 sj |
||
|
||
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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:15 AM You are exactly right, Snagger. Its time to take to the streets. Shut down the country. Go for a general strike. Hit them in the pocketbook. Do you think Bush will listen? Perhaps Congress will. Its worth a try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Ebbie Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:30 AM Incidentally, last week I was watching a political commentary show on television (don't remember which one but it might have been Washington Week in Review) and there one panelist said that it was a "really dumb thing" for the president to state that he was the one who authorised the spying thing, that since it is a legal issue which may end up in the courts it doesn't give him any wiggle room. What do you want to bet that it was AG Gonzales who advised him that it was permissible under the law for the president to spy without warrant? Gonzales is the one who advised the administration that torture is not torture unless it causes organ failure, and that the Geneva conventions were "rather quaint". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: George Papavgeris Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:57 AM GUEST,A said "check out Executive Order 12949 by William Jefferson Clinton which provides for search and seizure of your domicile without a court order". And this is a democracy ripe for exporting to other countries? Even in the darkest days of Greek politics (during the "Colonels' Junta") this was not possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:01 AM Grecko, I don't agree with the EO myself. At least you can ascertain what it means, unlike some others here. Donuel, you do agree those comments were said about Clinton, be they right, wrong or indifferent. Ebbie, I am simply trying to get comments on the two aforementioned Executive Orders, whether I agree with them or not. B, why not address the questions rather than bash the poster? There cannot be any impeachment. GWB is simply following what has been establish by other Presidents before him. I am not attacking bobert, simply trying to wring an answer from him on something he originated. I shall not attempt to defend myself as I see no reason to. That cannot be said of some others here. I never said I am a Bush golfing buddy. I just believe that some fairness is due everyone where the truth is concerned. Little Hawk, good post. (the long one) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:15 AM I've provided you with an answer, A... The problem is that you don't like the answer... It comes down to the fundamental question of disobeying the "laws"... Clinton didn't disobey the "law" in his executive order... He used the language "pursuant to..." ... There's a vast difference between "pursuant to" and just thinking to one's self "Ahhhh, screw that law. Laws for for other folks!!!" That in essence is the answer that you can't or won't accept and I fully understand fully why you won't ot can't accept it... If you do then yer boy is in some purdy serious trouble; the likes that make the Monika Lewinsky affair look more like a jay walking charge... Yes, I agree with those who feel that impeachement won't be brought aginst Bush because the political numbers aren't there in Congress and because the politcal will isn't there after all the in-fighting that Bush "the uniter" has brought our country with his over-use of wedge issues BUT undee other circumstances if a president stood before the country and boasted of breaking the law he or she would be impeached... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:35 AM Will Jr. ever obey the credo death before dishonor, will he fall on his sword to sidestep disgrace and impeachment? naah He must never be martyred. If there ever was a time to allow the treasonous acts within the highest office in the land to be exposed it is now. Disgrace is not enough. Hell how disgracful was it when Reagan died and his widow screamed that she did not want this moron to utter a single word at her husband's funeral? How disgracful was it when he stammered and mumbled so badly at his press conference he walked out in silence - TWICE ? How disgraced was he when langored on vacation before 9-11 and during Katrina? How disgrace was he when he froze (or simply waited as planned) in the Florida grade school while planes attacked? How disgraced was he when he bolted to his Nebraska bunker instead of retutning to Washington DC through 9-13? No, he deserves more than dishonor. Dishonor is a walk in the park for him. There needs to be something more lasting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:39 AM bobert, bobert, bobert! I was simply going to reply with a HUH! However, please tell me how GWB broke the law by following exactly the same EO established by Jimmy Carter which was also followed by all the Presidents after him.. A correction on your part - WJC did the domicile search thingy w/o a warrant, not electronic surveillance w/o a warrant as you are saying. I thought Carter was pretty much a 'do nothing Prez" but I give him props on that move. Don't think I can say that about the other EO. It was not specific enough. I am not a total fan of GW. However, I want fairness for all be it GW, WJC or your boy Spiro. Once again, GWB did not establish anything new. He simply followed a precedent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:46 AM W has not only broken the law, his defense is that he intends to go on breaking the law. The FISA federal judge is so disgusted he resigned today in protest! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:48 AM One more time amd then I am off on a ski trip; WHAT LAW DID HE BREAK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:07 AM Whopper: George W. Bush The president crosses his fingers behind his back. ByTimothy Noah Posted Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005, at 2:19 AM ET jjj Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. —President Bush, at a Q and A in Buffalo, N.Y., April 20, 2004. Q: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts? A: First of all, I—right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent. We use [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] still—you're referring to the FISA court in your question—of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect. —President Bush, at a press conference Nov. 19, 2005, after the New York Times reported that Bush had directed the National Security Agency to wiretap "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of phone conversations inside the United States without seeking court orders. Comment. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked at a Dec. 20 press briefing whether the president's 2004 remarks might have been a wee bit misleading, said, "I think he was talking about [it] in the context of the Patriot Act." In other words, Bush was reassuring his fellow Americans that he wouldn't impose warrantless wiretaps under the Patriot Act because he was already imposing warrantless wiretaps with no legal authority at all. He just forgot to say the second part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: jeffp Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:10 AM EO 12949 requires the Attorney General and other designees to make the certifications required in the appropriate sections of FISA. These require the AG to certify that the premises are under control of foreigners, not American citizens. That is the difference between EO 12949 and GW's actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:23 AM Wow! Jeffp, show me where you found that! Seriously, I did not know that. According to legal interpretation, EO 12949 did just that to FISA when the EO was signed. You may have come up with a different approach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:27 AM Have a nice trip, A...break a leg, as they say in show business. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM Off to try out for the Alpine Olympics - not really - don't think they are ready for a guy in his 60's trying for the downhill or giant slalom. I shall return to look for the law so many here think was broken. Later |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:44 AM GUEST,A, You really get first prize for the dumbest defence ever. So Bush is innocent because other presidents have done the same kind of thing before, is he? If you were accused of murder, I don't think your lawyer would advise you to protest your innocence on the basis that others had committed murder in the past. On the other hand, I suppose doing that might just get you off on grounds of insanity (grin). Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:48 AM I think it would be a GREAT idea for the democrats to try to impeach Bush for ilegal wiretapping. GO FOR IT. There is nothing I would rather see- well maybe Barbra Streisand hanging her own clothes up on an clothes line outside or Ramsey Clark being hung for treason- but we can only dream. Speaking of dreaming, lets get back to the Bush impeachment. Last time I thought about this (the Clinton impeachment) I think you need 2/3 of the vote in the Senate to convict for impeachment. That means you need 67 senators to vote for impeachment. (I know that some mudcatters are graduates of new math in our schools and may note be able to make that calculation) The current Senate mix is 55 republicants, 44 closet socialists, and 1 confirmed socialist. With 18 seats to defend in 2006 and 3 retirees, it doesn't look good at picking up a lot of seats. Therefore all you need is about 20 republican senators to vote for impeachment. No problem. Piece of cake. By the way- any of you catch the 60 minutes piece that ran a few years ago about the Clinton administration using wiretaps on people without any court orders or congress approval. Bob Barr was interviewed and supported your position. If you missed the 60 minutes piece, maybe you caught the Jenie Goralik letter defending the use of wiretaps without court permission. Very strong letter. She went on to say that it was important for national security and that you didn't even need probable cause. Can you imagine that. The assistant attorney general defends the use of wiretaps without court orders and without probable cause. She is probably the worst attorney general/assistant since Gonzales who is the worst attorney general sinse Ashcroft who is the worst attorney general since Reno- no quite frankly- reno was the worst attorney general of all time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:59 AM Larry K, agree with you on Reno. And Streisand and Clark for that matter. Maybe just censure for old Ramsey since Alzheimers may be a concern. Don T, thanks for the award but I must return it. I am not defending anyone in anyway, shape or form! I simply am asking for what law that so many here say GWB has broken with regard to wiretapping. It is not how I feel, or you for that matter. Tell me what law was broken, okay? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:12 PM The law, as has been pointed out a number of times, is the FISA act which requires warrants when using wiretaps on American citizens. If you enjoy living in a country where the rights of individuals are at the pleasure of the The critical point here is that due process is being set aside by the spurious plea of "necessity". This seems perfectly reasonable to those who have no sense of the difference between the United States and countries which espouse fascism explicitly rather than covertly, as under the current regime. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: jeffp Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:19 PM The Executive Order FISA Google is your friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Ramsey Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:26 PM I don't care what he has done, I will defend him. Ramsey C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:36 PM Jeff, wrong Executive Order. That was the one by WJC which allows search and seizure in your domicile w/o a warrant. That gives me pause. Amos, We may not disagree on what way to live. That has not been my question which seems to be a central area of avoidence. You are incorrect in your analysis of FISA when you chose to disregard the Executive Order. The EO, right, wrong or indifferent does away with the requirement for warrants. The EO is short and to the point. Please read it again. No defense from me for anyone. All I ask for is "what law did GWB break?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,a Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:37 PM airport shuttle here. see ya in a couple days |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,fiddler434 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:43 PM I cringe whenever HE speaks. Just when you think it can't get any worse, another example of abuse of power surfaces. The reason the administration didn't want to get a court order is because we would find out they are using it aganist Bush's political enemies, such as war protestors and peta. I am a member of the Democratic women's group here, they may be tapping my phone!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: jeffp Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:20 PM EO 12949 was one of the Executive Orders you referenced in your post of 12/20 9:18PM. The other one was EO 12139, which merely authorizes the AG to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section." (emphasis added) In other words, it requires the AG to stay within FISA. It goes on to state, "Any electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order." and "Any monitoring which constitutes electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order." (emphasis added in both cases) The entire text of EO 12139 is available at http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm. Do you actually read this stuff before you cite it? Or do you not expect others to? Neither EO says what you claim they do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:36 PM I still think we are in the beginning of this but here is some food for thought: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed I'm not sure what to think at this point except to beware of dropbears bearing presents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 21 Dec 05 - 04:46 PM Bush is the greatest Presidential disaster in the history of the USA. The sonuvabitch should be drawn and quartered, never mind impeached. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: George Papavergis Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:28 PM Impeached? IMPEACHED? That's nothing to an arsehole like him. He should be IMCUCUMBERED or even better IMWATERMELONED! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:35 PM Well, he's already been IMPEARED hasn't he? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:43 PM Well, I'm sorry that A ain't 'round to respond to this but... ...hey, sure, Clinton signed an Executive Order allowing for situations whereby the Attorney General could "certify" a wiretap in lew of a court order... Did I like this EO??? Heck no but it was made public... It wasn't like Amercian citizens, if they were interetsed, couldn't read it and know what it meant... Yeah, A would have us believe that whjat Bush has done is nothing more than what Clinton did??? Wrong, A!!! What Bush did was give carte blanche authority to almost anyone at the NSA to innitiate intercepts and wiretaps... That's a long way from authorizing a cabinet level appointment to "certify" a wiretap or intercept.... A long way indeed... Now You, A, have asked what law was broken... Well, I would argue that in giving an entire agency carte blanche power to spy on Am,ericans violates both the 4th amendment as well as the Clinton revised spirit6 of the National Intellegence Surveilance Act and thus... ... an empeachable offense... Yeah, just as Congress di to Bill Clinton for a much lesser offense, I can't see any reason why Bush shouldn't be tried Senate of the US Congress.... You, and other would certainly like to poopoo this but it ain't all that poopooable... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:22 PM Bush WILL be impeached. He will never finish this term. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:57 PM Bush being impeached is a joke. It is a Republican controlled congress. The whiners here like bobert, donuel, and especially Amos are not lawyers and neither am I. Spiuting and ranting and whining, everyday as usual and nothing they say has any impact at all. You are in denial that we are at war with an enemy who wants us dead. What part of that do you need explained to you? How stupid can you possibly be? BTW, Bush's approval ratings are on the rise again. Makes your day, huh? Makes mine because I know how you feel about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:22 PM Still more folks who think he's doing a lousy job, Martin.... But, beyond that, there are samrtly fought battles and wars and dumbly fought ones... Bush has tired to micromanage Iraq... The generalos told him before invaduing Iraq that he didn't have enought boots on the ground but Bush thought he knew better... Now he's having to say things like, "Well, we've made some mistakes in Iraq." Hmmmmmmm? Sho nuff has... But what bothers me is that this man uis so aerrogant that he thinks that he and a bunch of other chickenhawks can make any intellegent decisions within their little chickenhawk circle... This is why I really don't like this guys style... It's like if he exposes himself to other opionuions then he's going to have to actually, ahhhh, think??? ("Hey, no one ever said I was going to have to think!!@!!( So, now to WIT: Here we have a guy who has isolated himself from the real world with this tiny little circle of advisors and he's wondering why he keeps messing up????? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:59 PM Bush's approval ratings have not gone up. Probably Rove at it again with propaganda. The situation hasn't changed any so there is nothing to account for this rise. Then you look at how much it rose: 4%. Hell, there's a 3% margin of error! IOW, this "rise" is conveniently blurry. It's a planted story (Whaaat? No way!) designed to stop Bush's tailSPIN. And it comes just as news of domestic spying surfaces. Coincidence, no doubt. And any who do give him higher marks for no reason at all obviously haven't received their heating bill yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM About this spying thing. Is this the first time any president has done it? If any previous presidents did the same thing why weren't they up for impeachment? Clinton did it and Carter did it but they have a D in fromt of their name whish gives them a free pass. No passes for R's though. Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats. Why? I hate to burden the peabrains of the dynamic duo anarchists Boobert and Anus with facts but: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm "February 9, 1995 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 - - - - - - - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section............" http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm "EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EO 1213923 May 1979 By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section. 1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section 103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information........" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:05 PM >>Azizi, because the attorney general said he did not do anything wrong. Last I checked that was the top lawyer in the land.<< The attorney-general doesn't determine if Bush broke the law in a congressional investigation. Congress does. And they're not looking at Dubby too favorably right now. Bush has attempted to screw Congress so often in order to cover his own ass that even the pubs are ticked off at him and calling for more investigations. He's going down. He's singlehandedly ruining the Republican party even if it does serve them right for ever giving him the nomination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM >>Clinton did it and Carter did it but they have a D in fromt of their name whish gives them a free pass. No passes for R's though. Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats.<< You remind me of losers who whine that the refs lost the game for them on bad calls. It's all the refs' fault because they have it in for us. Boo-hoo. Either say something intelligent or don't bother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:09 PM Yes, Old Guy...but Bush is the one in office NOW. It's too late to impeach Clinton and Carter, because the horse is no longer in the barn. ;-) So naturally, it is Bush whom this thread is about. It's just your bad luck that he happens to be a Republican. I detest the Democrats too, you know. You have 2 parties down there in the USA that no one in his right mind should vote for again, ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM Ahhhh, problem is with yer thinking, Old Guy, is that both the EO's signed by Carter and Clinton weren't kept in secret... Big danged difference, pal... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:47 AM His ignorance is surpassed only by his arrogance. ...and the Republicans are the majority in Congress so expect more to come. Sounds like the Senate might be awake, however. Is there any hope? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Teribus Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:50 AM While Executive Orders have been introduced, I would like to address a question of Bobert's that he, incorrectly, states has gone long unanswered. This question relates to his suggestion that rather than going to war to effect regime change, the US should have assassinated Saddam Hussein. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that this would not work for the following reasons: Practically: The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished absolutely nothing, it would not have changed the regime in power in Iraq, it could possibly have made matters worse in as much that Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who were reportedly much worse that Saddam. Pointers to the likelyhood of that answer panning out as stated - look what happened in Syria when old man Assad died - did the Ba'athist Party remain in power (YES) did they cast round the loyal party members and make a list of potential candidates to take up the Presidency (NO), or did they just hand it over to Assad's son (YES) Legally: It would be illegal there is an Executive Order in place prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of government/heads of state by US service personnel or by US intelligence/security operatives. Reference: President Gerald R. Ford's Executive Order 11905, relating to United States Foreign Intelligence Activities, dated 18th February, 1976. In Section 5 - Restrictions on Intelligence Activities (g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination. OK Bobert question answered???? Acknowledgement even that an answer has been provided????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: kendall Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:12 AM YES |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: kendall Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:30 AM What law did he break? The 4th amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Paco Rabanne Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:31 AM Mr Bush IS a peach! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:46 AM 'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM Precedents in crime do not make them any less criminal, ding-dong. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Dec 05 - 12:15 PM Ah, rarelamb's link leads to the Gorelick Myth. "DEBUNKING THE GORELICK MYTH: A related argument was made yesterday by Byron York in a National Review article titled "Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches." The article cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's July 14, 1994 testimony that "the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Sen. Cornyn cited the testimony several times yesterday. What York obscures is that, at the time of Gorelick's testimony, physical searches were not covered under FISA. It's not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches were not covered by FISA. They weren't. With Clinton's backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches. The distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA as a set of recommendations they could ignore." from http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=914257&ct=1742133 (inludes links to the original documents and sources) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 22 Dec 05 - 01:33 PM I see people in this thread sacrificing their own integrity for the sheer pleasure of thinking they are bashing GWB. Is it that important to you? And when you follow this path, can't you see where you are acting like fools? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 22 Dec 05 - 01:47 PM 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. Rather goes in lockstep with my previous comment. Go to Nationalreview.com and read Byron Yorks article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 22 Dec 05 - 01:55 PM teribus says, "The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished absolutely nothing, it would not have changed the regime in power in Iraq, it could possibly have made matters worse in as much that Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who were reportedly much worse that Saddam. Pointers to the likelyhood of that answer panning out as stated - look what happened in Syria when old man Assad died - did the Ba'athist Party remain in power (YES) did they cast round the loyal party members and make a list of potential candidates to take up the Presidency (NO), or did they just hand it over to Assad's son (YES)" This sounds a bit like the regime down Texas way. For the same reason, it is probably useless to assassinate or impeach Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:06 PM I think some folks are living in a split-level reality. Go ahead and impeach Clinton and Carter. HOWEVER, impeach Bush while you're on a roll. He is acting AGAINST the American Constitution--and that means he is acting AGAINST the American people. If you don't get anything else through yer head before this year ends, get THAT through it. |
|
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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: CarolC Date: 23 Dec 05 - 11:52 AM They're still whining about Clinton. They never stopped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:00 PM Carol, I never whine about Clinton. Who is? I do remember as a Sales rep. being in many different places for lunch and hearing some of the most clever jokes regarding him. Some maybe not in the 'clever' catagory. I can still remember spilling a large portion of Lasagna in my lap from just overhearing one. Aside from that, Clinton did not do a lot of harm (ignoring terriost attacks is an exception) as he did very little while in office. As a purported man of high intellect, his was a waste. And that, perhaps, is/was a shame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: DougR Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:10 PM Amos: The Times is still the Gray Lady (in your opinion). Bush won't be impeached. One does not always get what they wish for and this is an instance when that will be the case. He won't be impeached because he did not commit a impeachable act. He and congressional leaders will get together and work out this this situation and you folks (if you are in touch with terrorists) will still have to worry about whether or not your phone lines are being tapped. IF you are not communicating with known terrorists, you have nothing to worry about. Play tennis or something. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:26 PM Doug R, I wonder if a lot of the people here think that the lack of attacks on the US in the past several years is just a coincidence? While I am not exactly in favor of dentention without cause and imprisionment witout reason, there is still that coarse adage that implies "sacrifice a few to save many." I occasionally wonder if the wiretapping has prevented a jetliner or two from straying away from their correct flight pattern. By the way, if some innocent Quaker has been listened to in error, my apologies. That would fall under the "coarse adage" mentioned earlier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:27 PM '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"?' I have no idea how Amos will answer this statement. However, it would be educational if you GUEST G would tell which papers or sites you get YOUR information from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: freda underhill Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:32 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: freda underhill Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:34 PM Impeachment Talk Appears in Media |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:46 PM Freda, this simply politics at its very worst/best. It is not an impeachable offense, otherwise, the Senate Democrats would have already instigated the process. I really think this type of politicizing will backfire on the Dems in general. The Monica situation wasn't the best of times for the Repubs. While WJC was playing the cigar game, he wasn't causing any other problems. Peace, everything I said about the NY Times came from the NY Times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:50 PM OK to that G, but my question was "which papers or sites you get YOUR information from."? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:53 PM Well, now that I have taken the morning off, I must go out and do something constructive. (hopefully) I guess we can still hope for the saying that is so lighly tossed around at times to come to fruition; "Peace on Earth, good will towards men/women." (And what Tiny Tim said.) Later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:01 PM Ya know, it's very strange watching Americans argue over whether or not a given President--in this case Bush--should or should not be impeached. To see people splitting hairs and honing knives so they can win an argument--well, it's strange. Folks: your country is being torn apart. Doesn't that mean anything to y'all? If you support Bush, fine. But don't you see what he's doing to the USA? Do you honestly trust that man and his advisors? Do you honestly think he has the best interests of average everyday Americans at the core of his decisions? Don't you think maybe he's just a bit too close to 'big business'? Have you given up making America great again? America is no longer 'great'. Not the way it once was. There was a time when most other countries looked to you for leadership in world affairs: democracy, freedom, concern for its citizens. No longer, IMO. We fear you, yes. Respect? No. There is something awful in watching a giant tumble. Something sad and horrible. I wish you luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:03 PM The Patriot Act was just extended to get past the holidays. It will also be extended again in the name of monitoring the radical Islamic (Yes, I am saying it directly, and I don't care if you howl about it) enemy. Us or them? Guest,AR282 "Them" right? We have a President who will do what it takes to protect this nation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: CarolC Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:10 PM I'm no fan of Clinton. However, many of the people who are making ad hominem attacks on anyone who is critical of Bush are also the biggest whiners when it comes to Clinton. There are several examples of this right here in this thread. __________________________ For anyone who would like to see all of the Executive Orders and FISA information in one post (so they won't have to search the whole thread to find them), here they are all together... FISA http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_II.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_III.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_IV.html Some backgound on FISA and related info... http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/ Executive Order 12139 (23 May 1979) http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 (February 9, 1995) http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power. Requests are adjudicated by a special eleven member court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." Here are some other links that are relevant to the discussion of FISA and its related Executive Orders... http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: freda underhill Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:20 PM Peace, I see the rumbling over whether Bush should be impeached not as death throes of a republic, but as a sign that democracy is still alive and kicking. In australia these things are happening, and everyone is watching the cricket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:23 PM I hope you're right, Freda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:46 PM Carol, What I see here are some people who are simply asking for a fact or two. Like, specifically what rule did Bush break, disobey, ignore, etc. It doesn't appear that all are being attacked for criticizing Bush, they just want something more tangible than "I can't stand him". I do not agree with him completely myself. I see where the Executive orders were pretty much covered earlier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:53 PM Old Guy and guest G. - Technically, the U.S. has not declared war on Iraq. I think Bush has to decide if the U.S. is simply an occupying force or if they are at war with Iraq. Seems you have a very confused president. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Bush keeps ignoring the constitution and bending the law depending on what suits him. I'm sure that the ACLU will have a heyday with this even if Bush is not impeached. I think he should be hung for treason. From Amos' link above: "...several judges on the court wanted to know why the administration believed eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants was legal when the law specifically requires such warrants." The tide is turning and the Bush apologists will soon be slinking away with their tail between their legs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: CarolC Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:56 PM Clearly, you have not been reading the thread, Guest,23 Dec 05 - 01:46 PM. They are calling people whiners and casting aspersions on people's maturity and mental health status, questioning their patriotism, and also accusing them of being al Qaeda sympathizers. And the same people who think that the current Attorney General is more qualified to have an opinion on legal matters think they know more about the law than Janet Reno. Typical partisan ad hominem attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:56 PM As to why it makes you an ass, that's just my opinion. The TImes has published articles both supportive of and derogatory of the Administration, at different times and on different subjects. In addition, your effort to avoid the issues raise by invalidating their source would be understandable if somoene were invoking the National Enquirer or the Rev. Moon's Washington Times, outlets which carry their bias on their sleeve; but the bias of the New York Times is primarily one of interesting andintelligent analysis and dharply thought-out opinions. 'Course, they aren't perfect, but I'd be interested to hear where your "preferred" sources hang their hats -- Fox? The entire point of the core argument is that the Constitution may NOT be set aside by executive order, whether by Carter or by Bush. If they have done so, they should be called on it. If this principle is to be dissolved, let us do so explicitly with full consent of the governed, not by back-channel imperialistic power-mongering, Bush's slimy little specialty. The Constitution calls for the consent of the governed as the primary principle of all law of the land. Let's get our importances straight and pull our heads out of our butts, here, pal. We are a nation of explicit principle, or we are a nation of hedonistic opportunism where getting away with things is the senior measure of virtue. You get to call it, along with every concerned citizen. I've made my call. If there is to be a war, let it be declared and the enemy named. Let us stop sliding downhill toward fascism. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: kendall Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:57 PM John Dean says what he did is an impeachable offense. As long as the crooks are in charge, nothing will be done. However, wait and see what the next election brings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:03 PM Is it possible for Bush to be charged with crimes he committed in office even after he is out of office? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:07 PM Sure; he can be held by the next President as an illegal combatant, a white-collar terrorist, and enemy of the state; and he can be sequestered indefinitely with habeas corpus suspended by the war powers he insisted on abrogating tot he office. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: kendall Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:16 PM So, Bush will do whatever he needs to to protect this country, eh? Then he should take his arrogant ass back to TX and stay there. What the hell, he's there most of the time anyway. By the way, the 4th amendment was adopted long before wire taps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: gnu Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:58 PM My apologies for not reading this entire thread and I realize that this post is without certain merit, if at all, perhaps even frivolous to some, but, goodness gracious.... McCarthy!? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Irish sergeant Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:05 PM I personally believe that a full investigation is warranted. If criminal liability is found as I believe it will be he should be impeached or more likely as he would most likely be out of office he should have criminal charges filed against him. Adolf Hitler used the same excuse of national security to justify his acts. Now, I'm not saying that President Bush is anywhere near as bad as Adolf Hitler but I will say that his actions threaten the freedom and the security of every American and our allies in the war on terror. At this point it is important to find a credible person with honor and integrity to run against whomever the current administration fields to be the hier apparentl to G.W. Neil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Merde, alors! Date: 23 Dec 05 - 04:31 PM Arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence is a really bad mixture anywhere you find it. It is particularly disastrous in a national leader. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:51 PM Amos: nations, organizations, or persons" associated with al-Qaida Persons could be a citizen or not a citizen. Read the authorization Congress gave to Geroge Bush to do what he is doing. It has been nearly 60 years since the last declaration of war by the United States. Have all of the wars since then been illegal? All of the previous presidents have done the same thing Bush is doing. Because you have a personal dislike for Bush (your man lost and Bush won), you try to use any straw you can grasp to discredit him. It does you no good and will never do you any good, only harm. For all you know, his actions could have saved you from a terrorist atack and you would never know it. I think you are the ignorant, arrogant one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:56 PM Bush is a dolt. Face facts. You ever hear the man speak? Jaysus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM Piece: He knows how to spell and pronounce Jesus. What are your credentilas for public speaking? Put down your bong so that you can enunciate correctly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:07 PM What a quick-witted reply. I am impressed. To think: he knows about Jesus. Hell, he hears directly from God. You support that idiot? Give it a rest, pal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:08 PM "For all you know, his actions could have saved you from a terrorist atack and you would never know it." Or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: freda underhill Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:09 PM The problem with secrecy as a defence, is that it is so unaccountable. Where i work in a government department, secrecy is often used to cover up mistakes - mistakes that have happened because working in secrecy is a recipe for overstepping or ignoring legal investigative requirements. There are always people who abuse such environments and make huge clangers in their work. Then they step out and say - we were protecting you. These are the people we need protecting from, and that's why we have laws about judicial oversight of government. Double rebuke for Bush as judges attack terror moves - the Guardian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Merde, alors! Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:19 PM "It has been nearly 60 years since the last declaration of war by the United States." True. The Korean war was action of the United Nations, and the United States forces involved in this war were operating under the aegis of the U. N. Therefore, presumably, a declaration of war from the United States was not legally required. "Have all of the wars since then been illegal?" Other than the aforementioned, whether you like it or not, according to international law, yes, they were illegal. International law requires that a state of war be declared twenty-four hours before the commencement of hostilities. The last time war was officially declared by the United States was during Frenklin D. Roosevelt's "day that will live in infamy" speech on December 8th, 1941, when he declared that a state of war now existed between the United States and the nations of Japan and Germany. This, of course, in response to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on the previous day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:22 PM Do NOT confuse the guy with facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:31 PM "He [Bush] knows how to spell and pronounce Jesus." Yes he does, Old Guy. He also has not got the first clue as to what Christ meant about anything. Bush has so perverted YOUR God that if Christ returned tomorrow He would vomit to see what that garbage in Washington has tried to do in His name. Shove your religious agenda up--well, you likely know how the angel came to be on top of the Christmas tree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:21 PM Here's a page which reports on the rapid escalation in press articles about impeachment, of interest to those who follow such things. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Puff The Magic Dragon Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:33 PM he is the only person that can say "a bomb went off and killed 185 people" and then do that little smirk thing that he does |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:38 PM Wrong, Puff. Bin Laden did it too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:42 PM Skiing was great. Thanks for asking. Two comments; Jeffp - Did you read it? More importantly, do you think YOU understood? Peace - Yes, I have heard Bush speak. I have also spent much time in the South with a number of 'Men of Letters' whose 'accent' was very strong. Bad comment, you have lost your credibility. The Pope has a slight accent also. Is he a dummy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:44 PM "Peace - Yes, I have heard Bush speak. I have also spent much time in the South with a number of 'Men of Letters' whose 'accent' was very strong." I am not talking about his accent. I am talking about the content of his speeches. The man is a dolt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:45 PM "Bad comment, you have lost your credibility." And coming from you, that is very complimentary. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:52 PM Your man at work, A. "It's totally wiped out. ... It's devastating, it's got to be doubly devastating on the ground." --turning to his aides while surveying Hurricane Katrina flood damage from Air Force One, Aug. 31, 2005 "I'm occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the second term." --Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005 "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." --Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005 "I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the mother in me." --Washington D.C., April 14, 2005 For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled." --explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005 "We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." (Laughter) --touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005 "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 23 Dec 05 - 09:00 PM "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in" Peace, he was speaking to you and others who just can't seem to catch a clue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 09:02 PM Huh. I am sure that only you and a select few really understand him. I don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Merde, alors! Date: 23 Dec 05 - 09:16 PM It takes a certain genetic makeup to converse in and comprehend dolt-speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 09:17 PM '"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in"' BTW, O repub apologist/troll: when you quote passages and you leave sections/words out, it is apt to insert those three little dots to show that you have omitted material. They are referred to as an ellipsis. Thus, your post should have read "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in . . .". FYI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Merde, alors! Date: 23 Dec 05 - 09:18 PM And being reality-oriented is a definite handicap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 23 Dec 05 - 09:18 PM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 23 Dec 05 - 10:18 PM >>Guest,AR282 "Them" right? We have a President who will do what it takes to protect this nation<< Exactly right. He will do whatever he wants to and tell you he's doing it for the nation. That right there should be impeachable. His oath binds him to protect the Constitution ONLY. Not the people, not the nation--the Constitution. From Article II Section I: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." By upholding this oath, a president is prevented from becoming a dictator. He's only allowed to do what the Constitution says he may do. That's why his oath binds him to protect the Constitution and only that. Once you allow him to step beyond that to "protecting the people" or "protecting the nation" the Constitution becomes an obstacle to him. And the inherent problem of Dubby's mentality is that when something would hinder him, he ignores it. Hence, he ignores the Constitution and justifies it with, "But I did all for you!!!" Buy that BS at your own peril. "The people never give up their freedoms but under some delusion."--Edmund Burke |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: DougR Date: 23 Dec 05 - 11:53 PM Bush won't be impeached because he has not committed a impeachable offence. There are a lot of opinions floating around out there (none here of course) but I think this thing will blow over and all of you Mudcatters who are worried about being wiretapped can go back to making music. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Merde, alors! Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:19 AM Thus speaks Mr. Complacency. Obviously never read the Constitution, apparently never read history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:48 AM Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: "The President, Vice President and civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Treason is defined in Article III Section 3 as: "Treason against the United States, only in levying War against them, or in adhering to the Enemies, giving them aid and comfort." So by levying war on a nation under false pretexts, Bush has, by constitutional authority, committed an act of treason which is an impeachable offense. The sixth article of the Bill of Rights states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation, and particlularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Here, the 4th amendment tells us that when no warrant is issued, there is no probable cause and when there is no probable cause, the search is then considered "unreasonable." What is at issue here is whether this should be considered impeachable should this amendment be vilated (and clearly Bush has violated it). I believe it will be found so because Article II Section 4 is open-ended about what is impeachable. Clearly when a president's oath is to protect the Constitution, a violation of that oath would certainly fall under offenses impeachable. For Congress to refuse to look into this would be crminal on their part. And the best way for the republicans to take the wind out of the democrats' sails is to imprach Bush themselves and give him a good pee-pee whacking, i.e. "We'll overlook it this time, but don't do it again!" That would likely satisfy most Americans and they simply won't have the patience to sit through another impeachment process should the dems take Congress. In fact, the whole scheme is so Rovian in nature, I wouldn't be surprised if he engineers something like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 24 Dec 05 - 01:05 AM Correction: I mistyped the statement above, it should read: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to the Enemies, giving them aid and comfort." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 07:12 AM No Constitutional scholars here. Me either although I do keep a copy within reach as there are so many misquoting. (well before this thread started) Where does it say "so by levying war on a nation under false pretexts" is treason? I have never said my thoughts, opinions, etc. are correct. I simply ask for truth in the debate. Still waiting for the Law that has been broken by GWB. The Law, not personal feelings, wishes or attitude generated reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Dec 05 - 07:51 AM "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". I think, Old Guy, that you must be blind, if you haven't noticed that Bobert & Co HAVE said repeatedly what should be done.....Impeach the bastard! Guest A, and all the others who keep asking which law GW has broken, I think I may be able to help. Even if one accepts that SECTION IV refers only to search and seizure, I would contend (and I'm sure precedent exists) that wiretap IS arguably a form of S & S, where the seizure is information. However, there is another side to this. If GW has broken his oath to defend the constitution, he is also guilty of the crime of perjury, an offence punishable upon conviction with fine, or imprisonment. Do you allow criminals to serve as President? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 08:11 AM I think there is more evidence that GWB is serious in his oath to defend the Constitution, whether one agrees with his approach or not. Not to ignore the Constitution, but many, many modifiers have taken place in the past couple hundred years. One is the Executive Order of 1979 which pertains to the requirements in FISA. I need to stop beating this 'live horse'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 08:13 AM And I also do not want to allow criminals to serve as the President. So, if you find one that fits that description, let me know and I will write my Representatives regarding his resignation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 24 Dec 05 - 09:35 AM The President is not above the law. HE IS THE LAW or so say his Atny Gen and St Dpt |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 24 Dec 05 - 10:19 AM "I need to stop beating this 'live horse'." Yes, please do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 05 - 10:59 AM SOme of the ways in which he "defended" the Consittution: 1. By over-riding the protections of the 4th Amendment 2. By perverting the freedoms of association and speech by creating enforced "Free Speech Zones" 3. By by-passing the separation of church and state with faith-based initiatives that are pro-Chriostian. 4. By promoting that the Constitution should become a vehicle for dictating moral choices to the citizens, such as the definition and privilege of marriage, thus adulterating the entire dignity and scope of the instrument 5. By undermining and perverting the formal process of declaration of war by (a)declaring war on a non-person which creates unlimited conditions of war and by (b) abrogating the rights to govern war-making away from the Congress, in whom it resides by Constitutional law. These are just a few examples off the top of my head. Maybe he shouldn't be impeached. Maybe he should be tried for crimes against the nation instead. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 11:22 AM "Bush won't be impeached because he has not committed a impeachable offence." To quote a line from an ol' movie ("Hombre"), "That's to find out." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 11:36 AM Hey, A! Yes GUEST A who claims to keep a copy of the Constitution readily available and who claims to have read the document: 'Where does it say "so by levying war on a nation under false pretexts" is treason?' As was pointed out to you, "Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." Copy of the Constitution for GUEST A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 11:39 AM "Correction: I mistyped the statement above, it should read: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to the Enemies, giving them aid and comfort." That statement was from GUEST AR282. Just in case you didn't read that, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:25 PM Read it a few more times, Peace. "levying war against them" is refering to the United States. My copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America is copyrighted 1998 by the Cato Institute. And before you say anything about them, I verified with a copy of the original. I read '282's post but one only has so much time for correcting people. And Amos, your 10:52 AM is off the top but I am not sure what. Wishful think on your part is all I can surmise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:26 PM Will see ya'all next week. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:38 PM 1984. We've met the enemy and it is us. Domestic Spying In The US |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:39 PM That link is to the Mudcat thread for future reference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:47 PM GUEST A: Regardless the BS that goes on between you and me, I do wish you a good, happy and safe Christmas. Hope your New Year is wonderful for you and yours, and that one way or another we are able to have peace on this planet. Take care and keep well. Like the old cartoon about the sheepdog and the wolf, "See ya tomorrow, Ralph." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 05 - 01:33 PM I can only assume you meant the one about the ways in which he, Bush, has weakened or tried to weaken, ignored or overridden the United States Constitution. The wishes involved are all his Imperial self's. You think, for example, that corralling protesters into concrete-barriered "free speech zones" is not dirtectly and flagrantly contrary to the intent of the freedom of the people to peaceably assemble and exercise their freedom of speech? If so, we are from too far apart to see eye to eye. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 24 Dec 05 - 01:51 PM Unforgettable: Unreliable in every way And confused as hell That's how he'll stay That's why its so damn incredible That someone so unelectable Thinks God chose him, He's delusional too You're detestable that's what you are Reprehensible in peace or war Like recounts that were denied to us You invent a war and ask for trust Never before Has some one been more.. Misunderestimatable and such a whore To neocons who wish for war While men and storms are attacking us You're vacationing and forgetting us George double U You verbally challenged us too. please feel free to add some more lyrics re: his other crimes against the constitution and world societies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Troll Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:23 PM Donuel, do you truly believe that, when a president (any president) takes a "vacation" that he is not working? Do you think that he just kicks back and does nothing while the country runs itself? Why do you think that he could do a better job in Washington than in Texas, Camp David or Cape Cod? Think about it. I agree that poetic license is always a factor in song writing, but really... BTW, the New York Times did a recount of the votes in Florida, the whole state, not just the three counties that Gore wanted, and Bush won. Sorry 'bout that. Don't misunderstand, I don't care for him myself, but but he's a long way in front of the candidates that the liberal parties have put forward in the last couple of elections. Why not focus on who you are going to work for in the next election. The chances of impeachment are slim to none and you are all wasting a lot of energy on it. Complaining about Bush is not going to accomplish anything worthwhile. They couldn't get Clinton and they won't get Bush. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM After all the FLAK thrown at us by the repubs for using the New York Times as a news source, suddenly it's the definitive authority on the "recounts" that prove he won Florida. Sorry mate, but a recount needs to be done at the time, when the ballots are available, and at the place in which they are counted. Anything else is unreliable, though perhaps not as much so as the LIE-bold machines. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:55 PM "liberal parties" That's an interesting statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 24 Dec 05 - 04:19 PM >>Read it a few more times, Peace. "levying war against them" is refering to the United States.<< You'll have to clarify this, A. It refers to the president as far as impeachment goes. If you mean a foreign power levying war against the U.S., how can that be treason??? Imagine Iraq trying Bush for treason over the invasion. He didn't betray Iraq, he attacked them. He betrayed the U.S. by forcing a war that should not have happened and for which he had no grounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 24 Dec 05 - 04:41 PM Check out this commentary "Unwarranted Executive Power" by Thomas G. Donlan found in Barron's Online The caption below that article's title reads "The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws." Here's an excerpt from that article: "...Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment. It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law..." -snip- BTW: Barron's is published by the conservative Wall Street Journal. So it's not only liberals who are suggesting that Bush be subject to impeachment hearings. You can read the entire article by clicking on the hyperlink provided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 05 - 05:16 PM angentially-related article about judge approving cell phone monitoring without requiring prosecutors to show evidence of probable cause: http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Judge+lets+Feds+track+cell+phones/2100-1028_3-6006453.html How extensive is NSA's spy program: http://news.com.com/Just+how+extensive+is+NSAs+spy+program/2100-1028_3-6006326.html An earlier roundup of blog posts: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/nsa_surveillanc.html Articles asking whether President Bush commited an impeachable offense: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200512%5CPOL20051220a.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/24/MNGBOGD4FF1.DTL http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179323,00.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 24 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM Bush is still not being impeached yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 27 Dec 05 - 03:56 PM Peace: "Or not" In your case, not. Why do you keep complimenting me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 27 Dec 05 - 04:09 PM Because you need all the compliments you can get. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Irish sergeant Date: 27 Dec 05 - 04:22 PM I think from strictly a time standpoint, President Bush will not be impeached. It would be a hard sell with his party holding a majority in both the house and the senate. Let me state That I personally disagree with Guest A and Guest AR282 et al. However. Bush has not under the constitutional definition of treason comited that act. I believe that he has tromped freely on the constitution but I am not a lawyer or a cop. I believe he got us into Iraq under illeagal and false pretenses however,I believe we have to bring the war in Iraq to a victorious conclusion. By the way I speak as a combat veteran. I believe also that any abuse of the constitution gives out enemies in Al Qaida and Iraq lovely gobs of propaganda they can use and that does help our enemies. Just some thoughts and my own opinion. Best to all, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Dec 05 - 06:45 PM I wouldn't bet on Bush being impeached. Neither would I bet on Martin being banned. ;-) Of course, I'm not into gambling anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:54 PM Just a good try would be worth seeing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:57 PM Y'all just watch the market take a dip when it looks like he might be impeached. Fertilizer will drop by at least fifty points, and Prevarications R Us will sell at five cents on the dollar. Mark my words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:52 PM Bush has violated the Writ of Habeus Corpus as well. Article I Section 9 reads: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Doesn't say anything about whose rights have been suspended. A president sworn to defend and protect the Constitution cannot violate its principles in any way. Bush and his indefinite terms of imprisonment for detainees even after having been found innocent is sickening and unconscionable as are his "renditions" where he authorizes the CIA to abduct anyone they wish and kidnap him to foreign lands to be interrogated and tortured and held indefinitely. He makes me ashamed to be an American. This is an outrage and cannot be allowed to continue without somebody in congress putting on the brakes and taking a good look at what the hell is going on here. If we allow him to go this far, what next? Spying on calls within the country? You bet. How can you battle terrorism without it, right? Cameras on every street corner next because, after all, you'd be so much safer with them watching. How long before war protestors become the new detainees? How long before somebody goes through all your records (the Constitution calls these "papers") and then tells you if you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't be complaining? What would your family do if you should suddenly disappear--all the worse if your rendition was a case of mistaken identity? Maybe it won't be so drastic, maybe they'll just make sure you lose your job. I ask you how long because you people had better remember something: Bush won't be in office forever and if there is no investigation into his activities, he will walk out of the Oval Office leaving a huge rip the Constitution and you'd better beware whoever comes into office after that because that person will have power the Constitution never intended and you'll find out why and you'd better believe that power is going to be used and abused until someone stops it and it had better get stopped right now because the longer we wait, the harder it will be. Some boundaries need to be defined and they need to be defined firmly and quickly. Somebody need to be made to understand that he'd better not cross those boundaries or he needs to be taken out of the picture as our Constitution permits us to do. Bush cannot be allowed to leave office without the matter being settled because it is too important and too dangerous to our fundamental freedoms to ignore it. He is bypassing the Constitution he is sworn to protect and defend. He is spitting on it. He is regarding it as so much of a bureaucratic red tape process that hinders him in his power, his ability to act. Well, holy sheepshit, that's what it was meant to do!!!! In Washington on December 18, 2002, Bush so wittily quipped: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." People thought he was joking but, as we see, he was not. Dubya doesn't have much of a sense of humor, folks. Dubya really does see himself as this kind of "benevolent" dictator who doesn't need that darned Constitution telling him which way the wind blows. And if we do not reign him in, he will leave the door wide open to future dictators who will not be so benevolent. There is nothing alarmist about what I am saying. This is not fear-mongering--that's the current administration's job. This is common sense. The very purpose of the Constitution is to prevent the president from becoming a dictator!!! We cannot let this man turn the Constitution into a mockery. Everything that makes us a nation and a people--a free people, more importantly--lies in the inviolable nature of that document. I spent 6 years of my life--some of it in the Middle East--defending it proudly. I do not want to see those 6 years wasted on the likes of this uncouth, bellicose, crude non-inteligent organism in the White House who thinks he's Abe Lincoln, William Pitt and Tiberius rolled into one. The Constitution is useless to defend you if you allow your president to discard it at his whim. It is the ONLY thing that defends you. Think about it. Bush needs to be called to account. We need to start asking questions, folks, and we need to demand answers. And we'd better do it quick while it is still legal. "The people never give up their freedoms but under some delusion."--Edmund Burke |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:00 PM MG's perpetual response to intelligence, to feeling, to concern, to real people in real life is the same: invalidate and nullify. Great. You're doing a bang-up job, Marty. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:38 PM AR 282; Funny you should mention Abe Lincoln So what is the big deal? A. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus. Give me ONE law this President has broken. Just one and then maybe I will listen. All your typing is about feelings, conjecture and probaly wishful thinking due to your personal wishes or hatred for anyone not of the Democratcic party. Your last post is based on supposition, and, very weak. What is your problem? Besides naming that one law that you think has been broken, give us one "right" that you think has been taken away. Just one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:41 PM ........and Peace, hope the same was for you and as Ralph would say, "see you tomorrow". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:43 PM "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1)" Try that for starters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 27 Dec 05 - 10:12 PM >>AR 282; Funny you should mention Abe Lincoln So what is the big deal? A. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus.<< I'm well aware of that, sir. That's why I mentioned it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 27 Dec 05 - 10:26 PM >>Give me ONE law this President has broken. Just one and then maybe I will listen.<< No, sir, you will not. He suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus and even Lincoln had a bonafide rebellion on his hands which is why he did it. No one seriously thinks detainees locked away in Gitmo constitute an invasion. He has no grounds for what he is doing. He has violated the 4th amendment. This is so clear that anyone who refuses to see it is not someone who is going to listen. When you have some democrat you loathe looking up your ass with a microscope sometime after 2008 by exploiting the constitutional violations we allowed Bush to get away with, THEN we'll be hearing from you about how the president is overstepping his boundaries. Just remember who to thank for it. >>All your typing is about feelings, conjecture and probaly wishful thinking due to your personal wishes or hatred for anyone not of the Democratcic party.<< Ridiculous, sir, there are several republicans right now who would get my vote if they ran in 08. But none of them associate with neocons--the real focus of my hatred and distrust. You allow yourself to be blinded by democrat and republican labels. You have to look behind those--they are meaningless. I trust many republicans but I do not trust neocons. They are a cult and, like any cult, are obsessed with obtaining power and holding dominion. Like any cult, they are destructive and full of suspicion for the world around them. So they cover themselves with a label like "republican" because they know fools like you will give them free reign to do whatever they wish. >>Your last post is based on supposition, and, very weak.<< Thanks. I'll take your shrewd analysis to heart. >>What is your problem?<< The same one you're going to have if we don't clean some house--the White House. >>Besides naming that one law that you think has been broken, give us one "right" that you think has been taken away. Just one.<< Sorry but that's getting old. You're not going to accept anything anyone tells you unless he's a republican pundit with his head up his ass. I don't have time for it, sir. Good day to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 27 Dec 05 - 10:29 PM "a republican pundit with his head up his ass" Strange people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 05 - 12:43 AM No, dingleberry, it is not my "real life". I just happen to be someone who speaks the truth whether in real space or in cuber space. This saves me the trouble of your ellipsoidal contortions of thought to keep your two faces sorted out. You have no compunction about falsifying who you are and what you think. It is easy for you to treat people as turds. This is not a virtue, no matter what you may have heard. It is a deep character disorder. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Dec 05 - 07:31 AM Dingleberry? Now I ask you if that is not in the same vicinity of "treating people like turds?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Dec 05 - 07:41 AM .....and I must aagree some of what I have been requesting is getting a little stale. I shall wait to see if an Impeachment attempt against this sitting President comes to be. That will tell me that an error has been made. By the way, if I was incorrect about suggesting the defense of the Democrate party was the reason for such anti-Bush rhetoric, then I take it back. It just appears that way with election results brought up continously and that the economy and lifestles are going down the crapper. None of which is true. As Little Hawk said here and elsewhere, the Congress is a mess. Maybe not his words but they have forgotten much of why they are in DC. I am not happy with either side of the aisle but we seem to blindly return them to office. Perhaps a mandatory retirement age of 65 will be a start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bobert Still in North Carolina Date: 28 Dec 05 - 08:06 AM I have to agrre with A on one point... Yes, Congress is a mess... Rather than a manatory retirement age perhapa a better idea would be *real* campaign finacne reform that doesn't require a Senator to raise $8000 a day to have enough money to refinace his next campaign??? It's no wonder that there tens of thousands of paid lobbiest crawling all over D.C. with tons of cash and it'sw no wonder than what we have seen over the last couple of decades is more and more legislation that in corporate friendiy at the expense of the poor and middle class... No, thbis ain't exclusively about the rival fraternities on campus becuase they both are taking cash from the fats cats... But, I will say that the cuurent batc h of Repubs have reduced fund raising to something that more resembles the "protection" money that the Mob used to collec t from the mom-n-pop corner stores with their "pioneers" and "rangers" out there 24/7 srtrong-arming folks for dough... As to the impeachment, I stated originally that it was unlikely because the Repub fraternity controls both houses of Congress... But that doesn't mean that Bush has bot comittes impeachable offenses... I think that a lot of folks are confused as to jusdt what "impeachemnt" means... It doesn't mean that a president "is" guilty of anything... It means that there is enough evidence that Congress should hold a trial to excamine the facts and make a detefrmination... Given the circus of well financed impeacement of Bill Clinton, not that I liked his one danged bit, I believe that Bush is well beyond the Clintgon threshold... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bobert Still in North Carolina Date: 28 Dec 05 - 08:06 AM I have to agrre with A on one point... Yes, Congress is a mess... Rather than a manatory retirement age perhapa a better idea would be *real* campaign finacne reform that doesn't require a Senator to raise $8000 a day to have enough money to refinace his next campaign??? It's no wonder that there tens of thousands of paid lobbiest crawling all over D.C. with tons of cash and it'sw no wonder than what we have seen over the last couple of decades is more and more legislation that in corporate friendiy at the expense of the poor and middle class... No, thbis ain't exclusively about the rival fraternities on campus becuase they both are taking cash from the fats cats... But, I will say that the cuurent batc h of Repubs have reduced fund raising to something that more resembles the "protection" money that the Mob used to collec t from the mom-n-pop corner stores with their "pioneers" and "rangers" out there 24/7 srtrong-arming folks for dough... As to the impeachment, I stated originally that it was unlikely because the Repub fraternity controls both houses of Congress... But that doesn't mean that Bush has bot comittes impeachable offenses... I think that a lot of folks are confused as to jusdt what "impeachemnt" means... It doesn't mean that a president "is" guilty of anything... It means that there is enough evidence that Congress should hold a trial to excamine the facts and make a detefrmination... Given the circus of well financed impeacement of Bill Clinton, not that I liked his one danged bit, I believe that Bush is well beyond the Clintgon threshold... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 05 - 09:41 AM Ok, I take back the dingleberry part. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Mrs. Beasley, your old English teacher. Date: 28 Dec 05 - 03:11 PM In fact, Martin, do you even know who William F. Buckley is? I didn't think so! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 28 Dec 05 - 04:39 PM >>By the way, if I was incorrect about suggesting the defense of the Democrate party was the reason for such anti-Bush rhetoric, then I take it back. It just appears that way with election results brought up continously and that the economy and lifestles are going down the crapper. None of which is true.<< The state of economy and Bush's election via swing votes in his brother's state are definitely legitimate gripes but they have nothing to do with my dislike of what Bush is doing to the Constitution or whether he is republican or democrat or liberal or conservative. This is the only Constitution we have and once we bury it, we're done for. It is the heart and soul of the American nation. Without it, we are no better off than impoverished peasants in a brutal banana republic. All political stripes must DEMAND that Bush adhere to his oath. Anything less is truly un-American. What Bush is doing is un-American. Anyone who supports what he is doing is un-American. Anything that nullifies or ignores the Constitution is inherently and inextricably un-American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:47 PM Once more, what has GWB done to nullify or ignore the Constitution? I can't seem to find one 'fact' that would lead me to this conclusion. supposition as opposed to fact? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Crowbar Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:05 PM Go ahead and try to impeach Bush. It will make even bigger asses of anyone who believes thay can. Did not Kennedy wire tap Martin Luther King? Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" The Washington Post July 15, 1994: "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers." Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." "It was a political scandal of unprecedented proportions: the deliberate, systematic, and illegal misuse of the FBI and the CIA by the White House in a presidential campaign. The massive black-bag operations, bordering on the unconstitutional and therefore calling for impeachment, were personally approved by the president. They included planting a CIA spy in his opponent's campaign committee, wiretaps on his opponent's top political aides, illegal FBI checks, and the bugging of his opponent's campaign airplane. The president? Lyndon B. Johnson. The target? Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate" Where were all these constitutional experts then? All you need ia a big fat capital D in front of your title and you are immune to any accusations of wrongdoing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM I don't doubt you couldn't find one fact. In your many posts to the Mudcat you have so far found NO facts. You troll, and you are very good at it, IMO. But after all that's said and done, you are nothing but a Republican apologist for a corrupt administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bobert Still in North Carolina Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:08 PM Oh yeah, A, you want book, chapter and verse... Problem is that it ain't that simple... Oh yeah, I'm sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that you will say that back when it was Clinton lieing about a blow job that book, chapter anfd verse was front and center in yer narrow little thinking yet... ...here we are andf we have another guy, who just happens to enjoy a majority in both houses of Congress, who has trampled gthe 4th ammendamnt and tried to do an end around of FISA and, in your opinion, this ain't worth a second look???? Is this your opinion, A????? Yes___________ No___________ Maybe_______ Maybe Not __________ Ahhh, could you repeat the question___________ Ahhhh, no tircks here so feel perfectly comfy just picking anyway you want to pick.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: CarolC Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:13 PM So Crowbar, how do you feel about those examples you posted? Do you feel that that sort of behavior should be allowed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM A answers no questions at all because he has no answers. He is a Republican troll who visits to cause folks to waste their time trying to say something he would understand. Best thing to do is ignore him. He will go away and return under another guise. BUT, be clear, his 'mission' is to waste your time. Read one of his posts and you'll see just how much of a waste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 29 Dec 05 - 02:35 PM Aside from posting misleading snips taken out of context, Crowbar seems to think it's ok for Bush to break the law because others have done so. Not only did the others not break the law, it isn't acceptable to do it because others did it. I suppose if Clinton rounded up 200,000 citizens and gassed them to death in a secret concentration camp, it's perfectly acceptable for Bush to do the same. But it's the anti-Bush contingent who are a bunch of ignorant kooks who think they are Constitution scholars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 29 Dec 05 - 02:48 PM What a charming negative generalization, AR. I don't suppose you have anything substantive to say to support your mudslinging? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,donuel Date: 29 Dec 05 - 03:30 PM Today Conyers took the podium in Congress and called for the impeachment of George W Bush. It has begun. next: foot dragging hearings for 2 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 29 Dec 05 - 03:43 PM a word of caution for those who would rush to judgement with that particular fish hook - always use a wire trace |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 29 Dec 05 - 04:11 PM Here's a link to Conyer's statement. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/releases/iraqreptreleasepr122005.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,capnrobbierlb@aol.com Date: 29 Dec 05 - 05:08 PM If anyone has time to read this far down in an overall dialog of tripe, understand this: YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE AND YOU MUST PARTICIPATE TO BE DESERVING AND REMAIN ENFRANCHISED. Let's face it, over the last 20 years a lot of very good citizens who believe in civil liberties, diversity, human decency in their personal and community lives and many other values that they were introduced to by parents, teachers, ministers, priests, rabbis and other people of honest intent and good moral quality - well, they got lazy. WE are responsible for "w," dickless dick cheney, FOX propoganda channel and a host of ills it will take a couple of decades to correct - if we work very hard at it and have luck and some help from our friends. The question is not: "Should bush be impeached?" The declarative statement is: "bush must be impeached." Not because he is a now-dry alcoholic, cocaine user, slow to learn, messianic born-again beanwad and a pseudo-Christo fascist, but because he broke the law, lied and has lost the people's trust as well as having besmirched the good name of America around the globe. He did not do this alone. Understand, "dickless dick" runs this administration along with karl rove, defense contractors and international construction company CEOs and a host families of international old wealth, including, of course, the saudi royal family. Do you think "w" (and let's make it a small "W" from now on) tries to award a contract to lockheed martin to run the Texas welfare system on a whim? No, he's bought and paid for. He is not alone; dickless dick's wife, lynne cheney, for years served on Lockheed's Board of Directors for which she received $120,000 annually. She is not an engineer, has no MBA, has no knowledge about weapons or aircraft design - in fact, if you look into her background, she is one startlingly mediocre mind. Now, understnad, she did not show up at an office or a plant 220 working days a year like most of us do. So the $120,000 / yr to make a few board meetings was really paid for ???? That's RIGHT! Plain old-fashioned graft, pay-o-la, filthy lucre. What we all must do is hunker down and decide to spend time and precious resources to: 1. Elect people of QUALITY (Democrats, Republicans or Independents) in 2006, 2008 and beyond. 2. In the near term, target members of congress like Delay, Sessions, Frist and other staunch neo-con, bush/cheney-loving, sold-out, money laundering, influence peddling, corporate tit sucking shills and drive them out of office (national and state). 3. Work with fellow liberals (and that's still a proud title) to reestablish a platform of local, state and national government that makes sense for the future of this nation and other soverign nations before assholes like bush & co. lead us into a nuclear confrontation that begins with a dirty bomb on Wall Street and ends with a launch on a city in Iran or some other insane act of retalliation. 4. Take back the airwaves (T.V. & radio), reclaim the major newspapers and keep hold of a free internet. America is the most propagandized country on the planet currently and pseudo-news talk pundits need to be driven into their own dung by campaigns to boycott and otherwise harrass advertisers who promote right wing stupid shit- talk. That is not to say meaningful opposing thoughts should come under unreasonable attack. I'm talking about bombastic shout-down tripe that now fills the national semi-consciousness. I could go on, but this is not the time or place. If you get it at all, you get my point. Don't waste time on creeping assholism. Get past it and WORK on local and state campaigns for candidates who support your views and write to them, make appointments and demand to go see them or their associates and form small groups to talk through how to take back government and make it sane and responsive to the people. Remember - its your sons, daughters, grandsons, nephews who will fight and die for corporate profit in a foreign land and your tax dollars that will be spent to make bastards rich as they return the people you love to be cannon fodder in some dusty city in the Middle East. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 29 Dec 05 - 05:20 PM Read my lips, GWB will not be impeached. Some are allowing blind hatred or a poor losers' attitude to tske over their thinking. Franklin Roosevelt went thru the same accusations and diatribe that Bush is. Donuel, nothing has begun. Conyers must have felt lonely today as there was no session. Perhaps that is the reason he picked today. Nothing more than a meaningless press release. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 29 Dec 05 - 05:26 PM Peace, I concur. "In your many posts to Mudcat, you have so far found no facts." I will, however, continue to strive to find one. When I do, you will be the first to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 29 Dec 05 - 06:56 PM When in doubt, Nullify, eh, A? A talent you and MG seem to have sipped from the same dried up old teat. I wish you the joy of it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 29 Dec 05 - 07:43 PM GUEST A: "But after all that's said and done, you are nothing but a Republican apologist for a corrupt administration." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 29 Dec 05 - 07:57 PM >>The question is not: "Should bush be impeached?" The declarative statement is: "bush must be impeached."<< Correct. He has broken the law and violated his oath. He must be impeached to reassure the public that the Constitution is intact and still works for them. Even John Dean says Bush broke the law and he kows a thing or two about bugging opponents' rooms without a warrant and going to jail for it--you betcha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 29 Dec 05 - 08:22 PM Congressman John Conyers makes me proud to be an American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 29 Dec 05 - 08:33 PM House Resolution 635 House Resolution 636 House Resolution 637 They make for interesting reading. When will a vote take place or has that happened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:11 PM Well, well, well... First,might good to be ouuta my son-in law's house and back home in my little holler... Second, thank you, GUEST capnrobbierlb fir yer excellent post... a...and thanks, John Conyers... Yeah, thinks might not heat up like when the neo-cons had a $40M anti-Clinton investigation going on but, hey, things seem a tad warmer today... Tell, ya what, throw just half that $40M at investigatin' Bush & Co an' we'll all be scrambling to the Constitution to find someone in the succession chain that ain't a crook... ...and I ain't kidding... I mean, Bush Cheney, Frist are all out... Who's next??? Tom Delay??? See what I mean??? May come down to the Page County dog warden... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:05 AM Doe it not matter to anyone that Conyers 'company' was not operating Thursday. Was he really there by himself? Nullify? No. Amos, I have not nullified anything. There must be something of substance before time is spent in that endeavor. Bobert, what 'law' did Conyers say was broken when he called for impeachment? And if he has the goods, why-o-why has he not started the ball rolling? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:26 AM Do you understand what an impeachemnt is, A??? Just for starters, there's certainly enough riding here to bring charges of violations of privacy guarenteed under the Consitution... It is a federal crime to cross state lines to commit a crime... That ceratinly was done... 8Now you argue that Congress gave him those rights in their authorization for miliatry action in Iraq if everything else failed to resolve the WMD issue... Given the fact that Bush didn't hold the invasion and occupation as the last option by ignoring Hans Blix's report that Iraq was copperating and that the inpspectors weren't finding anything, this also might be impeachable... Heck, even the way that Bush "pioneer and ranger" hit men are hitting up corportation and wealthy folks for protection money is very posssibly impeachable... The Constitution calls for "high crimes and misdeameanors"... There certainly seems to be a string of misdemeanors worth a Congressional peek... BObert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:57 AM Yes, Bobert, I know what impeachment is and I assume you do also. If,in your opinion, there is sufficient grounds to formally call for it, why hasn't anyone done so? "Impeach" can simply be to cast doubt on someone. Why has no one done this in a formal manner. Actions certainly speak louder than words. Give us one valid 'misdemeanor' that is plausible, not thoughts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: TIA Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:02 AM Q- "If,in your opinion, there is sufficient grounds to formally call for it, why hasn't anyone done so?" A- Republican Congress |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:06 AM captrobber I accuse you of being too well informed and as such you are a danger to this administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:16 PM Bush's Abuse of Power Deserves ImpeachmentBy Joe Conason, writing for the New York Observer Recklessly and audaciously, George W. Bush is driving the nation whose laws he swore to uphold into a constitutional crisis. He has claimed the powers of a medieval monarch and defied the other two branches of government to deny him. Eventually, despite his party's monopoly of power, he may force the nation to choose between his continuing degradation of basic national values and the terrible remedy of impeachment. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: DougR Date: 30 Dec 05 - 03:44 PM "John Conyers makes me proud to be an American." Geeze, Azizi can't you come up with something better than that? Conyers? Liberme' DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Troll Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:43 PM Can any of you constitutional law and political experts tell me why the NY Times sat on the NSA story for a year before they published it? Just before a book on the subject was about to come out? It seems to me that the NY Times is not too concerned with national security OR civil liberties. As for John Conyers announcment, he is on the left fringes of the Democratic party and is given to grandiose gestures. He isn't usually taken seriously by the more erudite political observers. But, whatever makes your day. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: CarolC Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:47 PM Can any of you constitutional law and political experts tell me why the NY Times sat on the NSA story for a year before they published it? Politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:52 PM "John Conyers makes me proud to be an American." Geeze, Azizi can't you come up with something better than that? Conyers? Liberme' DougR **** Okay-I'll come up with something better than that: John Conyers makes me very proud to be an American and a human being. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:52 PM House Resolutions 635, 636 and 637 made my day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:21 PM Bob Fertik writes: "My New Year's Resolution for 2006 is to do everything in my power to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. I will support John Conyers' bill (H.Res.635) to investigate and impeach Bush and Cheney. I will express my support for impeachment by calling and writing the media, and by educating my friends and neighbors. In the 2006 election, I will work to elect candidates who support impeachment, and work to defeat Members of Congress who do not." Read Bob's blog here: Link If you agree, why not share your Resolution with your representatives and senators? Link IMPEACHMENT IS POSSIBLE Even before the NSA wiretapping scandal broke, a Zogby poll found that 53% of Americans thought Bush should be impeached if he had lied about the war -- and 57% believe he lied. Link 1 Link 2 Since the wiretapping scandal, even libertarians and conservatives have started suggesting impeachment. The list includes former Reagan official Bruce Fein, Norm Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, law professors Jonathan Turley and Geoffrey Stone, and even Barron's editor Thomas Donlan. Link CONYERS LEADS THE WAY Congressman John Conyers has compiled Bush's impeachable offenses in a must-read report: "The Constitution in Crisis." Link Conyers has introduced two bills (H.Res.636 and H.Res.637) to censure Bush and Cheney for withholding evidence from Congress, and a third bill (H.Res.635) to create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. Link The following articles highlight some of the findings in Conyers' report: Bush Administration Refuses to Comply With FOIA Request on Pre-War Intelligence Link White Phosphorous: The U.S. Used It; The U.S. Says It's Illegal Link White House Leaked Classified Intelligence to Make its Case for War Link Rumsfeld Admits to "Ghosting" Detainee Link DEMOCRATS TALK IMPEACHMENT Senator Barbara Boxer is consulting four Constitutional scholars about impeachment. Civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis announced his support for impeachment. Urge your favorite Democrats to join these brave leaders in openly discussing impeachment. IMPEACHMENT AS CAMPAIGN ISSUE Impeachment is becoming a campaign issue as well. With your support, www.ImpeachPAC.org has raised $46,261.70 to support pro-impeachment candidates. Our first endorsed candidate, Tony Trupiano of Michigan, is proudly campaigning on his support for impeachment. Please send Democratic Congressional candidates here: Link CITIZENS IMPEACHMENT COMMISSION FORMING We are also forming a powerful Citizens Impeachment Commission of prominent Americans who are willing to lead the fight in the year ahead. Our commission already includes activists Medea Benjamin, Gene Bruskin, Tim Carpenter, David Cline, Steve Cobble, Karen Dolan, Jodie Evans, Mike Ferner, Bob Fertik, Kim Gandy, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Tom Hayden, Doug Kreeger, Bill Mitchell, Bill Moyer, Michael Rectenwald, Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, Jonathan Tasini, and Kevin Zeese; former government officials Elizabeth de la Vega, Larry Johnson, and Ann Wright, Historians and Legal Scholars John Bonifaz, Marcus Raskin, Lawrence R. Velvel, and Howard Zinn, and Talk Show Hosts/Editors/Bloggers/Pundits/Authors David Allen, Dave Allsopp, The Bulldog Manifesto, Tom Engelhardt, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, Justin A. Frank, Doug Ireland, Rob Kall, Susie Madrak, Mark Crispin Miller, Brad Newsham, Liza Sabater, and Jeff Tiedrich. And we're just getting started! Please encourage prominent citizens yo Link IMPEACHMENT BLOGGING COLLECTIVE FORMING If your blog has a news feed containing only your articles on impeachment, we'd like to post the headlines and first paragraphs and link to your site from here: Link Just send the URL for the feed to david@davidswanson.org ALMOST HERE: NATIONAL DAY OF TOWN HALL FORUMS ON ENDING THE WAR Attend a public forum on Saturday, January 7, on the topic of ending the war! There are 76 events already planned around the country, many of them with Congress Members. Link NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY After Downing Street, Progressive Democrats of America, and allied organizations are calling upon you to hold Bush and Cheney accountable. We need you to call your member of Congress and ask him or her to cosponsor Congressman Conyers' bills. Join us on the National Call-In Day, January 9th, 2006. Let's kick off the New Year with a bang. On Monday, January 9th, we ask that you call your member of congress in their home district. Ask to speak to your member of congress. Urge your Representative to cosponsor Rep. John Conyers' bill to create an investigation and make recommendations on impeachment, a second bill to censure Bush, and a third to censure Cheney. Find the phone number: Link Read about the bills: Link HIGH PRAISE FROM THE NATION FOR AFTER DOWNING STREET John Nichols, in the Nation Magazine, writes: "The media did a slightly better job of monitoring political wrongdoing in 2005 than it did during the first four years of the Bush-Cheney presidency -- when it actually would have mattered. But the real work of exposing the misdeeds of the administration is still being done by activist groups. And the most inspired of these in 2005 was After Downing Street, the coalition of groups that describes itself as "working to expose the lies that launched the war and to hold accountable its architects, including through censure and impeachment." In conjunction with Progressive Democrats of America, the able activist group that seeks to create an actual opposition party in America, After Downing Street is pushing the political envelope in exactly the direction it needs to go. Check out their website at After Downing Street's website and keep ahead of the action in 2006." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:45 PM The NY Times is just not credible. It's agenda is obvious. Anyone who reads it and then accuses somone of watching Fox News is really on the same page and guilty of the same thing. We have 2 decent papers in Chicago. The Tribune which is a bit right of center and the Sun-Times which is a bit left. Neither one in this day and age can be considered extreme in either direction. There is some integrity there that has a common sense mid-western attitude. You cannot get that from either the NY Times or Fox News. So quoting either one of them is the same thing. Biased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: freda underhill Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:01 PM Bush has admitted that the New York Times reports were correct - and so has admitted he committed an impeachable offense. Warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons. Following Nixon's resignation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)was introduced to set limits on electronic surveillance. It created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court -- that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance. Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law. Bush has outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows. This is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance. All Bush had to do was to go through the FISA court to get those wiretaps happening - but he apparently believes he is above the law. Bad move. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:03 PM Best laugh I've had in quite a while. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:24 PM Very funny but who would want to? I wonder if Martin is up to the job? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Woody Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:56 PM December 15, 2005 - 58% percent of Americans believe that President George W. Bush should not be impeached and removed from office. 32% take the opposite view. 52% of Americans would be less likely to vote for a Congressional candidate who promised to work for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. 30% would be more likely. It's hell to be part of the minority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:58 PM Who gives a rat's ass about made-up stats? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 07:00 PM Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 181447 responses Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 86% No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 5% No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 8% I don't know. 2% My stats are bigger than your stats, Old Guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 07:23 PM The stats are from Rasmussen. I assume you are in the 2% in your stats. I found them too at http://www.able2know.com/forums/about65904.html but your 181447 number is wrong and obviuosly enhanced by you. You lied about that number and you can't be trusted. That this is not a poll by Rassmussen but a "vote" Link on a web page wherin mainly anti Bushites would be reading anyway. Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 164962 responses Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 85% No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 5% No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 8% I don't know. 2% MSNBC Please vote ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:24 PM You're a real squirrely sorta guy, OG> Me in the "I don't know" 2%?? It is to laugh! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:27 PM Amos: The post was directed at airhead Peace. I know where you stand on any topic, in the vast minority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:49 PM See recent Page County Polling Agency stats on "Bush Lied" thread... Hot off the press.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:54 PM Dear Old Guy: I cut and pasted, just as you did. Added nothing at all. Just the facts as they were presented on the site. I have no need to lie to the likes of you, not at all. Here's the site. The numbers seem to be at 181,648. Go check it out, twit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:57 PM Old Guy, are you as stupid as you seem to be? Gawd, even your insults are limp. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM Show me a national poll supporting your percentages. Only dickheads like you visit and "vote" at such sites. And whatever you so ignore the Rassmussen polls. They might prove your are in the minority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:25 PM "Show me a national poll supporting your percentages." Nope. I don't like you and just couldn't care less about what you think. Besides, you wouldn't be able to interpret a national poll if it bit yer ass dick brain. (That, btw, is what you get for accusing me of fabricating information.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:26 PM My pollster can beat up your pollster and... ....300. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:28 PM 'er 301... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:39 PM That's the way Old Guy counts. "Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition." There is hope yet. Hey, OG, you one of the Premium Members of that site? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:20 PM Peace: Why does it take you so many posts to disprove the facts I present in one post? How do you interperet the polls at Rasmussen? I see you went there and tried to find something to support your minority opinion. All you could come up with was som projections for 2008 where 2 democrats and one republican should win, which you quoted even though you reject everything else on the site. They only facts you acknowledge are the ones that support your lame, minority conception of the real world. Is reality for people that can't handle drugs? I am not a premium member of anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:28 PM OG, What facts have you presented? You called me a liar. So, until you retract that, go screw yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:47 PM I've never heard of the Rasmussen Poll... Like what the heck is it, anyway??? A bunch of drunk Repub frat boys at a reunion??? I mean, lets get real here... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: DougR Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:23 PM Geeze. Most of you folks must live very frustrating lives. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:42 PM DougR, that is the only conclusion I could arrive at. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:52 PM That's not a conclusion in any respectable sense of the word. Even if true. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:59 PM Clone of the minute, Please delete dianavan's post: Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan - PM Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:24 PM Very funny but who would want to? I wonder if Martin is up to the job? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:01 PM Well Clone, I am waiting............... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:21 PM (conclusion) * noun: the proposition arrived at by logical reasoning (such as the proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises of a syllogism) Webster Amos @ 12:52PM, you have lost me. I sorta' thought it was a fit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:26 PM College football parties the next several days. Will return to see if.......hmmn, not sure why. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:51 PM Martin: Hold your breath. Please. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 05 - 05:14 PM I would, Martin, but I wouldn't want to bruise your face. Do the people in your office encourage this sort of anti-humanist style of dialogue, dreamig up dirty remarks, or collecting them off bathroom walls, and then throwing them back and forth? Do you and your wife practice making bad insults at each other? To be honest with you, it is boring and callow in the extreme. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 31 Dec 05 - 05:19 PM OK. For this one day--OK, the next 36 hours--let's all try to be nice. OG and G--have a great New Year. No hugs and kisses because that would be carrying democracy too far, but all the best to you anyway--and everyone else on or off this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 05 - 06:20 PM I guess Martin did not read Peace's offering. Martin, you bore me with your endless juvenile hate. I keep coming back looking for some spark of communication, and all you show up with is the endless recitation of your old tapes of animosities buried in history and hatred from your hairy childhood. Try finding the real present, and see if it doesn't make your heart lighter. You don't HAVE to go around bathing in venom and resentment all the time. What's wrong is not that I come back here, but that you do. My general impact on others is music, humor or help, while yours is hatred and acid histrionics. Anyway, I am happy for you you enjoy your wife's beauty. I doubt she has any idea what you do when you are dicking around on the computer. Or do you speak this way to her as well? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 31 Dec 05 - 06:34 PM What Amos said, Martin... You are a borish person with little to offer this site other juvinilistic insults that one would expect from 14 year old boys... Now back to the serious discussion on the possibilities of Bush being impeached... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 05 - 07:29 PM I would like to see him answer to charges for the capricious irresponsibility he has demonstrated when he wasn't out slaying cedars with his drate, big chainsaw! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 05 - 07:58 PM From the Onion: Documents Reveal Gaps In Bush's Service As President September 29, 2004 | Issue 40•39 WASHINGTON, DC—Freshly unearthed public documents, ranging from newspapers to cabinet-meeting minutes, seem to indicate large gaps in George W. Bush's service as president, a spokesman for the watchdog group Citizens for an Informed Society announced Monday. Enlarge Image Bush, who stands accused of shirking his presidential duties. "We originally invoked the Freedom Of Information Act to request material relating to Bush's spotty record while in office," CIS director Catherine Rocklin said. "But then we realized that the information was readily available at the corner newsstand, on the Internet, and from our friends and neighbors who pay attention to the news." According to Rocklin, the most damning documents were generated at roughly one-day intervals during a period beginning in January 2001 and ending this week. The document's sources include, but are not limited to, the U.S. newspaper The New York Times, the London-based Economist magazine, and the well-known international business and finance record, The Wall Street Journal. "Factual data presented in these publications indicates that Bush took little or no action on issues as widely varied as the stalled economy, increasing violence in post-war Iraq, and the lagging public education system," Rocklin said. "The newsprint documents also reveal huge disparities between the ways Bush claimed to have served Medicare patients, and what he actually did." Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards said he was not surprised by the report. "These documents reconfirm what they told us the first time we saw them," Edwards said while stumping for Kerry in Ohio. "Namely, that our president was seriously negligent during the three and a half years he was supposed to be serving his country." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) is one of many Republicans who demanded an independent investigation into the authenticity of the documents. "We're fairly confident that these so-called 'news stories' will turn out to be partisan smear tactics," DeLay said. "I wouldn't be surprised if all 11 billion of these words turn out to be forgeries. For thousands of reporters, editors, and government officials to claim that Bush compromised the security and fiscal health of this nation is not merely anti-American, but also dangerous." In addition to the media documents, CIS examined more than 20,000 government records, which ranged from U.S. Department of Labor unemployment reports to transcripts of State Of The Union addresses. "Bush shirked his presidential duties with regard to the nation's fiscal health," Rocklin said. "Take, for example, the controversial memo in which Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin states that the federal deficit will reach a record high of $422 billion this year. This memo unequivocally shows that Bush was AWOL on the domestic front." ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Woody Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:33 PM This is Amos's truth: "Freshly unearthed public documents, ranging from newspapers to cabinet-meeting minutes, seem to indicate large gaps in George W. Bush's service as president, announced a spokesman for the watchdog group Citizens for an Informed Society, according to the satirical website, The Onion" Amos was tken in just like he was taken in by the Scientology. His judgement is very poor. He does not know the difference between lies and the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM You are an ass; the whole article is a satire. The person who stupidly took it as a serious article was not I. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:49 PM Yo Woody, Do you know Amos personally??? I mean, you speak as if you do... Problem is that what you say don't match the Amos that about 100 of Mudcatters have met face-to-face... How 'bout you, pal... How amny Mudcatters have met you face-to-face??? I rest my case... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Woody Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:56 PM Typical Liberal distortion If you look at this chart you would believe that the US deficit went down under Democratic presidents. Notice that the cahert goes down under Ford and up under Carter but it still shows the arrows going the other way. What the chart is based on is the rate of increase avery year. No president since 1931 has reduced the deficit. However if you look at the actual numbers listed here and here you will see that the deficit has increased every year since 1931. Now what really matters to anyone except the left wing radical trying to discredit republicans is the realtionship of the Deficit to the GNP. Even more interesting is the relationship of the deficit to GNP of other countrys of the world so that we can get a real handle on how lousy the USA is doing. Does anyone in the class have some factual data on this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Andy Date: 31 Dec 05 - 11:26 PM I found one here. It shows a steady increase in the GNP except for a little dip in 2001 follwed by a upward bump tha makes up for the dip. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bobby Date: 31 Dec 05 - 11:36 PM Gee. I found the actual numbers on the GNP. It went up % during the 8 years of the Clinton administration and 31% during the first 4 years and 7 months of the Bush adminstration. At that rate, the growth should be 55% in 8 years. 1993-01-01 6580.0 1993-04-01 6643.1 1993-07-01 6711.9 1993-10-01 6822.4 1994-01-01 6940.2 1994-04-01 7056.4 1994-07-01 7139.7 1994-10-01 7257.4 1995-01-01 7335.8 1995-04-01 7378.8 1995-07-01 7458.7 1995-10-01 7560.4 1996-01-01 7666.2 1996-04-01 7809.9 1996-07-01 7895.4 1996-10-01 8036.1 1997-01-01 8142.6 1997-04-01 8290.1 1997-07-01 8416.1 1997-10-01 8500.2 1998-01-01 8615.1 1998-04-01 8684.3 1998-07-01 8802.7 1998-10-01 8971.2 1999-01-01 9097.2 1999-04-01 9209.9 1999-07-01 9343.4 1999-10-01 9558.3 2000-01-01 9661.9 2000-04-01 9859.6 2000-07-01 9893.6 2000-10-01 10008.4 2001-01-01 10060.2 2001-04-01 10173.5 2001-07-01 10151.8 2001-10-01 10300.9 2002-01-01 10359.5 2002-04-01 10443.3 2002-07-01 10557.0 2002-10-01 10641.1 2003-01-01 10761.9 2003-04-01 10911.4 2003-07-01 11154.8 2003-10-01 11329.2 2004-01-01 11540.1 2004-04-01 11712.8 2004-07-01 11867.3 2004-10-01 12032.0 2005-01-01 12238.2 2005-04-01 12413.5 2005-07-01 12650.0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 31 Dec 05 - 11:37 PM Stats are for losers, Woody... Cram 'um.... They mean nuthin' at all... Go outy into my community and ask folks if they are better off now than before Bush... Them stats are all that counts... Face it, the only people happy are either ignorant or rich... Where do you fit in??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:00 AM Aside from the wiretapping, H.R. 635 exposes enough about how America was deceived into the war to get an impeachment process going. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:49 AM "Does anyone in the class have some factual data on this?" The only set of factual data that matters is current debt and GNP. That is, how much ya owe and your ability to pay that debt. One without the other is meaningless as a measure of anything. If I owe ten billion and I make five billion--and all I can afford to pay towards that debt is one billion and the interest is one billion per annum, I will never retire the debt. So, match the GNP with the present national debt and then maybe there is something to argue over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:52 AM The full Conyers report, entitled The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War and offering an analysis of the case for impeachment, can be found on this page. Resolution 635, which creates a select committee to investigate charges against Bush and make recommendations for impeachment, can be found here. H. Res 636, which censures GW Bush for refusing to respond to requests for information concerning relating wrong-doings, can be found here. H. Res 737 provides similar censure of Dick Cheney for similar offenses, and can be found here A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:53 AM Correction: The Resolution censuring Cheney is #637. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:55 AM Makes beautiful reading, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:59 AM DOMESTIC SPYING PROMPTS TALK OF IMPEACHMENT By HAZEL TRICE EDNEY, The Wilmington Journal WASHINGTON (NNPA) – President Bush's authorization of a secret domestic spying program – and his fierce defense of his action – is leading to talk of possible impeachment. "In my opinion, the President has violated the law, and the House and Senate must pursue their inquiries into this illegal program….George W. Bush is the president. He is not a king. He is not above the law," states U. S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) in a release last week. "I look forward to further inquiry in the House and Senate on these matters. The American people deserve the truth. We must gather the facts and determine once and for all whether the law was violated. There is no question that the U. S. Congress has impeached presidents for lesser offenses." Lewis continues, "This executive order takes us back to the dark past when our government spied on civil rights leaders and Vietnam War protestors. Without obtaining the judicial authorization required to wiretap American citizens, the American people have no protection against the misuse of this program for illegal or vindictive means." Bush adamantly defended the program, first disclosed two weeks ago by the New York Times. He said at a White House news conference, "I've authorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens." The revelation of the secret domestic spying program has angered both Democrats and Republicans. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would conduct hearings on the warrantless monitoring of international phone calls, faxes and e-mails of U.S. citizens or residents since 2002. ''There are limits to what the president can do under the Constitution,'' Specter said on CNN's ''Late Edition.'' ''Whether it was legal is a matter that ought to be examined.'' Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has asked why Bush failed to get the warrants from the court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which set up an 11-member court to issue warrants to investigate U. S. suspects in national security cases. In recent years, the secret court has issued more than 4,000 warrants and denied less than a dozen requests by the administration. ''Why did the president choose not to use FISA?'' McCain asked on "This Week," an ABC news show. ''That's a legitimate question." Meanwhile, a member of that court, U.S. District Judge James Robertson, resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, apparently to protest Bush's decision to bypass special court. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Woody Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:34 AM Stats are for loosers and bullshit is for winners I suppose. I don't hear Bobert complaining about how bad off he is but he speaks for others. Nobody I know is complazining about their financial status. I think Bobert hangs with loosers. People he can brainwash. Well Class here is a comparison of the GNP uf the US to the GNP of other countrys up to 1999. It looks like the worst is Guinea-Bissau with a 366% ratio compared to 16% for the US. Does Bobert Care to move to Guinea? That bad number means nothing unless you are a looser. His wes ginny slide rule is only for chopping wood and skinning coons because any numbers produced by it is for loosers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:37 AM You always write like that? "Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace - PM Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:49 AM "Does anyone in the class have some factual data on this?" The only set of factual data that matters is current debt and GNP. That is, how much ya owe and your ability to pay that debt. One without the other is meaningless as a measure of anything. If I owe ten billion and I make five billion--and all I can afford to pay towards that debt is one billion and the interest is one billion per annum, I will never retire the debt. So, match the GNP with the present national debt and then maybe there is something to argue over." Woody: Other than what you said about loosers [sic.], do you have anything to add? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Woody Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:05 AM So what is your point? Is the interst rate too high or are you not making enough money? I don't get it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:08 AM The point is, WOODY, that GNP is only half the equation. The National Debt is the other half, DOH! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 06 - 08:53 AM Has anyone notice that those 3 House Resolutions are drafts, not even was the time taken to retype after errors note, and that they have not been presented to the Committee? Just more grandstanding by Conyers. If he was so interested in the welfare of the citizens, he would have done more to shore up the auto industry in his home state. Why can't some of you get it? A couple of major election years on the horizon and it is all about holding on/obtaining more power. And this can be said for both sides of the aisle. Now, this should proke some howls.......I wonder what some may think a few years when they realize that GWB was one of the few in DC who really did something for our health and welfare. I put health in there as I still reel over boberts statement that his neighbors' prescription costs have already gone up because of Bush. Oh yes, and the cow jumped over the moon. Peace and Amos, I think the spelling is "Duh". Actually, I know it is. Just trying to be subtle. By the way 'Doh' is the first note on a musical scale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:25 AM Well, well, well, GUEST... You are right in that Bush will be remembered for doing things: Iraq-mire comes to mind right off... But well beyond that he will get credit for chipping away at the New Deal and Great Society programs that help our middle class and porr... What that amounts to is a major money grab for the rich... A tax cut just went in to effect today that will put an extra $100K in the hands of every ne making a $1M a year in the country... Who pays for this??? Look at the recent $50B-some cuts in spending an' you'll find that the bulk of it targets programs that help the middle class or poor... Does it bother you that the pverty rates among our elderly have incresed every year since Bush took office??? It bothers me... A society can be judged on just how it goes about caring for it's elderly... The guy I was talking about whoes meds are going up under the new Medicaid perscription plan is a 71 year old man who lives 'bout a mile toward town... Now mind you, this program was "supposed" to help out elderly, right??? Right??? Well, Mr. Clifford's med are going up $50 a month under Bush plan that is what, GUEST??? Hint: Read the last sentence of the paragraph before last... How can this be that a plan that is going to cost a gizillion dollars is going to make Mr. Clifford's monthly perscription costs increase??? Oh, BTW, Mr. Clifford is a real person and never made over $7.50 an hour and lives on practically nuthin' 'cept a paltry Social Security check and the few bucks he makes changing tires at his house and selling vegetables in the summer... Now if you don't believe me then PM me with yer phone number and I'll arrange for you to talk with Mr. Clifford... But, bottom, line, Mr. Clifford ain't the only one wondering where the gizillion dollars are going... They ceratinly aren't going to the elderly... If it weren't for Iraq-mire, thias story would be all over the news an' Congress would be under a lot of pressure to fix the program... In a way, Iraq-mire is has become just the right distraction to allow the money grab that the rich are in the midst of pulling off... And, for the record, I don't live in a community of losers... I live in a rural community where folks have pride, work hard, help each other but also a community where folks don't make a lotta money... Ain't a loser among 'um... Loser is my book is someone who is so morally bankrupt that they can justify and rationalize taking from the working man and poor to give to the rich... And don't give me no crap about how much the rich pay in taxes 'cause that dog don't hunt... How much of the wealth do they control??? Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 06 - 10:22 AM bobert, I think Mr. Clifford is/has been misinformed, possibly his fault. The idea that such an increase could happen is either pure bullshit or the work of an anarchist who will say anything for effect. Not to imply that 'Mr. Clifford' is the anarchist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Woody Date: 01 Jan 06 - 11:00 AM Peace, you took the words right out of my post: "Now what really matters to anyone except the left wing radical trying to discredit republicans is the realtionship of the Deficit to the GNP." Now what is the relationship?? I don't think you know because you use some dreampt up numbers to support my case. What are the real numbers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Frank Date: 01 Jan 06 - 03:35 PM Of course Bush has committed impeachable offenses. But there is a more pressing problem that we face in the US today and it's that of voter fraud. As long as electronic voting machines render our votes useless, it doesn't matter who runs for office in upcoming elections. The vote was stolen in 2001 and 2004 by these corporate machines which favored Republican Candidates in the tallying errors. There is only one real solution to this problem. Paper ballots must be transparently identified at the precinct level on the night of the election by a bi-partisan observation team. The votes in paper form must be guarded an tallied at the central headquarters. This is an issue that transcends Party-lines. As one Georgia press agent for a local House Rep put it succinctly, "The legislators in the State capitol don't want the public to "touch" the votes." E-voting is a form of political manipulation by corporate interests who favor Right-Wing policies for the Financial Elite in our country. We are headed at once toward Feudalism and because of our ownership by foreign multinationals, we are becoming a "third-world" nation. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 04:07 PM "Peace and Amos, I think the spelling is "Duh". Actually, I know it is. Just trying to be subtle." Doh is now in most dictionaries. It was something that came into the language from that bloody awful show, "The Simpsons". Duh also works. Not trying to be subtle at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 06 - 04:12 PM I think I get it! Many in this place are blaming the Repubs for their lousy plight in life. Why not get out there and get "a piece of the Pie"? The US is seeing more millionares being created every year than ever before. Or, is easier for you to sit back and just bitch about it and blame someone else for your own failures? By the way, a friend of mine said that most of Ohio still used the punch card system in 2004. Remember, Ohio got the Dems blame for their loss time. They made Florida the goat before. NO ONE, BUT NO ONE has been able to prove voter fraud. Reminds me of my second sentence. Additionally, the complaint in Florida in 2001 revolved around the punch card, not "E" machines. The Ohio Democratic party said just a couple weeks ago that there was nothing wrong with the last Ohio vote. That is true according to my friend. He said another reason for that comment was due to a new state law requiring some form of voter ID. The Dems wanted a signature only deal. Hhmmnn, wonder why? He also said that most polling places have always asked for an ID. Dems don't want this. The idea of the poor loser syndrome just keeps popping up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 04:16 PM America was the loser in the last two Presidential elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 06 - 05:06 PM Peace, I still think what you and Amos are trying to imply is 'Duh'. Your use of Doh is improper. It is actually D'oh which in the Simpsons series (did we have to sink to this depth?) means annoyed grunt. I doubt very much if any standard dictionary has your definition in it. Duh has been used for many years to denote derisivness. I can't believe you and Amos would intend to simply imply an annoyed grunt. Certainly it would not be corrosive enough for Amos. You still hold some hope. Not much but some. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 05:39 PM 'But Homer's trademark doh! actually appeared in The New Oxford Dictionary of English three years ago. It's defined on page 545 as an informal exclamation "used to comment on an action perceived as foolish or stupid. (For example), 'He had approached the wrong set of supporters. Doh!'"' From here. Go argue with the dictionary people. Doh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 01 Jan 06 - 05:41 PM To the Guest of the last 2 posts. I am assuming you are the same person. you are so right on! Where have you been hiding? Come out more often and please join! The handwringers here still did not get new towels. They just use the NY Times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 06 - 05:45 PM I didn't use the expression "Doh!" in this thread. I like Peace a lot, but that doesn't make me the same as him!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 05:46 PM "That is true according to my friend." Yeah. Well, according to my friend, your friend is fulla beans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 05:50 PM "I like Peace a lot, but that doesn't make me the same as him!!" I am so far to the left of Amos it's unreal. He's the reasonable one. Please do not confuse the two of us as you seem to have done. You're much better off taking with him than with me. I'll just tell you to fuck off. Amos will likely tell you the same thing, but he uses complete paragraphs and nice words. Amos is reasonable. I am not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 06 - 06:25 PM Peace, check back with your friend - he/she may have the market cornered on beans. Ohio was still using the punch card in the majority of its' counties and the Dems did go on record as saying there was nothing wrong with the 2004 vote. But, when you check, I wouldn't stand downwind of said friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 06:36 PM Sorry. I do not believe that. I don't think you should, either. Most the time you don't trust the Democrats. On this you trust 'em. Huh! However, whatever makes it work for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 06 - 06:41 PM Peace, are you saying the Dems would lie? My position is not one of not trusting the Dems - difficult to trust most politicians. My position is on of concern that Dems don't have a plan for the US, not even a clue of one, and yet all they do is condemn the other side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 06:46 PM My concern for the US is that NEITHER of the major political parties have a plan. I think the folks in office now are taking very good care of their friends in business--but not taking care of US citizens. So please pardon me if I say I think they are bastards both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,guest Date: 01 Jan 06 - 07:04 PM Amos, don't have the time to verify the use of 'Doh'. Maybe later. However I forgot to bring up one point that I read in a post of yours -01 Jan 06-12:59 AM and I quote; Lewis continues "The Executive Order takes us back to the dark past when our Government spied on cil rights leaders and Vietnam War protesters." He wasn't doing a direct comparison to that Executive Order, was he?The Civil rights stuff in the 50s and early 60s, we left Vietnam in 1975 and the Executive Order was signed in 1979. A little confusing, don't you think? And he had to know that the issuer of the order and that all the Presidents since have used it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 07:06 PM "Amos, don't have the time to verify the use of 'Doh'. Maybe later." That is very rude, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 06 - 08:11 PM No, GUEST, 10:22 am, Mr Clifford ain't no anarchist and will be paying more for his meds under the new Bush perscription drug plan... $64 a month compared to $15 a month... This is just another reason why Bush should be impeached... He is stealinf from the working class and giving it to the pharacudiacl companies, who BTW, pumped in millions and millions into Bush's campaign... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Buzz Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:49 AM Bobert: Numbers time again. You have a firm grasp on Mr Clifford's numbers so don't try to claim numbers don't matter on this one. How many millions did drug companys donate to Bush and how many did they donate to Kery? You have to have knowledge if such things before you can imply that Bush is helping out drug companys. Otherwise you are pissing up a rope. By the way I don't know the answer myself but judging by other industries, they donate about equally to both parties. But I could be way wrong and you could score a big win on this one. Or you could loose and try to CYA by claiming Kerry would have accepted the money and done noting for the drug companys. Either way I might stimulate you into using facts to support your opinions and I am willing to loose to accomplish that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:55 AM '"I can only speak to myself." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005' The man is amazing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:58 AM '"We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make — it would hope — put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005' Simply amazing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:01 AM '"In this job you've got a lot on your plate on a regular basis; you don't have much time to sit around and wander, lonely, in the Oval Office, kind of asking different portraits, 'How do you think my standing will be?'" —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005' He has this 'je ne sais pas quois', don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:03 AM '"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005' A man with real class, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Jan 06 - 07:39 AM Bobert, I wasn't suggesting Mr. Clifford is an Anarchist, to the contrary. You just didn't get it. I still maintain that is "bullshit". Find out the name of the drug, its' dosage and we can verify it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 02 Jan 06 - 09:38 AM Tell ya what, GUEST, guest... Find an intermediary and contact me thru PM and I'll gladly hook you and Mr. Clifford up and you can ask him all the questions you like... He's alreadyy been to several of these meetiings with the Social Serice workers and has even taken his daughter, Lois, who I'm sure would also be more than happy to talk with you... I'm not going to bring it up no more with Mr. Clifford 'casue it makes him so angry he shakes all over and he has heart problems to begine with... The wife and I cherish him and don't like seeing him get all fired up but if you want to have contact with him, it can be arranged... Just be carefull what you ask for.. He's all "country" and can be difficult... But we love the old guy... Sniff... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: freda underhill Date: 02 Jan 06 - 09:54 AM In a recent speech President Bush said we need to rebuild Iraq, provide the people with jobs, and give them hope. If it works there maybe we'll try it in New Orleans. Bush's overall approval ratings have hit an all-time low ... If Bush's numbers don't improve, he could become the first president held back and forced to repeat his presidency |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,LA Times Date: 02 Jan 06 - 11:44 AM By Bill Kristol one of the two heros that brought down the Evil Republican, Richard Nixon: Paranoia trumps sense among liberals Are we really to believe that Bush just sat around after 9/11 thinking, "How can I aggrandize my powers?" William Kristol, Los Angeles Times January 02, 2006 – 12:15 AM No reasonable American, no decent human being, wants to send up a white flag in the war on terror. But leading spokesmen for American liberalism -- hostile beyond reason to the Bush administration, and ready to believe the worst about American public servants -- seem to have concluded that the terror threat is mostly imaginary. It is the threat to civil liberties from President George W. Bush that is the real danger. These liberals recoil unthinkingly from the obvious fact that our national security requires policies that are a step (but only a careful step) removed from ACLU dogma. On Dec. 19, Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and now deputy director of national intelligence, held a briefing for journalists. It included this exchange: Reporter: Have you identified armed enemy combatants, through this program, in the United States? Gen. Hayden: This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States. Reporter: General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful -- can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court? Gen. Hayden: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available. Now, Hayden is by all accounts a serious, experienced, nonpolitical military officer. You'd think that a statement like this, by a man in his position, would at least slow down the glib assertions of politicians and journalists that there was no conceivable reason for Bush to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. As Gary Schmitt and David Tell explain in the Weekly Standard, FISA was broken well before Sept. 11, 2001. Was the president to ignore the evident fact that FISA's procedures and strictures were simply incompatible with dealing with the Al-Qaida threat in an expeditious manner? Was the president to ignore the obvious incapacity of any court, operating under any intelligible legal standard, to judge surveillance decisions involving the sweeping of massive numbers of cell phones and e-mails by high-speed computers in order even to know where to focus resources? Was the president, in the wake of Sept. 11, and with the threat of imminent new attacks, really supposed to sit on his hands and gamble that Congress might figure out a way to fix FISA, if it could even be fixed? The questions answer themselves. But the spokesmen for contemporary liberalism didn't pause to even ask these questions. The day after Hayden's press briefing, Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asserted on CNN's "The Situation Room" that there was "no excuse" for the president's actions. The ranking Democrat on that committee, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, confidently stated on NBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" that the president's claims were "bizarre" and that "aggrandizement of power" was probably the primary reason for the president's actions, since "there was no need to do any of this." So we are really to believe that Bush just sat around after 9/11 thinking, "How can I aggrandize my powers?" Or that Hayden -- and his hundreds of nonpolitical subordinates -- cheerfully agreed to an obviously crazy, bizarre and unnecessary project of "domestic spying"? This is the fever swamp into which American liberalism is on the verge of descending. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 02 Jan 06 - 11:49 AM Great article. They are already in the swamp. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:08 PM Re. Bobert @ 9:38 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:13 PM Try this again.......... Re. Bobert @ 9:38 AM IF Mr. Clifford is this upset and you say you care enough for him not to discuss this anymore, why in the Hell would you invite a stranger to do it. Sir, I think you are 'weaseling' out again as you have the propensity to often do. A coincidence? Bobert and 'weasel' have the same amount of letters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:52 PM >>'But Homer's trademark doh! actually appeared in The New Oxford Dictionary of English three years ago.<< I believe it was in the Iliad first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:58 PM What about Play Doh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:12 PM That's PLATO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 06 - 03:18 PM Oh, about rebuilding Iraq, it now appears we aren't a-gonna. "The Bush administration's decision not to seek new funds in its congressional budget request next month signals the winding down of the rebuilding effort in Iraq, says the WP. Less than 20 percent remains of an $18.4 billion rebuilding effort. Half was spent on the insurgency, the criminal justice system, and the trial of Saddam Hussein. Billions that were initially supposed to go to rebuilding Iraq's decrepit infrastructure went to new security forces and maximum-security prisons and detention centers. Bringing reliable electrical, water, sewage, and sanitation services to Iraq will require tens of billions yet, but, as one brigadier general put it, "The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq." " (Slate). Bill Kristol's rant is typical fanatic arm-waving, not anchored in facts related to issues. He implies, inanely and wrongly, that Mister Bush had to bypass court permissions required by FISA because courts wouldn't support his needs competently. This is quite a slander, considering that most legal requests are approved in short order. Bush didn't want to be under the law. Arm-waving and yelling doesn't make his own feverish and rhetorical swamp any more accurate or relevant, nor does he speak to the actual issues. Bizarro stuff, IMO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 02 Jan 06 - 04:20 PM I believed the only good reason for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq was to help with the re-building effort. Isn't the U.S. obliged to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed during the occupation? Unfortunately, mismanagement by the Bush administration has resulted in the loss of billions of dollars to shady contractors and shoddy accounting practices. The business of running a war seems to be beyond the ability of George Bush. Every penny of the money allocated to reconstruction in Iraq should be accounted for. If not, you can only assume that your tax dollars have been used to bankroll Bush and his friends. Regardless of whether you are Republican or Democrat, aren't you just a little concerned about how your tax dollars are spent? Do you really want to subsidize white collar theft? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 02 Jan 06 - 07:28 PM As fir Bill Kristol's op-ed rant I just have one basic question... If Bush was so interested in fighting terrorism and setting up sytems to ptotect the Amerrican people then why wasn't apparent after Katrina... The National Reponse Plan was the same for both natural and terrorist situations yet when the chips were down, it wouldn'r have mattered none had New Orleans been hit by terrorists: Bush wasn't ready!!! As per usaul, the avwerage American working man, playing by the rules an' paying taxes, got fleeced by Bush and campaign donors who have made staeling from the working claas an art form... Bobert Oh, GUEST, guest... You have become such an assh*le that you don't so much deserve much of a repsonse to yer childish post... Go eat another box of twinkies, sit in front of yer pudder getting obesely fat while firing yer childish and rude comments from the saftey of yer Twinkie filled and annonomous life... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Jan 06 - 08:28 PM Bobert, you are calling me childish? At least I don't make things up. And I was correct, you do weasel out of replying. That wasn't a "childish post", it was straight from the shoulder, wanting an honest reply and it is becoming more and more obvious that you are incapable of doing that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 06 - 11:19 AM I think the bottom line here is yes, he should be. Whether it happens or not depends on the ability of the COngress to see straight, not historically a strong suit of theirs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 03 Jan 06 - 02:11 PM Bobert: I just done found out we been sharin' the same mountain and live less that 2 miles apart. We been breathin' the same air and shoppin' at the same Walmart. I might have bumped into you or your sweet wife there. So I am hereby calling a truce. Not a surrender because you are 180 degrees wrong about Bush and Iraq but time will tell who is right and wrong. I think you are big enough to realize it if and when that time comes. Course I could be wrong and I am prepared to admit if and when that time comes. Some assholes here will say "See he is admitting he is wrong" Bullshit, wait ten years before you make your final judgement. Now there are others here who are not big enough to admit it if they were on fire. To name a few diehards: RD Peace and Amos. To you guys I say have fun, you will reap what you sew. The same goes for the Terrorists. Thinking you are right and being right are two different things. It is a mean old world out there and you have to be mature enough to handle whatever life deals to you with out crying about it. If you cant, your parents failed, not the world. PS Good luck on fixing up and renting that old place. I done it and I can tell you the most difficult part is dealing with the tennants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 03 Jan 06 - 02:37 PM What happens if you find out you live next door to RD, Peace, or Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 06 - 03:15 PM Old Guy: I've been wrong before, and admitted it happily. One thing I am pretty sure about is that your picture of me is pretty far off who I am, where I come from or what I think. I have to say thanks for your grace in declaring a truce with Bobert, on account of he lives right over there in Luray. So how come you're discriminating against me, who lives in Southern California, or Ron, who lives in the East? You some kind of spacist? Tsk, tsk. Anyway, ya done good, and when the time comes for me to tell you you was right and I was wrong, you can count on me being there with my hair shirt and ashes on. Hope I can count ont he same from you! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 03 Jan 06 - 03:17 PM (Cheney lives a half hour from me. Ya wanna stop by and say hi?) Just in Abramoff pleaded guilty to all charges. His plea deal says he will have to testify regarding/against anyone the prosecutor chooses. This includes 102 Congressmen , their staff and half a dozen people in the White House. Ya think this is a big deal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 03 Jan 06 - 09:17 PM Yo, old Guy... Yeah, if one day I wake up and discover that I've been wrong 'bout the world being round then I'll be the first to admit it... As fir Bush??? Different story... 2 miles, ya say... Godd, then you certainly know Mr Clifford _________ in Pine Grove and can put him in touch with GUEST, guest about the Medicaid perscription plan.... As fir the hotel, I know what I'm getting into... I just finished up running a reovation project on a 3 stror building in Winchester which was built in 1826 and prior to the project was terying to fall into itself... You probably know the building at the south end of the walking mall on Court Street.... Came out real nice.... When I get going on the hotel, stop by and say "Hey"... I'll show you around the old gal... Purdy neat old building... It was built in 1833 but she's solid down below.... BTW, I live almost up the end of Pine Grove Holler in Garland Weakley's old hog farm... You know the joint??? I know you must have known Garland... Everybody knew Garland... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 03 Jan 06 - 11:24 PM >>If Bush was so interested in fighting terrorism and setting up sytems to ptotect the Amerrican people then why wasn't apparent after Katrina<< And that was the end of his high approval ratings--that storm. His lack of response spoke volumes none of his supporters and believers ever wanted to hear. As the old saying goes--the silence was deafening. The bottom line is that he was blowing smoke up our collective ass about watching over like this great benevolent sentinel/father. He did nothing in the wake of Katrina that surprised me at all. What did people really expect from a stupid stubborn fool who brags that he doesn't read the papers or watch TV news?? And who makes up his mind on the spot without bothering to hear the various sides of an issue? Or who uses "hopefuller" in an official speech? We were buying his garble then but we should know better now but then again we should have learned something from Vietnam but that doesn't appear to be the case either. He has to be forced to explain himself. We cannot just let him walk away from this and make a mockery of the very democracy he was always endlessly yacking about but never engaging in. I think we're owed a few answers--the world is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 03 Jan 06 - 11:33 PM Exactly, Bush after 9/11 pumped out his chest and said he had it covered... Bottom line, he didn't have jack covered... ...and so now he is caught... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old guy Date: 03 Jan 06 - 11:42 PM Bobert: I'm up here on the mountain. You ain't the one who burned down the club are ya? I see mo meanness in Bobert. He seems humerous, respectful, entertaining and genteel except when I get his feathers going the other way and thats a little hard to do. All I see in the other three Diehards is a lack of respect, tolerance and civility. Just nastyness like a lawyer on the attack. If they saw someone on the street with thier fly open, instead of saying discreetly "Hey buddy your fly is open." they would say "Hey everybody look. This idiot's fly is open." Have fun you guys. I hope the fallout don't make it to your neck of the woods. PS Bobert: It ain't the fixin' up that's hard, thats fun it yore pockets are deep enough. It's the renters. I had one tennant that hung himself with the TV antenna cable. Very unpleasant. Messed up everybody's reception. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 06 - 06:01 AM OG, I hate it when that happens. Nothing upsets tenants anymore that fooling around with their TV stuff. At least you didnot have to go thru a protracted eviction process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 04 Jan 06 - 07:55 AM Danged, Old Guy... You ain't living near where I live now, I don't think... I think you must be down Harpers Ferry way... The "club burning", if we're on the same page was the Shannondale Club by the lake... No, I sho nuff didn't burn it down and if I knew who did it I'f put a butt whup on 'um that they wouldn't soon forget... That was a beautiful lodge... But, nah, I'm down in Page County now... Buty I still got friends in Mission holler... Heck, my couzin Rufus and his lovely wife, Rethar May, live back at the end of the holler in half a double wide... You'd prolly know him if you saw him,,, Drives an ol Chevette with a "Gophers Need Love" bumper sticker in the back and is chairman of the Sweet Springs Beer Drinkin' Club which meets behind thwe Sweet Springs store ("no peein' in the parking lot) 'bout every Satuday night... As fir tenents, hmmmmmm, maybe this explains why one of them is late paying his rent this month??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 04 Jan 06 - 09:27 AM "Yeah, if someday I wake up and discover I've been wrong 'bout the World being round, then I'll be the first to admit it... "As fir Bush??? Different story..." Suspicions confirmed, Bobert! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:58 AM "Suspicions confirmed, Bobert!" I am sure your suspicions really concern Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:00 PM Well, Ole Bobert sure is putting out all the club handshake stuff necessary to make it clear that he is a bonafide member, and there's no way I kin dew thet thar nor Ron neither, I reckon, but what they hey. If the wuss it means is I am going to be mischaracterized and slandered by Ole Guy, hey, it keeps life innerestin'. Damn shame about that lodge. Damn shame. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:23 PM Old Guy is the south end of a horse goin' north. Bloody twit at the best of times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:27 PM "This administration thinks it is okay to spy on individuals. This administration thinks that it is permissible to lock someone up indefinitely without charging them with a crime. This administration takes the position that it is fine to engage in a preemptive war without justification. This administration believes that if the facts don't fit, it will make them do so either by selectively choosing them, or by lying. This administration thinks that the murder of a panic-stricken US citizen by air marshals is acceptable. This administration thinks that manipulation of the media to obtain positive stories is warranted. "Is it any wonder that this administration tramples on our civil liberties and shreds the Constitution? After all, the Constitution is "outdated" and just a "god-damned" piece of paper, (as Bush said in private to White House aides). What is next? Martial law? Suspension of the elections? It is not unthinkable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:32 PM Peace burned down the lodge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:38 PM Naw. I tried once before with OG to establish a methodology by which we could exchange views. He chose not to accept the term: Let's be nice. So, now, piss on him! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:08 PM You are so sweet. No wonder people accept your opinions. With all of that charisma you should run for office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:42 PM Hey, I don't know who burnt down the lodge but if anyone is interetsed in seein' it just Google in Shannondale and from there you'll get to see it... It was a fine lodge and had 60 foot longs pine cross ties in the trusses... And, yes, Bush should most definately be impeached... So sghould Cheney and Frist and DeLay and Gonzalez... And prolly a half dozen oters who are in the Big Muddy with Bush... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:45 PM ...and the damn fool said "Keep slogging"... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:47 PM A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and Peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:09 PM You charmer, you. But why quote Ghiyath al-Din Abu'l-Fath Umar ibn Ibrahim Al-Nisaburi al-Khayyami when Yeats is available? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:46 PM Yeah -- save them syllables, man! Don't be wasteful. Don't you know there are people in India who are silent???? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: number 6 Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:51 PM I wish someone would impeach the asshole .... then I would never hear anyone complaining and whining about him. Impeach Bush now .... please! sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:52 PM And there are children in Wales who go to bed every night without enough vowels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: number 6 Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:56 PM I know TIA, I know .... absolutely gut wrenching sickening. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:57 PM Jonah went to bed in a wale, didn't he? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: number 6 Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:59 PM It's a myth peace. A fable. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:01 PM You sure? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Sancho Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:23 PM Falling GDP / Deficit ratio |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:27 PM The The Wailing Souls made some great music. And as to the question "Should Bush be Impeached", you darn tootin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Azizi Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:29 PM Too many "thes", so little time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 05 Jan 06 - 07:56 AM Peace, I am positive my suspicions (now confirmend) have no effect on bobert. Apparently his only concern is self-gratification. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:03 AM HUH??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:20 AM Ref; 04 9:27 AM & 04 10:58 Not surprised if you don't understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:41 AM Don't knock lexdexia, if ya ain't tried it, G-zer... LOL... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:45 AM Old MacDonald had a farm, O-I-E-I-E.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:49 AM HUH??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 05 Jan 06 - 10:32 AM Y'all know what DNA stands for? National Dyslexics Association. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: George Papavgeris Date: 05 Jan 06 - 11:23 AM Two weeks into the thread, and still no impeachment. Glad to see we're making an impact... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 07 Jan 06 - 07:59 PM Vrey bad news day for the Bushites!!! This morning's Washington Post reports that a bi-partisan Congressional "researcfh arm", the Congressional Research Service is of the opinion that Bush broke the law with his spying... "Report Rubuts Bush on Spying, Domestic Action's Legally Challenged" (Wsahington Post, Jan. 7, 2006. Page A-1. So to those of you who have been dismissive of many here who have felt that Busf broke the law and therefore, like Clinton, should be impeached... read the article and weep.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Date: 08 Jan 06 - 11:25 AM "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States" "IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM If the Congress had any spine it would stand up and issue a clear delineation of those powers, absent the new flush of terror. They would also stand up and take back some of their long-eroded powers. I seriously doubt, Mister Anonymous Chicken Boohoo, that any Congressman would include wide-spread espionage against American citizens as coming under theheading of "appropriate" measures. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 08 Jan 06 - 01:21 PM Perhaps the "absent the new flush of terror" can be attributed to GWB having had these "powers" for the past 4 years. Food for thought? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 06 - 01:41 PM Amos, Congress doesn't have to grow a new spine here for this battle qwas allrerady fought and won by Congress a long, long time ago... It's called FISA and it was foungt and wond precisely because of the the kind of spying on American citizens that was conducted during the the J. Edgar Hoover years... Now mind you, this report wasn't something that was cooked up by Edwards Kennedy but one that comes from an unbiased organization, the Congressional Research Service, which acts as a resorce for Congress... In the CRS is the following quote: "It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has espressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here"... Hmmmmmmm??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 08 Jan 06 - 02:30 PM "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States" This was an act of Congress. How can it be illegal? Congrees must do another act to change it. You try to discredit me by calling me chicken because you have no other way to prove it wrong. So who is chicken? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 06 - 02:36 PM Wrong, Boohoo; I called you chicken because you snipe from anonymous invisibility, and do so with snide commentary. There is no war power granted the President under the Constitution to spy on American citizens, suspend habeas corpus or abrogate civil rights in a condition of undeclared war. Saying that such authority exists in the Constitution does not make it so, I suppose. Congress does not have the authority to amend the COnstitution by fiat, you know. It requires ratification by the States. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 06 - 06:06 PM Yeah, wrong, boohoo... The president still must obey the law and in this case FISA is the law that deals with what Bush has done... War isn't a blank check to trample the Bill of Rights... You need a better lawyer if that gonna be your argument... I have yet to hear any convincing argument that would permit Bush to side step FISA... Afetrall, that is exactly the intent of FISA... Tp provide the "legal" framework.... And FISA allows "wiretap now, get the okay later in some cases so the argument "time-is-of-the-essence" argument also goes out the window.... Bush has broken the law and now it's time, as difficult as it is politically, for Congress to grow the spine necessary to impeach... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 08 Jan 06 - 06:09 PM Amos: Do you hold the franchise on snide comentary? A dozen adjectives like stupid, drunk and crosseyed strung together to define the person that you hold a grudge against is acceptable but when someone tells you you are wrong on terms you did not approve and suddenly you are righteous. If you can't take what life deals you, you are not mature and have no business telling others what to think. If you don't like what congress did, take them to task instead of bitching about the Presidents efforts to keep you safe. I don't care who lstend to my conversations with my next door neighbor. We are no plotting anything. Are you getting calls from the middle east? if not what are you worried about? The only thing I am worried about is people like you interfering with the government doing it's job. Can you do better? If so run for office and with your superior intelligence you could become president and fix everything. Lead, follow or get out of the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:30 PM Problem is, boohoo-zer, is that we don't know if Bush was listening in to folks of Arab descent talking overseas with terrorists or listening to so Quaker group planing an anti-war rally... Back in the 60's and early 70's the FBI kept dosiers on millions of folks who just happened to be against the Vietnem War... Heck, I know for a fact they had one one me... Might of fact, I even know the two FBI agents who did all the snooping and somewhere have a picture of them... Back then we just figured that's the way things are... But now, given a little age and wisdom on my part I'm thinking, "Nah, that ain't what the Founding Fathers had in mind" and so when FISA came into existence there were a lot of us who rully understood that casual snooping on American citizens isn't what thwe Foundign Fathers had in mind at all... Since FISA I think America has been closer to the ideals of Tom Jefferson in safe-guarding the elements necessary for a democratic expierement to continue... Democracy, as s system of governemnt, is fragile and if we wish to showcase it to the rest iof the world it is very important that we don't let ***any*** executive centralize power... This is waht the War for Independence was about... Bush has stepped further toward cenralization of power than any president I can think of in American history... Yeah, the US has had powerful presidents and great leaders in it 230 plus years but none who is so power hungry as Bush... If anyone can think of any president that was more power hungry, please feel free to bring that individual up... I mean, even LBJ undeestood that he was going to have to work his magic on the Congress and did so very well... But LBJ, other than possibly being involved in the ZKennedy assasination, didn't go breaking the laws that Bush has broken here... Time to impeach and let Congress sort out the details... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:44 PM The definitive answer: You want it? You got it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:49 PM PDQ: "Lead, follow or get out of the way" is not the spirit or the literal postulate of our national COnstitution. "Be free to speak, free to assemble peacefully, free to pursue happiness, and free to enjoy civil liberties" is closer to it. Your slogan is the mindset of a True Believer, not a thinking and self-determined free person. I have often been sarcastic, but less often snide, and I have never come to this forum skulking under an anonymous identity, except for the Christmas Secret Santa gift exchange where it is mandatory. I am not intimidated by communicating. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 09 Jan 06 - 09:08 AM Amos, why, pray tell, should the Secret Santa be a-nonny-moose? Oh, because of the word secret probably. Good to see you using the word "Christmas" although it wasn't a requirement in this case. "Snide?", maybe a time or too. Consistent? Always! And I still am unaware of how the identifer 'G' means less than an "Amos", Peace, Donuel, BBruce or Little Hawk. Was going to ask "am I thickheaded" but that would be a grave error here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:12 AM Amos is the product of Dianetics. Unfortunately he has a thin skin and goes apeshit when confronted with the truth. Sponge Bobert Square Head is not so thin skinned as Amos. He has enough West Virginia shit in his blood to handle the truth but he promply ignores it if it don't match his version of the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:18 AM Old Guy, go stuff yourself. As for the difference between a "G" and an "Amos", when you log in as "Guest, G" there's no reasonto assume you are the same person who logged in under that Guest moniker last time. But if you are using the same handle consistently, I appreciate that. Be aware that anyone can post under that handle, though. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:28 AM Problem is, Boohoo-ster, is that there's only one truth and according to the Wes Ginny Slide Rule you and your guys are on the wrong side ot the truth equation... No brag, just fact... Bobert & the WGSR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 09 Jan 06 - 11:25 AM My dear Spongebobsterooskins: Are you stereotyping? prejudging? Enlightened indivuduals do not do such things. First they listen, analyse what was said and compare it with data known to be true and then make a decision. Now if you are the type that considers data that comes from forged documents as the truth, you need to reassess your criterion. Amos the crosseyed, lame brained, sawed off, screwball, humorless, bullet headed, Scientology burn out, retarded, droopy drawered, senile, self aggrandizing, blind to the truth, lyme diseased, snaggle toothed, halitosis ridden, lousy hung, homework loosing, self educated, ungroomed, lazy, thick skulled, thin skinned, mentally masturbating, Dyanetically challenged, pseudo philosopher can blow it out his barf hole and insert it in his Anus (rymes with Amos) sideways with the doors open and the motor running with the lights on. Now don't that give me credibility? Can you top that Amos? Go play some music and leave politics to the professionals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,RE:Kindaloupehackenweez Date: 09 Jan 06 - 01:00 PM Hello All: Yes he should, if not for his latest antices. For refusing funding and the allowing furture STEM CELL RESEARCH. KINDALOUPEHACKENWEEZ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 09 Jan 06 - 02:42 PM Old Guy/BooHoo: "Dianetics" is spelt with an "i", not a "y". Aside from that your characterization is completely impeccable. A few minor hairs could be split, but why bother? You're on a roll, and that's all that counts. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 09 Jan 06 - 02:58 PM Good correction, Amos, but you could have corrected the post about Stem Cell Reasearch also. Funding for this research is at an all time high. It was asked that no new strains of stem cells be created until the existing supply is depleted. Currently, there is more existing supply that demand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Boo Hoo Chicken Date: 09 Jan 06 - 07:24 PM The Bush refuses to fund stme cell research is maxo stinky horeshit. It is funded ($550m) on a limited basis. Some leftwing proprgandists try to claim that Bush has banned stem cell research. How much money does other governments give to stem cell research? http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00086741-2DB7-12BC-ADB783414B7F014C EU * Production of new hESC lines: Permitted from unused IVF embryos where legal in member nations * Therapeutic cloning: Prohibited * Funding: $170m on stem cells over the past three years (only $650,000 for hESC research) * Status in some member nations: France: Creation of hESC lines from IVF embryos legal as of October 2004; public funding is $4m Germany: Only work on hESC lines predating 2002 is legal; public funding is $4m Finland: Permits research with IVF embryos; public funding is $5m Italy: June 12 referendum will consider permitting IVF embryo research; public funding is $6m EU will not increase funding for hESC projects despite a doubling of the total research budget. SWEDEN * Number of published hESC lines: 8 * Production of new lines: Legal * Therapeutic cloning:Legal as of April * Number of researchers: 400 * Government funding: $10m-$15m * Private funding: Cellartis and NeuroNova, the two largest stem cell research companies in Sweden, contribute the bulk of the $35m spent annually there Cellartis, the single largest source of defined hESC lines in the world, maintains more than 30--two of which are approved by the US National Institutes of Health. UK * Number of published hESC lines: 3 * Production of new lines: Legal * Therapeutic cloning: Legal * Government funding: About $80m * Private funding: $15m-$20m The Wellcome Trust alone has spent $12m annually since 2002. First licence for human ES cell research was granted in 1996. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 allows the UK to fund hESC research flexibly. UK's first licence for human cloning research granted in 2004. Its recipients in May announced the country's first cloned human embryo. US * Number of published hESC lines: 46 * Production of new lines: Legal, but prohibited with federal funds * Therapeutic cloning: Legality varies from state to state * Federal government funding: About $550m for all stem cell research ($24m for hESC) * Private funding: About $200m * Public funding at state level: California: $3bn over 10 years New Jersey: $11.5m (another $380m proposed) Wisconsin: $375m proposed Illinois: $1bn proposed Connecticut: $20m proposed Federal government allows its funds to be used only on the 22 available hESC lines created before August 2001. Pending legislation would relax some of these federal restrictions. BRAZIL * Production of new hESC lines: As of March, legal from IVF embryos at least 3 years old * Therapeutic cloning: Banned * Government funding: $4.5m annually planned, allocated by the Health Ministry and the Science and Technology Ministry SOUTH KOREA * Number of published hESC lines: 29 * Production of new lines: Permitted with case approval from Ministry of Health * Therapeutic cloning: Permitted with case approval from Ministry of Health * Number of researchers: 300-400 * Government funding: About $10m * Private funding: About $50m First to create a hESC line from a cloned embryo. In May the same researchers announced that they had created 11 new hESC lines cloned from patients with spinal cord injuries, juvenile diabetes and a blood disorder. ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below) SINGAPORE * Number of published hESC lines: 1 * Production of new lines: Legal, if embryos are destroyed within 14 days * Therapeutic cloning: Legal, as above * Number of researchers: About 150, in industrial and academic settings * Academic spending: About $10m, from public and private sources * Industrial spending: About $10 million A pending government proposal would spend $60m over the next four years. ISRAEL * Number of published hESC lines: 1 * Production of new lines: Legal * Therapeutic cloning: Legal * Government spending: About $5m * Private spending: $15m-$30m Israeli scientists led one of the research teams that first isolated hES cells. They were also the first to show that hES cells could be changed into heart cells, and to show that hES cells can integrate with tissues. CHINA * Production of new hESC lines: Legal * Therapeutic cloning: Legal * Number of researchers: 300-400 * Public and private funding: About $40m The journal Nature reports that "China has probably the most liberal environment for embryo research in the world", with little public opposition to such studies. No laws govern stem cell research, but the recommendations of the Ministry of Health endorse it. AUSTRALIA * Number of published hESC lines: 1 * Production of new lines: Conditionally legal * Therapeutic cloning: Banned * Number of researchers: 200-250 * Government funding: The Australian Stem Cell Centre has $90m to spend through 2011. "An investigative panel at Seoul National University found Dec. 29 that Hwang Woo Suk failed to produce any of the 11 patient-specific stem cell lines he had claimed to develop in a paper published in the journal Science last May." http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22377 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 06 - 09:44 PM Well, Amos, these Bushites are certainly well funded... Ya ever notice that whatever the issue where Bush is wrong there's some long cut'n paste just waiting to make him purer than Jesus... Not... He has broken the law and now he should be impeached... Right??? Ain't that what the Consitution calls for when the president disobays laws??? This ain't no cut'n paste question thought I'm sure therer a millions of dollars going into some blogster to write long winded crap saying that Congress said it was okay for Bush to break the law??? But, lets get real... Executive powers have over the course of American history been carved out more by precedence than actual blue-prints laid out by the Founding Fatheres... George Washington was givena degree of altitude and he left his satmp on what "executive powers" were and ebvery president since has kinda fine tuned them but outright breaking of a law that was written to prevent a president from doing what Bush has done, is stepping way over the line... Yeah, some might argue that Bush has as much right to interpret the powers of the executive branch as George Washington did and if that is the arguemnt then fine... I can at least argue against that... But to just say that Congress said it was okay ir Bush wnated to break existing laws is a real stretch... Impeach and let the Senate sort it out... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:29 PM Still waiting to hear that law that GWB broke. One that is factual, not of fantasy. ..and could someone interpret the preceeding post? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,deeper throat Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:33 PM Should he be impeached, yes. But not until the person in succesion is not a neocon, not that they are totally incorrect, but rather to avoid the deployment of strategic tactical nuclear weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 06 - 06:48 PM Zogby poll: Majority supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping WASHINGTON, D.C. — By a margin of 52 to 43 percent, citizens want Congress to impeach President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of Pres. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The poll was conducted by Zogby International. The poll found that 52 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." Of those contacted, 43 percent disagreed, and 6 percent said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a margin of error of 2.9 percent. "The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Americans believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government into Big Brother," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik in a statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:23 PM Where have all the politicians requesting the impeachment of GWB been the past week? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: curmudgeon Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:53 PM Here's what one Republican Senator is thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 06 - 06:52 PM Reread FISA, GUEST... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bruce, Guest Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:48 PM After Bush and Cheney would be Dennis Hastert, unless a VP gets nominated and confirmed first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Bruce, Guest Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:53 PM "Does seem you'd go right down the list of successors before finding anyone who hasn't broken the law... Bill Frist?" Senate majority leader is not in the line of succesion. After Speaker of the House comes President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Stevens (?) from Alaska), then the cabinet in the order that the posts were created historically (State, then Defense, then Interior, etc. - or maybe it's Interior, then Defense). I'm not certain about the President Pro Tempore, but I think he's still in the mix. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Old Guy Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:30 PM http://www.cdt.org/security/20051222justiceletter.pdf "U. S. Department of' Justice Office of Legislative Affairs December 22,2005 The Honorable Pat Roberts The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV Chairman Vice Chairman Senate Select Committcc on Intelligence Senate Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senatc United States Senate Washington, D.C. 205 10 Washington, D.C. 20510. . . . . . Under Article 11 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1 863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority"); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19,27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) ("[Tlhe Prize Cases . . . stand for the proposition that the President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of force selected."); id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring). The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF") of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("[Tlhe President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."), and in the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. 8 1541(c) ("The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] . . . [extend to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."). This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 7 17, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002) ("[AIII the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority. . . ."). The Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely donrestic threats. hut it expressly distinguished,foreign threats. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967) (White, J., concurring). The President's constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, . . . in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." 5 2(a), The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, (the attacks of September 11 "render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad"). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September I 1 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America. In Handi v. R~inzsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the AUMF. At least five Justices concluded that the AUMF authorized the President to detain a U.S. citizen in the United States because "detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war" and is therefore included in the "necessary and appropriate force" authorized by the Congress. Id. at 5 18-19 (plurality opini on of O'Connor, J.); see id. at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting). These five Justices concluded that the AUMF "clearly and unmistakably authorize[s]" the "fundaniental incident[s] of waging war." Id. at 5 18-19 (plurality opinion); see id. at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Comunications intelligence targeted at the enemy is a fundamental incident of the use of military force. Indeed, throughout history, signals intelligence has formed a critical part of waging war. In the Civil War, each side tapped the telegraph lines of the other. In the World Wars, the United States intercepted telegrams into and out of the country. The AUMF cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy. We cannot fight a war blind. Because communications intelligence activities constitute, to use the language of Hamdi, a fundamental incident of waging war, the AUMF clearlv und unnzistakuhlj authorizes such activities directed against the communications of our enemy. Accordingly, the President's "authority is at its maximum." Youngsrown Sheet & Tub? Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579,635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring); see Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 668 (1981); cf: Y O U I I S O W I I , 343 U.S. at 585 (noting the absence of a statute "from which [the asserted authority] c[ould] be fairly implied"). The President's authorization of targeted electronic surveillance by the NSA is also consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). Section 25 11(2)(f) oftitle 18 provdes, as relevant here, that the procedures of FISA and two chapters of title 18 "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance.. . may be conducted." Section 109 ofFISA, in turn, makes it unlawful to conduct electronic surveillance, "except as authorized by statute." 50 U.S.C. 5 1809(a)(l). Importantly, section 109's exception for electronic surveillance "authorized by statute" is broad, especially considered in the context of surrounding provisions. Sec 18 U.S.C. 5 251 l(1) ("Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who+a) intentionally intercepts . . . any wire, oral, or electronic communication[] . . . shall be punished . . . .") (emphasis added); id. 4 25 11(2)(e) (providing a defense to liability to individuals "conduct[ing] electronic surveillance, . . . as authorized by thatAct[FISA]") (emphasis added). By expressly and broadly excepting from its prohibition electronic surveillance undertaken "as authorized by statute," section 109 of FISA permits an exception to the "procedures" of FISA referred to in 18 U.S.C. a 251 1(2)(f) where authorized by another statute, even if the other authorizing statute does not specifically amend section 25 11(2)(f). The AUMF satisfies section 109's requirement for statutory authorization of electronic surveillance, just as a majority of the Court in Hanzdi concluded that it satisfies the requirement in 18 U.S.C. 9 4001(a) that no U.S. citizen be detained by the United States "except pursuant to an Act of Congress." See Hundi, 542" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Teribus Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:43 PM Absolutely Not!!! He provided Leadership when it was required, based, not on lies, but upon the evidence that everyone believed credible at the time. History will prove the man to have taken the correct line of action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:26 PM Well, yeah, sure...except that spying on folks is not a use of force. And I am not sure you can set aside the Bill of Rights by Senatorial decree. As I recall, it takes a consensus of the various States to set aside a principe embedded int he Constitution -- or don't you believe in that pieceof paper, either? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Arne Date: 20 Jan 06 - 05:29 PM Teribus: He provided Leadership when it was required, based, not on lies, but upon the evidence that everyone believed credible at the time. Speak for yourself, you clueless berk. I certainly did not. And I was by no means alone. Millions of people thought the case for war was bad (including 8 of 13 members of the U.N. Security Council, despite the arm-twisting and bribery of the Dubya maladministration), and many people commented publicly on the bad "evidence" (the UNMOVIC inspectors, on the ground in Iraq and in a pretty good position to know, and having checked the stuff the U.S. gave them, referred to the U.S. "evidence" as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage"). So, if I were you, I'd hardly go off touting my own credulity and ignorance. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: kindaloupehackenweez Date: 20 Jan 06 - 06:34 PM Of course, he souldnt be president in the first place. Justice dont have to wait till the here after to be served. Unfortanly the chance of that will result with the same as that of the chance of Ronald Rayguns being re-elected. who'd believe he'd be and bet he wont be\ PEACE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 06 - 08:49 PM Like, the Department of Justice, says Bush can do what ever the heck he wants to??? Like, is this news??? Hey, 42 pages of legal-sleeze don't give nobody, Bush the Chickenhawk Warrior or Donald Duck, permissiopn to break the law... Like what the hack di you expect outta Gonzalez, Old Guy??? I mean, lets get real here for one inute... Gonzalez's boss is George the Chickenhawk Warrior!!! Like maybe, in your own words, you'd like to explain why breaking the law is lawfull??? Yeah, I'll be waitng for your response with baited breath... And maybe you'd like to expound on other governements over the last 100 or so years where such powers have been consolidated within the executive branch... Maybe you could even give some examples where it worked out just fine.... But no cut 'n pastes... Right now the corporation are throwing millions into them like throwing a "bum a dime" to keep their puppet from getting impeached.... So, yeah, there's plenty of pro-Bush blogs out there recylcing the same old crap... BTW, do you realize that the "paid for" supposed news stories that appear in overseas newspapers come back as credible sources in some of these corporationist blogs... Man, talk about gettin' more bang fir your buck!!! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Duane D. Date: 20 Jan 06 - 09:31 PM GEEZ LOUISE, Sorry I've been away so much, missed this wonderful discussion. Amos, you said something back on Dec. 27, 05 I found really scary. You had MG and the word intelligence in the same sentence. Isn't that an oxymoron? And everyone keeps mispelling Guest A.'s name, leaving out the period, which accounts for the last six letters. Thanks Kat for the link in the beginning of this thread, just added my vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:50 PM "Like, the Department of Justice, says ***** can do what ever the heck he wants to??? Like, is this news???" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:25 PM Sawzaw, that horse left the barn more than 5 years ago. How is the weather where you are? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: frogprince Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:32 PM Of course Bush should be impeached. Absolutely. It's high time. That is why Sawzaw revived the thread, isn't it ? Geez Louise, has he been sitting there year after year with the phrasing from that post simmering in his brain ???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: frogprince Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:33 PM By the way, I've known more than one person with a peachy bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:06 PM Barbara should not be impeached. That's it, that's all. George should be jailed but won't be. What needs impeaching is a Congress that allowed 2001-2008. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Songwronger Date: 19 Feb 14 - 08:17 PM Oh, this is rich. The stench of festering hypocrisy reaches from way back at the start of the this thread: 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 lol. Fast forward 8 years to Bobert whining about me starting an impeachment thread on Obama. What a hypocrite. A racist, too. He wanted to imeach Bush because Bush is white. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Teribus Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:16 AM As former President George W. Bush is no longer in office then there is absolutely no way he can be "Impeached". Impeach (In the sense being discussed and as originally presented) - To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal. Impeachment In the U.S. Congress or a state legislature the presentation of charges against a public official by the lower house, with trial to be before the upper house. Impeachment - Usage Note: When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace. Should George W. Bush have been impeached? No. Should Barack Obama be impeached? No Difference between the two from an international perspective? When GWB spoke Putin listened, when Barry speaks Putin has a good chuckle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 20 Feb 14 - 04:22 AM Obviously Sawzaw responded to a spam message before the elves could delete it. (Happens to newbies otherwise; some threads they accidentally revive is well worth reading - not this one.) In order to impeach Bush as a president, you have to elect one first. I read somewhere that like the Kennedys, the Bushes always appoint a clan member heir to the throne. Was it Jeb Bush? It may be time though to impeach the presidential system altogether, in favo(u)r of a stronger parliament. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: akenaton Date: 20 Feb 14 - 05:28 PM I think Sawsaw's point was about hypocrisy, not impeachment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Elmore Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:06 PM No |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Songwronger Date: 21 Feb 14 - 08:48 PM I object to President George W. Bush being referred to as "Bush" in the title line of this thread. It was clearly done to show disrespect. How can this be tolerated on Mudcat, the fair and balanced website? |
