BS: A Declaration of Impeachment

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 11:42 PM

You need one of these Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:30 PM

47 Guantanamo detainees to be held indefinitely

ABC News Jan 23, 2010

Two unnamed US officials say 47 Guantanamo Bay detainees will be held in prison indefinitely, without charge.

They are reportedly too dangerous to be released, but cannot be tried either because the evidence against them is too flimsy or was extracted by coercion.

The outcome will dismay civil liberties groups who hoped US President Barack Obama would end the practice of detention without trial.

Moazzam Begg was a Guantanamo detainee and now directs a prisoner rights organisation, 'Cage Prisoners'.

Mr Begg says he is dismayed but not surprised by the committee's findings.

"The reality is that although they're talking about holding these 47 prisoners without charge or trial, the sad reality is they've been held for eight years without charge or trial," he said.

"So it's not as if they're going to be entering into any new arena, there's no new discussion or dialogue. The whole talk about the change has come to America was simply a lie."

The Presidential taskforce has recommended 35 of the 196 detainees left at Guantanamo Bay face prosecution.

They could be heading to the United States be trialed in either a federal court or a military commission.

US Attorney General Eric Holder has already said five of them, including the alleged September 11 mastermind, will go on trial in New York.

Today marks Mr Obama's self imposed one-year deadline to shut down the prison camp, although he conceded last year that it would be missed.

C'mon Amos, pass out the pitchforks and light up the torches. This guy needs to be impeached.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:24 PM

"Since then George has pledged the same unswerving dedication that served to help all those who were caught in Hurricane Katrina's path. He offered to relocate Haitian's to tents on the Guantanemo base inside the barbed wire and land mines to insure a zone of freedom."

Flashback:

"Despite signals on the campaign trail that he intended to shut down the camp [Guantanamo], Clinton changed his mind [Lied???]. As a result, the [Haitian] refugees remained, even after he assumed office, in leaky barracks with poor sanitation, surrounded by razor wire and guard towers. They responded with a hunger strike, and after raucous protests against their confinement, a number were thrown in the naval brig as if they were criminals. Worse still, federal authorities refused to release the sickest Haitians, even though military physicians on Guantanamo lacked the means to treat them. The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today. Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased."

Impeach Whom for what?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 02:13 PM

Is that even possible?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:31 AM

Uh ...what about softly?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:47 PM

As a penance for intentionally being obtuse, your assignment is to read this whole thread and identify the impeachable offenses listed therein. Let me add that blowjobs are not an impeachable offense.

Not hardly.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:35 PM

DougR:

As a penance for intentionally being obtuse, your assignment is to read this whole thread and identify the impeachable offenses listed therein. Let me add that blowjobs are not an impeachable offense.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:08 PM

DougR - "Lying during the campaign? Is THAT an impeachable offense?"

HA! If only. ;-) We could impeach Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan....hell, probably ALL of them since George Washington till now! Did I say "probably"? How about "definitely"? Those no longer in office could be impeached retroactively and denied television for a year as punishment! Or if they were dead, then they could have an impeachment notice put on their gravestones.

That would be for outright lying, mind you. For just being misleading, disingenuous, manipulative, lying by ommission, exaggerating to a ridiculuous extent, and using gross personal innuendo of a totally unscrupulous sort against their opponents we could merely censure them and give them thirty whacks with the Cat o' Nine Tails on their bare behinds.

This could also be done for all those who ran against them and didn't win...such as McCaine, Gore, Kerry, etc...might as well spread the punishment around in a fair and equal manner, right?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:37 PM

Speaking of the Wanker

I saw him on TV 3 days ago standing/weaving to and fro to Obama's left while Clinton stood motionless with his hand holding his other wrist. This was to be an announcment of solidarity of Presidential power to come to the aid of Haiti.

I swear ol George weaved so much that he intentionally bumped Obama's elbow all the while grinning his coed cheerleader smile.

Since then CLinton has his international group poised to make a 10 year commitment of aid to Haiti. $26 million in corporate donations and more from private donations through the Red Cross and others.

Since then Obama has mobilized and meshed aid to Haiti with the US armed forces, Navy, Marines, Army,Coast Guard and Air Force, Russia and Europe.

Since then George has pledged the same unswerving dedication that served to help all those who were caught in Hurricane Katrina's path.
He offered to relocate Haitian's to tents on the Guantanemo base inside the barbed wire and land mines to insure a zone of freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:33 PM

Oh, is Obama going to be impeached? I hadn't heard about that. On what basis? Lying during the campaign? Is THAT an impeachable offense?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:53 PM

And THAT - all of the preceding - is what makes the world go 'round. It's also a great expression of why freedom of speech is so crucial. Yet, that said, I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread more properly belongs to the non-music section than to this one.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:36 PM

Don't hold your breath, Sawz. But I think all along my point was to get the story out and the real and valid grounds made known, whether or not the Wanker was ever brought to justice.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:58 PM

How's the impeachment coming Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM

Amos:

You left out a loonie:

Harold Burbank, Connecticut Green candidate for the US House (District 5), is helping to organize a major rally to promote the impeachment bill on Monday, April 14, (3 pm to 11 pm) at the Capital Center for the Arts, 44 South Main Street in Concord, New Hampshire.

"Dan Ellsberg, Ramsey Clark and Bob Bowman, all supporters of my campaign, responded immediately to my request of them to speak at Betty Hall's Impeach Bush-Cheney Rally. An aircraft carrier task force organized around the Abraham Lincoln is steaming to the Persian Gulf as we speak to engage Iran. New Hampshire can help prevent World War III if it passes HR 24 on April 16, and it should," said Mr. Burbank, who is also a member of Veterans For Peace.

The four candidates seeking the Green presidential nomination -- Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift -- have all strongly supported the Green Party's call for impeachment. Ms. McKinney introduced a motion for impeachment in December, 2006, her final month as US Representative from Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:33 PM

Oh sure, Amos... *grin*...but it needs to be 'seen' in print so 'they' are aware we are not fooled.... just like 947 posts about the Bush administration or similar items.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:08 PM

I don't think rational descriptions help, here--you are explaining to a stone wall.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:54 PM

It is quite true that indicting & conviction requires good evidence.

It is also true that good evidence is hard to obtain if the suspects prove adept at hiding, obfuscating , ignoring subpoenas, inventing their own laws, which require tedious legal work to prove those 'invented' laws are false, and generally using every subterfuge known to man to avoid cooperation with ANY inquiry into their activities.

We have seen well-respected legal scholars offer opinions that many activities Rove, Bush, Gonzales and others are KNOWN to have engaged in (and often admitted) were illegal, unconstitutional and just plain naughty.

This country generally tries very hard to maintain a formal process and fair legal system, but when those at the top, charged with administering aspects of the system redefine anything THEY do as 'legal', it gets kinda awkward.

Now Rove and others, who expected their crowd to HOLD power indefinitely, are in jeopardy because they have a new administration looking at the evidence.

They are hoping that they can delay and refuse to testify, etc., until we just get tired of digging.....and that all the complications facing Obama & crew (most of which were caused by Bush & crew) will make 437 prosecutions too distracting to pursue. It is embarassing to have major figures of the previous administration on trial...and Obama is 'trying' to get some bipartisan support going. He seems to be considering what will happen if he allows full investigations of the crap we all KNOW was done!

Rove, Bush and crew have lawyers who will try everything to USE the law to AVOID the law.....it stinks, but they may manage it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 11:30 AM

Karl Rove? Wasn't he supposed to have been put in prison a long time back on this thread?? Of course how silly of me, to put somebody in prison you must first prove a "prima facie" case before you have a trial and then you have to have evidence that stands up to examination and complies with rules of evidence. This thread if memory serves correct was only ever based upon unsubstantiated rumour and opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 11:09 AM

Obama has no plans to restrict or prohibit any investigations into war crimes by the Bush administration. He need only tacitly allow them to continue.


When Karl Rove refuses to appear before Congress he can be jailed until he agrees to do so. He probably will then plead the 5th for hours.

Palin should visit Karl in jail for priceless publicity.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:35 AM

You spin it for free Amos.

Prepare to Impeach Obama if He Accepts Unconstitutional Powers

by Ralph Lopez

With Obama backpedaling on the investigation of torture and other Bush crimes, his promised rollback of unconstitutional Executive Branch powers seems in peril. On the prosecution of Bush crimes, Joe Biden has already given the standard slimeball cop-out you would expect from Joe Biden: "We're looking forward, we're not looking backwards." On Obama's transition website change.gov, the question which outranked all other questions from the public was on the appointment of a special prosecutor, submitted by Bob Fertik of Democrats.com. The question was disregarded, even though it had the most votes, as having been "already answered."

And today in the New York Times Obama signaled his reluctance to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture and warrantless wiretapping, until there was evidence. Bush admitted to approving torture, illegal surveillance, there is blood all over the floor and five bodies heaped in the corner. But we need evidence.

But the case can be made that if Obama refuses to do his duty to uphold the Constitution, then at some point when he has reasonably been given a chance, the focus of the Bush impeachment movement should transfer to him. By not explicitly renouncing the Executive Branch's new powers to declare American citizens as "enemy combatants" indefinitely, to torture them as they did Jose Padilla, to engage in warrantless wiretapping, and to break the law with impunity, he implicitly accepts these unconstitutional powers. Absent an explicit renunciation of these and their accompanying, unconstitutional legislative counterparts like the Military Commissions Act, he will be acting outside the law, as George Bush was, and he will be passing these powers on to his successor.

The economic crisis will deepen into a Darwinian quagmire no matter what Obama does. In the end it will end as all depressions end: with the strongest fatter than ever and everyone else pretty much starting all over again. This is not about another temporary economic cycle. It's about what form of government we will live under for the next one hundred years.

Obama is in a tenuous position, and it would behoove him to understand that there are those on his own left who take the constitutional form of government seriously. With powers in his own party already signaling that it will not be an easy ride, by balking at what should be an uncontroversial element in his tax plan, a $3000 tax credit for companies which hire or retrain workers, he is looking at hostility from both the right and the left. It's starting to look like Jimmy Carter all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:26 PM

I think Blago's impeachment was almost as well deserved as Bush's.

Of course the difference is how much spin control you can buy.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:22 PM

I don't know anything about dancing with Manatees or Cactii.

Jan 29, 2009
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Gov. Rod Blagojevich was unanimously convicted at his impeachment trial and thrown out of office Thursday, ending a nearly two-month crisis that erupted with his arrest on charges he tried to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.

Blagojevich becomes the first U.S. governor in more than 20 years to be removed by impeachment.

After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically ousting the second-term Democrat. Democratic Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn, one of his critics, immediately became governor.

In a second 59-0 vote, the Senate further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in Illinois again.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:04 PM

Or a cactus. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:57 AM

It's kind of like dancing with a manatee.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 12:48 AM

You two still dancing?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:33 PM

Amos's "truths" he brings to us:

The Steering Committee noted that Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who helped carry out Bush's plans, suggests the possibility of an attempted self pardon by Bush in the future.

Ye shall smell land where there is no land.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 06:16 PM

Yep.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:56 PM

Call me Ishmael my man because your stance that if you agree with me and hate Bush you are therefore smart or you must be in love with Bush and therefore stupid is but another attempt to use false logic (false dichotomy, no middle ground) to prove an argument.

Aren't there still some die hard hate Truman people around that you can team up with or did all they all give up?

Despite all you hooting about proven facts anf legions of evidence, there is nothing to base an impeachment on.

I though Bush was going to pardon Scooter, one of his partners in the alleged crime of spreading propaganda to justify a war.

Did he mess up that one too?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM

Lousy analogy, Queequueg. Your slavish support of an oppressive regime does you no honor. A better metaphor: you wield a harpoon for a demented master, stumping the quarterdeck in the dawn watch with his pegleg, and muttering over and over his private curses on the White Whale. You may somehow survive the collapse of the Pequod, floating off on a surplus coffin. But that's as far as it goes. You and your beloved leader have trafficked in death, and it is on your hands ineradicably, perfume it how you may.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:00 PM

I am sorry I can't see the Emperor's new clothes like you Amos.

I am glad I missed out on the same important advance in philosophy that you embraced.

Now that Captain Bligh is no longer steering the ship, what is going to change?

I understand the salty old bastard made into a port after being set a sea in a launch, to command 11 more ships and ended up as an Admiral but his ship was scuttled by it's new masters.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 04:25 PM

You have been suckered into a highly canted few of events which has left you defending the unilateral destruction of thousands of lives on spurious grounds, and numerous other fictions in support of the late Administration's incompetence and wrong-headedness as though it was simply and wisely steering the ship of State on its due and inevitable course, rather than running it hard up on a reef through complete failure to navigate well.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:21 PM

Please explain how I am gullible Amos and what I was suckered into?

What important advance in philosophy did I fail to recognize?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:48 PM

I doubt that Sawz; I suspect your gullibility is likely to surrender first. The idea you might be suckered by a crock of manipulative PR is probably not liekly to sink in very far, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM

Amos is highly talented in rhetoric but seriously impaired in logic.

50 billion people claiming something is true does not make it true.

Remember the "fact" that tomatoes are poison? Remember the Duke Lacrosse team did it?

Your "facts" about GWB will eventually be recognized as Urban Myths.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:40 PM

T:

You are deeply misled about grounds for impeachment. Thousands of cruel deaths have been laid at the doorstep of Bush's Axis of Weasels, and your glib ignoral of the matter is a reflection on your own intransigence, not the facts of the matter.

He should have been prosecuted long ago. It did not happen.

End of story.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM

There was no impeachment proceedings initiated against President George W. Bush, or against Vice-President Dick Cheney because there were no grounds for Impeachment in the first place.

That is the truth that Amos, et al, failed to see, and continually failed to acknowledge when time after time they were asked to produce a single piece of evidence to substantiate their claims.

But I agree whole-heartedly that it is high time that this thread is put out of its misery.

By the bye what's that star of the democrat liberal left, Dennis Kucinich, beating his gums about these days. Surprised someone so talented didn't get some form of senior position in Obama's administration.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM

Amos:

I never defended GWB I just objected to and pointed out the fallacies in the lynch mob mentality you represent, therefore I do not have to defend something I did not do.

I have also pointed out the failure of your lynch mob tactics.

Now you are defending McDermott who was legally charged.

I assume you would like to have this tread die to conceal your excess political enthusiasm which is now becoming obvious.

While your "intelligent, coherent, literate President who can understand principles, knows the Constitution and is committed to fundamental decency" is on the job:

Karzai condemns killing of 16 Afghan civilians by US forces 25/01/09

Afghan President Hamid Karzai Sunday condemned a US military raid in eastern Afghanistan that he said killed 16 civilians, while hundreds of local villagers took to streets to denounce the US military and central government, dpa reported.

In a statement issued by his office, Karzai condemned the US military raid in Mehtar Lam district of eastern Laghman province on Friday which, he said, resulted in death of 16 civilians including two women and three children.

"Bombing Afghan villages, except for killing civilians, does not yield any other progress in the fight against terrorism," the president said in the statement.

Karzai asked for an immediate end to civilian killings and deemed the "uncoordinated attacks" as "factors that weaken the Afghan government and strengthen terrorists."

Whilst:

President Karzai Telephones US Former President, George W. Bush
January 24, 2009

President Hamid Karzai Saturday called George W. Bush, the former President of the United States.

During the conversation, President Karzai admired and thanked Mr. Bush for the efforts he made during his presidency in strengthening bilateral ties between the US and Afghanistan and extended his best wishes to him.
In return Mr. Bush also wished Afghans prosperity and success.

How long will it take you to crank up a similar Obama thread?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:05 PM

Except that I was not drooling, and I never started a thread about McDermott, about whom I know nothing, and it seems highly tangential, irrelevant, and non sequitur for you to accuse me of not mentioning him in a thread about people's views about Bush being impeached for violation of the Constitution.

And violate the Constitution he did.

His string of offenses are legion. Why you defended him all these years really escapes me, because you have never come out and said why with any credibility.

But in any case, we now have an intelligent, coherent, literate President who can understand principles, knows the Constitution and is committed to fundamental decency.

Let's let this thread die, therefore--there will be n impeachment of the Bushies, and if they are ever prosecuted for their malfeasance, it should be the subject of a different thread.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:16 PM

Let me see if I can make logic of this. Amos started this thread drooling over the impending impeachment of GWB which was a total failure.

But I am the one that is in error.

Amos brought us this "truth" that we might never have know about without his drooling fervor over a lost cause:

The Green Party of California General Assembly recently approved a resolution calling for the impeachment and consequent removal from office of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for violating their constitutional oaths and committing "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Among the alleged violations listed in the resolution are:

+ Ordering warrantless searches and seizures of American citizens' personal communications, without oversight by the legislative or judicial branches of the government..

But where is hue and cry for impeachment for Rep McDermott, ranking Democrat of the House Ethics Committee after he does this which Amos fails to inform us about?

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who traveled to Baghdad last fall and pronounced President Bush a liar, accepted a cash payment less than a month later from an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam Hussein.

McDermott collected the payment from Shakir al-Khafaji, the same Detroit-based Baghdad supporter who paid former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 to make a pro-Saddam documentary about Iraq.

Appearing live from Baghdad on the Sept. 29 broadcast of ABC's "This Week," McDermott proclaimed, "The president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." The comment generated a firestorm of criticism in the U.S. that earned him the moniker, "Baghdad Jim."

A little less than a month later, on Oct. 25, McDermott accepted a check from al-Khafaji for $5,000, made out to the antiwar Democrat's "Legal Expense Trust."

McDermott set up the trust to fend off a lawsuit filed by Ohio Republican John Boehner stemming from McDermott's relationship with a Florida couple who wiretapped a 1997 conference call between Boehner and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, along with several other Republicans.

According to Amos, People like McDermott are the good guys. They get a pass when doing something illegal as long as they are Anti-War.


Yes Amos, by your own personal version of logic, you are always right.

All Hail Amos!!

Anybody that disagrees with his lynch mob mentality is simply wrong and needs to convert.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:45 PM

Your sense of virtue, old Saw, is inverted, and you are deep in a sorry mire.

May you find your way out

A.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:32 PM

Methinks Amos is the drooler.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:38 AM

Drool on, T.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 02:01 AM

Wot!!!!! No impeachment???????

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:46 AM

Legislators vote to impeach Blagojevich

Speaker of the House Michael Madigan presides over the Illinois House of Representatives as they discuss a resolution to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich today in Springfield, Illinois. The House approved the resolution to impeach 114-1 with one member voting present.

By Ray Long and Rick Pearson January 10, 2009

Reporting from Springfield, Ill. -- The Illinois House voted Friday to impeach disgraced Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and send him to trial in the Senate with the aim of removing the two-term Democrat from state public office forever.

The governor's Dec. 9 arrest on corruption charges was the trigger, but lawmakers unloaded six years of grievances in a swift 114-1 vote. Their action made the state's 40th governor the first in state history to be impeached.

Representatives cast aside Blagojevich's declarations of innocence, saying there was no place in government for a man who ran roughshod over the Legislature, wasted millions of dollars in state money and sought to sell state contracts and the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

"It's our duty to clean up the mess and to stop the freak show which has become Illinois government," said Democratic state Rep. Jack Franks, a longtime Blagojevich critic.

Blagojevich, who has resisted calls for his resignation from state and national leaders, including Obama, was jogging near his Chicago home when lawmakers voted........

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:56 PM

Impeach him? Why, he never caused a single death!! What are y'all so riled about?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:44 PM

Illinois panel recommends governor's impeachment

Fri Jan 9, 2009 Reuters UK

By Michael Conlon and Andrew Stern

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A legislative committee on Thursday recommended the impeachment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, citing widespread abuse of power including allegations he tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

If the Illinois House of Representatives votes to accept the recommendation from its investigating committee and impeach Blagojevich, he would be tried in the state Senate and face removal from office if convicted.

The two-term Democrat has denied any wrong-doing. He issued a statement saying the impeachment proceedings "were flawed, biased and did not follow the rules of law. ... When the case moves to the Senate, an actual judge will preside over the hearings, and ... the outcome will be much different."

The Illinois House could vote as soon as Friday to approve the impeachment. How soon a trial could begin was not clear.

The 21-member House committee -- 12 Democrats and nine Republicans -- voted unanimously to recommend impeachment and conviction, along with the governor's removal from office and a ban on his ever holding public office in the state again.

The committee launched hearings in the state capital, Springfield, a week after FBI agents arrested Blagojevich in December on charges he conspired to commit fraud and solicit bribes.

The charges were supported by a criminal complaint that detailed conversations laced with profanity culled from two months of court-approved wiretaps on the governor's phones.

The committee's report described as "shocking" the governor's efforts to exchange the Senate appointment for campaign contributions or high-paid jobs for him or his wife......

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE5078FV20090109

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:40 AM

Before he went to work for Obama, David Axelrod spent years working for the Daley Chicago Political Machine.

In 2005, when U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was investigating corruption in Illinois. Axelrod attacked him for trying to criminalize the sleazy style of politics in Chicago.

In an op-ed piece Axelrod insisted that trading political favors -- including jobs, known as 'pay for play' these days -- is an essential part of the process that makes government work although Obama has called for the resignation of Blagojevich for doing the same.

Axelrod has been the liaison between the Daley Machine and Barack Obama giving him the White House Senior Adviser post.

Change is coming, change we can believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 11:16 AM

"Environmental groups and members of the Senate and House of Representatives are working desperately to head off Interior Department plans to auction wilderness land in Utah for exploration by oil and gas companies.

Actor Robert Redford spoke from Utah via satellite during a Wednesday press conference held by opponents of the auction. Introduced as "a tireless advocate for the environment," he began by saying, "I have spent much of my adult life in these lands. ... For me, it's an emotional point."

"What you keep getting shocked about is how devious and secretive -- and basically, in my mind, morally criminal -- their behavior has been," Redford said of the Bush administration. "These lands are not Cheney's and Bush's. The lands are ours. ... They're part of our legacy."

"Bush may be a lame duck, but he could still quack," Redford insisted. "We just can't let it happen."

Redford, however, described himself as "pretty encouraged" by President-elect Obama's nomination of Ken Salazar for Interior Secretary. "I think very highly of him," Redford concluded.

According to a press release from the Natural Resources Defense Council, several environmental advocacy groups will challenge the Bush's administration in court in an attempt to head off Friday's auction."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 11:06 AM

Good advice indeed, T. Especially the last line. Your belly-laugh, though, is a sorry piece of rationalization, AFAIAC.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 10:02 AM

Amos, That is the funniest, most ludicrous, contradictary piece of crap I think I have ever seen you post. I mean really, have you read it??? Here it is again with a bit of common-sense thrown at it:

"...A bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges...."

Simple question here Amos does this Armed Services Comittee recommend filing criminal charges? Or is it the case that it is simply the opinion of the NYT correspondent that it might provide the basis for filing criminal charges, i.e. the aforesaid Senate Armed Services Committee actually said sweet FA about filing criminal charges.

"The report shows how actions by these men "led directly" to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons."

What?? Donald Rumsfeld ordered English to stack naked Iraqi prisoners in a pyramid?? Where about in the report does it state that. I think that on closer investigation of what the report said with regard to treatment of prisoners, a minute proportion of personnel exceeded their orders, and that Amos does not equate to "led directly" to, not by a bloody long shot. Do you know how many prisoners passed through those establishments?? Do you know how many did so unharmed?? One thing I can tell you for certain Amos, especially with regard to Abu Ghraib, damn sight more came out unscathed from being in US custody than ever did when Saddam ran the place.


Oh, this bit is priceless:

"It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America's standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War."

Eh?? "charged with defending the Constitution and America's standing in the world" Where on earth did the pillock who wrote this rubbish come up with that requirement. I can just see Obama come January 19th 2009 standing there at his inauguration trotting that line out:

"I hereby solemnly swear to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the standing of America in the eyes of the World"

Absolutely brilliant!! Little hint here Amos, when it comes to defending the security of the United States of America, as far as all those "officials" goes, including you President, it is America first and foremost, that consideration above all else to the exclusion of all others, and the perception of America held by anyone outside the USA can go hang, if they didn't think that way they need sacking.

"Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy."

Take it the NYT is talking about "water-boarding" here eh, Amos? Now you tell me what makes that sentence idiotically ludicrous beyond belief?? Oh don't bother Amos, I'll tell you - This prat from the NYT is saying that it is perfectly OK to "water-board" your own soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as part of their training, but it is a heinous crime against humanity to do the same to people trying their absolute damnedest to destroy you. I don't know about you Amos but I'd call that Bullshit.

On another thread Weelittledrummer put it perfectly, but paraphrased it goes something like this - If you go to war, make damn sure you win at all costs".

The NYT Prat, whose piece you felt sufficiently moved to post here then comes out with this classic:

"The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the "war on terror" — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions."

The President is quite correct, Geneva Conventions do not and should not apply to prisoners of the "war on terror". Reason behind that being that terrorists do not give two hoots for the Geneva Convention and as such they can hardly bleat about it applying to them when they themselves do not extend its protections to others in the prosecution of the acts of violence. Do you want a list of infringements of Geneva Conventions by terrorist Groups Amos??? Or do you agree with the writer of this sorry article that only democratic nations must be hampered and disadvantaged by having to obey the Geneva Conventions, while all others blythely ignore them - grow up. War IS hell, you therefore make sure that it is as short as possible and that your side wins - otherwise don't fight wars.