Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense
Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense
Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him.
QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?
BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want — I don’t need to consult any other branches — that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.
(Listen to The Diane Rehm show here. The segment above begins at 33:40)
UPDATE:
More from Knight-Ridder:
[Bush's] explanation fueled more anger over the domestic spying, and some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment.
“The president’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law. “When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Hotline Blog is tracking the “I” word.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
221 Responses to “Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
HOLY SHIT!! Coming from those guys maybe it will carry a little weight with the conservatives that seem to be in denial of their alleged principles.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:05 pmPress on Russ Feingold et. al. Let's finally bring these fascists under control.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:10 pmIntellectual Honesty - WOW
December 20th, 2005 at 3:13 pmOh please, what kind of a conservative is Bruce Fein? Illegal spying on Americans is more dangerous than lying about sex? That's just crazy talk.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:14 pmwe wish it carried weight. And it may very well be important to John & Jim Q Public in the '06 elections. Party leaders, on the other hand, think '06 is lightyears away and they think they can sweep this under the rug by '06. They will undoubtably try to swiftboat SOMEBODY to create a stir. Possibly bring up some anti gay marriage proposals to save themselves, or more fundamentally, attack some other poor putz of a country in the name of liberty and motherhood and expect that 60 day eyeglaze period to wash them through the next elections.
Put simply, the don't give two shits about what John & Jim think. To them it's all about supporting our boy up there, right or wrong!
'06 can't come soon enough. Can we get a daylight savings month or season in '06 please?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:17 pmThe house of cards is coming down. Have there been any post spygate polls out yet?
It's great to see people with a far greater knowledge of the law than I indicate that Bush's spygate is impeachable.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:39 pm"Oh please, what kind of a conservative is Bruce Fein? Illegal spying on Americans is more dangerous than lying about sex? That’s just crazy talk"
You've GOT to be kidding?! Uh, we have President Clinton who lied about sex with an intern....that amounts to a personal and moral issue that in the long run ONLY affected his marital relationship. Did anyone get their rights infringed upon because of an Altoid and blue dress? No way!!
President Bush's action DEFIES OUR CONSTITUTION!!!! Lying about sex sure doesn't appear in the Constitution and well, he got caught! Presidents as far back as Thomas Jefferson were having affairs and lying about them! He was a founding father and one of those men responsible for our Constitution! Nobody tried to impeach HIM.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:41 pmUhmm, Richard ... he was kidding.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:42 pmYes, considering that Arlen Specter has said he can't see the constitutionality of it, it looks to me like we will be singing the impeachment song, real soon.
The good thing about impeaching Bush, is we will show the world, who has been laughing at our democracy since Bush started his holy war against terror, will now see that our system works.
We clean up our own garbage, and when we throw this bum out of office, the world will stand in awe.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:43 pmIMPEACHMENT = HEALING
December 20th, 2005 at 3:43 pmKing George's subjects are deserting him. Arlen Specter wants an investigation. And now the conservative scholars think he's crazy. WOW! Bubble Boy is really in the bubble now.
Come on, Congress, let's impeach the entire administration.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:45 pmThanks Geo...damn "snark" key is on the fritz
December 20th, 2005 at 3:46 pmWhat these guys say may be interesting, but it is essentially meaningless. In reality, the Dems have a year to win back Congress (a daunting task); afterwhich impeachment can become a viable option.
This President could literally strangle an infant on live television and the Republican Congress wouldn't bat an eyelash. Oh there'll be huffing and posturing and strong words - but don't count your chickens when it comes to impeachment.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:47 pmThis is getting to be downright overwhelming. Just when you thought we were out of Bushco scandals another even bigger one immerges. Even more stunning, their defense this time is so what if we got caught we’re going to keep breaking the law.
I’m almost jaded by the abuse of power. I don’t have any mad left in me. If the voters don’t rise up against this administration after this one, we are in bigger trouble than I thought.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:48 pmNotice the lack of trolls on this thread? They won't post on this thread because they'd have to attack the republicans that have accused Dumbya of an impeachable offense. Their argument that "democrats are lying about the president" would ring hollow on this thread. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:51 pm#13 Kelly you are right, but Dems have to take back congress one seat at a time while dealing with a duped public. What TP is doing here is providing us with material to combat and convince fence sitters that the Dems need to be in charge so there can be some accountability.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:53 pm3- and from Norm Ornstein, the AEI guy. Wow, indeed.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:54 pm15. The trolls are in big trouble. Has anyone heard a comment from a constitutional scholar that this spying was legal? I haven't.
Not a lot of grey area in the interpetation of this scandal. You are either for the Prisident breaking the law or against it. I am going to go ahead a stick with the notion that leader of the executive branch should abide by the law.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:00 pmOne bad point about Impeachment is the chain of command...the foxes will still be incharge of the Hen House and the remaining Foxes are far more viscious and evil than the current lead idiot fox.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:00 pm#15 - right you are! They have no talking points, can't blame Clinton for this, so they are mysteriously absent. It's becoming harder for them by the minute to defend this crime because all of the rats are leaving this ship ... whatever excuses or justifications they're making are being shot down with - dare I say it - facts (such as the Echelon program or the allegations about Clinton's abuse of warrantless searches).
December 20th, 2005 at 4:00 pmWORFEUS #9---------I never thought of that. It's probably the only way we can earn back some respect without having to wait a century or two. Yes, it is up to us.
Specter is an opportunist if there ever was one. He must sense that the sands under Bush are shifting.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:04 pmNotice the lack of trolls on this thread?
Well ... I've been called a Troll and I'm here. I'm waiting until the specific facts come out on this NSA thing. If the NSA was used for political gain (ala Nixon), impeachment is in play.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:12 pmGeo -- What if it is found to be unconstitutional/illegal?
December 20th, 2005 at 4:16 pmGeoMetro,
Bush already admitted that the NSA was used to violate the constitution and implement warrantless searches. The 'evidence' was supplied by the president. All that's left is for you to grow enough brain cells to process the information - clearly an unlikely prospect.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:19 pmMass Liberal,
Thanks for saying that.
I think a lot of people have been buffaloed by the right for so long, that they really by this crap about disagreeing, or finding fault with the administration is somehow unamerican.
In fact, it is the very core of everything American stands for.
Our very Declaration of Independence was predicated on the principles of defying ones own government (England in that case).
I think the world, when they see the US Democracy in action, cleaning up it's own, and they see how it works, they will all stand back in awe.
Not shock, just awe.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:19 pm22 - impeacehment is in play because the administration broke the law. It doesn't matter if it was for political reasons or not.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:22 pmI think Martin Garbus has a good point on this: If Bush can get the SCOTUS to say "OK", he's free, no matter how much evidence is piled on. Anyone have a breakdown on the justices in a future battle?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-garbus/nixon-loses-bush-wins_b_12547.html
December 20th, 2005 at 4:26 pmBruce Fein turning on a Republican president must surely be a sign of the apocalypse.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:30 pmIf the NSA was used for political gain (ala Nixon), impeachment is in play.
Comment by Giacomo — December 20, 2005 @ 4:12 pm
Nice try. It looks at first like Giacomo is demonstrating reason.
But what he is really trying to do, is set the standard that only if it was used for political gain can Bush be impeached.
Go back and read the list of charges against Nixon. Bushes list will be longer.
And whether or not he used it for politcal gain, he basically impeached himself when he decided to circumvent the constitution and take supreme executive power on his own.
Maybe you are comfortable being under the rule of a supreme militaristic commander at a time of so called war, a military commander I might add that shirked his own military duty and never saw one day of battle experience, maybe you're comfortable with this type of leader at the helm, maybe that’s what helps you sleep all snuggly at night, but most of us don't need to be handheld by an omnipotent ruler.
It does not matter whether it was used for political gain, (although that would be a doosey:), or not.
Bush impeached himself when he stepped outside of the constitution and declared himself emperor.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:36 pm"...defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans..."
Americans were wire-tapped? Prove it. Who was wire-tapped? Put up or shut up.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:36 pmAndrew, "the administration broke the law."
Prove it. Specifics please.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:37 pm30. Good thing we got us a Christian preznit so we don't get lost up in the acropolis.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:39 pmWorfeus is lying. Blatantly lying. Unlike Clinton, who dodgedthe draft then lied about it, President Bush served in the military.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:39 pmTo ...
Geo — What if it is found to be unconstitutional/illegal?
and Bush already admitted that the NSA was used to violate the constitution and implement warrantless searches.
Much like criminal law can be bent like crazy, there is (I may surprise you, but I hate to say) much constitutional and Presidential mandate wiggle room here (maybe not for those here, but for those in Congress ... the ones that actually have to push the issue). Again, those here may vehemently disagree, but to get this NSA thing to really stick, personal gain, on Bush's part, needs to be shown in this thing. The Democrats will likely tread very lightly because the President will continually fall back on the 9/11 and I was protecting the nation line ... whcih will ring true with many, many people (perhaps, it shouldn't, but it will). Don't flame me please, I'm giving my opinion about how it WILL play out and not necessarily how it SHOULD.
If you want my take, I'm no Constitutional attorney, but as a Conservative, I find myself wanting to believe Bush did this to protect the nation ... I'll wait and see when ALL the facts come out (that is, those that will come out).
December 20th, 2005 at 4:40 pm“…defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans…â€
Americans were wire-tapped? Prove it. Who was wire-tapped? Put up or shut up.
Comment by wwallace — December 20, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
Nice try bozo.
But since the information has been classifed by your Gestapo, you know no one can answer that question yet.
It's just another one of your stupid, brainless Red Herrings.
BTW I-SKULLISNUMB-I
Diane Fienstein, who has access to classified data told us last night that she was denied access to that information, on the basis of security, however she has top level clearences with tickets, and normally has access to all such intel.
The time for honoring yourselves will soon be at an end, schmuck.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:40 pmWorfeus, "you know no one can answer that question yet.'
Then don't make the charge, liar.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:43 pmWorfeus is lying. Blatantly lying. Unlike Clinton, who dodgedthe draft then lied about it, President Bush served in the military.
Comment by wwallace — December 20, 2005 @ 4:39 pm
wwallace is lying, or can't read.
Maybe it's both.
But go back and read what I said dimwit.
Oh that's right, you did, which is why you neglected to cut and paste it, cause you know I didn't say it.
LOL, it's fun to watch wackywallace on the ropes.
He fights so poorly. :D
December 20th, 2005 at 4:43 pm"PNAC!" he cried, while donning his tinfoil hat. ROFL
December 20th, 2005 at 4:45 pmWorfeus, “you know no one can answer that question yet.’
Then don’t make the charge, liar.
Comment by wwallace — December 20, 2005 @ 4:43 pm
I didn't make the charge.
Your genius of a President did, schmuck.
He basically indicted himself, LMAO.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:45 pmKinda like you do in here everytime you get up enough courage to talk to me, before you go running and crying from the room.
LOL.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:46 pmReady for another clock cleaning wwallace?
Cause I got my cleaning kit out. :D
Don't cry this time though bud, it looks bad.
:D
December 20th, 2005 at 4:47 pmReady to answer my question yet?
You know, the one I have asked you day after day.
LOL. Oh yea, that's right, you answered it. You just can't recall where LMAO.
You're my favorite, bud, you're my favorite. :P
December 20th, 2005 at 4:48 pmWorfeus sure likes to pat himself on the back. LOL
But he's lying again. The president did not say he did anything illegal.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:48 pmLOL, he admitted to signing an order that permits spying on US citizens by the NSA, an agency never chartered for domestic survellience.
He is just as stupid as you, to not realize he just confessed to a crime.
What's that saying? Ignorance of the law is no excuse?
December 20th, 2005 at 4:50 pmGeo, are you saying that breaking the law is ok as long as you have the right intentions?
Having said that, there is something really fishy about this whole thing. He had the right to do what he wanted under the law, yet chose to circumvent it. It just doesn't add up.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:50 pmOr is it just ignorance?
December 20th, 2005 at 4:50 pmwwallace, your credit union just called.
They hate to tell you this but you have been declared , morally and ethically bankrupt.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:52 pmWorfeus hs not idea what the law allows, and cannot specify in any way how the president may have violated any law. He's bacically a big zero, and as such, quite at home on this site.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:53 pmThere are a number of issues at play here. Giacomo makes some sense. There is always wiggle room, especially if one can afford good lawyers. Make no mistake, the Republicans are a majority and loathe to taking on this administration. It would be extremely helpful right about now if Rove got indicted, so his influence could lessen some.
Anyway, this could be viewed as a criminal violation of the law (probably impeachable). I'm not familiar enough, but I don't think the pertinent laws here require that their be any "personal gain" to warrant charges. However, an Impeachment is not a criminal trial, and a violation of the Constitution (or a failure to uphold the Constitution) should rise to the level of an impeachable offense. (Not like sex or anything, but its still pretty serious.)
Now, thus far, what I've I've heard used to excuse this activity is the FISA Act...however, while it is long and complex, it seems to expressly exclude any surveillance activities not specifically covered in the act. So, he falls back on the "War On Terrorism" legislation as his supporting authority. Now, on its face, I don't believe that legislation granted him this authority, but even if you concede that it did, remember that Dubya declared "Mission Accomplished" a long time ago, and Dick Cheney (what, about a year ago) claimed the insurgency was in its last throes.
Given those claims, I would say that any “special†powers accrued to the Presidency by that act, have ceased due to the previous declarations of Bush and Cheney. In effect, the "emergency" is over according to them.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:06 pmbjohnm,
Re: "Mission accomplished" and "last throes". Those pertained to Iraq. The NSA issue is not related to Iraq.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:09 pmwwallace claimed recently that the iraq war was part of the war on terrorism - today he recants that lie, and displaces it with another. wwallace is clearly a compulsive liar, and hates america.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:17 pmwwallace doesn't realize america has a constitution or laws, that's why he's a nazi. :()
December 20th, 2005 at 5:17 pmGiacomo said earlier that he finds compelling the argument that Bush was doing this to protect the nation. Well, Giacomo, what other civil liberties does Bush and Co. have the right to trample on to "protect the nation"? If that is the standard--that the President's power in "time of war" is plenary and not curtailed by Constitutional or statutory limitations--then there's really NOTHING he can't do if he believes it would be in the interest of national security. Could he go and round up every Arab male? Under your standard, if he thought that would "protect the nation," then he could. That is why we have LAWS and that is why we have CHECKS and BALANCES built into our system of government, which is enshrined in the Constitution. It is shameful what this little fraction of a man has done to our country, and history will judge him harshly--and the rest of us, if he is not held accountable.
I do find it quite interesting that the Rs have no problem trampling on the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, etc. ... but they would never compromise their Second Amendment rights. (This of course assumes the Administration's position that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual rather than a collective right.) Arguably, under the President's standard, if he were going to do everything in his power to make this nation safer and if he were not going to be limited by the Bill of Rights, he would order the FBI to go door-to-door and confiscate everyone's guns. At the very LEAST, he would have signed the assault weapons ban and closed the gun show loophole to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. He has shown he doesn't believe he needs an act of Congress to encroach on civil liberties. Why hasn't he done this?
December 20th, 2005 at 5:21 pmThink about this:
Bush is unrepentant and won't apologize,
Stanley Tookie Williams was executed -- not granted clemency -- because he would not "apologize", that is, he was unrepentant.
Swartzenegger said that he wouldn't grant clemency based on this.
What's the difference?
Bush admitted to ordering the deaths of "30,000 Iraqis" in the invasion and war.
Tookie Williams was convicted of killing four people.
If the House and Senate won't act, the people must: Citizen Impeachment Hearings must begin after the House and Senate come back from holiday break.
This needs to happen to save our country.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:23 pmNLCD,
GeoMetro forgets that italians are disproportionaly associated with 'mafia' and other 'criminal terrorist' activities. would he submit that the president has a right to violate all of his rights, and put him in a box just because he's italian? surely he wouldn't mind that kind of profiling, invasion of privacy, and close observation of his private life - he certainly has nothing to hide, right?
GeoMetro is a fool.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:29 pmFor the first time in American history we have an admitted felon for president. This should not suprise anyone, he has a significant history of arrests and crimes.
This of course is not his first crime as president, but it is the first that he has admitted to. Apology is inadequate. Impeachment is just a start. He should be turned over to the War Crimes Court at the Hauge after being tried for a variety of other crimes against the United States.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:35 pmNorm Ornstein's not a conservative, he's on Al Franken's show all the time. He writes for the Huffington Post. Come on.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:39 pmAmericans were wire-tapped? Prove it. Who was wire-tapped? Put up or shut up.
Comment by wwallace — December 20, 2005 @ 4:36 pm (a comment repeated here and on other threads)
wwallace,
December 20th, 2005 at 5:42 pmGeorge W. Bush (aka King George the nitwit) already publicly admitted to ordering warrantless wiretaps of American citizens and says he will continue doing so. And here I thought you always believe this president.
Worfeus hs not idea what the law allows, and cannot specify in any way how the president may have violated any law. He’s bacically a big zero, and as such, quite at home on this site.
Comment by wwallace — December 20, 2005 @ 4:53 pm
Wow wwallace, I came back expecting more, and this is whatcha give me to work with?
I don't need to specify anything. The BLOG has already done it for me.
As well as Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation, Hardball, 10 news channels, more than half of congress, and every newspaper in the country. LOL.
But anytime you want to answer my question, the one that you can't show anyone that you answered, feel free to ping me. :D
Consider WORFEUS at your service :D
December 20th, 2005 at 5:44 pmDecember 20th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
wwallace can't run, he's too fat :()
December 20th, 2005 at 5:46 pmand the fat is all in his head :()
December 20th, 2005 at 5:47 pm“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
– United States Constitution, Amendment IVâ€
The constitution trumps the patriot act, or presidential power - PERIOD!
December 20th, 2005 at 5:57 pmI believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison
December 20th, 2005 at 6:11 pmLet's step out of the 'box'.
The United States wants to remove Saddam and bring democracy to the Middle East.
The US goes after Saddam when Iraq INVADES Iran.
THE US DECLARES WAR ON IRAQ AND INVADES THEIR COUNTRY ALL IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY AND WAR ON TERROR. Mr. Bush
has declared WAR based on 'weapons of mass destruction, and support of Terrorism.." As President of the United States he is RESPONSIBLE AND SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE for his actions.
WE can talk about impeachment all we want... IN AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.
The politicans at the federal, state and local level could care less about the AMERICAN PEOPLE. The majority are concerned with only their next rung on the ladder, the amount of money they have access for the next election campaign and HOW TO BECOME A MILLIONAIRE MANY TIMES OVER AS A POLITICAN.
And guess what the American People could care less about
the politicans...
WE vote these SOB's into office and then piss and moan
because we are screwed as a group..
Rich, get richer, poor get poorer and guess what the rich
from other countries come into the United States, get money from the US government and then thumbs their noses at the AMERICAN CITIZENS... by complaining about unfair
treatment here in the US.
HOW DID WE AS A COUNTRY GET INTO SUCH A MESS.
One President is allowed to disobey laws, control the media, reward his 'backer/cronies' at the expense of the
December 20th, 2005 at 6:27 pmTAX Payers...
Giacomo admitted what we knew all along about him and wwallace...They hate the Constitution. You know the
document that Bush allegedly called "that goddamn piece of paper."
If you hate the Constitution, you hate America. Bubble Boy hates America but loves so slaven himself in that nice rich Iraqi oil.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:33 pmFor the first time in American history we have an admitted felon for president. This should not suprise anyone, he has a significant history of arrests and crimes.
Comment by m
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. That makes him the first Felon President. Bush has been accused of everything from raping his daughters to masterminding 9-11. No one is going to pay any attention to this but if they do go after him you'll see a 70 seat Republican senate and more Republicans in the house than you can count. Bring it on.
One of the first questions that will be asked among Mr. and Mrs. Middle America is; "Why should we be surprised that the President is spying on terrorists more than we should be surprised that the Democrats are against it? That will be how the issue is framed. You losers can only lose. I look forward to your further adventures in Irrelevancy Hell. Pass the popcorn.
This of course is not his first crime as president, but it is the first that he has admitted to. Apology is inadequate. Impeachment is just a start. He should be turned over to the War Crimes Court at the Hauge after being tried for a variety of other crimes against the United States.
You must be a f'ing foreigner. The Hague? The minute some Zeropean touches an American citizen for war crimes is the minute they cease to live and breath, and they know that. The only crime Bush is guilty of is allowing native born American traitors to remain out of prison.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:40 pmFinally the "I" word. Although it's about 2 years too late.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:41 pmI believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison
And most of that was done under the leadership of Democrats from 1960 to 2000.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:42 pmWwallace, #54...the NSA spying is all about terrorism, according to President Bush. Now you're saying the Iraq war and the spying are unrelated...are you finally admitting the obvious, that the Iraq war and terrorism are totally unrelated?
December 20th, 2005 at 6:43 pmThis needs to happen to save our country.
Comment by Stephanie
You need to have your ass whipped for suggesting there is a moral equivalence between the murders committed by a black thug and deaths as a consequence of a war of liberation and self defense. After that you should lose the right to vote.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:45 pmare you finally admitting the obvious, that the Iraq war and terrorism are totally unrelated?
Comment by MarcWW
You'd have to be on drugs to not see the connection. Dumbass.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:46 pmThe minute some Zeropean touches an American citizen for war crimes is the minute they cease to live and breath, and they know that.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 20, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
Perhaps you would like to try answering my question tonight I-RIGHT-I. Cause you, like wwallace, have run from it before.
Here is the question again.
What would you do, if the EU invaded the US to enact necessary regime change?
Understand they are benevolant, only here to help, and plan on leaving as soon as we elect a new President and Congress, from among the candidates approved by our new EU liberators.
What would you do?
December 20th, 2005 at 6:47 pm-oh boy, mr "i-right" is back! c'mon mr tough guy, tell us all about what a big badass you are, how you're gonna whoop everybody's ass. lead your gi joe dollies to victory once again, then hasten forth to wax your carrot as you dream of billy mays. who knows, someday your skin might clear up, and you & billy or jeff gannon (8", cut!) can lube each other up & worship the godly george bush together!
December 20th, 2005 at 6:48 pmGiacomo said earlier that he finds compelling the argument that Bush was doing this to protect the nation. Well, Giacomo, what other civil liberties does Bush and Co. have the right to trample on to “protect the nation� If that is the standard–that the President’s power in “time of war†is plenary and not curtailed by Constitutional or statutory limitations–then there’s really NOTHING he can’t do if he believes it would be in the interest of national security. Could he go and round up every Arab male?
Comment by NLCD
Yes, he could round up every Arab male, FDR proved that didn't he?
December 20th, 2005 at 6:48 pmOk, I publically admit, I'm a confirmed druggie...every time I hear Bush speak, I pop some more Tylenol.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:50 pm-oh boy, mr “i-right†is back! c’mon mr tough guy, tell us all about what a big badass you are,
Comment by tralfaz
I never left. Have you got something worthwhile to add or are you just going to sit there and play with yourself?
December 20th, 2005 at 6:50 pmGiacomo said earlier that he finds compelling the argument that Bush was doing this to protect the nation. Well, Giacomo, what other civil liberties does Bush and Co. have the right to trample on to “protect the nation� If that is the standard–that the President’s power in “time of war†is plenary and not curtailed by Constitutional or statutory limitations–then there’s really NOTHING he can’t do if he believes it would be in the interest of national security.
Obviously, the standard should be the Constitution and the relevant acts of Congress ... what you fail to understand is that Bush can continually take the "high ground" by saying "my mandate was to protect and that's what I was doing". He also has a TEAM of constitutional attorneys to argue this case (and that it's perfectly legal) ... why would you presume that he'd even start such a practice without having a defense of it (especially given that he at least told Democrats about it). You can scream all you want about illegality but unfortunately, illegality must be proven and that's not going to be easy to do ... given all that ...
What I said was ... if no one can prove that Bush acted in a self-serving way, you're going to have a hard time getting any charges to stick. That said, I do not think his actions violated the Constitution, but may have violated FISA. The president is given very broad Constitutional powers for protecting the country ... that's why FISA had to be created in the FIRST PLACE PEOPLE.
I also said that there's much legal wiggle room with FISA and with the mandate to fight terror ... based upon all these factors, I think one has to prove malice or self-serving actions to "get the ball rolling". If it turns out the NSA was used to spy on political opponents, you'll see the Democrats grow some balls. If not, they won't. Even if I were to say "he broke the law", I'm thinking more of the "people" will believe that Bush is "protecting" than they will "rolling back", all sentiments here aside. If you think about it, this makes sense. I'll reserve ultimate judgment for a later time though.
GeoMetro forgets that italians are disproportionaly associated with ‘mafia’ and other ‘criminal terrorist’ activities. would he submit that the president has a right to violate all of his rights, and put him in a box just because he’s italian?
Nevermind the fact that your sentiments are borderline racist ... no mention has been made of racial profiling yet. "Suspected terrorist" is all. Let's wait and see, shall we.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:50 pm"You’d have to be on drugs to not see the connection. Dumbass.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I "
You'd have to be off your drugs to see the delusional nonsense you see. You're just another sicko racist nazi with a plethora of sexual perversions that destroy what's left of your insane little pea brain...
"Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. That makes him the first Felon President. "
Once again IRI shows why he's mentally retarded. Impeachment is the 'indicment', not the 'conviction'. The senate actually found him innocent you moron.
You and your terrorist/nazi/fascist friends do not represent our country, it's values, or even its history. You are abominations of evil and hatred who have no place in a civil society - yet fit nicely in the padded cell where you actually belong.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:50 pmOk, I publically admit, I’m a confirmed druggie…every time I hear Bush speak, I pop some more Tylenol.
Comment by MarcWW
Make mine bourbon and Zoloft.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:51 pmThis President could literally strangle an infant on live television and the Republican Congress wouldn’t bat an eyelash. Oh there’ll be huffing and posturing and strong words - but don’t count your chickens when it comes to impeachment.
Comment by Kelly — December 20, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
taGgeD
December 20th, 2005 at 6:53 pmIRI, so you require bourbon and Zoloft every time you hear Bush speak? That explains a great deal...
December 20th, 2005 at 6:53 pmI-RIGHT-I,
I am not trying to pick on you. I am serious. I have been trying to get just one of you right wingers to answer this one, simple question, and so far, everyone of you has run away and hid from this, plain, simple question.
What would you do?
December 20th, 2005 at 6:54 pmAnd for those of you sick of me asking them this question, my apoligies.
Nut none of them seem to be able to answer this one simple question.
Wonder why?
December 20th, 2005 at 6:57 pmWorfeus, you have to admit its not quite the same. When Saddam came into power, he tried to protect the oppressed religious minority he was a part of. Over time, he started to oppress others, pick fights with outside "enemies" to consolidate his hold over his people, and became a complete dictator with the acquiscence of the Iraqis. He had cronies who stayed within that circle of power to the very end.
IRI, wwallace, and other right-wingers refuse to see any parallels here. They don't see how a president using an outside enemy to consolidate power, and start to remove civil liberties one by one, can be the start of a dictatorship, if we're not careful. They can't answer your question because they're actively helping Bush gradually assume dictatorial powers, by trying to assure themselves and others that its all in a good cause. And if Bush is King George, who would dare stand against him, and all who helped him assume that title?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:03 pmIf Bush gets impeached and thrown out of office, will Cheney become president?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:04 pmYes he will, unless he has a heart attack first. However, he can also be impeached.
It might be a good idea to wait to impeach them until after the 2006 elections, when hopefully we'll have a Democratic Speaker of the House.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:06 pmYes Marc, I see your point, but it's a simple question.
I am not asking for voluminous treatises on the the comparisons of the US to IRAQ, or the conditions that would make this possible.
All I want to know, is if they'd fight or not.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:08 pmWhat would you do, if the EU invaded the US to enact necessary regime change?
Understand they are benevolant, only here to help, and plan on leaving as soon as we elect a new President and Congress, from among the candidates approved by our new EU liberators.
What would you do?
1) You know we'd all fight. 2) The moral relativism that is required to try and equate our invasion of Iraq and the EU invading us is a tad shocking.
Now I have a question for you ...
When you hear the Star Spangled Banner do you feel a sense of pride or do you feel sickened, angry, self-loathing, (fill in your own if you wish)?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:13 pmI realize it is a simple question, Worfeus. I was just trying to step in their shoes for just a minute, and justify their silence.
Now please excuse me while I finish disinfecting my feet.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:14 pmI-RIGHT-I,
I am not trying to pick on you. I am serious. I have been trying to get just one of you right wingers to answer this one, simple question, and so far, everyone of you has run away and hid from this, plain, simple question.
What would you do?
Comment by WORFEUS
..about what? Maybe the reason nobody answers your questions is because you never really ask?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:15 pmYesterday, I issued the following release about President Bush's recent admission that he has personally authorized domestic surveillance without a court order. I sent the referenced letter to four presidential scholars, asking for their input:
* Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School
* Bruce Ackerman, Yale University
* Susan Low Bloch, Georgetown University Law Center
* Michael Gerhardt, College of William and Mary School of Law
In Friendship,
Barbara Boxer
We'll have to wait and see if these four see impeachment in Bubble boys future. Stay tuned.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:15 pmWhen I hear the Star Spangled Banner, or see the flag, I feel an immense sense of pride. That's why I fight even harder if I hear of anyone, even the President, trying to take away the liberties so many people of died to win and protect.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:16 pmFair enough Marc
December 20th, 2005 at 7:17 pmI have a question....
Any idiot who has watched Law and Order knows that anything obtained without a warrent cannot be used against you during trial. So- what kind of court are these wiretaps being used in? Or are these people just locked up in some secret prison without a trial?
Very Scary!
December 20th, 2005 at 7:18 pmIWrong1 wont answer the question WORFUES, he/she can't bring himself/herself to admit that he/she would be a chickenshit if a foreigner attacked his neighborhood.
Shit, he spends most of his/her time under the bed as it is.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:18 pmHey, didn't I tell you that underneath every single fabricated charge against Bush lies something Bill Clinton did?
So much for the argument that Bush created this problem...
The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html
December 20th, 2005 at 7:18 pmAny idiot who has watched Law and Order knows that anything obtained without a warrent cannot be used against you during trial.
Folks ... you aren't paying close enought attention to what the President said and what's been happening. 1) The President is claiming "war" powers allow him to let the NSA do the non-warrant activities. 2) Anyone captured due to these NSA taps would be a "war" enemy combatant ... I think we can all agree that they haven't been treated anywhere akin to "Law and Order". Everyone is considering this a criminal consideration (which it may yet be) but the President, from everything he's already said, is speaking about "war" powers not criminal prosecution.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:21 pmJS, The chickenhawk that is running this country is an idiot.
He's so mental he goes on national t.v. and admits that he committed and impeachable crime.
He's completely lost it. He belongs in a padded cell.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:21 pmAny idiot who has watched Law and Order knows...
Comment by JS
I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:21 pmI-RIGHT-I,
I am not trying to pick on you. I am serious. I have been trying to get just one of you right wingers to answer this one, simple question, and so far, everyone of you has run away and hid from this, plain, simple question.
What would you do?
Comment by WORFEUS
..about what? Maybe the reason nobody answers your questions is because you never really ask?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
My fajitas are getting cold. What's the deal?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:23 pmWho cares what the chickenhawk claims Giacomo.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:24 pmHe's broken the law and will be impeached. Get used to the idea before you find yourself in a padded cell with the mental case.
Awwwwwww, IRI is soooo cute when he's being ignorant.
Gorelick's testimony was part of an effort by the Clinton administration to include physical searches as part of FISA. Clinton never tried to argue that he was not bound by FISA, and he was above the law.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:24 pmGeoMetro,
You're such a passive aggressive. You at once pretend to agree while really disagreeing with everyone in conclusion. You really should read those passive aggressive resources, you need help!
The fact is we invaded a sovereign nation, and that's always a dangerous task that infuriates those in the country - as you admitted.
Clearly your 'pride' is false, as you don't even know what the star spangled banner represents. Your willingness to give up civil liberties and the constitution on a whim is entirely unamerican and any 'pride' you feel is the same whacko 'false pride' that was indicative of mussolini and hitler fascists as well. You don't have pride in the values of the country, you work to defeat those values daily.
You are an embarrassment and a danger.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:25 pm1) You know we’d all fight.
2) The moral relativism that is required to try and equate our invasion of Iraq and the EU invading us is a tad shocking.
Comment by Giacomo — December 20, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
Just where did I liken this, when I phrased the question, to Iraq?
See, I didn't.
But I applaud you Giacomo, for not only answering the question, so frankly, and for being intutive enough to draw in your own mind, the relationship of that question to the impossible situation we have put the Iraqi people in.
Kudo's.
You would fight the invading army, no matter how benign, and now matter how well meaning.
You would fight in the streets, you'd fight on the roofs, you'd fight on the beaches. You would kill EU soldiers, kill them anyway you can.
And you would kill, anyone who collaborates with them.
Just like the Iraqi people, must do.
Because they have no other choice.
Well said Giacomo, well said.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:26 pm"I couldn’t make this shit up if I tried.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I "
That's true, and also why your posts are always of such low quality. Everything you make up is pedantic, uninformed and idiotic... You are the classic example of the 'useless idiot'.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:27 pmNevermind the fact that your sentiments are borderline racist... no mention has been made of racial profiling yet. "Suspected terrorist" is all. Let’s wait and see, shall we.
Comment by Giacomo — December 20, 2005 @ 6:50 pm
Ah... so now you suddenly begin squirming after realising you could also be at the receiving end of an unjust policy.
Let's see, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh have been openly advocating racial profiling as a tool in the "war on terror":
Racial profiling: A matter of survival
Ann Coulter Interview
About The War on Terror
The reason being that people like them equate "terrorist" with either Muslim, Middle Eastern, or "swarthy male".
Do you see the need for obeying the law now? As said to you before: It could happen to you too.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:27 pmSomeone take 20 dollars out of petty cash for Giacomo.
He earned it.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:28 pmEvery Legal Scholar who's been asked to give an opinion states that Bubble boy committed an impeachable offense.
But I guess the chickenhawk neocons who troll around here know better than the Legal Scholars.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:28 pmA symptom of delussional pyschosis and grandiosity.
worfeus,
Like the guilty child caught stealing, geometro doesn't realize he confessed to being a little fool.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:28 pmWhat I think is dangerous, and sad, is that we have allowed the liberty-stealing administration to redefine the argument for us, so that:
Disagreeing with Bush = Treason and lack of patriotism
December 20th, 2005 at 7:29 pmNow now Ryan, we may have found a convert.
Both you and I know that this question is a "Kobyashi Maru", but let's let him stew on that one for a while.
:D
December 20th, 2005 at 7:31 pmWhat I think is dangerous, and sad, is that we have allowed the liberty-stealing administration to redefine the argument for us, so that:
Disagreeing with Bush = Treason and lack of patriotism
Comment by MarcWW
You did it to yourselves by actively siding with our enemies. Even high school drop outs can see that for themselves. If Bush should be punished for anything it would be for not having the Democratic leadership thrown in prison.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:32 pmBrilliant I-RIGHT-I, brilliant.
But I noticed you hemmed and hawed away from my question, claiming I never asked it.
Why don't you try scrolling up a bit?
Cause believe me, I really would like to know what you'd do. :|
December 20th, 2005 at 7:37 pmThank you, IRI, for proving my point.
In the manner of Worfeus, I have a question for everyone:
President Bush, in an emergency address to the nation, makes a statement that due to credible evidence that a large terrorist organization has established roots in the United States, and is planning an attack on various targets, the President must reluctantly, but immediately, assume emergency powers. At this moment, freedom of the press and of free assembly is suspended. Hopefully, this will be a very temporary situation.
What would you do?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:38 pmFrom reading around, here's what Bush's atttorney's say ...
1) The US Constitution in Article II, Section 2 says ... The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States ... this, they claim, gives the President extremely broad powers to wage war.
2) The FISA act, at the end, states that no measure or provision contained herein shall usurp the Constitution and the powers entitled therein (or something to that effect).
3) Congress endorsed a "war against terrorism" in the wake of 9/11 attacks via the authorization of force resolution (S.J.Res. 23) approved by both chambers and signed into law on September 18, 2001. This mandate stated that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
ALL THREE of these items IN CONJUNCTION is what, they claim, allows the NSA activities.
For those of you wondering how he says it's legal ....... this is it. Fire away.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:39 pmWhy don’t you try scrolling up a bit?
Cause believe me, I really would like to know what you’d do. :|
Comment by WORFEUS
I did scroll I'm not a lazy bastard like you. Post your question if you dare.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:41 pmAh… so now you suddenly begin squirming after realising you could also be at the receiving end of an unjust policy.
I'm not squirming ... I already said they could wire tap me ... I don't care. I'm wondering why Ryan's borderline comments don't draw some ire.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:41 pmso, i-right, if bush pulled out his dick, would you suck it? (i'm trying to stay on the same intellectual level as your stuff...its actually kind of fun, i just pretend i'm arguing with a 12 yr old spoiled brat little prick)
December 20th, 2005 at 7:43 pmAt this moment, freedom of the press and of free assembly is suspended. Hopefully, this will be a very temporary situation.
What would you do?
Comment by MarcWW
That's a fairly stupid hypothetical as the threat and the response from Bush are not logical. Why close down the press or assembly? That's something that the Democrats did. Clinton introduced "Free Speech Zones" and there's the McCain Feingold act that limited free speech around elections to eliminate the threat of dissent. This is shit DEMOCRATS DO so why make it a Republican hypothetical? Hummm?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:47 pmso, i-right, if bush pulled out his [...] i just pretend i’m arguing with a 12 yr old spoiled brat little prick)
Comment by tralfaz
This is what we like to show the American voter Liberals are all about. 12 yr old eh? Hahahahahaaaa...dumbass.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:49 pmI did scroll I’m not a lazy bastard like you. Post your question if you dare.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 20, 2005 @ 7:41 pm
I-AMWRONGAGAIN-I, you're your own worst enemy, or you're just really stupid.
My question that you supposedly scrolled up for is #77 scrollboy.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:49 pmI gotta go. My fajitas are calling.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:50 pmI’m not squirming … I already said they could wire tap me… I don’t care.
Comment by Giacomo — December 20, 2005 @ 7:41 pm
Yes you were, right there, when you mentioned "racial profiling" -or are you saying being wiretapped solely because of your ancestry does not bother you?
I’m wondering why Ryan’s borderline comments don’t draw some ire.
I didn't think they were racist -Ryan was making a point: If people call for racial profiling in the "war on terror", they could easily argue that the same tactic be applied to law enforcement.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:50 pmAnd you would kill, anyone who collaborates with them.
Just like the Iraqi people, must do.
Because they have no other choice.
You are setting up a Straw Man argument and then knocking it down. I never said that I didn't understand why some of the Iraqis aren't fighting ... given your scenario, I'd expect a ton more to be taking up arms ... I wonder why they aren't?
Whether you intended to or not, you likened our invasion of Iraq with the hypothetical EU invasion of the US. Ryan's sovreign nation argument sounds good (he used the word sovreign after all) but a cursory perview of the 16 or so UN resolutions that Saddam continually broke did allow for an invasion to force the UN charters ... you can agrue all you want about whether the US should have gone alone, but that doesn't de-legitimize the "action". Oh, and I know what a Kobyashi Maru is ... ;-)
You at once pretend to agree while really disagreeing with everyone in conclusion. You really should read those passive aggressive resources, you need help!
No ... wrong for like the 5003rd time ... I just answered his question honestly and that I thought, in so asking the question, he revealed some faulty logic. I thought we put that passive aggressive thing to bed when I took your little test ... oh well. Rock on.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:51 pmMarcWW.
I will answer your question.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
"Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take; but as for me give me liberty or give me death!"
December 20th, 2005 at 7:53 pmCourse I didn't say that. It was some old guy, Pat somethin or other.:|
December 20th, 2005 at 7:54 pmso, i-right, if bush pulled out his dick, would you suck it?
He already has.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:56 pmGiacomo , there is nothing more to say really.
Fine, you want to go off on a Red Herring about whether or not I likened it to Iraq (I did NOT in my question, but whatever), so fine, just assume I did.
I am not so easily taken off the real breakthough in your humanity factor.
"I never said that I didn’t understand why some of the Iraqis aren’t fighting … given your scenario, I’d expect a ton more to be taking up arms … I wonder why they aren’t? "
Now, while others are pouring over you past posts to find where you did say things like, "we are not there to fight the Iraqi people" and "they should stand up with us", I will simply say welcome on board.
Glad to see you acknowledge that the Iraqi people have no real choice, other than to fight us.
And that of course means we will never have victory in Iraq, as long as there is a single man, women or child left alive.
Mass extermination is the only answer to winning the war in Iraq.
You spoke well Giacomo, you spoke well.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:01 pmMake that 40 dollars out of petty cash.
Heck it's Christmas. :P
December 20th, 2005 at 8:03 pmJesus Christ, if Clinton did it then it's okay? Yeah, neocon nazis - use that defense in your impending impeachment hearings.
Who cares if Clinton broke every law on record, it doesn't release Georgie from his own personal liability.
Man, these trolls are idiots.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:05 pmOh and BTW, with regards to this question.
I’d expect a ton more to be taking up arms … I wonder why they aren’t?
Have you ever stopped to consider, has anyone for that matter, that they are just waiting for the right moment to turn the 215,000 Iraqi army soliders, their 2 years of training and US issued weapons and tactics, the funds, resources and facilities we have helped them develop, back on our own troops?
Anybody ever stopped to consider that one?
Naaa, they'd never do that.
I mean, why would the Iraqi people want to hurt us?
December 20th, 2005 at 8:07 pmunbelievable, the thing that kills me about the Clinton argument is this...
During the opening of the Clinton Library, Clinton said on national t.v. that he and George W. Bush are very good friends. He said that he really likes George W. Bush.
Thats why I don't like Clinton but shouldn't the neocons love him the way George W. Bush does?
Is being very good friends with Clinton the one mistake Bubble boy has made? I wonder why the neocons don't acknowledge this mistake.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:12 pmI’d expect a ton more to be taking up arms … I wonder why they aren’t?
Comment by Giacomo — December 20, 2005 @ 7:51 pm
The CSIS estimated the insurgents have around 30,000 active fighters The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters
But the figure is higher (close to 200,000) if you ask people in Iraq:
Iraqi insurgents now outnumber coalition forces
At any rate, and regardless of how many "active fighters" the insurgency actually has, the reason for the insurgent's endurance is that they have either the passive or active complicity of the civilian population that provides cover and/or support.
I recommend reading "The War of the Flea" by Robert Taber, to understand what the goal of a guerrilla movement is, and why it is to difficult to defeat it.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:15 pmWORFEUS, the question I often ask myself is...
When is the Rove/Cheney mafia going to consider Bubble boy a liability and give him the kiss of death?
December 20th, 2005 at 8:16 pmROVE and CHENEY built the BubbleBoy Susan.
Rove is Bushes Dr. Noonian Sung
December 20th, 2005 at 8:19 pm#137
Susan,
I'm not terribly fond of most politicians, as they all seems to be power hungry, but I think this Admnistration is the worst ever. So I guess in light of thir other atrocities, they will freely hang their friends on order to serve their own agendas.
I had no idea Clinton claimed to be George's friend... yuck. It would be like hanging out with wwwallace or Mighty Afro. That certainly lowers my opinion of Clinton as a person (not that the cheating on his wife thing wasn't appalling enough). Though he was at least a better President than the chimp will ever be.
Sad, isn't it all?
December 20th, 2005 at 8:20 pmI'm just worried about election fraud, and no paper trail for the electronic voting polls. There are several independent investigations as to weather there was voting fraud in Ohio during the '04 election. Has anyone made any improvements, and made sure that this if it happened, won't happen again?
-Just a thought.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:20 pmMass extermination is the only answer to winning the war in Iraq.
Comment by WORFEUS — December 20, 2005 @ 8:01 pm
Which coincidentally, is mentioned in "The War of the Flea" as one of the options to defeat an insurgency. The author quickly dismisses it.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:22 pm#142 Good thought to have Carlos... many of us share it. I think it's a real threat. Time to go back to punch cards unitl they fix the system.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:23 pmBut the figure is higher (close to 200,000) if you ask people in Iraq:
Comment by Gregor Samsa — December 20, 2005 @ 8:15 pm
Interesting number Gregor, isn't it.
Let's see, if it were 200,000 insurgents, and there are 215,000 Iraqi army troops...hmmmm,..let's see...
carry the 2,,,ok,,,,uhhuh.....got it.
Hey Gregor? You don't suppose those numbers are close because, well you know.....Iraqi Army by day, Insurgent by night?
That couldn't be possible could it?
It would explain though the marked increase in the effectivness and skill of the insurgent army, and their amazing capability to know about troop locations, tactics and movements.
Naaaaaa, like I said, why would the Iraqi people want to hurt us?
December 20th, 2005 at 8:24 pmIt would explain though the marked increase in the effectivness and skill of the insurgent army, and their amazing capability to know about troop locations, tactics and movements.
Comment by WORFEUS — December 20, 2005 @ 8:24 pm
And it is only going to get worse after the US military aid starts pouring into Iraq. If past guerrilla movements can offer any foresight, a lot of those weapons are going to end up in the hands of the insurgents.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:28 pm#145
You don’t suppose those numbers are close because, well you know…..Iraqi Army by day, Insurgent by night?
WORFEUS, don't be crazy. Why ever would an army that we trained attack us? Oh, oh, yeah, that's right, we trained Al Qaeda, and supported Saddam with money and munitions... and we can't forget the Iran contra scandal now can we... Or how we toppled democratically elected presidents like Noreiga to replace them with dictators like Castro who would give us more reasons to waste money on surplus weaponry... my bad...
December 20th, 2005 at 8:28 pmunbelievable, thats when I decided I would never support Hillary. Anyone who supports Bubble boy will not have my vote.
Carlos, not much happening with voter fraud. My state, Illinois still uses paper ballots. Some are trying to get electronic voting machines here (because we always vote democrat) but we the people are resisting.
Each state has to handle their own voting problems, can't count on the federal govt. to do anything about it.
A republican in the northeast is going to jail for jamming the democrats phone bank on election day. Hopefully jail sentences will be a deterent to election fraud.
Ohio Governor Taft (Republican) has been indicted for "coingate", that may send a message to the criminals.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:28 pmWait, is the "Rummy" I see in this old photo, shaking hands with Saddam?
Nahhh, couldn't be. You must be lying unbelievable, I mean it's really sad, no wonder they call you unbelievable I mean, if we put them into power, and now......hey!................... Wait a minute! :O
December 20th, 2005 at 8:31 pmYou don’t suppose those numbers are close because, well you know…..Iraqi Army by day, Insurgent by night?
Comment by WORFEUS — December 20, 2005 @ 8:24 pm
You are right. Again, if past experiences all over the world are of any help, this is very likely happening right now in Iraq.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:31 pm#148
unbelievable, thats when I decided I would never support Hillary. Anyone who supports Bubble boy will not have my vote.
And I used to think she was a feminist. When she stood by him, I figured she was just jockeying for political position. I'd love to see a woman in the White House, but not her. I lived in California fora while and saw a lot of potential in some of the women in politics there. Well, as much as there can be in politics :). Anyone you've noticed that I shoudl pay attention to?
December 20th, 2005 at 8:32 pmHillary for President?
I'd rather vote in Slappy White. :|
December 20th, 2005 at 8:33 pmAnd he's dead.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:34 pm#149
Yeah WORFEUS, see what I mean... pretending to be a troll is tough, however do they do it for real???
You were smoking today! Haven't had the chance to point that out - was a busy day for battling trolls. But, should get quieter around the holiday I imagine? Don't they have church stuff to do this week? Would love to have a conversation without the noise one of these days.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:35 pm#153 hahahaha good one!
Now where are the trolls to see us bashing Democrats? They don't get that we don't vote party lines like they do and the close our eyes...
December 20th, 2005 at 8:36 pmIt will pick up over the holiday.
Hell I'm still on Thanksgiving break :P
December 20th, 2005 at 8:36 pm#156 I do hope the turkey is gone by now... :)
December 20th, 2005 at 8:39 pm155,
No they don't get that do they?
And I get sick of that game. These guys don't get it, that blind loyalty is the one trait every American should avoid like the plague.
It's the plan, not the MAN!
(or woman:)
December 20th, 2005 at 8:40 pmGeorge Washington, the first President of our Country, did not even want to be called President.
He thought it sounded too imperial.
Now we got a President who thinks he's a Monarch.
go figure :|
December 20th, 2005 at 8:42 pm157,
No I think they're still here.
Hey I-TURKEY-I, you still around?
December 20th, 2005 at 8:46 pmNaahhhh, he ran.
He made the mistake of claiming once more that I never asked my "question", so I provided him with the post number.
He scrolled up, saw the question, turned off the lights, and left the room so fast he was out before it got dark.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:46 pmAlso said on the same Diane Rehm show, by Norm Ornstein:
Norm suggested that all Congress needs to do is:
1) re-pass FISA;
2) Bush would have to either sign (and obey) the new FISA, or veto it;
3) Congress would override the veto;
4) Bush would be forced to either obey or disobey the law, which would;
5) Force a very clear-cut Constitutional crisis of legislative power vs executive power. Congress would have to assert its power through impeachment.
Of course, this would require a Congress that wasn't cravenly obesquious to the President.
But, nice try Norm. I rarely listen to DR Show these days because that's when Al Franken is on, but for once I was listening because AF was in reruns. It was glorious listening to Norm and Bruce advocating impeachment. I just wish their opinions carried some weight in the House.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:57 pmbut a cursory perview of the 16 or so UN resolutions that Saddam continually broke did allow for an invasion to force the UN charters … you can agrue all you want about whether the US should have gone alone, but that doesn’t de-legitimize the “actionâ€.
You go into Irag guns ablazing in the movies but not in the real world. In the real world you use military action as a last result which is what congress gave the president the right to do. In the real world you listen to weapon inspectors that tell you that the inspections are working. Last resort...the idea that "the entire world thought that he had WMD's" is such a crock...the president cherry picked the intelligence he chose to present to the world and drew cartoon pictures of mobile chemical labs in crayon. LAST RESORT. Pull your head out. When it comes to war you need to make sure that you have your facts straight. Ooops lets look around the oval office and make a joke of the fact that we made a mistake and could find any WMD's. What an embarrassment this president is. Our evidence for war came from an alcoholic (curveball) and a convicted embezeler (Chilabi). Get a clue.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:59 pmYou think what they have now in Iraq is better? Living in constant fear of walking outside, going to school, buying groceries?
Religious extremists blowing up Iraqi children as they blow themselves up because they are so passionately against the invaders?
The Mideast has always been a hotbed, why on earth did Bush have to invade Muslim Holy land when the extremists made it known this was their biggest beef with us?
American footprints on their holy land bringing capitalism to the Muslim world.
Just like we did with the Saudis.
Lydia Cornell
December 20th, 2005 at 9:02 pmhttp://www.lydiacornell.com
Democrats are openly in favor of racial profiling, except if the person being profiled is a suspected criminal or terrorist.
They seem to be against any measures that promote law and order or US national security.
That's the only way to square their support for war in Kosovo but opposition to war in Iraq.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:38 pmwwwallace, good you could come out from under the bed for awhile.
I am guilty of profiling, the minute someone says they are a republican I immediately call a cop to have them checked for warrants.
Guilty as charged, I believe that all republicans are criminals.
I wonder how that happened?
December 20th, 2005 at 9:59 pmwwallace, not true, we profile republicans terrorists all the time. you always fit the profile of criminal and violent. the difference is that it's based on your 'psychological profile', not an arbitrary bigoted one.
wwallace prefers to allow genocide and ethnic cleansing, and instead implement wars of 'convenience' that excuse the trashing of the constitution.
wwallace demostrates how al qaeda thinks, and why the taliban through out civility in place of 'security' just like he/she proposes.
wwallace is a radical terrorist.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:17 pmSusan,
Probably all the drugs and booze. LOL
December 20th, 2005 at 10:19 pmwwallace, you're too insane to brush it off as the fault of drugs and booze :()
December 20th, 2005 at 10:39 pm"Bill Clinton was impeached for.... bla bla bla bla bla....
native born American traitors to remain out of prison."
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 20, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
Note that the first part of that piece of crap started with "Bill Clinton". When the neocon fascists are at a loss to post something substantive, they revert to their, "Well, Bill Clinton did ______, so nanny nanny boo boo!" tactict.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:39 pmDear Sir,
December 20th, 2005 at 11:04 pmI feel that G. W. Bush has gone well far from the ordinary way of doing the way of the general way of runing a country.
He has made himself the dictator of the world and generally they all fall onto a heap once they get out of government.
Saddam Hussien has done nothing likeGeorge Bush, he never attacked a defenceless country and claimed it had "weapons of mass destruction" where are they?
Why has the true story behind 9/11 not been told, is it that George Bush has something to hide. The true country that devised the attack never got attacked why?
He should be court marshalled as well?
[Comment deleted by admin]
December 20th, 2005 at 11:44 pm[Comment deleted by admin]
December 20th, 2005 at 11:55 pmGotcha this time o slippery one
December 21st, 2005 at 12:35 amforseeable cost to Us taXpayer of giving iraqis the freedom to transform into a radical iran friendly islamic republic:
half a trillion
current number of us casualties beyond the number estimated by george bush: 2000 +
total number of weapons of mass distraction found: 0
watching hypocritical nutball "law and order" douchebags like Mwallace and Bush preach about how people are "innocent until proven guilty": pricless
December 21st, 2005 at 1:12 amIright I and M(ental) wallace are really funny. I'd like them to answer one simple question.. I'm sure they dont understand a big word...RETROACTIVELY.....
IREICH, Georgie can get his FSA warrant retroactively!
You know what that means big boy? Let me explain....
Georgie snoops on a terrorist.
Georgie then, LATER, goes back to the court, and says "I need to get a warrant for the person I recently spied on, here is why..."
Now that you know what the word "retroactively" means, let me ask you this.. if george really was spying on someone legitimate, and not just a fishing expedition (or worse, political opponent), then WHY OH WHY, didnt they just go back and get a retroactive warrant from the FSA court? At the VERY least, this is criminal lazyness. So are you claiming that Bush and CO were just lazy and didnt feel they needed to waste their time with silly things like "warrants" or "probable cause"?
Ps. If you have the balls to answer this question, please answer another one: how do you define "victory" in the "war on terror"? Do we have to trust the executive branch to tell us when its over? Guess what, its never going to be. I asked a supreme court justice that question when he spoke at my law school and he fillibustered me...
December 21st, 2005 at 1:24 amI knew there was something dirty going on in the White House.
Just as a personal comment, something about the Bush Administration post 9/11 never sat well with me. I always felt there was something dirty going on, but the administration managed to keep it under wraps. I figured Bush would be long gone before we ...
December 21st, 2005 at 1:34 amBingo:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1671625,00.html
THANK GOD THEY ARE KEEPING US SAFE FROM THOSE GODLESS VEGETARIANS!!
"Further evidence of domestic spying emerged yesterday following the release of documents detailing FBI surveillance of Greenpeace and anti-poverty organisations in the name of national security.
One FBI document, obtained by the New York Times, described surveillance of a vegan community project in Indiana. A protest against llama fur was also monitored while the Catholic Workers group, which works to alleviate poverty, was described as subscribing to a "semi-communistic ideology". According to the documents, the FBI also used placed informants within Greenpeace in addition to monitoring its demonstrations."
December 21st, 2005 at 1:40 amThis is great...
Bush ON VIDEO LYING about Wiretaps...
http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/georgelies4202004.mov
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
Its time to send this Traitor, and his Cabal of Incomptent Morons packing, preferably to Prison where they belong.
- Porter
December 21st, 2005 at 4:21 am#180
THANK GOD THEY ARE KEEPING US SAFE FROM THOSE GODLESS VEGETARIANS!!
Hey, I resemble that remark :) And I bet they are also afraid of our pacifist nature, because you know, people who don't believe in violence to solve problems are such a threat to National Security and all... Of course they were spying on us... This is 'Peeping Tom Gate' after all...
Funny article. Scary Administration.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:54 am[Ed note: this comment was not written by wwallace and has been deleted. It was posted by someone who was impersonating wwallace, who has been banned.]
Comment by wwallace — December 20, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
Admin, I think this is about as extreme as it gets. This creep needs to be perma-banned from this site.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:08 amGiacomo #102 - Understood that the preznit is claiming "wartime powers". Can you not admit, though, that we - America - are not "at war"? Is it not the manner of our governmental system that Congress, and ONLY Congress, can "declare war"? This "war" (I presume the "war on terror") is ONE MAN'S WAR. Bush "declared war". Congress did not.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:14 amNow, Bush cannot legally "declare war", except in the sense of "the war on drugs" or "the war on poverty", etc. But that kind of self proclaimed ideological "war" does NOT in any way vest the Preznit with any kind of supra-Constitutional powers. The Constitution is clear on the division of powers, and the three branches of our governemnt serve to ensure (when working properly, which they have not been doing) that no single person, nor any single fringe group, abuses the freedoms and assurances afforded to us, 'we the people", in the constitution of our (once) great country.
And don't you take even some measure of umbrage at the brazen willfulness of his (and I paraphrase), "Yep, I been' doin' it, and I'm gonna KEEP ON DOIN' IT." The self-righteousness is astounding. Read article IV of the Constitution of the United States again. The constitution does NOT have any provisions allowing a preznit (of any flavor - and you righties, I don't give a good god d$%&n what Clinton or any other bozo did - Bush is in office now. If there were past crimes that need adressing, go adress them) to ignore the constitution itself, nor is a preznit allowed to declare war in the name of America (that is a dictator's power), nor to assume any actions "in the name of the war on terror". You, and he, argue that the ends justifies the means. Well, I can lay out an awful lot of end scenerios, and ways to arrive there, but such that even the lunacy of IRI wouldn't find acceptable. The ends never, ever, under any circumstance justifies the means.
Giacomo #120 - There is one fatal flaw in the reasoning you present: Congress is the only power in America to declare war. While congress gave the president the backing for police action, that is not the same as declaring war. Congress CAN NOT simply give any president the power to declare war as he (or she) chooses. Not possible within our constitution. Therefore, any argument about wartime powers (which is the argument you present) is a false argument. Bush is NOT a wartime preznit, because AMERICA IS NOT AT WAR, and therefore preznitwit Bushiebubble boy has not wartime powers whatsoever. Any acts contrary to this fact are acts contrary to the constitution of the United States and treasonous. Period.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:44 amCan you not admit, though, that we - America - are not “at warâ€? Is it not the manner of our governmental system that Congress, and ONLY Congress, can “declare warâ€? This “war†(I presume the “war on terrorâ€) is ONE MAN’S WAR. Bush “declared warâ€. Congress did not.
Now, Bush cannot legally “declare warâ€, except in the sense of “the war on drugs†or “the war on povertyâ€, etc.
1) The US Constitution in Article II, Section 2 says … The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States … this, they claim, gives the President extremely broad powers to wage war.
2) The FISA act, at the end, states that no measure or provision contained herein shall usurp the Constitution and the powers entitled therein (or something to that effect).
3) Congress endorsed a “war against terrorism†in the wake of 9/11 attacks via the authorization of force resolution (S.J.Res. 23) approved by both chambers and signed into law on September 18, 2001. This mandate stated that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
ALL THREE of these items IN CONJUNCTION is what, they claim, allows the NSA activities.
I agree this is not formal "war" because it has not been so declared by Congress.
The ends never, ever, under any circumstance justifies the means.
I'm not going to play devil's advocate swith that statement because I pretty much agree with you (although there are certain times where the ends justify the means). But note, this isn't what Bush is asserting ... he's not saying "it's illegal, but it's helping so tough tarts" ... he's saying "it's legal, and appropriate ... and I'm not going to change it".
December 21st, 2005 at 9:51 amthis is no more our country than it is the democrats country,so I-RIGHT-I need to shut up because he sounds like an evil dictator.if we got rid of all the liberals this would be a dictatorship.i may be a republican but i'm not stupid enough to to vote for a idiot like george bush.i'm sorry i voted for him in 99.but not in 2004.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:59 amImpeach the bastard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wouldn't call Ornstein a conservative scholar. Yes, he works for American Enterprise, but his own work has always been scrupulously centrist and nonpartisan. One need only listen to his frequent appearances on the Al Franken Show to hear that he's a class act.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:05 amThe adminsitration has pretty much said that the President is above the law as long as the war is still on. When fighting a nebulous enemy who strikes randomly (from our perspective), who has no borders, no set membership, no standing army etc... the war by definition can go on forever. I think his reasoning for the powers being a by product of war is why he continually calls himself a war time president while blinking furiously at the caneras.
Anyhow since the president has these seemingly unlimited, unchecked powers what is to stop him from preventing the impeachment via these awesome powers? Afterall they have said he can do anything without congressional oversight. What if congress gets some nuts and decides to exercise the ultimate oversight and start impeachment proceedings. What mechanisms are in place to stop him from setting aside any action congress does because it interferes with his ability to wage the war?
I would never for one moment put beyond the scope of these people's thinking the notion that they can seize total power of the government. Laugh if you will, but they do believe that they have the constitutional right to do anything.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:59 amThe impeachable offenses in this admin are too numerous to mention, but this one may be the one that brings down the house of cards (we can only hope). The scary thing is, who will be in-charge when we oust Bush? The VP of Torture and that tells the world what about us? We need to find a way to dump all these greedy, corrupt yahoos that have endangered our sons and daughters in the name of absurd foreign policy and rampant cronyism. The muck is rising to the level of chins and it can't continue. I think the religious right is hangin' on for dear life cause their only agenda is to abolish abortion and they appear to be willing to tolerate any amount of unethical/immoral behavior as long as they have their agenda satisfied.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:36 pmI’m not going to play devil’s advocate swith that statement because I pretty much agree with you (although there are certain times where the ends justify the means). But note, this isn’t what Bush is asserting … he’s not saying “it’s illegal, but it’s helping so tough tarts†… he’s saying “it’s legal, and appropriate … and I’m not going to change itâ€.
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @ 9:51 am
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
The amazing thing about you Giacomo, is that how consistantly wrong you are. I think you are going to find that happening a lot if you try to make sence out what the "WORST PRESIDENT EVER" has to say.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:40 pmAlso: if this strategy has been so effective how come no one has been arrested (or illegally detained) on the basis of an unwarranted search?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:40 pmAEI is moderate-to-right, but it is not part of the VRWC. And Norm Ornstein has been publicly appalled at Republican mis-behavior for many years; they surely view him as the AEI house liberal. So he will not carry weight with them.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:04 pmThe amazing thing about you Giacomo, is that how consistantly wrong you are. I think you are going to find that happening a lot if you try to make sence out what the “WORST PRESIDENT EVER†has to say.
You're not allowing for a savvy use of purposefully selected language that politicians engage in. He could say, "I said "wire taps" we haven't done a single one of those without a court order" ... that language is from the days when one had to physically put a bug on the actual line to be listened in on ... in the digital age, there's no need to do this. Also, they could be digitily monitoring certain sentences and words ... the computer spots it ... spits it out ... they listen to context and decide what to do. Again, not wire taps. (This is a devious trick, but I can see it happening).
December 21st, 2005 at 4:13 pmWow... it just never ends does it? It gets to a point that I am not even surprised anymore. He's always been terribly under qualified and extremely manipulative. Not the combination you want in a president/boy king. But I think what I find the most insulting is that he blatantly defies logic, honesty, and reason on a daily basis. Not to mention his incorrigible and arrogant behavior as a representative of this fine country. In my humble opinion, no president has been in more dire need of a time-out then this guy. When will it end? When can we throw the boy king to the salivating wolves?
December 21st, 2005 at 4:38 pmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
Should Bush be impeached? Vote!!!!
December 21st, 2005 at 10:31 pmGet a grip here. Talking about impeaching Bush--for ANYTHING--is meaningless unless the '06 election brings about a sea change in the makeup of the House. That is the state of our union at this point.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:47 am"Talking about impeaching Bush–for ANYTHING–is meaningless unless the ‘06 election brings about a sea change in the makeup of the House."
It would be counter-productive for Democrats to get in an impeachment frenzy at this point. But they do need to point out very strongly and in no uncertain terms that Bush is a liar, he is breaking the law, he cannott be trusted, and the Republican Congress has forfeited their oversight function. The real choice in the next election is whether the American people want to retain our democracy and preserve our Constitution, or whether they want to allow Bush and the rubber-stamp Republicans to lead us further into dictatorship. The choice is clear - and it may be the last chance we have. If Democrats control the house or Senate, then they can hold hearings and begin to find out what's really been going on over the last five years. I'm sure there's enough slime and smoking guns to impeach ten presidents.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:34 amWhat's taking so long?!??! For God's sake what's it going to take for the millions of people who were fooled by the anti-Christ president to admit they made a mistake? That way all sane United States citizens will vote to impeach the psyhco living in the White House.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:53 pmIf we really want change, we need to quite voting for the lesser of 2 evils. As this just gets us evil. I really don't care who you vote for just don't vote Democrat and don't vote republican. Choose any other party but one of those 2. Let them see that the totalitarianism government they are creating we do not want and will not tolerate.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:57 pmReally all goverments on the verge of collapse have created the egocentric leaders. The only chance we have to prevent an era of chaos is to purge the white house. Hopefully a lawful event of impeachment, but Bush can do the right thing and step down ala NIXON. Otherwise hold onto your shorts we are in for an awful ride.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:43 amHoly Shit on a shingle Bat Man the people are shitting their pants over ease dropping of Radical Islamic groups.
Hum...I didn't know that the United States States is 95% Muslim now wonder their not wanting the current administration to listen in to their over seas conversations.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 amHoly Shit on a shingle Bat Man the people are shitting their pants over ease dropping of Radical Islamic groups.
Hum...I didn't know that the United States States is 95% Muslim now wonder their not wanting the current administration to listen in to their over seas conversations.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 amWhy are people bellowing loudly about Bush and some from his administration listening in to Calls made to and from overseas? mainly radical Muslim groups?
On May 23 1979 then President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing his attorney general to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order. NO Uproar was ever heard.
On February,9,1995 President Bill Clinton signed an executive order authorizing his attorney general to approve Physical searches without a court order-searches that would allow our government to observe people inside their homes,and using techniques such infa-red sensors. No up roar was heard.
Because of terrorist activity inside this country and because of 9/11 President Bush has used his executive authority to determine the threats to this nations safety.
The Uproar is deafening and the hypocrisy is very apparent.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:47 amSo how does Rove tell Bush to finesse being caught BREAKING THE LAW? Why just blame the whistleblower(s) for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"...I am praying that there are enough citizens who are outraged at the SUBVERSION OF DEMOCRACY BY THIS ADMINISTRATION that the movement to bring these RULING OUTLAWS TO JUSTICE gains momentum.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:17 am[...] This morning, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) added his name to the growing list of conservatives who have expressed disapproval of Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program, further undermining the right-wing spin that the only critics of the program are liberals. On ABC’s This Week: STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you confident that the administration has issued lawfully in this case? [...]
January 8th, 2006 at 12:34 pmBush has every right to listen on anyone suspected of terrorist activity in our country, I wonder why there isn't more said on Clinton giving an exc order to do searches on homes without a court order ?? what is the difference ?? Oh thats right Clinton was a saint..
January 10th, 2006 at 2:52 am[...] So, an “elected” president apparently tramples the constitution, giving the nod for government agencies to spy on citizens just in case they might be doing something bad - without the need for judicial review or approval. And, that’s being acknowledged by Bush’s own people as an impeachable offence - with the story broken in the Traditional Media by the New York Times. [...]
January 15th, 2006 at 5:18 pmMisleading AGAIN!!! Clinton/Carter's executive orders did not include spying on American citizens without a court order. Actually read the order insterad of repeating conservative talking points please. Your lack of outrage is astounding. So just throw the whole "checks and balances" thing out the window eh? The very foundation of our society is our constitution which grants each and every one of us the same rights and priviledges. It is amazing to see so many people willing to surrender their rights under the guise of keeping them safe from terrorism. Ignorance is bliss!
January 16th, 2006 at 10:58 amI'm a Republican. I like Bush and I support many of his policies, but on the case of FISA he broke the law and he should be impeached. Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of limited government and rule of law and Bush has broken that compact and should be removed from office. Life sucks, but that's just the way it is.
January 16th, 2006 at 9:28 pmI'm neither a Republican or Democrat and haven't watched TV for almost a two years. I'v recently started to read the paper at work just to keep in touch with whats been going on. Nothing concerns me more than too hear we have become so insecure as a Nation that our Constitutional rights were suspended. I'm concerned with my Freedom and have been since Bush was handed a very close election. The future of our country and the legal system which is supposed to protect those freedoms is now on trial. I truly hope President Bush does have to answer for what he has done. However, As of this moment, i'm not convinced anything will be done. Somebody cheer me up and give me a glimmer of whats to come.
January 17th, 2006 at 9:24 amThe only ones who should be worried about the wiretapping are the terrorist cells in this country and the people who support them (or embrace their diversity) Where do you fit in?
January 17th, 2006 at 10:59 pmJim you are a perfect example of why things like this occur. There are too many of you out there who don't care about this sort of thing. But the adoption of the Consitution can not be eroded. We were attacked and many innocesent people died this is not a cause for the President to break the law. Didn't Vietnamn teach any of us a lesson. I Hope George Bush is impeached. This would send a message that nobody is above the law or the Consitution as it is written. Then and Only then will we be free from this fear dog. There are better solutions and many alternatives to wiretapping. The law does not make exception for incoming or outgoing calls even if one side is outside the United States. The cause for "interpretation" of the Law is to be made by a Judge in these cases, which President Bush evaded. He should have to answer for his Crime.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:27 amHow about the code breakers during WW2. They saved countless lives by listening in on the enemies converstations. I think that in those circumstances and ours now it would be rediculous to ignore what the enimies of this country are conversing. You may rethink this again if someone were to set of a dirty bomb in your city.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:20 amJim your obviously not Educated. Breaking Code is not eavesdropping on private conversations. I'm familiar with what your talking about. My grandfather was a Marine in WW2. You are simply trying to change the subject. But there is no sense talking to people like you. You'll find some twisted reason why we should permit Presidents to break current law. I'd suggest you find yourself a nice Communist Country to move to. They'll make sure your safe.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:24 amThat was a stupid comment- my familly have been here and fought for this land since before it was a country. I want to see it continue to be the great land it is and allways has been. Were you against the war in Vietnam? That was a war against Communism. Are you against the war in the mideast? It is against a horrible evil, an evil that denies the hollocaust.... Maybe you are on the communist side, or maybe the radical side. What side are you on? You say there are some alternative solutions to wiretapping. What do you suggest? We have Ossama on the run, his people are being caught up to and dealt with. To me that is a glimmer of hope.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:50 amCC should know better than write about intelligenc...
Impeachment over Bush's wiretapping is being discussed by Republicans!...
January 20th, 2006 at 2:36 pmJim you are obviously a military radical which are the worst kind. The war in Iraq has far less to do with what went on in New York City and mostly to do with Oil. I agree that we had to respond to what went on in New York City. And removing Iraq's leader was a necessary move. I also agree that Bin Ladin should be brought to justice. However, taking away or suspending Constitutional rights or the law isn't acceptable. This only leads to the slow destrutction of what our Nation Stands for. We shouldn't give in to Fear in a time that strength is needed. My solution to the Middle East as a whole is long term. There are many viable alternatives to oil producing automobiles. Which i'd like to note General Motors owns the rights too. They own these rights not for the hope to produce it themselves but to keep hold of an excisting Market. General Motors should lose these patents that they own and eventually they will expire. If we would only take this very large step to producing alterernative automobiles using alternative fuels we would cripple middle Easter markets in a matter of a decade. I'd also like to note that these alterantive fuels cost less to produce, would revitalize our farming belt, and would help to save the environment from future harm.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:40 pmJim i'm only 29 years old wasn't alive during Vietnam but my dad did server in Vietnam. My dad also protested by not marching in the parade after Vietnam had ended. Personally if i'd been alive then, i would have been one of many who went to Canada. The war served no purpose and Nixon payed the price for his crimes. Nothing was accomplised by the war there. I feel sorry for you actually. The government took advantage of many soldiers then. Isn't really your fault that you were there and i would never give any Vietnam vet a hard time. The soldiers of that time were doing what they were told "taking orders" which is what your supposed to do. However plese do not try to justify the war on vietnam to me you won't get anywhere, and the wiretapping issue is going to be settled from the looks of things. Your opinion of wiretapping is the minority. Most who believe in freedom and respect constitional rights do not support your position. I'v started watching the news again and from the looks of things Bush will be in the history books by this summer. And if he isn't we will have quite a change in leadership both house and senate next election.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:58 pm"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain and most fools do" -Benjamin Franklin
January 25th, 2006 at 2:36 amI guess we both have something in common there...
I am glad to see people have an opinion and are willing to stand up for it. I am still not bothered by wire tapping, I am bothered that there are maybe 1% of a billion muslims (you do the math- its a lot) that really hate America enough to want to do damage here. I am bothered that the whitehouse ignored warnings of devestation in New Orleans, I am bothered by an open border on the south side of the country. Be careful of your sources when you are seaking out the truths. Hopefully things will get better.
Do you realize that more people watch the Super Bowl than voted in the last presidential election.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:38 amAs for the big three auto makers- don't invest in their stock. That has ben the advice from financial advisors for some time. They will probably put themselves out of business. The only thing that will save them is radical changes to their cars and less dependence of dollars from gas sales fattening uncle sams wallet. Do you know the govt makes more money on a sale of a gallon of gas than the oil co
January 25th, 2006 at 2:45 am[...] Not everyone on the Right is a true believer. Via Daou Report, there ’s at least one rightie Doubting Thomas, The Lonewacko. See also “Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense” at Think Progress. [...]
February 7th, 2006 at 11:39 am[...] Or in a similarly historic vein Norm Ornstein, a while back: “I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.” [...]
February 7th, 2006 at 6:28 pmLets move-on the wiretapping scandal has it anything to do with national security the quakers in PA come-on?
February 11th, 2006 at 11:24 amWhen we are fighting a war on terror and people are fighting the leader of our war on terror it kind of shows which side they are on. It is not a popular thing to try and win a war but is necesary to rid out evil and stop it for good. There is no negiating with terorists that only want us dead. They will not reason, negotiate, listen, convert,.....
February 16th, 2006 at 1:00 amdon't listen to the people that want to be sympothetic to them, or embrace their ways... they are fools and we would all end up dead if we were to try and follow their stupid advice.
As much as he deserves it, President Bush will never be impeached as long as Karl Rove is around because Rove knows who to call and who to threaten to stop it. Also, the press will prevent impeachment from happening the way it has controlled public opinion throughout this administration -- by playing down the impeachment idea. Political scandals about the president can't go anywhere if the big business media owners don't want it to.
March 9th, 2006 at 10:21 pm