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

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:13 PM

Guest G says:
"Tia, the quote you show is not from the National Review or Byron York. I subscribe to th electronic version of NR and what you have shown as a possible quote from the NR is in reality the opinion of someone who read the article..."

Didn't say it was a quote from NRO or Byron York. In fact I supplied the link to exactly where it comes from, AND pointed out that links to the original documents and sources could be found there.

In lockstep with your previous post, eh? In the spirit of the holidays, I will presume that you were not implying that *I* am acting like a fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,G
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:28 PM

No Tia, I will not pin that title on you as I remember you from some time ago. Most of the Ladies here are pretty much on the up and up.


However, don't you tink the average reader could mistake that as a quote from Bryon York? Maybe not all the average readers but some and people like xxxxxxxxx who get all their info from the NY Times and The Washington Post.

Despite our differences, the Holidays are a separate entity. Merry/Happy Christmas or however you view it. Mean that.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:46 PM

Yes, unfortunately, I agree with you. The average reader is probably not a careful reader, so I do see your point. In this instance, the quote refers to Byron York's article in the third person - making it pretty clearly not a quote from Byron York.

And while we're on the subject of agreeing - I agree ith you that people who get all of their information from any single source (or narrow set of sources) are likely to act as fools.

Merry Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: kendall
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:49 PM

Even a fool can read and understand the 4th amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 03:07 PM

Unfortunately, Bush and his apologists seem to have difficulty with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,Martin gibson
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:07 PM

Guest,AR282

the attorney general can advise the president as to what his interprtation of law is. That's what lawyers do. they advise. the current attorney general has considerably more experience than any of the whiners like you here.

Now what gumball machine did you get your law degree out of that you can spout off like you know more then the attorney general? I know. Now you can make all of your claims that gonzales is the worst AG of all time, but he is more qualified than anyone here. especially anyone here!   If you are a lawyer, I'm sure you are following an ambulance right now, pal.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:10 PM

The hell with impeaching him. That's too good. All of those Republican morons should be drawn and quartered. They are liars, thiefs and 100% dishonest hypocrits.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,Martin gibsons
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:11 PM

And democrats are communist socialists who are republicans in disguise, only lying more about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,G
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:13 PM

Kendall and Guest; Yes, even a fool can understand the 4th Amenedment.
However, what does that have to do with the current conversation involving the FISA and various Executive orders?
In addition, the 4th Amendment relates to physical search and seizure.

Give us something new involving 'wiretapping'.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:15 PM

NSA has been 'wire tapping' for ages. There is nothing new about it. It's called spying.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,Martin gibson
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:26 PM

Spying is what it can take to win a war and gain an advantage in war time. and we are in a war.

so spy all you want and win it before you lose it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: kendall
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:30 PM

I've always said that if anything would bring him down it would be his arrogance. ..and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation stating in particular the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
We had to learn and be able to recite the whole 4th amendment before we could graduate from Treasury school. I doubt that Bush ever bothered to learn that.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,Berserker Nordstrom
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:32 PM

The advantage of believing implicitly in people in positions of power and authority such as the president, or thinking that the president's appointees know more about any given subject than some of the people contributing to this thread, is that it saves one the effort of thinking. If one hears of someone else objecting to something the administration does, all one need do to participate in the disuccion is to insult the person making the objection. No effort involved.

The disadvantage, of course, is that when one finds oneself on the wrong side of the barbed wire, one can't say that they hadn't been warned.

A lot of people learned that unpleasant lesson sixty-some-odd years ago, but very few lived long enough to profit by the lesson.

Berserker

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:58 PM

It's called the "Daddy's always right" syndrome, BN. I guess the reason I don't buy it is because I had such a lousy relationship with my own father. Accordingly, I have never tended to trust society's authority figures very well.

You're right about one thing, Martin...democrats ARE republicans in disguise! So true. (grin) They are not communist/socialists, though. There are very few of those in the USA...about as few as there are penguins in Montana.

You see, the trouble with modern party politics is this: Every party wants, basically, to gain power and keep it. In order to do so, they want to appeal to as many voters as possible...so they do research to find out what things push people's buttons most effectively. Fear and greed usually work really well. Accordingly, they get busy pushing those buttons. In the process, they all end up actually representing the same things, saying almost the same things, and doing basically the same things. They become clones of one another, while pretending to be an alternative. From outside the USA the republicans and democrats appear about as alike as...Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They both pretend to be super-patriotic, they both pretend to represent the common man, they both pretend they ARE an alternative to the other. They are not. They're 2 halves of a rotten old chestnut that fell off the tree a very long time ago.

And the same is true of our several silly political parties in Canada. The whole thing is a bad joke. Our elections are a choice between nothing but more of the same.

Political parties represent nothing but their own greed for power and gain. It's a pity that good people keep serving them.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:00 PM

Every politician in Ottawa could drop dead today and the country would run jus' fine for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:05 PM

You betcha. And think of the money and time we'd save. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:24 PM

Yeah, I got a kick outtta that staement that since Gonzelez is a lwayer that he is smarter than the average folks here in Mudville...

Well, he was smart enough to advise (I presume seeing as Bush has beeen relying ion him for advice for many a year)) Bush to avoid signing up fir the World Court... That was probably some fine advice or the Sheriif fromthe World Court would have come to collect Bush a long time ago...

But, on the whole, Gonzalez is like an tax accountant I once knew who would ask his clients, "How much do you want to pay" and then go about cooking the books to make the numbers justify what his clients felt that wanted to pay... In other words, A. Gonzlex, like most of Bush flunkies, is just another "yes-man"...

Torture??? Yes...

Domestic secret spying??? Oh, yes...

There seems to be a pattern developing here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:32 PM

>>Guest,AR282

the attorney general can advise the president as to what his interprtation of law is. That's what lawyers do. they advise. the current attorney general has considerably more experience than any of the whiners like you here.<<

He's a Bush-appointee, friend. He is what Bush expects him to be--a yes-man. It doesn't matter what he thinks. He does not make the decision whether Bush broke the law or not, Congress will make that decision.

>>Now what gumball machine did you get your law degree out of that you can spout off like you know more then the attorney general?<<

I repeat: the A-G does not make the decision whether Bush broke the law or not, Congress will make that decision. If I am wrong, prove it.

>>I know. Now you can make all of your claims that gonzales is the worst AG of all time, but he is more qualified than anyone here. especially anyone here!   If you are a lawyer, I'm sure you are following an ambulance right now, pal.<<

Oh, come on. If Gonzales was a democrat, you'd be howling what an idiot he is and calling for him to be hung from the highest tree. Please do shut up and stop wasting my time until you actually have something worthwhile to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,Martin gibson
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:49 PM

why should I, guest? Your points were as paper thin as your asshole I am afraid.

The attorney general was approved by congress, pal. And you have a law degree and have studied the constitution like he has? what a blow-hard you are. a total whiner. You really said nothing but na na na na.

There will be no impeachement.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:55 PM

I doubt that Bush will be impeached. His authorization for telephone/e-mail intercepts stipulated that one of the callers/writers had to be outside the US. So, that dog don't bark. However, Congress might look at his actions and statements that got the US Congress and subsequently US people behind the invasion of Iraq--then, maybe.

I think that he will use the time between now and the end of his term to 'set up' a situation which 'forces' him to sieze power on a permanent basis. Within a year, IMO. Keep yer powder dry.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,G
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:17 PM

Little Hawk has quite a grasp as to "party politics".

I simply wish he were wrong, but, he is not.

I

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:23 PM

Dems and Reps: both sides of the same coin, IMO. Bastards all.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:30 PM

>>why should I, guest? Your points were as paper thin as your asshole I am afraid.

The attorney general was approved by congress, pal. And you have a law degree and have studied the constitution like he has? what a blow-hard you are. a total whiner. You really said nothing but na na na na.

There will be no impeachement.<<

Friend, I asked you to PROVE that the A-G's opinion about whether Bush broke the law or not has any bearing on anything. You have failed to do so and it makes no difference whether I am a total whiner or not.

You have to PROVE your case--I mean, you know that, right, seeing as how you can't seem to shut up about how godly Gonzales is because he's a lawyer. You have to PROVE your case. Calling me a whiner doesn't quite make it. Hell, I'll even admit--I'm the biggest whiner on planet earth. But aside from that, would you please PROVE that the A-G's opinion amounts to anything more than what it is--his opinion. By your logic, Fred Phelps's family must be right about picketing the funerals of dead soldiers because--well--they're all lawyers and have studied the Constitution!

I certainly hope you don't become a judge because if the defense attorney and the prosecutor approach your bench to each argue his point, this would be your line of reasoning based on what you have told us: "Hmmm, which one is right? I can't make up my mind. Both guys went to law school, both are lawyers, both have studied the constitution, both know more than everybody else in this room put together. I guess I'll just have to call it a draw because I can't bear to rule against either man being that both are SO special and can't be wrong about anything--I mean, they're both lawyers!!"

NEWSFLASH: Lawyers are often wrong! Many talk out their asses.
Many have been disbarred for talking out their asses!

NEWSFLASH: You can study the Constitution without being a lawyer!!! I know, it's hard to believe since only a lawyer has any need to study it. Everyone else should mind their own business and leave the Constitution to the expert lawyers.

NEWSFLASH: Many members of Congress are or were lawyers!!! Some even return to private practice!!! I know it must be terribly difficult for you to believe that only a Bush-appointed A-G can make and interpret law but actually neither is his job. Legislators make the laws and judges interpret them. About the only thing you have gotten right is that the A-G is an advisor. Well, if my lawyer knows I'm guilty, he can advise on how to handle it. Doesn't mean it will work. Doesn't mean he's right. It's his job to advise me on what to do about the matter--that's all. I once knew someone whose lawyer told him to call up the people who were suing him in court and threaten them. If and when they threatened back, he was to switch on a tape recorder and get it down so they could play it for the judge. The judge threw it out without even listening to it. By your logic, how could that be?? The guy's a lawyer and has studied the constitution and is therefore more informed and more intelligent than other people. The nerve of that judge!

As for whether there will be an impeachment--I think it is obvious that there will be. Bush is losing vital support from congressional republicans. Even Arlen Specter and John Sununu have turned against him and will hold investigations into the lawfulness of his activities. I think it is clear Bush broke the law and the republicans know he did and they can no longer afford to defend him. They need to throw him under the bus before the democrats get the chance. Even this Patriot Act is getting resistance from more and more influential republicans in Congress. No sooner did they agree to extend the Act for 6 mos and now another Republican has stood up to say he opposes it while try to kill it.

It's not looking good for Dubby-baby. It is, as they say, in the wind. Impeachment. Coming soon to your television set. Watch for it!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,G
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM

It will never happen!!! Remember the date and time of this post.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:56 PM

22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM


(It helps me remember.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:00 PM

"In addition, the 4th Amendment relates to physical search and seizure."

That is true--but incomplete. All the Amendments are open to interpretation by properly constituted authority. That's what the courts are for--and when interpretations go awry, as sometimes they do, that's what the Supreme Court is for. Small point, but important nevertheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:02 PM

NEWSFLASH

Bush not impeached yet. Far left-liberals looking for tomoorow's handwringing rumor.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: kendall
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:03 PM

Why do weak arguments always have to come down to name calling?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:17 PM

Well, Kendall, that's what folks who have weak argumwents are left with after they examine their hands... name callin'... Thou I don't likebeing attacked with name callin', hey, it at least lets me know I'm on the correct side of the issue...

Yeah, GUEST, AR282 comes inwith a strong position so Martin goes into his usual mental midget rebuttal which amounts to the usual reference to folk's biological parts... Real strong, Marty.... I'm sure you would nave been the star in your high school debating team...

Hey, GUEST, AR282... Keep firin'... Yer hittin' everything you shoot at!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:40 PM

Yes, please do mark the date and time I said there will be an impeachment.

The republicans MUST impeach Bush because if they lose control of Congress, the democrats will most certainly impeach him and they might make it stick.

If the pubs impeach him--at least they will have control of the situation and Bush will likely escape relatively unscathed and the GOP might not be looking at the bleak future they currently. Of course it could backfire badly but I think they'll take that chance.

Apparently some people here do not know what "impeachment" means. It does not mean Bush will be forced to resign. That is what the pubs have to prevent. Impeaching Bush themselves and then letting him slide in the end is a much better alternative than waiting for the dems to do it if they should gain control of Congress because then Bush is unlikely to escape unscathed and the GOP will go down with him.

So, yes, you mark my words.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:42 PM

22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM
22 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM


(It helps me remember.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:43 PM

>>I doubt that Bush will be impeached. His authorization for telephone/e-mail intercepts stipulated that one of the callers/writers had to be outside the US. So, that dog don't bark.<<

The dog that ain't barkin is yours. If a warrant is required then a warrant is required--end of argument.

Their best bet is to charge him and then decide after a long debate that it is just barely legal.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:48 PM

Certainly not. It is absolutely ridiculous to even think about it or waste time and effort over even discussing it.

For those who would disagree with the above consider the following without the introduction of personalities involved:

A-symetric terrorist threat, possible and probable cells within the boundaries of the USA - Are you seriously suggesting that you would not make any attempt to find out what they are communicating? Or establishing who they are communicating with? Are you honestly suggesting that you broadcast that intent by applying to individual courts and explaining the grounds for requiring surveillance? Utterly ridiculous, as it is you've tipped your hand already, any threat within your boundaries will have long since changed their mode of communication to avoid what up until now may have been very useful and effective intelligence gathering.

It is often asked on this forum why the lessons of history are not learned - it's a good question - my slant on it is, when are you guys going to stop your apparently irrepresible desire to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Impersonator
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:48 PM

You socialist commies have dicks smaller than your pubic hairs. You are wrong because your asses smell. You've got no facts, only personal attacks. Now stop whining and admit that George Bush is your lord and saviour you wussy illogical assholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:08 PM

>>A-symetric terrorist threat, possible and probable cells within the boundaries of the USA - Are you seriously suggesting that you would not make any attempt to find out what they are communicating? Or establishing who they are communicating with? Are you honestly suggesting that you broadcast that intent by applying to individual courts and explaining the grounds for requiring surveillance? Utterly ridiculous, as it is you've tipped your hand already, any threat within your boundaries will have long since changed their mode of communication to avoid what up until now may have been very useful and effective intelligence gathering.<<

Ridiculous. Terrorists aren't stupid. They know someone is listening. They will change their mode of communication every so often regardless.

Personally, I am not the slightest bit scared of terrorists. Frankly, I don't can't understand the hullabaloo. If they want to kill you, they will.

I am far more afraid that a president who says nice things as, "If you don't agree with me, you are un-American" might decide to listen in on me after reading an online post I wrote that was critical of him. If you roll your eyes and ask, "Come on, how likely is that?" Then you are proving my point. I don't know how likely that is and I don't wish to find out.

I'll take my chances with the terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM

Well, T-Uninformed, did you know that under FISA wiretaps could occur without a court order???

Yes________

No_________

This is getting old. You know, you doing the preachin' but without real facts so you do the T-Diversion thing with yer "BOBERTS FACTS" like I was some friggin' 2 year old... You don't know me... You don't know what I know, what I've done or anyhting yet you are willing to go out on a limb and try to paint me as the "BOBERTS FACTS" guy???

Well, first of all, it ain't polite to scream here and secondly, you don't know sh*t from Shinola...

You don't know me, pal, so quit screaming at me!!! Oh, you want to say that I am threatening you by asking you to quit yer childish screaming here in Mudville??? Fine, I'm a child... Just quit the childish screaming!!! Please... Makes you look like a lunny...

Now, you wanta take the latest pop quiz???

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:35 AM

Teribus says "learn the lessons of history".

Fine, go read about Julius Caesar, and how he clawed his way up from successful war-monger to absolute ruler.

Read about Oliver Cromwell, and his oppressive control of England.

Read about Hitler's rise to power.

All these men started out with overweening ambitions which they furthered by first convincing the population that some loss of personal liberty was necessary for their wellbeing.

All of them eventually developed into destructive despots, under whose rule, citizens had no rights or freedoms at all, where those rights conflicted with the rulers' policies.

If you insist on learning the lessons of history, it might be wise to look at both sides before coming to nonsensical conclusions. You might then get just a glimpse of the possible outcome of allowing anybody to erode your rights.

Your country has something which no other nation on earth can match. It is called the Constitution, and you allow your government to ignore its provisions at your peril.

I'm sure, in the early days of Nazi Germany, there were many Germans who said "The only people who will object to losing these rights, are those with something to hide". HOW WRONG THEY WERE!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: kendall
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:02 AM

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works in any country."

             Hermann Goering

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,G
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:04 AM

This is getting out of hand. The 22 Dec 05 10:17 PM is confusing and perhaps it was meant to be.

I am reminded of a scene years ago while I was observing a trial that seemed to be getting out of hand. I was close enough to hear when the Judge called for a sidebar and his subsequent remarks.

"Gentlemen, there is an adage that says 'if you can't dazzle them with brillance, then attempt to baffle them with Bullshit'. As of now, I want more of the former and less of the latter."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:10 AM

Hmmm... I got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:18 AM

Don T,

Ahhhhhh, now don't hold me to it but I don't think that T-Forienger is an American citizen which make it all more baffling that he would chose to be such a Bush apologist...

Also, consider one of the aspects of fascism, Don, in that a key component is the centralization of power... It certainly appears that Bush (with Cheney's constant proding) has been on a 5 year long power grab... Now he's trying to lob off the judiciary... That is why this battle is so symbolicaly important to win, impeachemnt or not...

The reason the Founding Fathers included the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights was to address some of the funky stuff that another Goerge was doing to ordinary folks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 10:00 AM

The New York TImes opines on Mister Cheney's imperialistic tendencies:

Mr. Cheney's Imperial Presidency
             E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Save Article
Published: December 23, 2005
George W. Bush has quipped several times during his political career that it would be so much easier to govern in a dictatorship. Apparently he never told his vice president that this was a joke.

Virtually from the time he chose himself to be Mr. Bush's running mate in 2000, Dick Cheney has spearheaded an extraordinary expansion of the powers of the presidency - from writing energy policy behind closed doors with oil executives to abrogating longstanding treaties and using the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to invade Iraq, scrap the Geneva Conventions and spy on American citizens.

It was a chance Mr. Cheney seems to have been dreaming about for decades. Most Americans looked at wrenching events like the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the Iran-contra debacle and worried that the presidency had become too powerful, secretive and dismissive. Mr. Cheney looked at the same events and fretted that the presidency was not powerful enough, and too vulnerable to inspection and calls for accountability.

The president "needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," Mr. Cheney said this week as he tried to stifle the outcry over a domestic spying program that Mr. Bush authorized after the 9/11 attacks.

Before 9/11, Mr. Cheney was trying to undermine the institutional and legal structure of multilateral foreign policy: he championed the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Moscow in order to build an antimissile shield that doesn't work but makes military contactors rich. Early in his tenure, Mr. Cheney, who quit as chief executive of Halliburton to run with Mr. Bush in 2000, gathered his energy industry cronies at secret meetings in Washington to rewrite energy policy to their specifications. Mr. Cheney offered the usual excuses about the need to get candid advice on important matters, and the courts, sadly, bought it. But the task force was not an exercise in diverse views. Mr. Cheney gathered people who agreed with him, and allowed them to write national policy for an industry in which he had recently amassed a fortune.

Rest of article here


A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,G
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 10:06 AM

Again, the New York Times. Isn't this the same publication that has dismissed reporters as well as the Editor and the Publisher in recent months? Due to dishonesty, I believe.

Yet, some continue to hang on its' everyword as if there were no other available source.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: TIA
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 10:50 AM

Are you saying that every word in the NYT is dishonest?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 10:54 AM

The whiners here can impeach Bush anytime they want. When they loose they will be whining even louder.

From what I gather, the Consitution gives the Comander in Chief unlimited powers in dealing with foreign powers during war time.

The FISA law that the whiners are whining about sates that it will not take any of the powers granted by the coinstitution away from the president.

The experts on what is wrong like Boobert, do not have anything to say when you ask them what should be done. All they know is what they don't like. They have no ideas to offer, just negative comments on everything.

They are in constant misery because they do not agree with the current situation or any situation because their immature personality requires them to cry about something. They cannot grasp and cope with reality.

I do not share their misery. Therefore I am not a whiner or crybaby as charged.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 10:54 AM

G:

You are an ass, sir.

There are plenty of sources. The Times is still the Gray Lady.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,Buzz
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 10:57 AM

Bobert:

Put your fact filtering goggles on:

Congress authorized the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" associated with al-Qaida

Congress and the courts have also acknowledged any president's "inherent powers." Until Congress changed it in 1988, the U.S. Criminal code stated, "Nothing contained in this chapter . . . shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect . . . against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 11:05 AM

I reckon people like Old Guy don't know the flavor of freedom very well; if they did, they would be more circumspect about endorsing the erosion of it. It takes a certain educated perspective to be able to see a slippery slope when you are on it.

THe Constitution does not grant the President powers to spy on American citizens without warrant, Old Guy. In fact, it explicitly forbids the President and everyone else in the government from doing so. So your assertion is improper, inaccurate and ill-informed. Not to mention, um, stunod.

As for the declaration of war, could you point me to such a declaration by Congress, stating that a state of war exists? Maybe I am just getting old but I didremember seeing a declaration of war. Or do you think unilateral invasion is the same thing? Or perhaps that this too is one of the presidential powers granted by the Constitution?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: GUEST,G
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 11:28 AM

Amos, some of these items are very easy to understand. Agreed, the Constitution does not specifically give a President the right to 'wiretap'.
However, Jimmy Carters' Executive Order in conjunction with the FISA does.

The Congress actually gave BWB the power to do what he deemed necessary. The classic "Declaration of War" apparently is no longer in vogue.

Now, would you advise me how my basic little opinion (based on fact) concerning the New York Times make me out to be an "ass"? Your way with words do have its variations.

Perhaps the Times is "The Gray Lady", maybe too 'gray' with some dementia creeping in. You seem to assume the same style of thinking as do the Times. That is they feel they can print anything anytime even if it contraidicts past reports as the general reader will not remember what was said earlier. It is somewhat hilarious to read some of their "stuff" due to the stories they published concerning one administration and then say the opposite is true with another.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
From: TIA
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 11:36 AM

OldGuy - Bet you were one hell of a whiner when Clinton was President. You lost, and you whined even louder. You were in constant misery because you did not agree with the current situation or any situation because uyour immature personality requires you to cry about something. You cannot grasp and cope with reality.