NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, this is a very much "consider the source" piece--this comes from the Washington (read:Moonie) Times Insight magazine (http://www.insightmag.com/), and it's behind a subscription wall so I can't get to the whole thing--my school's Lexis/Nexis server is mysteriously down. Here it is, with my commentary to follow:

The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress. "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said. Administration sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Now I'm of two minds about this. I certainly believe Bush deserves it--I thought he deserved it before the 2004 elections because of the lies he told about the Iraq WMD intelligence--anad the latest NSA stuff only furthers that belief.

But I don't buy this article that Bush is sweating it, for one simple reason--the Republican House leadership would have to get on board for anything to come to the floor, and even though DeLay is gone, that ain't gonna happen. I have doubts that it would happen if we had a Speaker named Nancy Pelosi, but under Hastert? I've got a better chance at taking the bronze in rhythmic gymnastics at the next Olympics (even though I'm fabulous with the ribbon). It wold take a meltdown of epic proportions, with millions of protestors on Pennsylvania Avenue chanting that Bush either gets impeached or he'll be dragged out into the street by his ankles for this Congress to do something about it.

But it is a pretty picture to imagine--the impeachment, not the ankles thing. :D

It wold take a meltdown of epic proportions, with millions of protestors on Pennsylvania Avenue chanting that Bush either gets impeached or he'll be dragged out into the street by his ankles for this Congress to do something about it.

But it is a pretty picture to imagine--the impeachment, not the ankles thing. :D
No no, the ankles thing is a pretty cool mental picture as well.....not because it's Bush, but just because it's not me. I'd laugh at just about anybody in that position.

Maybe there is some uber scandal about to break in the congress, and they want to distract people.

Maybe there is some uber scandal about to break in the congress, and they want to distract people.


Its unclear whether the corruption and bribery (or as they say in the US, "lobbying") scandal is meant to distract from the domestic spying scandal or vice versa.

Maybe there is some uber scandal about to break in the congress, and they want to distract people.

Congress has scandals? :eek:

It wold take a meltdown of epic proportions, with millions of protestors on Pennsylvania Avenue chanting that Bush either gets impeached or he'll be dragged out into the street by his ankles for this Congress to do something about it.

But it is a pretty picture to imagine--the impeachment, not the ankles thing. :D

i prefer the ankles thing. we should work on that one.

Its unclear whether the corruption and bribery (or as they say in the US, "lobbying") scandal is meant to distract from the domestic spying scandal or vice versa.

I know. Confuses me too. I still think that congressplebs should only be allowed to raise money for re-election in districts where they are actually opposed for re-election by a major party.

That would sort the buggers out.

Congress has scandals? :eek:

The senate should really emulate rome, and get some togas to go with those scandals.

Blah Blah

You mean your NOT a fan of bush? Jeez and all this time i thought you were..But yeah i totally agree. Impeachment all the way...and hang him...to teach other republicans ( well politicians in whole) not to fudge around with us cool people

Oh, what a shame that would be...

The senate should really emulate rome, and get some togas to go with those scandals.


Could you imagine seeing Ted Kennedy in a toga? What about Dick Chenny when ever he presides? i mean come on...ewww

Could you imagine seeing Ted Kennedy in a toga?

Obviously someone's never spent the summer in Hyannisport.

Obviously someone's never spent the summer in Hyannisport.


Yuck..i just google Ted kennedy in hyannisport..and i saw him without a shirt on...damnit...now i need to gouge my eyes out

Obviously someone's never spent the summer in Hyannisport.Unless you asked me for directions. Whenever I get asked where the Kennedy Compound is, I always send the people up to P-Town. Did you see a bunch of gays there? :p

Kennedy+toga+outside+lots of people on small boat=jibbilies

However i wouldn't mind seeing Mr Obama in a speedo or soemthing..i mean..damn what a good looking guy :P

Yuck..i just google Ted kennedy in hyannisport..and i saw him without a shirt on...damnit...now i need to gouge my eyes out
For everyones viewing horror

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/breakfast.Par.0005.ImageFile.jpg:(

Thank you Congress! Can we just impeach the entire Bush administration? :gundge:

For everyones viewing horror

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/breakfast.Par.0005.ImageFile.jpg
:(

Who says alcohol ruins your physique?

For everyones viewing horror

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/breakfast.Par.0005.ImageFile.jpg:(


oh SOB.....-dies-

Thats a bunch of BS, definately consider the source. Bush isn't gonna get impeached, for many reasons, and amongst them is that he is an excellent president. So stop dreaming, stop hoping, and stop protesting just because you want to jump on some band wagon...

Thats a bunch of BS, definately consider the source. Bush isn't gonna get impeached, for many reasons, and amongst them is that he is an excellent president. So stop dreaming, stop hoping, and stop protesting just because you want to jump on some band wagon...
"Consider the source" in this case meant "this paper is known for being full of crap because they're usually on the floor in front of Bush sucking his cock." But hey, thanks for putting your two cents in. :rolleyes:

"Consider the source" in this case meant "this paper is known for being full of crap because they're usually on the floor in front of Bush sucking his cock." But hey, thanks for putting your two cents in. :rolleyes:

Well dipshit, its obviously not a good Bush paper now if its publishing this faulty BS crap

Thats a bunch of BS, definately consider the source. Bush isn't gonna get impeached, for many reasons, and amongst them is that he is an excellent president. So stop dreaming, stop hoping, and stop protesting just because you want to jump on some band wagon...


Excellent president? Don't make me laugh. He won't be impeached based on a rep. maj. in congress..and also because of the religious wrong(not right)

Thats a bunch of BS, definately consider the source. Bush isn't gonna get impeached, for many reasons, and amongst them is that he is an excellent president. So stop dreaming, stop hoping, and stop protesting just because you want to jump on some band wagon...

*whoosh*

Quick, look up! You might see the point as it flies overhead!

Answer: No

Well dipshit, its obviously not a good Bush paper now if its publishing this faulty BS crap
Ah, so young to be headed out on the path to Moderation.

Yuck..i just google Ted kennedy in hyannisport..and i saw him without a shirt on...damnit...now i need to gouge my eyes out
Another job well done. *nods*

blah blah blah- he is an excellent president.
And here's where I can paraphrase DK ...
WRONG.
'Nuff said.

Ah, so young to be headed out on the path to Moderation.
There's a tendency for the mods to be rabid Busheviks? That would explain a lot.

oh SOB.....-dies-
Employing some feline nuance, it would seem.
Well, i hope you also employ another trait of theirs, what with the "nine lives" and all ...
well, eight now.

"Consider the source" in this case meant "this ______ is known for being full of crap because they're usually on the floor in front of Bush sucking his cock." But hey, thanks for putting your two cents in. :rolleyes:
Well, consider the source to whom you're replying, and it all fits in that summation rather nicely as well, especially the bolded part.

Employing some feline nuance, it would seem.
Well, i hope you also employ another trait of theirs, what with the "nine lives" and all ...
well, eight now.


haha..

haha..
Don't be hatin'! ;)
That movie was funnier than it first appeared, btw.

Don't be hatin'! ;)
That movie was funnier than it first appeared, btw.


I wish i knew what was going on right now:p... what movie? im sorry i got lost along the way.

I wish i knew what was going on right now:p... what movie? im sorry i got lost along the way.
Malibu's Least Wanted (I think, or Most Wanted)

Malibu's Least Wanted (I think, or Most Wanted)


oh yeah funny movie(most wanted btw) Im B-rad..

oh yeah funny movie(most wanted btw) Im B-rad..
He handled a few things better than i'd expected. He's got cool friends, imo, btw.

There's a tendency for the mods to be rabid Busheviks? That would explain a lot.
No no no--for the most part, the Mods do a damn fine job of keeping their personal politics out of their jobs. I was going more for "so young to be reported if he keeps that kind of crap up."

He handled a few things better than i'd expected. He's got cool friends, imo, btw.


Yeah...but i never understood why someone had a bazooka and brought it to a party..i mean what is up with that?

Thats a bunch of BS, definately consider the source. Bush isn't gonna get impeached, for many reasons, and amongst them is that he is an excellent president. So stop dreaming, stop hoping, and stop protesting just because you want to jump on some band wagon...

Please tell me you were either joking or being sarcastic. The ONLY reason Bush isn't going to be impeached is because the Republican party won't allow it. Calling him an excellent president would be fine if the only basis you had for comparison were say, Stalin, Hitler, and Genghis Khan. In that company, sure he's a great president. And before I get accused of jumping on a band wagon, I was opposed to Bush since even before the 2000 election was given to him. It takes no great gift to see he's either an idiot or a sociopath.

Please tell me you were either joking or being sarcastic. The ONLY reason Bush isn't going to be impeached is because the Republican party won't allow it. Calling him an excellent president would be fine if the only basis you had for comparison were say, Stalin, Hitler, and Genghis Khan. In that company, sure he's a great president. And before I get accused of jumping on a band wagon, I was opposed to Bush since even before the 2000 election was given to him. It takes no great gift to see he's either an idiot or a sociopath.


No bandwagon here either...I opposed him as soon as i heard he was running..like in 98 or so...i was like..awww another bush( i was like...11 at the time in 98)

No bandwagon here either...I opposed him as soon as i heard he was running..like in 98 or so...i was like..awww another bush( i was like...11 at the time in 98)

I didn't mind the first Bush so much (although in my 5th grade class in '92 we had a fake election and I was the only one who voted for Clinton) since his biggest lie was "Read my lips - no new taxes" It pissed some people off, but nobody was really hurt. I've come to classify lies that way. Does it make people angry, or does it get people hurt? Lies that make people angry I tend to gloss over now.

I was shocked when Bush got in the first time

I was amazed when got in the second time

Now I just feel sorry for people in the USA, you have lost all the good will that Clinton had built.

It will take a lot of good will from the USA before you get any respect back, and if you keep on the way you are then the world is in for a rocky ride. You are a large and powerful nation. That power has to be used for the good of the world, for your sake as much as everyone elses.

I was shocked when Bush got in the first time

I was amazed when got in the second time

Now I just feel sorry for people in the USA, you have lost all the good will that Clinton had built.

It will take a lot of good will from the USA before you get any respect back, and if you keep on the way you are then the world is in for a rocky ride. You are a large and powerful nation. That power has to be used for the good of the world, for your sake as much as everyone elses.

Oh, but I was so looking forward to WWIII ;-)

Oh, but I was so looking forward to WWIII ;-)

You may get your wish yet

You may get your wish yet

Need to get out my video camera for all the wonderful explosions. I also need to get some cockroach body armor to protect me from the nukes.

It will take a lot of good will from the USA before you get any respect back, and if you keep on the way you are then the world is in for a rocky ride. You are a large and powerful nation. That power has to be used for the good of the world, for your sake as much as everyone elses.
Don’t tell us what to do with our shit, ausie. It’s our shit!

Anyway, impeach the bastard. He fucking spied on his own damn country! That infuriates me to what I’m sure is an unhealthy level.
Fuck Bush, Fuck Cheney, Fuck the whole administration.
You know what? Fuck congress while your at it for being corrupt bastards,. Fuck the supreme court and their anti-property rulings. Fuck the whole damn federal government and most of the state ones too!

Don’t tell us what to do with our shit, ausie. It’s our shit!

Anyway, impeach the bastard. He fucking spied on his own damn country! That infuriates me to what I’m sure is an unhealthy level.
Fuck Bush, Fuck Cheney, Fuck the whole administration.
You know what? Fuck congress while your at it for being corrupt bastards,. Fuck the supreme court and their anti-property rulings. Fuck the whole damn federal government and most of the state ones too!

But people in the government get in such trouble for getting fucked(re Clinton)...how about we just kick them out instead ;-)

[QUOTE=Undelia]Don’t tell us what to do with our shit, ausie. It’s our shit!

QUOTE]

Well you must know all about shit

you are so full of it

and I am not an Aussie
I just live ther

Thank you Congress! Can we just impeach the entire Bush administration? :gundge:

First post and you show your lack of government education.

I sincerely doubt Bush will be impeached.

Don’t tell us what to do with our shit, ausie. It’s our shit!

Anyway, impeach the bastard. He fucking spied on his own damn country! That infuriates me to what I’m sure is an unhealthy level.
Fuck Bush, Fuck Cheney, Fuck the whole administration.
You know what? Fuck congress while your at it for being corrupt bastards,. Fuck the supreme court and their anti-property rulings. Fuck the whole damn federal government and most of the state ones too!

That's true. Ever since the kelo ruling, I 've considered the entire government illegitimate, and anyone who works for it a traitor.

First post and you show your lack of government education.

I sincerely doubt Bush will be impeached.

Actually, there is a vehicle for impeaching an entire administration through public referrendum. It's called revolution. We had one a couple hundred years ago.

Actually, there is a vehicle for impeaching an entire administration through public referrendum. It's called revolution. We had one a couple hundred years ago.

And another one in 1812 and in 1861-1865. However, it'll never be done and we all know it.

Bush won't get impeached because in reality, there's nothing to impeach him on.

Actually, there is a vehicle for impeaching an entire administration through public referrendum. It's called revolution. We had one a couple hundred years ago.

You mean sedition? That's considered a treasonous offense...

Anyways, if they think Bush broke the law, he'll get impeached. If he actually did, he'll be removed from office. And if he didn't, there might be some political fallout on both sides.

and I am not an Aussie
My mistake.
I just live ther
Sorry about that.

And another one in 1812 and in 1861-1865. However, it'll never be done and we all know it.

Bush won't get impeached because in reality, there's nothing to impeach him on.

Well, actually, there is quite a bit to impeach him on. He won't get impeached because the system of checks and balances we used to have got broke somewhere.

Bush won't get impeached because in reality, there's nothing to impeach him on.
He broke the law and spied on his own people, thousands, maybe millions, of us!
He is a traitor to the very ideals this nation was founded on.

Well, actually, there is quite a bit to impeach him on. He won't get impeached because the system of checks and balances we used to have got broke somewhere.

Actually, he hasn't. If he had then we need to yank Clinton's pension for serving because he DID USE illegal Wiretappings against americans. It was how we caught that naval spy remember?

This is tapping lines of Al Qaeda from OUTSIDE the US. That is 100% legal.

He broke the law and spied on his own people, thousands, maybe millions, of us!
He is a traitor to the very ideals this nation was founded on.

What law did he break?

You mean sedition? That's considered a treasonous offense...

Anyways, if they think Bush broke the law, he'll get impeached. If he actually did, he'll be removed from office. And if he didn't, there might be some political fallout on both sides.

I was simply stating a fact. As to the sedition claim - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" - Declaration of Independance.

The fact that he has committed crimes doesn't mean he'll be impeached. It just means he should be.

I was simply stating a fact. As to the sedition claim - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" - Declaration of Independance.

The fact that he has committed crimes doesn't mean he'll be impeached. It just means he should be.


Ahh but is the Declaration of Independence a legal document?

And another one in 1812 and in 1861-1865. However, it'll never be done and we all know it.

Bush won't get impeached because in reality, there's nothing to impeach him on.No Corny--there's plenty to impeach him on, and were you honest, you would admit it. But politics precludes it from ever happening. Even if the Democrats were to overwhelmingly take Congress in 2006, there's simply not enough time to get an impeachment through, quite frankly.

But if there ever were a President who qualified for impeachment and removal, it's King George the Lesser.

No Corny--there's plenty to impeach him on, and were you honest, you would admit it. But politics precludes it from ever happening. Even if the Democrats were to overwhelmingly take Congress in 2006, there's simply not enough time to get an impeachment through, quite frankly.

No there isn't. No laws have been broken. I am being honest. The only one's not being honest are those that hate bush.

But if there ever were a President who qualified for impeachment and removal, it's King George the Lesser.

*dies of laughter*

I was simply stating a fact. As to the sedition claim - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" - Declaration of Independance.

Unfortunately, the DoI isn't a legal document. Sedition is a Constitutional offense.

The fact that he has committed crimes doesn't mean he'll be impeached. It just means he should be.

There are too many Democrats (and Republicans) in Congress that would support it to allow his supporters to stop any impeachment legislation.

But if there ever were a President who qualified for impeachment and removal, it's King George the Lesser.

Oh i don't know. FDR, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson probably pip this guy at the post when it comes about lying to get the nation into war and trampling civil liberties.

Oh i don't know. FDR, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson probably pip this guy at the post when it comes about lying to get the nation into war and trampling civil liberties.

Exibit A why Bush will not be impeached.

Actually, he hasn't. If he had then we need to yank Clinton's pension for serving because he DID USE illegal Wiretappings against americans. It was how we caught that naval spy remember?

This is tapping lines of Al Qaeda from OUTSIDE the US. That is 100% legal.
Well if they were tapping Al Qaeda lines that did a shit poor job of it. The FBI said the vast majority of the “leads” were not only dead ends, they were pointless. They were investigating school teachers for Christ’s sake. Investigating school teachers with MY money!
What law did he break?
A little thing called the fourth amendment.
Oh i don't know. FDR, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson probably pip this guy at the post when it comes about lying to get the nation into war and trampling civil liberties.
Agreed. They were bastards as well.

*whoosh*

Quick, look up! You might see the point as it flies overhead!

:D Ok that made me laugh. I was going to comment but how do you follow that responce? :D

1)To not know something is not the same as lying... making an incorrect prediction does not constitute lying...

2)The Left wants to think that national security isn't that important, but for a lot of us it is. He's defending the detour around red tape as if he believes in going around the warrants because it helps the NSA better do their job, which is (in this case) to track terrorists' communications so that they can't hurt us. Jesus Christ, it's not like he's selling nuclear secrets to China or something like that (lol)...

No there isn't. No laws have been broken. I am being honest. The only one's not being honest are those that hate bush.
The NSA domestic warrantless spying is enough, even if providing false information to Congress isn't. I know you still want to believe desperately that this was legal, or that Bush was only spying on foreigners, or that Bush didn't lie to Congress when it came to the lead up to the war in Iraq, but anyone who has looked at it honestly--even sitting Senators in the President's party have noted that the NSA program was illegal--knows that at the very least laws have been broken. Whether that rises to the level of impeachment may be up for debate--it does to me--but not the question of the illegality of the NSA program.

No there isn't. No laws have been broken. I am being honest. The only one's not being honest are those that hate bush.



*dies of laughter*

no kidding

this is hilarious

HANDCUFF HIM NOW, HE PEED IN THE BATHTUB!

The NSA domestic warrantless spying is enough, even if providing false information to Congress isn't. I know you still want to believe desperately that this was legal, or that Bush was only spying on foreigners, or that Bush didn't lie to Congress when it came to the lead up to the war in Iraq, but anyone who has looked at it honestly--even sitting Senators in the President's party have noted that the NSA program was illegal--knows that at the very least laws have been broken. Whether that rises to the level of impeachment may be up for debate--it does to me--but not the question of the illegality of the NSA program.

I want him to do everything he can, short of just having the FBI shoot everyone who looks like a terrorist, to protect us from terrorists. To me, that completely overrides the freaking need for a warrant.

Bush will NOT be impeached with a GOP Congress. It is just that simple.

The question of if he ought to be impeached or not does not matter because he will not be impeached by his own party.

No laws have been broken.

i am continually impressed by the strange joining of obviously seperate parallel universes that regularly occurs on this forum. we need some physicists to study this shit.

Unfortunately, the DoI isn't a legal document. Sedition is a Constitutional offense.



There are too many Democrats (and Republicans) in Congress that would support it to allow his supporters to stop any impeachment legislation.

Actually it's not, it's a legal offense. Bush has committed a constitutional offense (more than one, but I'll restrict myself here) in violating the 4th ammendment to the constitution with his self admitted warrantless wiretaps.

I want him to do everything he can, short of just having the FBI shoot everyone who looks like a terrorist, to protect us from terrorists. To me, that completely overrides the freaking need for a warrant.

*sigh* I know it's been all over the place, but it's still true "He who would sacrifice liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither security nor liberty." How about some charges, and trials? You know, things usually associated with arrests. Not that there have been any arrests that have come from this domestic spying that I've heard, but we have a nice phrase - "Probable Cause" that you use to get a warrant.

Ahh but is the Declaration of Independence a legal document?

no, of course not. but that bit is a damn fine bit of argument for what to do next since legal options don't seem to be forthcoming.

no, of course not. but that bit is a damn fine bit of argument for what to do next since legal options don't seem to be forthcoming.

Also, it wasn't exactly a legal document when it was used as the basis of our "withdrawal" from the British empire. I notice none of the founding fathers much cared.

1)To not know something is not the same as lying... making an incorrect prediction does not constitute lying...

2)The Left wants to think that national security isn't that important, but for a lot of us it is. He's defending the detour around red tape as if he believes in going around the warrants because it helps the NSA better do their job, which is (in this case) to track terrorists' communications so that they can't hurt us. Jesus Christ, it's not like he's selling nuclear secrets to China or something like that (lol)...

1) Making an incirrect prediction means apologizing when you find out you were wrong if it costs lives. Bush's incorrect prediction did! But he won't get impeach here (or should be for that offense, his others are enough).

2) He is'nt defending a detour. He is defending breaking the law!
You can legally wiretap and 48 hours later get a warrant.

Bush wants to wiretap and never get a warrant because *he is lazy*!
No other reasoning will suffice.

We don't allow others to ignore laws when they get lazy: we fire people who don't do they job. So why not fire Bush (impeach him!)

Frangland: tell me how proving you need a warrant after the fact is so hard? If you found evidence: you already found a rational!

So unless Bush is spying on people that are pointless; no reason to do this illegal wiretap!

Also, it wasn't exactly a legal document when it was used as the basis of our "withdrawal" from the British empire. I notice none of the founding fathers much cared.

yeah, but they didn't face the abstract threat of terrorism. i imagine things would have been a whole lot different if they did.

"here, take my liberty, you can have it. just somebody, please, save me!"
-patrick henry

I want him to do everything he can, short of just having the FBI shoot everyone who looks like a terrorist, to protect us from terrorists. To me, that completely overrides the freaking need for a warrant.
Cowardice looks good on you.

Cowardice looks good on you.

speaking of which (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20265):

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW01-25-06.jpg

**yawn**

Bush has been "sweating impeachment" since after the election in 2000. I don't if any of you watch or read the news outside the People's Weekly World, but Congress was informed of the surveillance, and there are hearings about to be held on it. Pretty lousy cover-up if you ask me. Dems are just still in a huff that their boy got caught lying under oath, now they want revenge.

speaking of which (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20265):

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW01-25-06.jpg

I have an honest question: When you read on the facts of things like the NSA surveillance case and spout rhetoric clearly at odds with said facts; do you actually, honestly believe the things you say, or are you just saying them as exagerrations to make a point? I'm testing a theory of mine that liberals suffer from a mass-schizophrenia of sorts, and that when they see something like this, an imbalance in their brains causes them to believe that the Great PNAC Coup actually is nigh.

I have an honest question: When you read on the facts of things like the NSA surveillance case and spout rhetoric clearly at odds with said facts

who's in the what now?

Well if they were tapping Al Qaeda lines that did a shit poor job of it. The FBI said the vast majority of the “leads” were not only dead ends, they were pointless. They were investigating school teachers for Christ’s sake. Investigating school teachers with MY money!

Did you see the latest Zogby poll? 52% WANT the wire tapping. Interesting isnt it?

A little thing called the fourth amendment.

How is tapping a phone line a search and a seizure?

yeah, but they didn't face the abstract threat of terrorism. i imagine things would have been a whole lot different if they did.

"here, take my liberty, you can have it. just somebody, please, save me!"
-patrick henry

According to the British at the time, they WERE the terrorists. Just some perspective for you.

Yeah...but i never understood why someone had a bazooka and brought it to a party..i mean what is up with that?
One was a long musket or blunderbuss or something along those lines ... that didn't seem a little peculiar, along with the RPG-7? ;)

Actually it's not, it's a legal offense. Bush has committed a constitutional offense (more than one, but I'll restrict myself here) in violating the 4th ammendment to the constitution with his self admitted warrantless wiretaps.

However, we are in a time of war and those tappings, as has been stated are for al qaeda.

Also as stated, and truthfully so, Bill clinton did the same thing. Where's the outrage over that?

no, of course not. but that bit is a damn fine bit of argument for what to do next since legal options don't seem to be forthcoming.

Succession is illegal in this country.

Bush won't get impeached because in reality, there's nothing to impeach him on.
Calling BULLSH*T on you Corny. Get with it. You've had your arse handed to you over this enough times that you should've learned your lesson by now.

Did you see the latest Zogby poll? 52% WANT the wire tapping. Interesting isnt it?



How is tapping a phone line a search and a seizure?

I think I first mentioned the fourth, so I'll apologize and correct myself. The fourteenth - due process.

Did you see the latest Zogby poll? 52% WANT the wire tapping. Interesting isnt it?

source? i assume that was one of the badly worded questions, that wound up asking if people thought the government should have the ability to conduct wiretaps at all, rather than whether the state should be allowed to do extra-legal wiretaps. and given the shittines of the questions, the results of those polls are actually quite encouraging, as a significant minority, nearing outright majority, are either even more in favor of privacy rights than anyone guessed or are getting good at reading between the lines.

btw, i've got your 52% right here (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12528).

How is tapping a phone line a search and a seizure?

because it is, and has consistently been held to be so in every court case and congressional law?

source? i assume that was one of the badly worded questions, that wound up asking if people thought the government should have the ability to conduct wiretaps at all, rather than whether the state should be allowed to do extra-legal wiretaps. and given the shittines of the questions, the results of those polls are actually quite encouraging, as a significant minority, nearing outright majority, are either even more in favor of privacy rights than anyone guessed or are getting good at reading between the lines.

btw, i've got your 52% right here (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12528).

The question was probably "should the US wiretap terrorists" or something equally stupid. As if we know who the terrorists are. Question - if we already know who they are, why don't we arrest them, try them, and execute them? (Yes, a dirty liberal in favor of the death penalty. I care.)

Succession is illegal in this country.

oh no!

I think I first mentioned the fourth, so I'll apologize and correct myself. The fourteenth - due process.

National Security in a time of war.

Bush isn't going to get impeached and we all know it. When will the libs stop playing politics for once.

Actually. Both parties need to stop playing politics and actually start doing something to defend us from people who want to do us harm.

National Security in a time of war.

War against TERRORISM?! How the hell do you wage war against a methodology? It's not even an ideology we're fighting, it's a method of doing things. Why don't we call the war on poverty a real war while we're at it?

Succession is illegal in this country.
Eh? What do you mean, Bush Jr could not legally succeed Bush Sr as president?

Cowardice looks good on you.
A snug fit for such a lithe and cunning individual :rolleyes:

Eh? What do you mean, Bush Jr could not legally succeed Bush Sr as president?

Secession. Excuse me. It is ten till midnight here.

Bush isn't going to get impeached and we all know it. When will the libs stop playing politics for once.

Actually. Both parties need to stop playing politics and actually start doing something to defend us from people who want to do us harm.

They won't, because that would be a conflict of interests.

War against TERRORISM?! How the hell do you wage war against a methodology? It's not even an ideology we're fighting, it's a method of doing things. Why don't we call the war on poverty a real war while we're at it?

Poverty isn't a shooting war. The War on Terrorism IS a shooting war. Welcome to the real world.

When will the libs stop playing politics for once.

indeed, it is long past the time to 'stop playing politics'. it's nearly time for the mussolini treatment.

National Security in a time of war.
Calling BULLSH*T on you again.
Show the legal parameters of war here and i'll rescind it. Otherwise you're wearing it.
PROOOOOOOVE it.
And since you've *NEVER* answered this with veracity OR integrity, i imagine you'll need some cologne here mighty soon.

Secession. Excuse me. It is ten till midnight here.
Now I see. The reference to 'succession' left me in utter bafflement, you know. :)

Poverty isn't a shooting war. The War on Terrorism IS a shooting war. Welcome to the real world.

The real world? Whose real world would that be? Now if we want to narrow things down and say the war on Islamic terrorism, that's a shooting war. The war on any other form of terrorism seems to be pretty much non existant. Actually no, there is no war on terrorism that is a shooting war. There can be battles against specific terrorists that involve shooting, but that does very little if anything to combat terrorism itself. I'd like to invite you to the real world. You can't fight ideas with bullets unless you put bullets in every person with the ideas.

Calling BULLSH*T on you again.
Show the legal parameters of war here and i'll rescind it. Otherwise you're wearing it.
PROOOOOOOVE it.
And since you've *NEVER* answered this with veracity OR integrity, i imagine you'll need some cologne here mighty soon.

What? your going to dispute that we are in a war? I call that Bullshit.

O.J. Simpson getting away with double murder.

Bin Ladin never caught.

Shrub never getting impeached.

There's no justice in the world kiddies.

Just hope that the next President (if we still have a United States of America around by then and not Oceania/Kingdom of Gilead/Jesusland) and his or her administration gets extreme scrutiny from the public in all matters.

The real world? Whose real world would that be? Now if we want to narrow things down and say the war on Islamic terrorism, that's a shooting war. The war on any other form of terrorism seems to be pretty much non existant. Actually no, there is no war on terrorism that is a shooting war. There can be battles against specific terrorists that involve shooting, but that does very little if anything to combat terrorism itself. I'd like to invite you to the real world. You can't fight ideas with bullets unless you put bullets in every person with the ideas.

We're still in a shooting war no matter how you want to try and define it.

What? your going to dispute that we are in a war? I call that Bullshit.

Did Congress officially declare a "War on Terrorism" with a bill yet Corny? Wow, you really are a die-hard Bushevik even after being owned like the Raptors by Kobe Bryant.

Did you see the latest Zogby poll? 52% WANT the wire tapping. Interesting isnt it?source? i assume that was one of the badly worded questions, that wound up asking if people thought the government should have the ability to conduct wiretaps at all, rather than whether the state should be allowed to do extra-legal wiretaps. and given the shittines of the questions, the results of those polls are actually quite encouraging, as a significant minority, nearing outright majority, are either even more in favor of privacy rights than anyone guessed or are getting good at reading between the lines.

btw, i've got your 52% right here (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12528).

well?

O.J. Simpson getting away with double murder.

Prosecution never proved their case.

Bin Ladin never caught.

He's in a mountain range. Kinda hard to capture when u do not know the terrain as well as u would like.

Shrub never getting impeached.

Nothing to impeach him on.

There's no justice in the world kiddies.

First correct thing so far.

This is tapping lines of Al Qaeda from OUTSIDE the US. That is 100% legal.
*ahem*

In response to the F.B.I. complaints, the N.S.A. eventually began ranking its tips on a three-point scale, with 3 being the highest priority and 1 the lowest, the officials said. Some tips were considered so hot that they were carried by hand to top F.B.I. officials. But in bureau field offices, the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more "calls to Pizza Hut," one official, who supervised field agents, said.

So, in appeal to reason (as futile as it is with you, since you're a caricature), you're implying that the Al Qaeda network is calling Pizza Hut?
Or, people from Pizza Hut are calling Al Qaeda?
Get your head outta your arse.

What? your going to dispute that we are in a war? I call that Bullshit.

I actually will dispute that we are at war. The whole thing in Iraq, like the Persian Gulf "war" and Vietnam is a police action. Force was authorized with no formal declaration of war. The "war" on terrorism is total rhetoric. Now if you want to say that the Korean war never technically ended I suppose you could get away with that, since if I recall correctly the most we ever had there was a cease-fire.

See the following
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204a.asp

Did Congress officially declare a "War on Terrorism" with a bill yet Corny? Wow, you really are a die-hard Bushevik even after being owned like the Raptors by Kobe Bryant.

What does Kobe have to do with this? Nothing! I don't even like the NBA. I don't watch it and I do not support it.

However, so far, there has been no investigation proving that any illegal activity has taken place. Innocent until proven guilty. I guess that goes out the window when we're talking about a republican.

What? your going to dispute that we are in a war? I call that Bullshit.
Answer the moddamned question and quit dancing around it.
I know you don't have any integrity here, and i'm calling you on it.
Read it again if you must, but i already said what you need to prove. And, surprise, you haven't, and instead tried to change the subject.
Nice and consistent.

I actually will dispute that we are at war. The whole thing in Iraq, like the Persian Gulf "war" and Vietnam is a police action. Force was authorized with no formal declaration of war. The "war" on terrorism is total rhetoric. Now if you want to say that the Korean war never technically ended I suppose you could get away with that, since if I recall correctly the most we ever had there was a cease-fire.

See the following
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204a.asp

Its still a war wether it is declared or not.

Its still a war wether it is declared or not.

Guess what, if it's not a declared war, it's not a legal war. There's more wood for the impeachment fire. Seizing wartime powers while not in a "time of war" Never thought you'd help out on that argument

Innocent until proven guilty.

that principle exists to protect people from the state, not to protect the state from the people.

when they go on tv and say, "yeah i did it, am doing it, and will continue to do it. bwahahaha!", exactly what else do you want?

What law did he break?
You aren't apparently qualified to argue this.
Do you want people to punch up the forum archives, and go through THAT miserable humiliation again?

Guess what, if it's not a declared war, it's not a legal war. There's more wood for the impeachment fire. Seizing wartime powers while not in a "time of war" Never thought you'd help out on that argument

If that is the case then Korea was Illegal.

Guess what? All the President needs is authorization from Congress. He got that. Therefor, by law, it is 100% legit.

What does Kobe have to do with this? Nothing! I don't even like the NBA. I don't watch it and I do not support it.

However, so far, there has been no investigation proving that any illegal activity has taken place. Innocent until proven guilty. I guess that goes out the window when we're talking about a republican.

Oh, and he hits the Jackpot. WHY, praytell, has there been no investigation? Could it be because the republicans know he's guilty and don't want an investigation leading to a trial? Besides, he ADMITTED to the crime. Innocent until proven guilty goes out the window when you have a confession.

that principle exists to protect people from the state, not to protect the state from the people.

George Bush is a person. he is still entitled to a fair hearing. Something the people on these boards don't seem to want to give him. Imagine that.

Oh, and he hits the Jackpot. WHY, praytell, has there been no investigation? Could it be because the republicans know he's guilty and don't want an investigation leading to a trial? Besides, he ADMITTED to the crime. Innocent until proven guilty goes out the window when you have a confession.

Could it be that they are busy trying to track down who the hell leaked it and violated National security laws to begin with?

Where's the outrage over that?
Where it belongs, IN THE F*CKING PAST WITH THE PAST. Note: I AM NOT saying Clinton did everything good or right. Especially with this topic. But I AM SAYING you need to stop the cowardice and disingenuity.
Deal with the now and quit hiding behind everyone else.

If that is the case then Korea was Illegal.

Guess what? All the President needs is authorization from Congress. He got that. Therefor, by law, it is 100% legit.

Technically, Congress granting him such blanket authority to use force is unconstitutional. Specific authority was given in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. This is all well and good. Blanket authority to use force on any and all comers violates the distinction between congressional power to declare war, and executive power to wage war.

Poverty isn't a shooting war. The War on Terrorism IS a shooting war. Welcome to the real world.
A lecture about the real world from Corneliu?
Egads this guy is wasting everybody's time!!! :eek:

Note - that's not really a surprise, either. ;)

Could it be that they are busy trying to track down who the hell leaked it and violated National security laws to begin with?

I think this was discussed on another thread. I have serious problems when politicians think it is more important to investigate who reported a crime than the person who committed the crime.

Where it belongs, IN THE F*CKING PAST WITH THE PAST. Note: I AM NOT saying Clinton did everything good or right. Especially with this topic. But I AM SAYING you need to stop the cowardice and disingenuity.
Deal with the now and quit hiding behind everyone else.

I'm not being a coward. I'm pointing out that most presidents have done this and did this regularly. Now we are making a big outrage over it. If we're going to hang Bush on it, then we have to hang ALL PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE DONE THIS as well.

I think this was discussed on another thread. I have serious problems when politicians think it is more important to investigate who reported a crime than the person who committed the crime.

When a law is violated, especially a National Security law, the perp has to be found out.

I'm not being a coward. I'm pointing out that most presidents have done this and did this regularly. Now we are making a big outrage over it. If we're going to hang Bush on it, then we have to hang ALL PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE DONE THIS as well.

Wow, you sure have this fetish for the "But He Did It First!!" excuse when it comes to worshipping Shrub.

Technically, Congress granting him such blanket authority to use force is unconstitutional. Specific authority was given in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. This is all well and good. Blanket authority to use force on any and all comers violates the distinction between congressional power to declare war, and executive power to wage war.

Even though the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces?

George Bush is a person. he is still entitled to a fair hearing. Something the people on these boards don't seem to want to give him. Imagine that.

Wrong. We want him to HAVE a hearing, not the blanket "Do whatever the hell you want, we know you're fighting terrorists" that he's been getting. You know what that kind of blanket protection from the law does to a leader? It empowers them...in such a way as to turn a republic into an empire. Rome anyone? The Star Wars prequel trilogy maybe(fictional, but the same lesson can be learned)

Wow, you sure have this fetish for the "But He Did It First!!" excuse when it comes to worshipping Shrub.

I would've used it for Clinton as well.

Bush isn't exactly a great president. Despite that, he's not going to be impeached. That's basically what it comes down to, whether or not the fanatics on opposing sides believe it.

Fanboys... :rolleyes:

When a law is violated, especially a National Security law, the perp has to be found out.

And yet you were so insistent that exposing Valerie Plame Wilson and thus demolishing a long established CIA cover company in one fell swoop was not a violation of National Security law.

:rolleyes:

The real world? Whose real world would that be? Now if we want to narrow things down and say the war on Islamic terrorism, that's a shooting war. The war on any other form of terrorism seems to be pretty much non existant. Actually no, there is no war on terrorism that is a shooting war. There can be battles against specific terrorists that involve shooting, but that does very little if anything to combat terrorism itself. I'd like to invite you to the real world. You can't fight ideas with bullets unless you put bullets in every person with the ideas.
EXCELLENT post. *bows*
You ROCK. I know i've said it before but this is one of the best posts i've seen so far.

Wrong. We want him to HAVE a hearing, not the blanket "Do whatever the hell you want, we know you're fighting terrorists" that he's been getting. You know what that kind of blanket protection from the law does to a leader? It empowers them...in such a way as to turn a republic into an empire. Rome anyone? The Star Wars prequel trilogy maybe(fictional, but the same lesson can be learned)

Didn't I say he deserves a FAIR HEARING? Well by golly I think I did. After the appropriate investigations are done to gather evidence ect.

And yet you were so insistent that exposing Valerie Plame Wilson and thus demolishing a long established CIA cover company in one fell swoop was not a violation of National Security law.

:rolleyes:

And it has been established that she wasn't a covert op.

All the President needs is authorization from Congress. He got that. Therefor, by law, it is 100% legit.
No he didn't and even Congress knows it and that's why there's THE INVESTIGATION. Guess what? Some people are too f*cking stupid to understand that!
I've said it too many times, get your youknowwhat outta your youknowwhat.

And it has been established that she wasn't a covert op.
PRROOOOOVE IT.
She was a NOC.
Look it up.
If you've got elsewise OTHER than right-wing blog, GIVE IT UP.
You know what to do and you know when to do it.

PRROOOOOVE IT.
She was a NOC.
Look it up.
If you've got elsewise OTHER than right-wing blog, GIVE IT UP.
You know what to do and you know when to do it.

Corneliu's dedication to defending Shrub against Reality has earned him the status of Bushevik Fluffer.

No he didn't and even Congress knows it and that's why there's THE INVESTIGATION. Guess what? Some people are too f*cking stupid to understand that!
I've said it too many times, get your youknowwhat outta your youknowwhat.

Not my fault Congress gave him the go ahead and did nothing about it. Apparently congress still thinks its legal.

Didn't I say he deserves a FAIR HEARING? Well by golly I think I did. After the appropriate investigations are done to gather evidence ect.

When exactly would this investigation take place? After we get rid of all the terrorists?

I'm not being a coward. I'm pointing out that most presidents have done this and did this regularly. Now we are making a big outrage over it. If we're going to hang Bush on it, then we have to hang ALL PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE DONE THIS as well.
By the rule of law YES but good luck with the dead ones.
There's only ONE for whom the outcome is going to CHANGE the nature of the situation and the *functioning democratic republic* we're in, and it isn't a guy who isn't the president anymore.
I call it cowardice to attempt to dissuade the very SERIOUS nature of this topic to someone who isn't the focus of these transgressions. Again i say get all of them for what needs to be done, through rigmarole of law that is there to protect the POPULACE and NOT only the ruling party.

PRROOOOOVE IT.

Its been already proven.

Corneliu's dedication to defending Shrub against Reality has earned him the status of Bushevik Fluffer.
Do you mean "fluffer" as in those neat movies with the terrible plots and disco-wah music?
That too would be embarassing, since he wouldn't even get much real action, he'd just get to sit and watch after a few strokes. And i imagine the pay pales in comparison, in every respect.

When exactly would this investigation take place? After we get rid of all the terrorists?

Congress has to authorize an impeachment investigation.

Its been already proven.

So where's the proof Comrade? Or are you just blowing it out your Bushevik ass again par for the course?

Its been already proven.
Not by you it hasn't.
All you do is say bullsh*t in a variety of disingenuous forms and then expect your insistence to work like Bush's propaganda. The same thing you've surrendered your intellectual integrity to.
What do you think "prove" means?
Does someone have to draw maps for you? Seriously, you're a sinkhole.

EDIT:
"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 in Rochester, NY

Congress has to authorize an impeachment investigation.
Again with the blatant incapacity to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. True to form.

As well, you're REALLY racking 'em up.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294184&postcount=106

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294226&postcount=113

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294230&postcount=115

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294233&postcount=116

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294240&postcount=118

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294297&postcount=133

Not by you it hasn't.
All you do is say bullsh*t in a variety of disingenuous forms and then expect your insistence to work like Bush's propaganda. The same thing you've surrendered your intellectual integrity to.
What do you think "prove" means?
Does someone have to draw maps for you? Seriously, you're a sinkhole.

He's a fine example of what a Bushevik is.

Again with the blatant incapacity to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. True to form.

As well, you're REALLY racking 'em up.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294184&postcount=106

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294226&postcount=113

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294230&postcount=115

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294233&postcount=116

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294240&postcount=118

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294297&postcount=133

Well, at least it's become blatently obvious that no further use is going to come of this thread and I can stop checking it and check more important threads...like the pics thread :-p

Now I consider myself a Republican (because I agree with more of what they do, as opposed to the Dems.), but is anyone hear thinking! Who takes over if Bush is impeached? You think Bush is a warmonger look at the Neo-Nazi we have for a VP. Honestly you guys seem smart enough to realize this. Also, you guys are giving Bush way to much credit, lets be frank he's an idiot! Most (if not all) of the policy's he implaments are thought up other smarter "lobbyists" who are filling his, and Senators/Reps. from both parties' pockets!

Another thing which intrigues me is why on Earth the Pres. couldn't go to the court to get the warrents he needed? Why was it so important? Or, more ominously is there something we dont know about who's wires were tapped?

NS General may well be the last bastion of folks still seeking or expecting the impeachment of George W. Bush. It aint gonna happen, and you all are just getting yourselves worked up in a lather over nothing. You guys have been plotting Bush's demise for six years now, and guess what. It hasn't happened. You can niggle over fine points of Constitutional law, looking for loopholes you can exploit until you're blue in the face. He has not done anything impeachable yet, and probably never will. Hey, here's something you guys have never tried....... try coming up with policies or ideas that will move this country forward instead of indulging yourselves in infantile displays of impotent rage, and endless bouts of character assassination and endlessly digging up the newest set of fraudulent or trumped up charges.

I ran across this and I just had to contribute it. http://www.counterbias.com/527.html
This is pre-9/11 spying on Americans. Now I am absolutely positive this didn't fall under the "war powers" Congress granted Bush, because it happened before the "war" even started.

NS General may well be the last bastion of folks still seeking or expecting the impeachment of George W. Bush. It aint gonna happen, and you all are just getting yourselves worked up in a lather over nothing. You guys have been plotting Bush's demise for six years now, and guess what. It hasn't happened. You can niggle over fine points of Constitutional law, looking for loopholes you can exploit until you're blue in the face. He has not done anything impeachable yet, and probably never will. Hey, here's something you guys have never tried....... try coming up with policies or ideas that will move this country forward instead of indulging yourselves in infantile displays of impotent rage, and endless bouts of character assassination and endlessly digging up the newest set of fraudulent or trumped up charges.

Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it. I want my brain to be so fried that I actually believe that crap, because honestly, I'm tired of being so enraged over what our government is doing and how many people not only allow it, but support it.

Well, at least it's become blatently obvious that no further use is going to come of this thread and I can stop checking it and check more important threads...like the pics thread :-p
Hey, me too! I went over to the "Would you hit that?" thread. And i'm watching History Channel. And stokin' the fire.

EDIT:
Also, it emphasizes why i bestowed the nickname for Corny:

The Great Southern Threadkill.

Hey, me too! I went over to the "Would you hit that?" thread. And i'm watching History Channel. And stokin' the fire.

Hey, now that's a quality thread...debating the merits of sex with various soul stealing demons. Can't beat that ;-)

Hey, now that's a quality thread...debating the merits of sex with various soul stealing demons. Can't beat that ;-)
Well, it's good to keep a rounded perspective ... i can't imagine what kind of blithering, incompetent moron i would be if i were TRULY thinking there was some veracity from Corneliu or any of the other Bushevik Fluffers that come on here, late as they do.

Well, it's good to keep a rounded perspective ... i can't imagine what kind of blithering, incompetent moron i would be if i were TRULY thinking there was some veracity from Corneliu or any of the other Bushevik Fluffers that come on here, late as they do.

Sorry 'bout that. Some of us have to work for a living and can't spend evey waking moment sitting in front of the computer typing out preachy little messages to the choir.

I ran across this and I just had to contribute it. http://www.counterbias.com/527.html
This is pre-9/11 spying on Americans. Now I am absolutely positive this didn't fall under the "war powers" Congress granted Bush, because it happened before the "war" even started.
For what it's worth, i'd say the thread very clearly is in your favour.
*bows*




What sets this type of operation apart from the unprecedented covert domestic spying activities the NSA had been conducting after 9/11 is a top secret executive order signed by President Bush in 2002 authorizing the NSA to target specific American citizens. Prior to 9/11, American citizens were the subject of non-specific surveillance by the NSA that was condoned and approved by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, according to former NSA and counterterrorism officials.

So now it's the Fluffers' turn.

NS General may well be the last bastion of folks still seeking or expecting the impeachment of George W. Bush. It aint gonna happen, and you all are just getting yourselves worked up in a lather over nothing. You guys have been plotting Bush's demise for six years now, and guess what. It hasn't happened. You can niggle over fine points of Constitutional law, looking for loopholes you can exploit until you're blue in the face. He has not done anything impeachable yet, and probably never will. Hey, here's something you guys have never tried....... try coming up with policies or ideas that will move this country forward instead of indulging yourselves in infantile displays of impotent rage, and endless bouts of character assassination and endlessly digging up the newest set of fraudulent or trumped up charges.Well, if you'd actually read the opening post (you can read, can't you?), you'd have noticed that I am certainly not expecting the impeachment of George W. Bush, even though the news article I quoted (published in a reliably right wing paper) claims he's worried about it.

But as to whether or not he deserves it, well, we don't have to "niggle over fine points of Constitutional law, looking for loopholes to exploit" to do that. After all, it's not like we're accusing him of having gotten a blowjob in the Oval Office. We're only accusing him of what he's admitted to--authorizing a program of domestic warrantless wiretapping in direct violation of the 1978 FISA statute. In fact, there was an attempt by Mike DeWine to insert a similar provision into the FISA statute, one that would reduce the governmental burden from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion," and yet the administration argued against it because they said it would be unconstitutional. You can read more about it here (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-new-fisa-defense-is.html).

Sorry 'bout that. Some of us have to work for a living and can't spend evey waking moment sitting in front of the computer typing out preachy little messages to the choir.
Or wiping their smarmy little ignorant faces up with factual consistency, you mean?

Or wiping their smarmy little ignorant faces up with factual consistency, you mean?

Ideas. Got one? We already know you personally have enough venom to eradicate a mid-sized American city. Sarcasm you got. But do you have any ideas to make the world a better place that does not involve buliding up your own self worth by tearing down somebody else?

Yeah.

I thought so.

Well, if you'd actually read the opening post (you can read, can't you?), you'd have noticed that I am certainly not expecting the impeachment of George W. Bush, even though the news article I quoted (published in a reliably right wing paper) claims he's worried about it.

But as to whether or not he deserves it, well, we don't have to "niggle over fine points of Constitutional law, looking for loopholes to exploit" to do that. After all, it's not like we're accusing him of having gotten a blowjob in the Oval Office. We're only accusing him of what he's admitted to--authorizing a program of domestic warrantless wiretapping in direct violation of the 1978 FISA statute. In fact, there was an attempt by Mike DeWine to insert a similar provision into the FISA statute, one that would reduce the governmental burden from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion," and yet the administration argued against it because they said it would be unconstitutional. You can read more about it here (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-new-fisa-defense-is.html).

I fear you'll have to repeat yourself quite a bit. Busheviks are notorious for having the same comprehension skills as Bush, as evidenced by his vexing by that tumultous prose, My Pet Goat. You can tell he needed to think hard to inculcate the moral of that story ... something like seven or eight minutes for it to finally sink in!

Ideas. Got one? We already know you personally have enough venom to eradicate a mid-sized American city. Sarcasm you got. But do you have any ideas to make the world a better place that does not involve buliding up your own self worth by tearing down somebody else?

Yeah.

I thought so.
Are you thinking you have me zinged in one post that didn't even have a response? Mein gott you're full of yourself.
It would be different if you'd BOTHERED WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.
That would easily have been evident by an EDIT notice at the bottom (like the one on this post ;) )
But no, you're in clear step with the kind of ignorance espoused by the Bushevik Fluffers, by clearly stating something out loud and concluding it's good WITHOUT response or criticism at all! Certainly, the administration's got a job for you.
So the job that was keeping you from here is wasting your time if it isn't with them. Fly to your destiny, don't be held down by the incessant-factually-oriented crowd ... they'll just piss on your candle.

EDIT: We already know you personally have enough venom to eradicate a mid-sized American city.

Hey, thanks! That's one of the better things i've gotten all year!

Ideas. Got one?
We're not all cut out to be dreamers, pal, which is one of the key differences between you and me. I'm dealing with the facts. You're carrying the dream of the republican party.

Are you thinking you have me zinged in one post that didn't even have a response? Mein gott you're full of yourself.
It would be different if you'd BOTHERED WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.
That would easily have been evident by an EDIT notice at the bottom (like the one on this post ;) )
But no, you're in clear step with the kind of ignorance espoused by the Bushevik Fluffers, by clearly stating something out loud and concluding it's good WITHOUT response or criticism at all! Certainly, the administration's got a job for you.
So the job that was keeping you from here is wasting your time if it isn't with them. Fly to your destiny, don't be held down by the incessant-factually-oriented crowd ... they'll just piss on your candle.

EDIT: We already know you personally have enough venom to eradicate a mid-sized American city.

I grow weary of the endless attempts to come up with something else they can raise the issue of impeachment over. So far there has been lots of smoke, but no fire. Let's see if you can focus long enough to come up with an example of why he should be impeached. One. The whole thread title was vague and ephemeral to begin with. Do you have something in particular you are referring to?

Hey, thanks! That's one of the better things i've gotten all year!

I grow weary of the endless attempts to come up with something else they can raise the issue of impeachment over. So far there has been lots of smoke, but no fire. Let's see if you can focus long enough to come up with an example of why he should be impeached. One. The whole thread title was vague and ephemeral to begin with. Do you have something in particular you are referring to?

I grow weary of the endless attempts to come up with something else they can raise the issue of impeachment over. So far there has been lots of smoke, but no fire. Let's see if you can focus long enough to come up with an example of why he should be impeached. One. The whole thread title was vague and ephemeral to begin with. Do you have something in particular you are referring to?

They'll bring up the so called illegal wiretapping.

I grow weary of the endless attempts to come up with something else they can raise the issue of impeachment over. So far there has been lots of smoke, but no fire. Let's see if you can focus long enough to come up with an example of why he should be impeached. One. The whole thread title was vague and ephemeral to begin with. Do you have something in particular you are referring to?

One? You only want one? Promise? He illegally spied on American citizens and admitted to it. Even if we completely ignore everything else, THAT is impeachable.

One? You only want one? Promise? He illegally spied on American citizens and admitted to it. Even if we completely ignore everything else, THAT is impeachable.

I'm waiting on the investigation as to wether or not IT WAS illegal.

I'm waiting on the investigation as to wether or not IT WAS illegal.

You know what? So am I. 50 bucks says it never happens. (And even if there isn't a specific law against it, it is flagrantly unconstitutional...everything has to be done once before they'll make a law against it.)

One? You only want one? Promise? He illegally spied on American citizens and admitted to it. Even if we completely ignore everything else, THAT is impeachable.

Covered under presidential war powers. Like it or not, we as a nation have not bothered to have a declared state of war for over fifty years. But we are at war. The wiretaps were made of overseas phone calls only, to suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations. Wonder why this never came up when Clinton approved illegal wiretaps during his administration? 4 out of the last 5 presidents authorized wiretaps against private citizens. Why is this an issue only now?

I grow weary of the endless attempts to come up with something else they can raise the issue of impeachment over. So far there has been lots of smoke, but no fire. Let's see if you can focus long enough to come up with an example of why he should be impeached. One. The whole thread title was vague and ephemeral to begin with. Do you have something in particular you are referring to?
I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to you, and your postcount, that you've ALREADY seen plenty of reasons, INCLUDING one's i've posted, not JUST IN THIS THREAD. I don't owe you sloppy ninths. Get back to me if you bother to do any work about it.
There's a lot of smoke - a very late response to the issues that have been up for the people who've been paying attention all along. You must not like being so completely and utterly oblivious until now about the situation, or something, so YOU say that there hasn't been anything to make a deal about.
Either that, or, you either don't know how to interpret facts, or, simply, you're a liar.
If you want something, dig it up by topic in the archives. And if that's too much WORK, use my name in the Forum search and read it per topic. As i'd said, get back to me if you bother to do any work about it.

They'll bring up the so called illegal wiretapping.
Corny, are you DEFENDING me? :eek:
Aw, my black, perforated heart is all a-twiddle!
Someone gets a :fluffle: !!!
I hope you don't mind me using this post as a reference in later threads.

If there's one small hope we can cling to, it's that Secret Service agents will loathe being assigned to protect Shrub after he leaves office. For a damn good reason.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to you, and your postcount, that you've ALREADY seen plenty of reasons, INCLUDING one's i've posted, not JUST IN THIS THREAD. I don't owe you sloppy ninths. Get back to me if you bother to do any work about it.
There's a lot of smoke - a very late response to the issues that have been up for the people who've been paying attention all along. You must not like being so completely and utterly oblivious until now about the situation, or something, so YOU say that there hasn't been anything to make a deal about.
Either that, or, you either don't know how to interpret facts, or, simply, you're a liar.
If you want something, dig it up by topic in the archives. And if that's too much WORK, use my name in the Forum search and read it per topic. As i'd said, get back to me if you bother to do any work about it.

Haughty. Very haughty indeed. Arrogance personified. So you don't owe me an example, I don't owe you an explanation either. Have fun. You may go back to your regularly scheduled Bush bashing. Sorry to interrupt your demogoguery.

Covered under presidential war powers.
Not according to Congress. That's what's going on RIGHT NOW. Pay attention.
Like it or not, we as a nation have not bothered to have a declared state of war for over fifty years.
Like it or not, we never STOPPED being "at war" with North Korea.
The wiretaps were made of overseas phone calls only, to suspected terrorists or terrorist organization.Explain the Pizza Hut reference then. Pay attention.

Innocent until proven guilty.

The phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Just because someone hasn't been proven guilty doesn't mean they're innocent - it just means that the justice system assumes they are with regards to punishment. Speaking of which, it seems more lacking in the investigation of suspected - well, not even suspected terrorists - than in the discussion of whether to impeach President Bush for wiretapping.

But let's be honest - Bush isn't doing this because he's lazy. Or even because it's necessary. The word is precedent. As Corneliu has demonstrated, once something has been done, it's much easier to get away with it in the future. The Third Reich wasn't built in a day.

I actually find the discussion of whether or not Bush will be impeached much less interesting than the possibilities of where these precedents will lead this country. I find the possibility of a "Jesusland" rather remote, but the precedents set here can be used by any ruling party, "Liberal" or "Conservative."

On the topic of secession, every country has laws against treason and sedition. But when the incumbent government loses, the former traitors become patriots, heros, and revolutionaries. If the incumbent government wins, it's secession. Victor's justice.

Haughty. Very haughty indeed. Arrogance personified. So you don't owe me an example, I don't owe you an explanation either. Have fun. You may go back to your regularly scheduled Bush bashing. Sorry to interrupt your demogoguery.
Well you thought you had something there, especially after "showing me up" with that awesome display of self - response, this one here ... V

Originally Posted by Myotisinia
Ideas. Got one? We already know you personally have enough venom to eradicate a mid-sized American city. Sarcasm you got. But do you have any ideas to make the world a better place that does not involve buliding up your own self worth by tearing down somebody else?

Yeah.

I thought so.

^

So you're gonna pontificate about arrogance? How rich is that?
Oh yeah, f*ck the idea that the integrity and continuity of this thread/topic is at your beck and call. That also, indeed, is a shining example of arrogance.
You may go back to your regularly scheduled Bush bashing.
Also a shining case of lack of wherewithal. As i'd said, it's already there, you're just professing your comfort with your own ignorance. Oh well.

Not according to Congress. That's what's going on RIGHT NOW. Pay attention.

Like it or not, we never STOPPED being "at war" with North Korea.
Explain the Pizza Hut reference then. Pay attention.

President Bush admitted today that he authorized the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency to listen to telephone calls to and from restaurants that serve pizza. "We must keep our nation free from future terrorist attacks," argued the President, "and we have irrefutable evidence that two of the 9-11 terrorists ate pizza three days before that dark day in our nation's history."

Reaching a bit, granted. But impeachable? Ha. Not really. Is not the president empowered to investigate suspected terrorists? It wouldn't make any difference if he was wiretapping Long John Silver's. You go where the trail leads you.

1. The options of this have been discussed before on Nationstates, President Bush gets impeached out of office, you get President Cheney, he names a Vice President,
who runs for President in 2008.

2. President bush is impeached out of office, you get President Cheney, he names a Vice President, Cheney resigns for health reasons, the Vice President becomes President who names a Vice President, they have time to prove themselves, they run for President and Vice President in 2008 and Republicans win.

You impeach President Bush and no matter how on popular Bush is you get a republican backlash in 2008 and Republicans win.

Just like if we Republicans had impeached Clinton, we would have faced a backlash and a Democrat would have won.

Well you thought you had something there, especially after "showing me up" with that awesome display of self - response, this one here ... V



^

So you're gonna pontificate about arrogance? How rich is that?
Oh yeah, f*ck the idea that the integrity and continuity of this thread/topic is at your beck and call. That also, indeed, is a shining example of arrogance.
You may go back to your regularly scheduled Bush bashing.
Also a shining case of lack of wherewithal. As i'd said, it's already there, you're just professing your comfort with your own ignorance. Oh well.

You're sounding more and more shrill by the second. Come on. Small breaths. You can do it. A major stroke isn't worth it. All I asked for was one example. And you were completely unable to do so without resorting to name calling and insulting rhetoric.

See? Just smoke.

*poof*

You impeach President Bush and no matter how on popular Bush is you get a republican backlash in 2008 and Republicans win.

And so why wouldn't you want Bush impeached then, seeing as you're partisan to begin with?

Just like if we Republicans had impeached Clinton, we would have faced a backlash and a Democrat would have won.

News flash. Clinton WAS impeached.

And so why wouldn't you want Bush impeached then, seeing as you're partisan to begin with?



News flash. Clinton WAS impeached.

And, he served out his full term. Kind of pointless, wasn't it?

President Bush admitted today that he authorized the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency to listen to telephone calls to and from restaurants that serve pizza. "We must keep our nation free from future terrorist attacks," argued the President, "and we have irrefutable evidence that two of the 9-11 terrorists ate pizza three days before that dark day in our nation's history."

Reaching a bit, granted. But impeachable? Ha. Not really. Is not the president empowered to investigate suspected terrorists? I wouldn't make any difference if he was wiretapping Long John Silver's. You go where the trail leads you.
Well, i'll give you props for looking up info.
I wasn't referring to that line from him, i was referring to the line i'd presented earlier in the thread about the NSA people bitching.

Moreover ...

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.


"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

...

But, along with several British counterterrorism officials, some of the officials questioned assertions by the Bush administration that the program was the key to uncovering a plot to detonate fertilizer bombs in London in 2004. The F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials also expressed doubts about the importance of the program's role in another case named by administration officials as a success in the fight against terrorism, an aborted scheme to topple the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch.


Some officials said that in both cases, they had already learned of the plans through interrogation of prisoners or other means.


Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration pressed the nation's intelligence agencies and the F.B.I. to move urgently to thwart any more plots. The N.S.A., whose mission is to spy overseas, began monitoring the international e-mail messages and phone calls of people inside the United States who were linked, even indirectly, to suspected Qaeda figures.

Now, the reason why i put the info up about Pizza Hut was specifically it's involvement with this information. I posted it as a response to Corneliu's erroneous post about it all being international.
EDIT: And i'd like to thank a Bushevik Fluffer for disproving another Bushevik Fluffer for the bolded part of your post.

You're sounding more and more shrill by the second. Come on. Small breaths. You can do it. A major stroke isn't worth it. All I asked for was one example. And you were completely unable to do so without resorting to name calling and insulting rhetoric.

See? Just smoke.

*poof*
Heh.
No insinuation. I noticed you've nary swayed from the comfort of this thread, with the MINIMAL exception of the Pizza Hut thing.
The examples are ALREADY on this thread. And the Forum archives.
When you want to talk like you're a big boy, go ahead and do what i mentioned earlier so i don't waste both of ours' time.

EDIT: Cajole that. I ain't holding your hand from here out:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10294369&postcount=153

-----------

The phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Just because someone hasn't been proven guilty doesn't mean they're innocent - it just means that the justice system assumes they are with regards to punishment. Speaking of which, it seems more lacking in the investigation of suspected - well, not even suspected terrorists - than in the discussion of whether to impeach President Bush for wiretapping.

But let's be honest - Bush isn't doing this because he's lazy. Or even because it's necessary. The word is precedent. As Corneliu has demonstrated, once something has been done, it's much easier to get away with it in the future. The Third Reich wasn't built in a day.

I actually find the discussion of whether or not Bush will be impeached much less interesting than the possibilities of where these precedents will lead this country. I find the possibility of a "Jesusland" rather remote, but the precedents set here can be used by any ruling party, "Liberal" or "Conservative."

On the topic of secession, every country has laws against treason and sedition. But when the incumbent government loses, the former traitors become patriots, heros, and revolutionaries. If the incumbent government wins, it's secession. Victor's justice.
First post? Wow. *bows*
Welcome to NS, under the assumption you're not a p/muppet.

And so why wouldn't you want Bush impeached then, seeing as you're partisan to begin with?


News flash. Clinton WAS impeached.

But not out of office, what I would have loved, like democrats would love of Bush.

1. The options of this have been discussed before on Nationstates, President Bush gets impeached out of office, you get President Cheney, he names a Vice President,
who runs for President in 2008.

2. President bush is impeached out of office, you get President Cheney, he names a Vice President, Cheney resigns for health reasons, the Vice President becomes President who names a Vice President, they have time to prove themselves, they run for President and Vice President in 2008 and Republicans win.

option 3. you impeach or otherwise remove from power everyone associated with the suspension of habeas corpus, the violation of human rights, the use of torture, the operation of secret detention centers in former gulag facilities, the arbitrary arrest and deportation of immigrants, domestic spying, war crimes, secretly paying for propaganda from non-government sources, money laundering, election fraud, bribery, lying, and all of the other shit they've been caught fucking red-handed doing. then we set up a truth and reconciliation commission to get to the bottom of things, find out the true extent of the damage, and figure out who needs to be punished further.

and option 4. the legalistic route being blocked by cronies of the criminals, we have a bit of a "people's impeachment" at a conveniently located gas station in dc.

You impeach President Bush and no matter how on popular Bush is you get a republican backlash in 2008 and Republicans win.

Just like if we Republicans had impeached Clinton, we would have faced a backlash and a Democrat would have won.

wouldn't a key prerequisite for a backlash be that a majority of people be opposed to that impeachment? or in your universe do a significant number of people who call for something backlash against it when they get what they want?

option 3. you impeach or otherwise remove from power everyone associated with the suspension of habeas corpus, the violation of human rights, the use of torture, the operation of secret detention centers in former gulag facilities, the arbitrary arrest and deportation of immigrants, domestic spying, war crimes, secretly paying for propaganda from non-government sources, money laundering, election fraud, bribery, lying, and all of the other shit they've been caught fucking red-handed doing. then we set up a truth and reconciliation commission to get to the bottom of things, find out the true extent of the damage, and figure out who needs to be punished further.
Classic. *bows*
So good it bears repeating, now!

Okay, this is a very much "consider the source" piece--this comes from the Washington (read:Moonie) Times Insight magazine (http://www.insightmag.com/), and it's behind a subscription wall so I can't get to the whole thing--my school's Lexis/Nexis server is mysteriously down. Here it is, with my commentary to follow:



Now I'm of two minds about this. I certainly believe Bush deserves it--I thought he deserved it before the 2004 elections because of the lies he told about the Iraq WMD intelligence--anad the latest NSA stuff only furthers that belief.

But I don't buy this article that Bush is sweating it, for one simple reason--the Republican House leadership would have to get on board for anything to come to the floor, and even though DeLay is gone, that ain't gonna happen. I have doubts that it would happen if we had a Speaker named Nancy Pelosi, but under Hastert? I've got a better chance at taking the bronze in rhythmic gymnastics at the next Olympics (even though I'm fabulous with the ribbon). It wold take a meltdown of epic proportions, with millions of protestors on Pennsylvania Avenue chanting that Bush either gets impeached or he'll be dragged out into the street by his ankles for this Congress to do something about it.

But it is a pretty picture to imagine--the impeachment, not the ankles thing. :D

oh, so much is wrong with this.
First, why would his own party try to impeach Bush?
Second, why would the Dems let that happen? Would they rather have Dick Cheney running the show out right?

Second, why would the Dems let that happen? Would they rather have Dick Cheney running the show out right?
Cheney is merely flight turbulence away from a heart attack or an unpleasant variety of fatal consequences for his less-than-decent living. I'd say those are good odds. And as other threads have noted, it's fairly obvious that Bush isn't running the show in the first place.

Cheney is merely flight turbulence away from a heart attack or an unpleasant variety of fatal consequences for his less-than-decent living. I'd say those are good odds. And as other threads have noted, it's fairly obvious that Bush isn't running the show in the first place.

So Cheney is president just long enough to name his successor (the replacement VP) and the push all the big red buttons??? I still don't see the crazy congressional dems (even Pelosi's bitch ass) allowing that to happen.

So Cheney is president just long enough to name his successor (the replacement VP) and the push all the big red buttons??? I still don't see the crazy congressional dems (even Pelosi's bitch ass) allowing that to happen.
We've already gotten the "Pre-emptive Strike" policy on the books, the trick isn't about blowing everyone up, it's about blowing up the people who have enough forces (physical, military, political) to come against the corporations who are getting the angle on the resources. I'd say that's feasible. Besides, he doesn't have to name anyone, there's already a *HUGE* line of who's after whom ... and that line currently sucks. Punch up Ted "The Hulk/Where's My Antidepressants" Stevens as pro temp (sp?). The guy is a bellicose wacko. And he's a clinger.

We've already gotten the "Pre-emptive Strike" policy on the books, the trick isn't about blowing everyone up, it's about blowing up the people who have enough forces (physical, military, political) to come against the corporations who are getting the angle on the resources. I'd say that's feasible. Besides, he doesn't have to name anyone, there's already a *HUGE* line of who's after whom ... and that line currently sucks. Punch up Ted "The Hulk/Where's My Antidepressants" Stevens as pro temp (sp?). The guy is a bellicose wacko. And he's a clinger.
bottomline, as bad a Dems see Bush, do you really think they would rather have Cheney? He could do more damage to the Democratic platform in 72 hours than Bush has done in 6 years.

bottomline, as bad a Dems see Bush, do you really think they would rather have Cheney? He could do more damage to the Democratic platform in 72 hours than Bush has done in 6 years.
Nah, that's smoke. As i'd said, there isn't a turn Bush takes without having Cheney's shadow to fall into. The 9/11 Commission wasn't even the first indication of it, it was merely the most obvious one after Bush "became" "president". "Torquemada" "What energy policy?" Cheney couldn't even get a website right in front of the American people.
http://www.factcheck.org
AND, even though he's much better and smarter at this f*cked up game, he still isn't climbing out of this mess and pinning it on the dems. Even that fat arsehole Rove can't do it.

EDIT: I apologize, i should directly answer your first part. I don't think there's ANYONE in the admin that the dems really want there, not to be obvious. But i think MANY of them are sick of the f*cking "sore-winner" attitude that those motherf*ckers have been beating the dems with since they got in. I think Jon Stewart put it MOST excellently yesterday on his interview with Fred Barnes. So the king is dead, long live the new king. In fact, the more Cheney'd attempt, the quicker the pissed off populace is going to deal with it. There's no illusion of an appreciable personality with Cheney like there is with Bush, however farcicle it may be.

Welcome to the real world.
My irony detector just blew all of it's fuses and melted...

You're sounding more and more shrill by the second. Come on. Small breaths. You can do it. A major stroke isn't worth it. All I asked for was one example. And you were completely unable to do so without resorting to name calling and insulting rhetoric.

See? Just smoke.

*poof*

Is it that fun to completely ignore the answers to your questions? War powers does not equal unlimited authority, and refusing to get a warrant to wiretap american citizens (which the wiretapping isn't illegal, doing it without a warrant is) answers your question quite nicely. Unless you think maybe we should just wiretap everybody, in case they have (heaven forbid) OPINIONS, then we can take the subversives to overseas prisons in the middle of the night and just let them rot without ever charging them with anything. We're almost there.

First post? Wow. *bows*
Welcome to NS, under the assumption you're not a p/muppet.

Nope, not a puppet. *g*

Though I was a little bemused by the fact that my first post was also the first post on page 13. . .

Thanks for the welcome :)

But not out of office, what I would have loved, like democrats would love of Bush.

See that's funny, as Clinton REALLY didn't do anything impeachable, as the trial showed. See, this is how things work. The House draws up impeachment charges, the Senate holds a trial, and then guilt is determined. Impeachment charges were drawn up on Clinton for lying about a blowjob while they aren't being drawn up on Bush for blowing off his oath to uphold the Constitution.

You know what? So am I. 50 bucks says it never happens. (And even if there isn't a specific law against it, it is flagrantly unconstitutional...everything has to be done once before they'll make a law against it.)

So since an investigation probably won't happen, then, by law, you cannot impeach the President of the United States.

I think that was his point - that he won't be impeached because an investigation probably won't happen. Nevertheless, while it's a good legal defense, it's a flimsy character defense. And, since this discussion has absolutely no legal ramifications, the only questions on our part are speculative. Thus, SHOULD an investigation be carried out, WHAT would it's ramifications be, etc., etc. Whether he's done anything impeachable is relevant to the argument, but saying "He shouldn't be investigated/tried because there's no evidence" is strictly circular reasoning, since the trial itself is what brings evidence to light.

I think that was his point - that he won't be impeached because an investigation probably won't happen. Nevertheless, while it's a good legal defense, it's a flimsy character defense. And, since this discussion has absolutely no legal ramifications, the only questions on our part are speculative. Thus, SHOULD an investigation be carried out, WHAT would it's ramifications be, etc., etc. Whether he's done anything impeachable is relevant to the argument, but saying "He shouldn't be investigated/tried because there's no evidence" is strictly circular reasoning, since the trial itself is what brings evidence to light.

Exactly.

Is it that fun to completely ignore the answers to your questions? War powers does not equal unlimited authority, and refusing to get a warrant to wiretap american citizens (which the wiretapping isn't illegal, doing it without a warrant is) answers your question quite nicely. Unless you think maybe we should just wiretap everybody, in case they have (heaven forbid) OPINIONS, then we can take the subversives to overseas prisons in the middle of the night and just let them rot without ever charging them with anything. We're almost there.

If you don't have anything to hide, then the fact you are being wiretapped becomes sort of superflurous. If the government wants to wiretap me, let them. The only people that have anything to fear from a wiretap are criminals and terrorists. For me, the issue just provides a shrill talking focal point.

If you don't have anything to hide, then the fact you are being wiretapped becomes sort of superflurous. If the government wants to wiretap me, let them. The only people that have anything to fear from a wiretap are criminals and terrorists. For me, the issue just provides a shrill talking focal point.
You sure about that? You have that much faith in government not to make a mistake, or worse, target you because you're the wrong, oh, faith, or party, for instance? I don't. But that's because I know history, and I know better.

On those grounds, we'd better do away with the amendment on Search and Seizure entirely, since if you have nothing to hide it's not going to hurt you to have police search your homes, and if you're a criminal it doesn't matter. I myself am not worried that the government might have been listening in on my conversations because I think I'll be arrested, but rather about the seizures of power. I'm reminded of a story in which a fox (or other sort of animal, I can't remember) is running through the woods, panicking, saying, "They're killing all the wolves (or maybe it was another animal), they're killing all the wolves!" He meets a moose (or perhaps it wasn't a moose) who asks him what he's worried about, since he's not a wolf. The fox replies, "Yes, but what happens when they decide I am one?"

The point being, no system is perfect. Yes, we should take measures to defend ourselves from terrorists. That goes without saying. However, giving the government blanket permission to prosecute criminals of all sort to the fullest extent with all tools at their disposal, and not forbidding any becomes dangerous when the government decides to turn those abilities on anyone it deems inconvenient, or threatening to itself, such as those who would wish to check it's power. It's all well and good to give the perfect human absolute power, but even if such a man could be found, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why the safeguards of the constitution were put in there in the first place - because the authors weren't living in a dream world where people didn't make mistakes. But I'm rambling now.

If you don't have anything to hide, then the fact you are being wiretapped becomes sort of superflurous. If the government wants to wiretap me, let them. The only people that have anything to fear from a wiretap are criminals and terrorists. For me, the issue just provides a shrill talking focal point.

Wow, that's amazingly trusting of you. You are now assuming that if the government had complete access to your telephone calls and your personal property, people wouldn't start disappearing because they happened to disagree with the government. Let's see...dictatorship is good and communism is a completely workable system? Since we're being so trusting and all.

If you don't have anything to hide, then the fact you are being wiretapped becomes sort of superflurous. If the government wants to wiretap me, let them. The only people that have anything to fear from a wiretap are criminals and terrorists. For me, the issue just provides a shrill talking focal point.

one minor positive about all of this is that it has exposed rightwingers as the shameless authoritarians and state-lovers that they have recently pretended not to be.

one minor positive about all of this is that it has exposed rightwingers as the shameless authoritarians and state-lovers that they have recently pretended not to be.

So what happened to all the "small government" republicans we used to have?

So what happened to all the "small government" republicans we used to have?
They got into power and discovered that if government really is small, there's nothing in it for them.

They got into power and discovered that if government really is small, there's nothing in it for them.

lol I suppose that would do it.

lol I suppose that would do it.
That's why it's so rare for government to actually get smaller--a smaller government means less pork to hand out. A friend of mine from college put it this way: "the problem with being in congress is that all the good laws got written a long time ago, but you've still got the job, so you've got to do something to justify your existence."

That's why it's so rare for government to actually get smaller--a smaller government means less pork to hand out. A friend of mine from college put it this way: "the problem with being in congress is that all the good laws got written a long time ago, but you've still got the job, so you've got to do something to justify your existence."

No, there is still one good law that remains to be written. Politicians will never write it because they would all subsequently be executed, but serial stupidity should be a capital crime.

So what happened to all the "small government" republicans we used to have?

they got elected

They got into power and discovered that if government really is small, there's nothing in it for them.

and that's if we assume them to have originally been truthful about their desire for reducing government.

all the evidence i've seen leads me to conclude otherwise.

and that's if we assume them to have originally been truthful about their desire for reducing government.

all the evidence i've seen leads me to conclude otherwise.

Come on now, give them the benefit of the doubt. I am certain they wanted the government to be smaller when the democrats were running it.

Come on now, give them the benefit of the doubt. I am certain they wanted the government to be smaller when the democrats were running it.

Nice. :)

They got into power and discovered that if government really is small, there's nothing in it for them.
A-f*cking-men.

Come on now, give them the benefit of the doubt. I am certain they wanted the government to be smaller when the democrats were running it.
ANOTHER a-f*cking-men.

Here's another thing to consider while we're beating this dead horse. At least another angle that has seemed to escape notice by all the learned scholars here.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/631lksqg.asp

Wow, that's amazingly trusting of you. You are now assuming that if the government had complete access to your telephone calls and your personal property, people wouldn't start disappearing because they happened to disagree with the government. Let's see...dictatorship is good and communism is a completely workable system? Since we're being so trusting and all.

And amazingly paranoid of you. This isn't Soviet Russia, last time I checked. We do still have something called due process under the law here in America. Perhaps you've heard of it......?

We do still have something called due process under the law here in America. Perhaps you've heard of it......?

you mean the thing that requires the state to get warrants before conducting wiretaps? and that requires that charges be brought against people before the state can hold them in prison? and that requires that those accused be granted fair trials? are you sure we still have that?

you mean the thing that requires the state to get warrants before conducting wiretaps? and that requires that charges be brought against people before the state can hold them in prison? and that requires that those accused be granted fair trials? are you sure we still have that?

Republicans still do. :)

you mean the thing that requires the state to get warrants before conducting wiretaps? and that requires that charges be brought against people before the state can hold them in prison? and that requires that those accused be granted fair trials? are you sure we still have that?
That was just too easy. I mean, there's setting you up for a spike, and then there's that.

That was just too easy. I mean, there's setting you up for a spike, and then there's that.

i often get the feeling that they are intentionally setting themselves up with the shitty reasoning and the laughable arguments just to see how far clear idiocy will take them.

the answer?
too far.

Here's another thing to consider while we're beating this dead horse. At least another angle that has seemed to escape notice by all the learned scholars here.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/631lksqg.asp
It didn't escape anyone. It's not the point. Apparently the "scholars" you're chiding are people with their eye on the ball, instead of the distracted and distracting. Stick with the point and show some integrity, and don't try to shift the focus. Unless you'd readily concede that you aren't qualified to argue the actual subject matter of this thread. Evidence bends that way so far.
You realize of course, that "breaking the law" is an issue where the administration deems fit to ordain ANYTHING as "classified" or a security issue ... so what normally would be a concise and certain legal issue is now whatever the administration decides is in its best interest to stonewall or trump up.
Speaking of stonewalling .... hmmm. I'll do what you're doing here, see how you like it.

*ahem*

WHITE HOUSE STONEWALLS KATRINA INQUIRY

The White House is crippling a Senate inquiry into the government's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina by barring administration officials from answering questions and failing to hand over documents, senators leading the investigation said Tuesday.

In some cases, staff at the White House and other federal agencies have refused to be interviewed by congressional investigators, said the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In addition, agency officials won't answer seemingly innocuous questions about times and dates of meetings and telephone calls with the White House, the senators said.

A White House spokesman said the administration is committed to working with separate Senate and House investigations of the Katrina response but wants to protect the confidentiality of presidential advisers.

"No one believes that the government responded adequately," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. "And we can't put that story together if people feel they're under a gag order from the White House."

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the committee's Republican chair, said she respects the White House's reluctance to reveal advice to President Bush from his top aides, which is generally covered by executive privilege.

Still, she criticized the dearth of information from agency officials about their contacts with the White House.

"We are entitled to know if someone from the Department of Homeland Security calls someone at the White House during this whole crisis period," Collins said. "So I think the White House has gone too far in restricting basic information about who called whom on what day."

She added, "It is completely inappropriate" for the White House to bar agency officials from talking to the Senate committee.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the administration's deputy homeland security adviser, Ken Rapuano, has briefed House and Senate lawmakers on the federal response. A "lessons learned" report from Homeland Security Adviser Frances Fragos Townsend also is expected in coming weeks, Duffy said.

But he defended the administration's decision to prohibit White House staffers or other presidential advisers from testifying before Congress.

"There is a deliberate process, and the White House has always said it wants to cooperate with the committee but preserve any president's ability to get advice from advisers on a confidential basis," Duffy said. "And that's a critical need for any U.S. president and that is continuing to influence how we cooperate with the committees."

Collins and Lieberman sidestepped questions about whether they plan to subpoena the White House to get the information they seek, though Collins said she does not believe subpoenaing the Homeland Security Department is necessary.

The Senate inquiry is scheduled to conclude in March with a report detailing steps the federal government took - and didn't take - to prepare for the Aug. 29 storm.

Investigators have interviewed about 260 witnesses from federal, state and local governments and the private sector. Additionally, the committee has received an estimated 500,000 documents - including e-mails, memos, supply orders and emergency operation plans - outlining Katrina-related communications among all levels of government.

But Lieberman said the Justice and Health and Human Services departments "have essentially ignored our document requests for months" while HHS has refused to allow interviews of its staff. He described the Homeland Security response as "too little, too late."

Christina Pearson, spokeswoman for Health and Human Services, disputed Liberman's characterization of the agency's response. "We've produced an extensive range of documents in response to the committee's request, well over 40,000 pages," she said. As for witnesses, Pearson was vague. "We're working with them," she said.

Collins offered a rosier view of Homeland Security's cooperation, noting that Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson and department chief of staff John Wood were scheduled to talk to investigators later this week.

A special House committee created to review the government's readiness for Katrina is to release its findings by Feb. 15. Although Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the panel's chairman, earlier considered subpoenaing the White House, the panel backed away after the Rapuano briefing.

The panel ultimately did subpoena the Pentagon for Katrina documents, but one lawmaker, Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., said he believes Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has not handed over enough to fully comply with the legal order.

It didn't escape anyone. It's not the point. Apparently the "scholars" you're chiding are people with their eye on the ball, instead of the distracted and distracting. Stick with the point and show some integrity, and don't try to shift the focus. Unless you'd readily concede that you aren't qualified to argue the actual subject matter of this thread. Evidence bends that way so far.
You realize of course, that "breaking the law" is an issue where the administration deems fit to ordain ANYTHING as "classified" or a security issue ... so what normally would be a concise and certain legal issue is now whatever the administration decides is in its best interest to stonewall or trump up.
Speaking of stonewalling .... hmmm. I'll do what you're doing here, see how you like it.

*ahem*

WHITE HOUSE STONEWALLS KATRINA INQUIRY

The White House is crippling a Senate inquiry into the government's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina by barring administration officials from answering questions and failing to hand over documents, senators leading the investigation said Tuesday.

In some cases, staff at the White House and other federal agencies have refused to be interviewed by congressional investigators, said the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In addition, agency officials won't answer seemingly innocuous questions about times and dates of meetings and telephone calls with the White House, the senators said.

A White House spokesman said the administration is committed to working with separate Senate and House investigations of the Katrina response but wants to protect the confidentiality of presidential advisers.

"No one believes that the government responded adequately," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. "And we can't put that story together if people feel they're under a gag order from the White House."

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the committee's Republican chair, said she respects the White House's reluctance to reveal advice to President Bush from his top aides, which is generally covered by executive privilege.

Still, she criticized the dearth of information from agency officials about their contacts with the White House.

"We are entitled to know if someone from the Department of Homeland Security calls someone at the White House during this whole crisis period," Collins said. "So I think the White House has gone too far in restricting basic information about who called whom on what day."

She added, "It is completely inappropriate" for the White House to bar agency officials from talking to the Senate committee.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the administration's deputy homeland security adviser, Ken Rapuano, has briefed House and Senate lawmakers on the federal response. A "lessons learned" report from Homeland Security Adviser Frances Fragos Townsend also is expected in coming weeks, Duffy said.

But he defended the administration's decision to prohibit White House staffers or other presidential advisers from testifying before Congress.

"There is a deliberate process, and the White House has always said it wants to cooperate with the committee but preserve any president's ability to get advice from advisers on a confidential basis," Duffy said. "And that's a critical need for any U.S. president and that is continuing to influence how we cooperate with the committees."

Collins and Lieberman sidestepped questions about whether they plan to subpoena the White House to get the information they seek, though Collins said she does not believe subpoenaing the Homeland Security Department is necessary.

The Senate inquiry is scheduled to conclude in March with a report detailing steps the federal government took - and didn't take - to prepare for the Aug. 29 storm.

Investigators have interviewed about 260 witnesses from federal, state and local governments and the private sector. Additionally, the committee has received an estimated 500,000 documents - including e-mails, memos, supply orders and emergency operation plans - outlining Katrina-related communications among all levels of government.

But Lieberman said the Justice and Health and Human Services departments "have essentially ignored our document requests for months" while HHS has refused to allow interviews of its staff. He described the Homeland Security response as "too little, too late."

Christina Pearson, spokeswoman for Health and Human Services, disputed Liberman's characterization of the agency's response. "We've produced an extensive range of documents in response to the committee's request, well over 40,000 pages," she said. As for witnesses, Pearson was vague. "We're working with them," she said.

Collins offered a rosier view of Homeland Security's cooperation, noting that Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson and department chief of staff John Wood were scheduled to talk to investigators later this week.

A special House committee created to review the government's readiness for Katrina is to release its findings by Feb. 15. Although Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the panel's chairman, earlier considered subpoenaing the White House, the panel backed away after the Rapuano briefing.

The panel ultimately did subpoena the Pentagon for Katrina documents, but one lawmaker, Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., said he believes Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has not handed over enough to fully comply with the legal order.


I am perfectly willing to discuss anything and everything just as soon as you come up with a specific event an/or offense to comment on. I will not even attempt to discuss each and every "impeachable" offense the Democrats have come up with to attempt to pry Bush out of the White House. That has come up far too often to even think about addressing in such a blanket fashion. Telling me to "look up my posts" rather than actually restating a point is an extremely lazy debate tactic, and is more than a lttle egotistic.

As for the news article you just posted.....

Unfortunately, I agree with you. The Katrina documents should be produced posthaste. There is no vaild reason to stonewall the investigators. Given what has come out since Katrina, I think the Homeland Secrurity chief has many things to answer for. As long as they also investigate Mayor Nagin's actions before and after Katrina regarding hurricane preparedness. He repeatedly ignored recommendations from the Army Corps of Engineers about the state of the levees and how they would most likely fail should a Catagory 4 hurricane strike. He had a very large part in New Orleans's lack of preparedness for that castastrophe. Kathleen Blanco should also have a few questions posed to her as well, regarding how things were handled after the fact.

I am perfectly willing to discuss anything and everything just as soon as you come up with a specific event an/or offense to comment on. I will not even attempt to discuss each and every "impeachable" offense the Democrats have come up with to attempt to pry Bush out of the White House. That has come up far too often to even think about addressing in such a blanket fashion. Telling me to "look up my posts" rather than actually restating a point is an extremely lazy debate tactic, and is more than a lttle egotistic.
It isn't a matter of egotism. It's a matter of how many threads of this nature i've been through and how many f*cking articles and archives i'd feel like retrieving to argue with you when i've put *precisely* as much effort into just to provide facts to the discourse ... and as i'd said, there's already in this thread enough to keep you busy, and therefore it doesn't behoove me to do the work that you should do for yourself. Go ahead and look ONE up, and i'll meet you and show another, tit for tat. Other than that, as i'd said, i don't need to hold your hand.
And frankly, given the very low level of research you've presented, i'm calling dubious your theory on attacking the "impeachable offense" idea of the dems. Seriously, if you have any personal dignity, DON'T try and 'jack this thread into the "But Clinton lied about a BJ". That would essentially finish off any credibility on your part, and you'd be a given caricature of Corneliu. :(



As for the news article you just posted.....

Unfortunately, I agree with you. The Katrina documents should be produced posthaste. There is no vaild reason to stonewall the investigators. Given what has come out since Katrina, I think the Homeland Secrurity chief has many things to answer for. As long as they also investigate Mayor Nagin's actions before and after Katrina regarding hurricane preparedness. He repeatedly ignored recommendations from the Army Corps of Engineers about the state of the levees and how they would most likely fail should a Catagory 4 hurricane strike. He had a very large part in New Orleans's lack of preparedness for that castastrophe. Kathleen Blanco should also have a few questions posed to her as well, regarding how things were handled after the fact.
Well, whaddya know. I agree with you. How is that unfortunate?
You did know of course that the levee depths were shortchanged by at LEAST about 8-12 feet right, even though they'd said they'd done much more work than that?
I'm not particularly a Nagin fan or any of the others in that issue, and i know that Bush himself didn't cause the hurricane, so that's not my angle.
But i DO NOT BELIEVE in the lack of culpability of the administration FOR ANYTHING. The givens are gone and now the hackles are up, and there's no more easy ride. Ever.

*ahem*

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1133336859287360.xml

...
The floodwall on the 17th Street Canal levee was destined to fail long before it reached its maximum design load of 14 feet of water because the Army Corps of Engineers underestimated the weak soil layers 10 to 25 feet below the levee, the state's forensic levee investigation team concluded in a report to be released this week.

That miscalculation was so obvious and fundamental, investigators said, they "could not fathom" how the design team of engineers from the corps, local firm Eustis Engineering and the national firm Modjeski and Masters could have missed what is being termed the costliest engineering mistake in American history.
...
"It's simply beyond me," said Billy Prochaska, a consulting engineer in the forensic group known as Team Louisiana. "This wasn't a complicated problem. This is something the corps, Eustis, and Modjeski and Masters do all the time. Yet everyone missed it -- everyone from the local offices all the way up to Washington."
...
"Using the data we have available from the corps, we did our own calculations on how much water that design could take in these soils before failure," said LSU professor Ivor van Heerden, a team member. "Our research shows it would fail at water levels between 11 and 12 feet -- which is just what happened" in Katrina.


Not deep enough


Several high-level academic and professional investigations have found that the sheet piling used in the design to support the floodwalls was too short for the 18.5-foot depth of the canal. In addition to holding up the concrete "cap" on the walls, the sheet piling is supposed to serve as a barrier preventing the migration of water from the canal through the porous soils to the land side of the levee, an event that rapidly weakens the soils supporting a wall and can cause it to shift substantially.

The corps has long claimed the sheet piling was driven to 17.5 feet deep, but Team Louisiana recently used sophisticated ground sonar to prove it was only 10 feet deep.

Van Heerden said Team Louisiana's latest calculations prove investigators' claims that a depth of 17 feet would have made little difference. He said the team ran the calculations for sheet piles at 17 feet and 16 feet deep, and the wall still would have failed at a load of 11 to 12 feet of water.

Investigators have been puzzled by the corps' design since it was made public in news reports. They said it was obvious the weak soils in the former swampland upon which the canal and levee were built clearly called for sheet piles driven much deeper than the canal bottom. It was not a challenging engineering problem, investigators said.

Prochaska said a rule of thumb is that the length of sheet piling below a canal bottom should be two to three times longer than the length extending above the canal bottom.

"That's if you have uniform soils, and we certainly don't have that in the New Orleans area," he said. "It kind of boggles the mind that they missed this, because it's so basic, and there were so many qualified engineers working on this."


Corps approved design


According to records, Eustis Engineering provided the detailed analyses of the ability of soils along the path of the levee to withstand water pressure once the wall was built on top. The information was provided to Modjeski and Masters, the contractor that designed the wall for the corps. If the project followed normal procedures, the engineers with those firms were using design criteria spelled out in various corps handbooks. "You use the corps cookbook, and you usually have to work it out using corps (computer) programs," Prochaska said.

Private-sector engineering work must be reviewed by corps personnel in relevant sections. In this case, legal documents show, the work was reviewed by engineers in the corps' geotechnical and structural engineering branches, as well as the flood control structures section. It was approved and accepted by the district's chief engineer at the time, Chester Ashley, according to the documents.

Robert Bea, a University of California, Berkeley professor who led a National Science Foundation investigation of the levee failures, said the mistakes made by the engineers on the project were hard to accept because the project was so "straightforward."

"It's hard to understand, because it seemed so simple, and because the failure has become so large," Bea said.

"This is the largest civil engineering disaster in the history of the United States. Nothing has come close to the $300 billion in damages and half-million people out of their homes and the lives lost," he said. "Nothing this big has ever happened before in civil engineering."

------

I didn't bold anything here since it seemed unnecessary.

And amazingly paranoid of you. This isn't Soviet Russia, last time I checked. We do still have something called due process under the law here in America. Perhaps you've heard of it......?

We do? I thought that was removed by the war powers everyone is so fond of citing in explaining all of Bush's "illegal" activities.

We do? I thought that was removed by the war powers everyone is so fond of citing in explaining all of Bush's "illegal" activities.
Doonesbury illustrates this very well with his *series* of cartoons with the catch-all answer, "9/11!"

Doonesbury illustrates this very well with his *series* of cartoons with the catch-all answer, "9/11!"

Because it is obviously common sense that an organized terrorist attack changes the entire face of the planet:rolleyes: Why would I not be paranoid of an administration that does such flagrant fearmongering?

Because it is obviously common sense that an organized terrorist attack changes the entire face of the planet:rolleyes: Why would I not be paranoid of an administration that does such flagrant fearmongering?
At the least, NEVER let it slip, in honour of your country, that this administration very clearly did the wrong thing repeatedly, mercilessly, and in support of corporate/its own interests, at the cost of its populace.

Republicans still do. :)

especially those that control the law enforcement agencies

NS General may well be the last bastion of folks still seeking or expecting the impeachment of George W. Bush. It aint gonna happen, and you all are just getting yourselves worked up in a lather over nothing. You guys have been plotting Bush's demise for six years now, and guess what. It hasn't happened. You can niggle over fine points of Constitutional law, looking for loopholes you can exploit until you're blue in the face. He has not done anything impeachable yet, and probably never will. Hey, here's something you guys have never tried....... try coming up with policies or ideas that will move this country forward instead of indulging yourselves in infantile displays of impotent rage, and endless bouts of character assassination and endlessly digging up the newest set of fraudulent or trumped up charges.

I'm not touching the subject with a ten foot pole, but I'd like to remind you that millions of people(also in America) believe he is a criminal of war still. Even though many europeans such as myself know full well his autocratic administration will never let him be impeached nor tried for war crimes; we still firmly believe he should be. We have the same attitude towards Blair, and indeed(for those of us living in nations that supported the invasion of Iraq) our own governments. That will never change.

one minor positive about all of this is that it has exposed rightwingers as the shameless authoritarians and state-lovers that they have recently pretended not to be.

As opposed to exposing leftwingers who have done the samething? Gotta blame both sides if ya going to blame the government for this.

I'm not touching the subject with a ten foot pole, but I'd like to remind you that millions of people(also in America) believe he is a criminal of war still. Even though many europeans such as myself know full well his autocratic administration will never let him be impeached nor tried for war crimes; we still firmly believe he should be. We have the same attitude towards Blair, and indeed(for those of us living in nations that supported the invasion of Iraq) our own governments. That will never change.

I would love to know what he has done to be considered a war criminal! It is an inaccurate comment to make.

Another thing! He is not an autocratic ruler.

People do need to learn to get a life.

I would love to know what he has done to be considered a war criminal! It is an inaccurate comment to make.

Another thing! He is not an autocratic ruler.

People do need to learn to get a life.


If commiting crimes, during a war, makes you a war-criminal, then hes pretty guilty.

If you were looking for something like "He personally raped and murdered the Jews at Auschwitz" as a standard definition of "a war criminal", then nope...hes scott free!

If commiting crimes, during a war, makes you a war-criminal, then hes pretty guilty.

If you were looking for something like "He personally raped and murdered the Jews at Auschwitz" as a standard definition of "a war criminal", then nope...hes scott free!

I'm still waiting.

I'm still waiting.


I can gladly answer your question, if you will but define the terms.

As opposed to exposing leftwingers who have done the samething? Gotta blame both sides if ya going to blame the government for this.

firstly, red herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

secondly, what the hell are you on about?

I would love to know what he has done to be considered a war criminal! It is an inaccurate comment to make.

1. Breaking the sovereignty of a foreign nation that has not as much as threatened U.S. national security(never mind that the Bush admin lied through its ass to do it). This is a breach of international law. Of course, you might argue that since the U.S. refuse to hand over Bush for trial at the IOC, he is not a criminal, but I'm sure you can see the fallacy inherent to such hypocricy.

This is the most important point. Furthermore, the entire administration is guilty of slaughter of non-combatants, torture and illegal detainment of POWs, use of chemical weapons(again, the admin does not acknowledge that international law applies to it); and of course lying and fabricating "evidence".


Another thing! He is not an autocratic ruler.

Read it again, smartass. The ADMINISTRATION is autocratic. By centralizing authority at the white house and exercising control over information; it craves power for the sake of using that power - This defines an autocratic organization.

People do need to learn to get a life.

Hey, fuck you! I have a life, and it seems likely that I live it with a bit more intellectual integrity than yourself.

1. Breaking the sovereignty of a foreign nation that has not as much as threatened U.S. national security(never mind that the Bush admin lied through its ass to do it). This is a breach of international law.

I could go on and destroy this entire arguement however, I can tell by the rest of this post that it would be pointless.

Of course, you might argue that since the U.S. refuse to hand over Bush for trial at the IOC, he is not a criminal, but I'm sure you can see the fallacy inherent to such hypocricy.

What does the International Olympic Committee have to do with this? You mean the ICC that we ARE NOT a party too.

This is the most important point. Furthermore, the entire administration is guilty of slaughter of non-combatants

Wrong o buddy! Accidents do happen in war and we go to great pains to make sure civilians ARE NOT killed. If we didn't care, we would've just carpet bombed every city in Iraq! Guess what? That didn't happen. So this is a lie right here.

torture and illegal detainment of POWs,

1) I know you are refering to Gitmo and despite popular belief, they do not fall under the Geneva conventions.

2) We do try to treat the Iraqi Army POWs in accordance with the Geneva Conventions because the DO FALL under those terms.

3) As for torture, sleep deprivation, loud music, and extreme temps are not torturous.

use of chemical weapons(again, the admin does not acknowledge that international law applies to it); and of course lying and fabricating "evidence".

HAHAHAHA!! Now I know you are very ignorant and believing whatever the press feeds you. Oh brother.

Read it again, smartass.

This does nothing for your arguement except show that you have nothing intelligent to say. Now I know how angry opposition gets when points start to be struck and I was hoping you wouldn't be one of them. I guess I was wrong. Of course, both sides start to hurl insults when either side makes a point.

The ADMINISTRATION is autocratic.

Prove it!

By centralizing authority at the white house and exercising control over information; it craves power for the sake of using that power - This defines an autocratic organization.

Again, prove it.

Before anyone else does, I told him to prove it and he should.

Hey, fuck you!

Nice. Two insults in one post. Not quite a record but your close.

I have a life, and it seems likely that I live it with a bit more intellectual integrity than yourself.

We all have a life and if you believe that you live in a more intellecutual integritial world than me, then I suggest you rethink that because it is apparent that you are being fed and you are eating up, whatever your being told which is inaccurate.

<snip>
Again, prove it.

Before anyone else does, I told him to prove it and he should.
<snip>


You realize that you just admitted it can be proven that this administration is autocratic, and you're just trying to see if one specific person can prove it, right?

You realize that you just admitted it can be proven that this administration is autocratic, and you're just trying to see if one specific person can prove it, right?

Can't prove something that isn't true.

You realize that you just admitted it can be proven that this administration is autocratic, and you're just trying to see if one specific person can prove it, right?
Realization isn't Corny's strong suit ...
masochism is.
And i guess Bush's idea of "fitness" is in there somewhere, too. :fluffle:

I'll toss this in here, hopefully not to the chagrin of The Nazz ..

Former NSA Director Lied to Congress about surveillance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush administration has pulled out all the stops in attempting to defend the NSA’s warrantless domestic spying program. After speeches by President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales, Deputy Director of National Intelligence and former NSA Director General Michael Hayden took another crack at the defense in a speech on Monday. He’s not exactly the ideal choice to restore the administration’s credibility.

As Think Progress documented back in December, Hayden misled Congress. In his 10/17/02 testimony, he told a committee investigating the 9/11 attacks that any surveillance of persons in the United States was done consistent with FISA.

At the time of his statements, Hayden was fully aware of the presidential order to conduct warrantless domestic spying issued the previous year. But Hayden didn’t feel as though he needed to share that with Congress. Apparently, Hayden believed that he had been legally authorized to conduct the surveillance, but told Congress that he had no authority to do exactly what he was doing. The Fraud and False Statements statute (18 U.S.C. 1001) make Hayden’s misleading statements to Congress illegal.


All this on top of the fact that, as three major papers have now noted, Republican Senator Mike DeWine wanted to revise the FISA statute to lower the burden for getting a warrant to wiretap foreign citizens, and the administration argued against it, saying it would be unconstitutional.

I have no doubt that the Bush apologists on this forum will still claim that the warrantless wiretapping program was somehow legal, probably based on the "Presidential dibbsies" theory of jurisprudence, but there's little doubt, the longer this story goes on, that the Bush administration broke the law.

Impeaching Bush would restore a great deal of my faith in the US.