NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6027
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20661&l=i&size=1&hd=0

There are now 27 Democratic representatives, including Barbara Lee, Nydia Velasquez, John Olver, Gwen Moore and John Tierney, who are calling for the creation of "a select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

...

Clinton may have stained Monica's blue dress, but the arrogant posture of the Bush administration is staining America's worldwide reputation.

Well, what do you think, and why?

Personally, I suspect there's more than a little partisan politics at play, and it's a sign of a disturbing precedent from where one party impeaches the other party's president. But that was started with Clinton, and this only continues an already-set precedent. And there is a point here, lying under oath about cum-stains is bad, but lying to the nation may be worse.

Who knows, maybe we'll hold future presidents accountable to be honest about policy AND blowjobs?

They should be calling for his assasination, but then, they should be calling for their own as well, so meh.

They should be calling for his assasination, but then, they should be calling for their own as well, so meh.

Well, assassination is a crime, and it's not recommended to advocate criminal activity if you're a representative. Hell, it's not recommended no matter who you are...

The past six years have made it pretty clear that the chimp can do whatever the hell he wants without any fear of consequences: even if the cretin beat somebody to death with a lead pipe and ate them during a televised debate, fuckwits like Ann Coulter would argue that he wasn't doing anything wrong or unconstitutional, and enough of America would believe it to let the sorry business be forgotten.

The past six years have made it pretty clear that the chimp can do whatever the hell he wants without any fear of consequences: even if the cretin beat somebody to death with a lead pipe and ate them during a televised debate, fuckwits like Ann Coulter would argue that he wasn't doing anything wrong or unconstitutional, and enough of America would believe it to let the sorry business be forgotten.
HEY! the congress authorized the president to use whatever means necessary to get those who planned or perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. if that means beating random strangers to death with a lead pipe, then so be it. its all legal.

Sounds to me like a bunch of low class politicians who can't get any real power because they have no ideas other than to hate the opposition.

Poor babies!

Personally, I suspect there's more than a little partisan politics at play, and it's a sign of a disturbing precedent from where one party impeaches the other party's president. But that was started with Clinton, and this only continues an already-set precedent.
I think it would be hilarious if the next 30 years of US politics played out where every president got impeached by the other party just for the hell of it.

Sounds to me like a bunch of low class politicians who can't get any real power because they have no ideas other than to hate the opposition.

Poor babies!
Of course it sounds like that to you!

HEY! the congress authorized the president to use whatever means necessary to get those who planned or perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. if that means beating random strangers to death with a lead pipe, then so be it. its all legal.

Actually, the resolution of force allowed the President to use force specifically against those who

planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Note that it isn't a universal authorization of force, but a specific action against those responsible for 9/11, not any person who could be arbitrarily deemed a terrorist.

Full text at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107J1zaIy::

wow. until the republicans want to impeach him, this is nothing but democratic bullshitting.

37 people? not nearly enough

lets just have some anarchy.

Sounds to me like a bunch of low class politicians who can't get any real power because they have no ideas other than to hate the opposition.

Poor babies!Know what? Seeing what Americans have to chose from these days, I think deep-rooted hatred of the current administration & all its individuals, would be a perfectly acceptable criteria when voting.

But then, claiming any 'real ideas' are even possible in a 'democracy' (and I use that word very loosely indeed) like the American, is at best naive.

They should be calling for his assasination, but then, they should be calling for their own as well, so meh.
Only the good presidents are assassinated.

Only the good presidents are assassinated.

THere's a deep irony there too.

To qoute a common catchphrase: "When Clinton lied, nobody died.". Impeach the SOB.

wow. until the republicans want to impeach him, this is nothing but democratic bullshitting.

37 people? not nearly enough
Do you really think that a party will want to impeach their own president, regardless of which party it would be? Let's think realistically here.

To qoute a common catchphrase: "When Clinton lied, nobody died.". Impeach the SOB.
Of course, the fact that we took out that evil, super-secret, Nazi Terrorist death Aspirin factory on the days of Monica's testimony, that was just a big coincidence, ja? Ja? JA!!?!!

Lets Impeach That Son Of A Bush

Lets Impeach That Son Of A Bush

OMG it's a new Ritlina!

They should be calling for his assasination, but then, they should be calling for their own as well, so meh.
but then we'd have Cheney sharpshooter for president...
which leads to the question of who's really worse? the puppet or the puppet master?

but then we'd have Cheney sharpshooter for president...
which leads to the question of who's really worse? the puppet or the puppet master?


Good point. If Bush is impeached we'd have Cheney: a sick man who has to have a doctor in constant attendance and who can't handle his weapon, let alone a gun.

Lets impeach Rove.. he's useless without his brain.
If dems got their acts together by November this may well become a reality especially since he keeps shooting himself in the foot.

BRING IT ON

Actually, the resolution of force allowed the President to use force specifically against those who



Note that it isn't a universal authorization of force, but a specific action against those responsible for 9/11, not any person who could be arbitrarily deemed a terrorist.

Full text at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107J1zaIy::


*innocent look*

but QUEN, if that were true then the whole nsa spying on american phone calls thing would be illegal. and someone would have to go to jail.

Yeah and governments who lied about reasons for going to war would be chucked out at the next election.;)

Lets impeach Rove.. he's useless without his brain.
If dems got their acts together by November this may well become a reality especially since he keeps shooting himself in the foot.
No, it may well not become a possibility. Congress can't impeach political advisors, they're very much like a next door neighbour in that respect.

Partisan politics are inherently stupid (and funny) just like all politics.

Hell, bullshitting is funny no matter what.

Do you really think that a party will want to impeach their own president, regardless of which party it would be? Let's think realistically here.
Didn't Nixon have a Republican majority as well?

Didn't Nixon have a Republican majority as well?
Nope, in neither house did he have a majority.

Nope, in neither house did he have a majority.

This is true, but his party did pretty much turn against him.

Can't see that happening these days, sadly.

This is true, but his party did pretty much turn against him.

Can't see that happening these days, sadly.
Yeah, party loyalty is too strong among the Repubs. Heck, just look at McCain sucking up to Bush right after Rove launched the smear campaign against him in 2000. But there are an increasing number of moderate Republicans breaking ranks and not blindly following the administration.

Maybe the Democrats should spend more time developing a national strategy, creating a real plan for America and preparing for the 2006 campaign rather than playing dumbass political games.

They don't seem to realize that they won't gain significant ground in Congress without a clear, unequivocal message of their policy objectives; simply put, the Democrats will not become the majority party again unless they come up with a "Contract with America"-scale party platform and stick to it.

Yeah, party loyalty is too strong among the Repubs. Heck, just look at McCain sucking up to Bush right after Rove launched the smear campaign against him in 2000. But there are an increasing number of moderate Republicans breaking ranks and not blindly following the administration.
Actually the reason many Republicans are starting to dissent from Bush now is that Bush is too liberal for them!

Actually the reason many Republicans are starting to dissent from Bush now is that Bush is too liberal for them!

How is that possable?

Actually the reason many Republicans are starting to dissent from Bush now is that Bush is too liberal for them!

More proof for my theory that those who criticize liberals really don't have a clue as to what the term means.

Maybe the Democrats should spend more time developing a national strategy, creating a real plan for America and preparing for the 2006 campaign rather than playing dumbass political games.

They don't seem to realize that they won't gain significant ground in Congress without a clear, unequivocal message of their policy objectives; simply put, the Democrats will not become the majority party again unless they come up with a "Contract with America"-scale party platform and stick to it.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the Democrats do have a plan? That maybe the reason everyone, including yourself, thinks they don't have a plan is because of incessant Republican screaming that they don't?
I'd like to see the so-called clear plan the Republicans claim they have.

I should also mention that the "Contract With America" basically fell apart when the newly-elected Republicans got drunk with their power and decided to impeach Clinton. Because they could. (If you don't believe that, check with Joe Scarbrough and a number of other now dissatisfied Republicans elected in '94.)

Actually the reason many Republicans are starting to dissent from Bush now is that Bush is too liberal for them!

What, does that mean that some Americans are getting even more conservative?

Did you ever consider that perhaps the Democrats do have a plan? That maybe the reason everyone, including yourself, thinks they don't have a plan is because of incessant Republican screaming that they don't?
I'd like to see the so-called clear plan the Republicans claim they have.

The Republicans at least proposed ideas on reforming Medicare/SS/trade and US energy policy in 2005...even though they wern't particularly a good idea, at least they drew attention to them from the public. All the Dems did was sit on their asses and whine about every bad thing that happens as "Bush's fault"...they spent more time trying to fillibuster the SC nominees and bitch about Valerie Plame than they did presenting new ideas.

I haven't heard a damn thing from any news source...all you hear the Democratic leaders in Congress say is that Bush/Republicans' plans are "irresponsible" or "wrong for America" and then they offer nothing in return. They don't want to reform Social Security, they don't want to reform Medicare, they don't want to cut spending (even defense spending, not to mention entitlements), and they proceed to bash Bush for deficits that they helped create...the sad thing is, there would've been deficits even if we hadn't cut taxes in 2001 simply because of revenue destruction and higher spending.

All I hear on their website is how much Bush has fucked up....and nothing about what they would do and no acceptance of culpability for problems they are responsible for. They are nothing more than a partisan remnant of a once strong party...Gore's 2000 run was a memory of what the Dems used to be, but their decision to run a candidate as wishy-washy and dull as Kerry only confirms this status as a partisan club in decline.

The Democratic governors are a lot better in terms of a message, but governors aren't the same as Congressional representatives; they will probably gain ground here if anywhere, but that doesn't really mean anything when it comes to the nation's direction.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the Democrats do have a plan? That maybe the reason everyone, including yourself, thinks they don't have a plan is because of incessant Republican screaming that they don't?

I'd like to see the so-called clear plan the Republicans claim they have.


Bravo. Exactly correct. Here's a hint. If you want to hear what the Dems plans are, you're not going to hear it on Fox news. You have to go to a PARTICULAR Dem's website and see what THEY have to say.

And really, if you don;t get if from the horses mouth, you don't know shit.

I mean really, if you depend on cable news to tell you specifics, then one could very well say that the Republicans' plans consist entirely of, "hey, you know all the shit that we're doing that isn't working? Yeah, well we figure that if we do even more of the same shit that isn't working that it might magically start working. At least, that's what God tells us. Tax cuts, 9/11! Suck it, hippies!"

Lets just put this whole democracy experiment to rest and embrace Fascism...and now this lowercase f, Dictator bush fascism, but some actual Fascism.

The Republicans at least proposed ideas on reforming Medicare/SS/trade and US energy policy in 2005...even though they wern't particularly a good idea, at least they drew attention to them from the public. All the Dems did was sit on their asses and whine about every bad thing that happens as "Bush's fault"...they spent more time trying to fillibuster the SC nominees and bitch about Valerie Plame than they did presenting new ideas.

The minority party, under the Republican controlled congress, isn't allowed to introduce many of their own ideas.

I haven't heard a damn thing from any news source...all you hear the Democratic leaders in Congress say is that Bush/Republicans' plans are "irresponsible" or "wrong for America" and then they offer nothing in return.

The things Dems offer are shot down before they even go to vote.


They don't want to reform Social Security,

There was no need to reform Soc Sec before Bush took over.


They don't want to reform Medicare,

Remember when the Clintons were working on Medicare and Healthcare reform and the Repubs shot down every thing they proposed?

they don't want to cut spending (even defense spending, not to mention entitlements), and they proceed to bash Bush for deficits that they helped create...the sad thing is, there would've been deficits even if we hadn't cut taxes in 2001 simply because of revenue destruction and higher spending.

Again, it seems that you've forgotten who runs Congress.

All I hear on their website is how much Bush has fucked up....and nothing about what they would do and no acceptance of culpability for problems they are responsible for.

You're just hearing what you're wanting to hear. Perhaps if you actually listened, you might pick something up.

They are nothing more than a partisan remnant of a once strong party...Gore's 2000 run was a memory of what the Dems used to be, but their decision to run a candidate as wishy-washy and dull as Kerry only confirms this status as a partisan club in decline. The Democratic governors are a lot better in terms of a message, but governors aren't the same as Congressional representatives; they will probably gain ground here if anywhere, but that doesn't really mean anything when it comes to the nation's direction.

Actually, many many more Presidents come form the ranks of governors than come from Congress. The compromises required of a legislator make it very easy for the opposition to paint one as wishy-washy.

The minority party, under the Republican controlled congress, isn't allowed to introduce many of their own ideas.

The Republicans did with the "Contract with America" and swept in to control of Congress in 1994. The Democrats could do the same.



The things Dems offer are shot down before they even go to vote.

Be public about it; in all honesty the Republican ideas that led to the 1994 sweep were far from moderate, which does show that having a bold, specific agenda goes a lot farther than playing to the center...you can always modify it later, but getting any idea out there is better than none. The Dems' main weakness is that they spend too much time attacking Bush and not enough time promoting their own idea. It has nothing to do with their actual ideas, just the way they go about presenting them.



There was no need to reform Soc Sec before Bush took over.
Remember when the Clintons were working on Medicare and Healthcare reform and the Repubs shot down every thing they proposed?

Well, kind of. The situation wouldn't be as bad, but the surpluses predicted would have been pretty much nonexistent, meaning we'd still need to reform. It would be pushed back a decade or so, but still a problem for the near future.

Yeah, and the Republican obstructionism pissed me off...it was irresponsible and shameless politicking and nothing more. The Democrats could launch another reform campaign now, but they aren't, and I honestly don't know why. You don't win people over by complaining...I mean, they just aren't doing anything at all, at least publically speaking.

Again, it seems that you've forgotten who runs Congress.

The Republicans are cracking apart in to factions...if the Dems mobilize, they could strike hard and regain votes, but their actions as of yet aren't capitalizing on the Republican weakness...if they were to unleash a major plan now, the result could be devastating for the Reps in November.

You're just hearing what you're wanting to hear. Perhaps if you actually listened, you might pick something up.

I've read their "Agenda" section, and it is nothing but a rap sheet for GWB...even the links to other parts of the site bash the Reps and list nothing in terms of ideas.

Actually, many many more Presidents come form the ranks of governors than come from Congress. The compromises required of a legislator make it very easy for the opposition to paint one as wishy-washy.

Yep. That's why if the Democrats want to win in '08, they have to go with a governor...generally, the governors are far less reserved at speaking their minds and throwing ideas out there than Senators, and that's what the Democrats need.

Bump. I'm hoping Gymoor responds...I'm in the mood to discuss 2006 and the Democratic party.

All I hear on their website is how much Bush has fucked up....and nothing about what they would do and no acceptance of culpability for problems they are responsible for.

Bullshit. http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0602110096feb11,1,5857923.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Anyone think this may be why?

Bullshit. http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Yes, it shows a lot of vague statements that could apply to the Republican party if you switched the names, and then links to a page of Bush's failiures.

The only ones with substance are the environment and civil rights/justice, but those aren't going to be enough to carry the party. The rest is pretty vague and unconvincing beyond a generic framework.

Yes, it shows a lot of vague statements that could apply to the Republican party if you switched the names, and then links to a page of Bush's failiures.

The only ones with substance are the environment and civil rights/justice, but those aren't going to be enough to carry the party. The rest is pretty vague and unconvincing beyond a generic framework.

Your first complaint was that there was NOTHING from the Dems. That the ONLY thing you heard was how Bush fucked up.

Now you see that thats not true, and you're switching your complaint to how the plan isn't specific enough.

I suspect absolutely nothing will please you if you keep moving the goalposts....

Your first complaint was that there was NOTHING from the Dems. That the ONLY thing you heard was how Bush fucked up.

Now you see that thats not true, and you're switching your complaint to how the plan isn't specific enough.
I suspect absolutely nothing will please you if you keep moving the goalposts....

I'll admit, I wasn't accurate in saying that everything was Bush bashing, and I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, there is a huge lack of ideas on their website relative to the amount of material and that needs to be changed if the Democrats want to win.

Your first complaint was that there was NOTHING from the Dems. That the ONLY thing you heard was how Bush fucked up.

Now you see that thats not true, and you're switching your complaint to how the plan isn't specific enough.

I suspect absolutely nothing will please you if you keep moving the goalposts....

Exactically!

I'll admit, I wasn't accurate in saying that everything was Bush bashing, and I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, there is a huge lack of ideas on their website relative to the amount of material and that needs to be changed if the Democrats want to win.

It doesn't seem to have any fewer ideas than the GOP (http://www.gop.com/Issues/) on their site. Personally, I dislike both parties, and I believe both fundamentally have the exact same plan: gain and/or maintain power.

Maybe the Democrats should spend more time developing a national strategy, creating a real plan for America and preparing for the 2006 campaign rather than playing dumbass political games.

They don't seem to realize that they won't gain significant ground in Congress without a clear, unequivocal message of their policy objectives; simply put, the Democrats will not become the majority party again unless they come up with a "Contract with America"-scale party platform and stick to it.
AMEN AND AMEN I tell ya they are pissing me off so much i just might vote green.. hey if we all did that we could create a real 3rd party and wouldnt they get the shock of their lives?

their decision to run a candidate as wishy-washy and dull as Kerry only confirms this status as a partisan club in decline.
You do know that Kerry received more votes than anyone else in history of the US presidency, bar one?
Kinda implies that not everyone viewed him as wishy-washy and dull.



Off on a tangent a bit, I do wonder as to why the Dems chose Kerry in the first place. Even if he'd won he was going to be totally ineffective - due to the massive amount of bitterness and dislike he's accrued from GOP in his time in Washington. Not just for his Vietnam testimonies, but also his being the head of the committee into the Iran-contra affair. His critcism of their beloved son (Reagan) earned him undying animosity from GOP.
They would never have worked with him on anything.
Now the Dems might pick Hilary, who's just as disliked.
Makes me wonder as to why the Dems continue to pickl ppl so adept at alienating the congress as well as the public.

This is an interesting happening, but unless more Democrates get into Congress it's all moot.

I'm wondering if it won't be like that huge influx of Republicans during the Clinton administration. Was that '94 or '96?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0602110096feb11,1,5857923.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Anyone think this may be why?

Let's get this back on topic. Could this possibly be not because of partisian politics, but because the CIA official who handled all intelligence from Iraq released a statement saying that the Bush Administration misrepresented the intelligence to the nation?

Most basically, if you think about it, the Republicans right now are basically where the Democrats were in the mid to late 60s. They've been in power for a good twenty-six years (the eight year Clinton-break being analogous to the eight year Eisenhower break from 1952-1960), so now people are beginning to get a bit tired of them. Remember that the Dems were still considered somewhat infallible, but it was in about 1968 that a big shift occurred and Republican complaints that the Dem plans weren't working began to take hold. Again, at that time the Reps didn't really have any "specific plan" other than "law and order back from the hippies." Yet they were still able to convince everybody that what little they had to offer was better than what the Dems were giving them.
True, Democrats retained control of both houses of Congress for a while, but this control decreased until the Republican take-over in 1994. Problem is, the Republicans still haven't really done a huge bit outside of the Presidency, but they're able to obfuscate to the degree that they can convince everybody the entire country would go to h--l in a handbasket if the Democrats ever got their power back.

You do know that Kerry received more votes than anyone else in history of the US presidency, bar one?
Kinda implies that not everyone viewed him as wishy-washy and dull.



Off on a tangent a bit, I do wonder as to why the Dems chose Kerry in the first place. Even if he'd won he was going to be totally ineffective - due to the massive amount of bitterness and dislike he's accrued from GOP in his time in Washington. Not just for his Vietnam testimonies, but also his being the head of the committee into the Iran-contra affair. His critcism of their beloved son (Reagan) earned him undying animosity from GOP.
They would never have worked with him on anything.
Now the Dems might pick Hilary, who's just as disliked.
Makes me wonder as to why the Dems continue to pickl ppl so adept at alienating the congress as well as the public.

I know! First lurch (kerry) and now probably a woman who looks like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth.

You do know that Kerry received more votes than anyone else in history of the US presidency, bar one?
Kinda implies that not everyone viewed him as wishy-washy and dull. .

Yeah, but the US population is also higher than anytime else in the history of the US, so it's not as accurate. The same is true of Republicans claiming Bush getting the most votes...it's almost as bad as using nominal dollar amounts in an economic debate.

It doesn't seem to have any fewer ideas than the GOP (http://www.gop.com/Issues/) on their site. Personally, I dislike both parties, and I believe both fundamentally have the exact same plan: gain and/or maintain power.

The GOP at least mentions their ideas; the main problem with the Democrats that they don't get their ideas out there.

If you really want to see the problem with the Democratic party, compare the party website with the DLC website or the Progressive Policy Institute's website. They are loaded with information, political platform ideas, factual statements and clear ideas...and I agree with them. That's why I support candidates who have ideas similar to the PPI or DLC and not the mainstream Democrats.

Let him turn over the security of American ports to Arab companies....that should get the impeachment ball rolling.

Let him turn over the security of American ports to Arab companies....that should get the impeachment ball rolling.

They'd probably do a better job because of the pressure from American companies...allowing foreign companies to bid on our strategic assets increases the quality and cost efficency of American companies which means better security and lower costs overall.

They'd probably do a better job because of the pressure from American companies...allowing foreign companies to bid on our strategic assets increases the quality and cost efficency of American companies which means better security and lower costs overall.

Good point! In order to understand this insane administration, all you really have to do is follow the money....trying to figure out the supposed good public policy behind it's decisions will only drive you crazy.

I think that having a war criminal as a president is generally a impediment to international relations but 99.9% of government is ignornant human rights abusers regardless.

I'm geussing it is a waste of money. I personally think that many things need to be done in the states, the world feels weird with a republican President. I critize the allowance of human rights abuses and I was not in favour of the Afghanastan war or the Iraq war, and I am not in favour of careless assasination as daily policy. I think there are lots of perversions with the US Government and their policies. I think that 1. any president should be accountable to uphold human rights otherwise impeaching for bad moral traits is hypocritical.

Good point! In order to understand this insane administration, all you really have to do is follow the money....trying to figure out the supposed good public policy behind it's decisions will only drive you crazy.

This Administration has a habit of intervening when they stand to profit from it...look at the CNOOC-Unocal deal. The Congress whined enough that Unocal was eventually sold to the American company Chevron even though it was an inferior bid, and Chevron became even bigger and more monopolistic.

Not to mention it means that China now has to strike a deal with Iran to help meet its energy needs rather than being able to use the Asian assets of Unocal...once again, Georgie boy's looking out for America.

The GOP at least mentions their ideas; the main problem with the Democrats that they don't get their ideas out there.
The only "ideas" the GOP had that I could recall are those that Democrats are evil, unpatriotic, and might eat children.

Oh no, see, you're wrong there--the idea is that they will and do eat children, on a daily basis.

The only "ideas" the GOP had that I could recall are those that Democrats are evil, unpatriotic, and might eat children.

No, they did offer plans for Medicare and Social Security....they wern't good ones, but they were at least ideas.

No, they did offer plans for Medicare and Social Security....they wern't good ones, but they were at least ideas.
Actually, I liked the Social Security idea. It's MY money, that I worked for, and I want to do with it whatever the hell I want!

If I want to put some of it into a mutual fund that will insure I'm not living off of catfood when I'm seventy, who the fuck is Congress to tell me I can't?

If someone takes the money and wastes it, then fuck them. They can eat shit for all I care. I don't want to pool my money in the same pot as people who are too dumb to save for their future without Uncle Sam holding their hand.

Once again, I leave you with my biggest argument. IT'S MY FUCKING MONEY!!! I MADE IT, I'LL SPEND OR SAVE IT AS I WISH.

Incidentally, Social Security is the reason I worked from age 16 to age 24 under the table. That's at least 8 years of my money that the tax and spenders in Congress will never touch! :p