Why Bush Should be Impeached

[Frank Ernest]

Are you suggesting that the U.S. kill off all the Sunnis for the Shiites, so they can live happily ever after?
Are you really this dense or is it a career move? No, the United states will not kill off Sunnis so the Shi'ites can live happily ever after and I never suggested that. The Shi'ites will move on the Sunnis if we leave now. Your :Commie: traitor pals would like nothing better than for us to leave and let the situation deteriorate into civil war. Your :Commie: buds in the MSM have been preaching civil war for over a year. (Took a while to figure what the subversive slimes of the liberal left were up to, but that's it.)

If we don't leave, and we don't kill off all the Sunnis for the Shiites, a what point will the Shiites no longer be interested in killing off all of the Sunnis - or vise versa for that matter?
When the Iraqis establish a stable government based on constitutional governance. A free Iraqi state able to defend itself and relatively free from foreign subversions like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. You know, the very ideals which you and your murdering buddies find so distasteful. (47% of you think Saddam was just a really fine guy and should be returned to power.) All that, so you and your :Commie: pals can sit back and sip tea while the Iranians jump in (if we leave) and a power vacuum developes in Iraq.

Golly, gee! Either way, an immediate troop withdrawal benefits the left-wing scum by producing what they wistfully hope for -- a defeated and embarrassed USA and a Middle East blood bath while the demo:Commie:s take political power in the USA and elect their own version of Saddam Hussein in drag. There's your "principled" and "moral" stand in a nutshell.

Enjoy.

[BillyBob]

Isn't it despicable that an American Political Party can be so selfish as to undermine the efforts of its own military and soldiers simply for political gain? They lobby for a military defeat. They hope for a bloody civil war in the Middle East. They detest democracy being provided to any people in the Middle East. They lie about the results of our efforts and bolster the confidence of our enemies!

The dems have based their entire political success on whatever is bad for the US.

They hope the economy turns bad so they can use it as a political platform. [They claim the economy is bad even when it isn't]

They hope for more American soldiers to die in combat so they can use it as a political platform and celebrate each daily death.

They invent lies about their President and forget that they signed a Resolution Condoning the War in Iraq simply as a strategy to win elections.

They undermine our national security and hope for another terrorist attack on US soil so they can use it as a political platform.

They invent lies about torture and abuse of prisoners to undermine our war efforts with the hope that our enemies will be encouraged to keep fighting us.

All this so they can regain power, raise our taxes, expand government and impliment more socialist policies that will require another tax increase further expanding government and diminishing our freedoms every step of the way.

I see a Civil War looming on the horizon and it isn't in Iraq.......

[koban]

Are you really this dense or is it a career move? No, the United states will not kill off Sunnis so the Shi'ites can live happily ever after and I never suggested that. The Shi'ites will move on the Sunnis if we leave now. Your :Commie: traitor pals would like nothing better than for us to leave and let the situation deteriorate into civil war. Your :Commie: buds in the MSM have been preaching civil war for over a year. (Took a while to figure what the subversive slimes of the liberal left were up to, but that's it.)

When the Iraqis establish a stable government based on constitutional governance. A free Iraqi state able to defend itself and relatively free from foreign subversions like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. You know, the very ideals which you and your murdering buddies find so distasteful. (47% of you think Saddam was just a really fine guy and should be returned to power.) All that, so you and your :Commie: pals can sit back and sip tea while the Iranians jump in (if we leave) and a power vacuum developes in Iraq.

Golly, gee! Either way, an immediate troop withdrawal benefits the left-wing scum by producing what they wistfully hope for -- a defeated and embarrassed USA and a Middle East blood bath while the demo:Commie:s take political power in the USA and elect their own version of Saddam Hussein in drag. There's your "principled" and "moral" stand in a nutshell.

Enjoy.

(puts on Gerald hat)

But civil war, an Iraqi power vacuum and a Middle East bloodbath could be very good for the US. The currently unified OPEC would disintegrate as warring nations exceeded their quotas and pumped round the clock to keep their coffers full to fund their war machines. Oil prices would plummet below the $20/bbl mark and Western economies would boom!

(takes off Gerald hat, wonders why head is itchy)

[Frank Ernest]

(puts on Gerald hat)

But civil war, an Iraqi power vacuum and a Middle East bloodbath could be very good for the US. The currently unified OPEC would disintegrate as warring nations exceeded their quotas and pumped round the clock to keep their coffers full. Oil prices would plummet below the $20/bbl mark and Western economies would boom!

(takes off Gerald hat, wonders why head is itchy)
:darwinsm: Remember when you put on the Gerald hat that the shiny side is on the outside.

[koban]

:darwinsm: Remember when you put on the Gerald hat that the shiny side is on the outside.



My head looks like that without a hat! :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

The Shi'ites will move on the Sunnis if we leave now. They are already doing that now.

Iraq's Sunnis Fear Shiite Militias (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/29/iraq/main1083071.shtml)

Shiite death squads make a mockery of police force (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/shiite-death-squads-make-a-mockery-of-police-force/2005/11/29/1133026469702.html)

Memo Shows Reports of Iraqi Troops' Abuse (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_military_1)

Your Commie traitor pals would like nothing better than for us to leave and let the situation deteriorate into civil war. There has been civil war in Iraq ever since Bush unnecessarily invaded it. It has gotten worse, since March 2003.

When the Iraqis establish a stable government based on constitutional governance. And if a significant percentage of the population continues to refuse to accept this constitution? Then what?

A free Iraqi state able to defend itself and relatively free from foreign subversions like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. And the United States?

-- a defeated and embarrassed USA and a Middle East blood bath Bush produced this when he unnecessarily invaded Iraq.

[koban]

They are already doing that now.

Iraq's Sunnis Fear Shiite Militias (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/29/iraq/main1083071.shtml)

Shiite death squads make a mockery of police force (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/shiite-death-squads-make-a-mockery-of-police-force/2005/11/29/1133026469702.html)

Memo Shows Reports of Iraqi Troops' Abuse (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_military_1)

So Skreppie would have us pull out, resulting in what?

Peace?

Stability?


:mock::skeptic::duh:

There has been civil war in Iraq ever since Bush unnecessarily invaded it. It has gotten worse, since March 2003.

It will probably get worse before it gets better.

Takes time to kill all those thugs, you know.

And if a significant percentage of the population continues to refuse to accept this constitution? Then what?

Kill 'em!

And the United States?

:skeptic:, your :Commie: tendencies are showing if you lump the USA in with Syria and Iran.

Bush :blabla:


(we need a duck quacking smiley for Skreppie)

[Skeptic]

So Skreppie would have us pull out, resulting in what?

Peace?

Stability? Both may come more quickly with the U.S. out of Iraq.

It will probably get worse before it gets better. Perhaps. But I think it may get better more quickly if we leave.

Takes time to kill all those thugs, you know. Killing thugs will not eliminate the thug problem. Many of the so-called "thugs" will cease being "thugs" after the U.S. leaves Iraq.

Kill 'em! We are back to killing off the Sunnis, are we? :doh:

[koban]

Both may come more quickly with the U.S. out of Iraq.

And lollypop trees might start growing out of gumdrop boulders! :darwinsm:

Perhaps. But I think it may get better more quickly if we leave.

:darwinsm:

Killing thugs will not eliminate the thug problem.

Sure it will.

Dead thug = no more thuggish behavior from that one!

Repeat as necessary.

Many of the so-called "thugs" will cease being "thugs" after the U.S. leaves Iraq.

:darwinsm:

We are back to killing off the Sunnis, are we? :doh:

Just the bad ones! :D

[Skeptic]

Just the bad ones! And what do we do with the bad Shiites in the Iraqi army ... I mean ... death squads?

Do we kill them too?

[koban]

And what do we do with the bad Shiites in the Iraqi army ... I mean ... death squads?

Do we kill them too?


If they resist us?

You bet!!

[Skeptic]

If they resist us?

You bet!! And if they both want the U.S. out of their country, then what?

Tell them we're there for their oil and to force democracy on them for their own good?

That's the original plan, and it's not going over so well.

[koban]

And if they both want the U.S. out of their country, then what?

F 'em both!

Tell them we're there for their oil and to force democracy on them for their own good?

:thumb:

You're finally catching on!

That's the original plan, and it's not going over so well.

:darwinsm:

[Delmar]

Bush said yesterday that if he knew then what he knows now he still would have taken Saddam out! It's about time GW :up: tell it like it is and let the commies whine!

[Frank Ernest]

Bush said yesterday that if he knew then what he knows now he still would have taken Saddam out! It's about time GW :up: tell it like it is and let the commies whine!
The :Commie:s will whine no matter what. The only thing holding them together is hatred.

[BillyBob]

I wish I had something to add, but you guys pretty much have it covered. :chuckle:

[koban]

I wish I had something to add, but you guys pretty much have it covered. :chuckle:


There's always :mock::skeptic::duh:

[Skeptic]

Finally! The "i-word" is gaining favor. :thumb:

People are waking up and have had enough. Now, the only impediment is the right-wingers who control Congress. .... I'm looking forward to Nov. 2006.

[koban]

Finally! The "i-word" is gaining favor. :thumb:

People are waking up and have had enough. Now, the only impediment is the right-wingers who control Congress. .... I'm looking forward to Nov. 2006.


Why? So you and your fellow travellers can get their assses whupped again? :devil:

:darwinsm:



:mock::skeptic::duh:

[Skeptic]

Why? So you and your fellow travellers can get their assses whupped again? Unless Congress can recover significantly from this (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm), the party in control will lose control.

I think most Americans are tired of their country being run by one party.

[BillyBob]

I think most Americans are tired of their country being run by one party.

The dems ran the country for 40 years.....until recently! :devil:

[BillyBob]

Finally! The "i-word" is gaining favor. :thumb:

People are waking up and have had enough.

:darwinsm:

Now, the only impediment is the right-wingers who control Congress. .....

:baby:

[Skeptic]

The dems ran the country for 40 years.....until recently! And it didn't take long for the right-wing Repubs to screw things up!

[Skeptic]

Published on Friday, December 30, 2005 by FindLaw
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon:
Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20051230.html)
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security

by John W. Dean

... There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration ...

source (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20051230.html)

[koban]

:taoist:

:baby:




:darwinsm:

Welcome back, Skreppie.

I salute you!

:loser:

[BillyBob]

And it didn't take long for the right-wing Repubs to screw things up!

Yeah, the US is experiencing one of its best economies in history, democracy is being planted in countries that have, until recently, been the playgrounds of terrorists and evil despots, taxes are low, unemployement is almost non existent and we are finally going to see some action taken against illegal immigration.

Yep, sure sounds screwed up to me. :darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Published on Friday, December 30, 2005 by FindLaw
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon:
Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20051230.html)
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security

by John W. Dean
:darwinsm: :loser:

[Skeptic]

Yeah, the US is experiencing one of its best economies in history, Yeah, for the rich!

democracy is being planted in countries ... :darwinsm: That's a good one!!

Sometimes you're pretty funny, BillyBob.

until recently, been the playgrounds of terrorists and evil despots, Surely you're not talking about Iraq. For just the opposite has happened there! Bush has made Iraq the new playground of terrorists and evil despots!

taxes are low, For those who should be paying much more!

unemployement is almost non existent You mean all of those uninsured workers?

and we are finally going to see some action taken against illegal immigration. Are we going to shoot them as they cross the border?

Yep, sure sounds screwed up to me. I don't share your right-wing vision for America.

[BillyBob]

Yeah, for the rich!

Our economy ios growing at 4%. Are you having trouble paying your bills, Skeptic?




Surely you're not talking about Iraq. For just the opposite has happened there! Bush has made Iraq the new playground of terrorists and evil despots!

Yes, we know that you support Saddam and his terrorist activities, no news here.



For those who should be paying much more!

:Commie:



You mean all of those uninsured workers?

Hey, insurance is available to everyone. If they don't have insurance they have noone to blame but themselves.



Are we going to shoot them as they cross the border?

Works for me.



I don't share your right-wing vision for America.

That's because you are an American hating, prosperity despising, freedom loathing commie. :Commie:

[Skeptic]

Our economy ios growing at 4%. Are you having trouble paying your bills, Skeptic? A national economy should not be judged on how you or I am doing, but on how everyone is doing.

Let me save you the trouble. ..... :Commie: , right?

Yes, we know that you support Saddam and his terrorist activities, no news here. You know better.

Commie Fascist.

Hey, insurance is available to everyone. If they don't have insurance they have noone to blame but themselves. Wrong.

Works for me. I kinda figured.

That's because you are an American hating, prosperity despising, freedom loathing commie. And you are an American hating, prosperity-for-the-prosperous, freedom-for-the-fortunate, fascist.

Do you really get a kick out of this name-calling game of yours?

I can play too, but it's kind of boring. :yawn:

[BillyBob]

Anybody who says this economy is anything less than booming is a liar.

Oh, and I'll say this again:

"Hey, insurance is available to everyone. If they don't have insurance they have noone to blame but themselves."

[Skeptic]

Anybody who says this economy is anything less than booming is a liar. Booming for who?

Oh, and I'll say this again:

"Hey, insurance is available to everyone. If they don't have insurance they have noone to blame but themselves." And I'll say this again: WRONG.

[BillyBob]

Booming for who?

Anybody who is willing to participate!



And I'll say this again: WRONG.

And you would still be a incorrect.

[Mr. 5020]

Anybody who says this economy is anything less than booming is a liar.

Oh, and I'll say this again:

"Hey, insurance is available to everyone. If they don't have insurance they have noone to blame but themselves."Yep. I know a 22 year old guy with no college education, no financial support from family, who is living in an apartment working his way through college, and he has vision, dental, and medical insurance: me.

[drbrumley]

Anybody who says this economy is anything less than booming is a liar.

Oh, and I'll say this again:

"Hey, insurance is available to everyone. If they don't have insurance they have noone to blame but themselves."
Yep, available to those who have employers who furnish insurance. At a cost so costly, it is unreasonable to get insurance.

[Mr. 5020]

Yep, available to those who have employers who furnish insurance. At a cost so costly, it is unreasonable to get insurance.:nono:

[BillyBob]

Yep, available to those who have employers who furnish insurance.

Nope. Insurance is available to EVERYBODY!


At a cost so costly, it is unreasonable to get insurance.

Health insurance is no more costly than cable TV. I don't have an employer paying for mine, I pay for it myself and I pay more for my cable service than I do for Health Insurance.

The real problem is that you, Skeptic and the rest of the commies out there have invented the idea that employees and all Americans are somehow entitled to free health insurance.

But hey, why stop there? I would like free phone service. Free Internet and Cable service. Free cars. Free housing. Free food. Free furniture. Free beer. Heck, I want free everything, why can't I have it?

[drbrumley]

:nono:

No? Not true huh? Thats why I know people who work hard and can't afford the $75.00 a week for a family of 5. Translate that into 300.00 a month. Yep, it is affordable.

[Mr. 5020]

No? Not true huh? Thats why I know people who work hard and can't afford the $75.00 a week for a family of 5. Translate that into 300.00 a month. Yep, it is affordable.Not all insurance is that expensive (see BB's post).

[drbrumley]

The real problem is that you, Skeptic and the rest of the commies out there have invented the idea that employees and all Americans are somehow entitled to free health insurance.

Entitled? You make accusations up as you go I see. No one is ENTITLED to a damn thing.

[BillyBob]

No? Not true huh? Thats why I know people who work hard and can't afford the $75.00 a week for a family of 5. Translate that into 300.00 a month. Yep, it is affordable.

:baby:

If they can't afford a mesely $75 a week, they shouldn't have had kids. Do they expect free food to feed their kids with? Do they expect a free mini-van to shuttle them around in? Do they expect free gasoline to power the mini-van? Do they expect free housing?

And these supposed people you know, do they have cable TV? Do they go to movies? Do they go out to eat at restaurants? Do they go on vacations?

[drbrumley]

Not all insurance is that expensive (see BB's post).
This is true to a degree. But you have to put preexisting conditions down and that drives it up.

Blur Cross is notorious for this.

[BillyBob]

Entitled? You make accusations up as you go I see. No one is ENTITLED to a damn thing.

Then why are you whining about the cost of health insurance?

[Mr. 5020]

This is true to a degree. But you have to put preexisting conditions down and that drives it up.

Blur Cross is notorious for this.The insurance companies need to make money, too. I completely agree with BB's post (above yours).
:baby:

If they can't afford a mesely $75 a week, they shouldn't have had kids. Do they expect free food to feed their kids with? Do they expect a free mini-van to shuttle them around in? Do they expect free gasoline to power the mini-van? Do they expect free housing?

And these supposed people you know, do they have cable TV? Do they go to movies? Do they go out to eat at restaurants? Do they go on vacations?

[drbrumley]

Then why are you whining about the cost of health insurance?It was said it was available to everyone. This much is true. But at what cost? I'm far from whining.

[drbrumley]

:baby:

If they can't afford a mesely $75 a week, they shouldn't have had kids. Do they expect free food to feed their kids with? Do they expect a free mini-van to shuttle them around in? Do they expect free gasoline to power the mini-van? Do they expect free housing?

Your not worth talking to.

And these supposed people you know, do they have cable TV?

No

Do they go to movies?

No

Do they go out to eat at restaurants?

No

Do they go on vacations?

No

[BillyBob]

Your not worth talking to.

Of course, I'm not worth talking to because I can easily dismantle your stupid premises every time.



No



No



No



No

:darwinsm:

I don't believe you!

[drbrumley]

Of course, I'm not worth talking to because I can easily dismantle your stupid premises every time.




:darwinsm:

I don't believe you!

Your an arrogant ********. Welcome to IGNORE.

[Mr. 5020]

Your an arrogant ********. Welcome to IGNORE.Woah, you got called eight asterisks!!! :noway:

[drbrumley]

Woah, you got called eight asterisks!!! :noway:
I'm sorry Mr. 5020. I try to be nice and basically I am called a liar. Hell with him.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Mr. 5020]

I'm sorry Mr. 5020. I try to be nice and basically I am called a liar. Hell with him.:up:

Whatever floats your boat...

[BillyBob]

:baby:

[Mr. 5020]

:baby:Whatever rocks your socks...

Ok, I'm out of those now.

[BillyBob]

Doc has me on 'Ignore'.......

:idea:


:sozo: Doc is a homo! :devil:

[Mr. 5020]

Doc has me on 'Ignore'.......

:idea:


:sozo: Doc is a homo! :devil::eek:

[BillyBob]

:banana:

[SOTK]

Well, I guess I kind of saw that coming. :chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

Hey, :BillyBob:!

That finski from :taoist: comes due in 16 hours and 57 minutes!

[BillyBob]

:greedy:

Thanks for the reminder!

[Frank Ernest]

You're welcome, Good Buddy!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

[Frank Ernest]

To my other Good Buddy, President George W. Bush:

Happy New Year and Feliz Ano Nuevo!

Hope this came across on the wiretap ok.

[koban]

Doc has me on 'Ignore'.......

:idea:


:sozo: Doc is a homo! :devil:


He is?? :shocked:

Bad Doc! :sibbie:

You stop being a homo RIGHT NOW!!!

[BillyBob]

Uh oh, you're gonna end up on his Ignore list, too! :chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

Uh oh, you're gonna end up on his Ignore list, too! :chuckle:
:darwinsm: PureCrap kept threatening me with that during Fellowship Week.

[BillyBob]

Is that a threat or a favor? :eek:

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: I don't know. Fellowship Week ran out while he was in mid-tantrum.

[koban]

:darwinsm: I don't know. Fellowship Week ran out while he was in mid-tantrum.


Just run all his posts through the "Jive" translator (http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/) and repost them.

Worked for me! :thumb:


Example:

It depends downon de particular issue. Wid abo'shun, fo' 'esample, ah' dink dey would only need some reasonable majo'ity. Slap mah fro! Maybe 60 o' 65%. ah' say dis cuz' de legal standin' on which abo'shun laws is currently based is somewhut precarious. In de case uh fo'cin' praya' into public farms, o' in fo'cin' creashunism into public farm curriculums, however, ah' dink dey would need huge majo'ity suppo't cuz' dey would gots'ta overturn some basic principals uh U.S. guv'ment t'attain deir goal.


:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

-- IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
Pre-war intelligence community doubts about WMD: Plenty!
Pre-war doubts re: WMD acknowledged by Bush: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of home grown insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in Iraq (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Bush's unnecessary invasion dramatically increased terrorism!
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 2,193
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 16,155
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 27,736 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not Sunnis! :nono:
Who is adequately represented in Iraq's army & police? Not Sunnis! :nono:
A sign of progress in Iraq? Not death squads and torture chambers. :nono:
Iraqi free press? Not when paid for by the Pentagon! :nono:
Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet! :nono:

Should Bush be impeached? Yes!
Will Bush be impeached? Not as long as Right-Wing fanatics are in power!

[Skeptic]

Could this be yet another reason why Bush should be impeached?

Published on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 by The Nation
''What the President Ordered in This Case Was a Crime"
by John Nichols

While Judge Sam Alito's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee has confirmed that he is not one of their number, a dwindling cadre of public servants still take seriously the dictates of the Constitution and the intents of it authors. And there is no more serious dictate of the document -- and no more solidly established intent -- than the one that requires the Congress to serve as a check and a balance against the excesses of the executive branch. Most particularly in a time of war, the founders intended for the Congress to question, challenge and constrain the president and his aides so that never again would Americans be subjected to the illegitimate, unwarranted and illegal dictates of a King George.

This mandate, so well-established and so thoroughly grounded in history and tradition, places a particularly high demand on the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. It is in the House, the Constitution tells us, that the work of holding an out-of-control president to account, must begin -- and it is on the Judiciary Committee that the process is initiated.

The committee's current chair, Representative James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, should understand this charge better than most. After all, he was at the center of the effort in 1998 and 1999 to impeach former President Bill Clinton.

No matter what one thought of the Clinton impeachment process, it should now be beyond debate that if the misdeeds of the former president required both examination and action by the Judiciary Committee -- as Sensenbrenner so obvioualy believed-- then the misdeeds of the current president must surely merit a similar response.

The memory of the Clinton impeachment has already inspired the most delicious sloganeering, beginning with the t-shirt that declares: "Impeachment: It's Not Just for Oral Sex Anymore." But this is about more than t-shirts and fingerpointing. As the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Sensenbrenner has a Constitutionally-mandated responsibility to take seriously the charges of executive lawbreaking and impropriety that are currently in play. If he cannot execute this responsibility in a reasoned and bipartisan manner, then he has a duty to step aside.

That is a serious choice. But, surely, the issues that are at stake demand such seriousness -- as the American people have clearly indicated. A new Zogby Poll shows that 52 percent of Americas believe that, if George Bush violated the law when he ordered security agencies to engage in warrantless wiretaps on the communications of U.S. citizens who were accused of no crimes, the president should be impeached. So widespread is this faith that almost one quarter of those who identified themselves as "very conservative" expressed support for impeachment as a response to the spying scandal.

So far, however, Sensenbrenner has allowed his partisanship to prevent him from even beginning to execute his Constitutional duties. When Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee demanded that the body conduct an inquiry into illegal spying by the Bush administration, Sensenbrenner refused them.

Because of the consequence of the issues involved, Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the committee, convened an extraordinary session last week without the official sanction that only the committee chairman can convey.

"Last month all 17 House Judiciary Democrats called on Chairman Sensenbrenner to convene hearings to investigate the President's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, in apparent contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As our request has since been ignored, it is our job, as Members of Congress, to review the program and consider whether our criminal laws have been violated and our citizen's constitutional rights trampled upon," explained Conyers, who has played a critical role in investigations of wrongdoing by Democratic and Republican presidents since the days when Lyndon Johnson occupied the White House. "We simply cannot tolerate a situation where the Administration is operating as prosecutor, judge and jury and excluding Congress and the courts from providing any meaningful check or balance to the process."

Members of Congress who attended the hearing -- Conyers and a half dozen other Democrats -- heard George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley refer to the wiretapping ordered by Bush as ''an intelligence operation in search of a legal rationale." Without a doubt, Turley added, ''What the president ordered in this case was a crime," said Turley, who bluntly told the gathering that Sensenbrenner and other House Republicans have set a dangerous precedent by refusing to permit oversight hearings.

Turley's comments on the troubling nature of the president's wiretapping initiative -- and the failure of House Republicans to aggressively investigate and challenge that initiative -- were echoed by Bruce Fein, who served as a deputy Attorney General for the Reagan administration. In addition to suggesting that the implausibility of Bush's claim that he was acting within the law should be self evident, Fein warned presidential powers must always be regulated in order to halt abuses of the moment and to prevent the development over time of an imperial presidency that can no longer be checked by Congress.

The Conyers hearing had an impact on the members who bothered to attend it. Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee's panel on the Constitution, responded to the testimony by announcing that the Judiciary Committee needs to explore whether President Bush should be the subject of an impeachment inquiry for high crimes and misdemeanors stemming from his authorization of illegal spying.

Sensenbrenner might well disagree with that assessment. He has every right to such a sentiment. But he does not have a right to prevent the Judiciary Committee as a whole from entertaining these most fundamental questions about the abuse of presidential power. If Sensenbrenner does not recognize this standard, then he has no place chairing the committee that is charged with taking the lead in the application of Congressional checks and balances -- up to and including impeachment -- as an antidote to executive excess.

source (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0124-26.htm)

[ThankYouJesus]

Ya know what I like a lot - is how some feel so safe to do what they like, due to the fact Bush has kept this country safe from the fanatic Islamist; and this is due to this program.. what do we have to hide, and why would we be checked anyway.. do we seem like a fanatics that wants to kill innocent people and think Jesus was not the son of God? For those who think ya, we should pull out the war and just let them do what they want, cuz we gotta wait for a court order, I say - Go live in Utopia if you can find it, this is the real world.

[Skeptic]

For those who think ya, we should pull out the war and just let them do what they want, cuz we gotta wait for a court order, I say - Go live in Utopia if you can find it, this is the real world. To which war are you referring?

Regardless of whether you think it is a good idea, do you believe that warrantless spying on Americans is legal?

[ThankYouJesus]

To which war are you referring?

Regardless of whether you think it is a good idea, do you believe that warrantless spying on Americans is legal?

to those who think Bush is a liar.. ummm did not Clinton have the chance to capture Osama before he killed on 9/11 ?? :(

I got nothing to hide, and if they wanna check me out because I might be talking or have a terrorist in my life, then let them.. how do I know someone I may know by chance meeting is a terrorist.. I want them to get the guy, do not you?

[ThankYouJesus]

BTW, today is a different world after 9/11... live with it..

[Skeptic]

I got nothing to hide, and if they wanna check me out because I might be talking or have a terrorist in my life, then let them.. how do I know someone I may know by chance meeting is a terrorist.. I want them to get the guy, do not you? You did not answer my question.

Regardless of whether you think it is a good idea, do you believe that warrantless spying on Americans is legal?

[ThankYouJesus]

You did not answer my question.

Regardless of whether you think it is a good idea, do you believe that warrantless spying on Americans is legal?

did I just say I do not care if they check me out?? Read my lips.. I DO NOT CARE.. LOL

[Skeptic]

did I just say I do not care if they check me out?? Read my lips.. I DO NOT CARE.. LOL Does this mean that you do not care whether it is legal to spy on Americans without a warrant?

Does this mean that, if Bush broke the law when ordering warrantless spying on Americans, you think that this is OK?

[koban]

:mock::skeptic::duh:



Poor Skreppie, nobody wants to play his game anymore.

[BillyBob]

Yep. [or is it 'Nope'?]

:darwinsm:

[TheOnlySaneOne]

Of course, don't you know these Jesus Freaks dont care about the Constitution? Why should they care about this world? They're promised heaven for eternity!


Does this mean that you do not care whether it is legal to spy on Americans without a warrant?

Does this mean that, if Bush broke the law when ordering warrantless spying on Americans, you think that this is OK?

[BillyBob]

Of course, don't you know these Jesus Freaks dont care about the Constitution? Why should they care about this world? They're promised heaven for eternity!

Skeptic isn't concerned with the preservation of the Constitution, he's only interested in partisan politics. :Commie:

[TheOnlySaneOne]

Skeptic is a true Patriot. The people in this thread who so easily give up their rights are the ones you need to worry about.

Skeptic isn't concerned with the preservation of the Constitution, he's only interested in partisan politics. :Commie:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic is a true Patriot.

Skeptic is a vile, anti-American, Anti-Freedom, Anti-Capitalism, communist, partisan hack.

The people in this thread who so easily give up their rights are the ones you need to worry about.

Who among us has given up their rights?

[ThankYouJesus]

Skeptic is a true Patriot. The people in this thread who so easily give up their rights are the ones you need to worry about.

I like how liberals bring this subject up because they never cared before about it, Republicans did.. got nothing on Bush, who has kept us safe.. do you know because of this act, they have caught 4 plots i n US before it happened?

Liberals have nothing to talk about.. :kookoo:

[TheOnlySaneOne]

I said the ones that are WILLING to give up their rights by saying things like:

'I don't mind being spied on I dont have anything to hide!'



Who among us has given up their rights?

[TheOnlySaneOne]

Guess what:

I DO NOT CARE IF THEY CAN PREVENT 1000 TERRORIST PLOTS BY TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.

Am I making myself clear?

Do I need to quote Ben Franklin to you, would you listen to him?

"Those who would give up liberty to gain security deserve neither."

I like how liberals bring this subject up because they never cared before about it, Republicans did.. got nothing on Bush, who has kept us safe.. do you know because of this act, they have caught 4 plots i n US before it happened?

Liberals have nothing to talk about.. :kookoo:

[ThankYouJesus]

I just wish.. Bush would say to the people who do not understand Freedom, "Well yáll there comes a time where I got to go to Broadback Ranch and turn your ways and see what it really feels like.. so I am going to bring the troops home, stop spending all your tax dollars on security and just let whoever come in our Country without knowing"" then all the liberals will be like :( :help: WHATTTTT!!!!.. no no, we cannot do this, fend for ourselves,, you mean I have to go buy a GUN to defend my family from these fanatics.. LOL.. give it a break .. Mom there is liberals under my bed.. LOL

[koban]

Guess what:

I DO NOT CARE IF THEY CAN PREVENT 1000 TERRORIST PLOTS BY TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.

Am I making myself clear?

Do I need to quote Ben Franklin to you, would you listen to him?

"Those who would give up liberty to gain security deserve neither."


Well then, it's a damn good thing you're just some ineffectual loser on an internet discussion board instead of somebody in a position of responsibility.

Run along and play with your dolls now. :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Guess what:

I DO NOT CARE IF THEY CAN PREVENT 1000 TERRORIST PLOTS BY TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.

Am I making myself clear?

Do I need to quote Ben Franklin to you, would you listen to him?

"Those who would give up liberty to gain security deserve neither."

Specifically, which liberties have we given up?

[BillyBob]

Well then, it's a damn good thing you're just some ineffectual loser on an internet discussion board instead of somebody in a position of responsibility.

Run along and play with your dolls now. :chuckle:

'ineffectual' :darwinsm:

[ThankYouJesus]

Guess what:

I DO NOT CARE IF THEY CAN PREVENT 1000 TERRORIST PLOTS BY TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.

Am I making myself clear?

Do I need to quote Ben Franklin to you, would you listen to him?

"Those who would give up liberty to gain security deserve neither."
then move to NH where I live, got a sign on my property and any violaters who tresspass can shoot them.. quote who you want, rather have my tax dollars go to defending our Freedom before they are taken away by a emp or who knows what by these fanactics

[TheOnlySaneOne]

Try replying to the points I make instead of replyin with this crap, you can't even form a complete sentence.

Broadback ranch? wtf does that mean?

No one said dont spend any money on security, I'm just saying don't take a crap on the constitution to do it.

You write like you have a 4th grade education.

I just wish.. Bush would say to the people who do not understand Freedom, "Well yáll there comes a time where I got to go to Broadback Ranch and turn your ways and see what it really feels like.. so I am going to bring the troops home, stop spending all your tax dollars on security and just let whoever come in our Country without knowing"" then all the liberals will be like :( :help: WHATTTTT!!!!.. no no, we cannot do this, fend for ourselves,, you mean I have to go buy a GUN to defend my family from these fanatics.. LOL.. give it a break .. Mom there is liberals under my bed.. LOL

[BillyBob]

wtf does that mean?


wtf does 'wtf' mean?

[TheOnlySaneOne]

Hmm...The Fourth One?

Specifically, which liberties have we given up?

[TheOnlySaneOne]

You're a smart guy , you'll figure it out.

what the ....

wtf does 'wtf' mean?

[ThankYouJesus]

Try replying to the points I make instead of replyin with this crap, you can't even form a complete sentence.

Broadback ranch? wtf does that mean?

No one said dont spend any money on security, I'm just saying don't take a crap on the constitution to do it.

You write like you have a 4th grade education.

at least I know what a Liberal is :D and want no part of it.. you want security and want a terrorist to have the same rights.. I say NO.. Next abortion to be abolished,, another subject..

[TheOnlySaneOne]

Whatever, you don't have the intelligence to debate these things, instead you label someone as a scary liberal and make stuff up. Go to bed.

at least I know what a Liberal is :D and want no part of it.. you want security and want a terrorist to have the same rights.. I say NO.. Next abortion to be abolished,, another subject..

[koban]

Hmm...The Fourth One?


I assume you're referring to the fourth amendment to the constitution.

Please tell me which part of the fourth amendment is being violated by electronic wiretapping and data-mining.

[Metalking]

Hmm...The Fourth One?
Habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it....I don't like it,but I understand it...we face a new type of invasion.."sleeper cells" have been and still are being found on our soil,we must protect the population. :Patrol:

[Skeptic]

I assume you're referring to the fourth amendment to the constitution.

Please tell me which part of the fourth amendment is being violated by electronic wiretapping and data-mining. See this (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1003003&postcount=59) and this (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1003030&postcount=61).

[Skeptic]

Not a scientific poll, but ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Look at Bush's job-approval ratings:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Keep an eye on this site:
http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

Americans are waking up:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

A draft ....
Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors (http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html)

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."
-- George H.W. Bush: A World Transformed (1998)

[Delmar]

:Commie:

[Wessex Man]

600,000+ have died in Iraq,this is approaching Pol Pot,Bush certianly deserves impeaching

[Delmar]

600,000+ have died in Iraq,this is approaching Pol Pot,Bush certianly deserves impeaching
:Commie:

[Wessex Man]

Hey Delmar :Nazi:, (this is only is repsonce to your post,I normally respect you.)


Sorry there is no smily,but you get the point.

[Delmar]

Hey Delmar..... I normally respect you.


Perhaps I have been doing something wrong :D

[Wessex Man]

Perhaps I have been doing something wrong
If you count not acting like a idiot ie.BB,Frankie,Mussolini etc as doing something wrong,then you have.

You are a right-wing extremist,but you're one I can respect.Except perhaps on abortion, you are no bully like the coward and fascist BB,at least.(btw did you read the links I gave you in the thread on the Bearean Todd?)

[Delmar]

If you count not acting like a idiot ie.BB,Frankie,Mussolini etc as doing something wrong,then you have.

You are a right-wing extremist,but you're one I can respect.Except perhaps on abortion, you are no bully like the coward and fascist BB,at least.(btw did you read the links I gave you in the thread on the Bearean Todd?)
I don't recall which thread that was?

Edit:

Never mind I found it. I'm not too sure I'm going to read all that though. The truth is I am way less interested in politics than I used to be.

[Frank Ernest]

If you count not acting like a idiot ie.BB,Frankie,Mussolini etc as doing something wrong,then you have.
When it comes to acting like an idiot, you're the far-and-away leader. :darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

If you count not acting like a idiot ie.BB,Frankie,Mussolini etc as doing something wrong,then you have.

You are a right-wing extremist,but you're one I can respect.Except perhaps on abortion, you are no bully like the coward and fascist BB,at least.

:baby:

[Morphy]

:baby:
Frank, Billy, I'm sorry but:

"You must spread some [bad] Reputation around before giving it to NuGnazi again."

:shut:

BTW: NuGnazi gave me some bad reps - shouldn't it count as positive reps? :)

I love NuGnazi :baby: such mischievous :baby:

[Morphy]

600,000+ have died in Iraq,this is approaching Pol Pot,Bush certianly deserves impeaching

600.000? Impossible. Bush is merely a national socialists, not a communist. Was he a pinko :Commie: there would be at least 1 million so far. Fortunately there is not enough NuGnazis around him.

[Wessex Man]

BTW: NuGnazi gave me some bad reps - shouldn't it count as positive reps?
Wat are you talking about,when did I do this?
600.000? Impossible. Bush is merely a national socialists, not a communist. Was he a pinko there would be at least 1 million so far. Fortunately there is not enough NuGnazis around him.
Yes like you he is a fascist,Musso.

[Chileice]

This is the thread that never ends,
Yes it goes on and on, my friend;
Some skeptic started writing it,
not knowing what it was
and we'll continue wrinting it
forever, just because...
This is the thread that never ends,
Yes it goes on and on, my friend;
Some skeptic started writing it,
not knowing what it was
and we'll continue wrinting it
forever, just because...
This is the thread that never ends,
Yes it goes on and on, my friend;
Some skeptic started writing it,
not knowing what it was
and we'll continue wrinting it
forever, just because...
This is the thread that never ends,
Yes it goes on and on, my friend;
Some skeptic started writing it,
not knowing what it was
and we'll continue wrinting it
forever, just because...
This is the thread that never ends....

[Frank Ernest]

Frank, Billy, I'm sorry but:

"You must spread some [bad] Reputation around before giving it to NuGnazi again."

:shut:

BTW: NuGnazi gave me some bad reps - shouldn't it count as positive reps? :)

I love NuGnazi :baby: such mischievous :baby:
:idunno: I don't think you need to worry about NuGnazi's neg reps.

NuGnazi:
Rep Power: 0
Reputation: -203956

:darwinsm: :mock:NuGnazi

[BillyBob]

:devil:

[Morphy]

:idunno: I don't think you need to worry about NuGnazi's neg reps.

NuGnazi:
Rep Power: 0
Reputation: -203956

I don't worry about it :) What I'm saying is if NuGnazi thinks you're wrong it means you're right thus if he gives bad reps it should count as positive reps :)



:darwinsm: :mock:NuGnazi
:up:

[Morphy]

Wat are you talking about,when did I do this?


This is exactly what I'm saying - you can read but you don't understand what you read...

:mock: NuGnazi

[wholearmor]

Why Bush should be impeached?

Here's one reason why. (http://www.stopspp.org/)

[aikido7]

Why Bush should be impeached?

Here's one reason why. (http://www.stopspp.org/)It's good to see this. Why have we forgot what "national security" is all about?

A few years ago Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox cooked this up to secretly boost Mexico's economy under the guise of "immigration reform." This should have been looked at more deeply. There were some liberal/Democratic criticisms at the time but they went nowhere.

Here's another link about the plan:

http://www.cofcc.org/index_old.php?start_from=15&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=&

[wholearmor]

It's good to see this. Why have we forgot what "national security" is all about?

A few years ago Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox cooked this up to secretly boost Mexico's economy under the guise of "immigration reform." This should have been looked at more deeply. There were some liberal/Democratic criticisms at the time but they went nowhere.

Here's another link about the plan:

http://www.cofcc.org/index_old.php?start_from=15&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=&

Thanks for that link, aikido7. I hadn't discovered that site yet.

[ParsonJefferson]

It's good to see this. Why have we forgot what "national security" is all about?

A few years ago Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox cooked this up to secretly boost Mexico's economy under the guise of "immigration reform." This should have been looked at more deeply. There were some liberal/Democratic criticisms at the time but they went nowhere.

Here's another link about the plan:

http://www.cofcc.org/index_old.php?start_from=15&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=&


Regardless of how much you might hate Bush, and despise immigrants from Mexico, this one fact remains: Until there is some reason for Mexicans to stay in Mexico, we will NOT be able to keep them out of the United States. In other words, there have to be jobs, potential income, and a decent standard of living possible in Mexico or your rank & file Mexicans HAVE to do something different to survive!

[wholearmor]

Regardless of how much you might hate Bush, and despise immigrants from Mexico, this one fact remains: Until there is some reason for Mexicans to stay in Mexico, we will NOT be able to keep them out of the United States. In other words, there have to be jobs, potential income, and a decent standard of living possible in Mexico or your rank & file Mexicans HAVE to do something different to survive!
So do you think the SPP is the answer to Mexicans wanting to stay in Mexico?

[aikido7]

Regardless of how much you might hate Bush, and despise immigrants from Mexico, this one fact remains: Until there is some reason for Mexicans to stay in Mexico, we will NOT be able to keep them out of the United States. In other words, there have to be jobs, potential income, and a decent standard of living possible in Mexico or your rank & file Mexicans HAVE to do something different to survive!I don't hate Bush. And the whole point of Bush and Vicente Fox's plan was to help Mexico's economy so that potential immigrants to the US would stay.

[ParsonJefferson]

So do you think the SPP is the answer to Mexicans wanting to stay in Mexico?
Not necessarily.

I don't have all the answers, nor will I ever claim that I do. However, one thing I DO know is that you cannot expect Mexicans to stay in Mexico where there are no jobs, no income, no safety, and no hope for the future.

Until life - and the prospect of a better life - improves in Mexico, we will NEVER solve our immigration problems in the United States.

[HerodionRomulus]

Not necessarily.

I don't have all the answers, nor will I ever claim that I do. However, one thing I DO know is that you cannot expect Mexicans to stay in Mexico where there are no jobs, no income, no safety, and no hope for the future.

Until life - and the prospect of a better life - improves in Mexico, we will NEVER solve our immigration problems in the United States.


True. We can minimize the problem by enforcement of employment laws, we can actually patrol the border but those are just stop-gap measures.

We need to back off on our massive rush to invest in Red China. Red China is no friend to the US.
Instead we should encourage new investment in México (without exporting US jobs) and México needs to stop pushing it's people to move to the US.

[aikido7]

Well, lo and behold! I never thought I'd ever see the day. But even in my hardcore Republican run hometown, many conservatives are quietly sneaking away from the sing-along around the campfire of George Bush's war-crazed hootenanny. Most of them are ordinary bona fide conservatives. But others slipping off under cover of darkness are among our richest Republicans who profiteered mightily in the security, construction and service businesses that sprouted like mushrooms from every aspect of the Iraq War. Either they have suddenly developed a steak of conscience, or they simply don't want to be associated with the trail of crime, blood and feces Bush and his cronies have obviously tracked across the carpet of American history. My bet is on the latter....


http://counterpunch.org/bageant05122007.html

[Frank Ernest]

Well, lo and behold! I never thought I'd ever see the day. But even in my hardcore Republican run hometown, many conservatives are quietly sneaking away from the sing-along around the campfire of George Bush's war-crazed hootenanny. Most of them are ordinary bona fide conservatives. But others slipping off under cover of darkness are among our richest Republicans who profiteered mightily in the security, construction and service businesses that sprouted like mushrooms from every aspect of the Iraq War. Either they have suddenly developed a steak of conscience, or they simply don't want to be associated with the trail of crime, blood and feces Bush and his cronies have obviously tracked across the carpet of American history. My bet is on the latter....


http://counterpunch.org/bageant05122007.html
Read the essay. :darwinsm:

[wholearmor]

Not necessarily.

...one thing I DO know is that you cannot expect Mexicans to stay in Mexico where there are no jobs, no income, no safety, and no hope for the future.



Yes I can, and I do, by fence, force, or whatever it takes. I'm a law abiding citizen and I expect everyone else that's here to be as well. Otherwise, can you say, "anarchy?"

[aikido7]

Why impeach?


http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/?utm_source=Huff%2Bpost&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=300x250&utm_campaign=NEIS

[Quincy]

i just happen to think he is an idiot who shouldnt be there in the first place. the way things are set up give conservatives an advantage, with how certain states are worth more electorial votes. but i choose to not think of government 90% of the time and him even less so as long as he dont come knocking on my door i really care less what happens to him. its a shame what is happening to innocent people in iraq though, and it almost makes me wish there was a heaven or hell just so i could watch him burn.

[aikido7]

Impeach the Wizard of the Waterboard:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/127.html

[aikido7]

Bush as dictator. It used to be a joke.

Why not impeach?

The Congressional Democrats offered several excuses for keeping impeachment “off the table.”

One familiar response (even by such estimable Senators as Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders), is that following a successful impeachment in the House, the Senate would surely not convict.

Two replies come to mind: (1) Don’t be so sure of that. When the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon began in the House Judiciary Committee, the Republican Senators were solidly against conviction and removal. All that changed when the evidence was brought forth and the public responded. (2) So what if the Senate fails to convict? When the Republican Congress filed impeachment charges against Clinton, they knew full well that it would never get the necessary 67 votes for conviction in the Senate. It would suffice, they assumed, to drag Clinton’s name and behavior through the mud. Of course, they failed to correctly anticipate the public response. In the case of Bush and Cheney, it will be quite enough to expose their treason and their numerous “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Senators who vote against conviction will then have to justify those votes in the next election.

Another dodge is that impeachment would distract the House and the Senate and, as Russ Feingold argues, “put important issues facing our country on the back burner.”

But what “issues” are more important than restoring the Constitution and the rule of law, and saving our republic from dictatorship? Moreover, as Feingold fails to tell us, in any case the Senate Republicans are succeeding in keeping these “important issues ... on the back burner.” The devious GOP strategy is to see to it that, by means of filibuster and cloture, Congress “does nothing,” so that the GOP can run in 2008 on the charge that this was a “do nothing Democratic Congress.” If the Senate Republican continue at their current rate, by the end of this Congress they will have forced 153 cloture votes – almost three times the previous record.

The final excuse for keeping impeachment “off the table,” is “just be patient, the term of Bush/Cheney, Inc. will end in January, 2009. And there are strong indications that the GOP will be crushed in the 2008 election, and that a Democratic will occupy the White House. Then, our long national nightmare will be over.”

The almost universal and unexamined assumption that an “ordinary” Presidential election will take place in November, 2008, is extremely dangerous. We have always had our quadrennial Presidential elections, so why not assume that the next will take place in 2008? We must assume that it might not, because the consequences of a Democratic victory in 2008 would exact an extraordinary cost to the losers, and because they have put in place the means to cancel that election.

What “cost”? Put simply, the loss of ill-gained fortunes, and still worse the likely conviction and imprisonment of numerous neo-cons, Busheviks and corporate fellow-travelers. To prevent which, either the Busheviks must remain in power after 2009 (presumably by canceling the election), or the Bush/Cheney regime must be succeeded by a GOP Administration and Congress that can reliably shut down investigations and prosecutions. And to accomplish that, a mainstream media blitz and widespread election fraud will be necessary.

What fortunes and what crimes?
The wealthiest one percent of the population has been given huge tax cuts, while the tax burden of the rest of the population has held steady. As a result, from 2001 to 2006, that fortunate one percent enjoyed, on average, a net gain of $30,352, while the remaining 99% suffered net losses. (“Net gain/losses” combines tax breaks with share of federal deficit acquired 2001-2006). With the Democrats in control, the era of “tax-cut and borrow” will end, and the wealthiest will once again be required to pay their fair share of federal tax revenue. The flow of cash from the poor and middle class to the hugely wealthy will be reversed.


Billions of dollars of “Iraq reconstruction” funds have simply been “lost,” with no accounting of where they have gone. But surely, these have gone into the pockets of corrupt politicians, Iraqi and American, and to numerous “no bid” contractors. A Democratic Congress and Justice Department could be expected to relentlessly investigate these losses, resulting, no doubt, in numerous indictments and convictions.


At last, we would know the identities of the individuals who disclosed the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. In fact, we are quite obvious now that the culprits included: Karl Rove, “Scooter” Libby, and Dick Cheney. That disclosure was a federal crime, which stipulates prison time on conviction.


A Democratic Congress and Justice Department would be able to track down, indict and convict many individuals who conspired to steal the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, and in addition numerous Congressional elections in 2002 and 2006. More convictions would follow, not only of corrupt politicians, but also their collaborators in the electronic voting industry.


The American public, fed-up with one-party propaganda masquerading as “journalism,” spewed out by five mega-corporations, would at last demand the break-up of these conglomerates, and a return to local and diverse media. The public, which in fact owns the airwaves, would demand that the broadcast media obey the FCC requirement that they “serve the public interest and necessity.” With the abolition of the right-wing "Ministry of Truth," informed public debate would return.


Lying to Congress and to federal officials is a crime that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and many other Bushistas have clearly committed on numerous occasions, and for which they would be vulnerable to indictment.


Aggressive war and torture are not only federal crimes, they are also international crimes. An interesting feature of these crimes, is that they may be beyond the reach of Presidential pardons. The International Criminal Court in the Hague does not recognize Presidential pardons.


There is much more, but this list suffices to make the point: The Presidential election of 2008 portends a disaster for the GOP, the Bush Administration, and their corporate sponsors – a disaster of unprecedented proportions. The losers will not, as in previous elections, simply find opulent sinecures in “the private sector,” and comfortable retirement and status as “elder statesmen.” Instead they will be facing the loss of their ill-gained fortunes and even of their freedom, as they are brought before the bar of justice.

And well they know this. Worse still, they may be in a position to prevent it. And here is how they might:

Bush’s “National Continuity Policy, issued May 9, states, in effect, that in the event of a “catastrophic emergency,” which might mean a terrorist attack or natural disaster, within "the homeland” or abroad, the President could, as a “unitary executive,” seize near dictatorial powers. This means that another hurricane of Katrina size, or a Richter-7 earthquake, or even a massive civil disobedient protest, could trigger the onset of a Bush dictatorship.

Still worse, in the recently issued executive order, Bush has decreed that

due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency...

Accordingly, the federal government may seize

All property and interests in property of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence...

Is the organization of a mass demonstration an “act of violence”? And what is to be done with individuals who give “aid and comfort to the enemy.” Last week, Defense Under-Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman sent a letter to Hillary Clinton, warning that

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.

Is Senator Clinton in danger of losing all her property, and perchance her freedom? “Of course not, they wouldn’t dare.” Quite so. But “they wouldn’t dare” is not a sound guarantee against arbitrary abuse of power by the government. Once upon a time, we had a Constitution to protect our freedoms. But Bush has told us that it is "just a piece of paper." And, in his administration, it appears that it is merely that.

And note too that phrase, “or to pose a significant risk.” Here we have nothing less than an excuse to prosecute “pre-crime” – the mere possibility of criminal conduct. This nightmare option, vividly portrayed in the 2002 movie “Minority Report,” is a fundamental feature of totalitarian regimes.

Add to this, the “Military Commissions Act” which effectively abolished habeas corpus for suspected terrorists and “terrorist sympathizers.” Protest the Iraq occupation, and you might be labeled a “terrorist sympathizer” and thus subject to arbitrary arrest and indefinite incarceration without access to counsel.

Bush’s “decrees” (“executive orders”) are noteworthy for their vagueness, and Bush is notorious for reaching far beyond the letter of the law and of treaties. He claimed that he had United Nations permission to attack Iraq. He did not. The infamous Congressional authorization for the Iraq war was contingent upon a written “determination” from the White House. As John Dean clearly points out, Bush’s “determination” was a pack of lies, and failed to meet the conditions of the authorization. It was, says Dean, an impeachable offence. (Worse than Watergate, 140-156).

Can Bush seize totalitarian power, triggered, perhaps, by another terrorist attack, real or connived, or by a natural disaster, or by an attack on Iran?

Who is to stop him? The federal judiciary? Bush owns it, as we have seen with the recent Supreme Court decisions, and the dismissal of the Plame/Wilson civil action against the Busheviks. The Congress? Bush has said, straight out, that he will ignore any and all Congressional subpoenas for documents or testimony. And acts of Congress, as we well know, are (as Bush said of the Constitution) mere “scraps of paper.” For with his “signing statements,” he has said, in effect, “I will obey or not obey this law as I see fit.” Thus, unless it forcefully reclaims its Constitutional powers and independence, the Congress will be reduced to the status of the Supreme Soviet under Josef Stalin.

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan, has noted with alarm that Bush and Cheney, fully aware that electoral catastrophe faces the Republicans in 2008, seem utterly unconcerned with this prospect, or with the likelihood that, under ordinary (i.e. honest) electoral conditions, a Democratic President in 2009 is a near-certainty.

Do they know something that we don’t know? Roberts thinks they might. He strongly suspects that the Busheviks are expecting, counting on, and perhaps even preparing some interim catastrophe that will once again unite the country behind “the Commander in Chief,” and provide an excuse to cancel the 2008 election. In short, he suggests that the near-universal belief that in 2008 there will be another election just has there have been for the past 220 years, may lead us all to “the end of Constitutional Democracy.”

Perhaps not. Perhaps this will be an ordinary election, resulting in large Democratic majorities in Congress, and a Democratic Administration. Following that, a roundup, prosecution and imprisonment of numerous scoundrels who have defiled our government throughout the two full terms of Bush’s presidency.

But do we dare believe this?

Don’t bet your freedom and our republic on this comfortable assumption. Be prepared for a desperate grab for permanent, dictatorial power aimed, among other things, at protecting the corporatocracy, the acquired wealth, and the freedom from prosecution of those now in power, and who have acquired the means to seize total power.

What, then, is to be done?

First of all, keep the pressure on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. John Conyers says that with three more Congressional sponsors, he will initiate impeachment proceedings. But yesterday, when confronted in his office by Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, Ray McGovern among hundreds of protesters, Conyers apparently reneged on that promise. Contact Conyers at 202-225-5126, or your member of Congress at 202-224-3121.

Spread the word, far and wide, that we must expect another “Pearl Harbor” event, followed by a call for “unity behind the President” and the seizure of dictatorial powers. The more the public anticipates this beforehand, the more likely that the public will be able to resist it.

And let us all fervently hope that if a fake “remember the Maine!,” or “Gulf of Tonkin attack” is in preparation, that someone in the know will have the courage and patriotic motivation to expose it in time.

Surely there is much more that we the people can do to inoculate ourselves against the demise of our freedom and the onset of tyranny.

Share your ideas! Send them to crisispapers@hotmail.com, and we will publish them

Ben Franklin was right: we have a Republic if we can keep it. And we may be on the verge of losing it.

--by Ernest Partridge
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays7p/republic.htm

[Frank Ernest]

Bush as dictator. It used to be a joke.

Why not impeach?

The Congressional Democrats offered several excuses for keeping impeachment “off the table.”

One familiar response (even by such estimable Senators as Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders), is that following a successful impeachment in the House, the Senate would surely not convict.

Two replies come to mind: (1) Don’t be so sure of that. When the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon began in the House Judiciary Committee, the Republican Senators were solidly against conviction and removal. All that changed when the evidence was brought forth and the public responded. (2) So what if the Senate fails to convict? When the Republican Congress filed impeachment charges against Clinton, they knew full well that it would never get the necessary 67 votes for conviction in the Senate. It would suffice, they assumed, to drag Clinton’s name and behavior through the mud. Of course, they failed to correctly anticipate the public response. In the case of Bush and Cheney, it will be quite enough to expose their treason and their numerous “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Senators who vote against conviction will then have to justify those votes in the next election.

Another dodge is that impeachment would distract the House and the Senate and, as Russ Feingold argues, “put important issues facing our country on the back burner.”

But what “issues” are more important than restoring the Constitution and the rule of law, and saving our republic from dictatorship? Moreover, as Feingold fails to tell us, in any case the Senate Republicans are succeeding in keeping these “important issues ... on the back burner.” The devious GOP strategy is to see to it that, by means of filibuster and cloture, Congress “does nothing,” so that the GOP can run in 2008 on the charge that this was a “do nothing Democratic Congress.” If the Senate Republican continue at their current rate, by the end of this Congress they will have forced 153 cloture votes – almost three times the previous record.

The final excuse for keeping impeachment “off the table,” is “just be patient, the term of Bush/Cheney, Inc. will end in January, 2009. And there are strong indications that the GOP will be crushed in the 2008 election, and that a Democratic will occupy the White House. Then, our long national nightmare will be over.”

The almost universal and unexamined assumption that an “ordinary” Presidential election will take place in November, 2008, is extremely dangerous. We have always had our quadrennial Presidential elections, so why not assume that the next will take place in 2008? We must assume that it might not, because the consequences of a Democratic victory in 2008 would exact an extraordinary cost to the losers, and because they have put in place the means to cancel that election.

What “cost”? Put simply, the loss of ill-gained fortunes, and still worse the likely conviction and imprisonment of numerous neo-cons, Busheviks and corporate fellow-travelers. To prevent which, either the Busheviks must remain in power after 2009 (presumably by canceling the election), or the Bush/Cheney regime must be succeeded by a GOP Administration and Congress that can reliably shut down investigations and prosecutions. And to accomplish that, a mainstream media blitz and widespread election fraud will be necessary.

What fortunes and what crimes?
The wealthiest one percent of the population has been given huge tax cuts, while the tax burden of the rest of the population has held steady. As a result, from 2001 to 2006, that fortunate one percent enjoyed, on average, a net gain of $30,352, while the remaining 99% suffered net losses. (“Net gain/losses” combines tax breaks with share of federal deficit acquired 2001-2006). With the Democrats in control, the era of “tax-cut and borrow” will end, and the wealthiest will once again be required to pay their fair share of federal tax revenue. The flow of cash from the poor and middle class to the hugely wealthy will be reversed.


Billions of dollars of “Iraq reconstruction” funds have simply been “lost,” with no accounting of where they have gone. But surely, these have gone into the pockets of corrupt politicians, Iraqi and American, and to numerous “no bid” contractors. A Democratic Congress and Justice Department could be expected to relentlessly investigate these losses, resulting, no doubt, in numerous indictments and convictions.


At last, we would know the identities of the individuals who disclosed the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. In fact, we are quite obvious now that the culprits included: Karl Rove, “Scooter” Libby, and Dick Cheney. That disclosure was a federal crime, which stipulates prison time on conviction.


A Democratic Congress and Justice Department would be able to track down, indict and convict many individuals who conspired to steal the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, and in addition numerous Congressional elections in 2002 and 2006. More convictions would follow, not only of corrupt politicians, but also their collaborators in the electronic voting industry.


The American public, fed-up with one-party propaganda masquerading as “journalism,” spewed out by five mega-corporations, would at last demand the break-up of these conglomerates, and a return to local and diverse media. The public, which in fact owns the airwaves, would demand that the broadcast media obey the FCC requirement that they “serve the public interest and necessity.” With the abolition of the right-wing "Ministry of Truth," informed public debate would return.


Lying to Congress and to federal officials is a crime that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and many other Bushistas have clearly committed on numerous occasions, and for which they would be vulnerable to indictment.


Aggressive war and torture are not only federal crimes, they are also international crimes. An interesting feature of these crimes, is that they may be beyond the reach of Presidential pardons. The International Criminal Court in the Hague does not recognize Presidential pardons.


There is much more, but this list suffices to make the point: The Presidential election of 2008 portends a disaster for the GOP, the Bush Administration, and their corporate sponsors – a disaster of unprecedented proportions. The losers will not, as in previous elections, simply find opulent sinecures in “the private sector,” and comfortable retirement and status as “elder statesmen.” Instead they will be facing the loss of their ill-gained fortunes and even of their freedom, as they are brought before the bar of justice.

And well they know this. Worse still, they may be in a position to prevent it. And here is how they might:

Bush’s “National Continuity Policy, issued May 9, states, in effect, that in the event of a “catastrophic emergency,” which might mean a terrorist attack or natural disaster, within "the homeland” or abroad, the President could, as a “unitary executive,” seize near dictatorial powers. This means that another hurricane of Katrina size, or a Richter-7 earthquake, or even a massive civil disobedient protest, could trigger the onset of a Bush dictatorship.

Still worse, in the recently issued executive order, Bush has decreed that

due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency...

Accordingly, the federal government may seize

All property and interests in property of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence...

Is the organization of a mass demonstration an “act of violence”? And what is to be done with individuals who give “aid and comfort to the enemy.” Last week, Defense Under-Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman sent a letter to Hillary Clinton, warning that

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.

Is Senator Clinton in danger of losing all her property, and perchance her freedom? “Of course not, they wouldn’t dare.” Quite so. But “they wouldn’t dare” is not a sound guarantee against arbitrary abuse of power by the government. Once upon a time, we had a Constitution to protect our freedoms. But Bush has told us that it is "just a piece of paper." And, in his administration, it appears that it is merely that.

And note too that phrase, “or to pose a significant risk.” Here we have nothing less than an excuse to prosecute “pre-crime” – the mere possibility of criminal conduct. This nightmare option, vividly portrayed in the 2002 movie “Minority Report,” is a fundamental feature of totalitarian regimes.

Add to this, the “Military Commissions Act” which effectively abolished habeas corpus for suspected terrorists and “terrorist sympathizers.” Protest the Iraq occupation, and you might be labeled a “terrorist sympathizer” and thus subject to arbitrary arrest and indefinite incarceration without access to counsel.

Bush’s “decrees” (“executive orders”) are noteworthy for their vagueness, and Bush is notorious for reaching far beyond the letter of the law and of treaties. He claimed that he had United Nations permission to attack Iraq. He did not. The infamous Congressional authorization for the Iraq war was contingent upon a written “determination” from the White House. As John Dean clearly points out, Bush’s “determination” was a pack of lies, and failed to meet the conditions of the authorization. It was, says Dean, an impeachable offence. (Worse than Watergate, 140-156).

Can Bush seize totalitarian power, triggered, perhaps, by another terrorist attack, real or connived, or by a natural disaster, or by an attack on Iran?

Who is to stop him? The federal judiciary? Bush owns it, as we have seen with the recent Supreme Court decisions, and the dismissal of the Plame/Wilson civil action against the Busheviks. The Congress? Bush has said, straight out, that he will ignore any and all Congressional subpoenas for documents or testimony. And acts of Congress, as we well know, are (as Bush said of the Constitution) mere “scraps of paper.” For with his “signing statements,” he has said, in effect, “I will obey or not obey this law as I see fit.” Thus, unless it forcefully reclaims its Constitutional powers and independence, the Congress will be reduced to the status of the Supreme Soviet under Josef Stalin.

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan, has noted with alarm that Bush and Cheney, fully aware that electoral catastrophe faces the Republicans in 2008, seem utterly unconcerned with this prospect, or with the likelihood that, under ordinary (i.e. honest) electoral conditions, a Democratic President in 2009 is a near-certainty.

Do they know something that we don’t know? Roberts thinks they might. He strongly suspects that the Busheviks are expecting, counting on, and perhaps even preparing some interim catastrophe that will once again unite the country behind “the Commander in Chief,” and provide an excuse to cancel the 2008 election. In short, he suggests that the near-universal belief that in 2008 there will be another election just has there have been for the past 220 years, may lead us all to “the end of Constitutional Democracy.”

Perhaps not. Perhaps this will be an ordinary election, resulting in large Democratic majorities in Congress, and a Democratic Administration. Following that, a roundup, prosecution and imprisonment of numerous scoundrels who have defiled our government throughout the two full terms of Bush’s presidency.

But do we dare believe this?

Don’t bet your freedom and our republic on this comfortable assumption. Be prepared for a desperate grab for permanent, dictatorial power aimed, among other things, at protecting the corporatocracy, the acquired wealth, and the freedom from prosecution of those now in power, and who have acquired the means to seize total power.

What, then, is to be done?

First of all, keep the pressure on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. John Conyers says that with three more Congressional sponsors, he will initiate impeachment proceedings. But yesterday, when confronted in his office by Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, Ray McGovern among hundreds of protesters, Conyers apparently reneged on that promise. Contact Conyers at 202-225-5126, or your member of Congress at 202-224-3121.

Spread the word, far and wide, that we must expect another “Pearl Harbor” event, followed by a call for “unity behind the President” and the seizure of dictatorial powers. The more the public anticipates this beforehand, the more likely that the public will be able to resist it.

And let us all fervently hope that if a fake “remember the Maine!,” or “Gulf of Tonkin attack” is in preparation, that someone in the know will have the courage and patriotic motivation to expose it in time.

Surely there is much more that we the people can do to inoculate ourselves against the demise of our freedom and the onset of tyranny.

Share your ideas! Send them to crisispapers@hotmail.com, and we will publish them

Ben Franklin was right: we have a Republic if we can keep it. And we may be on the verge of losing it.

--by Ernest Partridge
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays7p/republic.htm
:darwinsm: :Commie:

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: :Commie:I am really suprised you are just posting smilies here. I miss your usual careful and trenchant deconstruction of specific points.

Hey--have you heard that Michael Moore is fat?;)

[Frank Ernest]

I am really suprised you are just posting smilies here. I miss your usual careful and trenchant deconstruction of specific points.
You were all over the map with this one. Mostly recycled. I did like the Ben Franklin twist.

Hey--have you heard that Michael Moore is fat?;)
:darwinsm: I've heard his latest propaganda flick is somewhat autobiographical -- the title at least.

[Chileice]

What if Clinton had said "Oh, don't worry, I didn't have sex with that woman, and I'm not lying to the American public about it.", and Congress simply believed him, because he is, well, the President, and did not impeach him?

Nothing would really have changed, other than the fact that we would not know something about the President's sex life that many of us would rather not know anyway.

But, what if a President goes to war and almost 200 American troops are killed, as well as many thousands of Iraqis, and we discover that it is very possible that the President lied to the American public and Congress about the reasons and justification for going to war? Wouldn't this be at least as good a reason, if not a far greater reason, to begin televised hearings that might lead to impeachment? Doesn't the American public deserve to know the truth about Bush's actions at least as much as they needed to know about Clinton's actions?

True American patriots will demand an immediate investigation and Congressional hearings!

Skeptic,
I must congratulate you. You were FOUR years ahead of your time. It is amazing how much buzz this impeachment idea is beginning to get. I noticed on the Seattle post-Intelligencer site that it was the number one topic that people are clicking on. I really thought you were fighting a ridiculous uphill battle when you started this thread all so long ago... but who knows?? It might just happen....
If Bush doesn't die of cancer first (see Omega's weird thread).

[aikido7]

Skeptic,
I must congratulate you. You were FOUR years ahead of your time... Skepticism is a necessary survival tool. Those who fear its world-shattering attributes don't realize they will see beyond the artificial sham and be able to glimpse the new God-given world behind the debris.

[Frank Ernest]

Skepticism is a necessary survival tool. Those who fear its world-shattering attributes don't realize they will see beyond the artificial sham and be able to glimpse the new God-given world behind the debris.
:rotfl:
The prose flows.
And no one knows,
Where it goes.

[aikido7]

:rotfl:
The prose flows.
And no one knows,
Where it goes.Hmmm... I gotta be skeptical on that.;)

[koban]

Why don't all the Christians Quit and leave KOBAN to play with himself.



Classic Misty7 quote, back when Omega was pretending to have left the site "for a thousand years"! :darwinsm:

[koban]

KOBAN isn't in the Bible so how can you believe any thing that he says.



And another piece of evidence of Omega/Misty7's obesession with me. :wave2:

[Frank Ernest]

And George Bush is still President.

[chrysostom]

I really like Bush

He seems to be smarter than the others

[Jukia]

And George Bush is still President.

For only 208 more days. Wonder how much he can screw up in that time period, scary thought.

[Jukia]

I really like Bush

He seems to be smarter than the others

Smarter than the other what? Rocks, dandelions, oysters?

[chrysostom]

For only 208 more days. Wonder how much he can screw up in that time period, scary thought.

I think you should leave the country

[Jukia]

I think you should leave the country

Why? Because I am not in lock step with you?

[chrysostom]

Why? Because I am not in lock step with you?

No, because you are in lock step with Hollywood

[Jukia]

No, because you are in lock step with Hollywood

Interesting. Never been there. But I am unaware of any reason why people in Hollywood should leave the country. I am aware of the fact that most of the country agrees with my assessment of W. Sorry if you are offended by that assessment. suggesting that someone leave the country because they do not agree with you is, well un-American.

It seems to me that W lacks a certain amount of intellect. His command of the English language is weak, his ability to recognize error is non existent. He has spent the $, talent, young people, and the good will of the US in manners that are simply unacceptable. He left his oil business a mess, left Texas a mess, now he leaves the US a mess. He tried to be a bully on the international scene, it did not work. His administration believed God was on its side, I suggest they were wrong. I used to think that he would make a good baseball commissioner, not anymore, I like baseball too much.

[chrysostom]

Interesting. Never been there. But I am unaware of any reason why people in Hollywood should leave the country. I am aware of the fact that most of the country agrees with my assessment of W. Sorry if you are offended by that assessment. suggesting that someone leave the country because they do not agree with you is, well un-American.

It seems to me that W lacks a certain amount of intellect. His command of the English language is weak, his ability to recognize error is non existent. He has spent the $, talent, young people, and the good will of the US in manners that are simply unacceptable. He left his oil business a mess, left Texas a mess, now he leaves the US a mess. He tried to be a bully on the international scene, it did not work. His administration believed God was on its side, I suggest they were wrong. I used to think that he would make a good baseball commissioner, not anymore, I like baseball too much.

You will have to excuse me because I think killing babies before they are born is
more important than letting terrorists go free

But that is just me

[koban]

For only 208 more days. Wonder how much he can screw up in that time period, scary thought.



I sure hope he doesn't get elected again! :chuckle:

[Rusha]

You will have to excuse me because I think killing babies before they are born is more important than letting terrorists go free

But that is just me

What terrorists have gone free? You seem to forget that we went to the *supposed* terrorists ... they didn't come here. What terroristic act do you believe we are responding to?

Do you grieve for any *babies* that are accident casualities in Bush's War on Terror (aka Oil War)? If not, why do those LIVE babies, children and all the innocents killed there mean so little to you?

Why are some innocent lives acceptable losses but others aren't. How are you choosing? Is it based on religion, color, etc?

Oh and before I forget to ask ... where, oh where are all those weapons of mass destruction?

[Jukia]

What terrorists have gone free? You seem to forget that we went to the *supposed* terrorists ... they didn't come here. What terroristic act do you believe we are responding to?

Do you grieve for any *babies* that are accident casualities in Bush's War on Terror (aka Oil War)? If not, why do those LIVE babies, children and all the innocents killed there mean so little to you?

Why are some innocent lives acceptable losses but others aren't. How are you choosing? Is it based on religion, color, etc?

Oh and before I forget to ask ... where, oh where are all those weapons of mass destruction?

Perhaps he is referring to the recent Supreme Court habeas decision. The complaint being that American laws should only apply to Americans, not those funny looking people with the silly alphabet.

As to the WMD's I recall Rummy or the Vice claiming we knew where they were so ask one of them. What an incompentent bunch.

[Frank Ernest]

I sure hope he doesn't get elected again! :chuckle:
Well, I sure ain't votin' for him!

[aikido7]

Well, I sure ain't votin' for him!How soon you forget the many tongue baths you gave him. ;)

[Frank Ernest]

How soon you forget the many tongue baths you gave him. ;)
:darwinsm: Didn't do that. It was more fun watching you :Commie:s destroy yourselves. How many slam-dunk impeachment moves? How many baseless criminal allegations? How many slanders and lies? How many times did y'all jump up with "We got him now!" only to discover you'd been outwitted, out-maneuvered, undone and rendered toothless. All because the current Prez has an "R" after his name.

Anger and bitterness have a high price. Through paying yet?

[Delmar]

For only 208 more days. Wonder how much he can screw up in that time period, scary thought.
He could bomb Iran, I guess.