDERS AND WORK VISAS.
And don't forget to point out how much has been spent on making sure a civil war happens in a country while Bin Laden laughs at the ignorant f*cks who think he's gonna be stopped by attacking somewhere he's not.

And, as of yet, you don't get a fluffle.
this isnt entirely fair, as their was intelligence from russian british and american sources, pointing to both weapons in iraq, as well as solid proof of them training and harbouring known terrorists...im not saying that it was the right decision, im saying that i honestly cant blame bush for the decision, as most of america did, and at least a large portion still do support it

This is amazing. This board is so liberal relative to the rest of the populace. Why is it this way? We need more balance.

No, Bush should not be impeached.

Send that little gem to the administration and sign it,
Love, Osama Bin Laden, the leader of a bunch of Saudis who had nothing to do with Iraq.
And then you can feel good about spending all this effort on invading a *COMPLETELY* uninvolved country.
You want to invoke 9/11? Then jump sh*t on the f*cking administration that is fleecing you and your fragile allegiance. Jump sh*t on the SAME PRESIDENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT for his "theories" on OPEN BORDERS AND WORK VISAS.
And don't forget to point out how much has been spent on making sure a civil war happens in a country while Bin Laden laughs at the ignorant f*cks who think he's gonna be stopped by attacking somewhere he's not.

And, as of yet, you don't get a fluffle.

Didn't say I defended Bush on all issues, just on the one that was posted in this thread. The borders and work visas are BS, no doubting that. But all the M.E. crap you are throwing out is just that crap. Give me full fledged proof that completely frees these people we have attacked of suspicion and ties with terrorist groups. Wait you can't.

See how I did that with out all the "censored" swearing. Amazing what an intelligent refute can do, but sadly you obviously have no clue of what one is.

this isnt entirely fair, as their was intelligence from russian british and american sources, pointing to both weapons in iraq, as well as solid proof of them training and harbouring known terrorists...im not saying that it was the right decision, im saying that i honestly cant blame bush for the decision, as most of america did, and at least a large portion still do support it
Pardon, but there wasn't any support to say that Iraqis were training and harbouring known terrorists. None. Saddam was quite immersed in making sure one of the four main ethnic groups in his country were oppressed so that a civil war didn't break out.
And when you say still do support it, i would ask that you post the source of such poll. You might mean the one that was on NS a little while back, but it's fairly easy to determine at this point the integrity of that stance on the war.
Again i recommend you investigate the Duelfer Report, the Butler Report, and the Downing Street Memos, and all other related material, and you'll see why my (and others') conclusion(s) is/are as such. The Russian sources i can't help you with but consider the way they're swinging this situation, and it makes sense. As for the English sources, read the Downing Street Memo series. As for American, punch up "Curveball" in a search engine and take a look at just exactly what Ahmed Chalabi is involved in now. And also, as i said, read the Duelfer Report.
I'm not wrong about the Saudi thing. Furthermore, we've acquiesced about sanctions on them for their human rights abuses just earlier this year.

Well you could obviously never pass calculus with that mentality, so it's probably a stretch to assume you passed rudimentary logic as well. But you used the word so you caught my attention, good for you and your 2nd grade oratory skills.
Again, i implore you move your bullsh*t mentality out of a country where people govern on the issues with FACTS.

Philospohy Masters on my wall. So I would say my logic is fairly strong. If you hate sacrificing freedom, then you must not want to, and if you do not want to that must mean that you want all your freedoms, hence complete freedom. And there are many in this forum that would say your mentality is bovine excrement. So unless you just want to fling insults back and forth, please limit the childish impulses and keep to an intelligent civilised debate.

Didn't say I defended Bush on all issues, just on the one that was posted in this thread. The borders and work visas are BS, no doubting that. But all the M.E. crap you are throwing out is just that crap. Give me full fledged proof that completely frees these people we have attacked of suspicion and ties with terrorist groups. Wait you can't.
...except i have already, and you're a n00b here, and therefore you don't know what i know about it. Go ahead and ask a few other posters what i've provided, and when you have something besides your tepid ego and talking points to revere then you'll have more of an equitable case of attention.

See how I did that with out all the "censored" swearing. Amazing what an intelligent refute can do, but sadly you obviously have no clue of what one is.
Again patting yourself on your own ego. Rich. I'll just attribute your lack of colourful vocabulary in the same vault as your lack of coherent facts and conclusions on the matter, and we're all the better for it. No hard feelings.

EDIT: On that last note, you garner a :fluffle:! Congrats on making the world a "better" place!

And when you say still do support it, i would ask that you post the source of such poll. .
i said a large portion of americans still support it, which is a fair statement
"Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so." - washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html)

ok so its not perfect 'do you support that war in iraq', however it is representative of how americans feel, i just did a quick search and this was the first thing i found

...except i have already, and you're a n00b here, and therefore you don't know what i know about it. Go ahead and ask a few other posters what i've provided, and when you have something besides your tepid ego and talking points to revere then you'll have more of an equitable case of attention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Eidalons
See how I did that with out all the "censored" swearing. Amazing what an intelligent refute can do, but sadly you obviously have no clue of what one is.

Again patting yourself on your own ego. Rich. I'll just attribute your lack of colourful vocabulary in the same vault as your lack of coherent facts and conclusions on the matter, and we're all the better for it. No hard feelings.

lets calm it down kids, keep to this issues otherwise this is pointless

Philospohy Masters on my wall.
Yes, mail-order no doubt. So what? So you studied other ways of thinking doesn't mean you MASTERED logic OR that you can debate efficiently with it.
So I would say my logic is fairly strong.
No your opinions on absolutism are obviously strong (as well your breath, i suspect). Doesn't make them right.
If you hate sacrificing freedom, then you must not want to, and if you do not want to that must mean that you want all your freedoms, hence complete freedom.
Fallacious argument right there. You are employing a slippery slope. I'm going to point out that you didn't get the gist of my statement AT ALL and are arguing from your self-appreciated perspective. Go back and reread it UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT. And then i cut to the chase, in saying that i NEVER implied that I THOUGHT I HAD COMPLETE FREEDOM IN THE FIRST PLACE. By my participation in a democratic government, i WILLINGLY SUBMIT myself to GOVERNANCE by and for the populace, NOT a despotism, oligarchy or plutocracy. Do you understand that now? You may have a philosophy degree (for what it's worth) but you sure don't understand the differences in basic governmental forms.
And there are many in this forum that would say your mentality is bovine excrement.
Well, points for a funny comment (and for bothering to spell it right, you surprised me pleasantly!) but you don't know this crowd so well. So make use of yourself and punch up the Search Forum option and point out just about exactly how many times that term has come up in describing me, and then hope that doesn't get used to prove that you make sh*t up to give yourself credit. Go ahead, i'm waiting.[/QUOTE]

...except i have already, and you're a n00b here, and therefore you don't know what i know about it. Go ahead and ask a few other posters what i've provided, and when you have something besides your tepid ego and talking points to revere then you'll have more of an equitable case of attention.


Again patting yourself on your own ego. Rich. I'll just attribute your lack of colourful vocabulary in the same vault as your lack of coherent facts and conclusions on the matter, and we're all the better for it. No hard feelings.

EDIT: On that last note, you garner a :fluffle:! Congrats on making the world a "better" place!

I have seen the "facts" that both the media and regular people keep tossing as evidence that Bush is evil, wrong, etc. Most of it I have found circumstantial at best and pure lies at the worst. And considering that none of it is conclusive anyway, I don't see why you keep throwing at Bush as "pure truth".

Your cohorent facts are no better than anything else I have said. So please, stop acting like you know everything.

i said a large portion of americans still support it, which is a fair statement
Then it's just as fair for you to include the rest of my statement regarding it.
I do appreciate you going through the trouble, so i'm not berating you on that. It's perhaps most important that there is a comparison of contrast over time and available information.
I in fact totally appreciate you doing so. I don't think it's that much to ask.
It definitely infers the republican/democrat divide significantly as far as philosophies of things go, like belief in the administration and dealing with facts in issues.

"Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent[/B] said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so." - washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html)

Yes, mail-order no doubt. So what? So you studied other ways of thinking doesn't mean you MASTERED logic OR that you can debate efficiently with it.

No your opinions on absolutism are obviously strong (as well your breath, i suspect). Doesn't make them right.

Fallacious argument right there. You are employing a slippery slope. I'm going to point out that you didn't get the gist of my statement AT ALL and are arguing from your self-appreciated perspective. Go back and reread it UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT. And then i cut to the chase, in saying that i NEVER implied that I THOUGHT I HAD COMPLETE FREEDOM IN THE FIRST PLACE. By my participation in a democratic government, i WILLINGLY SUBMIT myself to GOVERNANCE by and for the populace, NOT a despotism, oligarchy or plutocracy. Do you understand that now? You may have a philosophy degree (for what it's worth) but you sure don't understand the differences in basic governmental forms.

Well, points for a funny comment (and for bothering to spell it right, you surprised me pleasantly!) but you don't know this crowd so well. So make use of yourself and punch up the Search Forum option and point out just about exactly how many times that term has come up in describing me, and then hope that doesn't get used to prove that you make sh*t up to give yourself credit. Go ahead, i'm waiting.[/QUOTE]

I believe in no such absolutism. My breath has no bearing in this debate. And I understand forms of government. But last time I checked, submitting to wire taps and such in certain circumstances does not create an oppressive government.

I have seen the "facts" that both the media and regular people keep tossing as evidence that Bush is evil, wrong, etc. Most of it I have found circumstantial at best and pure lies at the worst. And considering that none of it is conclusive anyway, I don't see why you keep throwing at Bush as "pure truth".
Oh so now we're into subjective truth territory? Do you remember the Aristotlean aspects of your "philosophic" indoctrination? You know of course what that means for sake of argument, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and whatever maliciousness might seem inferred here would just be due an overactive imagination and persecution complex.
As for your "lies at the worst", then go ahead and POST some information that supports your statement, that facts aren't actually facts but the opposite - and don't forget your qualification of "subjective truth" that you were alluding to earlier. It really helps here.

Your cohorent facts are no better than anything else I have said. So please, stop acting like you know everything.Give and take. What else could you possibly expect?
Also, you probably don't mean the term "cohorent", so i'll slightly amend your statement to reality a little and say "coherent", and your post makes more sense.

I believe in no such absolutism. My breath has no bearing in this debate. And I understand forms of government. But last time I checked, submitting to wire taps and such in certain circumstances does not create an oppressive government.[/QUOTE]
The LAST TIME i'll reiterate this. Don't be superficial about this. The issues regarding Bush's impeachment aren't as shallow as just the wiretapping. The wiretapping is a significant enough issue in itself to garner the attention it's getting, especially with some Repubs finally pulling their heads out of their arses and putting some well-deserved scrutiny upon the most absent-from-office "president" we've ever had.

And, i called you out on your "excrement" idea, and you haven't backed it up.
So rescind, or just admit you were talking yourself up, and with arse talk at that.

Then it's just as fair for you to include the rest of my statement regarding it.
I do appreciate you going through the trouble, so i'm not berating you on that. It's perhaps most important that there is a comparison of contrast over time and available information.
I in fact totally appreciate you doing so. I don't think it's that much to ask.
It definitely infers the republican/democrat divide significantly as far as philosophies of things go, like belief in the administration and dealing with facts in issues.
thx, i appreciate the appreciation, i ask for alot of sources, and never get them, so i have the general policy of trying to back up what i say, or retracting. i can certainly agree that in light of all evidence, it was a bad decision, as what youve said pointed out, however, what im saying is that i cannot blame george bush personally, as it would have been his advisors/intelligence/etc. etc. telling him it is justified (i do not believe he intentionally lied to or misled the american people).

ps: the russian information included (ive only seen,looked into some of it) photographs of chemical weapons facilities, which were confirmed to have produced weapons for the war with iran, and were active in the late 90s, early 2000s

Oh so now we're into subjective truth territory? Do you remember the Aristotlean aspects of your "philosophic" indoctrination? You know of course what that means for sake of argument, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and whatever maliciousness might seem inferred here would just be due an overactive imagination and persecution complex.
As for your "lies at the worst", then go ahead and POST some information that supports your statement, that facts aren't actually facts but the opposite - and don't forget your qualification of "subjective truth" that you were alluding to earlier. It really helps here.

Give and take. What else could you possibly expect?
Also, you probably don't mean the term "cohorent", so i'll slightly amend your statement to reality a little and say "coherent", and your post makes more sense.

Small typing error. I guess you do not make mistakes.

As for subjective truths, you see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. I'll gladly admit to viewing evidence through a contextual filter, everybody does. The truth changes with each person.

Small typing error. I guess you do not make mistakes.
Again, with the fallacious argument ...
Seriously though i thought you might've picked some word i'd never seen, and i thought for a moment i'd have to consult my etymology resources. I appreciate you being honest about it.

As for subjective truths, you see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. I'll gladly admit to viewing evidence through a contextual filter, everybody does. The truth changes with each person.
I agree with you FAR more on this post than any of the others. I have an obviously nitpicky personality, and part of the problem/solution of said personality is rigourously repeating fact-checking about stuff before i actually take a stand on things to argue about. In time it has indeed made me cynical. Conversely, it also depreciates any respect for anyone who doesn't go through the same rigmarole for what they stand for, and that's fairly obvious as per my posts.
I am willing to (and have done so) provide whatever sources i need to and can where there is an issue of deliberate one-sidedness without rigmarole.
I've done so much in the past but not as much of late, since IRL and research take a LOT of time.

As per your last line, though, i disagree. Things only happen once, and therefore, it doesn't change. Patterns are observed/attributed, and perceptions are different, but nonetheless things actually occur, and it is up to the intrepid and sincere to stick with it until the best possible and usable definition has been achieved. That's where i'm at.

Impeaching him seems kind of extreme. But keeping him in office with no penalty for the breaking law isn't right. It would be better if he could be repremanded in a way. Or you could let McCain take his place for the next two years, a reasonable president! Oh my! Still just a dream.

thx, i appreciate the appreciation, i ask for alot of sources, and never get them, so i have the general policy of trying to back up what i say, or retracting.
More power to you. Absolutely. *bows*
(i do not believe he intentionally lied to or misled the american people).
Again, i say you need to read what i ref'd. A lot of the evidence says he and the PNAC bunch certainly did.

ps: the russian information included (ive only seen,looked into some of it) photographs of chemical weapons facilities, which were confirmed to have produced weapons for the war with iran, and were active in the late 90s, early 2000s
If you mean the chem trailers, they were debunked.
Do you have some links or are you talking about the Pop Mech issue with the pix? I've seen that too.
When i say links, btw, i don't mean right-wing blogs.

Again, with the fallacious argument ...
Seriously though i thought you might've picked some word i'd never seen, and i thought for a moment i'd have to consult my etymology resources. I appreciate you being honest about it.


I agree with you FAR more on this post than any of the others. I have an obviously nitpicky personality, and part of the problem/solution of said personality is rigourously repeating fact-checking about stuff before i actually take a stand on things to argue about. In time it has indeed made me cynical. Conversely, it also depreciates any respect for anyone who doesn't go through the same rigmarole for what they stand for, and that's fairly obvious as per my posts.
I am willing to (and have done so) provide whatever sources i need to and can where there is an issue of deliberate one-sidedness without rigmarole.
I've done so much in the past but not as much of late, since IRL and research take a LOT of time.

As per your last line, though, i disagree. Things only happen once, and therefore, it doesn't change. Patterns are observed/attributed, and perceptions are different, but nonetheless things actually occur, and it is up to the intrepid and sincere to stick with it until the best possible and usable definition has been achieved. That's where i'm at.

There is an argument that this one event is actually a different event happening to each person, instead of one event being experienced differently by people. I don't agree with this view, but just had to throw it out there.

Again, i say you need to read what i ref'd. A lot of the evidence says he and the PNAC bunch certainly did..
on it right now

If you mean the chem trailers, they were debunked.
Do you have some links or are you talking about the Pop Mech issue with the pix? I've seen that too.
When i say links, btw, i don't mean right-wing blogs.
ill see what i can find

I apologize for the LENGTHY nature of this post, but it is indeed a THICK amount of material to consider as far as the warrant issue goes.
This issues of most contention, as i see it, are bolded.
As the PATRIOT Act integrity goes, it relies on Executive Order 12333 or some other order (?)

What is left is the court-decided integrity of executive authority granted to do whatever the f*ck Bush wants on 9/14/01.

Note: This is LONG. My apologies.
---


SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under
this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property
or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of
the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required,
to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate
notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as
defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or
electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as
expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic
information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the
seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable
period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the
court for good cause shown.'.

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the
following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of
the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in
Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any
tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other
items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or
clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a
United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities
protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under
Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United
States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United
States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the
production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of
that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized
investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain
foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to
protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall
enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release
of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of
this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for
purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons
necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under
this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order
pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such
production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of
any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives
and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all
requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a
report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for
the production of tangible things under section 402; and

`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and
1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each
amended by striking `the purpose' and inserting `a significant purpose'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:1:./temp/~c107ZlXub0:e48053:
--
Exec Order 12333: *December 4, 1981
All means, consistent with applicable United States law and this Order, and
with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, shall be
used to develop intelligence information for the President and the National
Security Council. A balanced approach between technical collection efforts
and other means should be maintained and encouraged.
....

Executive Order 12333: *December 4, 1981*
GOAL: All means, consistent with applicable United States law and this
Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States
persons, shall be used to develop intelligence information for the
President and the National Security Council. A balanced approach between
technical collection efforts and other means should be maintained and
encouraged.

(d) To the greatest extent possible consistent with applicable United States
law and this Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United
States persons, all agencies and departments should seek to ensure full
and free exchange of information in order to derive maximum benefit from the
United States intelligence effort.

2.2 Purpose.

This Order is intended to enhance human and technical collection techniques,
especially those undertaken abroad, and the acquisition of significant
foreign intelligence, as well as the detection and countering of
international terrorist activities and espionage conducted by foreign
powers. Set forth below are certain general principles that, in addition to
and consistent with applicable laws, are intended to achieve the proper
balance between the acquisition of essential information and protection of
individual interests. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to apply to
or interfere with any authorized civil or criminal law enforcement
responsibility of any department or agency.

2.3 Collection of Information.

Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain
or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in
accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned
and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities
provided by Part 1 of this Order. Those procedures shall permit collection,
retention and dissemination of the following types of information:


(a) Information that is publicly available or collected with the consent of
the person concerned;
(b) Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence,
including such information concerning corporations or other commercial
organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence
not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant
foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the
Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by
such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information
concerning the domestic activities of United States persons;

(c) Information obtained in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence,
counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism
investigation;

(d) Information needed to protect the safety of any persons or
organizations, including those who are targets, victims or hostages of
international terrorist organizations;

(e) Information needed to protect foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence sources or methods from unauthorized disclosure.
Collection within the United States shall be undertaken by the FBI except
that other agencies of the Intelligence Community may also collect such
information concerning present or former employees, present or former
intelligence agency contractors or their present or former employees, or
applicants for any such employment or contracting;

(f) Information concerning persons who are reasonably believed to be
potential sources or contacts for the purpose of determining their
suitability or credibility;

(g) Information arising out of a lawful personnel, physical or
communications security investigation;

(h) Information acquired by overhead reconnaissance not directed at specific
United States persons;

(i) Incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in
activities that may violate federal, state, local or foreign laws; and

(j) Information necessary for administrative purposes. In addition, agencies
within the Intelligence Community may disseminate information, other than
information derived from signals intelligence, to each appropriate agency
within the Intelligence Community for purposes of allowing the recipient
agency to determine whether the information is relevant to its
responsibilities and can be retained by it.

2.4 Collection Techniques.

Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least intrusive
collection techniques feasible within the United States or directed against
United States persons abroad. Agencies are not authorized to use such
techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical search, mail
surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are
in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency
concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures shall
protect constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such
information to lawful governmental purposes. These procedures shall not
authorize:


(a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States
except for the purpose of training, testing, or conducting countermeasures
to hostile electronic surveillance;
(b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by agencies other
than the FBI, except for:


(1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military services
directed against military personnel within the United States or abroad for
intelligence purposes, when authorized by a military commander empowered to
approve physical searches for law enforcement purposes, based upon a finding
of probable cause to believe that such persons are acting as agents of
foreign powers; and
(2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States persons
lawfully in its possession.

(c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United States by
agencies other than the FBI, except for:


(1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present or former
intelligence agency contractors or their present of former employees, or
applicants for any such employment or contracting; and
(2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a nonintelligence
element of a military service.

(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to collect
foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant information that cannot
reasonably be acquired by other means.
-------

2.8 Consistency With Other Laws.

Nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize any activity in
violation of the Constitution or statutes of the United States.

There is an argument that this one event is actually a different event happening to each person, instead of one event being experienced differently by people. I don't agree with this view, but just had to throw it out there.
I've considered it. After Jacob's Ladder came out, i of course got hot on Camus, thus reading two of his crucials, The Stranger and some other one i forgot. That was back in '95. Of course, i got into Sartre and had my fun with that. Then after coming to a near-COMPLETE spiritual standstill, i slapped myself awake and determined that i'd missed out on some interesting dvpmnts, so i realized i could recluse myself all i wanted in my own problems of existence but instead had powers of engagement and facultative intellect that didn't allow me to be an impartial observer.
I am not completely unconvinced of a different effect to each observer, as i have at this point in my life gotten a pretty good handle on lucid dreaming. I might even go on to say that if there is a god it might have a different plan for every sentient being in the 'verse or 'verses, and strangely enough i wouldn't have a problem with it.
I find though that i can't pursue it in good conscience due the nature of the human equation (in my experience) - being that everyone I've ever known and met is lonely at times, and it is one of the legs of determinism of their philosophies. I figure that one link is the nexus of all of the corroborative nature of humans, and thusly, it kind of takes out the singling-of-self philosophy.

on it right now


ill see what i can find
Thank you. *bows*
I don't know why the Russian thing has been so dodgy. I may just have to augment search parameters a bit.

the butler report discredits the british intelligence fairly well, though the duelfer report is fairly inconclusive (ok so ive only read summaries + selected quote, but 70 megs of text...not tonight)
still wroking on the russian intelligence

the butler report discredits the british intelligence fairly well, though the duelfer report is fairly inconclusive (ok so ive only read summaries + selected quote, but 70 megs of text...not tonight)
still wroking on the russian intelligence
Tis true that the Duelfer Report was a follow-up and some initial objections were ignored/not brought up during that. I've seen video footage of the earlier complaints on a compilation or two as well as on some History Channel footage.
I still stand by the MI:6 results and further public commentary about the Downing Street Memos.
"That's old news".
I happen to have quite a few of them on my person but i don't have a scanner so i'd have to type up links methinks.

the best ive got so far...interesting at the least, and something i havnt heard of yet
'Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.' CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/)
articles worth giving a read

the best ive got so far...interesting at the least, and something i havnt heard of yet
'Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.' CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/)
articles worth giving a read
Sure. Thanks for the digital "leg"-work.

*ahem*
...
However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.

"This information was indeed passed on through our partner channels to our American colleagues and, moreover, President Bush had an opportunity and used this opportunity to personally thank the leader of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he considered to be very important," Putin said.

Putin made his comments in response to a question from reporters seeking clarification on similar statements leaked by an unnamed intelligence officer in a dispatch by the Interfax news agency.

Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq and Putin said Friday the information did not effect its stance on the war.

He said there were international norms and procedures that weren't observed regarding "the use of force in international actions."

Regarding how the information might have been related to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Putin said, "Whether or not this was sufficient basis to state the United States was acting within the boundaries of self-defense, well, I don't know. This is a separate issue."

The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.
...
Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The panel also found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers.

Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, have strongly disputed suggestions that the commission's conclusions contradict statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam's regime. He said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." (Full story)

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.

The president said that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said. (Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/index.html)
...
The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

Sure. Thanks for the digital "leg"-work.

*ahem*
...
However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.
fair enough, but when the US executive gets reports that a country is planning any sort of attack on them (no matter who the reports comming from, or whos planning the attack), their gonna get a little edgy. again, i agree, the war was unjustified, but i sympathise with the administration

fair enough, but when the US executive gets reports that a country is planning any sort of attack on them (no matter who the reports comming from, or whos planning the attack), their gonna get a little edgy. again, i agree, the war was unjustified, but i sympathise with the administration
I should also point out that it was made public that Condi lied under oath when asked about credible threats to consider in the lead-up to 9/11.
Not one, but 52 reports of such a distinct possiblity were dealt with from April to September of the year 2001 alone. She professed otherwise on the stand, under oath. Funny how a bj alone was enough to rile the Repubs into an "impeachment" about what under oath meant.
Obviously, that coupled with many, MANY other things this administration has done, have pretty much FORCED me to conclude that i could NOT sympathize with the administration.

*ahem*

US aviation received 52 al-Qaeda warnings before 9/11
By Jenny Booth, Times Online original

America's aviation authority received numerous warnings about al-Qaeda attacks in the six months before 9/11, including five that mentioned hijackings and two that mentioned suicide operations, it has emerged.

A previously published report by the commission set up to investigate the September 11 attacks on the United States reveals that the US Federal Aviation Authority received 52 intelligence reports on al-Qaeda between April and September 2001.
The 911 Commission report criticises the FAA for failing to strengthen security measures in light of the reports, and accuses it of allowing a false sense of security to prevail.

The aviation industry was more concerned with hijacking threats overseas and did not appear to give serious credit to the idea of hijackings at home, the report added.

"The fact that the civil aviation system seems to have been lulled into a false sense of security is striking not only because of what happened on 9/11 but also in light of the intelligence assessments, including those conducted by the FAA's own security branch, that raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation," the report said.

The striking findings of the staff report, dated August 2004, emerged after an investigation by The New York Times.

The full version of the report was blocked from public release by the White House for more than five months. A declassified and heavily edited version was filed in the National Archives two weeks ago.

So many reports on Osama bin Laden or his al-Qaeda terrorist network were received by the FAA in the months before 9/11, that between March and May it conducted classified briefings on the al-Qaeda threat for security officials at 19 of the busiest airports in the United States.

The report said that the 52 warnings on al-Qaeda sent to the FAA in that period amounted to half of all the intelligence reports it received.

The FAA did issue an alert to airports and airlines in early 2001, in the form of a CD-ROM, which mentioned the possibility that terrorists might conduct suicide hijackings.

But it said that a domestic hijacking would be difficult, and "fortunately we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction."

The CD-ROM briefings said: "We don't rule it out ... If however, the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

The 9/11 panel said that this showed that the FAA had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon, but had failed to direct adequate resources or attention to the problem.

"Throughout 2001, the senior leadership of the FAA was focused on congestion and delays within the system and the ever-present issue of safety, but they were not as focused on security," the report said.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown defended the authority, saying that the warnings were not specific enough to prevent the attacks. She said that the FAA did take steps to counter the terrorist threat, such as placing more explosives detection units in airports.

"We had a lot of information about threats," she said.



"But we didn’t have specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

Publication of the report has revived suspicions that the Bush administration tried to censor information that pointed to lax security before 9/11.

US Representatives Henry Waxman and Carolyn Maloney have requested House hearings on "whether the administration misused the classification process to withhold, for political reasons, official 9/11 Commission staff findings detailing how federal aviation officials received multiple intelligence reports warning of airline hijackings and suicide attacks before September 11," and "on the veracity of statements, briefings and testimony by then national security advisor Condoleezza Rice", they said in a statement.
----
Now, of course, you remember the way that Clarke was lambasted .... :(

I should also point out that it was made public that Condi lied under oath when asked about credible threats to consider in the lead-up to 9/11.
Not one, but 52 reports of such a distinct possiblity were dealt with from April to September of the year 2001 alone. She professed otherwise on the stand, under oath. Funny how a bj alone was enough to rile the Repubs into an "impeachment" about what under oath meant.
Obviously, that coupled with many, MANY other things this administration has done, have pretty much FORCED me to conclude that i could NOT sympathize with the administration.
hmmm again, i guess its just another continuation of the statist interventionist policy the US first started adapting since 'honest abe'....i guess i just kind of expect it, and dont see the heart of the problem as bush or this administration....anyways thats another story for antoehr thread

He has been elected fair and square so at the next elections the Americans must think a bit better who they are electing. But impeaching.... no!!!:headbang:

He is guilty of dereliction of duty. In his presidential vows, he swore to uphold the Constitution. The Fourth Amendmnet states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

By allowing the the warrantless wiretaps to be carried out, he broke his presidential vow. He should be impeached, along with anyone else who allowed this to happen.

hmmm again, i guess its just another continuation of the statist interventionist policy the US first started adapting since 'honest abe'....i guess i just kind of expect it, and dont see the heart of the problem as bush or this administration....anyways thats another story for antoehr thread
Maybe.
So then what can you conclude on my PATRIOT Act/Executive Order 12333 post?
I think there's enough to go after, especially given one of the top FISA judges quit over this. Have you heard more?

If any thing we are going to have to wait for like three administrations before we collect all the evedince that would send him to death row like how he purposly lied about wmd's just to do what his father did not and fulfill a family vendeta. how he purposly let sept. 11 happen to give him all these excuses yes i belive this. there is some prof surfacing that says this might be true. They did know it was coming. How much they knew is still unclear but sure enough by ten years from know we will know for sure probably. I am not saying that it is anything like that pearle harbor incidence even though some conpiricys have arouse around that. soon enough we will have a whole lot more abuses of power to pile on top of all that.

He is guilty of dereliction of duty. In his presidential vows, he swore to uphold the Constitution. The Fourth Amendmnet states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

By allowing the the warrantless wiretaps to be carried out, he broke his presidential vow. He should be impeached, along with anyone else who allowed this to happen.


I agree completely, and believe you are speaking the gospel truth.
However, we live in a country that is controled by small minority of rich, fat white men, who are not about to give up control of anything, let alone thier President.

The partisan politics are to such a state, that even in clear violation of the law wich Bush is obligated to support, and uphold, the Republican controlled congress will likely not seek impeachment proceedings.
Even though the man broke, is breaking, and will continue to break, the laws of this country, he is untouchable, protected by other fat, rich white men, who support his agenda in the Middle East.

I honestly cant understand why anyone continues to support this man, and at the same time, claims to love thier country.
Bush is shitting on the Constitution, and continues wipe his ass with the Bill of Rights.

I agree completely, and believe you are speaking the gospel truth.
However, we live in a country that is controled by small minority of rich, fat white men, who are not about to give up control of anything, let alone thier President.

The partisan politics are to such a state, that even in clear violation of the law wich Bush is obligated to support, and uphold, the Republican controlled congress will likely not seek impeachment proceedings.
Even though the man broke, is breaking, and will continue to break, the laws of this country, he is untouchable, protected by other fat, rich white men, who support his agenda in the Middle East.

I honestly cant understand why anyone continues to support this man, and at the same time, claims to love thier country.
Bush is shitting on the Constitution, and continues wipe his ass with the Bill of Rights.

:rolleyes: hate to break it to you, but almost every president since lincoln has violated the US constitution and overstepped executive power, and dont get me started on the 'fat, rich, white men' comment.

:rolleyes: hate to break it to you, but almost every president since lincoln has violated the US constitution and overstepped executive power, and dont get me started on the 'fat, rich, white men' comment.

Why, is the comment false?

:rolleyes: hate to break it to you, but almost every president since lincoln has violated the US constitution and overstepped executive power, and dont get me started on the 'fat, rich, white men' comment.
No, do go on, that's what we're here for. Go ahead and prove that assessment.
As for fat rich white men, well, there's always Wolfowitz as an exception to the rule. A little.
And as for me, do indulge me on my PATRIOT Act/Executive Order 12333 post, if you would be so kind.

No, do go on, that's what we're here for. Go ahead and prove that assessment.
As for fat rich white men, well, there's always Wolfowitz as an exception to the rule. A little.
And as for me, do indulge me on my PATRIOT Act/Executive Order 12333 post, if you would be so kind.
i need a post number, its past my bed time :)

Why, is the comment false?
he talks about george bush wiping his ass with the bill of rights, im saying thats nothing new, 2 examples off the top of my head =
lincolns suspension of habeus corpus (its been done several times since, following this precedence, including by grant and roosevelt, probably more dont ask for sources on this one, as research will easily attain results for yourself...fine ill give you something (http://www.civilwarhome.com/pulito.htm) cuz its very easy, ill just google, but dont blame me if its a shit source)
the devaluation and eventual elimination of the gold standard(again easy to find sources on, prior to the 30s the USD was set at $20 p /ounce of gold, and in theory the government would give you an ounce of gold for $20, it was first devalued to $35 p / ounce, then eliminated in exchange of a....i guess fiat currency)
-ill explain this one i guess: say the government tells you your $350 is now only worth $200 and they spend the difference in gold reserves, thats violation of your property , again this is a much more complex issue and can be discussed in much greater detail, just a little synopsis if you would

I don't like Bush, but I would be terrified of the term "President Cheney."

As a Republican, I do hope Bush ends up sending a firm report to the party: don't elect another neo-conservative. They don't benefit anyone but themselves.

What we need is an smart conservative, in the traditional sense of the word. Bush has been manipulated by good old Dick from day one, and a fine job he has done. Personally, I want to see Newt Gingrich run. He's from a time when the Republican party still had credibility and didn't cater to just everyone under it.

The way I see it, there's two types of Republicans: the religious and the rational.

The religious folks make up the bulk of the party's base. The rational people used to make up the party's leadership.

Somewhere between Newt resigning from office and 2000, that seems to have flipflopped, and we've gotten a firm injection of the scum known as 'neo convervatives' such as your friend and mine Mr. Cheney.

These people oftentimes don't care about the image of their party, or possibly even their nation. They view politics as an occupation, not a public service, which is incorrect.

Since 2004, I have maintained that George Bush is the single worst thing that's ever happened to the Republican party. With any luck, we will never put another pinhead on our ticket because of this presidency.

To be perfectly fair for you, I consider myself very anti-liberal, yet I would have voted for a number of Democratic politicians had they ended up on the Dem ticket in 2004. At what point did it seem like a good idea to run an even bigger pinhead against Bushy? o_O

Personally, I want to see Newt Gingrich run. He's from a time when the Republican party still had credibility and didn't cater to just everyone under it.

Do you mean the same Newt Gingrich that is sharing billing on legislation with Hillary Clinton?
Just askin'.
And btw, i respect your post. There should be more like that and like yourself.
*bows*

i need a post number, its past my bed time :)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10214793&postcount=216

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10214793&postcount=216
im sorry i cant read that all tonight...its very late, and im not in bed cause i havnt been feeling well...and its just so technical, remind me in the near future and id love to though

Do you mean the same Newt Gingrich that is sharing billing on legislation with Hillary Clinton?
Just askin'.
And btw, i respect your post. There should be more like that and like yourself.
*bows*

I like to think that being a Republican means you don't need to support 100% of the party platform.

I am strictly nonreligious and think that if the gays want to marry, I don't see why not. I am profoundly against income redistribution, tax hikes, gun control, and political correctness.

To say the truth I suppose I'm actually a libertarian, but we have to ride the Republican ticket for the time being as more of their policies make sense to me than those of the Democrats.

I don't like Bush, but I would be terrified of the term "President Cheney."

As a Republican, I do hope Bush ends up sending a firm report to the party: don't elect another neo-conservative. They don't benefit anyone but themselves.

What we need is an smart conservative, in the traditional sense of the word. Bush has been manipulated by good old Dick from day one, and a fine job he has done. Personally, I want to see Newt Gingrich run. He's from a time when the Republican party still had credibility and didn't cater to just everyone under it.

The way I see it, there's two types of Republicans: the religious and the rational.

The religious folks make up the bulk of the party's base. The rational people used to make up the party's leadership.

Somewhere between Newt resigning from office and 2000, that seems to have flipflopped, and we've gotten a firm injection of the scum known as 'neo convervatives' such as your friend and mine Mr. Cheney.

These people oftentimes don't care about the image of their party, or possibly even their nation. They view politics as an occupation, not a public service, which is incorrect.

Since 2004, I have maintained that George Bush is the single worst thing that's ever happened to the Republican party. With any luck, we will never put another pinhead on our ticket because of this presidency.

To be perfectly fair for you, I consider myself very anti-liberal, yet I would have voted for a number of Democratic politicians had they ended up on the Dem ticket in 2004. At what point did it seem like a good idea to run an even bigger pinhead against Bushy? o_O


How would you feel about McCain?


(as for everyone else, I stand behind my Bush wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights comment)

Okay, this I agree with. I still had to strenuously object to your contention that war nullifies the Constitution.

Some freedoms get tossed out the window when a nation is in a war. Its a sad fact of life.

Of course it's probably no secret that I have great sympathy for the US Democratic Party, the US liberal left, etc. However I have read from several sources recounts written with great detail and analytical precision how Clinton's impeachment process put a choke hold on anything significant that Clinton was trying to acomplish at the time. The military strikes ordered on Iraq and the Taliban Afghanistan at the time were labelled by republicans in congress as attempts to draw attention away from the ridiculous Lewinsky scandal, when in fact the Al-Qaeda was his number one security priority. Richard Clarke says that the republican party utilized a "crushing and terrorist rhetoric" on Clinton during this time.

I'd hate to see the same thing happen over again especially when lives are at stake in the middle east.

C6, it is rare when we agree more than once in a thread but here, you are absolutely right.

what's to investigate? he openly said "i'm in charge of the military, therefore your laws don't apply to me. I broke them, am breaking them, and will continue to break them. get used to it." what we've seen amounts to a military coup. impeachment is the least they should do.

It should still be investigated in wether or not an impeachable offense has been committed. Outside of an investigation, what he did is legal until an investigation proves otherwise.

This is amazing. This board is so liberal relative to the rest of the populace. Why is it this way? We need more balance.

No, Bush should not be impeached.

My theory is that most politically based forums tend to be more to the left unless they were created by someone on the conservative side. It is little wonder that this board is like this.

I have seen the "facts" that both the media and regular people keep tossing as evidence that Bush is evil, wrong, etc. Most of it I have found circumstantial at best and pure lies at the worst. And considering that none of it is conclusive anyway, I don't see why you keep throwing at Bush as "pure truth".

Your cohorent facts are no better than anything else I have said. So please, stop acting like you know everything.

THANK YOU!!!!

*hands The Eidalons a cookie*

Impeaching him seems kind of extreme. But keeping him in office with no penalty for the breaking law isn't right. It would be better if he could be repremanded in a way. Or you could let McCain take his place for the next two years, a reasonable president! Oh my! Still just a dream.

Not how its done. If Bush leaves office, Dick Cheney becomes President.

:rolleyes: hate to break it to you, but almost every president since lincoln has violated the US constitution and overstepped executive power, and dont get me started on the 'fat, rich, white men' comment.

This is precisely what I have been saying and getting nailed for it. Thank you for re-iterating what I have been saying.

he talks about george bush wiping his ass with the bill of rights, im saying thats nothing new, 2 examples off the top of my head =
lincolns suspension of habeus corpus (its been done several times since, following this precedence, including by grant and roosevelt, probably more dont ask for sources on this one, as research will easily attain results for yourself...fine ill give you something (http://www.civilwarhome.com/pulito.htm) cuz its very easy, ill just google, but dont blame me if its a shit source)
the devaluation and eventual elimination of the gold standard(again easy to find sources on, prior to the 30s the USD was set at $20 p /ounce of gold, and in theory the government would give you an ounce of gold for $20, it was first devalued to $35 p / ounce, then eliminated in exchange of a....i guess fiat currency)
-ill explain this one i guess: say the government tells you your $350 is now only worth $200 and they spend the difference in gold reserves, thats violation of your property , again this is a much more complex issue and can be discussed in much greater detail, just a little synopsis if you would

It looks like I wasn't far fetched after all. I'll accept all apologies now :D

Thanks Free Misesians for stating what I have been stating. Maybe now it'll carry more weight.

It looks like I wasn't far fetched after all. I'll accept all apologies now :D

Thanks Free Misesians for stating what I have been stating. Maybe now it'll carry more weight.
thanks for the thanks, its good to be loved, i had a great time with this thread last night, and learned alot from it the butler report and duelreport were both fairly interesting, and before this i hadnt taken a serious look at them.
edit: you seem like the kinda fellow who mgiht like this source, so ill give it to you, i order books and read articles from them fairly regularily, some i agree with, others i dont, but its a good time either way. www.mises.org
lots of good sources on this kind of thing as well