BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...

Subject: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:07 PM

Well, given the high pitched protestation by Bush upon the New York Times outting his illegal assualt on the 4th amendment rights of our citizens, couple with his total nose thumping at long established US law, the Foriegn Intellegence Surveillance Act (FISA) it would appear that the president has stepped into that area, Article II, Estion 4, that the Founding Fathers feared could happen....

"...the president, the vice president, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and convictioon of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemanors"....

Well, we certainly have arrived at a crossroads here in the history and future of our country...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:12 PM

He should - but it isn't going to happen. It would be better to put that energy into getting a decent honest man elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:19 PM

615,265 people have already signed a petition calling for the impeachment of shrub and company. We are trying to get it to one million, if anyone is interested, or doesn't already know, the site is www.impeachbush.org.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:30 PM

The answer is yes, but you will also have to impeach Cheney. Who does that leave you with?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:43 PM

Sleepless Dad-I don't agree with you that Bush's impeachment can't happen, particularly if the Democrats win control of the House or the Senate in 2006.

I believe that in addition to pushing for Bush's impeachment {and hoping that the Special Prosecutor Fritzgerald takes care of Cheney, and Rove et al} we have to work hard to get decent honest and intelligent and effective men and women elected.

'Course it's of the utmost importance that we get rid of those Diebold elections machines too or elections will continue to be stolen.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:50 PM

Hmmmmm???

Does seem you'd go right down the list of successors before finding anyone who hasn't broken the law...

Bill Frist?

(But, Bobert, isn't he being investigated for some inside trading stuff?)

Hmmmmm???

Yes, d, this does pose an intersting situation when the rntire danged governemnt is so corrupt and steeped in crime that, hey, yer locally elected dog warden might be the next presdient...

But one thing is for sure, if this was Democratic controlled Congress then all we'd be hearing since last Friday is impeachment, impeachment and more impeachemnt...

Yeah, kat, I'm aware of the movement but that's been going on for some time now...

The stuff that Bush was caught doing before the New Times disclosure amounted to some dumbass policies but only borderlinr impeachable... You know, like Clinton's impeachement...

BUT now they have the goods on him... He has admitted to doing the crime but now says it wasn't a crime because the country was at war... Like I siad, the country is not leagally at war... Even if it were there's no consitutional provision for the executive branch to violate federal law.... Hey, given the logic that Bush ahs put forward, he could ignore and break any federal law he didn't like????

"Ahhhhh, sorry, all you black folks... We're at war so I'm callin' off the 1965 Voting Rights Act... Yeah, you might vote in a weak-kneed Democrat who would just invite Al Qeada into our country... It's my job to protect you all so I hope you'll understand why I've called off your right to vote..."

I mean, lets get real here, folks... The man has broken the law and it's time for his supporters to think hard about all those "personal responsibility" sermons they were deliverin' a couple years ago...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:55 PM

And what law are you dreaming he broke?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:01 PM

It is illegal, without warrant, to violate the security of American citizens intheir persons and papers. Mister Bush has explicitly done so.

Yes, he should be.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:04 PM

From a correspondent:

"I don't think the government lawyers are *stupid* enough to think
that everyone whose home or office is invaded without a warrant would
not be an innocent citizen or visitor, who would not seek recourse.

IMPO, it's now impeachment time - unless, of course, you think that
if they make a mistake, they will just "disappear" the innocent
civilian, so they can't complain...

There aren't higher crimes and misdemeanors than pre-Patriot Act
warrantless searches and seizures, or the assertion by the executive
that he will defy the expiration of the Patriot Act provisions, which
were not clearly Constitutional in the first place."


A.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:08 PM

Google up the "Foriegn Intellegence Surveillance Act" or "FISA", A, and then you'll know what law Bush and his buds have broken...

And, fir the record, all Gonzalez knows how to do is say "Yes, Master George"... Worst Attorney General in my memory if he's advisng Bush that breaking federal law is lawfull... I wouldn't hire this incompetant to defend me on a parking violation...

Breaking the law is, ahhhh, breaking the law...

Hey, if Bush didn't like the law he should have tried to change it.... But to just say, "Screw it, I'm King and laws don't apply to me" was not only dumb but terribly arrogant...

BObert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:10 PM

Amos, where is this so called law shown. And don't tell me the Constitution. Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all did it. Bush 2 has apprised the Congress of this 12 times since 9/11.

Please, don't allow your eager vindictiveness , your hatred and perhaps a poor losers attitude get in the way of regular thinking by you people. The vileness towards this President as demonstrated by some of you people is starting to take the appearance of a "puton".

Or are you just playing devils advocate? You seem to go to great lengths to denigrate this Prez with some of the most unreliable sources.

I suggest that some of you read sources other than the New York Times. Their penchant for honesty has be clobbered the past several years. Did not the Editor and others have to resign?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:10 PM

Last night on the Tavis Smiley show, Senator Barbara Boxer said:

"President Bush appears to be the first President who admitted to an impeachable offense. That's John Dean's quote."

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:13 PM

The members of Congress who were 'briefed' on the new procedures are beginning to make clear that they were NOT given full information about what was being done, and were NOT given any of the mandated oversight opportunity that they are legally supposed to have!

This was a blatant end run around the law...even the law they tried to use!

It actually might be more awkward to go thru an impeachment process right now, than to just fill the news with facts and get the whole batch voted out next year and in 3 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:18 PM

Yep, you bet I will go with what John Dean says. Not!

Okay boys and girls - go look up Executive order 12139 by Jimmy Carter which provides Bush 2 the right to do what he is doing.

Then, check out Executive Order 12949 by William Jefferson Clinton which provides for search and seizure of your domicile without a court order.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:23 PM

One more comment - Kat, what are the grounds for impeaching Bush? He talks funny, doesn't do what you ecpect him to do?

Have you not paused to consider that if there were any good reason for impeachment, the Congressional Dems would instigated the process?

After all, the Dems are starting to look like mindless fools and certainly could use a way out.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:23 PM

Published on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 by The Olympian (Olympia, Washington) Bush Must Be Held Accountable
George Bush Cannot Protect Democracy by Destroying It.

Editorial

Every American should be outraged by the president's attempt to justify domestic spying. It's wrong, and the president should acknowledge that fact. He must be held accountable. Congress should immediately launch a truly bipartisan investigation into the administration's spying campaign. If the Constitution and laws of the United States were broken, Congress should censure the president. And if the lies, the deceit and lawbreaking continue, Congress should take even more drastic action. Either we are a nation of laws and moral values or we are not. We cannot pick and choose which laws to abide by and which to ignore for the sake of convenience or expediency. George Bush is not above the law.

This is a military community, with thousands of active duty and retired members of the armed forces among our friends and neighbors. The presidents' actions undermine their service to this nation. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for true democracy, not a democracy that condones domestic spying, or secret prisons or subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has played right into the hands of ter-rorists and diminished the reputation of the fine men and women who wear this nation's uniforms. President Bush is the one sending the wrong message to our soldiers and our enemies. Under his leadership, we are becoming known as a nation of hypocrites.

President Bush has built an administration founded on lies and exaggerations and fear. And he has gotten away with it. It's unconscionable. President Bush promised to take action against any White House official leaking classified information. Yet Karl Rove remains. When CIA director George Tenet said weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were a "slam dunk," he was dead wrong. How was he punished? He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. George Bush says the United States does not torture, yet his administration fought tooth and nail against an explicit ban on torture. Abu Ghraib was an exception, we were told. But then we learned there were secret prisons abroad where who knows what goes on. The president excoriated congressmen Monday for not blindly passing the overbroad USA Patriot Act because they didn't trust that there were adequate safeguards against abuses. Ironically, that happened at the same time as President Bush promised to continue the illegal wiretaps. He seemed to be saying, "Trust me."

Well, Mr. President, we are sorry to say that we don't trust you or your administration because you have abused that trust so often in the past.

Big Brother

His effort this week to turn around his abysmal poll numbers should fall on deaf ears. The American public knows that domestic spying is something out of George Orwell's "1984." Yet George Bush has made that "Big Brother" fantasy a reality. Attempting to justify the indefensible, the president on Monday said he would continue the program of moni-toring phone calls and e-mails "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens" and added that it included safeguards to protect civil liberties. Baloney!

The president could have gone to Congress and asked for permission to spy on citizens in the United States. The Republican-controlled Congress would have given the president permission in a heartbeat. Or he could use exist-ing wiretap laws that allow a court order 72 hours after the taping has begun. That way, our vital system of checks and balances would have been preserved.

In his arrogance, President Bush did not go to Congress or to the courts for permission (although he claims that he did tell select members of Congress what he was doing — as if that is enough). He sees himself above the law. As commander in chief, he believes he is not bound by the Constitution and its guarantees of civil liberties. In his view, the warrantless spying conducted by the National Security Agency under his direction is an essential ele-ment in the war against terrorists. In that belief he has lowered himself to their level. And there is a disturbing pattern to his behavior.

It's OK to lie about the reasons to go to war.

It's OK to hold hundreds, maybe thousands of prisoners without charges, without legal representation and for an indefinite period of time,

It's OK to have secret prisons.

It's OK to say the provisions of the Geneva Convention don't apply in a war on terror.

It's OK to treat detainees inhumanely, because we can define them as we see fit.

It's OK to use the Patriot Act to pry into library records and lord knows what else.

It's OK, as NBC News reported, for the Pentagon to spy on peace activists.

It's OK to trample on the rights of citizens.

Unchecked powers

At Monday's news conference, President Bush angrily denied that he is using unchecked or dictatorial powers. But how else can you characterize his behavior? What tyrant hasn't claimed the need to use extra legal powers to protect the motherland or fatherland from some threat? How much Orwellian doublespeak can this coun-try tolerate?

Congress impeached former President Clinton for lying about consensual sex with a White House intern.

No one died. No prisoners were tortured. Clinton simply tarnished his own reputation and sullied the stature of the Oval Office. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, a Democrat or Republican issue. It's an issue of fundamental civil rights.

We repeat: Congress must muster the courage to hold this president accountable. A bipartisan commission investigation is warranted. And if the lies and deceit continue, Congress should consider the ultimate step and impeach President George Bush. It's all about accountability and protecting, not destroying, democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:23 PM

The entire American goverment and military and secret agencies should ALL collectively be impeached. So should several other major world governments and military. Ain't gonna happen, though. Not unless we get invaded and liberated by someone from outer space who is far more ethical than our own leaders.

I doubt that that will happen, because their ethics would not allow them to invade us in that case... ;-) If they were like us, on the other hand, they'd have done so long ago.

Bit of a conundrum, isn't it? This place is like a prison planet. It's like an intergalactic Devil's Island run by the criminally insane, and quarantined for the safety of the general galactic public.

Think I'm being funny? Well, maybe so and maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:27 PM

Published on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 by Newsweek

Bush's Snoopgate

The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times'; eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper's editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn't just out of concern about national security.

Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn't agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president's desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that "the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy." But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a "shameful act," it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab. No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had "legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force." But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary force" in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action. This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba. This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

by Jonathan Alter, © 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:27 PM

Little Hawk, it is rather impossible to ascertain what you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:28 PM

From the venerable Governor Dean:

        
...

This is not an easy letter to write, and I'm afraid it may be a hard one to believe.

By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.

These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.

You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours:

www.democrats.org/foia

This extra-legal activity is even more disturbing because it is unnecessary -- the administration already has access to a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That court was created precisely to provide speedy, secure judicial review to the actions of our intelligence agencies.

To allow authorities act as quickly as possible, officials can even apply for a retroactive warrant days after the surveillance has already begun. Secret warrants have been approved over 19,000 times -- only five applications were rejected in nearly thirty years. The court, which regularly acts within hours, is hardly a roadblock, but it prevents abuse by providing the oversight required by our system of checks and balances.

This administration must demonstrate clearly what legal authority allows it to disregard criminal prohibitions on unilateral domestic spying. Sign on to the request now -- it will be delivered on Thursday:

www.democrats.org/foia

In an interview on Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez admitted that the administration asked certain Members of Congress about getting a new law to allow spying on Americans without a warrant. Realizing that even a Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't authorize such a measure, they decided to manipulate current law and proceed with the program anyway.

Manipulation of a law like this is dangerous. The same Office of Legal Counsel used vague assertions of sweeping authority in the infamous torture memos. The victim of this reasoning is the rule of law itself -- when this administration asserts sweeping authority to step over any line of legality, it asserts that there are no lines at all.

Does this administration believe there are any lines it can't cross? Americans deserve to know. Join our Freedom of Information Act request now:

www.democrats.org/foia

Some Republicans will try to pretend that this is just another political fight. But Americans of every political viewpoint are rightfully disturbed by this extra-legal activity. The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, shocked by the report of this activity, promised to convene hearings in January.

Even Bob Barr, who was one of the most conservative members of Congress and the first member to file articles of impeachment against President Clinton, said:

"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."

We need to know whether George Bush went beyond the limits of the law -- and whether he and his administration believe that there are any limits at all. Please join this important request:

www.democrats.org/foia

Even after the press found out about these actions, the administration tried to cover up its existence. According to Newsweek, George Bush summoned the publisher and executive editor of the New York Times to the Oval Office to try to stop them from running the story of these illegal activities.

We have seen this kind of arrogance of power before.

Richard Nixon once said in an interview that, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal."

He found out that wasn't true. This administration may need a reminder.

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:28 PM

And Freda, continue to read that which you can agree with. Don't let opposing facts get in your way. Please, don't check out the 2 Executive Orders I mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:34 PM

Why can't some of you people recognize the playing of politics.

The above is simply Gov. Deans attempt to cause more crap. It is obvious that many here are so biased to the left that nothing will ever cause you to think in another direction. That is okay, watch the outcome of the 2006 election, let alone the 2008, and maybe that will cause you to wonder about your ever increasing minority status.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:34 PM

Yo, A...

You oughta be ashamed... Not gonna hire you eithter to defend me against a parkling violation... Both of these orders, 12139 and 12949, had language "pursuant to Foriegn Intllegence Surveillance Act"....

Do you have a clue what this means???

Prolly not...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:36 PM

One of the great things about Americans is your understanding of your rights and capacity to get outraged and take legal action. In Australia, we have a government which is similarly corrupting out democracy and working hard to erode the checks and balances that make us a democracy. But while there is concern here, there is no action.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:38 PM

I certainly do, do you? Really now, don't jump to a false conclusion.

Think about it for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:44 PM

Bobert, stop trying to bluff your way through life.

Try this: Pursuant., proceeding from and conformable to, in accordance with.

(From The American Heritage Dictionary)

Your turn...........

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:57 PM

Guest, A

Thank you for your posts and I sincerely mean it. What you have here at Mudcat is the worst part of the far left radical doper babies. bobert is into the Bush bashing everyday as a user is in to heroin. He takes considerably more out of this country than he puts in.

Amos, spouting law like he has been practicing it for decades when really all he knows about the law is when his driver license might expire, got his law degree from gumball machines when they were still only a penny. He is also a daily addict of anit-America rhetoric that would make anyone from Al-Qaida proud. These are folk music types who do the genre a disgrace in some kind of ritual political activism that leaves very little room for anything mainstream, patriotic, pro government, etc. In short, you are addressing the Mudcat socialists. The old hippies who want to run and ruin this country.

They hate being called this, and I admire your courage and cleverness which obviously makes them look as foolish and mentally ill that they are.

No one is going to impeach Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:02 PM

No bluff, A...

These orders were "pursuant" to federal law... They weren't orders that said, ""Screw federal law"...

Big difference...

Hey, BTW, A, why do you think you can blow a bunch of smoke up my butt????

Yeah, I might do a little playin' with my dialect an all and do a decent "aww shucks" but don't confuse me with no lightweight, pal... I got 8 years of college an' a couple degrees which prolly don't mean nuthin' to you but what it measn to anyone with 8 years od college and couple degrees that they ain't exactly friggin' lighwieghts that can be easily taken off course with any shiny object...

You seem to respond to me that way, my friend....

I know what "pursuant" mean... It means that both Carter and Clinton were issuing orders "within" the law....

Bush, on the other hand, shose to operate "outside" the law...

This ain't rocket sergery here, pal, so please, don't try to steam-roll me unless you are danged sure you have a slam dunk... It only makes you look misinformed... Not me!!!!

Regards,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:09 PM

Bobert, you wouldn't recognize a "slam dunk" if you were glued to the ball.

And I don't care if you have 80 years of college. You seem to be the only one here is leery of his selfworth.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:11 PM

ding!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:18 PM

Oh, 'bout time the resident Dean-Martin-hootenany-wantatbe-a-real-folk-singer-Bushite-heavyduty-thinker stuck his 2 cents worth in...

Figgures...

Anytime his hero is in serious trouble, he tries to redirect the crime onto the victims and witnesses...

If Martin Gibson were an attorney representing a rapist he would prolly say it was the victim's fault for having been born with a vagina???

Typical MG thinking...

His opionions no longer matter here since he has stepped well into the "mental illness" ring and has been told to behave more like real people or, perhaps have his ISP blocked... Yeah, A, I'd be real leary of gloatin' about a MG endoresement...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:22 PM

Bobert, the above post by you really lends nothing to the discussion at hand. I am, however, starting to expect this sort of thing from you and it is getting a bit weary.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,A
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:25 PM

I guess I will have to place boberts posts under what appears to be his own personal motto;

"When I can't debate, I will denigrate."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:27 PM

Why are A and MG going off on a "let's attack Bobert" tangent instead of responding to the issue of Bush authorizing domestic spying without warrants?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:33 PM

"Why are A and MG going off on a "let's attack Bobert" tangent.."

because it's easier than cogent argument..

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:35 PM

Azizi, because the attorney general said he did not do anything wrong. Last I checked that was the top lawyer in the land.

And I have nothing to hide. Check me out, bug my phone all you want. Copy my pizza order. We are in a time of war against fanatic Islamo-facists who want to destroy America. Peace, love, dove is not going to work with these douche-bags.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,B
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:41 PM

"pseudo-intellectuals " You got the spelling right at last. I believe I gave you that turn of phrase a long time ago on the Mudcat. Now you overuse it....learn the meanings of phrases then you won't sound so dumb at times. Education is an asset. Get one.
One finger pointing at Bobert and three fingers right back at his attackers as always.
Now Guest A and your Fan go look up "cogent argument.. " then come back when your both old enough to join in a grown up political discussion....run along now.

Back to the orignal question....no should about it.....definetly and asap.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 PM

Gonzalez is the worst Attorney General and the biggest Yes-Man that I can remember...

If Bush were to come to him tomorrrow and say, "Hey, I'm sick of people like Bobert getting on my case so I'm going to have him killed", Yes-Man Gonzalez would say it's perfectly legal since the country is at war, which legally it isn't, but what the hey...

But glad to see A join up with MG... Say a lot about both of them...

And, just for the record. VCU (Virgina Commonwealth University) ain't no community college... Last count the enrollement was in the 15,000 student range...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 PM

Guest/A, talk about getting weary. Your mindless sword flailing proves nothing more than that you like plastic.

When will you learn that the lawlessness of our government is what is - or should be - the issue here? Why do you defend it? Don't you ever wonder if you're on the right side?

You can like George Bush all you like- you can go biking or golfing or shooting the breeze with him all you like- but please don't do a knee jerk defense of him and his policies when a little reflection must convince you that the man is dumb, arrogant, shortsighted, hypocritical and corrupt.

(And I'd be leery of some people who rah rahhing you on- there are some people you don't want as a friend.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:53 PM

"Little Hawk, it is rather impossible to ascertain what you are."

Thanks, A...that's because we're on the Net. ;-) I have no idea what you are either, but I'll tell you what I am...I'm a living soul, temporarily experiencing physical life as a male homo sapiens on the 3rd rock from the Sun...and what a weird experience it is!

As you may have gathered, I don't think very highly of our modern governmental systems (and I don't just mean the USA)...although some progress has certainly been made. We are, in general, quite primitive emotional beings on this planet, just a tad more compassionate and trustworthy than cavemen, governed mostly by fear and other base emotions, yet with a technology that is very highly advanced. That's a very risky combination of factors...like giving hand grenades to children.

I regard all modern governments as morally and procedurally insane, in a number of respects, but that's not to say that the individual people IN those governments are not trying, for the most part, to do the best they can. They're just caught up in something way bigger than they know how to handle. It's the System, like in "Animal Farm". It lives for itself, not for you and me...and it isn't even real, it's just an idea. Ideas die hard, and people kill for them.

I regard both Left and Right as being fairly much out of touch with reality. They desperately need each other so they can both feel superior and have someone else to blame for everything. They need an "enemy" to drive their paranoia and righteousness.

The fact that this phony Left/Right stuff divides the public so effectively against each other is one of the main reasons ordinary people are so confused and disempowered. If you abolished all the existing political parties and started over again without them, we'd be much better off.

I'm probably more like you than you would think. Just a bit unconventional in some respects, that's all. I don't really believe in most of the stuff that is taken for granted in this society. I cope with it, because I must, but I don't believe in it. I feel like I got dropped on some really insane planet somewhere, and must make the best of a difficult situation.

You know that "Stranger in a strange land" feeling? It's been with me ever since First Grade.

I was as unconventional among the so-called "hippies" in the early 70's as I was among the straights. I had the long hair, but didn't smoke anything. That left me in a minority of one. Interesting experience. I never could see any sense in inhaling smoke. (but I ended up inhaling a fair bit of second hand smoke, of course...it was unavoidable back then unless you lived in total isolation out in the wilderness somewhere)   I guess things are improving some...

Now look, I have been trying to arrange a date for Martin Gibson and Don Firth for some time, based on the old premise that intense hostility and instinctive dislike is the perfect catalyst with which to ignite a budding romance! (You know?...like all those dumb movies back in the 40's? Where the hero and the heroin hate each other with a passion at the start and end up falling passionately in love?) I'm thinkin' you and Bobert are shaping up the same way. Yessiree. Big possibilities. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:11 PM

Here ARE THE ACTUAL QUOTES by Republicans calling for impeachment.

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpoliticsofthepeoplefrm1.showMessage?topicID=8033.topic

I do not see one speech that does not NOW apply to W.

I SAY USE THIS EXACT RHETORIC TOWARDS GEORGE JR. AND BRING HIM DOWN.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:16 PM

Okay, LH, I'm gassin' up the Toyoter and on my way to deliver youmone big ol' fashioned Christmas Ho-Ho-friggin-Ho-butt-whup fir that last observation....

Grrrrr...

You were doin' real good right up til then an then you was like Apollo 13...

Ain't no love/hate thing between me and A... A ain't one thing like me and don't give me that ol' 3rd rock crap in tryin' to convince me he is... Hey, I like DougR$... No, not like that, gal dang it! At least Dougie has some level respect... A ain't got none... A is fir "Attack Bobert"... Might of fat, I think that's why he/she took the name "A"... It's fir "attack, attack, attack"... Shoulda been "GUEST AAAA" but then I reckon folks would get A confused with batteries... Heck, I met smarter triple A betteries smarted than A...

Now, please send direction, LH, so that I don't accidently whup ass on the wrong guy... Man, don't ya hate that??? "Ahhhhh, looked like a 6 to me, Ralph... Ahhhh, I knew we shoulda double checked... Ahhhh, hey buddy, you okay??? Gonna need a ride to the hospital??? Sorry, looked like a 6 to me......".................

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:19 PM

yep...I can just imagine what those Republicans who wanted Clinton impeached would be saying now if a Democrat had just pulled these spying stunts!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:29 PM

Good point, Bill...

"Cept it wouldn't have been this censorship that Clinton got... It woulda been like Andrew Johnson... You know, "Clean out yer desk" had Clinton been involved with what Bush ****HAS**** done here... Even admitted to doing it...

"Yeah, your honor, the reason I was breaking the law is becuase it's my job to protect the American people. And it's a hard job."

Ha!!!!

Now don't tle F. Lee Bailey of Johnny Cochran to tell ya that that ain't gonna beat the rap....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:32 PM

Ha! Ha! Ha!

I figured you'd be just tickled pink by that notion, Bobert.

Okay, here are the directions. You go north. Way north. After awhile you come to Canada, the Great White North of legend and fame. Beauty, eh?

Okay...so...then ya gotta take yer bearings real careful, like...cos we got a lotta wilderness up here and you wouldn't want to be et by a polar bear! That could be fatal, eh?

Okay...so...you, like, take a dodge northwest, eh? Way up around Lake Superior, just to the west of Lake Inferior, otherwise known as "t'other big one". Watch out for Blind River. You might meet Shane, and he'll want to bum smokes off you. Keep goin' west. Way, way west. Eventually you will pass places like Winnipeg and all that. Keep goin'. Finally you will find yerself way out west by where Brucie lives. You know Brucie? He's under a different name now.

Well, when you find Bruce, tell him "hello" for me. You will now be a coupla thousand miles away from me, and I figure that's a real good way for me to get a head start and not be home, know what I mean?

Decent, eh?

Tell Bruce I was NOT responsible for Esmeralda not showing up! She is a goat with a mind of her own.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:48 PM

Goats???

Sniff...

Mr. Ron Wilson, my closet neighbor has 'bnout 20 'er 18 of them an', well, they come up to the fence line when I drive home at night an'sometime I get out the truck an' pet up an' all... They loves the attention...

(Hey wait, Bobert, LH just trying to throw you off course knowing that you is a tree-huggin animmal lover jus' to keep you from deliverin' a butt whup to him fir the "You & A" thing...)

Hey, goats or no goats, ain't no thing...

Bober

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:58 PM

Very, very good, Donuel.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.):

"Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive

Since it is the rule of law that guides us, we must ask ourselves what happens to our nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or violated, especially at the highest level of government. Consider the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who was particularly insightful on this point. "In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself."

Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what our failure to uphold the rule of law will say to the nation, and most especially to our children, who must trust us to leave them a civilized nation where justice is respected."

I especially enjoyed the quote by Tom DeLay.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Azizi
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:00 AM

Hey, Little Hawk and Bobert, that's the kind of Mudcat tangent that I greatly admire.

But, as to this thread's question "Should Bush be impeached",
my answer is a resounding "YES".

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Snagger
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:19 AM

He should be held accountable for all the lies he has sprung on the American public. I feel as a country we have embarrassed ourselves by not demonstrating outrage at our leaders. What will it take to have everyday people stand up to the scare tactics this administration uses? A real leader once said " the only thing to fear is fear itself" and he was absolutely correct. Fear is our enemy and not king Bush.