House, Senate agree on binding Iraq withdrawal.
By on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
House, Senate agree on binding Iraq withdrawal.
“House and Senate negotiators reached agreement today on final war-funding legislation that would begin bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as early as this July, setting a goal of ending U.S. combat operations no later than March of next year. The deal, which will come to final votes in the House and Senate Wednesday and Thursday, sets up a veto clash with President Bush by week’s end.” More details on the agreement HERE.
UPDATE: A statement from Reid and Pelosi is HERE.
UPDATE II: Thoughts from McJoan.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Send it up to Bush to veto. Let America see that Bush does not want what the people want. Then let’s see how those ‘08 elections go.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:21 pmVeto that, punk ass Bush.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:28 pmMonday, April 23rd, 2007
Congressman Kucinich Will Hold Press Conference to Announce Introduction of Articles of Impeachment Relating To Vice President Richard Cheney
For Immediate Release
April 23, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will hold a news conference tomorrow afternoon to announce the introduction of articles of impeachment relating to the Vice President of the United States Richard B. Cheney.
Where: Cannon Terrace (intersection of Independence Avenue and New Jersey Avenue)
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pmWhen: Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Time: 12 p.m.
It would have been a more difficult veto for Bush had if it been non-binding.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmIf this gets vetoed, then the country will know who didn’t fund the troops. THE PRESIDENT!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pmThat’s good. What happens to the private military under the plan? You know, the Blackwater and others that get 10 times the pay that the military get.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pmWonderful!! Bush failed to properly plan for the war. Bush has had 4+ years of unlimited funding to win the war. He has failed on all fronts and Bush has lost the war. It’s time to start sparing the lives of our troops.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pmIts_Me_Ya_Krazy:
I believe some Krazy Democrats introduced Articles of Impeachment last year too. Those didn’t go anywhere either.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 pmStill not sure why the Dems couldn’t provide a clean bill. Why did they have to buy all their yes votes on such an important bill? If anything, all these oubhgt votes give Bush a valid reason to veto the bill. This bill was just a waste of time and a political statement. Why can’t they simply produce a stand alone bill that brings our troops home? This would at least put Bush in a much bigger bind. Right now he can simply say that he won’t ok a bill due to its pork. Furthermore, the American people deserve to see where it congressmen truly stand on this very important issue. This bill is tainted and once again shows the American people that the Dem controlled congress doesn’t care that much about the Iraq war and only cares about providing the pork money their backers demand for getting them into office.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:38 pmCrump’s Brother And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid:
You really don’t think the White House is going to make the argument that Congress provided the appropriations but included unreasonable additions to said bill?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 pmHow is it binding?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pmKrazy:
Here’s the last one that was introduced: http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/I_text14.pdf
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm#10: of course the White House will make those arguments. But the majority of Americans today have more faith in Congress, don’t trust President Bush, and believe there should be a timeline for withdrawal. If only the press would report those facts instead of the Bush spin, this debate would be a non-issue.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmgregory of Judea, about tea time:
Click on the Washington Post link above and look for the word “shall.”
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm#9 What nonsense. If Bush vetoes funding the troops because he doesn’t want Veteran’s funding, and Katrina aid, great. Even more things to shit hammer Bush and your GOP apologists over. You strip out those line-items if Bush vetoes it (after having gotten GOP Senators and House members on record voting against Veteran’s benefits and Katrina aid, or they vote with the Dems and against Bush).
Then what will Bush’s excuse for a third veto be?
What will GOP members excuse be for not overriding the veto, that we shouldn’t fund Veteran’s benefits?
That we should help Katrina reconstruction and recovery?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:49 pmHey,
Jake“Alfred”,Still waiting for proof of your assertion that Chimpy ordered flags flown at half-mast in honor of Tillman’s death.
How’s that search coming?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:50 pmFrom the second link re: “details”:
“If the president fails to determine that the benchmarks are being met, troops SHALL begin withdrawing by July 1, 2007, with a goal of completing withdrawal 180 days later.” (Emphasis added)
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:50 pmOf course, Roger_Roger, we won’t mention that it was the Republicans who failed to finish the funding bills needed to keep things moving, now will we? We also won’t mention how the Republicans sent plenty of appropriation bills with important Republican pork in it now will we? Or even how some of the ‘pork’ you rail against benefits Republican districts, right?
We both know why Bush is vetoing this bill, and it has nothing to do with the extra spending which amounts to nothing next to the military appropriations. If this exact same bill was presented clean of any timelines for withdraw, Bush would sign it in a heart-beat. ‘Clean Bill’ means a blank check in terms of US involvement in Vietn…err, Iraq. Gee, haven’t we gone through this bull before?
Roger_Roger and Alfred, keep putting out the talking points. They worked so well for you in 2006, didn’t they?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:50 pmAnd You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid:
At least 30% of us trust President Bush on this …
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm#10 DO you really think the White House will argue that Veteran’s health benefit aid is something that should not be funded?
Are you suggesting the White House will say that Katrina recovery aid is not something that should be funded?
Do you think the White House really wants to say we shouldn’t fund the troops because the Democrats want to pay for Veteran’s healthcare and aid, and because Democrats want to help New Orleans rebuild and recover form Katrina?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pmRoger_Roger,
Why couldn’t the Republican controlled congress give the American people a clean minimum wage hike during the end of the last session. Why tie it to the estate tax?
Quit crying foul of tactics that your party promotes ad nauseum.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm#17 That is a loop-hole large enough to drive an Exxon tanker through. Again I ask, how is it binding given that sort of loop-hole?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:54 pm#19: Fine. Of course, you have no basis to trust that Bush will finally deliver on policies that have failed for the past four years. A dog that chases his tail every day probably believes he’ll catch it too.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:54 pmTripMaster Monkey:
As I told you on that other thread, I did not find it with a quick search, but if I find it later, I will definitely post a link later.
Jeremy:
The emergency appropriation request was not sent until THIS Congress. Try again.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pmRoger-Roger,
PORK MONEY?!?!?!?!!?
You must be kidding.
Your fabulous right-wingers had a monopoly on all real power in DC for 6 years and did not curtail spending or pork at all.
Those “tax cuts” that you had to have, aren’t cuts at all. They are tax differals do to the enormous debts ran up by the supposed fiscal conservatives being in power. We will have to pay that money back that we have borrowed from China and the like to fund your “necessary” pre-emptive war.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 pmRoger_Roger,
How much “pork” has been in the budgets produced by a Republic666an controlled Presidency and House during the last six years, and why do we only now hear about “pork”?
More smoke and mirrors by the minions
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 pmOr do you mean “unreasonably additions” like these:
The president’s own request last year for emergency war spending included $20 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, $2.3 billion for bird flu preparations, and $2 billion to fortify the border with Mexico and pay for his effort to send National Guardsmen to the southern frontier.
The 2005 emergency war-spending bill included $70 million for aid to Ukraine and other former Soviet states; $12.3 million for the Architect of the Capitol, in part to build an off-site delivery facility for the Capitol police; $24 million for the Forest Service to repair flood and landslide damage; and $104 million for watershed protection — the lion’s share meant for repairing the damage to waterways in Washington County, Utah, at the request of the state’s Republican senators.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:58 pmBeautiful… nothing like tightning the noose :) Boy Bush just doesn’t get it. He is dumb as dirt and has sh*t for brains.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:58 pmAll Bush needs now is to have the headlines read: “Bush vetoes money for Iraq War” and his gig will be totally up.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pmApril 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Republic666ans are evil.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pmgregory of Judea, about tea time:
Yes, I think the White House and the veto statement already drafted will make exactly that point — which is why the Democrats should have sent a clean bill with non-binding language only.
And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid:
I have plenty of basis to trust Bush — especially as to “delivering” on why I voted for him twice — there’s been no additional partial birth abortions or federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:00 pmFor Immediate Release
April 23, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will hold a news conference tomorrow afternoon to announce the introduction of articles of impeachment relating to the Vice President of the United States Richard B. Cheney.
Where: Cannon Terrace (intersection of Independence Avenue and New Jersey Avenue)
When: Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Time: 12 p.m.
Comment by Its_Me_Ya_Krazy — April 23, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
I will be looking forward to it!
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:00 pmP.S. Everybody, Rove’s trolls are going to do a full-court press on this. It looks like they’ve already started.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 pmJake“Alfred” sez:And as I told you on that other thread, I’m going to keep up with the helpful reminders until you either produce the proof or admit your lie.
So….find it yet?
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:02 pmI believe the real reason that Bush will veto this bill has nothing to do with funding the soldiers and all the BS he is throwing out there about timeliens etc.
With this is about is timing. The Repubs and Bush know that the war has to end before the 08 elections and they want it to be ther idea about withdrawing the troops. If he goes along with this bill the Dems get the credit and that as we all know is not something he can live with.
How many times have we seen Bush and his cronies shoot down any ideas or plans from the Dems, calling them unAmerican, unpatriotic etc. only to see a month or two later the Repubs the embrass wholeheartidly the exact same thing only calling it a different name but with the same results.
The problem is that Bush/Cheney/Rove/Repubs and the media honestly believe the American people are stupid and cannot nuance the complexity of the situation that we find ourselves in.
One answer to all this is: IMPEACH
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:04 pmNo.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 pmAlfred,
Do you oppose stem-cell research and a womans right to choose based on relisious principles? If you do, and then you vote through those beliefs, that would lead me to believe that legislating your religious beliefs on us is acceptable and right. What is that if not theocratic rule?
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pmTomInMaine:
“How many times have we seen Bush and his cronies (sic) shoot down any ideas or plans from the Dems, calling them unAmerican, unpatriotic etc. only to see a month or two later the Repubs the embrass wholeheartidly (sic) the exact same thing only calling it a different name but with the same results?”
Never.
Also, if they believe the American people are stupid and cannot nuance the complexity of the situation that we find ourselves in, how exactly is IMPEACHMENT going to go over?
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm“Alfred”, you really have your priorities straight: Bush has fulfilled your dreams by banning the, what, 3?, so-called “partial birth” abortions that occur in this country, and by refusing to fund “embryonic” (right-wing misnomer) stem-cell research? Some citizen you are! Such lofty goals!
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pmJake“Alfred” sez:Well, don’t you think you should get busy and find it? Exactly how long does a Google search take, anyway?
Or, you could just admit your lie and we could move on, but we all know that there’s about as much chance of you admitting your dishonesty as there is of you actually being an Independent…
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 pmCrump’s Brother:
I don’t believe in theocratic rule (that would make it way too easy for the Anti-Christ to take over and start killing Christians again). I can easily defend each vote on secular grounds.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:12 pmJaneESchneider:
Those are not my only lofty goals. I was simply proving someone wrong above re: “no basis to trust that Bush will finally deliver on policies over the past four years.”
TripMaster Monkey:
I said I already did a Google search — I’m not lying about that either — it took 0.17 seconds for about 108,000 Results.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pmsuppose some of these Senate righties up for reelection ‘08 could be persuaded to vote for the People instead of their party? Smith and Hagel are beginning to sway….
Alabama Jeff Sessions
Alaska Ted Stevens
Georgia Saxby Chambliss
Idaho Larry Craig
Kansas Pat Roberts
Kentucky Mitch McConnell
Maine Susan Collins
Minnesota Norm Coleman
Mississippi Thad Cochran
Nebraska Chuck Hagel
New Hampshire John Sununu
New Mexico Pete Domenici
North Carolina Elizabeth Dole
Oklahoma James Inhofe
Oregon Gordon smith
South Carolina Lindsey Graham
Tennessee Lahmar Alexander
Texas John Cornyn
Virgina John Warner
Wyoming Michael Enzi
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 pmOut of curiosity, “Alfred”, are all of the people who are on your “Jake” ignore list also on your “Alfred”, “Elizabeth”, etal, ignore lists?
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 pmNo.
Comment by Alfred
Ahhh, a
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 pmJakeAlfred classic…..#44 – goehl
Idaho Larry Craig
Absolutely no way in hell. Sorry.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:19 pmJake“Alfred” sez:…and yet we still haven’t seen this proof you swear exists…and we haven’t heard you admit your lie, either.
Classic Jake.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pmI was simply proving someone wrong above re: “no basis to trust that Bush will finally deliver on policies over the past four years.†Comment by Alfred — April 23, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Sorry, neither of those two issues were “policy” issues 4 years ago. Cherry-picking those out of all of the promises Bush made is pretty flimsy. Face facts, Bush has lied about 95% of his time in office. You didn’t prove anybody wrong.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:28 pmJakalfred;
Why do you even bother? You are part of the 33% of the country that is either deluded or simply evil, and none of us 66%’ers are going to change your mind about anything. This is OK. But, move on why don’t you? You also aren’t going to change our minds either. If banging your head against the wall gives you pleasure, keep posting because that’s the ONLY value to anyone in your posts.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:29 pmIt would have been a more difficult veto for Bush had if it been non-binding.
Comment by Alfred — April 23, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Nobody asked you, Jake.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:30 pmI can easily defend each vote on secular grounds.
Yes, because Supreme Court justices know better than trained doctors what procedures may be medically necessary.
Kennedy’s opinion reads like it was written by the most extreme fanatics of Operation Rescue and uses loaded terms like “abortion doctor”. It does NOT reflect the proper decorum and civility of a Supreme Court opinion – it reads instead like a position paper for a pundit.
You think it’s fine to deny women the right to control their own bodies? Those fellas in Afghanistan we deposed had some ideas like that too…
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:33 pmJaneESchneider:
I am neither “Jake†nor “Elizabeth†and I certainly don’t know what “ignore list” you are referring to. The partial birth abortion ban (HR 760, S 3) was signed into law in 2003, so that was indeed FOUR years ago. The stem-cell decision was announced in 2001, but funding for those lines in existence as well as alternative research was in effect FOUR years ago. Maybe you were referring to Bush’s very first veto on July 19, 2006 of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005?
Trekkie:
Yes.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:37 pmTrekkie:
It’s fine to deny MEN the right to control their own bodies too. See, e.g.
Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 120; 271 Cal. Rptr. 146; 793 P.2d 479. The California Supreme Court held that Moore had no property rights to his own body cells or any profits made from them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moore_v._the_Regents_of_the_University_of_California
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:43 pmOut of curiosity, “Alfredâ€, are all of the people who are on your “Jake†ignore list also on your “Alfredâ€, “Elizabethâ€, etal, ignore lists?
Comment by JaneESchneider
That’s how he gets around his pitiful “Ignore List.”
Hi, Wayne & Jane!
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 pmThis is an extremely weak bill. It’s not “binding,” it’s advisory. It gives Bush a waiver to keep troops in a war zone more than 12 months, as well as shortening their home time to less than 12 months. Hell, he’s already done it…even though it violates long-standing Army regs. The update he’s “required” to provide Congress is going to come down to his usual talking point “We’re making progess.” The Dems keep talking tough, but they buckled. Why Bush would even bother to veto this bill is beyond me, except out of plain meanness and because his own people didn’t write it. I’m deeply disappointed. I’m with Feingold…stop the funding, bring our troops home.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 pmJake“Alfred” sez:My God, Shakey…how much more pathetic can you get?
We all know it’s you. As I have said repeatedly, your writing style gives you away after just a few posts. I don’t know whether it’s stubbornness or just garden-variety stupidity that keeps you from realizing this, but it’s true regardless.
Instead of wasting your time and ours with endless unconvincing denials, you might consider a better use of your time…like, for example, finding proof of your assertion that Chimpy ordered flags to half-mast in honor of Tillman’s death.
Speaking of which, how’s that search coming along?
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 pmThe California Supreme Court held that Moore had no property rights to his own body cells or any profits made from them.
Comment by Alfred
Sure
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:51 pmJakeAlfred, you get all upset when men don’t have control of profits made from cells from their bodies. Waaaah!I already gave you a status report on that search, TripMaster Monkey.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:51 pm28%
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:53 pmI’m not “all upset” when men don’t have control of profits made from cells from their bodies. Which is why I said: “It’s fine to deny MEN the right to control their own bodies too.”
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 pm“It would have been a more difficult veto for Bush had if it been non-binding.”
Comment by Alfrakelizibealdan
riiight…and if it had been non-binding your response would have been…”why waste taxpayers’ money on this? boring”
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 pmTime to ratchet up the pressure…
…bring this sh*t to a head…
…and make heads ROLL!
INVESTIGATE
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:58 pmIMPEACH
INCARCERATE
IMPOVERISH
Alfred
Moore does not do what you claim it does.
Moore dealt with the very narrow issue of whether a person (of either gender) had a property interest in cells extracted from their body during the course of medical treatment. Moore’s argument was one of illegal conversion, but the Court stated that, to establish conversion, Moore would have to have proven that he retained an ownership interest in the cells that were extracted. In addition, the court held that to require medical research to examine the pedigree of every cell that comes into their possession would unduly burden the public good of medical advancement to the point of stagnation.
Please READ the actual cases instead of the Wikipedia summaries. You might actually learn something.
Your argument does not address the core problem of the decision in Carhart – that a court has supplanted the woman’s treating physician as the decision-maker as to what is medically necessary.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pmI have read both cases, and I don’t believe there is a “core problem” in the (latest) Carhart decision.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:02 pmWhy do you people constantly engage with trolls like Alfred or the other multi-named flamers? It distracts from discussion on the topic of the string, and takes up space necessitating scrolling past a bunch of junk to find relevant comments.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:07 pmJournalist/author David Halberstam died today in a car crash in Menlo Park, California. He was a reporter in Vietnam in the early 60s. His book about it ‘The Best and Brightest’ is a very good read of his Vietnam experience. The parallels between Vietnam then and Iraq now is unnerving.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pmHey,
Jake“Alfredâ€,Still waiting for proof of your assertion that Chimpy ordered flags flown at half-mast in honor of Tillman’s death.
How’s that search coming?
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:22 pm“alfred”
is jake on your ignore list?
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pmIf Senator Reid disagrees with military generals on withdrawal schedule..that ’s called ‘cut & run’, but if Bush fires any of these generals, who disagrees with him ,it is called ‘good management’.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pmimpeachcheneythenbush:
I am not a troll.
TripMaster Monkey:
Just fine, thanks for asking.
bob (not the hacker):
I still don’t know what “ignore list†you are referring to.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:38 pmI have read both cases, and I don’t believe there is a “core problem†in the (latest) Carhart decision.
You believe it’s all right for UNTRAINED judges to supplant the DOCTOR in making a MEDICAL DECISION? That’s idiotic, and you’re an idiot for saying that is PERFECTLY FINE.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pmI’d like to remind everyone here that if we can’t muster up enough votes in the Senate to override a veto, we’re damn well not going to get enough votes for an impeachment. Franken’s idea is the best I’ve seen: a veto-proof majority in the Senate takes over a few weeks before Bush leaves office and impeaches him a week before his term ends as a symbolic statement to the American people. Unless enough current Repub Senators change their minds, this is the best possible outcome.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:48 pmTrekkie: “You believe it’s all right for UNTRAINED judges to supplant the DOCTOR in making a MEDICAL DECISION?”
Yes, and they trust politicians’ knowledge of climatology to be better than trained climatologists. On top of that, they trust profit-based corporate middle-men to have our best interests at heart when it comes to healthcare.
Strange, huh?
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:52 pmJake“Alfred” sez:So, when can we expect results, Shakey?
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 pm#66 – Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — April 23, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
“Why …constantly engage with …Alfred or the other multi-named flamers? It distracts from discussion on the topic of the string, and takes up space necessitating scrolling past a bunch of junk to find relevant comments.”
Good question!
And yet, four of the eight non-”Alfred” posts responded to him or some other flamer. It is hard to get the attention of those distracted by the likes of “Alfred.” Yet, that is EXACTLY the game “Alfred,” et.al., play on this thread EVERY DAY!
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:10 pmIt is hard to get the attention of those distracted by the likes of “Alfred.
Sorry, they got my ire up. I’ll try to refrain from taking the bait from now on.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:37 pmMeanwhile, back on the thread:
I am somewhat concerned about this last paragraph in the agreement:
If this is the language, without any troop number caps, we can count on Bush to use this to keep the U.S. military in Iraq at their present or higher numbers, in order to “protect U.S. personnel and facilities, serve in diplomatic positions, pursue al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and train and equip Iraqi forces.” That committment could be never ending.
And then there’s always the possibility of another signing statement.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 pmComment by Alfred — April 23, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Hopefully you are not in the practice of law. Wikipedia is not exactly the best source to go to if you want to interpret the holdings of the California Supreme Court.
Moore was not given the opportunity for informed consent, as his doctor withheld the true reason for having him undergo multiple operations.
The “property” theory involved was a novel one. The court said that since Moore intended to discard the cells following the operations, he did not have any “property” interests in the cells.
Now, can you tell me what that has to do with the subject of this thread?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm“Georgia Saxby Chambliss
Comment by goehl — April 23, 2007 @ 6:18 pm”
I cannot wait to vote AGAINST that patronizing Bushite!!!
He’ll remain in his position, because this state is filled with people who refuse to think… But, he’ll get a scare at least.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 pmP.S. YAY! That Congress is doing some good work. LOVED the statement by Pelosi and Reid. As usual, it was MLK quality commentary… If we’re going to have a first female President, I really think it should be Pelosi.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 pma veto-proof majority in the Senate takes over a few weeks before Bush leaves office and impeaches him a week before his term ends as a symbolic statement to the American people. Unless enough current Repub Senators change their minds, this is the best possible outcome.
Comment by Bluedog49 #73
…IMPEACHMENT is repudiation for his “policy” failures…
…WE should be SCREAMING for his(Cheney and ALL of their) prosecutions…
…for his/their crimes against humanity, corruption, and theft…
…if the American PEOPLE don’t rise up and SERIOUSLY seek JUSTICE and accountability…
…from Bushiva and L’il Dick et al…
…American justice will be nothing more than a useless, impotent phrase…
…and NO ONE should EVER teach his/her child(ren) to respect the rule of law again…
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 pmDid I miss something? What did the administration do that is impeachable? Didn’t the senate including Democrats vote for the war?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:43 am>I have plenty of basis to trust Bush —
> What did the administration do that is impeachable?
“we know without a doubt that saddam hussien has weapons of mass destruction.” “we know where the weapons are.”
if taking our nation to war based on lies (say what you want about “faulty intelligence” and honest mistakes, they did NOT know where the non-existent weapons were.
> especially as to “delivering†on why I voted for him twice —
> there’s been no additional partial birth abortions.
do you consider killing an iraqi fetus with a bomb dropped from a plane to be a “partial birth abortion”? or are you only against killing things that cant feel pain? you support more unwanted children in this world then, right? do you support the money to pay for all of them? and money to lock them up when they turn to crime because they had no-one who loved them..
> or federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
oh, the horror. wait wait.. war is the only time we should be able to justify taking innocent “life”, right?
is that what your saying?
and dropping a dishful of 330 embryos in the garbage is a 10 times greater crime in your eyes than the virgina massacre, right?
so your telling me if theres a fire, and your could only save either A) a roomful of ten children age one thru ten or B) a petri dish of 1000 embryos, you;d save the embryos and let the kids burn, right?
April 24th, 2007 at 4:54 am