 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:35 AM OK then Amos let's give Charles Bellizzi of Streamwood, Illinois his lead shall we and see how far he gets with his, "one bit of proof: How about when asked if he was still in the hunt for Bin Ladin? His response was and "I don't give it much thought anymore." That, my friend, is reason enough for me." Does Mr. Bellizzi of Streamwood honestly believe, or expect that, the President of the United States of America should be "in the hunt for Bin Laden"?? From this, I take it that Mr. Bellizzi, like yourself Amos, when it comes to matters relating to George W. Bush as President of the United States just cannot put aside absolutley damn silly questions. As far as I am aware there have been thousands of US troops actively engaged in hunting down Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the leadership of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan and along the Afghan-Pakistan Border for seven years now, they have never stopped, or tired in their efforts to capture or kill those men, in fact they've come damn close on occasion. Now can Chuck, detail the many and varied successful Al-Qaeda attacks that have resulted from lack of concentration on the part of the Chief Executive - I somehow think that he'd be pushed to do that don't you? So I think Chuck of Streamwood wouldn't get very far in the prosecution of his case. Now the second part where Mr Bellizzi plaintively remarks: "One of the things he is sworn to do is protect America from its enemies and he doesn't think about it much anymore. Are you kidding me?" Oh no Mr. Bellizzi, I am not kidding you, the current holder of the Office of President of the United States of America has a far better track record with regard to protecting America than his predecessor - Now that could be easily demonstrated in any court Mr. Bellizzi wants to prosecute his case. Once again Amos present evidence, not opinion that you think is evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:39 AM THanks, as usual, for a sturdy rebuttal, Mister T. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:45 AM Indict or impeach? September 29, 2008 After what has happened in the last few days, it's more likely that Gov. Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) will be indicted or impeached or both. • The Tribune reported on Sunday that convicted political fixer Tony Rezko (Obama's buddy) has talked to federal prosecutors and may cooperate in their investigation of the governor's administration. At closing arguments in Rezko's trial, a federal prosecutor told jurors that his crimes involved "the highest levels of power in Illinois." Rezko has refused to help investigators—until, apparently, now. • The Illinois appellate court on Friday issued a ruling that could provide reason for the legislature to remove Blagojevich. He decided to spend tens of millions of dollars to expand a state health care insurance program even though the legislature wouldn't approve it. The court told Blagojevich to stop the program—and said his administration can't even identify how many people have enrolled in it. Federal prosecutors will pursue their investigation of the Blagojevich administration's notorious pay-to-play politics. Having the cooperation of Rezko, once one of Blagojevich's closest confidants, would greatly help to determine if the governor was involved in criminal wrongdoing. All the rest of us—lawmakers, political leaders, citizens—can do is wait for the prosecutors to complete their investigation..... Change we can believe in, brought to you by the Chicago Political Machine. Clout Street Blagojevich ticked off a list of elected officials who also have ties to the indicted developer. While not naming them, he made reference to everyone from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to House Speaker Michael Madigan, his political nemesis, and Madigan's daughter, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:17 PM PRetty sweeping generalities, there Sawz. Maybe you don't like dealing in specifics, and think that rumor-mongering and innuendo is the proper way to communicate. If so, you need to rethink this. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:55 PM Amos, It is somewhat.... sleazy to use "rumor-mongering and innuendo " throughout this thread, and refuse to supply specific facts when requested, and then demand that others do so when you do not like the points that they have brought up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:11 PM I'm sleazy, then, Bruce. If you don't see the differences, you're going to end up thinking that. This is just an attempt to use a bad cloud of disreputable press about someone else, to discolor the Obama campaign by implied association and innuendo. I object to it, on the basis that there is no factual support offered for the implication. Call me sleazy if you like, pal, but in my book this sort of innuendo-mongering, trying to stir up hate wioothout factual bases, is sleazy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:25 PM And my comment is that many of YOUR postings are just attempts to use a bad cloud of disreputable press about someone else, to discolor the Bush administration by implied association and innuendo. "I object to it, on the basis that there is no factual support offered for the implication. Call me sleazy if you like, pal, but in my book this sort of innuendo-mongering, trying to stir up hate without factual bases, is sleazy. " Thus my choice of words- glad that you agree with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 01 Oct 08 - 02:59 PM Move to impeach Mugabe delayed "Moves by opposition MPs in Zimbabwe to impeach President Robert Mugabe have been delayed. A Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) official said the party was unable to speak to the parliamentary speaker to table the impeachment motion, but would carry on trying to do so. The attempt to impeach Mr Mugabe comes at a time of growing unrest over surging food prices. Robert Mugabe Mugabe: Certain to survive impeachment attempt The MDC holds 57 of the country's 150 parliamentary seats - enough to start proceedings but short of the two-thirds majority needed to impeach Mr Mugabe. Although it is unlikely to get an impeachment, the MDC hopes the move will increase pressure on Mr Mugabe to resign. MDC officials say they have not been able to pin down the speaker of parliament, Emmerson Mnangagwa, a close friend and advisor to Mr Mugabe. "We have prepared our impeachment papers and they are ready, but we will not be able to table our motion today seeking to impeach the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe because we have not been able so far to secure an appointment with the speaker," Gibson Sibanda, leader of the MDC in parliament. "We'll be trying to meet him tonight and we are going to table the motion tomorrow." AMOS: "TI find it poignant, somehow, that in a single day's headlines three disparate voices agree on a single theme. One is Elliot Adams, a United States veteran and a direct descendant of Samuel Adams, the Founding Father. The second is Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, a descendant of the ancient forefathers of Africa. The third is Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, the President of Iran, perhaps a descendant of ancient Darius or the founders of Mespotamian civilization. All three of these men believe George Bush should be tried or impeached for his offenses. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:16 AM Another month gone, welcome to October Amos. While moves seem definitely underway to impeach Robert Mugabe, impeachment proceedings against either President George W. Bush or Vicve-President Dick Cheney are no more likely now as when this thread was launched all those years ago. In just over 32 days you lot will have elected yourselves a new President. Hopefully he and his Vice President will concern themselves with matters in hand and all this nonsense will be forgotten. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:22 AM Geeze, Bruce, I look forward to the day when you quit being a Mirror Mocker. It's just puerile. Teribus, spout what you will mate. Your esteemed hero has done more harm to this nation under law than anyone ever entrusted with such influence before him. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:55 AM Heez, Amos, *** I *** look forward to the day that you apply the same standards to others that you insist on for your own comments. When you stop demanding that your viewpoint be given "sacred" status, and allow others the same rights that you demand for yourself, the threads will be a far more balanced, and fairer place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 02 Oct 08 - 12:52 PM The only person I expect to consider my viewpoint sacred, Bruce, is me. For everyone else, it's a sovereign choice. I do not object to people who disagree with me. I would appreciate their trying to communicate by exchanging ideas instead of murky clouds of armwaving innuendo, or jejeune rhetorical mockery, neither of which is very becoming. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 02 Oct 08 - 01:41 PM "Your esteemed hero has done more harm to this nation under law than anyone ever entrusted with such influence before him." - Amos Now Amos, you see that is the sort of remark that quite frankly mystifies me. You, like Bobert and few others on this forum, seem to hold the avowed belief that just because someone does not dutifully fall in "line-astern" and fawningly agree with every ill-constructed fantasty, myth, misrepresentation and down-right lie regarding George W. Bush that that someone must regard GWB as an "esteemed hero", must be a "neo-con Bushite". You and those who think like you are wrong, completely wrong, but there is no way that I could ever persuade you, or the others of that so I am simply not going to attempt it. At least with George W. Bush what America got when it needed it was leadership - he unlike his predecessor was capable of taking tough decisions. Come November 4th the USA gets to chose again - In Obama you get an empty suit who can and will deliver nothing. I do not like it when people spout complete and utter rot, based not on any actual evidence, but on a politically bias and expect that rot to be taken as gospel. I dislike it when that rot is exposed for what it is by others, that that person is then personally attacked and perfectly reasonably formed questions and substantiated facts are totally ignored. So it is your opinion that George W. Bush, "has done more harm to this nation under law than anyone ever entrusted with such influence before him"? Well that at least is progress, if you think that all has been done "under law" then there is no question of "impeachment". But on that premise outlined in your stated opinion - that George W. Bush, "has done more harm to this nation under law than anyone ever entrusted with such influence before him." - I would like to make this observation: If George W. Bush's immediate predecessor had spent more time concentrating on looking after his country's interests instead of attempting to win popularity contests and continually taking the easy options matters would never have advanced to the head that they did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Oct 08 - 12:16 AM posted by Dee G on Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:21 AM Bush is old news. It makes more sense to start impeachment hearings now on President obama. Impeachment takes time, and we'll need to get obama out before he really messes things up. (Helping Iran nuke Israel, giving a weapons grade reactor to N Korea, giving CA and AZ to Mexico, "redeploying" troops from Middle East to N Central Africa, banning petroleum-based transportation, etc) obama is guilty of all the same things as Bush. IMPEACH obama NOW !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 08 - 07:07 AM Amos: "Why do you think it is okay to spew these unfounded generalities and pretend they are facts? Don't you think this is a disservice to the democratic process. spreading false impressions? Why aren't you more responsible for your own communications?" Or do you still insist YOU have some special rights that the rest of us do not have? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:04 PM Headlined on 10/13/08: New Book: The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush by David Swanson Page 1 of 2 page(s) www.opednews.com By Congressman Dennis Kucinich With Additional Material by David Swanson and Elizabeth de la Vega trade paperback edition • 156 pages • 5.5 x 8.5 • ISBN: 978-1-932595-42-0 • $12 Feral House offers this important and urgent publication of Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment this election season in two formats: an offset-printed paperback book available for the cost of $12 and a free downloadable PDF available below. David Swanson's additional article explains how the Impeachment process is possible and necessary even after the guilty perp leaves office, and how they can be used for prosecution of crimes. Those wishing to purchase over ten copies of the printed book can obtain them at discount from Feral House directly. Please contact info@feralhouse.com for costs. "More than two centuries ago, the Founders of this country set forth a procedure for Congress to follow in the event of grave abuse of power by the Chief Executive. That process is impeachment. In the face of the monumental deceit and disregard for the Constitution that we have witnessed on the part of the President over the past seven years, Congressman Kucinich's initiation of this process is neither fanciful nor futile, neither vengeful nor vindictive; it is the sober fulfillment of his sworn duty as a Congressman to follow the law without regard to personal consequence and misguided political stratagem. It is, quite simply, an act of patriotism." —Elizabeth de la Vega, Former Federal Prosecutor and author of United States v. George W. Bush et. al. "This collection of impeachable offenses should be viewed as a sampling of the crimes and abuses of President George W. Bush and his subordinates. Bush has had many accomplices — first and foremost Vice President Cheney. But our Founders created a single executive precisely so that we could hold that one person accountable for the actions of the executive branch. It is high time we did so, and millions of Americans will be urging their representatives to support the effort being led by Congressman Kucinich. "These articles establish, and hearings would establish further, that President Bush was 'the decider' behind countless abuses of power. And, of course, his public comments have time and again advertised his indifference to the laws he is violating. Not only does overwhelming evidence show us that Bush knew his claims about WMDs to be false, but the president has shown us that he considers the question of truth or falsehood to be laughably irrelevant. When Diane Sawyer asked Bush why he had claimed with such certainty that there were so many weapons in Iraq, he replied: 'What's the difference? The possibility that [Saddam] could acquire weapons, If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.' "What's the difference? Hundreds of thousands of corpses and a fatal blow to the rule of law among nations. That's the difference. Unless we remove impeachment from the Constitution by failing to exercise it, in which case truth will no longer matter any more than justice or peace." — David Swanson, creator of ImpeachCheney.org, Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org "Overload is the main problem—I call it outrage fatigue. The sheer multitude, not to mention magnitude, of impeachable offenses tends to dull the senses. The opportunity to dig into just one or two provided some space and focused the mind. "At the same time, the deeper one digs, the more unimaginable the dirt that comes up. Earlier, I had not taken the time to sift through the abundant evidence of the unconscionable ways in which George Bush and George Tenet teamed up—including, in Tenet's case, lying under oath—to stave off charges of misfeasance/ malfeasance before the attacks on 9/11. "The Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create a system in which we could protect ourselves from unbridled power. Today, we cannot let a 21st Century string of abuses and usurpations stand without challenge. "But the experience of the past several years shows that there is a very high hurdle in our way: no Common Sense. I refer, of course, to the courageous independent journalism of the likes of Tom Paine who stirred the innate dignity of Americans toward sacrifice for independence and freedom. Tom Paine would be horrified to see what has become of his profession today—with browbeaten journalists and former general officers doing the bidding of the corporations that own/pay them. "In my view, impeachment proceedings are essential to: * Reestablish the separation of powers in our Constitution as a check on the so-called unitary executive * Prevent a budding—and catastrophic—US attack on Iran by exposing it as yet another war of aggression against a country posing no threat to the US; * Call attention to the blood already drained from our civil liberties and staunch the bleeding. "Impeachment proceedings may be the only way to force the captive media to inform normal citizens about what has been going on in our country. Thomas Jefferson underscored the importance of this when he said: 'Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.'" —Ray McGovern; former Army officer and CIA analyst; co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity "President Bush, Cheney and other US officials have violated numerous domestic and international laws governing crime of aggression, war crime, torture, etc., and they should be not only impeached by the US Congress but also be prosecuted by a special prosecutor, to the full extent of the law before or after impeachment. That is the best way to uphold the US Constitution and the rule of law at home and abroad." —John Kim, Esq., Attorney; author of The Crime of Aggression Against Iraq "The breadth of impeachable offenses committed by the Bush/Cheney administration is likely unparalleled in our nation's history. Equally unparalleled, and in many cases even more alarming and outrageous, is the lack of accountability brought to the perpetrators of these High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It is the Constitutional duty of members of Congress—members from any political party—to bring such accountability, particularly when the list of crimes began with the very acts that brought this administration into office during their elections, and right up through today when the same sort of crimes continue, and are in place to try and affect our next Presidential Election. More on site here A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:57 PM Another review article on the Impeachment book , this one from New Zealand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 15 Oct 08 - 03:37 PM Trump: I wanted Bush impeached Posted: 01:45 PM ET From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney Trump says that Bush got the US into a war with Iraq using lies. (CNN) – Business mogul Donald Trump told CNN Wednesday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should have sought to impeach President Bush when she had the chance. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Trump said the president and his administration deliberately lied about the Iraq war, and congressional Democrats missed an opportunity to impeach him when the party took control of Congress in 2006. "I was surprised that she didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush," Trump said. "It was almost — it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing." Pressed why he feels Bush deserved the punishment faced by only two other commanders-in-chief, Trump said the president misled the country in the run-up to the Iraq war, and that his actions were considerably more objectionable than those which led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. "He lied. He got us into the war with lies," Trump said. And I mean — look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true." In the wide-ranging interview set to air on CNN's The Situation Room at 4, 5, and 6 p.m. Wednesday, Trump also praised John McCain and said the Arizona senator still has a chance to win the White House despite recent polls showing he is substantially trailing Barack Obama. "He's a very smart guy, he's a tough guy," he said. "I think he'd be a great president. But, he has to be John McCain and he could still probably pull it out. But, it's going to be tough." ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Oct 08 - 12:09 AM There is a rumor that Sears and Roebuck has decided that their private brand of batteries was getting rather stale. After much think tanking and casting about on the net they finally decided on a new name that surpasses even the Energizer Bunny. Sears has decided to rename their Diehard Batteries, to Amos Batteries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 16 Oct 08 - 01:20 AM I'll take that as a compliment, Sawz, Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Oct 08 - 08:40 AM Some people measure the quality of life by how many six packs of Bud they consume each weekend. Amos measures the quality of life by how many postings he can make on Mudcat. 46784 posts so far which would be around 3000 hours invested so far while Bush was elected twice and impeached 0. Try Bud Amos. It is much more satisfying and less stressful. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 17 Oct 08 - 10:16 AM I am sorry you are so obsessed with me, man, but I am sure you will get over it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 17 Oct 08 - 12:28 PM K.C. Cody, writing in the California Aggie, skips the foreplay: "The Democrats have royally fucked us (I swear in this column, by the way). Why? Because they don't understand accountability. They're like the Arthur Anderson of American politics. That they haven't brought Bush to his knees for some sweet, impeachment-style justice is beyond shameful; Johnson replaced his secretary of war, Nixon spied and Clinton fibbed about a BJ. But Bush? Nah, the Democrats are just fine to let bygones be bygones and take impeachment off the table. Do me a favor and look at the articles of impeachment submitted to the House by Dennis Kucinich, the only Democrat with the balls to do so (besides Hillary). Really, look at 'em (the articles, not the balls). And when you do, realize that these are just the things Bush should be impeached for that we know about, because the Democrats won't launch any prying Congressional investigations. According to them, it doesn't matter how we got here. They'll just plug the hull of the Titanic with chewing gum and worry about accountability and prevention later. Much later. As in never. Just look at what we've experienced over the past month. After The Great Depression, Sweden and S&L, this was not unexpected. It was inevitable. It was inevitable because of the failure to respond with accountability, prevention and vigilance to yesteryear's orgies of greed. And once those past shocks and others like them abated, so did the opportunity to respond. But Republicans make their careers on shocks. Take the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. The speed at which it passed was baffling; portions were even submitted only one working day after 9/11. The final bill is a 342-page wish list of prepackaged pipe dreams accumulated since Reagan meant to turn the executive branch into a Herculean phallus of ruination. Nine-eleven was their shock, and their wishes were granted. ..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Barry Finn Date: 17 Oct 08 - 01:02 PM Amos, pay no attention to the man in the "silly suit", you're doing a fine job updating the rest of US. It is a shame that Miss Nancy "it's off the table" P won't do want we elected her & the others to do but in time she'll pay along with Bush & Co. I do hope this comes back to bite her on the ass as much as I hope to eventually see Bush & Co imprisoned for a long time. I do hope that when Obama takes office that his administration will pursue these political criminals as well as a good few deserving others. A "Chinese Purge" would be very appopriate, put them all in "Chop, Chop Square" Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 17 Oct 08 - 08:11 PM I find it amusing when I see people spending a lot of time on the internet telling others they spend too much time on the internet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Oct 08 - 01:03 AM CC=18769 Amos=46784 Sawzaw=513 Impeachment=0 I think it is Amos who is obsessed with something he admits will not happen. Perpetual motion and cold fusion may yet prove to be possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 18 Oct 08 - 01:39 AM Don't be an ass, Sawz. When people speak out suggesting impeachment, I report it here. If you don't like it, shove off, but don't sit around mischaracterizing the thread or my intent in starting it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 08 - 02:03 AM 18769 posts in more than eight years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 08 - 02:07 AM The person criticizing others for making too many posts will, if they continue their current posting rate, have approximately 14,153 posts by the time they've been posting here for eight years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Oct 08 - 12:47 AM Gee, I feel so ashamed for pointing out to Amos that he is wasting his time. Something only a friend would do. An enemy would simply let him continue to make a fool of himself. "The Democratic Party leadership has indicated that they have no intention of resolving to impeach him." What was that about insanity is repeating the same thing hoping for different results. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Oct 08 - 12:52 AM Democrats scuttle proposal to impeach Bush Move avoids House debate Boston Globe WASHINGTON - Democrats in the House of Representatives yesterday scuttled a colleague's proposal to impeach President Bush on a wide range of charges, including lying to the American public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, torturing war captives, and misleading Congress in an attempt to destroy Medicare. Rep. Dennis Kucinich proposed the 35-count articles of impeachment, which will die in the Judiciary Committee. By a 251-166 vote, the House sent the 35-count articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to let it die without further action. While the vote technically forces the measure to the committee for consideration, it also means the full House will avoid having to debate and vote on impeaching the 43d president. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who ran for his party's presidential nomination this year, spent several hours reading into the Congressional Record his lengthy and far-reaching indictment of Bush's presidency. He introduced the proposal as a resolution, which could be considered by the full House without going through the committee process. While fellow Democrats have frequently used the House floor to attack Bush for his policies on Iraq, healthcare, domestic surveillance, and many of Kucinich's other grievances, none has joined him in mounting an impeachment effort. Republicans in 2006 warned voters that Democrats would try to impeach Bush if Republicans lost their 12-year majority in Congress, as they went on to do in that year's mid-term balloting. Democratic leaders have long objected to Kucinich's initiative, saying it would be divisive and in any case unsuccessful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 19 Oct 08 - 01:00 AM I appreciate threads like this one. Someone else is doing the work of finding this information so I don't have to. I have no doubt that there are other people who read without necessarily posting as I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Oct 08 - 12:44 PM All you have to do to receive propaganda is sing up for a RSS feed from some left wing nut factory like Amos does. The he echoes it like a Parrot that has learned to repeat a few phrases the does not have the slightest idea as to the meaning or truthfulness (America's oil supply has been cut off) and Voila, a mental giant is born. Then when you question him about what he posts, he runs and hides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Stringsinger Date: 19 Oct 08 - 01:26 PM Impeachment is too light. Criminal action should be taken. We have crooks in the White House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 19 Oct 08 - 01:29 PM "I appreciate threads like this one. Someone else is doing the work of finding this information so I don't have to." I would tend to agree with that, if that was indeed the case. But what Amos posts to this thread is not "information" it is opinion masquerading as information and which is readily leapt upon as being fact by those who want to believe it to be so. Unfortunately wanting something to be other than what it is does not alter the facts when critically examined. Myself and others have asked repeatedly for any evidence that could establish grounds to bring about the impeachment of your current President or Vice-President. Nothing, other than opinion has ever been offered. PS - I rather doubt that Nancy Pelosi was ever elected to impeach anybody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: GUEST,Andrew Yu-Jen Wang Date: 19 Oct 08 - 06:33 PM The impeachment process is possible and/or can be used for criminal prosecution even after George W. Bush leaves office—giving the American people a sense of hope. Even though impeachment while Bush is in office does not seem likely due to the complicity of Congress relative to the illegitimate Iraq War, Kucinich's efforts relative to impeachment and the efforts of hundreds of Americans relative to impeachment are not wasteful collectively. For example, such efforts are beneficial in that (1) legitimate accusations made in the course of Bush's presidency appropriately and importantly inform the American people and the world of Bush's abuses of power, corruption, and dishonesty; and (2) legitimate accusations, for example, in Dennis Kucinich's excellent book, "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush," may contribute to some impeachment and/or punitive process against Bush after he leaves office. Dennis Kucinich is my role model. Kucinich is simply the best. Congressman Kucinich has, in any case, done invaluable, noble, and exemplary work in pushing for impeachment so vigorously and single-mindedly. Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996 Messiah College, Grantham, PA Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 08 - 12:01 AM You're bitterly mistaken, Sawz. What I do is post information related to thew topic and of possible interest. I count on you to use your own judgement about the merits of he pieces I point to. The rhetoric and data are only as good as your ability to assess them after all--neither a blind rejection nor a blind acceptance on your part would be intelligent. If I put a link to an article on this thread, it is cockeyed to then challenge me on the author's point of view. I am not parroting here, merely showing others what I have come across. Your twisted sense of personal responsibility is (IMHO) off the wall here. The fact that I provide a quote of colorful writing from KC Cody does not mean that I AM KC Cody, or even that I am answerable for what he wrote. You can call me on choosing to provide the quote, which is my responsibility, or in misrepresenting someone by selecting badly from a longer piece. But the rest of your foolish chatter is banal and inept. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 20 Oct 08 - 12:37 AM I can decide for myself whether or not I think what is posted to this thread has value for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:07 PM Amos: Some times you claim that what you post is the truth. At other times you backpedal by claiming it is "colorful writing" Which is it Amos, truth or bullshit? If it is a combination of both. please note the difference or if you cannot tell the difference, say so. Otherwise you are saying that what you post is the truth. Amos quotes: "getting the truth out on the table on the crimes these two have been party to" "get the truth out about an Administration that has dramatized dark secrecy since its inception" "speaking the truth as best I can find it out" "That does not mean the truth about it should not be voiced." Amos is constantly railing about people not telling the truth but he holds himself to a different standard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:22 PM Oh, don't be such an ass, I beg you. If I put a post in here stating that Mister Cody states the following, the truth (to the best of my knowledge) is that he did in fact state it. If I put in a post that says 78% of people surveyed think Bush is the worstPresident in American history, pointing to a report that says so, the TRUTH is that the report was found and does in fact say so. Your notion of putting the burden on me of re-doing the job of the various editors behind the articles I provide links to is not only impossible, but riodiculous on the face of it, and your Manichean obsession that each article I link to or quote from is "either truth or bullshit" demonstrates that you have the mental capabililties of a small tin soldier with windup jaws. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 08 - 02:22 PM Even though Amos has stated 4 times in this thread alone that he is bringing the truth, yet he denies that all of it is the truth. What was that about a toy that you wind up? Is that sort of a machine that operates without thinking? Something that does not have the capability of detecting the truth? Truth brought to us by Amos: "this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand." True__________ False __________ I can't tell _______ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 08 - 03:07 PM Jesus, you nutball. I did not make that statement; I referresd you tot he author if it. It is true I posted a letter he wrote on this thread, published by a newspaper. It is highly probably true that the person so named in fact had the thought, wrote the letter and would be glad to explain what he was thinking of. Are you so admantly Manichean about everything in your life? Will nobody rid me of this poxy priest? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Oct 08 - 12:07 AM Amos: Why is it such a hard question? Seems like an easy one to answer to me and all I know how to do is flip burgers and park cars. When you say you are bringing the truth and you post something here you imply that it is truth that you bring here. Is "this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand." statement that you brought to this thread the truth or not? Or maybe you want to weasel out of answering the question by saying you did not bring it here. bring Function: verb Inflected Form(s): brought ; bring·ing bringing Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bringan; akin to Old High German bringan to bring, Welsh hebrwng to accompany Date: before 12th century transitive verb to convey, lead, carry, or cause to come along with one toward the place from which the action is being regarded truth Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural truths Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trÄ"owth fidelity; akin to Old English trÄ"owe faithful â€" more at true Date: before 12th century the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality an idea that is true or accepted as true being in accord with fact or reality in accordance with fact : actually |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 08 - 09:20 AM I can see reason is not going to work with you Sawz. You are so busy fighting you fail to realize it is your own foot you are fighting with. Let me make this real clear: I do not, could not, never pretended to, and wouldn't even dream of asserting that the contents of every article I post is truth. One would have to be a complete ass to imagine I had. To attack that paper tiger is an absurd--if not insane--thing. However, I think it is true that people are saying the things they are saying and feel the way they feel, and their viewpoints are part of the truth. You are fortunate I am not an attack-dog, too, I thihk. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Oct 08 - 10:37 AM "getting the truth out on the table on the crimes these two have been party to" "get the truth out about an Administration that has dramatized dark secrecy since its inception" "speaking the truth as best I can find it out" "That does not mean the truth about it should not be voiced." All of these quotes by you indicate that you can tell it a statement is true or not when you see it. Please read the following statement and tell me if it is the truth or not. I answer your questions so please answer mine. "this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand." True__________ False __________ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 21 Oct 08 - 04:45 PM Now that is a simple question for you Amos? Do you have any problem answering it? I know I wouldn't, the whole premise of it is ridiculous, of course the statement is false, just examine it: "this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand." No crude oil exports have been cut off have they? And I suppose it is the toppling of Hussein that is being referred to as "this Bush conflict", well examination of the figures would show that oil exports from the Persian Gulf region have in fact increased since that Bush conflict. So patently whoever you were quoting in order to get the truth out on the table in order to speak the truth as best you can find it out, hadn't a bloody clue as to what on earth he was talking about. You quoted it now you have been asked whether or not you yourself believe it to be true or false - dead simple. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 08 - 05:12 PM You guys really are a pair of small nutballs. Here is the actual quote which you and Sawz are so merrily taking out of context. September 4, 2008 Mister Lukasson's opinio0n about Bush's impact on oil supply -- as you will plainly see above -- is one aspect of his view of the Bush administration. It may be an inaccurate part, and I haven't researched the impact of Bush's war to assess the degree of negative impact it may have had on oil imports. For example, providing guard-free munitions dumps to all comers at the start of the Iraq invasion may in fact have cost us in oil supply. Point is, I do not have any data with which to speculate about the grounds on which Mister Lukasson is basing his assertion. My own view, since you ask, is that he is probably mistaken about that particular point. But far more important, I believe, is that the truest part of that post--one out of some 1196, I believe--is that Lukasson believes, for reasons which are much less debatable than this one, that Bush should, by rights, be impeached from office for good and sufficient reason. Economic ebbs and flows are not part of that equation, obviously, since they are not part of the actionable charges listed in the Constitution. THe other serious derelictions of duty Mister Lukasson mentions, however, are. So perhaps you jolly 'bots could shake your heads really hard and start to focus on the relevant, the important, the consequential and the actual for a change, instead of chattering about ragtag bits and shards like a bunch of doolallies dancing in your cutty sarks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 08 - 07:36 PM ATTORNEYS, SCHOLARS, ACTIVIST GROUPS CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT | Print | E-mail By MWC NEWS Translation If Bush Pardons Himself or His Subordinates The Steering Committee of the Justice Robert Jackson Conference On Prosecution of High Level War Criminals plans to demand the immediate impeachment of George W. Bush if he issues any last minute pardons covering himself or any of his subordinates. The president can be impeached and convicted even after leaving office. The Steering Committee has released the following statement: The presidential pardon power must not be distorted to include the power to self-pardon the president, or to pardon any staff or contractors of the executive branch, including the vice president, for crimes authorized by the president. The unconstitutionality of self pardons is discussed at length in "Pardon Me? The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons," by Brian C. Kalt in the Yale Law Journal, December 1, 1996: http://www.jstor.org/pss/797310 A self pardon by the President for himself or those who carried out his illegal orders to commit war crimes, said the Steering Committee of the Robert Jackson Conference, would make a mockery of the rule of law. It would, in fact, largely put an end to the rule of law. It is frankly inconceivable, said the Steering Committee, that the framers, who sought the rule of law instead of kingly tyranny, could have intended this. The Steering Committee noted that Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who helped carry out Bush's plans, suggests the possibility of an attempted self pardon by Bush in the future. Also, the famed journalist Stuart Taylor has suggested a self pardon covering war crimes committed by Bush and his colleagues. A self pardon covering Bush and/or his subordinates, however, would require an immediate impeachment and conviction of the culprits in order to disqualify them from holding any U.S. office in the future and to avoid setting an awful precedent for future presidents to pardon their own crimes and those of subordinates. Groups and individuals wishing to add their name to this statement can do so at http://convictbushcheney.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Massachusetts law school Dean Lawrence Velvel will chair a Steering Committee to pursue the prosecution for war crimes of President Bush and culpable high-ranking aides after they leave office Jan. 20th. The Steering Committee was organized following a conference of leading legal authorities and scholars from the U.S. and abroad convened by Velvel on Sept. 13-14 in Andover, Mass., titled "The Justice Robert Jackson Conference On Planning For The Prosecution of High Level American War Criminals." "If Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and others are not prosecuted," Velvel said, "the future could be threatened by additional examples of Executive lawlessness by leaders who need fear no personal consequences for their actions, including more illegal wars such as Iraq." Besides Velvel, members of the Steering Committee include: Ben Davis, a law Professor at the University of Toledo College of Law, where he teaches Public International Law and International Business Transactions. He is the author of numerous articles on international and related domestic law. Marjorie Cohn, a law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, Calif., and President of the National Lawyers Guild. Chris Pyle, a Professor at Mount Holyoke College, where he teaches Constitutional law, Civil Liberties, Rights of Privacy, American Politics and American Political Thought, and is the author of many books and articles. Elaine Scarry, the Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value at Harvard University, and winner of the Truman Capote Award for Literary Criticism. Peter Weiss, vice president of the Center For Constitutional Rights, of New York City, which was recently involved with war crimes complaints filed in Germany and Japan against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others. David Swanson, author, activist and founder of AfterDowningStreet.org/CensureBush.org coalition, of Charlottesville, Va. Kristina Borjesson, an award-winning print and broadcast journalist for more than twenty years and editor of two recent books on the media. Colleen Costello, Staff Attorney of Human Rights, USA, of Washington, D.C., and coordinator of its efforts involving torture by the American government. Valeria Gheorghiu, attorney for Workers' Rights Law Center. Andy Worthington, a British historian and journalist and author of books dealing with human rights violations. Initial actions considered by the Steering Committee, Velvel said, are as follows: # Seeking prosecutions of high level officials, including George Bush, for the crimes they committed. # Seeking disbarment of lawyers who were complicitous in facilitating torture. # Seeking termination from faculty positions of high officials who were complicitous in torture. # Issuing a recent statement saying any attempt by Bush to pardon himself and aides for war crimes prior to leaving office will result in efforts to obtain impeachment even after they leave office. # Convening a major conference on the state secret and executive privilege doctrines, which have been pushed to record levels during the Bush administration. # Designation of an Information Repository Coordinator to gather in one place all available information involving the Bush Administration's war crimes. # Possible impeachment of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee for co-authoring the infamous "torture memo." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Oct 08 - 08:22 PM Amos: So many words when only one of two words are required to fulfill your moral obligating to answer a question posed to you by someone who answers your questions when asked. Why are you to chicken to answer a single simple question in a direct manor? "Your notion of putting the burden on me of re-doing the job of the various editors behind the articles I provide links to is not only impossible" Four times in this thread you have said you are bringing the truth. The reason for the thread is to bring the truth. Now you claim it is somebody else's job to figure out what is the truth and what is bullshit? So it impossible for you to read a simple statement and state if it is true or not? Maybe it impossible for you. Where is your credibility? Where is your moral fiber? You exhibit poor judgment not only in determining what is the truth but in refusing to give direct answers to simple questions that would determine your credibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Donuel Date: 21 Oct 08 - 08:53 PM murder charges mentioned in Congress http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21057.htm |
