Slashdot Mirror
Domain: afterdowningstreet.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to afterdowningstreet.org.
Comments · 31
-
Huh.
Amazing how opinions about e-mail oversight have changed over a few years. Have those two+ years of e-mail ever turned up?
-
Actually
It was more like 3 or 4 million. Asymmetric warfare is like that; ask the Gazans.
-
Re:WTF?
Actually......
The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (No. 79-1738), has said "The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties of office."
An interesting read on this is below as well....
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3820 -
Wow wtf I just called her yesterday
I just called her yesterday and left a message on her voice mail saying that I felt like she was a traitor to the american people after the news came that she was not going to support contempt for karl rove
and I told her that I read it on that website... now she's looking to censor the congress from communicating on the internet? WTF?????!!!!!!!!
That bitch needs to be impeached.
-
Here's an idea
IMPEACH HIM:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bush
The 35 Articles of Impeachment with video, commentary and blog links, and documentation.
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich reading all 35 articles.
-
Here's an idea
IMPEACH HIM:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bush
The 35 Articles of Impeachment with video, commentary and blog links, and documentation.
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich reading all 35 articles.
-
Here's an idea
IMPEACH HIM:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bush
The 35 Articles of Impeachment with video, commentary and blog links, and documentation.
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich reading all 35 articles.
-
Here's an idea
IMPEACH HIM:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bush
The 35 Articles of Impeachment with video, commentary and blog links, and documentation.
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich reading all 35 articles.
-
Here's an idea
IMPEACH HIM:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bush
The 35 Articles of Impeachment with video, commentary and blog links, and documentation.
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich reading all 35 articles.
-
Here's an idea
IMPEACH HIM:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bush
The 35 Articles of Impeachment with video, commentary and blog links, and documentation.
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich reading all 35 articles.
-
Here's an idea
IMPEACH HIM:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bush
The 35 Articles of Impeachment with video, commentary and blog links, and documentation.
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich reading all 35 articles.
-
Here's an idea
IMPEACH HIM:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bush
The 35 Articles of Impeachment with video, commentary and blog links, and documentation.
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich reading all 35 articles.
-
Here's an idea
IMPEACH HIM:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bush
The 35 Articles of Impeachment with video, commentary and blog links, and documentation.
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich reading all 35 articles.
-
Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!kdawson must go? Well maybe, but impeach cheney first!.
-
Re:Impeachment NOW
Sorry wrong url though you can read much about the impeachment movement. Here is Sean http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16505
-
Impeachment NOW
Please do something instead of complaining, at the very least sign here http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer Read this from Sean Penn http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
-
LYING FOOL
If you'd bothered to click on the link I helpfully offered, you'd have seen that the majority of Americans want Bush impeached.
Your laughter is the hysterics of a demented raver who can't distinguish reality. -
Revolution, American Style
We already have a series of escalating revolutions built into our government. Elections and impeachment.
In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House. A good first move, especially if they're Republican, because the House is supposed to stop the president from abuses. Through oversight in committees overseeing all the president's executive actions and agencies. Through hearings, to which Congress can legally force people to appear and explain their actions, facing penalties for lying like "contempt of Congress", "making a false statement", and the usual perjury and other penalties for lying. Republicans in the House have failed to oversee Bush's actions, instead just keeping each other reelected and sending $TRILLIONS each year to their favorite bribers^Wsponsors.
The House is also not supposed to send laws to Bush that misrepresent their constituents, like laws encouraging martial law or destroying posse comitatus, etc. The Republican House has instead sent these laws to Bush, secretly or just quietly.
You'll probably have a chance to fire one of your senators, too, that Tuesday. Odds are they're a Republican, and have worked together with the Republican House to keep the Republican government, headed by Bush, rolling in dollars, without accountability, while he moves us further from freedom and closer to tyranny. These elections are our version of regularly scheduled revolutions, so no one gets hurt, but change is part of the programme.
But the House is even more important. Because the House, representing the people, has the responsiblity to impeach a president out of control. Especially a criminal president. Impeachment is like indictment for civilians: it's the formal accusation of specific charges against the president, and beginning of a trial in the Senate. Actual conviction in the Senate might not happen, or take too long, but impeachment itself, once begun, is a strong way to stop presidents like Bush from doing anything more. Meanwhile, Congress can pass and repeal bad laws to fix what the president has done. If the president persists, conviction in the Senate is even more likely to be prompt. Unless Republicans really do buy into Bush's gang, and rush to do more damage while their boy is still running things. Most Americans want Congress to impeach Bush.
We all want a revolution. The last few revolutions have been nonstarters, in 2004, 2002, and 2000 - the bad guys won. It's probably time for industrial-strength revolution, impeachment, because the regular revolutions, elections, aren't enough. We'll have the regular revolution first, then see how much we can fix without lowering the boom on Bush. But since he's hell-bent on tyranny, we'll probably have to impeach him, too.
Not a minute too soon. -
Revolution, American Style
We already have a series of escalating revolutions built into our government. Elections and impeachment.
In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House. A good first move, especially if they're Republican, because the House is supposed to stop the president from abuses. Through oversight in committees overseeing all the president's executive actions and agencies. Through hearings, to which Congress can legally force people to appear and explain their actions, facing penalties for lying like "contempt of Congress", "making a false statement", and the usual perjury and other penalties for lying. Republicans in the House have failed to oversee Bush's actions, instead just keeping each other reelected and sending $TRILLIONS each year to their favorite bribers^Wsponsors.
The House is also not supposed to send laws to Bush that misrepresent their constituents, like laws encouraging martial law or destroying posse comitatus, etc. The Republican House has instead sent these laws to Bush, secretly or just quietly.
You'll probably have a chance to fire one of your senators, too, that Tuesday. Odds are they're a Republican, and have worked together with the Republican House to keep the Republican government, headed by Bush, rolling in dollars, without accountability, while he moves us further from freedom and closer to tyranny. These elections are our version of regularly scheduled revolutions, so no one gets hurt, but change is part of the programme.
But the House is even more important. Because the House, representing the people, has the responsiblity to impeach a president out of control. Especially a criminal president. Impeachment is like indictment for civilians: it's the formal accusation of specific charges against the president, and beginning of a trial in the Senate. Actual conviction in the Senate might not happen, or take too long, but impeachment itself, once begun, is a strong way to stop presidents like Bush from doing anything more. Meanwhile, Congress can pass and repeal bad laws to fix what the president has done. If the president persists, conviction in the Senate is even more likely to be prompt. Unless Republicans really do buy into Bush's gang, and rush to do more damage while their boy is still running things. Most Americans want Congress to impeach Bush.
We all want a revolution. The last few revolutions have been nonstarters, in 2004, 2002, and 2000 - the bad guys won. It's probably time for industrial-strength revolution, impeachment, because the regular revolutions, elections, aren't enough. We'll have the regular revolution first, then see how much we can fix without lowering the boom on Bush. But since he's hell-bent on tyranny, we'll probably have to impeach him, too.
Not a minute too soon. -
Re:Careful.....Of course it is just speculation. Try reading about the incident before you deem someone an "asshat" lest you make one of yourself.
From http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7438
"Sure, I'm outspoken and don't normally shy away from protesting. But that wasn't my plan. Just hours before the speech, I had been given a ticket by Rep. Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, who has worked to press Congress to bring the troops home.
At first I didn't really want to go, and I gave the ticket away to someone who gave it back. I would not have been disruptive out of respect for Lynn and the many other members of Congress I deeply admire.
I intended to make a statement, not a scene. Had I wanted to create a disruption, I would have waited until the president arrived to reveal my shirt.
My ticket was in the fifth gallery, front row. An officer -- who a few minutes later would arrest me -- helped me to my seat. I had just sat down and was warm from climbing three flights of stairs, so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out when the officer saw my shirt and yelled "protester!" He then hauled me out of my seat and shoved me up the stairs."
Try http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7579 for a series of other incidents involving people being harrassed and arrested for wearing T-shirts.
-
Re:Careful.....Of course it is just speculation. Try reading about the incident before you deem someone an "asshat" lest you make one of yourself.
From http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7438
"Sure, I'm outspoken and don't normally shy away from protesting. But that wasn't my plan. Just hours before the speech, I had been given a ticket by Rep. Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, who has worked to press Congress to bring the troops home.
At first I didn't really want to go, and I gave the ticket away to someone who gave it back. I would not have been disruptive out of respect for Lynn and the many other members of Congress I deeply admire.
I intended to make a statement, not a scene. Had I wanted to create a disruption, I would have waited until the president arrived to reveal my shirt.
My ticket was in the fifth gallery, front row. An officer -- who a few minutes later would arrest me -- helped me to my seat. I had just sat down and was warm from climbing three flights of stairs, so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out when the officer saw my shirt and yelled "protester!" He then hauled me out of my seat and shoved me up the stairs."
Try http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7579 for a series of other incidents involving people being harrassed and arrested for wearing T-shirts.
-
More people want Bush impeached that did Clinton
Regardless if he is actually impeached, the feelings of the American public should be better reflected by in our elected representation. More people want Bush impeached than did Clinton, and regardless if they have the votes to impeach him, I am ashamed that my representative has not publicly supported it.
-
Re:This is so Funny
Indeed. Here is a site I would recommend, even while it may not accomplish any goals, other than getting the word out that there are like-minded people, and we SHOULD impeach this president.
This president has gotten away with some terribly henious things, and really hasn't accounted for ANY of them.
President Clinton was impeached, and I sincerely doubt that there were half as many people who were really upset about what he did with Lewinsky as who care about what Bush is doing. Yet he keeps on slithering away and things keep deteriorating.
Even if you voted for him the SECOND time, you have to admit that we're losing our freedoms rather quickly, and even when people like this former NSA 'employee' are standing up and trying to slap us in the face and get our attention. I commend this man for his bravery at standing up and displaying anger and disgust publicly. This is what I call patriotic.
I've noticed a rather alarming trend among other websites I've seen carry this story. A large number of the editorials are questioning the legality of the infringement of our constitutional rights. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe I need to be one to know that there is definately something wrong with this whole situation. If it is "legal" we need to have the supreme court take a closer look, and if that produces nothing, have congress rewrite the laws. Now if in fact, by some bizarre reinterpretation of the constitution this is justified as legal for this to BE taking place - as I'm pretty sure they're not pulling the plug on this one just because someone blew a little whistle - there are still plenty of other impeachable .
Just my $1.02 -
Re:Power to the People
In fact, 1/3 of Congress is up for election - as in every 2-year election cycle. So I can say "it could be so". Whether we throw all the bums out, and drag nonbums in, is at least a bit up to us. Personally, I'll be backing House representatives who will impeach Bush, and senators who will convict. Just like a majority of Americans, who want Bush impeached if he lied us into the Iraq War Jr, and know that he did lie. Then we don't have to wait for 3 more years of catastrophe to throw that dangerous fool out of Washington.
-
Re:Do-gooder
Lie: "We have evidence proving that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
Not-Lie: "We have evidence suggesting (or strongly suggesting, or indicating) that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
What you wrote above is quite true. It's a case of wording that defines the lie or the truth.
But it is worth noting that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others bluntly spoke of their certainty that Saddam Hussein had WMD -- thus, they lied. And from what we know from the Downing Street Memos and other sources, we also know that they deliberately set out to lie and did.
I don't have the time to cite this chapter and verse -- minimal research by yourself can prove the point -- but here is one quote to illustrate the point:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam now has weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Cheney, vice president of USA, 26 August 2002 (Sources)
There is absolutely no doubt in the above -- Cheney lied. And you can find many other such quotes by Bush and others; but again, with the Downing Street Memos and other sources available, there is now no doubt -- we're led by liars who deliberately lied to start a war of aggression. -
Comcast (Re:Is it their network?)
Comcast recently blocked all emails containing "www.afterdowningstreet.org" anywhere in the body or sig. (Story here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/794) The short version is, Comcast blamed it on Symantec's filters that they use. Symantec said they had 48,000 complaints about afterdowningstreet, even though the site has never spammed. Symantec wouldn't let anyone (Comcast or the blocked site) see any of the complaints but after pressure from afterdowningstreet folks, they removed the block.
-
Hot Karl + Dirty Sanchez = Saddamy
That's the difference between "lies" and "bullshit". Bush might technically have not "lied", if the British government had "learned" such a fact. Even if some official in the British government "learned" that fact from one source, and then learned that fact was a lie - Bush technically could have told the truth by qualifying his statement as a fact "learned by the British". But it's really just bullshit.
That doesn't mean that Bush's statement wasn't also a "lie". As we now know, the British government had actually learned about Bush that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" - British for "Bush is bullshitting everyone so he can invade Iraq". Americans are starting to find the difference between lies and bullshit to be meaningless: it's all becoming known generally as "bushit". Especially as THERE WAS NO URANIUM, THERE WAS NO WMD, BUSH LIED TO INVADE IRAQ, WHERE'S OSAMA? -
Re:Over-reaction
If Blair can be caught manufacturing a war and the public doesn't give a damn this far along, he is pretty damn safe in office.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
-
Re:It is a big deal.
The study showed the 100,000 plus body count. No one had to exaggerate it. As for deaths that followed sanctions, your understanding of cause and effect is a little off (to put it mildly). The United Nations imposed the sanctions. Bush Senior started the enforcement. Clinton only fulfilled his obligation to the U.N. Bush Junior, rather than do anything to lessen the sanctions, actually sought to increase them (Russia intervened and threatened to veto the move). So, Bush took us to war against the people of Iraq. He has no plan for the peace. No WMDs did he find. He used fantom WMDs to justify his invasion of a sovereign nation. Why did Bush seek to justify his invasion this way? Because otherwise Bush's act is considered a violation of International law. That's right, George Bush is a war criminal (Downing Street Minutes prove this). That puts Bush in the warm and fuzzy company of, dare I say it, Nazis. If the Gulag isn't so bad down in Cuba, as Republicans (and Bush) claim, he won't mind staying there.
-
Re:It is a big deal.So you think that Gore merely calling for regime change in Iraq is synonymous with Bush invading Iraq? And furthermore intentionally misleading the country about the urgency to invade Iraq? And even more so, ignoring the advice of military brass and invading Iraq with insufficient troops and without any forethought given to a viable occupation plan or exit strategy?
Gore isn't responsible for the deaths of 1700 American soldiers, but the Commander in Chief certainly is.
-
Dirty Lies
Iraq built and used WMDs with American support during Reagan's 1980s term. They were done after 1991, part of their surrender to America's first (counter)invasion. What was nearly unanimous in Bush's 2000s term was the opinion that Iraq did not have WMD. With the exception of Bush and his neocon advisors, who were determined to invade Iraq regardless of reasons. Who were lying for a pretext to invade Iraq, instead of stopping the Qaeda in Afghanistan an Pakistan.