House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney

An anonymous reader writes "Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) yesterday successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee. 'Today's resolution from Kucinich (D-Ohio) was essentially the same as the legislation he introduced earlier this year, which included three articles of impeachment against Cheney based largely on allegations that he manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."'"

Comments

Before people start asking "why not impeach bush"

[heatdeath]

Think about what that would mean for the next election.

a little tweak

[ILuvRamen]

I think they should drop the one with Iran cuz "no threat?...come on! That's ridiculous. Any crazy person with rockets is a threat to me. Anyway, they should replace that charge with reckless endangerment with a firearm. I'm not sure if that actually exists, I just made it up. Maybe just reckless endangerment. Either way, he should watch where he's pointing that shotgun.

Re:a little tweak

[warp1]

However, I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy.

Re:a little tweak

[NiceGeek]

Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

"Any crazy person with rockets is a threat to me."

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lots more missiles at their disposal than Iran's government, so.........

After having watched their performance for the last 7 years, I think their sanity is certainly an open question. George W. was also an alcoholic and drug abuser for most of his adult life which also calls in to question his stability. When you have two people who have done nothing positive for their entire reign, and almost single handedly turned America in to a globally hated and despised country you generally have to wonder....what were they thinking. Just observe the fact the U.S. dollar is plunging relative to most other currencies. Markets are ruthlessly efficient at finding truth and the plunging dollar indicates America has been officially run in to the ground by our fearless leaders.

Kucinich is kind of a space cadet sometimes but he was right on trying to get Cheney impeached first. You have to get him impeached before you can impeach Bush otherwise he would take over and President Cheney would be a nightmare come true.

Re:a little tweak

[Sabaki]

Unlike, say, North Korea. Who we know has nuclear weapons and rockets capable of reacing the US.

Re:a little tweak

[ArcherB]

Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S.

But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also). Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should drop the one with Iran cuz "no threat?...come on! That's ridiculous.

Not so long ago, if you believed the mainstream media, it was ridiculous to suggest that Iraq might not have "weapons of mass destruction". Even more recently, if you believed the mainstream media, it was ridiculous to suggest that it would be extremely difficult to set up a stable stand-alone democracy in Iraq.

The current consensus in the mainstream media is that Iran is a major threat (e.g. a "crazy person with [nuclear] rockets"). The thing is, if you actually start laying out specific scenarios, the only way that Iran would get into a major war with the USA (or even Israel, for that matter) is if the USA (or Israel) attacked Iran first. Even if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, it would not attack first because in the end it would lose.

That's not to say that the USA couldn't bring about a major war with Iran (by attacking first) or that the Bush administration is smart enough to avoid provoking a war with Iran. Basically, Iran is like a wild animal that mostly wants to hide but may venture out occasionally to scavenge a carcass. If Iran gets backed into a corner and is forced to stand and fight then things could get very ugly but as long as the USA doesn't back Iran into a corner and force it to fight then Iran is not going to attack on its own.

What Kucinich means by "no real threat" is not that the USA can't (or won't) start a war with Iran but that the USA could avoid a war with Iran if it wanted to.

Re:a little tweak

[AtariEric]

I can swim. Recovering from getting shot in the face... I dunno...

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

Maybe wait until there is actual proof these nations wish to launch rockets at the US/NATO.

If you are suggesting that the US strikes before there is an actual threat then what is to stop other countries doing the same?

North Korea will have to launch because the US is a threat, same for everyone else.

There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later.

Re:a little tweak

[Gideon Fubar]

or possibly japan, or possibly not.

Re:a little tweak

[doktorjayd]

do nothing?

well, treating sovereign nations with a bit of respect rather than attempting to play off regional conflicts in order to control their natural resources ( yes, its all about the oil ), is probably as close to 'doing nothing' as you need in order to ward off the spectre of an arms race ( implied just yesterday by hans blix: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/sydney-peace-prize-for-blunt-blix/2007/05/20/1179601243747.html ).

see the problem is, the americans dont want peace, they want peace on their terms, which is to ensure america(ns) are rich and powerful, with scraps thrown out for whoever bends over for them.

its really not that difficult to stop the world going to shit, but how would the rich get richer ( which brings us back OT: please impeach chaney )

Re:a little tweak

[DavidShor]

Of course Archer. The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud...

Re:a little tweak

[powerpants]

You've implied a false choice, namely, that either 1) We stop Iran from going nuclear or 2) We get nuked. Nine nations have acquired nuclear weapons and yet they haven't been used since WWII. To claim that Iran will use their nukes against the US (or its allies) is to assume that they are collectively suicidal. This assumption seems rather far-fetched to me, and a lousy basis for a foreign policy.

Re:a little tweak

[Storlek]

implied just yesterday by hans blix

Oh no, not Hans Brix!

Re:a little tweak

[Elsapotk421]

that may be true, but I personally, given the kind of person President Amhadinejad seems to be, think that he would make the first strike against us. At least not publicly. I feel that if he indeed wanted open aggression with the united states that he would make them strike first as to make the US look overly aggressive and perhaps create sympathy for their plight. Mind games really. Winning a war is not about just firepower. As the Iraq war has shown us, words are as powerful as the gun that you have. The power to move people, albeit by deception, gives you an army that is willing to kill themselves to kill you. If we attack Iran as we did Iraq the US will have every arab within 3000 miles honing their sights on them.

Re:a little tweak

[Sabaki]

The head of the CIA has testified they can reach the US, so we at least ostensibly believe they do.

Re:a little tweak

[XaXXon]

What the FUCK? Do we attack EVERYONE who has rockets? And, by your second argument, we should attack everyone who doesn't have rockets, too?

Re:a little tweak

[HTH NE1]

So, do unto others before they can do unto you?

Re:a little tweak

[vux984]

But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also). Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

The US has rockets that can reach anywhere in the world. Europe, Israel, India, Japan, and so on. May I suggest you read up on your own country. Does the rest of the world wait until the US has nuclear tipped rockets that can reach elsewhere? Oh wait... they already do! Do they do nothing until the US uses a nuke to destroy a city? Oh wait... they already did. (granted it was world war 2, but since the dawn of nuclear technology the only country that has ever attacked with a nuclear warheads is the US.)

"Yeah but the President of Iran is a crazy religious idiot." you might say. Fair comment, but then the same can be said about George Bush. And what about your next president, the republican front runner is currently "Mayor 9/11". That doesn't exactly bode well.

As much as I despise the guy for his wacko ideas the President of the US is just as out of touch with reality, and unlike the Iranians, Bush is actively prosecuting multiple wars without much regard for the fact that its costing countless innocent civilians their lives. The thousands of innocent civilians killed by American's in these wars far outweighs any moral right they might have appealed to. 2000 deaths 6 years ago is a tragedgy. "Incidently" Killing thousands of innocent civilians per year for the next 6 years while seeking revenge on the perpetrators is utter madness.

Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.

That's easy. Some terrorists hijacked a few planes and rammed them into buildings. So what are you suggesting? The US should bomb any foreign country with pilots? Good luck with that.

Re:a little tweak

[mangu]

I can swim

Sure, but how well can you swim when the senator who knocked you up wants to run for president and is afraid of the scandal? You wouldn't even get an autopsy, because that would reveal your condition.

Re:a little tweak

[rk]

"Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?"

Damn, I thought it was sweeps month, and here I am getting reruns:

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - G.W. Bush, 7 Oct 2002

Sorry, but I've been down this road before, and I didn't really buy it the first time. Iran could hypothetically have anti-matter planet busters, but the only way I'll believe it coming from this administration is if they take me personally on a tour of Iran and show them to me. That's the funny thing about credibility. Once it's shot, it's REALLY hard to get it back.

Ironically, I always believed Iran to be a more credible threat to US interests than Iraq anyway. I was never in favor of the Iraq war, but the right argument with solid evidence might have got me behind hitting Iran. But that ship has sailed, and I won't be getting on the next one.

Re:a little tweak

[Leftist Troll]

What a crock of shit. Iran may be run by religious nuts, but they aren't suicidal.

Re:a little tweak

[FirstTimeCaller]

Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

Hell no! I for one am going to stock up on marshmallows!

Re:a little tweak

[ArcherB]

To claim that Iran will use their nukes against the US (or its allies) is to assume that they are collectively suicidal. This assumption seems rather far-fetched to me, and a lousy basis for a foreign policy.

Hitler spelled out his intentions in Mein Kamph, but no one believed it until it actually happened. Ahmadinejad has done the same, except he didn't actually write it in a book. Google ahmadinejad 12th Imam to get an idea about what is going on over there. I'll give you a brief rundown. Ahmadinejad would like to see the second coming of the 12th Imam. It's like the second coming of Christ for Muslims and is said to usher in a era of Muslim world domination. They think that the 12th Imam's second coming will be after an Armageddon type event, so they welcome the idea. It's a good thing in their minds.

May I also suggest you look up his speech where he says that Israel should be wiped off the map (or "erased from history" depending on the translation).

So yeah, Iran really is suicidal and the idea is not that far fetched at all if you take the time to educate yourself. Allow me to quote Ahmadinejad when he spoke to the UN:

"From the beginning of time, humanity has longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being [12th Imam] who is heir to all prophets and pious men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace. O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace." I think he spells it out pretty clearly.

Re:a little tweak

[goofyheadedpunk]

> Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach
> the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.

Yeah, they killed a few thousand people, we went batshit insane, promptly cluster fucked ourselves and directly caused the death of nearly a million individuals.

I don't see your point.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

O please, if the US actually saw such things as real threats, then what about North Korea, a country we KNOW has nuclear weapons, and IS developing rockets that CAN attack the US?

Re:a little tweak

[rainman_bc]

. Nine nations have acquired nuclear weapons Including Pakistan, which IMO is pretty scary. The US has some strange bedfellows...

Truth is, owning nukes puts you in a club - a club where you don't run the risk of invasion from the US. I don't blame Ahmenijad one bid for wanting nukes. Hell I'd want them too if I was a country that the US was targetting - it would grant me autonomy. Look at the damage the US has done in the last 7 years in the name of "Freedom"

Re:a little tweak

[DavidShor]

Sarcasm, I was directly quoting Bush.

Re:a little tweak

[lymond01]

Other countries have more reason to launch against us than we do against them. We destroy cultures with our capitalism. We proclaim them religious zealots and kill them. We denounce leaders because of their treatment of their own people, while flushing our own ideals down the toilet. We call POWs enemy combatants so we can torture them.

We're lame. We've been an intruding, imperialist nation in a world for a long time now, and other countries are finally getting sick of it. We need to change our policies, curb our corporate growth, and clean up our act. I hope we don't get nuked by a small country we pissed off, because the rest of the world will just say, "They deserved it."

I'm pro-America. But I feel like we're being led (and have been led for a long time) towards an anti-American goal.

Re:a little tweak

[aurum42]

I'm not familiar with the various and sundry conspiracy theories surrounding "Chappaquiddick", but the wikipedia article claims that it was a certain Joseph Flanagan, attorney for Mary Kopechne's parents/family, who prevented the autopsy. How does that fit in (and I'm curious, it's not a rhetorical question) with the claims of sinister machinations by Kennedy?

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

New York already glows in the dark. A little radiation will probably just add a little more charm.

Re:a little tweak

[bmajik]

But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also).

I see. You know, one way to help keep US troops out of reach of Iranian rockets is to pull back US troops so that they're within the US or its territories. That might have the added affect of lessening the amount of anti-American sentiment seen worldover, when perfectly indiginous countries occasionally wonder why there are US military bases on their soil..

Incidentally, the man who's pledged to bring our troops back not only from Iraq but from everywhere is Ron Paul.

Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

Let me make a comparison:

bitorrent client: possession of a bittorrent client is not sufficient grounds to accuse someone of piracy and throw them in jail

nuke: possibility of posession of a nuclear weapon is sufficient grounds to pre-emptively attack them.

Once upon a time, this country tried really hard to avoid war. Not because we're a bunch of sissy pacifists (generally), but because war isn't a hobby one should make, either individually or collectively.

I think it's fair to wait until you've been attacked before you go attacking someone else. History has shown that we typically win defensive wars and there's not much arguing about if we were in the right or not. History has shown that we lose offensive wars and that it deeply divisive towards the soliders, citizens, and rest of the world.

I'm hoping that nobody ever nukes Manhattan. But bombing Iran isn't going to lower the chances of that happening.

Re:a little tweak

[rs79]

You might want to have a look at this:

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

"This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today. From the introduction to Part 1:

"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created todays nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. " The Power of Nightmares, Baby It's Cold Outside.

Part 1 - Baby it's Cold Outside | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 2 - The Phantom Victory | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2

An NTSC DVD ISO is available to make burning this to DVD easier.

This item is part of the collection: Feature Films"

Re:a little tweak

[doktorjayd]

yeah,

he nearly blew chaneys cover pre (illegal) iraq invasion eh?

better make sure he doesnt come back and help get chaney impeached....

Re:a little tweak

[ArcherB]

Sorry, but I've been down this road before, and I didn't really buy it the first time. Iran could hypothetically have anti-matter planet busters, but the only way I'll believe it coming from this administration is if they take me personally on a tour of Iran and show them to me. That's the funny thing about credibility. Once it's shot, it's REALLY hard to get it back.

OK, so you don't trust the US administration when it comes to Arab countries and WMD's. That's completely understandable. Would you believe the leader of that Arab country? Look here.

Ironically, I always believed Iran to be a more credible threat to US interests than Iraq anyway. I was never in favor of the Iraq war, but the right argument with solid evidence might have got me behind hitting Iran. But that ship has sailed, and I won't be getting on the next one.

Again, I understand. Don't listen to the Bush administration and you still have all the solid evidence you need. May I also suggest that you read up on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's plans for the 12th Imam. Now keep in mind that the 12'th Imam will only return after Armageddon. Here is how Ahmadinejad sees Iran's role:

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country. This ain't Iraq. I was for the war in Iraq, and I still am. I've met those people and understand why we are there. But this is something much different. Our intel is not coming from Iranian defectors with an ax to grind. It is coming from Ahmadinejad himself. If I could go back in time and stop us from going into Iraq, I would do it in a heart beat. I would do so because it has caused us to pause when it comes to Iran and that is much more dangerous than Iraq ever would be.

Re:a little tweak

[ArcherB]

Um... I don't see neocons or radical Christians beheading people on YouTube while chanting "God is Great". I don't care what the film says, the comparison is not a valid one.

Re:a little tweak

[Torvaun]

Rule 13: Do unto others.

Re:a little tweak

[mangu]

How does that fit in (and I'm curious, it's not a rhetorical question) with the claims of sinister machinations by Kennedy?

Picture this, the whole family was supporting Kennedy wholeheartedly. Some lawyer tells her parents: "look, this was a very unfortunate accident, but, if it became known that she was pregnant, the press would magnify this, etc..."

It could be true or not, but it does make sense.

Re:a little tweak

[Captain Splendid]

Ahmadinejad would like to see the second coming of the 12th Imam

And Bush believes in the rapture. What's your point? We're rating superstitious beliefs now?

May I also suggest you look up his speech where he says that Israel should be wiped off the map

Geez, get your head out of the MSM's arse, would you?

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:34:18 -0400 From: "Cole, Juan"

The speech in Persian is here:

Sorry that I misremembered the exact phrase Ahmadinejad had used. He made an analogy to Khomeini's determination and success in getting rid of the Shah's government, which Khomeini had said "must go" (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.

Iran really is suicidal

Thank you for diagnosing an entire country. I'm sure your pioneering work will receive the acclaim it deserves.

I think he spells it out pretty clearly.

No, you just need to clean the shit out of your ears.

Re:a little tweak

[iocat]

Dude, he still killed her. I never understand why people look up to him as this moral authority, when he's -- at the very least -- guilty of manslaughter, and probably negligent homicide. It has totally colored my feelings towards a whole generation of "yeah, but he's a Kennedy" baby boomer libs.

Re:a little tweak

[YukonTech]

First all of all Iran hos no rocket that could ever hope to be a threat to you or your family. They simply do not have the military, technology, or capability to be a threat to the USA. To people who say they may have nuke grade uranium in 5-10 years, what about the cold war? Russia had litterally thousands of nukes(on rockerts that could actually make it to us soil unlike iran), and it was possible to get out of that situation without a prempive attack infact a preemptive attack (which chaney is trying to setup on iran) could very well have started a war that destroyed the planet. Iran is NOT a threat to the USA, iran is a threat to oil, and (I admit) a threat to isreal. but thats it. SLet me repeat this IRAN IS NOT A THREAT TO USA, and WILL NOT FOR A LONG TIME. the biggest threat to the USA is is warmongers and profitiers.

Remember when pople used to give their life for our freedom? Why are we now giving our freedom for our life?

Re:a little tweak

[MtHuurne]

2000 deaths 6 years ago is a tragedgy. "Incidently" Killing thousands of innocent civilians per year for the next 6 years while seeking revenge on the perpetrators is utter madness. It's even worse than that. The direct perpetrators all killed themselves in the attacks. The people who helped them plan the attacks had nothing to do with Iraq.

Re:a little tweak

[Alotau]

There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later. We already tried "invent evidence & then shoot"... I just don't see any other options.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just attack EVERYONE as anyone MIGHT threaten the USA some day

Re:a little tweak

[Some_Llama]

you'll have to wait until he finds out how to respond from Sean Hannity.

Re:a little tweak

[Antique Geekmeister]

No, we send them to secret torture prisons to avoid US laws and throw out habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention on a new made-up class of people, "enemy non-combatants".

The comparison has a sound basis.

Re:a little tweak

[Afecks]

What exactly makes Iran so much crazier than the USA? Is it because they believe in a different set of rules that the invisible man in the sky gave them?

Just think about that for a second.

Re:a little tweak

[Max Littlemore]

But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also).

That is so fuckin true, and it's something those pinkos don't understand. Thanks for putting it down so clearly. I mean shit, these people spout all that crap about how Iran is developing weapons because the US keeps threatening them and sold Iraq WMDs and is trying to control Iraq now and Isreal doesn't like them and has a track record of bombing Syria and Lebanon and stealing land without giving a shit about civilians or human rights of anyone who isn't jewish, and Isreal has nukes. Wa wa wa. What a load of BS - it's clear that all Iranians are evildoers and they will not stop until they have destroyed America's freedom. They can reach American forces who are stationed all around the world to protect American freedom for the whole planet. Anyone who says otherwise is a crackpot.

Also, what about Pakistan. Those guys are just pretending to be freinds when in really they hate the US more than North Korea or even Canada and they already have nukes! We should be bombing them now. All of those Muslims from Syria to Pakistan. Fuck diplomacy, fucking fry 'em.

Than there's Sudan. Nuke Sudan. They hate American freedom too and their hatred has probably already spread throughout Africa from Cairo to Johanessburg. BOOM

Then there's China and Russia, who are only pretending not to be commie by the way. Nuke China and Russia. Then we'd better nuke Japan, because I don't think they really learned the first time - The PS3 runs Linux and not Vista. BOOM

Speaking of Linux - isn't that a socialist ploy from Finland? BOOM! And isn't the EU taking steps to inhibit the legitimate freedoms usually afford such fine American technology as Vista? BOOM

Fucking South America is full of commies and drug pushers. New Zealand refuses the freedom of having nuclear armed ships in it's harbours and now that Steve Irwin is dead, Australia is no fucking use. BOOM BOOM BOOM

Given wind currents, etc, that only leaves Canada and Mexico.

Fuck 'em. BOOM

Or to put it in a less sarcastic way, paranoia breeds paranoia. Fear breeds fear which leads to stupid decisions. Humans don't think as clearly when they are scared. Paranoia is an excellent and well worn political tool to keep a population voting for idiots. Try thinking outside of that cage for a bit.

Re:a little tweak

[Gideon Fubar]

Please don't make me bring up what former heads-of-the-CIA have testified about in the past.

You do realize that the current one is the one responsible for the abuse of FISA and the warantless wiretaps of US citizens, right? Yeah, i know that's immaterial to North Korea's (lack of) missile capability.

Re:a little tweak

[zhenya00]

Um... I don't see neocons or radical Christians beheading people on YouTube while chanting "God is Great". I don't care what the film says, the comparison is not a valid one.

Really? What then would you call the illegal invasion of Iraq that our radical Christian government has had us involved in for the past 5 years? Just because they wrap it in the flag of patriotism doesn't change the contents.

Re:a little tweak

[darjen]

How bout we get our military out of every other country, so people don't have a reason to dislike our presence? Maybe, just maybe, people in the middle east are finally getting really really upset about continued western meddling in their affairs. If I were in their shoes, I know I would be. We need to stop intervening around the world, period.

Re:a little tweak

[ArcherB]

And Bush believes in the rapture. What's your point? We're rating superstitious beliefs now?

Yeah, but Bush is not trying to rush it!

Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

Gee! I don't know which is worse. Wiped off the map or wiped out so bad that the that it goes back in time and erases them from history! I also noted that translation in my original post.

Thank you for diagnosing an entire country. I'm sure your pioneering work will receive the acclaim it deserves.

You are correct. The entire country doesn't agree. But their fingers won't be on the button, Ahmadinejad's will.

No, you just need to clean the shit out of your ears.

Still not clear enough for you? How about this one?

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi." If I have shit in my ears and I can still hear what he is saying, then the fact that you can't tells me you don't have shit in your ears, but between them.

Re:a little tweak

[bckrispi]

^ No, but you *do* see radical Christians calling for more war and destruction and mayhem in the middle east in hopes that it'll encourage Jesus to do his encore. Christian fundies don't need to carry the swords - they have our government to spill the blood.

Re:a little tweak

[Sabaki]

I'm not saying they're correct, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in their drive for war with Ira*.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran's president and political structure is not like in the U.S. Ahmadinejad cannot declare or manage wars. He is not the "Commander in Chief" and his fingers are nowhere near the scary red button.

Re:a little tweak

[Gideon Fubar]

point taken, your subtlety is noted :P

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead you see footage of an abortion clinic blowing up, amusingly with picketers still in front, carrying signs saying "Abortion is murder"

Re:a little tweak

[Lemmy Caution]

Within the context of Iranian politics, President Ahmadinejad is almost powerless. Iran has a very weak executive branch, and he's not particularly powerful or influential now. The US media and political establishment like to keep him in the news because his ravings make good copy, but that doesn't really mean much in terms of the actual level of threat posed by Iran.

Re:a little tweak

[sgarringer]

No Bush isn't trying to rush it. Hes just said that he communicates directly with God.

That makes me feel much safer.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you can't preemptively attack someone. This is a very arrogant "The US is on top, we will always be on top, noone may threaten us" attitude which the entire world resents.

By your logic every country should attack the US. You're the biggest threat to stability in the entire world, not Iran. I am much more afraid that your country will go insane and start nuking or attacking countries (well, the attacking has already started).

Re:a little tweak

[Original Replica]

Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US?

Under your logic, Iran should launch any nukes it has, right now. Because, we are most definitely gearing up to bomb Tehran into rubble.

Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

Short answer, Yes. We shouldn't attack another country until they have at least tried to attack us first. To reframe the whole idea: imagine going into your neighbor's house and shooting him dead, because your neighbor owned a shot gun and was a jerk. I'm sure the judge would see how that was self defense on your part.

Re:a little tweak

[ILuvRamen]

last time I checked, we care about Isreal. Oh yeah and I think we have some people in Iraq too. I dunno, I'll have to check on that last one.

Re:a little tweak

[Elsapotk421]

That aside, as far as causing a store and leading the provocation he would appear to be the front runner

Re:a little tweak

[WilliamSChips]

I want to send him back in time and throw him in front of Jack or Bobby or something.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.

Imagine a very large sandbox filled with pure white sand. Imagine that the sand has been raked smooth in the style of a Japanese garden. Now, imagine that a beautiful naked woman walks from the edge of the sandbox out to the middle of the sandbox.

The amazing thing here is that we can tell easily where the woman has been (by looking at her footprints) but we can't tell where she's going (there are no "future" footprints). We could guess where she's going (and we might even be right) but, if we're being honest with ourselves, we're going to have to admit to some uncertainty.

Of course, if we took away the sandbox and had her walk across a hard stone floor then it might even be impossible to tell where she had been. On the other hand, if we set up a video camera we might be able to determine even more about where she had been than if our only record had been her foot prints in the sand.

What is most interesting here though is how easy it is to determine what has happened in the past compared to predicting what will happen in the future. Why is that? After all, the vast majority of the laws of physics are time symmetric.

While we can make fairly accurate predictions for certain carefully selected simple systems (e.g. a simple pendulum), when it comes to complex systems like the stock market or terrorist attacks (or a naked woman walking on a sandbox) we can easily know what happened in the past but it is essentially impossible to know what will happen in the future.

Suppose we had known a little bit of information about 9/11 in advance. We wouldn't need to know much - as long as what we knew was correct. Even just one sentence "Planes will be hijacked on 9/11/2001 and crashed into the WTC" would have been enough to prevent the attacks. If we knew the future, we wouldn't have needed to invade Afghanistan to prevent 9/11. We wouldn't have needed Guantanamo. We certainly wouldn't have needed to invade Iraq.

But that's the thing. We can see the footsteps in the sand telling us about the past but we can't see the footsteps in the sand telling us about the future. So what do we do? We simply don't know how things will turn out with Iran. Will there be war, or won't there be war? If there is a war will the war hurt the USA or not?

Well, here's my answer: don't get hung up on any one thing. Admit we don't know. We might get our panties all in a bunch about Iran but then it turns out the Pakistan is the country to do us wrong. Or maybe it's ourselves. But the point is, we've got to keep an open mind. Is Iran the ultimate threat to the USA - maybe, maybe not - ultimately we need to admit that we just don't know.

Re:a little tweak

[ravenshrike]

"Vanish from the pages of time" That sorta kinda fucking definitely implies a controlling power that has erased all mention of the Israeli government. Which in turn implies that they have killed everyone involved in the Israeli government. If you were to say that mention of me and mine were to be vanished from the pages of time, you can bet your ass that I would take that as a major threat.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it's not worth deconstructing an AC post with another AC post, particularly one so step in lies, spin, and hatred (but well written for a change! Kudos), but I'm bored...

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lots more missiles at their disposal than Iran's government, so.........

The U.S. has never claimed an entire race of people should be 'wiped of the map' (Israel) nor do they deny the Holocaust, that Gay's don't exist or should be stoned to death for being who they are. But please continue to try and lead people to believe America is as "evil" as Iran. *rolls eyes*

I think their sanity is certainly an open question

I think your sanity should be questioned because you apparently missed the direct reasonings to the choices they made, which have all been very well documented. Agreeing with their decision is different, but acting like their decisions had no reason (be it a 'right' or 'wrong' reason) shows you have no intelligence.

George W. was also an alcoholic and drug abuser for most of his adult life

*yawn* ad hominem personal attacks. Wow, so original from someone with Bush Derangement Syndrom (BDS). First, there's a big difference between using drugs (including Alcohol) and abusing them (including Alcoholism). And there's also a difference between "most of his adult life" and "college life". Let me guess, you're BDS would attack Bush for, lets say, using Pot but you'd probably be the first person in line to legalize it (in the U.S.). AmIright? No doubt I could pull out all kinds of hypocrisy on you for this comment. But I know I'd waste my breath.

When you have two people who have done nothing positive for their entire reign

Sadly, BDS effects those such that they cannot comprehend the good things the Bush Administration has done. I won't have to talk about Burma sanctions or having gotten N.Korea to dismantle their nuclear program because it'd just go over your head that "Bush" could have done positive things in the world, let alone the U.S., which has had strong economic growth despite all the crap that's happened, such as the bursting of the Dot Com bubble, the 9/11 attack, oil price surges, and the Housing Market bubble bursting. Of course, with BDS, these things are probably blamed on Bush anyways.

and almost single handedly turned America in to a globally hated and despised country you generally have to wonder....

News flash... America isn't exactly more "globally hated" than they where before. Terrorists are *not* new. The World Trade Center was bombed long before GWB took office. Clinton was bombing and pissing off countries when he was in office. Anti-Americanism started long before Bush. Vietnam wasn't exactly a popular either, but I suppose Bush caused that as well?

Just observe the fact the U.S. dollar is plunging relative to most other currencies. Markets are ruthlessly efficient at finding truth and the plunging dollar indicates America has been officially run in to the ground by our fearless leaders.

Great fact... but this is Bush's fault how? But I won't go into a long winded reason of why and why not. I'll just refer you to some articles. Lets just say, this recent slide a) isn't because of the Iraq war (it's been going on for a while now) b) is caused by the sub-prime loan market which c) wasn't caused by the infamous GWB, unless he's some how capable of making copies of himself and installing them as CEO's of every bank in the world, giving out and trading debt packages and spread his limited intelligence (aka stupidity) to all the people who thought buying houses on variable rate loans with massive hidden fees and 'gotchas' was a good idea. Of course, it's just much more

Re:a little tweak

[WilliamSChips]

Israel has nukes. They are the only country in that area with nukes. If they decided to say "Screw the rules, I have nukes", they could make the Kaaba glow. I'd hate that too.

Re:a little tweak

[glarbl_blarbl]

Exactly, our guys say totally different stuff-- and they don't behead, they just pump out thousands of rounds of depleted-uranium or drop bombs from thousands of feet! And they don't like to do their killing on videotape, either. Oh, and they don't do the killing themselves, they order poor kids to do it! Yeah, neocons and radical islamists are totally different kinds of killers. You're right.

Re:a little tweak

[gammaraybuster]

Indulge me:
Killing thousands of innocent civilians for the next 6 years while failing to bring justice to the perpetrators is utter madness.

Re:a little tweak

[sgt_doom]

This ain't Iraq. I was for the war in Iraq, and I still am.

What is this war you (ArcherB) keep prattling on about as if you are suffering from early-onset Alzheimers??? The term "insurgents" indicates the locals who are rebelling against foreign invaders. (No doubt a subliterate such as yourself believes that term to mean "al Qaeda.")

There is an OCCUPATION of Iraq by foreign invaders, namely, the US of A, clown, get that? Our intel??? Would that be the intel from the very same sixteen intel entities which are unable to locate Osama (that would be Counsin Osama to the Bush family) nor that anthrax assassin who killed and attempted to kill US Congress persons (specifically democratic congresspersons, don't forget)? You never make any sense -- that Iranian president - who has continuously been purposively misquoted (although I am no fan of his nor any other religious wacko) by the US and Israeli corporate meda said the following: "If a Holocaust really took place during WWII, then why don't they give the Jews land in either Germany or Europe, instead of stealing the Palestinian's land?" (I'm paraphrasing here, but I received that translation from a former CIA agent who is skillfully fluent in Farsi, Arabic and several other languages and once served in Iran.)

Re:a little tweak

[dfenstrate]

Maybe wait until there is actual proof these nations wish to launch rockets at the US/NATO.

Would a smoking crater that was a base or a city do? How about we just watch them chant 'death to america', watch them build nuclear weapons, and then make an inference based on data that's before us?

If you are suggesting that the US strikes before there is an actual threat then what is to stop other countries doing the same?

They're stopped by the knowledge that we have the capability and possibly the will to retaliate overwhelmingly. Power matters, and we have it. Might doesn't make right, but might does make..... drumroll..... might.

North Korea will have to launch because the US is a threat, same for everyone else.

Back to the aforementioned 'power matters.'

They attack us, they WILL be destroyed.
They don't attack us, they MIGHT be destroyed.
One might argue that equation isn't as valid for the sort of people who spawn suicide bombers, but Asians are generally known for being more circumspect.

There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later.

Sure there is. You're just ill-equipped to consider realistic alternatives.

I doubt you have evaluated the conditions that enable reliable, kume-by-ya-campfire-sing-a-long peace between a good 600-800 million people in the world. You are incapable of identifying the common values, principles, interests and practices that pretty much ensure the continued peaceful relations between Europe, the United States, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a whole bunch of other countries I'm forgetting about.

As you are unable, I imagine, to correctly identify what ensures the peace between so much of the world, you are unqualified to credibly issue alternatives to what you call 'shoot first and invent evidence later.'

You are welcome to prove me wrong about your inability to analyze the current peace that exists between so many nations. If you respond, I'm betting you'll drivel on about racism, exploitation of poor and or brown people and similar nonsense instead of showing you have an ounce of non-leftist thought.

Re:a little tweak

[gringer]

Iran could hypothetically have anti-matter planet busters Score: +1 for the Omutan reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_dysfunction#Plot_summary

Re:a little tweak

[fractoid]

Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?

Re:a little tweak

[KKlaus]

>>then what is to stop other countries doing the same?

I don't disagree with the general slant of your post, but this part is wrong. What do you think stops them now? Hint: nothing. North Korea is in fact a sovereign nation, and does what it wants, just like pretty much everyone else. The reason they don't preemptively strike anyone (but particularly the US), is because such a move is very obviously not in their interest. It's not out of some respect for international law, or precedent, or what the US does. Let me repeat that: nothing stops North Korea, or any other country, from preemptively striking another country, other than their own self interest. Their tanks wouldn't magically run out of gas, or their guns of bullets, if they were to try. It's simply by choice that they do not.

Which means, of course, that whether or not the US chooses to attack others preemptively does not in any way imply that North Korea will suddenly attack us back because now nations have sudden;y realized that they can be the first to start wars (who would have thought), and the US is a threat to them. It will continue to be a bad idea for NK to attack the US, so they will continue not to.

Apparently it feels unfair to you on some level that the US can swing its dick around on the world stage and do what it wants, but guess what, life isn't fair and the US has the best war machine, and that's just how it goes. If it's in America's best interest to attack someone (and that's a very big "if"), America will do it. Not because it's right, but because they can. You can complain about it all you want, but that's just the way the world works. Don't contrive scenarios where now the sky falls down on them because other nations suddenly realize the hand of God does not stop them from behaving unethically. They already know, including Kim Jong Il, and they aren't suddenly go crazy and attack America because America broke some sacred (nonexistent) rule.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, I always believed Iran to be a more credible threat to US interests than Iraq anyway. I was never in favor of the Iraq war, but the right argument with solid evidence might have got me behind hitting Iran.

If you accept that the middle east is a hotspot of despots and trouble for the world in general, you might accept that it needs to be remade.

If you accept that, Iraq was a good and logical place to start. They hadn't been abiding by their cease fire agreement since gulf war I, so that was a decent causi bella, and no one liked saddam. Further, it's business we should have just finished in 1991 anyway.

Of course, if you don't think that the middle east, in general, takes oil money and uses it to kill each other, jews, and export their 7th-century barbarism around the world then none of this will matter to you.

\\ The saudis are the worst exporters & financers of jihaad, but our relationship with them is... complicated. Iraq and Iran make much easier starting points.

\\\The UAE is pretty cool. They know the oil money will run out and they better modernize.

\\\\American & Western Culture, for all it's faults, is clearly superior to the Jihaadist sort.

\\\\\\Don't call me racist, culture is a learned set of behavoirs passed from generation to generation.

Re:a little tweak

[Captain Splendid]

But their fingers won't be on the button, Ahmadinejad's will

No, he won't. Dude's a figurehead. Which is why all this hand-wringing and reaction to his statements is so comical. He's Iran's version of George Bush, except he's got no real power, which is, quite frankly, the way national leaders should be treated.

Still not clear enough for you? How about this one?

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi."

Yeah, fuck me, that's got me pissing my pants alright! Better nuke 'em. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:a little tweak

[Danny Rathjens]

Yeah, the president of Iran just gets the executive powers left over that the Supreme Leader does not have. We Americans over-estimate the Iranian president's power out of confusion with *our* definition of job of President.

The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Government_and_politics

Re:a little tweak

[dbIII]

Consider that an elected President of a country run by an unelected Theocracy is the one doing the ranting - how much power do you think he really has? He mostly just has the power to rant as far as I can see.

Re:a little tweak

[4D6963]

They're stopped by the knowledge that we have the capability and possibly the will to retaliate overwhelmingly.

I think you've got it the wrong way around. They're not stopped by anything, we're the ones who will be stopped from invading them, if we ever do that, and you know the Bush administration wants that. You don't invade a country that actually has WMDs.

They attack us, they WILL be destroyed.

Once again, works the other way around too, and that's what matters.

They don't attack us, they MIGHT be destroyed.

You didn't learn anything from the Cold War, did you? We're not going to do a damn thing to North Korea, and everybody knows that.

One might argue that equation isn't as valid for the sort of people who spawn suicide bombers, but Asians are generally known for being more circumspect.

Yeah, asians would never do such a thing as killing themselves to kill enemies. Except maybe Kamikazes, lol.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I was hoping for a little closure in that story. Bastard.

Re:a little tweak

[timmarhy]

actually it's a very valid point that israel is a very aggresive country, has very extreme religous views and is also the only ones with nukes. They are a prime candidate for kicking off a nuclear war.

Re:a little tweak

[JackieBrown]

Why is it that those who argue against the war (or occupation) have to restort to insults?

It is frustrated talking to close-minded people that during a debate have to result to calling people subliterate rather than arguing a point rationally.

Re:a little tweak

[fimbulvetr]

I don't recall Russians actively seeking an armageddon that would fulfill a religious prophecy. The difference between USSR and Iran appears to be too far apart to draw any comparisons.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

You are welcome to prove me wrong

Nothing I write could be more damning than what you've dribbled above.

You are one fucked up little puppy.

Re:a little tweak

[JackieBrown]

Bulshit

Quick look at the wikepedia

"In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed 7 people"

That is going back 15 years. Not to minimize the loss of life, but I get tired of hearing how Christians are just hopping at the chance to blow up an abortion clinic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#Incidents_in_the_United_States

Re:a little tweak

[flewp]

George W. was also an alcoholic and drug abuser for most of his adult life which also calls in to question his stability. Hey, being an alcoholic or a drug user takes commitment!

Re:a little tweak

[Attila Dimedici]

What a crock of shit. Iran may be run by religious nuts, but they aren't suicidal. What do you base that assertion on? Many of their co-religionists are suicidal, what makes you think that the people running Iran are not suicidal, when they have expressed sentiments that can be taken as being willing to die to accomplish their goals?

Re:a little tweak

[node 3]

Hitler spelled out his intentions in Mein Kamph, but no one believed it until it actually happened. And what of the million other people who "spell out their intentions"? Ahmadinejad might *want* a lot of things, but there's so absolutely little risk that he'll get any of it, it's absurd to fear him.

Quit being such a pathetic coward.

Re:a little tweak

[node 3]

Hell I'd want them too if I was a country that the US was targetting - it would grant me autonomy. *Especially* if the sitting US President singled you out as part of an "Axis of Evil".

Re:a little tweak

[node 3]

Um... I don't see neocons or radical Christians beheading people on YouTube while chanting "God is Great". Why behead people when you've got the biggest and broadest arsenal on earth?

Beheading only comes into the picture when all you've got is a sword.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Would a smoking crater that was a base or a city do? How about we just watch them chant 'death to america', watch them build nuclear weapons, and then make an inference based on data that's before us?

Yes, you make an excellent point. We need to deploy to North Korea immediately.

Re:a little tweak

[ArcherB]

Really? What then would you call the illegal invasion of Iraq that our radical Christian government has had us involved in for the past 5 years? Just because they wrap it in the flag of patriotism doesn't change the contents.

Illegal invasion? You mean the one that overwhelmingly authorized and paid for by congress multiple times to make sure that it was 100% LEGAL? Is there some other invasion that I'm not aware of? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal.

Radical Christian Government? See the first 10 words in The Bill or Rights. Here, let me read it to you

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That means that even though our government is has Christians in it, doesn't mean that it is a Christian government. And being Christian is guaranteed by the next few words, ...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Get your facts straight. The shit you make up will seem more believable.

Re:a little tweak

[ArcherB]

Iran's president and political structure is not like in the U.S. Ahmadinejad cannot declare or manage wars. He is not the "Commander in Chief" and his fingers are nowhere near the scary red button.

You are correct. The one in charge of Iran and in charge of it's military is the Islamic Suprememe Leader of Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Yeah, that makes me feel so much better.

Re:a little tweak

[greengrocer]

Perhaps if we were better at propping up the Shah in the late 70s after we put him in power through the CIA-sponsored coup of the democratically elected govt in Iran, well maybe we wouldn't be in this mess now?
And why do the Iranians hate us so much? I mean, really! Doesn't the rest of the world "get it" that when we act in our own self-interest that, in spite of the tyrants like the Shah, Saddam (somebody should ask Rumsfield if the man had a firm handshake--that's the sign of integrity, right?), and Mussharif that we are acting in the best interests of democracy and world peace?!

We were trying to *help* the Iranians in the 50s! Seriously! If they had stuck with a democracy instead of a US-backed dictator, where would their precious democracy be today?! The best that they could hope for would be what passes for democracy here! They should be thanking us and the CIA for bringing the Shah back!

Re:a little tweak

[bi_boy]

So what are you suggesting? The US should bomb any foreign country with pilots? Good luck with that. The sad part is, that we probably would have good luck with that.

Re:a little tweak

[yhetti]

I think the answer to this question is how much of other American's blood you're willing to spill before you can declare a war Rightous and Defensive. Some attacks have already occurred. They were perpetrated by by Islamic extremist *that were harbored by nations like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. In some cases (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia), they country is officially an "ally". In other cases (Syria, Iran, Iraq), the country is run by a government -known to specifically desire the destruction of the United States-.

Didn't anyone ever tell you that the best defense is a good offense?

Iraq and Iran had/have clear, well-established goals; predominantly, the fall of the West as a superpower. That includes the US, Canada, and Europe. They don't have to make direct, military confrontation because 1) the leaders don't buy into most of Islam themselves and 2) they have a ready-made paramilitary group that the can fund semi-overtly.

If Iran or Syria managed to acquire nuclear weapons (this is pretty much a given at this point, considering the vast number of unaccounted nukes after the fall of the USSR) they have to figure out one, *exactly 1*, way to get a high-yield nuclear weapon into the United States. Either New York or LA is the most likely target; probably LA this time.

That is why Iraq was a threat. Iraq also had the weakest military and the strongest pro-American sentiment among the populace, with Iran as a close second. So you have a country with a minor threat (much less than Iran or Syria) BUT WITH POPULAR SUPPORT AND A VASTLY INFERIOR MILITARY. Who *do* you attack first?

Now, within 5 years we'll have a solid base of operations in Iraq to stage much less costly and more easily defended attacks into Iraq and Syria.

As far as WMDs, here, let me give you a thought exercise.

I live in Virginia. Somewhere in Virginia I have hidden a white 1987 Chevy 2500HD van. You know I have it; the UN knows I have it, the UN inspectors know I have it. I buy gas for it. I buy replacement parts for it, but *you have never seen the van*. I refuse to show you the van. If I can get this van to a major African, European, or Asian city, I can drive it wherever it needs to go. The van represents an unknown threat.

PS: Sorry, I lied....I can also move it anywhere in West Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, DC, or Tennessee; I know people there who have just as big of an interest in getting the Van to Europe as I do.

Find the van.

Oh...the van doesn't exist? You have looked at every square inch of Virginia? I lied to you about the van?

Well shit! Sorry...

PPS: It's actually a Red Ford Pickup.

Re:a little tweak

[bmajik]

The (former) governments of France and Germany did some things that were openly hostile to the united states. For years and years the Soviet Union was openly hostile to the united states.

I'm glad we never nuked any of those places.

I can't draw the dotted line between the actions of extremeists and the normal everyday citizens of Iran. When we make a bunch of noise about bombing Iran or whatever, it just rallies normal Iranian people behind their quack president. That guy _loves_ how gullible we are because it shores up his support at home by providing a convenient distraction from all of the legitimate domestic issues he's facing.

I think it's reasonable to have a policy that says "look, if you do not cooperate with us when we investigate or go after extremeist groups that have attacked us, that puts you on the shit list. You don't want to be on that list".

I don't think that's the case with Iraq, Iran, or Syria. Yes, we've been attacked by extremists. The government of Afghanistan was openly supporting those guys and not helping us extradite them. We took (justifiable) military action in Afghanistan.

It's not clear to me what Iran has done to us, either directly or via proxy, that justifies retaliation. Same goes for Iraq.

I'm not willing to save the US "by any means necessary". Some of those means (like universal domestic surveillance, or an aggressive policy of pre-emptive war) indicate that the US has forgotten some of the values that make it worth saving to begin with.

It's a bit odd for us to, at this stage of things, say that there are all these unlikable characters or problematic governments in the middle east. We helped create half of them. I readily admit that the situation is now a clusterf@#k. I don't think glassing entire nations is the most... American route to improving things.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

But that ship has sailed, and I won't be getting on the next one.

Uhhh...there isn't a "next one", the boat you are on already just keeps going on endlessly.

Re:a little tweak

[Miseph]

He's had a long and successful career representing my state in the US Senate... and I'm sorry, but vehicular manslaughter just isn't relevant to that.

Maybe if people stopped expecting politicians to be perfect god-like beings and were willing to settle for people who are good at doing their job and generally (or universally, although this is unlikely to happen) make good policy choices it would be obvious why those of us responsible for continuously re-electing Ted Kennedy are apparently unconcerned by a 20 year old car accident that may or may not (really narrows things down...) have a conspiracy attached.

To re-phrase, come back and we'll talk when your senator has done a better job than mine.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US?..."

What I think you fail to undestand here is that WE are the bad guys in this. It is US who have trampled over most of the Middle East, killing where we went in pursuit of cheap oil and political advantage.

Arabs do not hate the US because of their religion, they hate us because of our self-serving and murderous foreign policy. If we had not ruined their lives for the past 50 years, we would not be in the mess we are in today.....

Re:a little tweak

[CmdrGravy]

I've read a few of your posts today ArcherB. I am willing to bet you were all for the war in Iraq and believed completely that the terrible power of their WMDs needed to be stopped.

So, tell me now - where are those WMDs ? Just how much of a glowing success has the invasion of Iraq proved to be ? Just how thrilled are you at the idyllic, safe and happy society the US has helped to create in Afghanistan.

Your sort really need to just sit back and try to learn from your mistakes before you go around advocating yet further stupidity elsewhere in the world.

Re:a little tweak

[dfenstrate]

That's what I expected.

Folks like the parent poster (you?) are unable to identify what creates the peace that currently exists, and are therefor unqualified to comment on how to spread peace.

Re:a little tweak

[dfenstrate]

Yawn. Nothing I haven't read before. Your response is typical, but there's no point in carrying on a conversation on those matters unless you get the bigger picture.

So, I'll bring it up again. You skipped the part entirely about:

1. What enables & perpetuates the reliable peace that currently exists between dozens of nations on this planet?

That you ignored this reinforces my original point:

Peaceniks are unable to identify the prerequisites of current peace, and are therefor not credible speakers when it comes to trying to spread peace.

Re:a little tweak

[4D6963]

1. What enables & perpetuates the reliable peace that currently exists between dozens of nations on this planet?

Enlighten me, oh wise master, and tell me what are these things that enable peace, besides ICBMs, nuclear submarines and the fact that not everybody loves going at war against anyone all the time for no reason?

Like, show me the bigger picture, dude.

Re:a little tweak

[CmdrGravy]

You don't really believe any of that crap do you ?

Didn't anyone ever tell you that the best defense is a good offense?

Maybe in Baseball or Netball or whatever game it is you like to play this is true but it in real life such a stupid strategy is only going to get you into trouble. Was Hitlers best defence his strong offence or did he just create so many enemies that he didn't stand a chance of winning against them ?

Perhaps in some magic alternate reality attacking and invading countries you believe pose a threat to America might be a good strategy provided that in this magic world you ended up with somewhere better, more sympathetic to Americas wishes, where the people enjoyed happier lives and which you were able to plan for and carry out successfully.

Sadly in real life the only thing America has proved is that it's either simply not interested in improving peoples lives or making former enemy countries become trusted allies or it's simply too inept and stupid to actually make that a reality.

Take the case of Iraq ( ignoring the fact there was simply no reason for attacking Iraq in the first place ) where the planning for post war reconstruction was began around 2 months before the invasion was actually scheduled and the post war planners were refused all requests for extra troops and didn't have access to any information on how Iraq actually worked as a country. These decisions have led directly to the disaster that Iraq has turned into today. Sooner or later US troops will have to leave, their will be a civil war and whoever wins will most likely not look all that favourably on the US.

Take Afghanistan, the inital battle against the Taleban may have been won but now years later the coalition is losing more and more ground to the resurgent Taleban and will eventually lose altogether unless vastly more resources are invested in the country.

Anyone who can appreciate whats happened so far and seriously suggest attacking Iran must be mad, just how much worse exactly do you want to make the situation ?

As far as WMDs go, why can you not just admit you were wrong to believe there ever were any WMDs ? The evidence is clearly now all in and there were never any WMDs and no one with any credibility at all will claim otherwise.

Re:a little tweak

[master_p]

iran is a threat to oil, and (I admit) a threat to isreal

But most of your leaders (political, economical, media, etc) are either related to the oil cartel or are of Jewish origin...

Re:a little tweak

[Trauma_Hound1]

Ya one little country bombs us, they now become a glass parking lot. Get a grip. You really think a tiny country would want to risk being wiped off the face of the planet?

Re:a little tweak

[yhetti]

Which crap? That Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia would like to see the west fail as superpowers?

That they publicly or covertly sponsor terrorism from state coffers?

That their leaders (except the Saudis) explicitly state that a goal of their government is to destroy the United States?

That it takes more than one or two atomic weapons to kill thousands (if not millions) of people?

That the United States has the right, as any country, to defend themselves from attack...without first becoming a martyr?

That Iraq (pre-war) and Iran would probably not say "Oh..wow, you guys want stuff to make atomic weapons? Man...I really wish I could help, but I'm dealing with all this shit from Bill Clinton..."

That a significant portion of Americans are willing to believe that George Bush is the head of the largest conspiracy ever created on US soil, but that Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah are too stupid to buy active Antrax and Uranium?

That somewhere in Syria, Iraq, or Iran are there at least 10 scientists capable of engineering a nuclear reactor without help from the US or Russia? And that somewhere, perhaps in the same place, perhaps not, are 10 other scientists capable of building a delivery vessel?

The only part that I don't believe is that you were in the White House and the Defense Department while they were planning for the war; either you were, or you're entire opinion is based on what you've seen and read through laughably filtered sources...just like me.

If, however, you are a General that was in charge of planning and know, for a fact, that you only planned for two months, then I retract my statement. But in that case, I do blame you, entirely, for the situation we're in now.

Now is definitely *not* the time to attack Iran, and I certainly want to avoid it at all cost, but Iraq just happens to be a very nice long-term strategy for a staging ground, don't you think?

If you still don't buy it, I highly recommend Holy War, Inc -> http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Inc-Inside-Secret/dp/0743234952/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5456481-7704168?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194530691&sr=8-1

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the funny thing about credibility. Once it's shot, it's REALLY hard to get it back.

Which is why I am worried about drinking diet coke. Approval of aspartame was pushed through by Donald Rumsfeld - if it isn't poisonous or carcinogenic that must be a lucky fluke!

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Meoward]

And I would rather not cop jokes from Larry the Cable Guy. (I'd resort to Bazooka Joe comics first.)

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

1. What enables & perpetuates the reliable peace that currently exists between dozens of nations on this planet?

The movement of small green pieces of paper, or rather more recently, the movement of small green, blue, red and brown pieces of paper. People don't want the all-green ones so much at the moment.

Re:a little tweak

[zhenya00]

Illegal invasion? You mean the one that overwhelmingly authorized and paid for by congress multiple times to make sure that it was 100% LEGAL? Is there some other invasion that I'm not aware of? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal.

Exactly the jingoist response I expected from someone so myopic he can't even fathom that there are world laws that the US is accountable to. After all, might makes right, Right?

Re:a little tweak

[notamisfit]

For Iran, not a whole lot. They're kinda linked to al-Qaeda, through Hezbollah operative Imad Mugniyah (admittedly, he's like the Kevin Bacon of Islamic terrorism). There's sketchy accounts from men like Ali Mohamed or Jamal al-Fadl linking Iran to earlier embassy bombings and the '93 WTC attack. Egypt has publicly blamed Iran for funding the al-Zawahiri (bin Laden's second-in-command) backed Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Then there's the 9/11 commission allegations that 8 to 10 of the 19 hijackers were in Iran a year before the attack, and that Iran has sheltered top Taliban officials after the collapse of Afghanistan. I'll level with you, I don't know how reliable any of this info is, or whether or not most of it was made up. I thought I'd just put it up on the table for dissection.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's how we were treated when we argued against the war in Iraq before it began, we gave rational arguments for why it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq and in turn we were called idiots, traitors, and terrorist sympathizers. Once the pro-war people closed the door to civil and rational discourse it became perfectly fair to respond in kind as turn about is absolutely fair play. If you can't handle playing defense after playing dirty offense than you probably shouldn't have started playing that game.

If you don't believe me just go back in the slashdot archives from the time approaching the start of the war in 2003 and read the arguments and see who was insulting who.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider that an elected President of a country run by an unelected Theocracy is the one doing the ranting - how much power do you think he really has? He mostly just has the power to rant as far as I can see. I agree, Bush should stop his ranting and leave the policies to Chaney as usual. Oh sorry your talking about Ahmadinejad. My mistake :)

Re:a little tweak

[44DD]

No, I just see one very powerful radical Christian, in charge of possibly the worlds most powerful country, causing thousands of deaths around the world :-P

Re:a little tweak

[evil_aar0n]

> Remember when pople used to give their life for our freedom? Why are we now giving our freedom for our life?

I though it was something like, "If we give up all of our freedoms to safeguard our Freedom, what Freedom do we have left to protect?"

Re:a little tweak

[Darby]

Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

No, if you could get a grip on reality long enough to wipe the tears of terror out of your eyes, quit quivering and act like a man for a second instead of a whiny little cowardly bitch, you'd realize that that ain't going to happen. It's just the lies of politicians who want you to keep paying for wars that do no good whatsoever and massive harm to our nation.

Basically, you're just repeating idiotic fear mongering by scum and traitors because you're too afraid to actually use your brain and think and so you're selling out yourself, your nation, and everyone around you.

It would be hard to find a more canonical example of a coward than what you have demonstrated yourself to be with this pussy whining about delusional threats which do not exist.

Grow up and grow a pair you weak willed little bitch. Start acting like a citizen, not a cowardly subject. Try to learn from history because the path your trying to lead us astray on has been followed way too many fucking times throughout history to excuse you for falling for the same blatantly obvious trick.

You're a fool and a coward and you have proven that beyond the shadow of a doubt by that ignorant cowardice you spewed.

Re:a little tweak

[dfenstrate]

That's a significant part of it, yes.

That exchange, however, relies on the existance of shared values and cultural practices that enable the movement of goods, services and money with a healthy amount of trust.

Re:a little tweak

[dfenstrate]

Are you admitting you don't know? There are many factors besides naked force (ICBM's, Nuke subs, etc) that ensure the peace between several nations.

Not liking to go to war doesn't ensure the peace I'm talking about either. For example, wether we like to go to war or not, attacking Britain, Australia, or hell, even France, is pretty much unthinkable.

So my test is to you: Why?

I'm not going to ask you a question and then answer it myself, as I'm not interested in my answer. I'm interested if peaceniks have any clue on how actual peace exists.

Re:a little tweak

[iocat]

They don't let people who kill people deliver the freaking mail, why should they let them make laws? And I'm sure he did a good job bringing pork back to Mass, but he holds himself up as this protector of decency, and he's a scumbag. I don't think he murdered her (40 years ago, not 20) to cover up a pregnancy, but I think him driving drunk off a bridge and being too lazy/stupid/drunk to bother trying to save her is more than enough to condemn him. A normdal person who did what he did would probably still be in jail.

You're exactly the kind of person I was referring to -- you probably condemned Clarence Thomas for being a sexual harasser, but you give Teddy a pass for being a murderer. I say hold them all up to the same standard -- don't differentiate depending on whether or not you happen to agree with them, or your faded nostalgia for the 1960s.

Re:a little tweak

[iocat]

Sorry -- hit post too soon. To rephrase: My senators may be medicore at raiding the federal treasury to put your cousins on make-work jobs, but they've done a better job than your senator because to the best of my knowledge, neither Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer have killed someone while DUI.

Re:a little tweak

[vux984]

Indulge me:

I'm sorry. I can't do that.

Lots of international criminals, terrorists, and war criminals have been "brought to justice" over the years. But this isn't historically conducted with air strikes, bombs, and invading other countries.

When the objective is to kill terrorist leaders without trials by conducting airstrikes against their residences, with the intent to kill them, and incidently killing their families, and children, their is no justice. Only revenge.

Consider Zarqawi, from Time (www.time.com):

"When Abdul-Rahman surfaced near Baqubah last week--apparently in the same location as the Jordanians' Mr. X--the commandos moved in for the kill. "We had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was in the house," Army Major General William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad the day after the strike. The Jordanian security official told TIME that the bombing killed Abdul-Rahman and Mr. X, in addition to al-Zarqawi's 16-year-old wife."

And from another article:

"Al-Zarqawi's second wife Israa, in her late teens, and their 18-month-old baby died in the strike."

If 'they' had done that to 'us', by say, bombing Dick Cheney's home killing his daughters and grandchildren the media, politicians, and even the public would proclaim it as the worst kind of cowardly, vengeful, terrorist attack.

And that is exactly what it was. And when the US does it to them, calling it "an attempt to bring justice" is just a hypocritical mockery of justice and everything it stands for.

Re:a little tweak

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly makes Iran so much crazier than the USA?
 
It is commonly believed that killing others leads you to heaven. That makes them able to be labeled as crazy in my book.

Re:a little tweak

[4D6963]

Are you admitting you don't know?

I'm just asking you what I'm supposed to know. You carefully avoid mentioning anything I didn't mention and instead say "There are many factors", which leads me to think that you're an idiot who tries to sound smart.

For example, wether we like to go to war or not, attacking Britain, Australia, or hell, even France, is pretty much unthinkable. [...] Why?

"ICBM's, Nuke subs, etc", if not then tell me what else, I'm eager to hear it, as you seem to be so secretive about what "peaceniks" ignore.

Re:a little tweak

[rk]

+1 back at ya, for picking it up. Great series, though I've found Hamilton's later work... I dunno. Lacking. I think I stopped reading him after Fallen Dragon.

Re:a little tweak

[sgt_doom]

I use both insults along with arguing the point quite rationally. I simply have no further patience with mindless zombies who can never see beyond the emotional propaganda (which, BTW, is against federal law) spewed forth by the corporate McMedia. Just as I have absolutely no patience with idiots who can't understand that torture is not acceptable - and the ONLY reason Cheney/Bush want torture is because they, and specifically they and their criminal miscreant cronies, enjoy it.

Re:a little tweak

[dfenstrate]

See, we're at a standoff then, because I imagine you just want to attack whatever answer I give, and I want to see if you have a clue. Of course I'm only going to refer to things you have talked about...

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, I WANT YOU TO ANSWER.

Sure, you're eager to hear it (the causes of the peace that does exist)... and attack it. I don't want to play that game as I've played it a million times before.

I'll give you a hint, though, and see if that leads you down any sort of path.
Another person responded to my post and pointed out that the presence of trade has a lot to do with maintaining peace.

The more trade countries do, the less likely they are to attack each other.

Trade, however, is merely a result of and reinforcement to the factors which create peace between nations.

Now that I've led you by the nose to the right path, can you fill in more details?

Re:a little tweak

[4D6963]

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, I WANT YOU TO ANSWER.

I already answered, you triple idiot, I said ICBMs and submarine nukes.

Sure, you're eager to hear it (the causes of the peace that does exist)... and attack it.

Yeah, more like I was eager to hear it because I believed you wouldn't say it because you wouldn't dare after acting so pretentious towards "ignorant peaceniks".

But ok, trade makes sense, you don't want to attack a country you export so much to, you've got a good point. And I guess that comment about peaceniks had to do with anti-capitalist anti-globalisation hippies, and I'm with you on this one, but who gives a fuck about them anyways, everybody knows they're full of shit, I mean come on, these green hippie type guys spend their whole time cruising around in a humongous polluting ass ship, how could anyone take them seriously.

Why not impeach 'em all?

[Penguinisto]

I mean, here you have a congress, whose ratings are lower than Bush's, trying to get Bush's VP thrown out.

At this rate I think Gallup will have a historical first - negative numbers for job approval ratings.

/P

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[stox]

Ever think that one of the reasons why Congress's ratings are so low is because they haven't impeached yet?

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[hwyengr]

It might have to do with the fact that being unpopular isn't illegal.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress' rating is low because they have sat by and allowed evil to grow.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Penguinisto]

Ever think that one of the reasons why Congress's ratings are so low is because they haven't impeached yet?

Possible, but not (IMHO) probable. Given the near-even split between parties, and the fact that "Congress" is counted as a whole (that is, both parties and the lone Socialist in there count as a single entity) in most polls, I sincerely doubt that the big fat criteria has anything to do with impeachment or lack thereof.

/P

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[the phantom]

Congress' approval rating is a meaningless metric. The approval rating of congress is almost always bad. It is rarely (if ever) higher than the president's. However, if you ask people about their particular senators and representatives, their ratings are generally much better. Remember, it is not my representative that is the problem -- just everyone else's.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[letxa2000]

Ever think that one of the reasons why Congress's ratings are so low is because they haven't impeached yet?

Nope. Probably because they're the most useless Congress we've had in over a decade. They haven't done anything useful, they pulled a bait-and-switch on their arguments for why they should be elected last year. i.e. "Elect us and we'll get out of Iraq... oh, sorry, you voted for us but now you also need to give us the presidency. We couldn't do anything before and we still can't do anything."

No, the reason why Congress's approval ratings are so low is because they've shown the public what they have to offer, and they don't have anything. The Democrats should've tried to lose 2006 so they'd have a chance in 2008. In 2008, the Republicans have Bush dragging them down but Democrats have the Congress dragging them down even more. It's entirely possible the Democrats peaked in 2006 and won't be able to get the job done in 2008. By the time the election comes, they'll have had 2 years in Congress and nothing to show for it. Not a good way to go into a presidential election.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[demachina]

I think the congressional Democrat's numbers are low because they have completely failed to rein in the Bush administration, which is what the Democrats were put in power to do. They were installed to get America out of Iraq, instead there are more troops there now than there were during the election with no end in sight. The Democrats cry they don't have the votes to override a veto which is B.S. All the Democrats have to do is not allocate funds for Iraq which takes a simple majority and then the troops come home. That's why the founding fathers gave them the power of the purse.

Impeaching Cheney would have done nothing but improve the approval rating of Congressional Democrats. He is widely despised throughout the nation for having suckered the nation in to Iraq, and for promoting the use of torture which has turned America in to an outlaw nation.

Impeaching him for Iraq and Iran is off the mark. He should be impeached for:

A. single handedly pushing authorization for torture which was done entirely by his office and his aides
B. single handedly pushing authorization of illegal spying on American citizens without a warrant also lead out of his office

Those are both slam dunk grounds for impeachment because they are both clearly illegal, unpopular, unnecessary and were just plain stupid.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[hackstraw]

I mean, here you have a congress, whose ratings are lower than Bush's, trying to get Bush's VP thrown out.
At this rate I think Gallup will have a historical first - negative numbers for job approval ratings.

I'm not a government geek, but I believe in parliamentary systems, this is called a failed government, and they give up and start again.

I can't find the word for it, but there I believe that in the parliamentary system, there is a point where they say, lets try this again.

I thought of a bumper sticker to day.

In small letters (imprison)

Bush Cheney 08

80% of the bush/cheney people will cheer, the rest will laugh.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Abcd1234]

I can't find the word for it, but there I believe that in the parliamentary system, there is a point where they say, lets try this again.


In Canada it's called a vote of non-confidence, and results in an election being immediately called. However, it requires a confidence vote to occur, which typically only happens on select issues (such as the budget). But it is a handy fallback, particularly in the case of a minority government, such as that which is currently in power in Canada, as it forces the parties to cooperate to some degree (and, as a consequence, also slows them down immensely, which can be nothing but a good thing).

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Cassius Corodes]

Not to mention that business of helping national security by outing a CIA Spy to the world. I think the democrats are complete cowards for not willing to do anything with "risk". Trying to run a government while being risk averse is like trying to run an train without an engine - a recipe for getting nothing done.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[gad_zuki!]

>I think the congressional Democrat's numbers are low because they have completely failed to rein in the Bush administration, which is what the Democrats were put in power to do.

Bullshit. America voted Bush in AGAIN in 2004. After everything, after the war. There's no big anti-bush mandate. America is a conservative country with conservative voters following a conservative agenda. Just because the moderate party has a slim majority doesnt mean its time to clean house. Americans dont want that and the democrats certainly do not have the power to do so.

Im so sick of hearing whiners say stuff like 'what has the congress done to kick out bush' after theyve voted him in twice and supported his wars. If you dont want a Bush in office then stop voting republican, this includes ron paul supporters too.

As long as the republican party holds all this power in america you will have all these problems. Poor conservatives have no idea whats going on they just vote on hot button issues like abortion and "id like to have a beer with him."

Sorry, theres no mandate. No big revolution. Just a moderate party with a little control. They have to work with the republicans to get -anything- done, thus no impeachments or big traditionally democratic bills in play.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[canUbeleiveIT]

Not to mention that one of the things that this country needs more than anything is a cohesive energy policy--something that neither party has been willing to tackle. Oh well...Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time the election comes, they'll have had 2 years in Congress and nothing to show for it. Not a good way to go into a presidential election. Not that anything they pass really matters. Unlike former Presidents who veto and are forced to explain why they disagree with a bill, Bush has vetoed only a couple of bills, starting years into his Presidency. Instead, he writes signing statements that basically say "I don't care what you passed. I don't agree with it. This is how I interpret this law, instead."

So Congress is effectively neutered by the expansion and corruption of Executive powers. Things won't get better until we get a President that considers the Constitution more than "just a goddamned piece of paper", to quote our current President.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[zestyping]

I think you're talking about a Vote of No Confidence.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[sammy baby]

It's occurred to me. I think it's more likely that, though, that it's because they haven't done enough to end the war in Iraq.

In recent approval polls, the current Democratic congress actually did better with Republican respondents than with Democratic respondents. American's opinion of how the war in Iraq is going is virtually completely unified (and negative), and more Americans "strongly disapprove" of GWB than they did of Nixon, just before his impeachment trial began.

If you're a Democrat (disclosure: I am), this state of affairs sucks, because procedural rules of legislation make it very easy to derail bills through votes for cloture and the threat of a filibuster. The minority party has used this power in this Congress more than any other Congress in history, and then turned around and made fun of the majority party for not being able to get anything done.

The last time there was a Congress strongly unified against the President, it was the "Republican revolution", whose stalemate with Clinton wound up shutting down the government. But then, Clinton definitely wound up on the winning side of public opinion. One wonders if memories of that stalemate are giving the Democratic leadership the jitters.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Surt]

Boy, no kidding. The democrats should be harping non-stop on the fact that congressional republicans are blocking them on getting troops out of Iraq. And frankly, they should have made a stand and refused continuing funding for the war effort. Not doing either of those has utterly screwed their positioning for the next election. Worse, Democrats seem bent on picking the one candidate who could possibly lose to a republican in the next presidential election.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Surt]

It's my representatives that are the problem. By the time I get to vote, the field has already narrowed to all unacceptable candidates, so frankly I don't think there's any hope. The system will have to melt down to be changed.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[ben there...]

Just to put things in perspective:

Bush just this week set a new record in Presidential approval ratings: his approval rating is the lowest Presidential approval rating in Gallup's history, lower even than Nixon's during the Watergate scandal. 50% "strongly disapprove" of President Bush. Only 31% approve.

In two separate articles, I've seen Cheney's approval rating mentioned as 9% and 11%. I could not find a good recent article citing it, surprisingly.

Congress has an approval rating of 23%. It is important to note though, that historically Congress's approval rating is usually between 20-40%.

I agree, though, that we should throw out both those who have abused their positions, as well as those that stood by and let it happen.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[dpilot]

Conservative? This isn't conservative. I'm not sure what it is, but it SURE isn't conservative.

Barry Goldwater was conservative, not this.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[hagardtroll]

Democrats can stop the war now. All they need is 40 votes to filibuster the war funding. No funding, no war. But they rather use the war as a political bat to beat the republican's than get our troops out of harms way. Absolutely pathetic. I'm voting green from now on.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

What I don't think most leftists understand is that the Democrats didn't win 2006 based on their ideas... they won 2006 because they weren't Republicans. The Republicans were plagued with scandals (corruption, bribes, Mark Foley, etc) and the conservatives threw their arms up in the air (along with their support). Meanwhile, true moderates (Democrats aren't moderates in the US no matter how much they claim to be, this isn't Europe) wanted something other than the same old so they voted for the most viable candidate who wasn't a Republican.

Quite a few Republicans actually saw that as a win. Why? Because it would give Dems full control, and blame, of both houses of Congress for the next two years. People have decided they don't like this Congress either, even less than the last Congress. If the Democrats rail to the hard left, they will end up losing the moderate voters and re-invigorating the conservatives (which, after tossing out the bums last year, are already ready to make sure a Republican wins next year). If the Dems force our troops out of Iraq by cutting off the funding, they get the blame when the middle east erupts in chaos ala Cambodia and Laos. If the Dems get forceful on rolling back stuff like wiretapping, they get the blame if a terrorist attacks hits the US (because there hasn't been one since 2001). Basically, the Dems have everything to lose next year and need to thread a very fine needle to keep Congressional power.

The Presidency is another matter and every candidate has major flaws that could derail them if they are nominated. Hillary has massively high negative numbers (and a rash of other problems), conservatives will be loathe to vote for Guiliani despite Pat Robertson's endorsement today, Obama is too inexperienced, Romney has the Mormom problem, Thomspon isn't gaining traction, McCain is hated by a large chunk of the GOP and an increasing amount of Dems, Ron Paul says a lot of things people like and a lot of things people hate, etc. Next year is definitely shaping up to be one of the premier "lesser of two evils" election. As a conservative and Constitutionalist, I'm not happy with any of the choices on the right next year and I'm hoping, with much glee, for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination. I think anyone except David Duke can beat her. Ok, I'd really prefer a Kucinich race as long as the aliens (of the extra-terrestrial kind) can't vote.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, both of my Senators and my Representative are horses' behinds. Of course, I live in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Maryland. 'Nuff said.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[amRadioHed]

One wonders if memories of that stalemate are giving the Democratic leadership the jitters. They're idiots if they think the public would side with Bush in that sort of a standoff. The country sided with Clinton because he was a popular president. Bush has the all time worst poll numbers for a President and the people are hungry for someone to stand up to him.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Xtravar]

Worse, Democrats seem bent on picking the one candidate who could possibly lose to a republican in the next presidential election. Yeah, a woman or a black man. Those things won't affect my decision, but they will definitely get a lot of bigots to the polls.

Ever since I started voting years ago, I noticed that Democrats do everything in their power to lose. They don't state clear positions, they pick handicapped candidates, they don't do anything when they actually hold office, etc. Most of the time they seem out of touch and/or easily convinced to go along with Republican schemes.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

One more thing... The Democrats were the ones who originally voted to table the measure and just before voting ceased, a bunch of Republicans switched to voting to consider the measure. That would have forced a debate on whether or not Cheney should be impeached which would have force the Democrats to go hard left with Kucinich (alienating the moderates who hate to see impeachment period) or to go moderate (pissing off their hard left masters). It fell just short and was sent off to committee where it will die so the Democrats don't actually have to take a stand on something.

That's the risk of running on a platform of being "not the other guy" versus running on a platform of ideals and is indicative why the Democratic leadership really believes they won Congress. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth forever and expect to not get caught, just ask Hillary.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[notamisfit]

Sadly, this is what passes for conservatism these days. Any party that simultaneously endorses religion and capitalism is ultimately mired in a contradiction between faith and reason, and the Republicans threw the wrong one out.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[MightyYar]

I'm voting green from now on. THAT will teach those republicans!

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[MightyYar]

Ever think that one of the reasons why Congress's ratings are so low is because they haven't impeached yet? Yes, the largely centrist American populace just can't wait for more senseless partisan bickering.

Bushes low ratings are easy to explain - he's got us in a war that we aren't clearly winning, and Americans don't like to do anything besides kick ass. I think that Congress's ratings are so low because they are acting like a bunch of bitter partisans instead of being pragmatic and solving problems. I mean, for God's sake, listen to the venom over the children's health care thing. Both sides wanted to INCREASE funding, and they got into a big argument over by how much rather than just coming to some compromise.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[goldspider]

Clearly, Democratic leadership feels the party has something to lose by impeaching Cheney, and they certainly aren't sharing that dirty little secret. Whatever that is, it should concern their supporters.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[The Analog Kid]

The Democrats cry they don't have the votes to override a veto which is B.S. All the Democrats have to do is not allocate funds for Iraq which takes a simple majority and then the troops come home. That's why the founding fathers gave them the power of the purse.

Yeah because the Democratic candidates want to have to respond to their Republican opponents saying "Oh we were so close to winning in Iraq, but those lousy good for nothing Democrats stopped us." Yeah I know, sometimes doing the right thing means losing your job, but I doubt any Democrat has enough backbone to end their political career by doing what is right.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Cynthia McKinney was my representative..... everyone else's representative was great by comparison.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[sammy baby]

They're idiots if they think the public would side with Bush in that sort of a standoff.

No argument here. I have a suspicion that they've been the minority party so long that they've got some kind of victim mentality.

It seems to me that both the punditocracy and Congress can and often do underestimate just how far to the left the American public really is on significant matters of public policy.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[sgarringer]

So, you're voting republican?

Thanks, that's great.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[that this is not und]

And, as we all know, politics is about bashing Bush and the Republicans.

It's like 1982 all over again, back when the only position you needed to take politically to be 'hip' was to Hate Reagan.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[demachina]

"Bullshit. America voted Bush in AGAIN in 2004. After everything, after the war."

The war in Iraq hadn't really gone bad by the time of the 2004 election and the Bush/FOX propaganda machine still had everyone snowed. They sill had everyone conned it was going to be a success, they just had to have elections(remember all the Republicans at the state of the Union with the goofy purple fingers), they just had to catch Saddam, etc. etc. Its wasn't until 2006 the American people finally figured out what a smoldering wreck Iraq was, ethnic cleansing in full swing, more American's were dieing than died during the invasion, and the government Bush helped install was pro Iranian, sectarian and incompetent. It was also about that time American's realized that rather than costing us $60-80 billion Iraq has cost use $600-800 billion and climbing and its causing serious damage to our economy. If if the surge works and Iraq stabilizes there is still pretty much nothing positive about what happened there. Iran's strength in the region is dramatically increased since Saddam was the only check on them. Iran now has a friendly Shia regime in Iraq and Shia's control a huge percentage of the world's oil. George W.'s dad left Saddam where he was because he new a Shia Iraq was all things considered worse than Saddam's Iraq. George W. being the ignoramus he is didn't grok this simple fact.

Note to American's for future elections...it is actually important to elect President's who actually know something about how the world works instead of faith based Presidents, who never travelled outside the U.S., who pray to God and then do enormously stupid things.

"after theyve voted him in twice"

Dude he wasn't voted in the first time but for a quirk in the electoral college, a highly disputed election in Florida, and a spineless Supreme court that just wanted to end the controversy. He barely managed to get re-elected in 2004 and that was running against one of the worst candidates the Democrats could have possibly found.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[ravenshrike]

Actually, it has to do with perhaps picking Kerry for their candidate. If Howard Dean had been picked, he probably would have had a better chance. Kerry had the Swift Boat problem, and for all his accusations of their untruth, he has neither to sue the group for libel and slander or fully release his war documents to the public(instead releasing them to a friendly newspaper which then omitted some of them from public view).

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[sgt_doom]

Obviously the numbers are at present lower than Bush's because they've allowed Dick(less) Cheney and George W(easel) Bush to remain in office after violating an untold number of federal and international laws......

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is "Neo-Conservatism" named for the character in the film "The Matrix."

Imagine the Government as the Matrix from the film.
And now imagine Conservatism while it's looking for the white rabbit. That was Goldwater.

Then Conservatism gets disconnected from the Matrix, instantly learns jiu-jitsu and a ton of other skills off some CD and generally learns how to bend and even break things that it once knew to be true.

Now Neo-Conservatism jacks back into our matrix and flies all over the place, doesn't die when it gets shot and generally does whatever the hell it feels like without any fear of the repercussions.

And what we're left with is Neo-Conservatism, where well-meaning agents of the Government are powerless to stop it. All the while Neo-Conservatism is so caught up in how cool it is to fly around and generally be invincible that it doesn't notice the massive number of car crashes, exploding buildings and other collateral damage that it's causing.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[ravenshrike]

You mean the CIA non-spy? Who in fact was never going to get handed any undercover ops ever again after being posted at an embassy? After her husband had already through several public instances outed the fact that his husband was a CIA agent? And who had other internet searchable indicators of her employment? There was a reason that the only crime charged was over perjury. Which was a complete bullshit charge btw. It was over the exact day of something being said, and was literally one person's word against anothers. Not to mention the fact that the judge denied the defenses use of a memory expert to testify that in fact it is perfectly plausible that he wouldn't remember the exact day.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[NMerriam]

Thank God we have insightful objective rationalists like you to show us how to stop drinking the political party Kool Aid.

Damn, where a BBcode ::rolleyes:: when you need one?

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[grahamd0]

No, but removing the right of habeas corpus is.

So is knowingly revealing the identity of a covert intelligence officer.

So is spying on US citizens without a warrant.

So is torture.

So is holding US citizens indefinitely without trial.

Need I go on?

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[grahamd0]

Elections are one of the few times I'm happy to live in Wisconsin. Russ Feingold might well be last patriot left in government.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

[Cheney] is widely despised throughout the nation for having suckered the nation in to Iraq, and for promoting the use of torture which has turned America in to an outlaw nation.

Shame on dumbass Americans. The entire rest of the world could see he and his cronies were lying their asses off. Hell, my kids are better liars than he is and they aren't even school age, yet Americans are claiming to have been "suckered" by his claims. Either Americans really are dumb as all fuck, or Americans chose to believe lies which were more palatable than the truth. Either way makes Americans look very bad indeed.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[grahamd0]

Don't forget knowingly revealing the identity of a covert intelligence officer, which could easily be considered treason.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

From Political Arithmetik http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/

There is a famous question in political science: "why do voters hate Congress but love their Congressman?" The simple answer is that the institution is a convenient whipping boy for the President but also for its own members. Many members (who often enjoy personal approval levels well above 50%) run for reelection by running against Congress as an institution. The result is approval ratings of the Congress that are poor in comparison to those of the President or of its individual members. Thus it becomes a dangerous thing to make direct comparisons of Presidential and Congressional approval. The two are quite different in their norms and dynamics.

If you want accurate and unbiased political poling numbers, Political Arithmetik is a great site. The author combines multiple sources to derive accurate numbers, and he also analyzes the results to say what the numbers mean or do not mean.

To see a graph of the current Republican vs. Democratic Congressional approval ratings, see http://bp3.blogger.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/RzBfdgrzvwI/AAAAAAAACew/sHpP3iGp8z8/s1600-h/CongPartiesJob.png Yes Congressional approval is down. But Republican approval is down more then Democratic approval, and both are not very good.

You can express uninformed opinions, or you can try and find useful facts. Sadly, the Slashdot way is to go for uninformed opinion.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[hwyengr]

I was talking about Congress. Not the VP.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[fishbowl]

>I think the congressional Democrat's numbers are low because they have completely failed to rein in the Bush administration,

Another, scarier way to think about this is, imagine if the Congress was another Republican Rubber Stamp. What if this *is*
the Bush administration "reined in?" What if it was WORSE!

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[timster]

Yeah, it's not surprising that Congress tends to have a low approval rating. After all, (generally) about half the voters in the country actually voted for the current president (whoever he is). But any given voter didn't even get to vote for most members of Congress, only the member from their district. So people usually have a higher opinion of the reps from their own district than they do of the congress as a whole.

It's just a truism in American politics that everyone looks at Congress and wonders, "who elected all these clowns? I sure didn't."

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[tourvil]

Wow. Both of your posts reminded me why I hate politics: it's just a big game to see which side can hold power. It has always sickened me how politicians will fight so hard to win and hold power, as if they should be applauded for "wanting it more". As far as I'm concerned, the ones who fight the hardest and dirtiest to win an election are the ones least trustworthy of wielding power.

Honestly that's a big reason why I support Ron Paul. He's the only politician I've ever seen who approach campaigning with humility (though there must be more like him out there). Ignoring his stances on issues, that humility alone suggests he may be trustworthy of holding power. Combine that with the fact that I actually do agree with him on most issues, and you have the reason I've lost my apathy towards this election cycle.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[m2943]

The war in Iraq hadn't really gone bad by the time of the 2004 election

The war in Iraq had gone bad the day it started, it only took people a while to figure that out.

Also, if you look at the approval numbers, until shortly before the election, Bush was in the dumps. He recovered only within weeks of the election and then fell off quickly again. This wasn't Bush support, it was some last minute PR wizardry.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[NeutronCowboy]

Something I don't understand.... why do people point to Congress and the House of Representatives, when there's 51 Democrats in Congress (including an independent who caucuses with the Democrats) and 233 democrats in the House. I don't know about you, but to me, that's one basically even split and one slight majority.

Control assumes that you can squash filibusters and veto threats. Neither the House nor Congress have anything like it.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Kelz]

Its pretty much always been that way too. Since 1998, the approval rating has only hit 50 maybe twice, and has gone steadily downhill since 9/11. Whats interesting to note is that the numbers have not really changed since 2006, when the Democrats took over. I guess people were looking for a lot of change than a new congress can't bring.

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob1.htm

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Captain Splendid]

[1] Rememeber that the Democratic Party is the home of instituitional racism. Jim Crow? Democrat. Those guys with the firehoses back in the civil rights movement? Lifelong Democrats all. Only KKK member serving in Washington? Lifelong Democrat and former Kleagle of the KKK: The Honorable Senator Robert C. Byrd. Who was anklebiting Lincoln at every turn and attempting to sabotage that war effort? The Democratic Party. Just because they have some tame colored folks (Jesse Jackson & ilk come to mind) who keep the 'urban' vote solidly showing up on election day in exchange for largesse from the Treasury doesn't mean the average Democrat isn't a condescending bigot.

Damn, I love tired old horseshit day on Slashdot...every day.

You do understand that everything in that paragraph you wrote is true, up until 50 years ago, right? Most of the "democrats" you describe were southerners and switched to the GOP in the 60s.

Granted, I don't understand why somebody like Byrd is even drawing breath, but the R and D parties you describe don't exist anymore and have almost zero relevance on today's politics.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[E 99]

Impeaching him for Iraq and Iran is off the mark. He should be impeached for:

A. single handedly pushing authorization for torture which was done entirely by his office and his aides
B. single handedly pushing authorization of illegal spying on American citizens without a warrant also lead out of his office

Those are both slam dunk grounds for impeachment because they are both clearly illegal, unpopular, unnecessary and were just plain stupid.

Ha! a) The Vice President doesn't "single-handedly" do anything, whatever the point of saying that was. He has an entire office and staff . b) "Pushing" for legalizing a particular interrogation technique, or pushing the argument that FISA is unconstitutional, by definition, cannot be legal. The idea is preposterous. It is the function of all elected officials to "push" for legislation that they think is beneficial, and to attempt to faithfully interpret and follow the Constitution. They take an oath to do it.

Your reasoning breaks down to "he did things that are clearly unpopular and therefore clearly illegal." Fortunately, that's not how the law works. Your thinking will improve if you spend less time on the Daily KOS.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[modmans2ndcoming]

The Dems do not have a real majority in the Senate either. one of those votes, Lieberman, is always a vote for the Republicans on the war votes and many foreign policy votes. that puts the Dems in the minority on the war in the senate.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[ConceptJunkie]

Actually it was about 19% when the Democrats took over. It's now around 11%, showing that no matter how bad the Republicans can screw things up, the Democrats can make it worse.

Actually, public opinion shouldn't matter. We are electing these people to apply their expertise to problems that we don't always understand, and the best decisions are often unpopular. Of course, the fact is that their 11% approval is entirely deserved because our Congress is corrupt, incompetent and wholly pathetic.

Every election these days is about voting for the lesser evil, and 2008 will be no different. Frankly, I'm tired of voting for evil, lesser or not. It's a waste of time. Whether we get Boy Hillary (Giuliani) or Girl Hillary (I mean Senator Clinton, of course, although an argument could be made that "Girl Hillary" is in fact John Edwards) in 2008, we're screwed and ain't nothin' gonna get better except maybe we'll stop invading countries.

It won't get better until the Big Duopoly of the Republicrats is broken.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[myth24601]

Congress' approval rating is a meaningless metric. The approval rating of congress is almost always bad. It is rarely (if ever) higher than the president's. However, if you ask people about their particular senators and representatives, their ratings are generally much better. Remember, it is not my representative that is the problem -- just everyone else's.

That is in part because of gerrymandering of house districts. Out of 435 seats in the House less than 15% are anywhere near competitive.

It's a little better in the Senate since you can't gerrymander a state so more than a third are competitive but since only one third of the senate is up for reelection it means only a dozen seats or so are in jeopardy.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[eh2o]

Kucinich (who is an extreme liberal) would have been shot down in a split second if it were not for a bunch of republicans backing him up by voting to keep the impeachment issue open. This was an unusual but strategic move. The result is a potential embarassment for the moderate dems as now they must show their cards, however, I doubt this event will have any real impact either way in the long run.

The inept democratic congress doesn't help with popularity, but as long as Bush stays in place, there is a far, far worse example to point at. He is after all the worst rated president in history... they would have to actively screw up to be in a worse position than the republicans are now. There is also the very real risk that if the dems actually made some improvements, they would be stuck in an argument about who should get credit for those improvements when the next election cycle comes around.

Just goes to show how idiotic the whole system is.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[MadAhab]

To summarize:

The voters took a look at the laziest, do-nothingest Congress ever, and voted out Republicans in droves. The Democratic leadership that has resulted has failed to change anything. But that's excusable, if they simply can't assemble the votes and go down fighting.

What isn't excusable is that if they can't succeed, they don't even try. They never take a stand on values and make the GOP or the administration own up to their repugnant positions (torture, habeas corpus, wiretapping - a total repudiation of a thousand years of the best values of the West). So basically, they act like cowards and fail to stand up for values, because they don't understand that fighting to the end, even when you lose, shows strength. This is a strategy that loses any support they might find among the opposition (because they act weak), among their base (because they fail to fight for anything of value), and among the center, the independents, and the unaffiliated (because they look like a bunch of disorganized pandering losers).

That, and, of course, the fact that polls nearly ALWAYS show that people think "Congress is a bunch of son-of-a-bitches, but my Congress-critter is MY son-of-a-bitch".

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[toddestan]

No, he's voting Democrat, using the same logic that by voting Green he's throwing away his chance to vote Republican.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[inKubus]

So we should vote the lesser of two evils in '08? Elect Satan!

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[wonkavader]

Let's go all the way with this. Nero fiddled (or lyred, whatever). There's no proof the he did it while Rome burned. There IS proof that the burning of the part of Rome that did burn benefited him. He wanted to build a palace there. Lucky huh? And his men were there at the fires, contracts in hand, to buy the flaming houses from Roman citizens whose lives were going up in smoke. In days when there was no insurance, and firemen (the vigiles) sometimes waited around outside the house until the money men gave them the nod to go in and put the fire out, there was a powerful motivation to sign.

Nero used the fire to expand his holdings, preyed on the citizens he was supposed to be ruling, and probably had the fires set in the first place.

Doesn't THAT resemble two branches of government doing absolutely nothing about energy because the status quo benefits their benefactors a little more than simple neglect does? This is the same group of people who embrace Ethanol, that won't move forward with CAFE standards, that sign the checks for a war over a dubious possibility of holding oil, and don't spend much at all on alternative energy, for goodness sake, they won't even stand behind habeas corpus.

They aren't fiddling. They're burning our homes to make a buck.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[wonkavader]

Things won't get better until we get a President that considers the Constitution more than "just a goddamned piece of paper

And when do you think that will be? Not the next president. He or she will come from a group of people who haven't impeached a man who amassed all that power. Maybe the next. Or the Next.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[eh2o]

Iraq is a highly volatile state. To cut off funding entirely and walk away invites disaster -- immense bloodshed and the likely rise of another totalitarian state. The place is practically in a state of civil war *right now* -- car bombings practically every day -- sure they kill a few US soldiers now and then but the bulk of the violence is Iraqis killing other Iraqis.

A proper clean up would probably cost as much as the total expenditure so far... and it is not like the UN is going to do it for us, considering how we bypassed them going into this, nor our token "axis of allies". The suggestion that the dems can just "cut off the funding" and everything will be just fine is naive at best.

It really is remarkable just how badly Bush et al screwed this one up at pretty much every step. Hell, they can't even build the new multi-billion-dollar US embassy properly (which is so big it will be visible from orbit), much less estimate how many troops are needed on the ground to keep things under control.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[kinabrew]

What amazes me is that the most-clearly-principled Democratic Presidential candidate isn't the front-runner.

People complain that the Democratic Congress is spineless, and yet the only Democratic candidate who's actually standing up for his beliefs is shot down.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever think that one of the reasons why Congress's ratings are so low is because they haven't impeached yet?

Nope. Probably because they're the most useless Congress we've had in over a decade. They haven't done anything useful, they pulled a bait-and-switch on their arguments for why they should be elected last year. i.e. "Elect us and we'll get out of Iraq... oh, sorry, you voted for us but now you also need to give us the presidency. We couldn't do anything before and we still can't do anything."

No, the reason why Congress's approval ratings are so low is because they've shown the public what they have to offer, and they don't have anything. The Democrats should've tried to lose 2006 so they'd have a chance in 2008. In 2008, the Republicans have Bush dragging them down but Democrats have the Congress dragging them down even more. It's entirely possible the Democrats peaked in 2006 and won't be able to get the job done in 2008. By the time the election comes, they'll have had 2 years in Congress and nothing to show for it. Not a good way to go into a presidential election.

This is total bullshit. Congress is stuck in their standard political game due to the Administration - the worst in the history of the Country - locking us into a war that we cannot leave from. By framing the debate and the entire situation, they have singlehandedly ruined our once great country. Congress is not to blame.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Doc Ruby]

There's no "near-even" split between parties. Americans currently affiliate as "Democrats" over "Republicans" by something like 37.3:32.7%. That 3.6 points is over 11% of the Republican percentage. Americans voted for Democrats by 11.6% overall nationwide. Right now Democrats have a 15 point advantage over Republicans in the presidential race.

Congress is indeed counted as a whole, which is legitimate. Americans are unhappy with Congress for what Republicans are actively blocking, and Democrats passively accepting. That isn't actually any kind of partisan stalemate, either among the politicos, or the Americans who they're all letting down.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Doc Ruby]

Not even.

Democrats control the committees, the schedules, the floor. They don't have to even put forward a bill that funds the war if they don't want. More importantly, they don't have to let by a single Republican pork bill. Which would pressure Bush and his party more than anything else.

And they're not even doing that - not even not doing anything.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[aztektum]

That's the fuckin' thing man, how do you break the duopoly? I know it's fucked, my friends know it's fucked, my family, coworkers... People know it's fucked. How do you un-fuck it?

Sadly the only response I seem to get is "Realize it's fucked and move on." The root of the problem isn't the politicians. It's the people. We've been pandered too and now people are realizing how shitty it is and are clueless about what to do, so we ignore it.

It's not average Joe Wal*Mart shopper either. It's the poor, the middle class and above. It's everywhere. From the college grads down to the guy pumping gas. When it comes down to it, we're putting our immediate desires for whatever level of comfort we feel we've earned ahead of our long term social success. We let our kids be sold short on their education, we let our local police act like stormtroopers, we've replaced true social responsibility with feel good Political Correctness. As long as someone isn't called a bad name, then we're aces! The expectation to conform is stronger now than it ever was.

It's the people that are letting this happen. It's sad not enough realize (even if enough do, they do little about it (myself included)) that history has shown ignoring this shit only makes it worse.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Doc Ruby]

Because Democratic majorities control the committees, including the ones that determine whether any bill makes it to a vote, let alone passes. And 233/435 is a 53.7:46.3% split, or 7.4 points - hardly a "slight" majority, in which 16-32 Democrats can fail to support a partisan vote.

Republicans had a worse majority under most of Clinton and managed to do all kinds of crazy stuff. Democrats have only to not send bills funding the war or other crazy programs (like warrantless wiretapping - I'm sure Americans are pretty much against that), but they don't do it.

Democrats are running a pressure cooker strategy to keep us trapped with Bush until the 2008 elections. It's stupid, because they'd win bigger if they protected our country from Bush the way we sent them to do last year. But they think they can win without taking any risks. Which is a risk that will hurt them. Though they probably think the other upside, keeping all Bush's tyrannical powers, is worth it.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Copid]

You mean the CIA non-spy? Who in fact was never going to get handed any undercover ops ever again after being posted at an embassy?

Errr... I'm sure you have great insight into what the CIA would and would not do with its agents, but the fact remains that her affiliation with the CIA was classified information. I don't know how they operate in other departments, but I and everybody I know who has ever had a security clearance has generally had the impression that leaking classified information is a bad idea--even illegal.

After her husband had already through several public instances outed the fact that his husband was a CIA agent?

Not surprisingly, I'm forced to ask, where do people get this shit?

There was a reason that the only crime charged was over perjury. Which was a complete bullshit charge btw. It was over the exact day of something being said...

...and this shit too, for that matter?

Not to mention the fact that the judge denied the defenses use of a memory expert to testify that in fact it is perfectly plausible that he wouldn't remember the exact day.

Did you take a look at the sheer volume of things that Mr. Libby managed to forget? This wasn't a case of "You said it was 3:55 pm when it was really 4:05 pm." It was more like, "You said you never discussed X, but more than one person claims to have spoken to you on more than one occasion about it." Of course, all this is quite a bit like debating whether or not Al Capone was technically doing is taxes incorrectly.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[rastoboy29]

While I agree that they haven't done anything of value, it used to be conservatives considered this a good thing, for gov't to do as little as possible.  So in that sense it's been a resounding success.  Still, it's not what I voted for them to do.

Still, it's gonna take longer than that for the Republicans to live down Bush.  2008 is the Dem's for the taking, as long as they don't fuck up too badly.  That's why they're not doing anything.

Sad, really.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Yez70]

They are racking up the vetoes though. This alone shows it's not just congress blocking progress, but the presidential veto. Before 2006 it was just a rubber stamp of approval for anything the GOP let out of congress. It still goes to show they can't even figure out how to compromise, but that's both sides faults.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[zerocool^]

Yep, it's almost as if the grandparent had never heard of Dixiecrats. Southern Democrats. They all turned republican after the Civil rights movement happened, and blacks got to share water fountains with whites. LBJ said after signing the act "Well, we've lost the south for a generation". He was right.

GP can GTFO.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[TheGoodSteven]

Its also a possibility that they haven't impeached yet in order to keep their ratings high. By having controversial Republicans in office, it just makes the other side look better. This is how it works when politicians run on the platform "I'm not the other guy", its just makes your argument better if the other guy is disliked more.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[demachina]

"The suggestion that the dems can just "cut off the funding" and everything will be just fine is naive at best."

I didn't say everything would be fine. The only thing that would be sure to happen is America would be out of it and the Arab wont have the U.S. to blame on a day to day basis. Sure America made the mess but at least it would be up to Arabs to come to a resolution.

Everything in Iraq is not going to be fine whether we stay or go. About all we are doing at the moment is postponing the all out civil war at great cost to America in blood and treasure. All things considered it would be better to just let it happen and let Iraqi's and their neighbors pick up the pieces. The U.S. is NEVER going to FIX Iraq. The people in the region have to do that. One of the more common ways to end a civil war for both sides to let blood and when they get sick of the killing they will develop the desire to make peace and live with each other.

The Shia Iraq government is convinced America's rapprochement with the Sunni's in Anbar is a case of America and the Saudi's, having
  realized how much of a problem Shia Iraq is, trying to undo the damage by allying with and arming the Sunni's for the coming civil war.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Billly Gates]

The ads here in the states were terrible in 2004. Kerry looked like the most incompentant unpatriotic figure since Hitler and Carter while bush retained his cool.

Really most Americans didn't vote while Rove energized the religious value voters so it wasn't a vote to support Bush but rather a vote agaisnt this scary Kerry guy who keeps changing his mind is bad.

I believe (could be wrong) that the majority of Americans voted for Kerry and he won the popular vote while bush when the electorate.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was about 19% when the Democrats took over. It's now around 11%, showing that no matter how bad the Republicans can screw things up, the Democrats can make it worse. Funny, but not accurate. The record low was 18%, a tie that included this Democratic Congress and one in 1972 I believe it was. It is now at 23%. It went up.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

To cut off funding entirely and walk away invites disaster -- immense bloodshed and the likely rise of another totalitarian state.

Iraq is already in a bloody civil war and a sectarian theocracy is already likely. We either need to send in another 400,000 troops to pacify the violence - and that's just for the city of Baghdad - or pull out completely. The current half-assed situation isn't stopping the violence, it's only getting our troops killed in the violence.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

That's why they were idiots to back Lieberman instead of Lamont last year. They already knew Lieberman was a backstabber, yet they applauded him when he re-entered the Senate. Idiots.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[demachina]

I think you need to read the Washington Post multi part story on Dick Cheney a month or two ago. He and his aide David Addington have in fact been largely behind most of the sinister things that have happened since 9/11 especially the sanctioning of torture, secret prisons, rendition and wide spread spying on Americans.

You forget Dick Cheney was originally tasked to select a VP for Bush. He quickly deduced George W. was a clueless, easily manipulated tool and he saw his dream come true. He knew he couldn't get elected President especially with his heart condition, but he could be the most power VP in history, and have most of the power of the President without being President, so he picked himself to be VP. When elected he proceeded to install his closest allies at key spots all through the executive branch. He has in fact been running a shadow government. People like Colin Powell tried to stop some of his excesses but Cheney completely out maneuvered everyone who tried to stop him and since he had his allies all over the executive branch, and he knew how to manipulate Bush, he won every round. In particular Rumsfeld and Cheney are best buddies from when they worked together under Nixon and Ford.

Several people who left the Justice Department have spelled it out that David Addington, Cheney's right hand man, was the one that instituted torture as an authorized interrogation technique, defended it against every opponent including people in the DOJ who knew it was illegal and immoral, and has managed to preserve waterboarding as an approved technique to this day. Every time anyone has tried to restore sanity and ban torture Cheney and Addington have out maneuvered them and retained torture as American policy. John Yoo is the other reprehensible low life of a legal academic that helped Cheney's office build the rationalization that torture was acceptable.

Normally VP's are completely impotent figureheads but thanks mostly to the feeble mindedness and naivety of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney is probably the most powerful VP in American history and is the sinister force behind almost everything bad that has been done in the last 7 years.

I realize there is almost no chance you could successfully impeach Cheney but there is probably no one who deserves it more for shredding our Constitution and destroying what little goodwill America had in the world. The crap Clinton got impeached for is insignificant compared to the high crimes Dick Cheney has perpetrated using 9/11 as an excuse.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

Yeah because the Democratic candidates want to have to respond to their Republican opponents saying "Oh we were so close to winning in Iraq, but those lousy good for nothing Democrats stopped us."

To which the Dem response would be: "yeah, you said the exact same thing during Vietnam, and then you got another 20,000 Americans killed."

Yeah I know, sometimes doing the right thing means losing your job, but I doubt any Democrat has enough backbone to end their political career by doing what is right.

That's why their current strategy of "if we can't override his veto, we'll just vote for what he wants anyway" doesn't make any sense. If they are principled, they would block the legislation. If they are simply looking out for their own political skins, they'd force the GOP to take 100% ownership of the mess in Iraq and drive them into electoral relevancy. They do neither. Idiots.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very good point. Letterman and most people in the media constantly rip on Bush's low approval rating, but he's been running almost *twice* the approval percentage of congress since the last election.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

Also, if you look at the approval numbers, until shortly before the election, Bush was in the dumps. He recovered only within weeks of the election and then fell off quickly again. This wasn't Bush support, it was some last minute PR wizardry.

The PR was passing out hatorade on gays under the cover of "protecting marriage". Which is funny, since the states with the worst divorce rates are heavily Republican, and the state with the best divorce rate is...Massachusetts.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[demachina]

"Either Americans really are dumb as all fuck"

Not all Americans are dumb but there are really a lot of dumb Americans. Though in reality people in general are dumb. Its why propaganda is such an important part of government and why it works so well. In the case of America, Evangelical Christianity and TV are pretty lethal cocktail for rational thought. Most American's spend their lives being told what to think by those two entities. Not sure how popular TV wrestling is in the rest of the world but its telling how huge it is in America. Its is a completely fabricated sport but American's still watch it in huge numbers and actually pay ridiculous sums to watch it on pay per view. Its telling about their susceptibility to deception and self deception.

If you want to find the single person most responsible for the debacle of the last seven years you might be amused to discover he is an Aussie. When Rupert Murdock created the Fox News channel he created a focal point for the propaganda machine that completely snowed the American people in to the war in Iraq. Right before the invasion Fox was running flash news bulletins that Saddam had RPV's that he was planning to use to spray chemical and biological weapons on American cities. Never mind that he had no real way to get them anywhere near America even if he did have something like that. or if he actually had America would have nuked him in to the stone age. It was complete and utter lies and propaganda to whip up a war frenzy but it worked, especially in the wake of 9/11.

It was in the news a while ago that Dick Cheney has a standard check list for the hotels he stays at. Its required the hotel tune the TV to Fox News so its the only thing he sees on the TV. Fox News is the oracle of the current administration. Not sure they could have done half the things they did or gotten reelected without it.

Yes American were snowed, but so were the Germans, Japanese and Italians in the 1930's. You just need good propaganda and a people who are susceptible to it, and most people are.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Smauler]

Most democracies don't have your problem at all - upset at the president not getting the popular vote looks weird. I don't remember the last time a party (and therefore their leader) in the UK got more than 50% of the vote.

One easy way to break the duopoly is to enable proportional representation. It's obvious, easy and democratic. No politicians will ever agree to it though. An alternative is partial proportional representation, partial area representation.

I don't know exactly how the US system works. In the UK, the system works entirely on area representation, like the US. However, in the UK the voters vote directly for their member of parliament, and the constituencies are much much smaller than in the US. You get independent MPs voted in. From what I see, you don't get that in the US, at all.

The main advantage I see of our system than that in the US is the smaller constituency size.

I personally _hate_ the form of democracy we have now - I don't think it works well, and needs to be replaced. I think that small scale pyramidal representation is the answer. A person, along with 10 others chooses their representative. They, along with others chosen choose theirs. All the way up to the top (only 9 steps for any country). At any point people can vote out their representative.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

Yes, the largely centrist American populace just can't wait for more senseless partisan bickering.

Funny, Americans didn't see holding Duke Cunningham et all accountable for corruption and law breaking "senseless partisan bickering." If we DON'T impeach Bush and Cheney it means our system is broken, and they got away with their raping of the Constitution.

I mean, for God's sake, listen to the venom over the children's health care thing. Both sides wanted to INCREASE funding, and they got into a big argument over by how much rather than just coming to some compromise.

No, the problem was that Republicans just don't like helping anyone, unless it's corporate welfare. Yes, some members of the GOP did vote to override Bush's veto, showing their strong convictions in backing something favored by 80% of the American people.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

Kucinich (who is an extreme liberal)

You want extreme, you need to visit North Korea. Kucinich only looks extreme compared to the fascist wing of the Republican Party.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[demachina]

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Nice attempt at a cubby hole. I'm not a Liberal. I'm mostly Libertarian. I don't really have any use for Democrats or Republicans.

Its just a simple fact that as bad as the Democrats are, the Republicans of the last 7 years has been unimaginably worse. I was actually a Young Republican in my youth. Back then the Republican party did still maintain some semblance of conservativism and had a moderate wing.

Unfortunately in the last 7 year Republican party has tilted completely in to Fascism coupled with a propaganda machine, spending like drunk sailors and evangelical Christian nutjobs pretending like they knew how to run a country. I just hope America's economy, government and society isn't so irreparably damaged by these loons that it can't survive another year of them and recover when we are finally rid of them. The plunging dollar tends to suggest its very much in doubt if the U.S. will last another year without a complete collapse.

If you want to see a mental disorder what ever is afflicting the smoldering shell of the Republican party. that is a real and serious mental disorder. Its certainly not Conservatism that they are practicing.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Monsuco]

The democrats should be harping non-stop on the fact that congressional republicans are blocking them on getting troops out of Iraq.

They spent the first few months in office renaming post offices, spending a large amount of time passing a resolution that essentially just was bitching at Bush but not doing anything. They still have yet to pass a budget not because Bush has vetoed it (in fact, President Bush has used very few vetoes compared to most modern day presidents.). If they don't pass a budget the federal government shuts down, so this is serious (though the war would still be funded thanks to the Feed and Forge Act). They promised to be bipartisan and respect the GOP and compromise with them, they clearly broke that promise, abusing House Rules Committee and not passing any real reforms. The GOP predictably began filibustering bills in the Senate because they were not given any consent and were not allowed to express their opinions.

Oh and if Democrats truly wanted to help end the Iraq war, passing a resolution condemning an Ottoman Empire genocide that took place 80 years ago while President Bush is in a very sensitive negotiation with Turkey over the PKK. This has insulted and angered Turkey, one of our closest allies and this WWI era genocide was brought up purely to anger the Turkish people. Of course this high moral standard comes from the same congress that refused to condemn a full page personal attack by a hate group calling a high ranking US general in Iraq a traitor for a report that only gave a semi-positive view of the troop surge BEFORE HE EVEN RELEASED THE REPORT. This General is not a politician, he has a very honorable career, and he mentioned quite clearly that the Iraqi Government is not performing well and the Iraqi troops, while improving, have a long way to go. Of course, this is the same congress as the one that promptly had the Senate Majority Leader issue a letter calling for a popular radio talk show host to be fired because (according to Reid) he said that soldiers that disliked the war were phony soldiers (that was a lie, Rush actually said that a former member of the army who was kicked out of boot camp and never had been to Iraq claimed to be an Iraq War Veteran who was against the war was called a phony soldier by Rush. Rush sold the "fire Rush" letter and donated the proceeds to a charity that helps the troops and their families, and he matched the money made by the donation with his own money, this wasn't a publicity stunt, he had donated to that charity in the past. Pelosi claimed she would clean up corruption yet she promptly tried to nominate a man found with thousands of dollars in bribes in his freezer to chair a committee instead of doing the honest thing and trying to get him expelled from congress.

There are only two promises I know of that they kept. The first is they promised to raise the minimum wage, which while I disagree with them on this (I feel that we generally do not need a minimum wage) they did uphold this promise if I remember correctly. The second thing they promised to do is not to attack the executive or try to dismantle the executive branch with impeachments. At least they kept two promises.

What is the point of this long complaint, I just wanted to stress how ridiculously bad this congress has been. Bush has been far from perfect, and the previous Republican Congress spend money quicker than Democrats but this is far worse. I predict that congresses approval will eventually fall into single digits.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Monsuco]

I think the congressional Democrat's numbers are low because they have completely failed to rein in the Bush administration,

Then why is the Bush Administration's Approval rating higher than Congress?

All the Democrats have to do is not allocate funds for Iraq which takes a simple majority and then the troops come home.

If I were Bush I would simply veto the federal budget and veto every single bill congress passes until I get a war bill, it has been done with other presidents. If congress doesn't pass a budget the Federal Government essentially shuts down until it does.

A. single handedly pushing authorization for torture which was done entirely by his office and his aides
B. single handedly pushing authorization of illegal spying on American citizens without a warrant also lead out of his office

Congress has investigated both of these, they found in neither case was there anything that they could impeach Bush or Cheney for. I repeat for those of you who are slow, no crime was committed according to congressional investigations.

Those are both slam dunk grounds for impeachment because they are both clearly illegal, unpopular, unnecessary and were just plain stupid.

Unpopular, unnecessary and just plain stupid are not grounds for impeachment, only illegal is. In this case since it failed to meet the illegal criteria for articles of impeachment it would fail. You might get the house to prosecute, but the Senate will not convict without a crime.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Lemmy Caution]

"Congress" always has low ratings. Any given district or state's own representatives and senators, however, usually have fairly high ratings. It was ever thus: I hate your bozos, you hate mine. But with both love our own bozos.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey demachina! Don't mean to burst your bubble, but plaintiffs have been trying to play the illegal domestic spying angle for half a decade now. Believe me, if there were ever any inkling of illegal domestic spying we'd never hear the end of it. Or did the NYT not repeatedly leak classified information about a secret terrorist surveillance program with impunity (consequently alerting the enemy to the specifics of our intelligence gathering and capability)?

I whole heartedly support your right to criticize (or smear) the administration and will even fight for your right to voice your opinions. But, I doubt that I can stop the reality of winning in Iraq from diminishing your small voice to a much more tinier and shrill voice. Kucinich would be proud! ;)

greetings from ImaginationLand,
anonymous-kwood

--
"I'm terrorizing your MIND!" - UCB

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Eddi3]

Incorrect; Bush won by 3 million votes.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[skrolle2]

Why vote for the lesser evil? Cthluhu for president '08!

NO MORE YEARS!

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, he should be impeached not for "torture" or for "spying".. but for "pushing" for these things.

As far as I believe, the reason the Republicans pushed to get this stupid impeachment thing on the floor was to make the point to the Democrats that these things can backfire.

Everyone up there knows that if it actually went to trial, then the administration would most possibly be cleared in a long drawn-out trial.. and just before the election the Supreme Court would be spotlighting that Bush did nothing wrong and the Democrats have been making up all these claims and investigations for political play.

That would be a big boost for Republicans just before the election.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[captainwisdom]

Excellent analysis lexta2000. Especially with HRC leading the Dems. Half the country immediately dislikes her. Should be an 'upset' win for the R's. It's gonna have the MSM and euro-elites sulking. Ha Ha

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[HoppQ]

It's now around 11%, showing that no matter how bad the Republicans can screw things up, the Democrats can make it worse. From what I've seen of U.S. politics, your problem is that the Democrats don't get anything done. The other problem is that the Republicans, unfortunately, do get things done. :S

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[sammy baby]

Just a followup to my original post: Poll Shows Rise In Number Of Americans Who Want Dems To Be Tougher With Bush On Iraq.

The survey finds that nearly half -- 47% -- say that Dems aren't doing enough to challenge the President over Iraq. That's a seven-point jump from last spring. In contrast, barely one-fifth think Congress has gone "too far." And tellingly, nearly half of independents -- 48% -- want more action from Congress on ending the war, too.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[sammy baby]

Ack! My link disappeared. Here.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[DaveV1.0]

The reason Congress has "failed to rein in the Bush administration" is because people like you insist they try to do it stupidly. You demand that funding be cut off or that all the troops be pulled out next week.

Reigning in the administration is like moving a mountain and you do it the same way, one little bit at a time.

But, do you people see that? No, you don't. You insist on big sweeping changes immediately, and so the bills fail.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the Democrtic Party has been Californicated.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[MightyYar]

You are part of the problem with your extremism. You sound exactly like the idiot Republicans that were behind the Clinton impeachment. You have to know that impeaching them would solve absolutely nothing, right? There is no way the Senate would convict, so you'd waste all of this time and they'd still be in office. Plus, even if you could somehow get the Senate to convict, it would take months if not years - and then Bush is out of office anyway. It just doesn't make sense on any level except partisanship and revenge.

Even Bush wanted to increase funding of the children's program by $8 billion. Bush, being a partisan idiot in an election year, got combative and issued a veto threat. Congress (especially the House), being nothing but a bunch of partisan idiots, refused to negotiate THEIR increase of $30+ billion. Way to go, partisans! So instead of improving and extending a popular and successful program, they throw mud at each other. I don't know about you, but I feel like they are serving MY best interests!

If congress and Bush had our best interests at heart, they would have sat down and negotiated an increase for the program that they all could have lived with. But no, can't do that in an election year! Compromise with the enemy? Never!

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[ConceptJunkie]

Depends on which poll you look at. Of course that still means there are people who think Congress is doing a good job. Those people are too stupid to be in this country and should be deported.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[griffjon]

I'd argue they don't even need the filibuster and veto-beating votes. F' em all. Make the laws we elected you to make; get us out of Iraq, start fixing the system Bush has so thoroughly broken, restore constitutional order, privacy, and respect for citizens. Will these bills get vetoed? Sure. Let Bush dig a deeper hole for himself. More importantly, get the Republicans in Congress down on record as voting against these things the first time around and in a veto round, and keep sending them up. You grow and encourage your own support base, undermine that of the republicans, and maybe, just maybe, get a few to cross the floor and pass some good legislation the 15th time it goes to vote.

The Dems are playing this whole thing all wrong; it's a prisoner's dilemma with repeat play; while a generous player who always caves may provide a good path to a win-win, the Reps have proven that they will take advantage and not give "earned" slack - so it's time to move to a tit-for-tat strategy for a good long while. Dems - you're the majority party, stop bending over like a beaten-down beta male.

Gah.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

This election can be different. There is one candidate who isn't anything like the others. Check out www.ronpaul2008.com.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't done anything useful, they pulled a bait-and-switch on their arguments for why they should be elected last year. i.e. "Elect us and we'll get out of Iraq... oh, sorry, you voted for us but now you also need to give us the presidency. We couldn't do anything before and we still can't do anything." So what, exactly, do you think they can do when they don't have a veto proof majority? Clearly you don't understand the constitutional rules here.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[ChefInnocent]

As others have mentioned, the country can point to my representatives/senators also. We have the lying, self-serving Senator Craig. I'm fairly certain that when they count the votes here in Idaho, if it isn't for the Republican, they assume you meant to vote for the Republican and record it that way. Combine that with people who vote for the words of morality rather than the actions of morality.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[letxa2000]

So what, exactly, do you think they can do when they don't have a veto proof majority? Clearly you don't understand the constitutional rules here.

Of course I understand the constitutional rules here. The painful thing is that the Democrats counted on their constituents not understanding the constitutional rules. They were scurrying around last year trying to get control of Congress, promising that if they won, they'd get us out of Iraq. Anyone that knows anything about the Constitution knows they were making a promise that they couldn't deliver on yet there they were saying it. The fact that they won the Congress on that platform is really an insult to the intelligence of their constituents because people had to be gullible fools to believe them.

That ignores the fact that they could de-fund the war. But they don't. Why? Because that would lose them the 2008 election in the snap of a finger. They'd rather win the 2008 election than do what they (or those that voted for them) think is right. They're just hoping they can keep up the scam long enough to win in 2008. It's a gamble. If people wise up before the election, the Democrats could find themselves in one heck of a pickle.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Spudds]

This is "Neo-Conservatism" named for the character in the film "The Matrix." What?
Neo
pref.
      1. New; recent: neonatal.
      2. New and different: Neo-Freudian.
      3. New and abnormal: neoplasm.

Neo-(word) has NOTHING to do with "The Matrix" and frankly the fact that you made that statement and it wasn't in jest scares the shit out of me.

Do me a favor: Don't Vote.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

You want modern examples? There are plenty!

Free Speech Zones. An invention of the Democrat Party.

Tazering people asking non-approved questions. An invention of the Democrat Party.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[srussell]

I'm voting green from now on.

That's largely the reason why we're in the mess we're currently in. A bunch of people who would otherwise have voted Democrat if they weren't so unhappy with the choices in 2000 voted for third parties. I was one of them; I was trying to send a message. It would have been harder for Bush to steal the 2000 election if Gore's margin of win (popular vote) had been wider.

The fact is that in a first-past-the-goal system like we have in the states, if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils then your vote is wasted. What we need is a change in how we count votes, such as Condorcet, ranked pairs, or approval voting. None of these is perfect (Condorcet is the most fair, but is complicated), but all of them are more fair than what we have in the states.

--- SER

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[iminplaya]

Congress' approval rating is a meaningless metric.

The reality is that their approval rating is 99%. All the way up to the prez. That's what the only poll that means anything says.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Darby]

It's like 1982 all over again, back when the only position you needed to take politically to be 'hip' was to Hate Reagan.

No, common sense is all it took to hate Reagan. "Hipness" has nothing to do with it. He was a fascist cunt, a traitor, and one of the worst presidents we've ever had. That was obvious at the time to everybody with any sense and it's even more obvious now that many more of his chickens have come home to roost.

So, it's pretty sleazy of you to try and pretend that it was all about "hipness", but that's a coward's tactic.

You are incapable of defending your position so you make believe that other people hold their positions for the same idiotic delusional reasons that you hold yours. That ain't the case. Many people use reason to reach their positions. We know you don't because you couldn't have reached a position as ignorant and idiotic as that through reason.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Darby]

You have to know that impeaching them would solve absolutely nothing, right? There is no way the Senate would convict, so you'd waste all of this time and they'd still be in office.

It would not do "absolutely nothing". It would clearly and cleanly divide Congress between those who are living up to their oath of office and those who are actively betraying it.

The Republican members, in particular, will be forced to declare openly and publicly whether their loyalty is to their country or to their political party. It's obvious to rational, sane, people that their loyalty has long been only to their party, but by publicly defending the worst traitor our nation has ever seen, even some of the bottom of the barrel nitwits who constitute Bush's sole support at this point might just start pulling their heads out of their asses.

So even if the Congressional Republicans betray their nation and their oaths of office to stop the entirely necessary impeachment, much will happen.

It's all about a clear demonstration of integrity, something that's been missing from our nation for decades.

It just doesn't make sense on any level except partisanship and revenge.

No, it's absolutely essential if we want any hope of saving our nation. It's probably too late as is. Letting Nixon get away with treason and then letting Ford get away with clearing Nixon's treason was when integrity died in this government and the scum that have come since used that to their advantage. So, maybe finally doing the right thing now is too late, but continuing the policy of excusing all crimes no matter how sickening and treasonous by the president can not possibly have any good results.
I'm sorry you fail to grasp the importance of integrity in government, but your failure does not make it untrue.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Darby]

America is a conservative country with conservative voters following a conservative agenda.

No, America is, by definition, a *Liberal* country.

If it ceases to be so, then it will cease to be America, the two are inextricably intertwined. We are the crowning jewel of the Enlightenment and of Liberalism.

Of course, that's why the radical extremist nutjobs are so intent on undermining and destroying the constitution.

Now, of course, even ignoring your basic ignorance of the fundamental nature of America, your statement is even more frightening in its complete and utter delusionality.

If, as you say, America were a conservative country, then how is it that Bush got elected when he's a radical extremist, and not conservative in any way shape or form?

Oh that's right, you're an idiot who has no clue what you're talking about.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Isaac-1]

You obviously don't live in the south, I live in Louisiana, and many, if not most state level and local offices are filled by Democrats. In our most recent election a few weeks ago, on the same ballot we elected a Republican of Indian decent as our governer, about half the offices were contests between Democrats with no republicans even on the ballot. Admitedly many of these were local level elections, like the local Sheriffs race where we had 4 candidates to choose from, all Democrat, or City Council, again in most districts the choice is which Democrat. Still national level candidates have to get a start somewhere, and here in Louisiana local and state level government is dominated by Democrats.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[BlueStraggler]

That's the fuckin' thing man, how do you break the duopoly? I know it's fucked, my friends know it's fucked, my family, coworkers... People know it's fucked. How do you un-fuck it?

The traditional way. Wait for the fuckedness to bring about an economic collapse, then line whatever bastards happen to be in charge up against a wall and shoot them (don't worry about this part, it will usually be taken care of by the billionaires who entrusted the bastards to protect their wealth). Then wait ten years for the black markets and organized crime to sort out who the new oligarchy should be. Then enjoy a generation or two of prosperity before things slowly start to get re-fucked.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

You are part of the problem with your extremism.

Since when is holding officials accountable when they repeatedly break the law "extremist?" Were prosecutors "extremist" when they sent Duke Cunningham to jail for accepting bribes? How about Bob Ney? Or Dan Rostenkowski?

You sound exactly like the idiot Republicans that were behind the Clinton impeachment.

The only thing idiotic is your comparison. Republicans investigated Clinton because they wanted to remove him from office by any means necessary, not because it was revealed that he broke the law. Whereas we know for a fact that Bush has broken the FISA laws on wiretapping, the 4th Amendment on searches and seizures, the 5th Amendment on due process, the 6th Amendment on speedy public trials, the 8th Amendment on cruel and unusual punishment, laws on using federal agencies for partisan gain, and of course, outing covert agents. So, Yar, just what the fuck does Bush have to do before you'll say he should be impeached?

If congress and Bush had our best interests at heart, they would have sat down and negotiated an increase for the program that they all could have lived with.

Or he could have just remembered his campaign slogan "compassionate conservatism" and signed the damn bill. But I guess helping sick kids is less important that getting older kids killed in Iraq at the cost of hundreds of billions per year.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[MightyYar]

Not only do I not grasp the importance of integrity in government, I don't believe that it is possible. As soon as those crooks can get away with it, they will rip us off - the only hope that we have is to make the process open and convoluted enough that they have a high likelihood of getting caught.

I don't think that a year-long trial of Bush would bring out the good in any of the politicians. About the only good it could do is temporarily interrupt their feeding at the public trough for a while.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

The Republican members, in particular, will be forced to declare openly and publicly whether their loyalty is to their country or to their political party. It's obvious to rational, sane, people that their loyalty has long been only to their party, but by publicly defending the worst traitor our nation has ever seen, even some of the bottom of the barrel nitwits who constitute Bush's sole support at this point might just start pulling their heads out of their asses.

And what we do know about is what has filtered through a complicit Republican Congress and reflexive claims of "executive privilege." Impeachment hearings, even if they don't result in a conviction in the Senate, will cut through those executive privilege claims. And aside from forcing Republicans to stand with the law or stand with the most unpopular president in history, it will drag all the skeletons out of the closet for criminal prosecution or civil claims after they leave office.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[MightyYar]

So, Yar, just what the fuck does Bush have to do before you'll say he should be impeached? He has to be directly tied to one of the things you mentioned AND it has to outrage enough people to spark action.

Like it or not, a lot of people actually agree with the wiretaps - and since they are international calls it's not even an open-and-shut FISA case. I don't know what 4th amendment search-and-seizure rules you are referring to. I think that you are referring to Gitmo with regard to the 5th and 6th amendments, but he has followed the letter (though not the spirit) of the law there and complied with Supreme Court rulings so it would be hard to make a case against him. Would you put congress on trial for treason every time they pass a law that is later found to be unconstitutional? I'm not aware of how he has been directly tied to 8th amendment violations.

So yeah, your extremism is in making Bush out to be some kind of war criminal. He might be a bad president, he might be an idiot, and he might make really bad decisions - but he's not a war criminal.

But I guess helping sick kids is less important that getting older kids killed in Iraq at the cost of hundreds of billions per year. This is exactly the kind of unhelpful disinformation that I was talking about. First, the children's bill had nothing to do with Iraq - why do you even bring that up except to demonize Bush? Next, the Bush administration has for years allowed states with higher costs-of-living to up the limits on the program to provide health care to children, and they supported something like an $8 billion expansion of the program. He is hardly leaving kids hanging and not helping "sick kids".

As it happens, there is a very legitimate concern that raising the minimum salary level too high will cause people to drop kids from their employer's plan and go with the government's free plan. Why didn't we hear discussion about how to prevent this from either side, instead of the partisan attacks on both sides of the aisle. The answer is that neither side really gives a shit about kids. The Republicans want their "base" to believe their laughable claim about being for small government and the Democrats want their "base" to believe they care about kids... cost be damned!

There's nothing innately more "right" about the $8 billion that Bush wanted or the $30+ billion that the Dems wanted - just a matter of opinion, so don't make it out like the Bushies are evil. You know what? Even if they wanted the feds to pay exactly $0 to the healthcare of children, it wouldn't make them evil. It's a perfectly legitimate opinion.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

He has to be directly tied to one of the things you mentioned

Specifics like what was ordered when are covered up by claims of "executive privilege" and exactly the sort of thing uncovered in impeachment hearings, where executive privilege doesn't apply.

AND it has to outrage enough people to spark action.

If you aren't outraged, something is wrong with you.

Like it or not, a lot of people actually agree with the wiretaps

What people. And "a lot of people" also supported lynchings and forcing school prayer into schools. Doesn't make it right or legal.

and since they are international calls it's not even an open-and-shut FISA case.

And since one end of those calls were in the U.S., yes of course it is an open and shut case.

I don't know what 4th amendment search-and-seizure rules you are referring to.

Wiretapping without warrants.

I think that you are referring to Gitmo with regard to the 5th and 6th amendments, but he has followed the letter (though not the spirit) of the law there and complied with Supreme Court rulings so it would be hard to make a case against him.

No, he hasn't, and no, it isn't. There are still hundreds of people being held that have been there for years without a trial or an attorney.

Would you put congress on trial for treason every time they pass a law that is later found to be unconstitutional?

Look up the definition of treason and try again.

I'm not aware of how he has been directly tied to 8th amendment violations.

Waterboarding, sensory deprivation, and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques. If you're going to insist on the "directly involved" red herring again, this is the sort of detail turned up in impeachment hearings.

So yeah, your extremism

Bush. Broke. The. Law. And. Violated. The. Constitution. That you are still babbling about anyone who wants to hold him accountable for his actions as being "extremist" is an extreme case of pot calling the kettle black.

making Bush out to be some kind of war criminal. He might be a bad president, he might be an idiot, and he might make really bad decisions - but he's not a war criminal.

Straw man.

This is exactly the kind of unhelpful disinformation that I was talking about. First, the children's bill had nothing to do with Iraq

Straw man.

As it happens, there is a very legitimate concern that raising the minimum salary level too high will cause people to drop kids from their employer's plan and go with the government's free plan. Why didn't we hear discussion about how to prevent this from either side, instead of the partisan attacks on both sides of the aisle.

Yes, more people should be moved to the governments plan. The whole damned country in fact. With private insurance, you are paying exorborant premiums only to have the insurance companies take that money and use it to try and deny you claims. They've gone so far as denying claims for a late night miscarriage by calling it an elctive abortion. We pay over twice as much money per patient as other western countries for worse care. Freaking Cuba, which spends 1/30th as much per patient as we do, is catching up to us in quality of care.

There's nothing innately more "right" about the $8 billion that Bush wanted or the $30+ billion that the Dems wanted - just a matter of opinion, so don't make it out like the Bushies are evil. You know what? Even if they wanted the feds to pay exactly $0 to the healthcare of children, it wouldn't make them evil. It's a perfectly legitimate opinion.

Well lets see....some kids will inevitably die without that $30 billion for a well-managed program. That you say that paying zero for these kids is a perfectly legit opinion once again shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[jafac]

Fuck that shit.

These are the only pertinent facts:
1. Libby had a clearance, therefore, he signed an SF-312.
2. Plames covert status was Classified.
3. Libby confirmed Classified information; in clear, direct contravention of the verbage contained on the SF-312.
4. Violation of the SF-312 is a felony.

He should have had his clearance revoked ON THAT DAY.
That he did not - shows how criminal this administration is.

People who earn 1/2 or 1/4 what Libby makes can keep track of much more complicated, detailed Classified information on a day to day basis without "forgetting" or "accidentally confirming". I didn't buy the "bad memory" defense with Reagan for Iran-Contra, and I don't buy it here either. These guys are a bunch of crooks; no wonder - they're all leftovers from the Nixon administration.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[jafac]

Either Americans really are dumb as all fuck, or Americans chose to believe lies which were more palatable than the truth.

Go check out the other slashdot article today on "cognitive dissonance".

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[MightyYar]

Specifics like what was ordered when are covered up by claims of "executive privilege" and exactly the sort of thing uncovered in impeachment hearings, where executive privilege doesn't apply.

That's the formula for a witch burning. Put a man on trial because he may have committed a crime, without any actual evidence. Because, of course, anyone innocent of being a witch will just burn in the fire.

Yeah, I'd say putting the country's affairs on hold for a witch burning is worth it, though.

If you aren't outraged, something is wrong with you.

To use your term: straw man. My opinion doesn't change the fact that not enough people are outraged to bring about an impeachment, let alone a conviction.

What people. And "a lot of people" also supported lynchings and forcing school prayer into schools. Doesn't make it right or legal.

The "illegal" wiretaps have not yet been shown to be so in any court that I am aware of. I don't think that they were "right", but my opinion doesn't really have anything to do with the law.

Waterboarding, sensory deprivation, and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques. If you're going to insist on the "directly involved" red herring again, this is the sort of detail turned up in impeachment hearings.

Do you really think that Bush went through a list of interrogation techniques and gave the okay to only certain ones? Don't you think that it is much more likely that he just said, "Get away with as much as you can before it will get us in trouble"? Even now, people are having a lot of trouble drawing a line between "torture" and "enhanced interrogation". Most people would say that pulling fingernails out is torture, and most people would say that depriving the prisoner of TV is not - but there is a lot of gray area.

No, he hasn't, and no, it isn't. There are still hundreds of people being held that have been there for years without a trial or an attorney.

So he's disobeying the Supreme Court is he? Do you have specifics? Last I read the administration has had to make many changes at Gitmo to comply with Supreme Court decisions. I'm not saying that I like what's going on there, just that he appears to be following the constitutional process. He did something with military prisoners as Commander-in-Chief, the court said, "No, you can't do that." and so he did the minimal amount to just barely comply with their order - and as slowly as possible. It makes him a dick, but not impeachable.

Bush. Broke. The. Law. And. Violated. The. Constitution.

You say that, but you don't bring any real evidence to the table. You just say that you are certain that it must exist. Somewhere.

rant about socialized health care

Your points on socialized medicine are completely valid, and your opinion is completely reasonable. However, you have to work with people who disagree with you - and who also have completely valid and reasonable opinions. Almost all of us can agree that the current hodge-podge mix of private and public money doesn't really work for us. We should work from that starting point toward a solution that we all can live with. Name calling doesn't get you a solution - it just gets more money thrown at the problem. As you've pointed out, money isn't the problem... we spend more than anyone else already.

Well lets see....some kids will inevitably die without that $30 billion for a well-managed program.

Come now. Do you actually have anything to support this assertion? You are aware that no one can be denied emergency care, right? You are also aware that the program currently already fills in most of the gap between Medicare-covered kids and the middle-class that is covered already through their employer? The $8 billion that Bush wanted arguably would have covered that shortfall in the coming years. His stance was to keep a successful program humming along, covering the same people that it does t

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

All I know is if the Democrats don't change the course after 2008, or the Republicans manage another victory, I'm getting off the train and moving to Canada, because if this is the only option then I don't want to be associated with this country anymore. I'll take the pay cut and the taxes and praise it as mana from Valhalla. I just feel sorry for the people whose educational or professional choices don't afford them the same mobility.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[that this is not und]

That was obvious at the time to everybody with any sense

Except, ahem, a majority of the American people.

I am not going to try to 'rehabilitate' Reagan, because the process is already underway and nothing I say or do can change that.

My position was not to be pro or anti-Reagan. Just to point out that there were many dogmatic unthinking people who believed the cartoonish stereotypes thrown up to depict Reagan as something he very much was not. He wasn't a doddering idiot. You seem to even agree with that, as you feel he was far too evile to be such.

Similar cartoonish stereotypes are thrown up to depict any current President. That's how it's always been. That's how it always will be.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Errr... I'm sure you have great insight into what the CIA would and would not do with its agents, but the fact remains that her affiliation with the CIA was classified information."

Sadly, it's not all that simple:
1. Diversionary Tactics: The CIA knew that Plame wasn't "covert." The relevant statute even makes it clear that the agent must be covert in order for the leak to be considered a crime. Yet, for reasons that we can only surmise were influenced by their colossal failures over Iraq intelligence, they referred the leak to Justice.
2. Everything Is Suddenly A Scandal: Wilson's paranoid persecution theory combined with a media craving a new scandal at every opportunity, whipped up the script. Mrs. Plame played the victim. Cheney, Rove, and Libby played the villains.
3. A Shocking revelation: The Justice Department knew that it was deputy secretary, Richard Armitage, who leaked Plame's name to Novak, long *before* they appointed Fitzgerald as special prosecutor.
4. Hanging The Wrong Man: Years later, Scooter Libby is hung out to dry while Armitage lives to fight another day of bureaucratic infighting.
5. The Darlings Of The Media: The Wilson's are supposedly raking in millions of dollars selling books and doing interviews. At least you'd think so from all the love and adoration they get from their friends in the media.

Personally, I'm content to chalk it all up to bureaucratic infighting, but if you'd like greater insight into the CIA, I hear that "Legacy of Ashes" is a good read.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

That's the formula for a witch burning.

Yar, the problem with defending the indefensible is that you make really pathetic arguments. And you are defending the indefensible. Look, this is how it works: there is probable cause that you have committed a crime. So you are brought before a court of law, where charges will be made against you, evidence presented, and you have the opportunity to defend yourself. Impeachment hearings are NO different. We have probable cause that Bush has committed crimes. So you bring impeachment hearings against him, evidence will be presented and he will have an opportunity to defend himself. Then just as in a criminal trial, the vote goes to a jury - in the case the Senate. Just what part of this is a "witch hunt"? Do you think the prosecution of Duke Cunningham was a "partisan witch hunt?" How about Ted Bundy? You break the law in this country, you have to deal with the consequences. Even if you are the President of the United States. Just what part of this do you not understand?

To use your term: straw man

Look up the definition of straw man and try again.

You say that, but you don't bring any real evidence to the table. You just say that you are certain that it must exist. Somewhere.

Oh, do pull your head out Yar. Jose Padilla, American citizen, held in solitary confinement for years with no trial, subjected to sensory deprivation. NSA wiretapping. The DOJ firing United States Attorneys because they wouldn't bring bogus voter fraud cases against Democrats just before election time. DOJ memos on torture. Signing statements. We had enough to start impeachment proceedings years ago.

Your points on socialized medicine are completely valid, and your opinion is completely reasonable. However, you have to work with people who disagree with you - and who also have completely valid and reasonable opinions.

People are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. And the fact is that socialized medicine is superior to what we have now.

Do you actually have anything to support this assertion? You are aware that no one can be denied emergency care, right?

Emergency rooms only have to get you patched up well enough to leave, not cure what ails you.

That you can't see the logic and reasonable side of other people's opinions is what is wrong with you.

Problem: there is nothing reasonable about shielding Bush from the consequences of his lawbreaking. There is nothing reasonable about a healthcare system where the money you pay for care is used by a middle man to find reasons to deny you the very care you are paying for. As someone once said, compromise is great when a Republican and a Democrat help a blind lady cross the street. It is not great when they smash her head in and run off with her purse because it was done with bipartisanship. And compromise is not great when they settle for merely running off with her purse instead of mashing her head as well.

In other words, there are issues where no, you do not compromise. Torture and health insurance for kids are two of them. The Democrats learned the wrong lesson from the government shutdown of 1995; they seem to think that when Congress forces an issue with the president, that Congress will lose. The real lesson is that the unpopular side will lose. Take the Iraq war for example: the vast majority of the country supports and end to the war. If Congress forced the issue by refusing to pass any funding for Iraq that did not include a firm withdrawal date, they would do so with firm backing from the public.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[aztektum]

We vote directly for members of Congress. We don't vote directly for the president. See here

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Darby]

Except, ahem, a majority of the American people.
He wasn't a doddering idiot.

He certainly ended up a drooling vegetable.

You seem to even agree with that, as you feel he was far too evile to be such.

Much like the current president, he was a doddering idiot. Now, there were some very capable, very evil people in his administration who used his idiocy to engage in treason. Now, unlike most people,
I still hold him responsible because it was his responsibility. The atrocities and treason committed by his administration disgraced our nation and we're still dealing with cleaning up the mess he made.


Similar cartoonish stereotypes are thrown up to depict any current President. That's how it's always been. That's how it always will be.

Except, the Republican party has gone as far as to select cartoonish stereotypes as their candidates for decades now. No stereotypes of Bush or Reagan even do justice to how fucked up, amoral, and vile they actually are/were.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

I just wanted to say that, on whole, I like Ron Paul more than the rest of the candidates. He's principled, he believes in a lot of the stuff I believe in (primarily that the Constitution is the primary law of the land and that it specifies a small, mostly powerless federal government) and he actually votes for what he stands for.

The primary thing that he loses me on is that he's willing to cut and run from Iraq, regardless of the consequences. It's one thing to argue about whether or not we should have gone in (which is a moot point in this case but is valuable to future military actions) but I think it's shortsighted to up and leave without considering what that would do at this point, especially since our national security is directly tied to the stability of the middle east because of oil.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[MightyYar]

Just what part of this do you not understand? Where the probable cause is. Everything that I see points to him working within the confines of the constitution.

Look up the definition of straw man and try again. Okay: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

So when I think that you are constructing my argument in the wrong way - in a way that suits you - I call it a straw man argument.

Jose Padilla, American citizen, held in solitary confinement for years with no trial, subjected to sensory deprivation. While I agree that shouldn't have happened, where did Bush violate the constitution?

NSA wiretapping. You keep repeating this, as if that will firm up the legal case against it. It's not at all clear that listening in on overseas calls violates any law... at the very least it has not been tested in any court of law.

The DOJ firing United States Attorneys because they wouldn't bring bogus voter fraud cases against Democrats just before election time. Last I checked, it was not against the constitution - or against the law - for a President to fire federal prosecutors, and it is in fact done by every president. Bush was slimy about it, and he did it for a bad reason, but it's not illegal.

Signing statements. First of all, he's not the first one to use them. Sure, he's put more of them on bills than anyone else, but they are not his invention. But mainly - has he done anything to actually subvert the constitution? No - he just writes a bunch of meaningless crap on the bills.

And the fact is that socialized medicine is superior to what we have now. No, that's an opinion. Besides, we HAVE socialized medicine now. Not a form that you or I are happy with, but we do have socialized medicine.

Emergency rooms only have to get you patched up well enough to leave, not cure what ails you. Yup, emergency rooms as primary care suck, and if you really want to know what I want - the long and short of it is that I think there should be government free clinics. They would suck, too, but it would take the pressure off of the emergency rooms. In more rural areas, it would probably pay to simply insure people rather than open up an under-utilized clinic. I'm fairly confident that the government insurance/clinics would suck enough that most people would get private insurance - as they do in France, for instance.

But my opinion aside, I merely was pointing out that kids are not dropping like flies under the current system, as you were suggesting. Uninsured does not mean "no health care".

And compromise is not great when they settle for merely running off with her purse instead of mashing her head as well. But in my example, both Bush and the Dems were advocating INCREASING funding for a popular and successful program. Their positions were exactly the same except for a squabble over just how much the INCREASE should be. Under either plan, children would receive MORE coverage then they have today. Is it really too much to expect some bipartisanship for such an easy issue? What hope do we have for more difficult issues?

the vast majority of the country supports and end to the war. 60% is a vast majority? I, for one, am glad to see that congress has more sense than to follow the opinion polls. People who can't, at a minimum, point to Iraq on a map or list the two main factions of Islam should not even have their opinion counted. Elitist view? Damn right. The people making the actual decisions should be at the very least informed.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Scudsucker]

Where the probable cause is. Everything that I see points to him working within the confines of the constitution.

Then you are either trolling, or you being willfully obtuse. Where are presidential signing statements in the Constitution, Yar? Where are the exceptions in the 8th Amendment for cruel & unusual punishment for terror suspects? Suspending due process for American citizens held on American soil?

Okay: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." So when I think that you are constructing my argument in the wrong way - in a way that suits you - I call it a straw man argument.

Wrong again. A straw man is when you attack an argument or position as if your opponent as made it, but has not. So if I chide you for your pro-bestiality statements, that would be a straw man, because you haven't made any.

While I agree that shouldn't have happened, where did Bush violate the constitution?

Padilla had the right to due process, a speedy trial, and the right to be free from cruel & unusual punishment (sensory deprivation at the least). The Administration violated all of these rights.

You keep repeating this, as if that will firm up the legal case against it. It's not at all clear that listening in on overseas calls violates any law... at the very least it has not been tested in any court of law.

Purely overseas calls are not, and have never been the issue. The issue is when one end of those calls happens to be in the United States, as you do not surrender your constitutional rights anytime you call someone in another country. Keep in mind FISA laws already allow wiretaps on those calls, allowing federal agents to obtain a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact. And the FISA court is incredibly generous with their standard of evidence necessary to get a warrant: there have been over 10,000 requests for warrants since the court was set up, and around 4 have been denied. That's a .04% rejection rate. The FBI can tap someones phone, go to the FISA court two days later and say "hey, we suspected these guys were up to bad stuff" and the FISA court says "ok, here's your warrant." By going around FISA, the Bush Administration wants to be able to tap phones without having to provide any reason at all.

No, that's an opinion.

We spend more than twice as much money for worse care. We have higher infant mortality rates and lower life expectancies. A country that spends 1/30th as much per patient is nearly even with us in statistics. Socialized medicine is better than our current private insurance racket. That. Is. A. Fact.

Besides, we HAVE socialized medicine now. Not a form that you or I are happy with, but we do have socialized medicine.

For a few. But it's done in a half-hearted, half-assed fashion. For example, if you are struck with kidney failure, you might be able to get reimbursement for a $300,000 kidney transplant operation. But you're on your own for the $3,000 a month in anti-rejection drugs.

But in my example, both Bush and the Dems were advocating INCREASING funding for a popular and successful program. Their positions were exactly the same except for a squabble over just how much the INCREASE should be. Under either plan, children would receive MORE coverage then they have today. Is it really too much to expect some bipartisanship for such an easy issue? What hope do we have for more difficult issues?

In that case, why are you blaming Democrats when enough Republicans joined them to nearly override Bush's veto?

Last I checked, it was not against the constitution - or against the law - for a President to fire federal prosecutors, and it is in fact done by every president. Bush was slimy about it, and he did it for a bad reason, but it's not illegal.

Of course it was illegal. Just like in right to work states, you can be fired for any reason. You can be fired for n

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[MightyYar]

Then you are either trolling, or you being willfully obtuse.

No, I'm not trolling. I'm not being obtuse - I'm being direct and telling you that there is no hard evidence that Bush himself has violated the constitution. He has done bad things, things that you can well be horrified at - but they all were within the context of the constitution.

Where are presidential signing statements in the Constitution, Yar?

Where is any evidence that they have been used in an unconstitutional way? Why didn't you support Clinton's impeachment for the same? Signing statements are not mentioned in the Constitution.

Where are the exceptions in the 8th Amendment for cruel & unusual punishment for terror suspects?

"Cruel and Unusual Punishment" is ambiguous and you know it. There is a lot of debate as to whether things done at Gitmo constitute torture - or did you miss the last week of confirmation hearings?

Suspending due process for American citizens held on American soil?

Oh, you mean American citizens picked up while fighting the American military? Bush was arguing that they were military prisoners. He did so in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief. The Supreme Court shot down his argument, and he now seems to be complying with their decisions... where exactly was the Constitution violated? The whole Constitutional process was followed. If he disobeys the Supreme Court, well that's another matter entirely.

Wrong again. A straw man is when you attack an argument or position as if your opponent as made it, but has not. So if I chide you for your pro-bestiality statements, that would be a straw man, because you haven't made any.

Better go correct the Wikipedia entry, then. Orrrrr, you could be wrong.

Padilla had the right to due process, a speedy trial, and the right to be free from cruel & unusual punishment (sensory deprivation at the least). The Administration violated all of these rights.

I agree with these statements. However, the military has traditionally had a completely seperate justice system from the rest of the country, and not all of these protections have always been afforded. During wartime, for instance, it is traditional to establish prisoner camps where enemy soldiers can be held indefinitely. Bush was arguing that these guys were in the same league - which is a reasonable argument, even if I disagree with it. He was shot down by the Supreme Court, and took corrective action. This is not extra-Constitutional, IMHO. In fact, it's an excellent study in the Constitutional process.

The DOJ fired these prosecutors because they wouldn't bring bogus voter fraud charges against Democrats right before elections were held.

And the evidence tying this back to Bush is... oh, that's right. You'll find it during the witch hunt. I'm SURE Gonzalez will give different answers this time, as he testifies in front of congress for the same thing again.

There is no third "I'll just enforce the parts I like and ignore the ones I don't" option.

Okay, so where is the evidence that he has done this. All I see is a bunch of writing on bills. If he has done something to act on them, then it will come up in a court case and the Supreme Court will rule on their legality. It's really not that big of a deal. If he then IGNORED the Supreme Court's decision, sure - that's impeachment.

Try 80. There is more division on the how and the when, but yes, a vast majority wants an end to the Iraq war.

That's just appallingly misleading. Of course the vast majority want to end the war. Who the hell wants to be at war forever? I want to end the war. Look at the numbers for "immediately pull out" and then get back to me.

Which is all well and good when you are doing the right thing when it's unpopular.

Which is what I contend they are doing.

We aren't ending the violence in

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[E 99]

Cheney, Addington, and Yoo are American heroes for their part in restoring the constitutional balance of power between the branches of government, a balance that was significantly assaulted after Watergate. GWB will be remembered as the one who restored the constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative, but you're right that it should be Cheney that gets most the credit.

The waterboarding of the five or six high-level Al Qaeda leaders who otherwise did not talk was the right thing to do. Whether or not you call it "torture" is irrelevant. However, you are are wrong in your assertion that it is still authorized to this day.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[JustOK]

k. Done. And?

Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[ironwill96]

The summary here is misleading (On /. Imagine That!). Sending something to committee is like calling your trashcan the inbox. He introduced something that didn't have enough support so it got referred to committee where it can be squashed into oblivion. Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[ArcherB]

Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.

This thing didn't stand a chance in the House either. It was sent to committee to keep it from being debated on the House floor. Most Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the likes of Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Karl Marx and people who see UFO's and try to communicate with trees.

This would not only been counter productive in that regard, but it would have also been seen as a complete waste of time.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[garcia]

Personally, I wish they would stop wasting time with that horseshit and instead spent time growing balls and forcing those that the Bush administration has claimed are immune to testify.

They have the power, they're just being a bunch of fucking pansies. The American public didn't vote for those douchebags to sit in office and do jack shit. They voted for them to fix the numerous wrongs and restore the balance of power. Unfortunately, all that they've proven is that the Bush Administration can make shit up as they go along and not be held accountable for any of it.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[phayes]

This would not only been counter productive in that regard, but it would have also been seen as a complete waste of time.

It seems to me to be completely in line with the actions of the current congress: Waste time & be counter productive.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Anonymous Coward]

He didnt send it to committee He was trying to put it directly on the floor. It got procedurally shuffled to committee. Check out this post on daily kos

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[iamnotaclown]

people who see UFO's and try to communicate with trees.

Right, and because Shirley MacLaine wrote it, it must be true. For all we know, Kucinich was humouring his kooky friend. Let's not forget that the current president of the USA has conversations with god.

And for the record, I'm not American, so please spare me the partisan accusations.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Soldrinero]

Most Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the likes of Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org,

I don't know how true this is, but the Democrats should stop and think before they distance themselves from MoveOn. MoveOn is an organization with over 3 million active, politically interested members, all of whom are rooting for the Democrats right now. It has amply demonstrated its ability to organize people effectively, not to mention being able to raise boatloads of cash. It's not any group that can raise $1 million in a few days whenever they have a need, but MoveOn does this regularly. This is a popular, broad-based group that is very much representative of a large minority of America, if not a majority on some issues.

Given the rates of political involvement, the numbers this group has are huge. Even the summary in its Wikipedia article says that it may have tipped the 2006 election. Politicians ignore MoveOn at their own peril.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole UFO thing is really lame. I've seen plenty of UFOs when flying - coulda been birds, coulda been planes, they were too far away to tell for sure. The guy was trying to explain that they were just things that he couldn't identify, but he got cut off.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your criteria for deciding if someone is delusional? If they see something that you have decided is impossible? How do you count someone who sees weapons of mass destruction that don't actually exist? What about someone who says "Mission Accomplished" before any real warfare occurs? By the way, if you think that any current national Democratic officials are big fans of Karl Marx, then I would say that you fall into the category of people who are delusional because they see things that aren't there. Along with the people who modded you up.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[hxnwix]

it would have also been seen as a complete waste of time Why? I'm not sorry that Kucinich taking away time from such important tasks as granting immunity to telecoms, subsidizing bridges to nowhere, molesting pages, starting wars, curtailing rights, denying net neutrality, approving nominees for attorney general who will not flat out state that waterboarding is torture, commending Rush Limbaugh for calling dissenting military personal "phony soldiers," rolling over to Bush on days that end with y...

This is one of the few worthwhile things happening in the US federal legislature. My friend, please, for God's sake please stop watching American television.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[notamisfit]

MoveOn isn't capable of supporting anyone but the Democrats. If the Dems piss them off in hope of capturing swing voters, what are they going to do? Vote Republican? Vote Green (essentially the same thing)?

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Anonymous Coward]

such important tasks as...molesting pages

Nonsense! Our esteemed Representatives can do that in their off time.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Soldrinero]

Even if they still vote the same way (and they, or I should say we, could vote for a further-left and more representative Democrat in the primaries), the reduction in donations, voter-turnout efforts, and other benefits of MoveOn's support would be significant.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[SetupWeasel]

I could have down-modded you for flamebait, because you suggested that those of us who think Cheney has committed high crimes believe in UFOs.

While it probably wouldn't have worked, it would not have been a waste of time.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[GogglesPisano]

The same could be said of the religious right and the Republicans. Evangelicals such as Pat Robertson and James Dobson have lately been blustering about supporting a third party if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, but it's obviously all a bluff. Although their voting bloc can sway an election, they just don't have the numbers to win one single-handedly, and voting for a third party would render them irrelevant. They'll come to heel, simply because they have nowhere else to go.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Silverhammer]

And this sort of hyperventilation is why I don't come to Slashdot for politics.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[hxnwix]

And this sort of hyperventilation is why I don't come to Slashdot for politics. Ah yes, the "you're a hysterical bitch" argument - always fair and balanced.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Dread_ed]

"commending Rush Limbaugh for calling dissenting military personal "phony soldiers,"

"Dissenting" is not the proper word for people who lie. For those of you who missed it, or for those of you who are just trying to obfuscate the issue purposely, the quote in question has to do with soldiers who climed to have been present in certain places at certain times and were then proven to be liars.

Much like those who said they "listened to Limbaugh's comments" and subsequently denounced him. Anyone who listened to him should have understood exactly what he was referring to.

Look, I can understand people disliking Limbaugh. What I can't understand is when people will start a pogrom based on lies, deciet, misquotation, and malice. What I also can't abide is peple who proliferate this nonsense in the guise of non-partisanism. Grow the fuck up and engage people based on the facts, not your version of the facts or you embellished fantasy. If you can't do that why even open your mouth in the first place?

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[hxnwix]

"Dissenting" is not the proper word for people who lie... he quote in question has to do with soldiers who climed to have been present in certain places at certain times and were then proven to be liars. Back that up. Until you can, you're just another chickenhawk.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC, cause I am sure it will be destroyed.

commending Rush Limbaugh for calling dissenting military personal "phony soldiers," Actually he called people falsely claiming they were soldiers "phony soldiers".

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_limbaugh
Hit CTRL+F. Type "phony" in the box.

Several minutes later, after the caller had hung-up, Limbaugh read from the AP story describing the story of Jesse Macbeth.[22] Jesse Macbeth joined the Army but did not complete basic training, yet claimed in alternative media interviews that he and his unit routinely committed war crimes in Iraq. My friend, please, for God's sake please stop drinking your own kool-aid.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Anonymous Coward]

They _were_ phony soldiers. What's wrong with facts?

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[Anonymous Coward]

Takes 2 seconds on Google:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet22.html?source=mypi

Full story, even from 'the other side':
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009

Summary for those foaming at the mouth:
Caller says 'what's really funny is, they ([the media]) never talk to real soldiers'
Limbaugh responds with 'The phony soldiers.', caller agrees, then after that call Limbaugh proceeds to talk about a specific example of a phony soldier that the media talked to.

There is no scandal here, except that it's bloody hard to find a retraction for all the stories that believed Jesse MacBeth's lies. That's a crying shame.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[cyphergirl]

For informational purposes, the entire transcript is here. It appears that Rush went around and around with a caller who claimed to be the sterotypical lifelong Republican and member of the military; Rush didn't believe him. The next caller got into a discussion about the media and their perceived bias (note, I'm not saying they're biased or not -- just providing background on the conversation) in reporting. The following exchange happens -- emphasis mine:

"CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

CALLER: Exactly, sir......."

The caller made the original accusation that the solders who come out against the war are not real soldiers; Rush got burned by applying the word "phony" to describe the phenomenon. Once the call ends, Rush describes the recent Jessie Macbeth incident as an example of a phony soldier.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[hxnwix]

Limbaugh responds with 'The phony soldiers.'

It's interesting that you link to a media matters article that covers one small aspect of this controversy. Let's see what they have to say about the situation and its broader context:

Washington, DC - As the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments continues to grow, Media Matters for America would like to highlight the falsehoods that Limbaugh, America's top conservative talk-radio host, has used to claim that he was taken out of context.

Limbaugh claims he referred only to Jesse MacBeth, but smeared other veterans

Misinformation: On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.

Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.

Moreover, as the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. In asserting that he was originally "talking about a genuine phony soldier," Limbaugh went on to state: "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?"

According to Murtha's biography on his congressional website, Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.

Limbaugh claims he was only speaking about one soldier, but used the plural

Misinformation: Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, that he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth."

Fact: As the transcript makes clear, Limbaugh actually referred to "phony soldiers," plural. Responding to a caller's statement that supporters of withdrawal "like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media," Limbaugh responded, "The phony soldiers" [emphasis added].

Limbaugh claims to be a victim of "selective" editing, then aired edited clip and posted edited transcript

Misinformation: Limbaugh further asserted that "Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point." To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show. Prior to airing the edited clip, Limbaugh said: "Here is, it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy." After the clip ended, Limbaugh stated: "That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website Media Matters generated this story."

Fact: In fact, the clip he aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth, the full audio of which can be heard here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010

Fact: The transcript (subscription required) of the first segment of the first hour of his September 28 broadcast posted on L

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[hxnwix]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710020011>I'm going to have to go with media matters over the veritable battlefield of invective, vandalism and constant editing that is Rush Limbaugh's wikipedia article.

Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.

My friend, please, for God's sake please stop drinking your own kool-aid. Take what Rush says with a grain of salt. He hasn't exactly proven himself to be the most sober, truthful, upright individual.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[hxnwix]

They _were_ phony soldiers. What's wrong with facts? I'd agree with you if we were discussing George Walker Bush in a flight suit under a mission accomplished banner, but neither he nor Jesse Macbeth were the targets of Rush's slander. I'll let the facts and the unedited version of Rush's broadcast speak for themselves.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[gQuigs]

You don't think America is that stupid...
Never mind. Doesn't Bush have 6 years and 1 day yet? Your only allowed to be President for 10 years.

Ya

[moogied]

So basically, house and senate have done the following this year:

Said they would not give the war anymore money without a pull out date. Decided to "investigate" steriods in baseball(May of been last year, don't remeber). Burned a couple of hours trying to get approval to TALK about *maybe* impeaching the Vice President.

And what were the results?

The war is still going on, there is no pull out date.

A few key players got free publicity for there books. Helped me waste 3 minutes writing a response on slashdot that will be modded to -35, for retard.

God bless America.

Re:Ya

[notamisfit]

True enough. Congress seriously dropped the ball on the troop funding issue. Bush can only sign or veto what Congress puts in front of him. Ultimately, however, if they had stopped the war, what would be their talking point for 2008?

Re:Ya

[statemachine]

Dropped the ball? They put bills in front of Bush which he vetoes. In this case, there's nothing that Congress can do but override (and the Republicans have been blocking all but the most recent override attempt). Without an override, or approval from the President, bills go nowhere.

And guess what? That means that the "war" doesn't get funded. Or anything else that Bush vetoes. This is obviously what Bush wants because he hasn't compromised yet.

Re:Ya

[letxa2000]

If a Democrat becomes president, we won't be pulling out of Iraq. And the Democratic front-runners are starting to hedge their bets because they know they won't pull out. They want Bush to pull out the troops so the failure becomes his problem. But be under no illusion, the Democrats don't want to be responsible for a troop pull-out in Iraq. Everyone knows (but no-one wants to say) that as bad as things are in Iraq, things would be even worse if we leave--including us. And while they'd be happy to see Bush make that mistake, they aren't going to do it themselves.

So, no, the Democrats aren't going to do much in the way of promising an Iraq withdrawal. They aren't going to do it if they win and their main men (and woman) are already starting to shy away from that battle cry.

Which leaves Democrats with the same thing to talk about issue-wise as usual: Nothing. Because when Democrats run on the issues instead of appealing to emotions, Democrats lose.

Re:Ya

[notamisfit]

The House controls the purse strings. Funding for troops, funding for materials, even the lights and catering bills. Nancy Pelosi could quite simply have frozen Bush out, debating "America's National Color" or somesuch bullshit, and ground the whole Washington machine to a halt until Bush agreed to a concession.

Re:Ya

[statemachine]

Nancy Pelosi could quite simply have frozen Bush out, debating "America's National Color"

1) The House is not the Senate. Only in the Senate can one filibuster.

2) Do I like what Congress is doing all the time? No. But I see that the current Congress has done more compromising than Bush. Maybe too much, but by your measure, they have been getting things done. Perhaps you want a repeat of the Republican controlled House in the '90s that hated Clinton so much that they refused to compromise at all and ground the entire U.S. Government to a halt?

The Democrats have shown that for better or worse, they're willing to compromise. While the Republicans have shown that they absolutely will not. Now, which is the more mature party here?

Re:Ya

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats have shown that for better or worse, they're willing to compromise. While the Republicans have shown that they absolutely will not. Now, which is the more mature party here?

<sarcasm>
Clearly the Republicans are more mature because they're willing to fight for principles whereas Democrats are spineless.
</sarcasm>
At least that's the way it will get portrayed in most of the So-Called Liberal Media.

Re:Ya

[Bongo Bill]

Helped me waste 3 minutes writing a response on slashdot that will be modded to -35, for retard. Please. The only way to get modded that low is to support both the war and Microsoft.

Re:Ya

[notamisfit]

I'm not suggesting a filibuster. Filibusters only delay or kill legislation on the floor. I'm suggesting that unless Bush conceded the point and pulled out, *no* legislation should have been brought to the floor. Ultimately the same thing the Republicans pulled back in the day. If they "compromise", it means they don't do the job the American people elected them to do, and more US troops die in a self-sacrificial boondoggle to let Iraq vote itself into theocracy. True, the Republicans don't compromise. And guess what? They won here.

Re:Ya

[c6gunner]

I know you were being sarcastic (the giant SARCASM tags were a dead giveaway), but that's actually a valid argument. If the democrats believe even half of the accusations they're constantly bandying about, they absolutely SHOULD refuse to compromise. Certainly if I believed that the Prime Minister of my country had gotten us into a war with the sole purpose of enriching himself and his "oil buddies", and that we had no way in hell of ever seeing a positive result from that war, I would INSIST that my representatives do everything in their power to immediately end that war and bring those responsible to justice, up to and including refusing to discuss all other issues until that one is resolved.

The problem seems to be that even the Democrats don't really believe all of the things which they've accused the Bush administration of. Either that or they really ARE "spineless".

Re:Ya

[whoop]

Their 2008 motto: This time we'll mean it.

Re:Ya

[iknowcss]

C'mon you guys, you know that Congress is just trying to keep us a country. We need the crazy right wing republicans to make wars so we don't seem like we can get pushed around, and we need the bleeding heart liberals to make it seem like we don't support the war at the same time. That way ... we can SAY one thing and DO another, and no one gets blamed!

I'm a little bit country
And I'm a little bit Rock and Rollll!!

Re:Ya

[fermion]

As long as they stop the irresponsible expenditure o public funds, I don't care what they do. In the seven years since the turn of the century, congress put the public in debt for 2.5 an additional 2.5 trillion dollars. , compared to about 1.6 trillion for the previous six years. Though much of this can be accounted for by the well known excuses that allow the military contractors to be on the dole at a higher level than any time in US history, on might consider a conservative government to offset that wiht fiscally responsible cuts or additional revenue generating schemes. In reality the legislative and executive branch colluded to spend public funds that it did not have.

Now that we are seeing some horse trading, haggling, and vetos, we at least are back to a situation where we think before we spend money we do not have. A definite improvement. Just like past irresponsible attempts at world domination, we will cut off funds before any truly long lasting damage is done, a la the fall of Spain after the spanish-american war, or the fall of geermany.

Re:Ya

[Scudsucker]

Or as one political cartoon put it: we'll stand up and pretend to fight back harder than we've ever pretended before!

Re:Ya

[Scudsucker]

Everyone knows (but no-one wants to say) that as bad as things are in Iraq, things would be even worse if we leave--including us.

If we really want to this whole occupation thing, we need about 500,000 troops to stop the violence and pacify the area. And that's just for the city of Baghdad. With our light force, we aren't stopping the violence, only getting more of our troops killed and saddling our kids with trillions in new debt. The worst option is saying the course - we need to pull out completely or find another 400,000 troops to send in.

They want Bush to pull out the troops so the failure becomes his problem.

That's why their current strategy makes no sense - by voting to fund the war, Democrats are taking part ownership of it. Republicans will say the Democrats are also to blame for the Iraq debacle, just as they were for Vietnam. And they'll be right. The other thing their M.O. lets Republicans do is play the "I've always been a critic of the Administration's handling of the war" while voting to back them every step of the way. If the Dems can't muster 41 votes to block funding in the Senate, they could at least all vote no and let Republicans take complete ownership of Iraq. But they don't. Because they are spineless and stupid.

Re:Ya

[Scudsucker]

Dropped the ball? They put bills in front of Bush which he vetoes. In this case, there's nothing that Congress can do but override

Not true. They can block any bill that doesn't include a hard withdrawl date, and they only need 41 votes in the Senate to do it.

Re:Ya

[notamisfit]

Good points, and ones that I think may cost the Dems in the upcoming election cycle. The way the winds are blowing, the Democrats will be putting someone who has been in the middle of all this mud up against someone who's been sitting on the sidelines. (The only real "insiders" up for it are the irrelevant McCain and the sig block guy). How they handle this may become a significant talking point against someone who can easily wriggle out of what are already tenuous connections to the current mockery of a Chief Executive.

Really, it just boils down to the Left's basic principles. At heart, they're pragmatists (ie, they don't have any). Sure, there's some remnant of the old socialist guard in there, but for the most part they're just a weather vane. They're for "enviornmentalism" because the average voter is vaguely concerned about the future. They're for "protectionism" because the image of jobs going overseas to India strikes fear into the heart of the public, regardless of the actual economics of the situation. They backed this war in 2002, because they thought it would be over soon and they'd have brownie points for being for "national defense". And they're against it now for the simple reason that it is unpopular. Bush tried playing against this tactic in 2000, and it lost him the popular vote and may or may not have cost him the electoral vote. In the 2002 and 2004 races, the Republicans were more firmly entrenched in the neocon and Christianist camps, and it won them voters among those who share those principles. Even if those principles are irrational and evil, in the long run, the party who stands for *something* will triumph over the party who falls for *anything*.

Re:Ya

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny. I think the pre-/during war protests have actually done more to disenfranchise objection than they actually rallied.

Watching overwhelming opposition just ignored doesn't do much to breed confidence that your voice means jack shit. Which is ok, cause it doesn't.

Vote with your dollars. Vote with your ballot. Vote in the Jury Box. And when all else fails: Vote from the Roof-tops.

That list is all you can do when representatives choose to ignore their citizens. It doesn't help when you have have a divided populous because "propaganda of the deed" isn't so easy when your neighbors are part of the problem.

Re:Ya

[vuffi_raa]

the problem is that a democrat from alabama is not going to vote the same as a democrat from california or a democrat from Idaho- there was a unity when all of the republicans were voted in, a unity to do very evil things, but it was the unity that allowed them to do things- while there, they boosted the power of the presidency and everything is a fight

Re:Ya

[Remus Shepherd]

Actually, the problem is that the Democrats believe every bit of it, and see how the Bush administration is subverting government to increase their own power. The problem is that the Democrats *want* that. They can use Bush's fuckups just as well as the Republicans can, to increase the power of the democratic party. They can blame Bush for soldiers getting killed and wrecking the economy, and ride that to electoral victory. So what if it cost a few thousand lives and millions of livelihoods. And then when Dems are back in power, they'll be happy to abuse every loophole Bush opened for them.

The problem is that they're all greedy power-hungry motherfuckers. It has nothing to do with them lacking a spine, it has everything to do with lacking a soul.

Re:Ya

[Anonymous Coward]

"May of been last year, don't remeber"

How the fuck can you confuse have and of?

Re:Ya

[rthille]

I believe the president when he says we went to war with iraq because they were pirating Microsoft software and that he can bring freedom and Microsoft domination to the country.

Re:Ya

[Jeremi]

Really, it just boils down to the Left's basic principles. [...] They backed this war in 2002, because they thought it would be over soon and they'd have brownie points for being for "national defense".

The above might be accurate if you were talking about Democrats, but as a card-carrying member of "The Left", I can assure that we were, are, and always have been 100% against the war in Iraq. Remember all of the protest marches, candlelight vigils, meetings with congressmen, etc? (No, you probably don't, because you were watching media outlets that didn't cover that sort of thing.... it would have undercut their ceaseless hyping of the war) So please save your commentary on our "lack of principles" until after you become aware of what actually happened.

Re:Ya

[letxa2000]

The above might be accurate if you were talking about Democrats, but as a card-carrying member of "The Left", I can assure that we were, are, and always have been 100% against the war in Iraq.

That's nonsense unless you are making the statement that everyone on "the left" is opposed to national defense. No, I'm not going to get into an argument as to whether or not Iraq was necessary for the national defense, but as long as the left believes the country can defend itself, I refuse to believe that 100% of "the left" agreed that Iraq was not a threat. A strong majority, sure. But 100%? Nope.

Unless, of course, you answer the first sentence with "Yes, the left is opposed to national defense." Because if that's the case, that's something the public needs to know. It's often been suspected but concrete proof would be great.

Re:Ya

[Jeremi]

That's nonsense unless you are making the statement that everyone on "the left" is opposed to national defense.

How is invading a foreign country "defense"? It's offense. Defense would have been stopping the Iraqi army from invading US territory.

I refuse to believe that 100% of "the left" agreed that Iraq was not a threat.

Ignoring the fact that in a group of millions of people you can always find someone with any outlying opinion you want and then pretend that that person's views somehow represent the majority.... it's perfectly possible for someone to believe that Iraq was "a threat" (whatever that means) and still be against invading Iraq. Not all problems are best dealt with through military force. For many, military force makes them worse.

Unless, of course, you answer the first sentence with "Yes, the left is opposed to national defense." Because if that's the case, that's something the public needs to know. It's often been suspected but concrete proof would be great.

If the Iraq war is what you mean by "national defense", then hell yes we're against "national defense". If you wanted to redefine the phrase "fluffy kitten" to mean "unjustified invasion of a foreign coutnry", then I supposed we'd be against fluffy kittens also. But that's merely due to your deliberate Orwellian misuse of the term, as the public by now is well aware.

Re:Ya

[c6gunner]

Ah yes. But wait, you forgot to tie your theory to the Illuminati, and the Bohemian Grove!

I don't really care what side of the political spectrum you place yourself on. Left, center, up or down, it doesn't matter. What REALLY annoys me is extremist idiots on any one of those sides. It's amusing that the only thing that both the far right and the far left agree on is that the Government is out to enslave the American people, and destroy the nation. When they start raving about that topic, the only way to tell them apart is by their hair styles, and whether they're wearing a Christian pendant or a Che Guevera t-shirt.

Re:Ya

[Scudsucker]

I just ask em how many invasions Australia and New Zealand have had to put up with because they don't spend hundreds of billions per year on defense and don't have thousands of nuclear weapons.

Re:Ya

[letxa2000]

How is invading a foreign country "defense"? It's offense. Defense would have been stopping the Iraqi army from invading US territory.

Like I said, I'm not going to get into a useless argument about the merits of the Iraq war. That dead horse has been thoroughly flogged many times.

Having said that, it is absolutely absurd for you to suggest that we should wait until an enemy is massing on our border before we take action--especially since, in this day and age, a physical cross-border incursion is highly unlikely. Whether we're talking about a nuclear threat from Chinese ballistic missiles or a terrorist threat from individuals (state-sponsored or not), threats to our security most likely will not be from a million-man army massing on the border.

If we have reason to believe someone's intent is to do us harm, you nip that problem in the bud and save a lot of lives on both sides in the process. Feel free to make the argument that Iraq (or Iran) isn't one of those cases, but don't even try to sell an idea that we should wait naively to be attacked before we defend ourselves. As much as you may hate Bush, that position is absolutely indefensible.

Re:Ya

[Jeremi]

If we have reason to believe someone's intent is to do us harm, you nip that problem in the bud and save a lot of lives on both sides in the process.

That only works if you are correct in your assessments, both of the risk of taking action and of the risk of doing nothing. If you are wrong, it backfires -- as we have seen in Iraq. The Iraq war didn't save any lives, because the WMDs it was supposed to save us from were imaginary. To the contrary, it has destroyed 4,000+ American lives (more than 9/11), caused tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and cost us trillions of dollars and our reputation as a country of honor. So it's equally absurd to act as if starting a "preemptive war" carries no risks, as it is something that should be done lightly without a sober and impartial review of the all of the evidence.

Feel free to make the argument that Iraq (or Iran) isn't one of those cases, but don't even try to sell an idea that we should wait naively to be attacked before we defend ourselves. As much as you may hate Bush, that position is absolutely indefensible.

The above sounds quite reasonable -- the problem is that Bush wasn't defending us from a threat. He was actively manufacturing a threat as an excuse to start a war that he had already decided he wanted to start. In a perfect world, our government would only start a war when it was genuinely necessary to defend the country. In the world we actually live in, however, there is a clear temptation for governments to start wars for reasons other than national defense, and this was one of those cases. "National defense" was a fig leaf for Iraq, not a genuine motivation. So again, if "national defense" means doing what Bush did in Iraq, we're against it. If the WMDs (or even credible evidence of WMDs) had existed in Iraq in 2003, you might have a point, but they didn't.

Re:Ya

[letxa2000]

Me: If we have reason to believe someone's intent is to do us harm, you nip that problem in the bud and save a lot of lives on both sides in the process.

You: That only works if you are correct in your assessments, both of the risk of taking action and of the risk of doing nothing.

That is a question of accurate intelligence and not a criticism of the concept of preemptive military strikes. Yes, if you have bad intelligence then you're going to make bad decisions. I don't think anyone questions that.

So it's equally absurd to act as if starting a "preemptive war" carries no risks, as it is something that should be done lightly without a sober and impartial review of the all of the evidence.

I never suggested otherwise.

the problem is that Bush wasn't defending us from a threat.

Regardless of the presence (or lack thereof) of WMDs in Iraq, that's debatable. And I honestly am undecided as to what side of the debate I'd be on. I definitely see both sides of the argument.

He was actively manufacturing a threat as an excuse to start a war that he had already decided he wanted to start.

That something had to be done about Iraq goes without saying since Clinton totally fumbled that ball in his eight years in office. If Bush had decided to take a firmer stance than Clinton, good for him. Whether he would have actually been able to pull off a full-scale invasion in the absence of 9/11 is hypothetical and we'll never know. The fact remains that the Iraq situation was not tolerable long-term.

In a perfect world, our government would only start a war when it was genuinely necessary to defend the country.

People will always differ on when that line is crossed. I personally think that Bush's plan to foster democracy in the Middle East is a reasonable idea because it's clear that the absence of opportunity and democracy in the Middle East was (and is) a festering problem that's only going to generate more and more terrorists regardless of what we do. Getting democracy flourishing in the Middle East is not an overnight project so if we assume that democracy and opportunity will lead to fewer terrorists, we had to get that idea moving now--before decades more oppression and lack of opportunities creates even more terrorists.

In the short-term I agree that Iraq looks like a big mistake. I am far from convinced that it was a mistake in the long-term. However, leaving Iraq now, prematurely, would definitely be a mistake.

"National defense" was a fig leaf for Iraq, not a genuine motivation.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. No-one but Bush knows the truth on that and anyone that claims otherwise is shoveling a pile of hot steamy stuff.

So again, if "national defense" means doing what Bush did in Iraq, we're against it. If the WMDs (or even credible evidence of WMDs) had existed in Iraq in 2003, you might have a point, but they didn't.

Again, you're arguing over the accuracy of intelligence--not the moral or legal validity of preemptive military action. Sometimes intelligence is wrong. But you can't make any decision if you always assume your intelligence is bad, and sometimes you won't know if the intelligence is bad until you have made a decision.

That was the case with Bush and Iraq. Slam Bush all you want, pretty much the whole world believed that Saddam had WMDs. Putin even said that while he thinks the Iraq war was a mistake, that in defense of Bush, pretty much everyone thought Saddam had them. He didn't just fool the U.S. and Bush wasn't a fool. To the contrary. Bush was the only one that, given intelligence that everyone believed was right, was willing to do what had to be done. And if you look at the long-term possibility of democracy exp

Re:!technology

[Palshife]

"Stuff that matters."

Daily Kos Also had summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this post for another summary of the articles and the events that took place in the House.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Penguinisto]

k. Done. And?

...and they'll quickly figure that his replacement (of the current crop, no matter which political party) is just as lousy as he is.

/P

Honestly?

[EaglemanBSA]

Iraq...Iran...Pakistan....anyone else we can piss off before congress does anything?

Re:Honestly?

[PatPending]

Turkey--and you can thank Pelosi for that one.

Re:Honestly?

[fimbulvetr]

Actually, it seems to me that you can thank the Turks for that one.

Re:Honestly?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're working on Turkey. Is that good?

Re:Honestly?

[rs79]

"Iraq...Iran...Pakistan....anyone else we can piss off before congress does anything? "

Yeah: me. I have American clients. Today's Swiss interbank rate is 1.00 USD = 0.928265 CAD.

Which means you take a pocketfull of Canadian change to the bank and they give you enough American monopoly money to buy Montana.

Hmmmm... (type type click click)

1.00 EUR = 1.35995 CAD

Saaaaaay... Any of you Eurotrash need a website?

Re:Honestly?

[c6gunner]

They tried, but it turns out that "because EaglemanBSA is angry" isn't a good enough legal reason to impeach someone.

The problem is, even though it's a Democrat congress, and even though they got voted in largely due to the efforts of lunatics like the KOS kids, the people in Congress aren't actually crazy enough to pursue an action which has no basis in reality.

Re:Honestly?

[Ajehals]

Don't worry about it to much, we 'Eurotrash' have effectively been priced out of the US market, more for you to get your teeth into.

Saying that, *IF* we are really lucky and the dollar continues to fall (£1 (GBP) = @ $2.10 (USD) atm), maybe I'll be able to put a full tank of petrol into the car without re mortgaging the house (good job I don't fall into the 'sub-prime' bracket when it comes to credit.), although it's probably more likely that OPEC will consider pricing in Euros and really kick up a storm.

Re:Honestly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq...Iran...Pakistan....anyone else we can piss off before congress does anything?

Before Congress does anything? Good God, man, we've got all the time in the world before Congress actually does something!

Re:Honestly?

[whoop]

But, but, the world is melting. We'll all be dead by the year 3800. That is, if Manbearpig doesn't take us out sooner. Go Algore!!

Re:Honestly?

[WilliamSChips]

Somehow, though, to the Republicans not admitting you killed a million Armenians in the early 20th century is a sign of strength. Is there something this government's not admitting to?

Re:Honestly?

[EaglemanBSA]

I actually wasn't specifically calling for impeachment - I think that's shaky at best. My post was somewhat in response to an earlier one talking about the global climate and congress's inability to do anything effective to help us, like wasting time on stuff like this that will never get anywhere.

Re:Honestly?

[psydad]

4 - Oh Lameness Filter(tm) oh well....

Re:Honestly?

[PatPending]

The U.S. Congress had already passed two resolutions in the 1970s against Turkey for what they did to the Armenians.

Anyway, what about Bill Clinton turning his head while in Rwanda over a million people were chopped up by machetes? Where was Pelosi and the Democrats then?

Re:Honestly?

[Khyber]

Turkey? The same Turkey where women are treated as objects? The same Turkish people that come into our video chat rooms and pretty much do nothing but act like pigs and harass our women? (Get on Camfrog, ask about Turkish people. Wait for the reaction.)

Hell, I can understand why we want to get to scrappin' with them. I've met many people of many different ethnicities in my 25 years of life. The Turkish almost make the top of the list of those I don't particularly care for. Out of thousands of Turks I've seen, only maybe two acted like humans. The rest in their internet cafes, they're slobs and jerks.

Just sayin'. I can point you to at least one community of people worldwide that don't like the Turks - just go to Camfrog and see what they constantly have to put up with.

Re:Honestly?

[Anonymous Coward]

They already tried Turkey. That went over really well...

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[eviloverlordx]

An even bigger landslide victory for the Democrats?

Re:!technology

[realdodgeman]

Yeah how could something as irrelevant as this end up at politics.slashdot.org? It is outrageous!

Please get something done

[schnikies79]

I'm sick of finger pointing. Focus on your agenda and work to get it passed. How many democrat bills have been passed vs. how many resolutions against bush and/or cheney?

If they aren't passing because bush is vetoing, that means they aren't working hard enough to work together.

It was bullshit when the impeached clinton, it's bullshit now.

Re:Please get something done

[Anonymous Coward]

I would consider bringing a criminal to justice "getting something done". This needs to happen before the two dipshits and their cohorts get us stuck in Iran, too. But what's another war, eh? We'll just protest peacefully (or as I like to say, "irrelevantly") when it starts, and then we can all feel real fucking swell that we did something to stop it... after the fact... maybe slap another anti-bush bumper sticker on my Prius, just to show you all how fucking serious I am.

The whole administration and every congressperson that authorized these wars should be tried for war crimes, not simply removed from office. Our government needs to learn that there are personal and immediate consequences for their deceptive politicking, ignorance, and corruption.

Re:Please get something done

[jjohnson]

The Dems *are* passing the bills they said they would in the House; it's in the Senate that they die, where the Pubs are filibustering at triple the normal rate in order to prevent the Dems from looking effective going into the 2008 elections.

In a way, capturing the Senate by the razor-thin majority that they did is the worst possible outcome for them, because it allows just this sort of tactic--the Dems are technically in charge, so they look responsible for the lack of action, but they just don't have the numbers to actually do anything Dem-ish.

Re:Please get something done

[vdorie]

It's not just finger pointing, there have to be limitations on executive power and the responsibility for that lies with the legislative and judicial branches. Realistically, does anyone expect the next US president to simply play nice because he or she is a good person, or will the system need rebalancing by working for it? And yes, there is a difference between Clinton and Cheney. One got a BJ and lied about it. The other created programs to illegally spy on US citizens, lied about Iraq intelligence propelling us into a war even Cheney admitted we couldn't win, outed a CIA operative (that's treason, BTW), authorized use of torture, illegally imprisoned "enemy combatants" without cause and without due process, and more.... None of that is particularly under dispute. Clinton likely did more worthy of impeachment, but that's not what all the brouhaha was about. Should we let all of that slide because it would be a waste of time to prosecute it? Perhaps we can't get the evidence, perhaps conviction would be impossible, but why the hell don't Americans care that their executive branch holds them in contempt? What would be a reasonable response, sit on our thumbs and wait for the next election? The greatest failure of this administration will be that the American populace let them get away with it. What you're pointing to is part of the broader problem, that Democrats can't pass anything, much less articles of impeachment. And yes, they're spineless wonders, but their "majority" doesn't existent and, with notably few exceptions, Republicans are doing everything in their power to make them appear ineffectual with the hope of winning in '08. Not that the Democrats would do any different if the positions were reversed.

Re:Please get something done

[Torvaun]

I'd rather we were in Iran than Iraq. Iran actually deserves it.

Re:Please get something done

[sgt_doom]

Hey, vdorie, I wish you would stop confusing the nimrods and f-tards by bringing logic and factual data to this dicussion. Please get with the program, dood: the sole purpose of the Busheviks is to raise the price of oil for all their friends and family (criminal cronies, that is). They have been eminently successful in their pursuit. Cut them some slack, guy.....End of Sarcasm

One day I will write a rebuttal to that draft-dodger, Tom Brokaw, entitled: "Greatest Generation, My Ass!" (Or how they let the murderers of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy get away with it!)

Re:Please get something done

[Anonymous Coward]

For what? Please, explain what Iran has done to warrant a US invasion. Or, are you buying into the same bullshit lies that stuck us in Iraq yet again? With people like you "thinking" and, unfortunately, voting (maybe... doubt you're actually old enough), this country is fucking doomed.

Re:Please get something done

[Scudsucker]

How do you figure this:

One got a BJ and lied about it. The other created programs to illegally spy on US citizens, lied about Iraq intelligence propelling us into a war even Cheney admitted we couldn't win, outed a CIA operative (that's treason, BTW), authorized use of torture, illegally imprisoned "enemy combatants" without cause and without due process, and more.

And this:

Clinton likely did more worthy of impeachment

exactly?

Re:Please get something done

[Cheetahfeathers]

Getting rid of the war criminals destroying this nation, and the rest of the world, _IS_ 'getting something done'. If the foundation of your house need reinforcing and your living room is on fire, which of the two problems do you take care of first? Bush & crew are that fire.

The difference between most R's and D's is that while the R's want to loot the rest of the neighborhood while everyone's busy gawking at the fire, the D's want to ignore the fire, ignore the foundation, ignore the looting, and put new cabinets up in the kitchen.

Re:Please get something done

[Torvaun]

Iran has consistently funded terrorist attacks against Israel, a U.S. ally. Now, I wouldn't say they need to be invaded, but they need it more than Iraq did.

And yes, I voted. Against Bush. Next year, I will likely vote against the GOP again.

Re:Please get something done

[Scudsucker]

I'd rather we were in Iran than Iraq. Iran actually deserves it.

Based on what, exactly? Ahmadinejad's statements on Israel that were willfully mistranslated by the media? Or his statements on nuclear energy that were willfully mistranslated by the media?

Or because they overthrew our popular, peacefully elected president in 1953 and then backed Iraq when they invaded us, killing a million Americans? Oh, wait, we did that to them.

Re:Please get something done

[Torvaun]

No, based on their attacks by terrorist proxy on Israel, one of our allies. We have a duty to defend our allies, and we just aren't holding up our end.

Re:Please get something done

[Scudsucker]

Israel can complain about terrorism when they stop engaging in it themselves, return to 1967 borders and grant refugees the Right of Return. Until then, they have zero legitimacy and zero right to complain.

Re:Please get something done

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Republicans are threatening to filibuster every single bill you try to pass, you may as well call their bluff. You're not going to get any useful work done anyway, might as well make the Republicans talk non-stop.

Re:Please get something done

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you should be proud of your voting record. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that. And what "terrorist" organizations? Hezbollah? Not our business. And Israel, an ally? I'd hardly call them that. Unless you mean in the parasitic sense... i.e. carte blanch access to money, weapons, and global political clout at the expense of the American people and their interests. Hezbollah is a political movement that uses violence to achieve its ends. The same can be said of both the US and Israeli governments.

In fact, more money flows to these groups from South American supporters than from Iran. Perhaps those people down there are more deserving of military intervention than Iran?

Re:Please get something done

[moogle001]

How are the Democrats suppose to override vetoes when the Republicans side almost unanimously with Bush? Do you understand that the Senate requires a 2/3 majority to override a veto, and the Democrats aren't close to that? And for what's its worth, they've made some in roads with Republicans on SCHIP, so it's not like they're not trying to work with the other side. And how many resolutions against Bush/Cheney have been passed? Any?! This effort to debate impeachment was buried. So what are you complaining about?

Re:Please get something done

[Stradivarius]

Maybe by writing a bill that can engender widespread support rather than merely a narrow majority. Bipartisanship is something of a lost art these days (on both sides).

I believe the main reason they got some inroads with Republicans on SCHIP is not because Republicans thought it was a good bill, it's because Republicans thought they would look bad voting against any program for children. And since Republicans knew Bush would veto it, they could safely vote for it to cover their butts, knowing that it would never become law.

The effort to debate impeachment was buried not out of sympathy for Bush, but because it would distract from the issues Democrats want to emphasize going into the 2008 elections. Dems need to have issues that will resonate with moderates in 2008, of which healthcare, education, and the war are all far bigger than impeachment.

Re:Please get something done

[jjohnson]

That's a tricky call. The Senate allows for these "gentlemen's agreement" filibusters, where a Senator only has to indicate that he wants to filibuster, just so the Senate doesn't grind to a halt while Senators read recipe books into the Congressional record. When business is ordinary, and there's a general collegiality indicating that compromise is possible, this allows for both filibusters and things to still get done.

It does break down in these cases, though, when pure obstructionism is the goal. The "nuclear option" that the Pubs were discussing three years ago when Dems were using the filibuster was just this: making them actually talk.

Spindot

[TopSpin]

Here is another example of how one might choose to phrase a report of the exact same event:

House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure. You see, the Republicans supported Kucinich's latest hail mary because they know it would be an embaressment to the Democrats. With that support the vote passed and the house 'leadership' was force to bury it in a committee.

Re:Spindot

[bstoneaz]

They don't know it would be an embarrassment but they sure do think it will be. Going forward and having Bush and Cheney claim executive privilege would really be another black eye for this administration.

Re:Spindot

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how trying to remove a canker sore on the ass of the world is an embarrassment. I can remember times when it would have seemed necessary and prudent.

Cheney is beyond an embarrassment to Republicans. He makes Spiro Agnew look sane. When history writes up the fiasco of the last 7 years ... Republican names will be high on the "get out the dartboard" listen. So laugh it up, jokers.

Re:Spindot

[Dachannien]

I don't see how trying to remove a canker sore on the ass of the world is an embarrassment. Because impeachment proceedings would turn the United States Congress into a circus yet again, except this time it would be the Democrats' fault for letting it happen.

Congress has yet to successfully pass an appropriations bill this year, and it's already November. The continuing resolution that was passed at the end of September to prevent the government from shutting down expires at the end of next week. Nevertheless, Congress has focused on waging battles on political hotbutton topics like SCHIP instead of fulfilling their annual responsibilities. Miring the Senate down in impeachment proceedings is the last thing the Democrats need, and they know it - otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about the supposed "success" of burying the impeachment resolution in committee, because Cheney would be sitting in front of a bunch of Senators right now.

The Republicans decided that their best strategy would be to call the Democrats' bluff, by forcing the issue into debate and recorded votes. Personally, I disagree with this strategy - the vote to table the resolution was good enough affirmation to me that Cheney doesn't actually merit impeachment, the slightly-more-marginalized MoveOn.org's cries of anguish notwithstanding. But it did move Kucinich's circus into a more prominent position in the national media, and what with the media's feeding frenzy over his UFO comments, the timing was uncanny.

Re:Spindot

[EaglemanBSA]

The US Congress is a circus. Never stopped. :)

Re:Spindot

[Scudsucker]

You see, the Republicans supported Kucinich's latest hail mary because they know it would be an embaressment to the Democrats.

Bullshit. Failing to hold the most incompetent and corrupt Administration in history to an iota of accountability is what is the embarrassment. Seriously, just WTF does Bush have to do for Republicans and the Beltway mindset to get on board? Eat babies on the White House lawn?

Re:Spindot

[Scudsucker]

Because impeachment proceedings would turn the United States Congress into a circus yet again, except this time it would be the Democrats' fault for letting it happen.

Interesting how Bush and Cheney's massive lawbreaking is the Democrats fault.

Congress has yet to successfully pass an appropriations bill this year, and it's already November.

Because Bush vetoes or threatens to veto legislation, and the "upordownvote" Republicans keep pushing hypocrisy to new heights by shattering all records on blocking legislation through cloture votes.

Miring the Senate down in impeachment proceedings is the last thing the Democrats need

No. The country needs this, or the rule of law is a bad, sad, joke.

Re:Spindot

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The country needs this, or the rule of law is a bad, sad, joke.

Pragmatism is taking first seat over the rule of law here. If Bush or Cheney are subject to impeachment, it will reduce the degree of Democratic victory in 2008. On the other hand, if Bush and Cheney remain in office without impeachment proceedings, then the public anger at Bush and Cheney will transfer to all of the Republican candidates.

It's a question of justice versus the medium-term political gain.

Re:Spindot

[Scudsucker]

Pragmatism is taking first seat over the rule of law here. If Bush or Cheney are subject to impeachment, it will reduce the degree of Democratic victory in 2008.

Then pragmatism needs to check out the polls from last year showing corruption as one of the top issues of concern to voters across the country. Even given the large amounts of corruption & law breaking that we know about, keep in mind we've learned this through a thick veil of secrecy on the part of the Administration and complicity by a Republican Congress all to happy to cover up executive misconduct. So how much has happened that we don't know about?

Even now that Democrats have control of Congress and started to break out a few subpoenas, the Administration continues to stonewall over even simple matters with the old claim of "executive privilege." Well, there's only one thing that can cut through that stonewalling like a hot knife through sour cream, and that's impeachment hearings. An impeachment vote might not result in a conviction in the Senate, but it will force Republicans to stand on the side of the law and the basic principles of our republic, or with the most unpopular president in history. And no chances to waffle on cloture votes, as those don't exist in impeachment proceedings. An impeachment vote might not even clear the house, but the hearings will drag their skeletons out into the light, opening up administration officials to criminal prosecution or civil suits outside of Congress.

It's a question of justice versus the medium-term political gain.

That's why the actions of the Dem leadership don't make any sense: if they were acting in principles, they would challenge Bush to end his corruption and restore our Constitutional rights. If they were acting out of selfish political interest, they would challenge Bush the vast majority of the American public opposes the war in Iraq, supports SCHIP and stem cell research, etc etc. But they do neither, and their approval rating is in the gutter.

Re:Spindot

[Dachannien]

This really goes hand-in-hand with the Democrats' reliance on continued bad news coming out of Iraq. I'm not saying that things will necessarily get to this point, but if Iraq's turnaround extends up into their political structure instead of just at the grassroots level like it is now, the Democrats might be wishing they'd used the "nuclear option" of impeachment now. (Note that impeachment now would be bad for the already horribly polarized political environment in the country, just as it was bad for the country during Bill Clinton's woes. I categorize the sibling poster's outrage/sour grapes as a symptom of that. But what's good for the country and what's good for one political party or another are not necessarily the same thing.)

Of course, I don't really see anyone other than Hillary winning the Presidency, but I also don't see the Democrats getting 60 Senate seats, either. Every seat is going to count, because there are going to be a lot of close cloture votes in 2009 and 2010. What happens in Iraq over the next year is going to make a big difference there. Although, ironically enough, what happens to the Senate probably won't have that large an effect on Iraq, since I think Hillary's is just playing to the left until she secures the nomination and isn't naive enough (cough, Obama, cough) to pull out large numbers of troops unless the situation already has improved significantly (in which case, she'd really just be continuing troop drawdowns from Summer 2009 while taking all the credit for it).

Re:Spindot

[Grym]

Here's a (better) review of this whole situation.

You see, the Republicans supported Kucinich's latest hail mary because they know it would be an embaressment to the Democrats. With that support the vote passed and the house 'leadership' was force to bury it in a committee.

I don't think so. The last thing the Republicans want is a legitimate investigation into the events leading up to the Iraq war. The (now disbanded) "Office of Special Plans," created by the Bush Administration was designed solely for the purpose of generating false intelligence reports made by non-experts that were used to intentionally mislead lawmakers and the public on Iraq. This along with the fact that Dick Cheny's business partners and associates made literally hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from government contracts from the war in Iraq creates--at the very least--the appearance of impropriety, which should be cause enough for a public investigation. If this were about preventing embarrassment, then the democrats completely failed on that front because they provided further proof for the commonly-held belief that they are incapable of reining in this administration. This whole affair made them look, at the very least, disorganized and, at worst, completely ineffectual.

I think a more likely explanation is that the Republicans faked out the Democrats big time on this one. Republicans took a gamble and, in an act of bluster, voted FOR the bill, confusing rank-and-file Democrats back into their instinctive partisan tendency of voting !=Republican, which ironically put them against their own bill. I didn't watch the C-SPAN of this when it went down, but from what I've read it was a complete freakshow, which makes me think that this bill and the DNC response wasn't a coordinated effort of the Democratic leadership by any means.

-Grym

Re:Spindot

[DaggertipX]

"In a public demonstration today, whitehouse leaders consumed children! Were these kids future terrorists? Find out at 11!"

Yeah... Fox News could spin that...

Re:Spindot

[Dread_ed]

So what you are saying is the Republicans "duck season, rabbit season'ed" the Democrats?

What is the quote I am thinking of right now? Something about "you get the govenment you deserve..."

Re:Spindot

[Dachannien]

Because Bush vetoes or threatens to veto legislation, and the "upordownvote" Republicans keep pushing hypocrisy to new heights by shattering all records on blocking legislation through cloture votes.

None of the appropriations bills have even reached Bush's desk for him to veto, and none of the appropriations bills have been filibustered. The Defense Appropriations Bill had a cloture motion filed on it, but the motion was withdrawn and debate closed without a vote.

Re:Spindot

[Scudsucker]

You're still barking up the wrong tree. Reid isn't forcing Republicans to filibuster, but they are still blocking legislation through cloture votes. At a rate three times higher than any previous Congress. And while Bush hasn't used his veto pen much, his is threatening to veto appropriations bills:

The Bush Administration has threatened to veto almost all appropriations bills that provide more funding than the President has requested, such as the bill funding the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for fiscal year 2008, which starts October 1.

Re:Spindot

[Stradivarius]

That's why the actions of the Dem leadership don't make any sense: if they were acting in principles, they would challenge Bush to end his corruption and restore our Constitutional rights. If they were acting out of selfish political interest, they would challenge Bush the vast majority of the American public opposes the war in Iraq, supports SCHIP and stem cell research, etc etc. But they do neither, and their approval rating is in the gutter. The conclusion I draw from that is that the Democrats in Congress don't actually believe what they say about quickly or immediately leaving Iraq being in our national interest. Or they at least have enough doubt, such that their political calculation is that it's better to assail Bush for the war's problems, than to force a change in policy that might cause big problems and be hung around *their* necks.

I think this all comes back to the same problem we've had for the past several years, which is a Congress in which both parties are so preoccupied playing politics that they are unable to work together to solve our real problems. And the result is most of our substantial public policy is being driven by Bush (which for those of us who are spectacularly unimpressed with both his leadership and competence, is an extremely bad thing).

Re:Spindot

[Scudsucker]

Then they need to take out back whoever is doing their calculations, pistol whip them, fire them, then pistol whip them again, along with the "don't dignify GOP attacks with a response" consultants that worked so very well for Presidents Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Our entire political system and media needs a complete enema.

Re:Spindot

[Dachannien]

It's not like Bush is saying, "Ha ha, you'll never get anything past me!" He's given a necessary condition for his signature, and the Democrats are unable to meet that condition due to their tax-and-spend-aholism.

draft

[Anonymous Coward]

lets start a campaign to draft Geoff "mandrake" harrison as president ......

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Penguinisto]

Never mind. Doesn't Bush have 6 years and 1 day yet? Your only allowed to be President for 10 years.

Doesn't work that way, unless he gets on as VP for part of the term for whoever succeeds him, then kicks back into office in 2010, or some such similar calculus.

In January 2009 he'll step off to retirement (or whatever), and the new guy will get promptly lambasted by whatever party/ideology the new guy does not represent.

Been this way (at least) since Reagan left, and was operating in fits and starts before that.

/P

boy

[rastoboy29]

Sure am glad our Democratic representatives are doing what we elected them to do, which is defending Bush and  Cheney.

I'm one satisfied voter.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[kd5ujz]

8 years, not 10. The only one to exceed 8 years was FDR, and that was for ~12 years. Shortest term was 31 days by William Harrison.

Re:!technology

[Anonymous Coward]

can someone explain to me what place this article has on a technology news site? This isn't a technology news site. Or at least, not just a technology news site. "News for nerds, stuff that matters" means roughly "stuff the editors find interesting". Always has. They're interested in technology but they're interested in other stuff too.

No surprise that the move gets 'comittified'

[Anonymous Coward]

Kucinich, who had 22 co-sponsors for his articles of impeachment measure, predominantly members of the left leaning Out of Iraq Caucus, has been angry that Democratic leaders would not allow impeachment to be considered. Yeah, because those Democratic leaders have their hand behind their back with fingers crossed when they criticise the War. I wonder if it ever occurs to these commentators that US foreign policy (and that of most democratic nations) is practically independent of which party is in power, or public sentiment. It has much more to do with whose support those politicians need to get in order get elected and at the same time avoid assasination.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Anonymous Coward]

He needs to go to jail for his crimes.

Re:!technology

[mrbluze]

This isn't a technology news site. Or at least, not just a technology news site. "News for nerds, stuff that matters" means roughly "stuff the editors find interesting". Always has. They're interested in technology but they're interested in other stuff too. Indeed. Nerds occasionally happen to be lawyers, political scientists, military strategists and so on. This article at least has some intellectual fibre, unlike even some technology related articles.

narrow?

[Gogo0]

251-162 to even debate impeachment, and then rather than holding the debate that was voted for, it was decided to move it forward, failing 218-194.

sounds weird and not all that narrow. its split down the middle (more or less), just like the parties (more or less). is anyone suprised??
and how many abstained from voting or just didnt show up?

3-4 is narrow, 24 (four less than the difference in parties) is not.

Re:narrow?

[Ender_Stonebender]

There are 19 Representatives listed as "Not Voting" on the thomas.loc.gov. They also break it down by individual representatives, so you can find out if your representative voted yea or nay. Just search for "impeach Cheney" - the one you want will be the second result.

Ender

Re:narrow?

[Gogo0]

very interesting, thanks for the link.

in case anyone else is interested, it breaks down as follows:
Ayes Noes PRES NV
Democratic 214 5 13
Republican 4 189 7
Independent
TOTALS 218 194 20

Re:narrow?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our local rep, McNulty in (NY) has had some health problems, and is retiring. I think they are residual symptoms from a childhood brush with polio, so even though he is a Dem, his missing the vote is understandable.

Re:narrow?

[Dachannien]

The more interesting vote was the one to table the resolution in the first place:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml

That's the one where you can determine whether your local Democrat supported or opposed the impeachment measure itself, and roughly 60% of Democrats opposed it. You can't really make the same inference about the Republican tally, because halfway through the vote, they decided upon their strategy to try to force the Democrats' hand, and most of them switched their votes from "aye" to "nay".

The subsequent votes were almost along party lines, with the very few Democrats voting against their party in the camp of Kucinich's personal crusade, and the very few Republicans voting against their party wanting to stick a fork in it and move on to something else.

Re:narrow?

[smchris]

sounds weird and not all that narrow. its split down the middle (more or less), just like the parties (more or less). is anyone suprised?

Presumably every Democrat in a leadership position since they keep trying to appeal to the mythical "center".

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[sssssss27]

Yes but the maximum length that a person can be president for is 10 years. From the 22nd Amendment:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Stuff that matters

[physicsboy500]

Please, before you post something like this, consider Slashdot's FAQ

From the FAQ:

Why did you post story X?

Slashdot is many things to many people. Some people think it's a Linux site. To others, it's a geek hangout. I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors. We think we're pretty typical Slashdot readers... but that does mean that occasionally one of us might post something that you think is inappropriate. You might be interested in my Omelette rant.

Personally, I have a pet peeve when people post comments saying things like "That's not News For Nerds!" and "That's not Stuff that Matters!" Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. It turns out that a lot of people agree with me: Linux, Legos, Penguins, Sci (both real and fiction). If you've been reading Slashdot, you know what the subjects commonly are, but we might deviate occasionally. It's just more fun that way. Variety Is The Spice Of Life and all that, right? We've been running Slashdot for a long time, and if we occasionally want to post something that someone doesn't think is right for Slashdot, well, we're the ones who get to make the call. It's the mix of stories that makes Slashdot the fun place that it is.

Re:Stuff that matters

[PatPending]

Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. 5 years? (Time to update the FAQ)

Re:Stuff that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people think it's a Linux site

Woah! This place is a Linux site?

To others, it's a geek hangout.

So, the online dating service modules to slashcode never worked out.

I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors.

So, it's a blog?

Well, I for one welcome our slashdot blogging overlords

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[orcrist]

8 years, not 10.

Wrong. The GP is right. Check your facts:
Amendment 22 reads in part:
"1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Meaning someone (e.g. a former V.P.) can serve up to 2 years followed by being elected twice, for a total of 10 years.

Summary of the accusations

[Martin Blank]

Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs

Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.

Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath.

Article III: Cheney has threatened use of force against Iran

Three cases where he said that no options are off the table and one where he explained the placement of an extra carrier in the Persian Gulf are used as evidence here. Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it.

Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution ("levying War against [the Untied States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"); he is not accused of taking bribes; and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor," or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like.

I wasn't especially fond of the idea of Clinton's impeachment, and I don't think Cheney warrants it here. This is a waste of time given that a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Steeltalon]

"Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath."

See, that's the funny thing about any time that Bush says that XXXX can testify "but not under oath". The only thing that it successfully does is make him look like an obstruction and an asshole. The fact is that it's illegal to lie to Congress, anyway... Oath or no oath.

So, the significance of whether he lied to the American people outside of oath may just make him a jerk. The fact that he may have lied to Congres... that constitutes a violation of the law.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]
Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs

Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.

Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath
[/quote]

It is quite interesting that you are defending his actions based on him "not being under oath".
I don't know about you but I certainly feel that our elected leaders should not be given
impunity to LIE to us whether under oath or not. He is the Vice President of the US for Gods sake.
How can anyone say it is OK for the VP to lie to the American people and simply dismiss it as nothing
for the lack of an oath.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Etrias]

I think it's a sad state of affairs when we have to expect our politicians to tell the truth only when they're under oath. Ah, but that's the dreamer-me.

I mean I enjoy the Prime Minister's Questions in front of the House of Commons as much as the next person (where they can absolutely lie and at times expected to), but I'm not sure I can remember anything that Cheney ever got correct.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Donniedarkness]

Hold up, here: He made false statements that helped send us to war, but he's not liable in any way because he didn't make them while under oath? Would he get away with shooting somebody, as long as he wasn't under oath?

Actually, I guess he already did...

Re:Summary of the accusations

[gilesjuk]

It can be a misdemeanor to mislead people about the case for war. Think about how many people have died as a result of this, troops, civilians and how much money has been spent. All simply because Cheney and others wanted to flex their muscles and remind the world that the US has a strong military force.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Its become accepted to say that the administration lied leading up to the war. I don't like it when people say it because it causes them to overlook the lesson that can be learned from the horrible waste of life. It will be way too easy to repeat the mistake in the future, if we just look at this and say the administration was evil and they lied to us. The real lesson here is in terms of confirmation bias. They ( the administration and intelligence community) were shell shocked after 9/11 and believed in the worst possible scenarios, because they didn't once and got burned. They twisted intelligence to see something they feared, and something they could actively do to act against it. But its clear from the administrations threats against Iran, they have not learned there lesson. I can only believe thats because the opposition is just yelling insults and calling them "evil".

Re:Summary of the accusations

[CuriousGTime]

While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.

So according to this logic, if I tell the police you're stockpiling materials in order to bomb the Pentagon and they raid your house only to find nothing - you can't touch me because I wasn't under oath! Sorry, but that's not how things work, there are limits to freedom of speech [wikipedia]. If it can be shown that Cheney lied about Saddam having WMD's and links to Al Qaeda, he should be held accountable because those statements had consequences.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[RevDigger]

Breaking and on-the-books law is absolutely not a requirement for an impeachment. Abuse of power and misconduct in office are grounds for impeachment. Lying about intelligence, under oath or otherwise, in order to bamboozle the country into an unnecessary war is grounds for impeachment. Please refer to the history of impeachment, and the overwhelming consensus of constitutional scholars for what is an impeachable offense.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure lala land is nice this time of year, but if you seriously think its ok to lie to the citizens of the country, as implied in your second point, then you are a poor pathetic excuse for a citizen and an American. These sons of bitches are accoutable to us and that includes being honest and upholding the laws and ideals of this country at ALL TIMES.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheney is under oath, of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter

NOTE: I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter

Not much wriggling room there.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[siwelwerd]

I can't think of any crimes higher than violating your oath to the supreme law of the land.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Martin Blank]

I am not defending his actions. I am arguing that the articles of impeachment have little or no merit. Not one of the statements presented in the articles introduced by Kucinich were from statements before Congress, so on that basis, he never lied to them. Lying in public is generally not a crime.

On the topic of Congress, I'm not aware of any president or vice president that has talked to Congress while under oath, and I seem to remember Bill Clinton fighting it to avoid binding the precedent on future occupants of the White House, some of whom will likely be of his party.

What I am saying is that, while not a fan of either Bush or Cheney, I do not believe that their provable actions at this time rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office. Opposing the articles of impeachment does not mean supporting their target.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Ajehals]

Actually, AFAIK Knowingly misleading the house (i.e. lying to the house of commons) is a pretty serious thing to do, and, generally requires an apology and may be followed by being sacked. Creatively not answering questions, misunderstanding questions or generally poking fun at whoever is doing the asking is fine, the louder the better. Personally I think all elected bodies should have arcane rules on language ("the other place"), a decent amount of pageantry and the atmosphere of a pub where the supporters of rival football teams have accidentally ended up in the same room and are debating a controversial penalty decision. Oh and having a *non* elected upper house (one that is not directly elected and somewhat immune from short term public opinion) is necessary to ensure that knee jerk legislation and short term measures do not become law, although how well that is working at this time is debatable.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Martin Blank]

Actually, absent some sort of corroborating evidence causing them to enter without a warrant, they're going to want to get a signed affidavit from you to present to a judge to get that warrant, and therefore you would be under oath, and so you would be liable for damages, as well as possible criminal prosecution. Even if they did go in without a warrant based on your statement, they're probably going to question you before going in, perhaps asking if you're willing to swear under oath, and you may face charges anyway.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Mspangler]

"He made false statements that helped send us to war, but he's not liable in any way because he didn't make them while under oath? "

True. Call it an unintended consequence of Slick Willie. Slick DID lie under oath, and it was found to be inadequate grounds for impeachment, or at least removal from office. So any statement not made under oath is not actionable at all.

Besides, politicians lie non-stop. You can't be a politician unless you can lie non-stop. Some of Slick's and Al's lies put thousands of people out of work. A good many of them were forced into poverty. Some fraction of them died. Now W's corpses are pretty easy to identify, while Slicks' were not. Dead is still dead though.

(Poverty is like low-level nuclear radiation, you can't say this person without doubt died of it, but you can say that there were N excess deaths per 100,000 of affected population.)

If you are wondering about the Slick and Al lies I was referring too, it was the War on the West, mining and logging were hammered badly to please environmentalist voters. I was on the pointy end of that stick. It wasn't pretty. It took until last year to get back to my 1994 income, even though I went back to school for a doctorate.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Guppy06]

"the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath."

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

This is not about Dick Cheney the private citizen, but Dick Cheney in his capacity as Vice President of the United States.

"Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it."

First off, does the potential existence of prior examples make the act right?

Secondly, why shouldn't this be something discussed in Congress in the impeachment proceedings?

"and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor,""

18 USC 1038: False information and hoaxes. Additionally, violating one's oath of office in itself appears to be illegal in Wyoming, or at least is mentioned as a reason for arrest in the state constitution.

"or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like."

Those lower officers who are so despised are generally "asked to resign" by their president long before things get that far (e. g. Alberto Gonzales). And why should a lack of past impeachments by itself be used to justify not impeaching now?

"a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate."

That depends on how popular the impeachment seems with the voters back home. Remember that Bush's approval ratings are currently lower than Nixon's.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no Constitutional requirement that impeachment for lies to Congress be predicated on any "oath." If Congress decides it's a "high crime" or "misdemeanor", it is so.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Blakey Rat]

To be impeached you have to break the law. Being a liar is perfectly legal, as long as you don't lie under oath. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, that's called perjury and it's illegal.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[sigzero]

Did you even read that article you quoted?

"(1) In general.-- Whoever engages in any conduct with **intent** to convey false or misleading information..."

You would be hard pressed to prove that was his INTENT. He and Bush acted upon information they BELIEVED to be true.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[LordKronos]

Being a liar is perfectly legal, as long as you don't lie under oath

How about the oath of office?

Re:Summary of the accusations

[myth24601]

To be impeached you have to break the law. Being a liar is perfectly legal, as long as you don't lie under oath. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, that's called perjury and it's illegal.

Common misconception. To be impeached you just have to get a majority of the House to pass articles of impeachment. There isn't any judicial review, in fact the only review is by the Senate which only votes to remove the president from office which requires 2/3 majority at which point it is over and done with no judicial review. Someone once said "high crimes is whatever congress says it is" because impeachment is a political process. It is part of the "checks and balances" we hear about all the time.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[oliphaunt]

He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution ("levying War against [the Untied States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort");

ahem. Cheney ordered Libby to leak the NIE and to blow Valerie Plame's cover. Revealing a spy to the public certainly gives "Aid and Comfort" to your enemies, when the spy's only job is to spy on those enemies.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Scudsucker]

To be impeached you have to break the law.

No, you don't. But why are you quibbling about breaking laws (which they have done: see Plame, FISA, using gvt services for partisan gain) when they've broken Amendments?

Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath

No, he wasn't, and no, he didn't. The Republicans impeached him because they wanted to impeach him, just as Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to invade Iraq. And Clinton did not lie because in the trial, "sexual relations" was defined as intercourse. As blow jobs are not intercourse, he did not lie.

that's called perjury and it's illegal.

Wrong again. At least your are consistent. Even if he did lie, a lie is only perjury if it is relevant to the case at hand. As the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was not perjury.

Besides, if we investigated and re-investigated every inch of Bush's life the way Congress did Clinton, and gave a judge $60 million to investigate him yet again, I bet we could do just a little better than a manufactured perjury charge.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Scudsucker]

Slick DID lie under oath

As I pointed out to another poster, no he didn't.

Some fraction of them died. Now W's corpses are pretty easy to identify, while Slicks' were not. If you are wondering about the Slick and Al lies I was referring too, it was the War on the West, mining and logging were hammered badly to please environmentalist voters. I was on the pointy end of that stick. It wasn't pretty. It took until last year to get back to my 1994 income, even though I went back to school for a doctorate.

Yawn. And just how many miners and loggers perished due to environmental restrictions, exactly? Speaking of, tough shit. The rest of us have to live here too, and don't want to suffer polluted water and bare mountains just so you can make a quick buck.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, and the guy that got shot actually apologized to him from the hospital bed for *causing* all the trouble (by not moving out of Dick's line of fire soon enough)! No wonder he's likened to Darth Vader - he must be using the force power grip or somtehing on dissenters.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Scudsucker]

What I am saying is that, while not a fan of either Bush or Cheney, I do not believe that their provable actions at this time rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office.

What would, exactly?

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Martin Blank]

None of what you put in there rises to the level of impeachment. Gore would have had to deal with 9/11, and probably would have invaded Afghanistan, too. Congress was complicit in the failings that led to the Patriot Act, but note that Congress has also been pushing back even as the courts question the provisions that were not sunset. There is little proof available that Bush or Cheney had anything to do with Valerie Plame, and technically there was nothing illegal about the firings of the US attorneys -- they serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be fired by same for any or no reason.

There's a lot to complain about in the Executive Branch. However, poor decisions, even when politically motivated, are not and should not be impeachable offenses. If you can find evidence of bribery or other malfeasance, then I'll gladly stand behind articles of impeachment. But impeachment has been thrown around as a political tool for the last dozen years, and that is not its proper use.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[rastoboy29]

Dude, you are completely out of your mind.  Since when is it that only statements made under oath have to be truthful?  And since when are treasonable ACTS not an impeachable offense?  You don't have to say a god damned thing.

You're letting our overly litigious worldview control your mind.  When you speak something out loud, it is supposed to be the truth.  Otherwise it's this thing called "lying".  No oath required.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Cheetahfeathers]

Was he speaking in capacity of the Vice President? He took an oath of office to uphold the US Constitution, did he not? He was under oath. I could only agree with you if he had made statements saying we should go to war after making it clear that he was speaking as himself, not in capacity of his office.

This is not nitpicking. That oath of office is _important_. Upholding the Constitution is his _duty_. Cheney has not only forsaken that duty, he has betrayed it. There is more than good reason to impeach Cheney, Bush, and their entire crew, as well as to hold them to international war crimes trials.

If they are innocent, let those trials show it. If they are as guilty as the seem to be on the face of things, those actions are long, long overdue.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[forgotten_my_nick]

So it is ok to lie to the nation as long as your not under oath? You get what you deserve.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Scudsucker]

None of what you put in there rises to the level of impeachment.

Hardly. But perhaps you'd prefer these: the wholesale violation of FISA laws and the 4th Amendment with the NSA wiretapping. The wholesale violations of the 5th Amendment with waterboarding and their other "enhanced interrogation techniques." Suspending habeas corpus when there has been no invasion or rebellion (yes, Congress is complicit in this as well with the MCA). Ignoring due process by keeping American citizens in jail without a hearing or trial. Then there's Bush's "signing statements" in which he ignores any parts of a bill he doesn't like. Sorry George, if you don't like the legislation, your only option is a veto.

There is little proof available that Bush or Cheney had anything to do with Valerie Plame

Bush, no, Cheney, yes. Speaking of, Plame's job was ensuring that Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons. If Iran is considered our enemy, "axis of evil" and all that, outing her was also giving "aid and comfort to the enemy." Which makes them guilty of treason as well.

technically there was nothing illegal about the firings of the US attorneys

Firing, no, that's not illegal. Using government agencies for partisan purposes, yes, that's illegal.

Any of these actions is more than enough grounds to impeach, let alone all of them put together, and I'm probably forgetting a few things. Furthermore, the president and every senator and representative has taken an oath of office where they promise to defend the Constitution. If Congress doesn't stop Bush's violations, by impeachment if necessary, they are breaking those oaths.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Copid]

True. Call it an unintended consequence of Slick Willie. Slick DID lie under oath, and it was found to be inadequate grounds for impeachment, or at least removal from office. So any statement not made under oath is not actionable at all.

That's an interesting interpretation. Not that I'm a big proponent of lying under oath, but I should point out that in most circumstances, the severity of perjury is not a simple binary calculation (you lied or you didn't). The severity and frequency are important as well. Lying about one's ice cream flavor preference under oath may be technically illegal, but probably not high enough to warrant a long sentence (or removal from office). Falsely providing an alibi for a serial killer probably would be.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[geggam]

Cheney was too under oath.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Martin Blank]

Speaking an untruth is not necessarily the same thing as lying. People may believe something that is incorrect, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and in honestly speaking their beliefs they are mistaken but not lying.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[sjames]

You're trying to tell me that dragging the entire country into a war it can't win at a cost of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars under false pretenses can't be classified as a high crime or misdemenor?

I wasn't especially fond of the idea of Clinton's impeachment, and I don't think Cheney warrants it here. This is a waste of time given that a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate.

Clinton's actions in his personal life were reprehensible, but he didn't drag the whole country into it (the Republicans did that). I agree that impeachment was unwarranted. When he perjured himself and had an extramarital affair, he did so as himself, not in his capacity as the President of the United States.

Cheney's reprehensible actions OTOH, were (and are) directly related to the performance of his duties and in his capacity as the Vice President. He most certainly did drag the whole country into it. Further, in spite of his oath to defend and adhere to the Constitution, he has at every turn done his best to undermine the Bill of Rights. He has allowed and, in fact, encouraged blatant violations of it's principles on his watch and continues, to the best of his ability, to obstruct every effort to remediate the violations.

As for Treason, he has personally BECOME a domestic enemy. Surely that counts!

From what I've seen, if he could get away with it, I swear that he'd literally use it as toilet paper.

Apparently, all of that and more is perfectly OK so long as he doesn't get an extra-marital blowjob.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Blakey Rat]

Besides, if we investigated and re-investigated every inch of Bush's life the way Congress did Clinton, and gave a judge $60 million to investigate him yet again, I bet we could do just a little better than a manufactured perjury charge.

You don't think that's going to immediately happen as soon as the new administration is in place?

Re:Summary of the accusations

[sjames]

True. Call it an unintended consequence of Slick Willie. Slick DID lie under oath, and it was found to be inadequate grounds for impeachment, or at least removal from office. So any statement not made under oath is not actionable at all.

He did not lie under oath in his capacity as President of the United States. The lies (however reprehensible) were strictly a matter of his personal affairs (so to speak).

Given the choice between a chickenhawk that will entangle the whole country in reprehensible, unwinable, and expensive (in dollars and in lives) military actions around the world and a lounge lizard who can't keep it in his pants but does a half-decent job as (vice) president or at least doesn't totally screw the country over, I'll take the lounge lizard.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[michaelepley]

Fine. I'd be happy impeaching him for the misdemeanor of jaywalking if that's what it takes.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

Would he get away with shooting somebody, as long as he wasn't under oath?

I have no doubt that he blurted out a few.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Darby]

He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution

The fuck he hasn't.

"levying War against [the Untied States". What do you call his assaults on the constitution? That *is* levying war against the United States.

"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"

The entire "war on terrorism" and all the massive press and promotion that this administration has given to a fucking boogie man *is* actively giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

So, yes, Cheney is a traitor, clearly and obviously. So is anybody who supports him, for he is an enemy of this nation and they are giving him aid and support.


Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath.


Who gives a flying fuck whether or not he was under oath when he intentionally lied in order to fuck America.
We're talking about his multiple acts of treason, we're not talking about perjury, idiot.

Whoever modded you informative for that idiotic disinformation you spewed there are a bunch of fucking morons.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Darby]

Gore would have had to deal with 9/11, and probably would have invaded Afghanistan, too.

Save the delusional nonsense.

What makes you think that Gore would have systematically dismantled our anti terrorism operations in order to go after porn, which is what allowed 9/11 to succeed?
Oh that's right, he most likely wouldn't have and the attacks never would have happened swo he never would have had a reason to invade Afghanistan.

9/11 only happened due to Bush's incompetence. You look like a real piece of shit when you try and blame hypothetical Gore for things that are squarely Bush's fault. What a fucking worm.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Scudsucker]

You don't think that's going to immediately happen as soon as the new administration is in place?

Apples to oranges. Republicans, at the very best, had probable suspicion that Bill Clinton committed any crimes. We know for a *fact* that Bush has broken laws and greviously violated the Constitution; he's proudly admitted it. We had enough to impeach Bush years ago, and it's pathetic that members of Congress can't do their basic duty and remove him from office. And yes, it is a duty: every senator and representative took an oath of office promising to defend the Constitution. When an official violates it repeatedly, it's their *duty* to remove him.

So yes, I do expect special prosecutors to be appointed. The difference is that they will be investigating actual wrongdoing, instead engaging in a baseless witch hunt.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Darby]

Speaking an untruth is not necessarily the same thing as lying. People may believe something that is incorrect, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and in honestly speaking their beliefs they are mistaken but not lying.

Wrong!

Knowingly representing something as a fact when you don't have the first fucking clue whether it's true or not is a lie. Period. end of sentence.
Bush and Cheney have both done exactly that and they have also presented as facts things which the head of the fucking CIA told them not to present because it was bogus intel.

I'm totally sickened by pieces of shit like you constantly weaseling around to try and get proven scum the ability to fuck us just a little more.
A Lie is a lie is a lie and no amount of deceitful scumbaggery, and redefinitions by you will change that fact.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

I think presiding District Judge Susan Webber Wright would disagree with your statement as noted here:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Scudsucker]

I know. Still not perjury. And where are the charges of malicious prosecution for Starr and the Republicans in Congress, eh?

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Mspangler]

"He did not lie under oath in his capacity as President of the United States."

I was unaware that he had turned over the office to Al while he was giving that deposition. If he didn't, then he was President. And therefore what he did was in an official capacity. Military personnel are still subject to the UCMJ even if they are off-duty, on leave, and out of uniform. And he is Commander in chief.

"Given the choice between a chickenhawk that will entangle the whole country in reprehensible, unwinable, and expensive (in dollars and in lives) military actions around the world"

Don't forget tossing the Constitution to the winds either. Warrantless wiretapping indeed.

I keep wondering if he really will leave in 2009, or decide the "national emergency" requires that he stay in office. It's happened in other countries.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Mspangler]

"And just how many miners and loggers perished due to environmental restrictions, exactly? Speaking of, tough shit. The rest of us have to live here too, and don't want to suffer polluted water and bare mountains just so you can make a quick buck."

So, you will support the upcoming War for Copper? Or how about a War for Wood? Or are you living in some utopia where you do not use wood, or any metal, concrete, or stone? And no glass either. And your food does not use any phosphate or potassium fertilizers? All those goodies are to be provided on demand, and cheap, from where, exactly? And let's not forget the silicon in the computer you used to post your reply. That came from where again? A Mine? Oh No!

As for "And just how many miners and loggers perished due to environmental restrictions, exactly?" Did the environmental restrictions increase the poverty rate? Likely yes. And would an increase in poverty indirectly kill people? Yes. Can you quantify it? Only with great difficulty. Is the cost to benefit ratio worth the exchange? 20 years ago I'd have answered yes. Now, regulations are doing ever more economic damage for ever smaller environmental gains.

If a Republican were to propose a program to tax the lower income groups, and push more of them into poverty, incidentally increasing their death rate, but in an hard to detect way, would you still feel "Yawn. ... Tough shit?."

If Exxon builds a refinery in an unpopular third world country, and kills the inhabitants somewhat more detectably, would you still be happy? After all, your water and pretty mountains are still unaffected. Is your vacation worth a few lower class lives?

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Scudsucker]

So, you will support the upcoming War for Copper? Or how about a War for Wood? Or are you living in some utopia where you do not use wood, or any metal, concrete, or stone? And no glass either. And your food does not use any phosphate or potassium fertilizers? All those goodies are to be provided on demand, and cheap, from where, exactly? And let's not forget the silicon in the computer you used to post your reply. That came from where again? A Mine? Oh No!

Oh, do regale of the tales of when and your out of work buddies became bandits, raiding local Wal-Marts and and Home Depots for food and supplies, then racing back to the hills in your Ford Rangers.

I was unaware that he had turned over the office to Al while he was giving that deposition. If he didn't, then he was President. And therefore what he did was in an official capacity. Military personnel are still subject to the UCMJ even if they are off-duty, on leave, and out of uniform. And he is Commander in chief.

The president is not a member of the military, dipshit. This country was set up as having the military being strictly under civilian control. And he's only the Commander in Chief in wartime.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

I know. Still not perjury. And where are the charges of malicious prosecution for Starr and the Republicans in Congress, eh?

No not perjury, but in the words of Her Honor "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false". (Emphasis mine).

As for "malicious prosecution" by Starr... Janet Reno was the one who authorized the investigation be enlarged to encompass what is referred to above. Concerning the "Republicans in Congress"... I don't even know how to respond to that other than to say they were *arguably* doing their job and a number of Democrats joined them. (NOTE: I'm *NOT* saying the impeachment was the best choice, only that the action could be reasonably argued for).

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Scudsucker]

No not perjury, but in the words of Her Honor "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false".

Still. Not. Perjury. Nor. Obstruction. Of. Justice. Nor. Witness. Tampering. We have laws and courts to prosecute criminals, not make innocent people jump through hoops until they become criminals.

As for "malicious prosecution" by Starr... Janet Reno was the one who authorized the investigation be enlarged to encompass what is referred to above.

She authorized an investigation, not a witch hunt. Starr did the latter.

I don't even know how to respond to that other than to say they were *arguably* doing their job and a number of Democrats joined them.

Did their jobs, eh? Like when the same people who supported Clinton's impeachment for supposed perjury called for a pardon for Scooter Libby's perjury conviction? Fred Thompson, who voted to convict Clinton in the Senate, went so far as to make a speech where he passionately called for the rule of law - and then equally passionately called for a pardon for poor old Scooter.

Furthermore, nothing has proven that the Republicans were full of shit on Clinton's impeachment like Bush and the last six years. Where were the multiple Republican investigations into Bush skipping out on his Air Guard commitments or Harken Energy, where Bush sat on the companies audit committee and sold his shares after being warned that the company would lose money? If Republicans were "doing their jobs" by impeaching Clinton over a blow job, where's the Republican impeachment of George W. Bush for violating FISA laws, the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments, laws preventing the use of federal agencies for partisan gain, and of course outing a covert agent in a fit of pique? They haven't. Because IOKIYAR.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Mspangler]

"And he's only the Commander in Chief in wartime."

Gotcha, poser. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 1. "The President shall be commander in 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..."

No restrictions on wartime only. Which I knew, having once been in the military, in (relative) peace time.

"Oh, do regale of the tales of when and your out of work buddies became bandits, raiding local Wal-Marts and and Home Depots for food and supplies, then racing back to the hills in your Ford Rangers."

No, we went to the unemployment lines. And when the benefits ran out, we sold our houses at a loss ($27,000, in my case) and moved elsewhere, like the dispossessed everywhere. And took a job at a much lower pay rate than mining paid.

And I note that you did not answer the question. If mining and miners are so evil, and you approve of running them out of the country, where do you get the materials for your house, your Prius, and your PC? Planning to trade your fine poetry for steel? It's a great deal if you can get it. Of course, someone somewhere is still mining. But as long as it's not around your potential vacation destinations, I suppose you don't care.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Scudsucker]

Gotcha, poser.

Um, no. Bolding the part you missed:

"The President shall be commander in 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..."

If mining and miners are so evil, and you approve of running them out of the country, where do you get the materials for your house, your Prius, and your PC?

Analogy time. I like eating chicken. A lot. I like it baked, fried and grilled. I like it in stew. I like it in burritos. I even like it on pizza. That does not mean, however, that I have to like chicken make from big operations where the birds have part of their beaks cut off, are kept in tiny cages and violently thrown into hoppers so their wings are broken until they die. So I don't buy chicken from factory farms, and if those places all go out of business, then too god damned bad for them.

If your jobs involves doing horrible things - abusing chickens on factory farms, selling lead paint for children's toys, making DDT for mass agricultural spraying, clear cutting irreplaceable forests or polluting rivers with waste from your sloppy mine - then find a different job. Meanwhile, I will happily enjoy my free range chicken and my PC and mp3 player made from materials from environmentally safe mines.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Mspangler]

Your ability to read (or your understanding of grammer) is as limited as your sense.

"and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." The Milita/National Guard is owned by the States unless specifically called into Federal service. The Army and Navy are ALWAYS under the President, who is the Commander in Chief, peacetime or wartime.

And what is your list of environmentally safe mines? How do you verify your Prius is only constructed with materials from mines of which you approve? Mines that meet the EPA requirements? That's all of them in this country. And those were the ones (the only ones) Federal policies can shut down. So, you have basically agreed to export pollution to somewhere you won't have to look at it.

And we did meet the EPA rules. And we were shut down because a permit was pulled. The State giveth, and State taketh away. We didn't have the money to spend three years in court proving the permit was pulled without cause, and forcing them to reinstate it. Without that particular permit, the mine was not viable, and we were done.

Now, with regards to logging, you can buy lumber only from privately held, domestic, non-clearcut, spotted owl free forests. So I'll grant you that one. Have you ever done it? Does/did/will your contract with a home builder specify "sustainable products only?"

I see your benefits from your plan. "Inconveniences" exported elsewhere, cheap labor from the people in the countryside pushed out of work and forced to relocate. Cheap vacation/retirement homes from those same people (with the added benefit that they are already built and you don't have to worry about the "sustainable products only" issue. And from those of the dispossesed that do manage to get thing's back together (at least if they move to the city) the holy grail, Increased Property Values for your existing house.

It is a great deal for you. I just resent having had to pay for it.

Not Tech News.

[jo7hs2]

I fail to see how this article is relevant to the purpose of this site.

Re:Not Tech News.

[physicsboy500]

Please refer to my point above.

Re:Not Tech News.

[Nonillion]

Well, in the remotest of sense they do use semi technical terms like tubes and dump trucks.

Re:Not Tech News.

[jo7hs2]

I find it strangely ironic that a post stating the article is off-topic has been modded off-topic. Like looking at an off-topic mirror using another off-topic mirror, creating one of those infinite reflection loops, or in this case, infinite off-topics. But then, I'll concede that THIS post is wildly off-topic.

Paris Hilton

[Anonymous Coward]

Then how come we never see anything about Paris Hilton on here?

Re:Paris Hilton

[physicsboy500]

What do you mean?

Posturing, blah... blah...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see....

Is Kucinich running for President? Yes
Is he frontrunner for the Dem's? No
Does he need to improve his profile? Yes
By submitting these articles, is he taking 'initiatives' the public would want taken given the certain ambiguities that remain, with regard to why we are now in this mid-east Debacle (impeaching those who lied to the American People)? Yes
Was there any chance for these articles to come to fruition? NO CHANCE IN HELL!!!

Its political posturing people....

Move along, nothing to see here.

On a sideone, he's at least smart enough to score a trophy wife, right?

Re:Posturing, blah... blah...

[harrisg]

On a sideone, he's at least smart enough to score a trophy wife, right? He's my dad's age (61) and she's my sister's age (30).
Wow.

What was that phrase again?

[rickb928]

Oh yeah.

Schauden Freude.

Dan but that Kucnich is one wild and crazy guy. Watch for HR333, coming to a committee far from you!

PS - It's not hard to embarrass the Congressional Democratic leadership. Just vote for their bills.

rick

Re:What was that phrase again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The word is epicaricacy in English.

Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Chazman]

Please explain to me exactly *WHY* impeachment is not on the table. There have never been a President and Vice President of the United States *MORE* deserving of impeachment. The Vice President falsified an official intelligence report that was to become the basis of deciding whether or not to send this country to war, for crying out loud. The Vice President outed a CIA operative to settle a political score. The President has institutionalized the breaking of the Fourth Amendment on a massive scale and won't even let Congress, let alone the American people, have all the facts about what he's been doing. *NOT* impeaching them both has got to rank as one of the most gross miscarriages of justice in this nation's history.

Pelosi, Hoyer: GROW A PAIR! Stand up for what's right! Do your job and uphold the Constitution!

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Phroggy]

If Bush is thrown out, then Cheney becomes president, and I think many of us would expect that situation to be worse than what we have now.

Pelosi is probably terrified of the prospect of Bush and Cheney both being thrown out.

Not sure what objection she has to impeaching Cheney though.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank You.

I was tired of reading about everyone defending Bush and Cheney. Has no one learned anything from the last 7 years. These guys are evil neo-cons and deserve to be hung from the white house front porch.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Olentangy]

> The Vice President outed a CIA operative to settle a political score.

Time to catch up with reality. It was Richard Armitage who told Novak about Plame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Novak.27s_.22primary_source.22:_Richard_Armitage

Wishing something to be true doesn't make it so...

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[goldspider]

"Please explain to me exactly *WHY* impeachment is not on the table."

Easy: because every House Democrat would be called to task and forced to take a stand. Obviously, their convictions ended the day they got (re-)elected.

This should serve as a perfect example to everyone who opposes Bush that what's good for the country isn't necessarily good for the Democratic Party. And it is clear where House Democrats first loyalties lie.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[goldspider]

"Not sure what objection she has to impeaching Cheney though."

Indeed, you'd think that they would be eager to go after someone like Cheney. Clearly there are stronger motives than the will of the American people at work preventing this from happening. This should be of great concern to Democrat supporters.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Antique Geekmeister]

There was Lincoln, for getting us into a civil war by refusing to let the Southern states secede as was their constitutional right.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[whoop]

What ever happened to good ol' Charles Rangel and his attempts to reinstate the draft? That's gotta get the Democrats even more votes!

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Scudsucker]

Time to catch up with reality.

And reality catches up to bullshit neocon propaganda: there were multiple leakers, not just Armitage, as your own link points out, and the fact that the members of the press they contacted had a modicum more professionalism than Novak in no way absolves them of responsibility. Focusing on the "primary" leaker is just another pathetic attempt at misdirection.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Scudsucker]

No, it's quite easy. 1) impeach and convict Cheney. 2) impeach and convict Bush before voting to confirm Cheney's replacement as VP. 3) President Pelosi names an independent as VP, then resigns to end any question about the Dems doing this as a power grab.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Mix Master Nixon]

I can't think of how it would be any DIFFERENT if Cheney were President. He's pretty much running the show anyway, better that he's forced to operate under the increased scrutiny that comes with being CALLED Mr. President instead of doing the same job from the shadows.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[bikerider7]

Please explain to me exactly *WHY* impeachment is not on the table. Because Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller and many other Democratic leaders were complicit in the most serious crimes: torture, rendition, and warrantless wiretapping. If Cheney/Bush are to be impeached, then members of the "Intelligence" committee would have to be included.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Anonymous Coward]

...thinking like that is the problem. The principle of the president following the law is more important than having some douche like cheney as president.
I'd rather have cheney as president for a year than to have the next SEVERAL presidents feel like they can break the law without consequence.
It seems to me this is about more than cheney and bush, it is more about actually following the law.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[rhizome]

If Bush is thrown out, then Cheney becomes president

This would never happen. Election season is coming up and there's no way Cheney's health can tolerate a President's level of visibility. He would probably resign as Bush is impeached and Bush would name a new VP while he could.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Phroggy]

I completely agree, but this is the reality we're stuck with.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Phroggy]

Sure, that's how you'd do it if you wanted to do the right thing without any appearance of impropriety.

Sadly, doing the right thing while avoiding the appearance of impropriety is so rare among politicians that when it happens, it's shocking. Your idea would require the Speaker of the House to put justice and the rule of law above her own political career; I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Gilmoure]

Um...he didn't get a blow job?

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you get these arguments from the back of a cereal box or something?

1. The Vice President falsified an official intelligence report that was to become the basis of deciding whether or not to send this country to war, for crying out loud.

Really, where is the proof of this? Do you have a link to the document?

2. The Vice President outed a CIA operative to settle a political score.

Nope, that was Armatage (a democrat by the way). So if this really mattered, why was he not prosecuted?

3. The President has institutionalized the breaking of the Fourth Amendment on a massive scale and won't even let Congress, let alone the American people, have all the facts about what he's been doing

What has he been doing that you and I don't know about?

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[smithmc]

  Pelosi is probably terrified of the prospect of Bush and Cheney both being thrown out.

Why? Then she gets to go around lording it over Hillary Clinton that she actually got to be the first female POTUS...

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Anonymous Coward]

There have never been a President and Vice President of the United States *MORE* deserving of impeachment. You have a very short-sighted view of american history.

The Vice President falsified an official intelligence report that was to become the basis of deciding whether or not to send this country to war, for crying out loud. You should have a look at the US's entry into the Vietnam War, the First World War, the Spanish-American War, and so on.

There would be a lot fewer wars if Presidents and Kings were truthful.

Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Stradivarius]

Perhaps Pelosi and Hoyer are concerned that impeachment would become such a circus that it would prevent them doing the other things that they were elected to do. Things like passing appropriations bills, influencing Iraq policy, and doing something about health care. Or maybe they're concerned that it would be politically damaging to Democrats much like the Clinton impeachment was to Republicans. Most Americans may disagree with Bush and think he's incompetent, but that doesn't mean they see him as warranting impeachment.

Either way, the Dems have an option of trying to impeach Bush and Cheney with the aforementioned serious consequences, or waiting out one last year of the administration. The latter has the political advantage that they don't have to actually accomplish anything before the 2008 elections, because they can blame everything on the administration.

Here's the video of it...

[Araxen]

Here it is straight from Youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYbgouqlMw

Re:Here's the video of it...

[thatskinnyguy]

Before watching this video, I thought Kucnich was a nutjob that the people of Cleveland keep electing for some reason. Now I think Kucnich is an articulate nutjob that the people of Cleveland keep electing for some reason.

Re:Here's the video of it...

[RevHawk]

Why is he a nutjob? Because he's not a scripted actor, meant to present an image? He's a real human being. Extremely liberal, yes...But how does one define nutjob besides being different? He's the only one sane enough to put what's right and what he believes above all else...He's the only one besides Dodd and Gravel that has even MENTIONED the constitution in debates... A man of character is a nutjob I suppose. Go Gravel!!! Go Kucinich!!! Go Ron Paul!!! Nutjobs in '08!

A different committee though?

[mdsolar]

Seems to me that the committee that should be looking into the VP is the Senate Ethics Committee. The VP is also President of the Senate, and he seems to consort with criminals.

WHAT!

[Bryansix]

The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."'"

Since when did the leader of a country threatening to wipe an ally of the United States off the map not constitute a real threat? I'm not saying we should go to war against Iran but the World at large really needs to grow some balls when it comes to dealing with Iran. They constantly threaten to attack a country which did nothing to them. They are at the same time working to acheive Nuclear technology and say that nobody can stop them.

Re:WHAT!

[Lazy Jones]

They constantly threaten to attack a country which did nothing to them. They are at the same time working to acheive Nuclear technology and say that nobody can stop them.

One could misread this as referring to the US threatening the Iran ...

Re:WHAT!

[Knara]

Israel is more than capable of defending itself against Iran.

However, the mere fact that a country says bad things about us or our interests (or worse, doesn't do what we tell them they should be doing!), shouldn't on its own cause us to spend time and resources to escalate the situation.

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

Yes, I should have used a noun there and actually said IRAN. However you can't compare the US and Iran because the US is threatening a country which DID DO SOMETHING TO THEM. Just a little history lesson here. The current government of Iran are the ones who took US citizens hostage an refused to let them go. They also threatened an Ally.

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

If Iran was simply critisizing Israel policy I would agree with you. Instead they made direct, public threats against the entire population of the country.

Re:WHAT!

[808140]

With all due respect, Iran-US political history goes back further than the hostage debacle, and an objective analysis of our role in that soap opera will probably reveal that Iran has been the victim of our aggression more often than not.

Which does not make Iran's government nice or mean that we should ignore them if they threaten us — but don't act like everything was peaches and roses until bad ol' Iran took some US hostages and "refused to let them go" (ignoring, of course, that in the end, they did let them go).

Re:WHAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahmedinajad did not say that he wanted to wipe israel off the map.

i repeat.

Ahmedinajad did not say that he wanted to wipe israel off the map.

He didn't say it. yes, he said something *similar*, i.e. that the zionist regime would vanish from the pages of history. but he did not ever ever say he wanted to wipe israel off the map.

Now... what IS interesting is that YOU think he said he wanted to wipe israel off the map. why do you think that? because you have been MADE to think that by people who want to wipe HIM off the map. This, just like the iraqi "ripping babies out of incubators" story is being fed to you by people who really really want you to support what they're about to do to iran.

think about it.

you are being lied to.

why are you being lied to?

Re:WHAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

And the CIA sponsored a coup that put in place in Iran a right wing authoritarian regime that used death squads to kidnap, torture, and/or kill all political opposition for decades. And now their replacements use the same techniques to maintain power, but guess who they effectively learned it from (secondhand)? The good old USA!

In response to that earlier CIA-sponsored coup and bloodletting, the opposition, that had been subject to torture and assassination for decades, when they eventually obtained power held some of your Embassy people prisoners (mostly according to Geneva protocols, mind you) for a few years.

And for that you want to go in with nukes blazing? Somebody's sense of entitlement has made them lose all sense of proportion.

Re:WHAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran has never threatened anybody.
 
This isnt LGF. We're too well informed here for that shit. Go post your lies elsewhere.

Re:WHAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

No they didnt.
 
Try and spend less time on Fox.

Re:WHAT!

[Max Littlemore]

They constantly threaten to attack a country which did nothing to them.

Not just one country. Try North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Panama, Cuba, Libya, Vietnam.... oh what? You're talking about Iran. Sorry.

Yeah, I guess the fact that another country in your proximity has invaded your freinds, shown a complete disregard for human rights, regularly shoots civilians including children, has annexed parts of other states and developed nuclear weapons in secret in the name of some artificial religious zealotry aren't valid reasons to jump up and down screaming about their irradication as a disease. That would be evil.

Re:WHAT!

[Max Littlemore]

Just a little history lesson here. The current government of Iran are the ones who took US citizens hostage an refused to let them go. They also threatened an Ally.

I'm Australian. The US kidnapped an Ausrtralian and held him hostage until he agreed to plead guilty to charges in a process which does not uphold any common sense of justice and by all accounts (other than those of Cheney and his ilk) constitutes a war crime.

The US government has interfered in our political system, being instrumental in the removal of at least one prime minister and threatens and bullies Australia frequently. In fact NZ shows a lot more balls than Ausrtralia over US bullying, but that's another issue. Given that, it's amazing we are still allies.

While Australia does not generally declare war on other countries, you be very careful if you ever visit and vocalise that kind of attitude in the wrong bar over here. If you come over here, try to look a little sorry so you don't get injured.

Re:WHAT!

[Blakey Rat]

So let me get this straight.

If you go to a bar in Aussie, and tell someone that you don't like Iran because Iran held Americans hostage, they'll beat you up because the US "interferes" in Aussie's political process somehow? I don't get how that makes any sense at all...

Re:WHAT!

[dbIII]

The hard right of Israel can look after themselves and Israel is not really in any danger of Iran invading Iraq, Syria and then Israel any time soon. Iran is no real threat to Israel let alone the USA - this is about an excuse for a power grab by aging warmongers that beleive Jesus was a commie.

Re:WHAT!

[Max Littlemore]

If you go to a bar in Aussie, and tell someone that you don't like Iran because Iran held Americans hostage, they'll beat you up because the US "interferes" in Aussie's political process somehow?

No exactly. You go into a bar talking about Iran as if they did all the bad shit and the US was just an inocent player who now has a greivence. Do that with the usual blind adherance to US propaganda and unwillingness to accept that the US might be anything other than squeeky clean, you're likely to shit some people.

Keep up that attitude and people who you annoyed will injure you. Verbally or physically, body or pride doesn't matter.

The world is not jealous of US freedom, the world is pissed off with US self righteousness.

Re:WHAT!

[evilviper]

Since when did the leader of a country threatening to wipe an ally of the United States off the map not constitute a real threat?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't "the leader of" any country, he just plays one on TV.

What's more, even if he WAS the actual political leader of Iran, that wouldn't give him any military power at all. Outside of the US, no other country has the position of political and military leader combined, with perhaps the exception of Pakistan, with Musharif currently violating their constitution and maintaing both positions.

Every time some US Representative goes out on the campaign trail, and expouses his support for going to war with some country or other, should that count as a real threat from the US?

Re:WHAT!

[ContractualObligatio]

"Since when did the leader of a country threatening to wipe an ally of the United States off the map not constitute a real threat?"

Ever since men with balls learnt that just because someone makes a lot of noise, it doesn't mean they constitute a threat. Grow a pair yourself and learn the difference.

"I'm not saying we should go to war against Iran but the World at large really needs to grow some balls when it comes to dealing with Iran."

Thing is, "grow some balls mean" sounds suspiciously like you don't think the current diplomatic approach is correct, and so you are actually implying we should attack Iran. After all, I can't image you've come up with an innovative new form of diplomacy with all the impact of an attack but without the actual "attack" part.

Still, maybe the approach of the incompetent, draft-dodging, freedom-hating Cheney is right. It might even be worth sacrificing another few thousand Americans, just to show them the US means business.

Re:WHAT!

[trytoguess]

Unless he doesn't consider Israel a "zionist regime" he is actually saying he wants to get rid of the Israel. Course "wipe off the map" is vague, could mean kill them all, or get rid of ruling body.

Re:WHAT!

[Alegery]

Since when did the leader of a country threatening to wipe an ally of the United States off the map not constitute a real threat? Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. He is the President of Iran, a figurehead position, with all real power belonging to Supreme Leader Khamenei. I would think with a title like that people could keep straight just who holds authority in that country. Appearently not. Ahmadinejad's not even very popular within Iran, his party having lost some power in their most recent election.

Re:WHAT!

[lordofthechia]

Two words you may want to google: "Operation Ajax" . Then read about the Iraq invasion into Iran, look who backed Iraq during the war (starting in '83).

Now how would you feel about a country that orchestrated the overthrow of your democratically elected leader to put in place a monarch just to control the supply of oil from *your* country.

Now how would you feel that after a few decades you overthrow the monarchy (again) and then get invaded by your neighbor. Then when you're making headway and getting your country back under control, that same country that meddled decades earlier and helped depose the leader your parents elected is now supporting the invader! Yes the same invader that is now using chemical weapons against your people.

I love my country, it doesn't mean I have to love her past, nor delude myself into thinking she's perfect. In fact she could use a lot of work right about now.

Re:WHAT!

[Billly Gates]

Iran also funded the hezbollah and Israeli war.

They are attacking and already killing Israeli citizens for religious reasons and dragged Lebanon into a war it did not want.

At least Hitler was not directly honest what he intended with exterminating the jews. The shiite leaders publically call for the complete destruction of Israel at any cost. Not the president but rather the religious council who actually runs the country.

Iran is surely not innocent or sane for that matter.

Re:WHAT!

[ben there...]

Unless he doesn't consider Israel a "zionist regime" he is actually saying he wants to get rid of the Israel. Course "wipe off the map" is vague, could mean kill them all, or get rid of ruling body. The actual quote: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

The translation: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

If you say you want the Bush administration to "vanish from the page of time" (the accepted correct translation), or to bring it to the "end of an era" (for an even more Western translation), are you threatening to destroy the United States?

It's kind of silly to argue about his words anyway, considering he was quoting Imam Khomeini when he said that.

Re:WHAT!

[dave420]

Iran has not threatened to destroy the entire country of Israel. They just don't like the Israeli government and what its done. And they're not alone. Iran is not interested in developing nuclear weapons, but nuclear power, which is their right. Iran has not been an aggressor in any war in over 100 years, unlike the US and UK. If you get upset that your allies demand such displeasure from other countries, maybe you should start looking for new allies.

Re:WHAT!

[Grym]

How do you think the muslims of the world would take it if Bush declared that the "Islamic Nationalist regime of Iran should be wiped from the pages of history"? Would that be a threat or just a figure of speech?

All your duplicity about the mistranslation of a single speech aside, I think Iran and Ahmedinajad, in particular, have made their intentions quite clear. And it's not peace.

-Grym

Re:WHAT!

[Knara]

Which is, again, *more* than capable of defending itself, seeing as it is, itself a nuclear power (sure, sure I know it isn't).

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

I don't defend everthing the CIA does nor do I think it was always even in the best interest (politically or economically) of the United States. However, after the "revolution" most of the free thinking people of Iran just left. Iran is not better off now because of their religious rule. BTW, that is what Iran is. An Islamic State because the military reports to the religious leaders and not the central government. Besides that while Iranians have many economic freedoms they have very few civil freedoms. Basically if you are a woman over there and want to have a good paying job, you are screwed.

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

What you said would be interesting if only it was true. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961353170&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

Try to wake up and smell the facts. I didn't get this from Fox. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html?iref=newssearch

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

When your enemy hides among women and children while firing rockets at your neighborhoods it makes it a little difficult to deal with them. If you come up with a good solution, let me know.

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

I don't usually go into bars and strike up conversations with people I've never met and talk about politics. Thanks though. Besides, I'm not saying the US is an innocent player who now has a greivance. I'm saying that the US along with the rest of the world cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the recent actions of Iran.

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

Actually, by "Grow some balls" I mean that they should isolate Iran through sanctions, kick them out of being able to visit the UN or any other country. Put out an International warrant for the arrest of their president. Things like that. Not go in guns ablazing.

Re:WHAT!

[g8oz]

An attack on Iran for belligerent speech would be an over reaction to trash talking. The war mongerers need to calm down. Israel can handle its own business.

Re:WHAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut up you stupid fucking pest.

Re:WHAT!

[Headw1nd]

Wow, that is one awesome list of uncited quotations. Almost good enough to print.

Re:WHAT!

[RevHawk]

I'm more than happy to oblige! Here's the solution: Get. The. Hell. Out. Now. There. The US doesn't shoot any more civilians! Perfect Solution: Stop. Invading. Soverign. Nations. We shouldn't be at war unless it's for our survival. Period. To protect ourselves from media manufactured boogeymen is...umm...a bad idea.

Re:WHAT!

[Dread_ed]

Dont take Max at his word. He speaks for himself, but I have never met an Aussie as arrogant and stupid as he portrays himself to be here. Most of them are down to Earth and not so full of themselves that they respond with violence when people express their opinions. Most I know will converse with you about just about any subject with vigor and intelligence.

Then again I havent ever met one on their home turf when they are full of drinks.

Makes me wonder why he is trying to make Austrailians look bad.

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

They are a publication. I'm citing them. That's how it works.

Re:WHAT!

[Blakey Rat]

You go into a bar talking about Iran as if they did all the bad shit and the US was just an inocent player who now has a greivence.

So Australians believe that it's OK for Iran to detain foreign diplomats for over a year at will? And they'll defend Iran's "right" to do this by kicking your ass at a bar?

It still makes no sense.

Do that with the usual blind adherance to US propaganda and unwillingness to accept that the US might be anything other than squeeky clean, you're likely to shit some people.

I think most people in the US, and hopefully the world, recognize that regardless of how "squeeky clean" anybody's record is, holding hostages is *wrong*. To defend hostage-taking is simply crazy. I hope you don't represent the majority of opinion in Australia.

I'm an American. I'm proud to be an American. I recognize that we don't have a squeaky clean record on anything; we've oppressed native peoples, we've treated immigrants like human waste, we're interfered with other nations' governments for dubious purposes. That said, I think our record is better than some nations, and worse than others, probably pretty close to the middle of the bell curve. (Australia shares at least the first human rights crime listed there, if not the other two.)

And this may surprise you, but I like the American way of thinking, which emphases personal responsibility (although Clinton is going to dumpster that if she gets into office) and celebrates independence and creativity. And we're doing pretty damned good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

No, I was refering to Israel when they have to deal with people from the Palestinian controlled regions firing missles into their neighborhoods. Or when Hezbollah fires missles at them from Lebanon and then hide among the woman an children in cities.

Re:WHAT!

[Max Littlemore]

Same answer. Isreal is a nation born from terrorism. It was created as a homeland for a bunch of people from Europe and Central Asia with no ancestral link to the Middle East. There is a stronger ancestral link for a lot of Palestinians, given that a large number of the first muslims were jews descended from the Isrealites.

So again, to modern Isrealis, Get The Hell Out. Stop Invading Other Countries. Stop Annexing Other Territories.

Another option is to stop the economic blockade of Palestine. If the US was really interested in truth, justice and democracy, they would fund the Palestinians. That way they could develop the high tech weaponry to face Isreal on an equal footing and they wouldn't feel compelled to resort to the tactics they use now.

Re:WHAT!

[Max Littlemore]

And we're doing pretty damned good:

GDP doesn't impress me much, and is a poor indicator of how "good" a country is. Rich people are much less likely to be good than happy people, in terms of actions to help other people and unwillingness to inflict harm for a buck.

If you want to impress me with goodness, work on this, which apparently both Australia and the United States have a long way to go.

BTW, the US kidnaps people, flies them to other countries and tortures them. The US "accidentally" bombs embassies with precision weapons. We are none of us squeaky clean, but while you guys allow the likes of Cheney to go unpunished, while you reward people who get rich peddling death machines with high office, you're going to find that the criminal actions within your nation become the criminal actions of your nation.

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

You want to support a terrorist state? Fine. Just don't blame me when the FBI comes knocking on your door.

Re:WHAT!

[Max Littlemore]

I won't blame you. I will wonder WTF the FBI is doing knocking on my door. I will tell them to leave and if they don't I'll call the Victorian Police.

By the way, Isreal is a terrorist state. Check the history. Ignore the propaganda.

Re:WHAT!

[Blakey Rat]

GDP doesn't impress me much, and is a poor indicator of how "good" a country is.

Perhaps.

Rich people are much less likely to be good than happy people, in terms of actions to help other people and unwillingness to inflict harm for a buck.

Hello unfounded assertion! How about throwing a little evidence behind that thought?

If you want to impress me with goodness, work on this, which apparently both Australia and the United States have a long way to go.

That "index" has existed for less than two years, and it strikes me as utter BS. For all I know, it's specifically designed the make the US look bad. In any case, it strikes me as pretty meaningless.

BTW, the US kidnaps people, flies them to other countries and tortures them. The US "accidentally" bombs embassies with precision weapons.

I don't know anything about your first sentence here, so I won't reply to that. The second seems strange, though, as if you believe that a precision weapon is somehow less prone to human error than an inprecise weapon. In any case, if you think the embassy was hit on purpose, try this for a change: cite a reference! Maybe you'll actually convince me if you attach a little bit of weight to the accusation.

We are none of us squeaky clean, but while you guys allow the likes of Cheney to go unpunished, while you reward people who get rich peddling death machines with high office,

What would you like him to be "punished" for? Being unpopular?

you're going to find that the criminal actions within your nation become the criminal actions of your nation.

What does that even mean?

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

I know the history. While I cannot agree with everything Israel has done (they are not infallible, just look at the Old Testament for that proof), I still maintain that they actually don't try to kill woman and children while Palestinians under the guise of various organizations operating out of the Paletinian controlled territories actually have target all kinds of civilians indiscriminitally. I'm not putting them all in the same catagory. There are peaceful people who live in the Palestinian areas who actually don't resort to violence because things are not going their way. I mean the US actually gives the peaceful Palestinians money to survive. It's not as clear cut as most people make it out to be where these people are just enslaved in perpetual poverty by Israel. Israel blockades Palestinian territories only when they suspect weapons to be coming in via smuggling. If the violence would stop things would get a lot better on both sides but some people don't want that to happen and those minority of people screw it up for the rest of the people in the Palestinian areas.

Re:WHAT!

[Max Littlemore]

While I cannot agree with everything Israel has done (they are not infallible, just look at the Old Testament for that proof),

This is important. Saying the isrealis are the same people as the isrealites is like saying Latvians are Latin. They are not the same. Modern isrealis are predominantly from central asia. a large number of people descended from the isrealites are/were palestinians.

Isrealis commited acts of terrorism throughout the 20th century and then with the nod from Great Britain, invaded and haven't stopped fighting and stealing land since. And they are not isrealites. I agree that the violence has to stop. I also don't recognise isreal as a modern nation.

Re:WHAT!

[Max Littlemore]

How about throwing a little evidence behind that thought?

Not really the kind of thing that one can prove with hard evidence, is it? Perhaps the number of studies that show that poorer people are generally happier people go part way.

For all I know, it's specifically designed the make the US look bad.

What is it with the paranoia? The US isn't even bottom of the list. What makes you think the US is important enough for people to make up a study like this to make the US look bad? Why the arrogance?

It may strike you as meaningless, but then GDP is a measure of how well a group plays a game invented by humans which no longer has much basis in the physical world. For me happiness is more important than that shit.

I don't know anything about your first sentence here, so I won't reply to that. The second seems strange, though, as if you believe that a precision weapon is somehow less prone to human error than an inprecise weapon.

Again, get educated and stop buying the propaganda. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.

What would you like him to be "punished" for? Being unpopular?

"Extraordinary rendition", Gauntanimo Bay, Iraq - incuding the awarding of contracts and any aother war crimes that pop up. Lobby to recognise the Hauge. It isn't a leftist conspiracy, it actually maintains high standards of justice.

Re:WHAT!

[Blakey Rat]

Not really the kind of thing that one can prove with hard evidence, is it? Perhaps the number of studies that show that poorer people are generally happier people go part way.

Then maybe you should cite one, eh?

It may strike you as meaningless, but then GDP is a measure of how well a group plays a game invented by humans which no longer has much basis in the physical world. For me happiness is more important than that shit.

GDP has no basis in the physical world? You're saying the amount of wealth a nation generates is nothing but a numbers game? So you the number of luxury cars in nations with a high GDP is the exact same as the number of luxury cars in Haiti?

Again, get educated and stop buying the propaganda. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.

How about you help to educate me by citing a study, a single peer-reviewed study that re-inforces your viewpoint? You know, instead of Bob Marley lyrics.

Re:WHAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks like you and me know it was reported like that, but for the love of God, please take a stroll over to read a summary with the original text translations of what was exactly said, who translated what, in what words, and who reported what, in what words.

Even President Bush's former Chief Weapons Inspector at the UN, ex-US Marine, Scott Ritter, who totally accepted the press reports initially, changed his mind after reading that summary.

Re:WHAT!

[Headw1nd]

Perhaps you don't understand. The original "article" you cite itself cites no references, nor gives any dates and times for those quotations. Thus there is no way to verify them, and thus we cannot accept them as legitimate. As they are, it's simply a list of things he might have said, perhaps. See it on the internet, then believe in without question is not how it works, nor should it be. If you

Re:WHAT!

[Bryansix]

Ok, I agree that if the publication did not hear the quotes first hand then they should have sources. Good luck finding that on 99% of all news articles even from the major media like CNN or BBC.

absent any real threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "Death to America" do you not understand? It's pretty unambiguous.

Further, in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (which Iran voluntarily signed), Iran has embarked on an enormous covert nuclear program.

2 + 2 = ????

Re:absent any real threat?

[sjf]

No doubt you are right and, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Re:Absent any real threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran is no threat to America?

Even if you believe they have "OMG Teh Bawmb!", your next step is to convince everyone that Iran has "OMG Teh delivery mechanism!", e.g. a fleet of ICBMs capable of reaching America with a nuclear payload.

Re:Absent any real threat?

[spleen_blender]

http://www.iaea.org/

Go away, please.

Re:Absent any real threat?

[BlueStrat]

Even if you believe they have "OMG Teh Bawmb!", your next step is to convince everyone that Iran has "OMG Teh delivery mechanism!", e.g. a fleet of ICBMs capable of reaching America with a nuclear payload.

ICBMs are so cold-war. These days, all a hostile government needs to deliver a nuke is one of these.

http://www.thecontainerman.com/images/standard_large.jpg

Cheers!

Strat

Re:absent any real threat?

[GodInHell]

What part of "Death to America" do you not understand? It's pretty unambiguous. Good point - find me one instance where President Asshole said that about the U.S. and you might have some gleeming of intellect in there.

Further, in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (which Iran voluntarily signed), Iran has embarked on an enormous covert nuclear program. Do "secret" programs usually involve brass bands and press conferences? CNN article (April 2006).

Oh wait, I forgot, Trolls don't need facts when bullshit and bluster is available - how very Chenny of you.

-GiH

Re:!technology

[lottameez]

what place this article has on a technology news site?

Well Dennis Kucinich is clearly from outer space. Have you seen his ears? Total trekkie, totally nerd-chic.

The house avoids even discussing impeachment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't these guys have been impeached years ago?
And the US congress can't even get off their fat asses to even discuss the possibility of impeaching even one of these incompetent fools?
And this is with the white house and congress controlled by two separate parties?
I guess officials taking responsibility for their actions is an unknown concept in the US...

Absent any real threat?

[onefriedrice]

Iran is no threat to America? No wonder our Democratic Congress has worse approval ratings than Bush... they're diluted.

What I want to know is who

[WillAffleckUW]

Who made the deal with the pro-impeachment folks to allow it to be tabled in return for not funding the Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan wars in the military budget?

That was a smooth trade.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Propaganda13]

Before people start asking "why not impeach bush", think about what that would mean for the next election.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. You have to impeach and convict to get kicked out. Clinton was impeached. Unless Bush really screws up, I'm sure it won't happen because there's 1 year left before elections and I don't think they push for it.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[schatten]

It isn't that he's lousy, it is that Bush isn't that smart. Bush isn't the one running the country. That would be Cheney's strong arm of influence over Bush in the information that is threaded to him. Bush, we all know, is not that smart of a cookie. Don't second guess Cheney. He's smart, but he does not have the best interest for the public in his policies.

Too much time on their hands?

[VoxMagis]

I'm sorry - whether you hate the president/vp or not (and for the record I don't) - you have to say that this is a gross waste of time for this congress.

As a republican, I actually had hope when we lost control of the house and senate that perhaps we'd see some movement in government with an aggressive party taking control at a pivotal time in our history. It's not that I wanted much of what the Democrats wanted, it's that I wanted someone to stand up and do something.

I was wrong.

Re:Too much time on their hands?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because a slim majority in the house, not enough votes to stop a filibuster in the senate and a President who cries "you don't support the troops" or "if you don't do it my way, you're pro terrorist" every time congress tries to do anything will allow them to be aggressive about anything? That power of the purse thing will work real well when we all know that Bush doesn't give a damn about people dying, so he'd just let our armed forces wallow without funding in Iraq and blame Congress.

Hell, the only folks who can make certain Bush even follows the law is the justice department and--oh wait!--they managed to heavily politicize the department under Gonzales and if they don't nominate Mukasey Bush will perform a recess appointment of some right-wing wack nutjob. You expected anything better than this how?

Re:Too much time on their hands?

[onefriedrice]

As a Republican, I agree. After countless failed attempts to "save the troops" and get out of Iraq and debating endlessly over pointless drivel, you'd think they would eventually notice their terrible approval ratings and start listening to the people, but they're relentless. I wish they would stop wasting my tax money.

Not to say Bush is all that great, but he seems to actually get stuff done.

Re:Too much time on their hands?

[zhenya00]

Not to say Bush is all that great, but he seems to actually get stuff done.

Please, name something, anything, of value that Bush has gotten done. For christ's sake, it's 6+ years on and he still can't talk about anything other than 9/11 and terrorists. He's been absolutely worthless as a president. Actually, I can't say that, he's been tremendously harmful to the United States as a nation, and I fear that the harm he has done is going to eventually cost us in ways that we can't even fathom right now.

Re:Too much time on their hands?

[Scudsucker]

As a Republican, I agree. After countless failed attempts to "save the troops" and get out of Iraq and debating endlessly over pointless drivel, you'd think they would eventually notice their terrible approval ratings and start listening to the people, but they're relentless. I wish they would stop wasting my tax money.

The public has such a low opinion of Congress because it hasn't challenged Bush enough, not because it challenged him to much.

In other words

[copponex]

The deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of our own troops maimed and killed is not technically Cheney's fault, in purely legal terms. Nor the fault of the administration who supported and executed the war. I just have one question for these technical excuses for the immoral conduct of our entire government: where exactly does the buck stop? Who has the integrity to accept responsibility for their actions?

They LIED about EVERY threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed, and not only once and in government reports, but MULTIPLE times while addressing the public. The fact that they weren't under oath is actually more evidence that they knew they weren't just being vague or coy, but completely dishonest. Anyone who claims otherwise is as full of shit as they were/are.

Re:In other words

[DigiShaman]

60 Minutes had a piece on Rafid Ahmed Alwan (aka Curveball) that provided the WMD information to the Europians and our CIA. Turned out in short, he lied so he could stay out of Iraq. Yes folks, he conned the CIA whome provided bogus information to the Executive branch.

That all said, it think it's far fetch to call Cheney and Bush "liers" as that would imply they actively knew this information was bogus in the first place. Basically, it was incompetence not malice that lead us down the war path. But between us, I'm glad we got rid of Hussein. That bastard deserved to be hung!

Re:In other words

[bckrispi]

Basically, it was incompetence not malice that lead us down the war path.

And if you look at the 18th century definition of "Misdemenor", you'll see that incompetence is, indeed, an impeachable offense.

Re:In other words

[DigiShaman]

I doubt Congress got that memo. I mean, who the hell would impeach themselves?

Re:In other words

[Scudsucker]

60 Minutes had a piece on Rafid Ahmed Alwan (aka Curveball) that provided the WMD information to the Europians and our CIA. Turned out in short, he lied so he could stay out of Iraq. Yes folks, he conned the CIA whome provided bogus information to the Executive branch.

No dice. They had plenty of other, more reputable, intelligence that said most emphatically that Saddam did not have WMD's.

Re:In other words

[aallmighty]

i'm sure this will get ignored, or modded down at best...

but how is everyone so sure that "they LIED about EVERY threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed"???

do you have access to the highly classified intelligence that they received?? do you have access to classified information about what they found? tell me, what are the exact lies, and how do you know they were lies??? and please don't just say "it's general knowledge" or "where are the WMDs?"

if they received incorrect intelligence, that doesn't mean they lied. the truth is we don't know, because none of us have access to that information, but if we don't like war i guess it sure makes us feel a lot better to put very evil sounding words in all CAPS and blame someone we don't like

Re:In other words

[witte]

(At the risk of invoking godwin...)

Technically, the same sort of behaviour was sufficient to get plenty of German officials the noose at the Nueremberg trials.

All the world's a stage. Feh.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

They LIED, they LIED, they LIED. [fingers in ears] lalalala I can't hear you, no one ever in that much power is wrong, lalalala.

Face it, you've said it so many times you now believe it.

Re:In other words

[jc42]

And if you look at the 18th century definition of "Misdemenor", you'll see that incompetence is, indeed, an impeachable offense.

Yeah, but this is a couple of centuries later, and it's the US. We don't really know what impeachable offenses are now, because we haven't had many votes on impeachment. But we have two recent data points:

1. Refusing to talk in public about who you've been having sex with is an impeachable offense.

2. Lying to the public and Congress about what the intelligence organizations have learned, in order to start a war, is not an impeachable offense.

We really don't know much more than this about what's impeachable and what isn't. And, as someone else pointed out, what qualifies as impeachable is not a legal question; it's solely a question of what Congress will vote on. If Congress votes to impeach someone for wearing mismatched socks, then wearing mismatched socks is an impeachable offense.

Re:In other words

[jc42]

Technically, the same sort of behaviour was sufficient to get plenty of German officials the noose at the Nueremberg trials.

Yeah, but they had also committed another serious crime: They worked for the losing side. If their side had won, they would have been part of the administration of "the sole remaining superpower", and they wouldn't even have been tried for those crimes.

How many cases are known in which a political leader on the winning side of a war was tried for crimes committed during the war? I'd think there would actually be a few, but I don't recall reading of this ever happening.

[Citations needed] ;-)

Re:In other words

[thefergus]

Congress (or, if you prefer to be a bit more sensible about it, the American People) is responsible for holding the President and VP accountable. If you really want to go after impeachment for lying you subpoena the party to a Congressional hearing, you place them under oath and then you wait for them to lie.

Is it arguable that we should modify the oath of office to clarify that any address towards Congress or the American People should be under oath? That's for the People to decide.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Refusing to talk in public about who you've been having sex with is an impeachable offense. Actually, maybe you should read Wikipedia to see that the problem was Clinton did in fact talk in public about it:

The January 1998 press conference

After rumors of the scandal reached the news, Clinton publicly stated, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." In his Paula Jones deposition, he swore, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." [2] Months later, Clinton admitted that his relationship with Lewinsky was "wrong" and "not appropriate." In fact, Clinton engaged in oral sex with Ms. Lewinsky on several occasions.

Re:In other words

[Jeremi]

That all said, it think it's far fetch to call Cheney and Bush "liers" as that would imply they actively knew this information was bogus in the first place.

Actually, the truth is worse than that: they didn't know whether the information was true or not, and they didn't care to find out. The man told them what they wanted to hear, and that was good enough for them to base their war on. They wanted a war, and Curveball's testimony was a handy excuse.

But between us, I'm glad we got rid of Hussein. That bastard deserved to be hung!

Hussein was a bastard. The situation we have now is much worse. I don't see what's to be glad about trading a small problem for a big one.

Re:In other words

[Darby]

but how is everyone so sure that "they LIED about EVERY threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed"???

do you have access to the highly classified intelligence that they received?? do you have access to classified information about what they found? tell me, what are the exact lies, and how do you know they were lies??? and please don't just say "it's general knowledge" or "where are the WMDs?"

We know that's bullshit because they would have plastered it everywhere. Obviously they know that all the decent people and even, finally, a lot of the scum see through their bullshit and we know that they have no compunctions about revealing classified information for purely political ends.

So, yes, we know they lied through their teeth. All the sane people do anyhow. Not sure exactly what the fuck is wrong with your brain that you're so entirely incapable of basic rational thought, but you should really try to get that fixed. Or kill yourself. You'd do the world a huge service that way.

Re:In other words

[aallmighty]

i think it's hilarious that your post got modded up, when you responded without any valid point, and told me to kill myself. i guess we know they're evil, because they're so evil that they would have risked national security for political purposes makes perfect sense... i think anyone with half a brain would actually care to hear some facts before they made any decisions instead of just jumping on the bandwagon and acting like it's general knowledge just because it makes you feel better to say that oh, and i don't think you should kill yourself... i value human life

Re:In other words

[Darby]

i think it's hilarious that your post got modded up, when you responded without any valid point, and told me to kill myself.

Well, except that I actually did clearly state a point. Honesty ain't one of your virtues, though apparently.

i guess we know they're evil, because they're so evil that they would have risked national security for political purposes makes perfect sense...

No, that's a circular argument and is not at all what I said.

We know that they have already risked national security for political/economic purposes many times. Given that we already know that they are the types of people who would do that and have already done that, any arguments about how they wouldn't do something for any reasons of the sort are automatically invalidated.

Huge difference, but again it requires basic simple critical thinking skills.

  i don't think you should kill yourself... i value human life

So do I which is why, given how stupid and easily manipulated you are and how much death your idiocy has helped allow and promote I made the sane, decent rational decision to request that you do the one positive thing you're capable of doing to help out with the problem you helped cause through your refusal to think.

Frontline special about Dick Cheney on PBS

[Rick17JJ]

PBS recently had a one hour episode of Frontline about Dick Cheney on October 16, 2007. It well researched and went into great detail about Dick Cheney and David Addington's quest to expand presidential power in ways that were both legally and constitutionally questionable. Expanding presidential power was a major part of their efforts to perform domestic spying and to be allowed to use torture on suspected terrorists.

If I remember correctly, that episode of Frontline did not say very much, about the alleged manipulating of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. Most of its criticisms of Dick Cheney were for different reasons than what were mentioned in the Washington Post article.

• Cheny's Law Transcript of Oct. 16, 2007 episode of Frontline
• Cheny's Law DVD of Oct. 16, 2007 episode of Frontline

Mmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Another brilliant tactical maneuver by the Republicans punctuating a long string of defeats since '06. When the leftmost wing of the Democrat party grabs the reins, watch out! But the losing side is usually the one with the cleverest tactics, so this may be a flash in the pan. That's a depressing thought, since I HATE Democrats even more than I hate Republicans.

Mr. Simpson, what do you think of Ohio Democrats?

[Anonymous Coward]

D-OH!

This site == politics.slashdot.org

[roystgnr]

It's not as geeky as most of the stories here, but I think a narrow vote regarding the impeachment of the Vice President is relevant enough for the Politics section.

Land of the brave?

[Cervantes]

So, impeachment is proposed. Everyones going to vote against it.
And then the REPUBLICANS, see a chance to embarrass the DEMOCRATS, and decide to vote for it.
Because the DEMS would be shamed to express their views that the VP is a liar and a cheat.
And then the DEMS, not wanting to admit their shame, bury this in committee.
So the REPUB VP, a liar and a cheat, gets to keep lying and cheating.
And even though there's a valid proposal to look into it, no-one is willing to.

Wow. Land of the free, home of the brave, right?

Re:Land of the brave?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, impeachment is proposed. Everyones going to vote against it.
And then the REPUBLICANS, see a chance to embarrass the DEMOCRATS, and decide to vote for it.
Because the DEMS would be shamed to express their views that the VP is a liar and a cheat.
And then the DEMS, not wanting to admit their shame, bury this in committee.
So the REPUB VP, a liar and a cheat, gets to keep lying and cheating.
And even though there's a valid proposal to look into it, no-one is willing to.

Wow. Land of the free, home of the brave, right?


That pretty much sums it up.

A pivotal moment in my political education was watching a congressional debate over the equal rights amendment in the early days of C-SPAN. It quickly became clear that no one gave a rat's ass about what happened to the amendment.

All the Democrats cared about was that either they be seen as the virtuous ones who got it passed or that the Republicans be seen as the evil ones who killed it (either outcome was a win)

All that the Republicans cared about was that the looniest of the pro ERA folks got as much mike time as possible (so that everyone could see that they were nut jobs), and (oddly enough) that the looniest of the anti-ERA folks got lots of mike time. For some reason, this was victory. I still don't understand it, but looking back there is no doubt that this was a victory.

I'm not saying that this was when it started. It's just how far back I can remember. (and ... GET OFF MY LAWN!)

Re:Land of the brave?

[lamber45]

Some of the things a parliamentary body can do with a committee are pretty cool. A couple of examples:

1. In 1913, the dictator Victoriano Huerta was president of Mexico. He gave the congress an ultimatum: dissolve themselves, or he would dissolve them. The communication was read to a quorum of the body; they referred the matter to a committee and passed a motion to adjourn. Shortly thereafter most of the congressmen were arrested, but the congress was technically not dissolved because they had not acted on the motion.

2. Just a couple weeks ago, my city council voted unanimously to deny an application to erect a cell-phone tower in a certain residential neighborhood. After the vote, the chair of the committee stated that the committee had thought it might be a good idea to develop a master plan identifying areas that actually would be good locations for cell-phone towers within the city boundaries. The council president moved to "receive the report", which means exactly nothing.

Most governmental bodies (both legsilative and judicial) have a lot of different ways to not do something. Sometimes that's a good thing; both sides in a dispute can be angry at the government until they both grow up, or move to another city, or something.

Re:!technology

[pilsner.urquell]

Politics effects everybody lives no matter if you are Liberal, Conservative or Liberian. The political landscape is and inescapable fact of life whether you vote or don't, are politically active or not or pay attention or just blow it off. Politicians are held accountable by there constituents some of those people geeks like us.

not really a debate...

[saleenS281]

What is there to debate? Impeach already.

Re:not really a debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

He'll never be impeached.

You'll just have to live with the last impeached president: Clinton. :-)

Re:not really a debate...

[DragonTHC]

why is it always AC's who are embarrassed that they still believe in dick&dubya?

If you still like bush or cheney, you are mentally ill or criminal or both.

Re:!technology

[ROMRIX]

Dennis Kucinich once saw a UFO.
HELLO! UFO = Technology!

Why is this on /.?

[Nezer]

Why on Earth would /. be posting this on the main page? What does this really have to do with Geekdom?

I know that Slashdot doesn't have a neutral editorial staff (as evidenced from the various Linux vs. Windows debates that pop up every few hours around here) but, up until now, all political content had some sort of tech issue embedded within. I'm not sure how I'm going to like a /. that posts such politically charged articles where some technically-themed topic is at hand. For news like this I would rather stick with CNN.com.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it really cheapens the Slashdot brand in a way that stands a high-risk of alienating the core visitors (the bread and butter).

Normally I would just sit here and stew about it quietly but this disturbs me greatly and, frankly, I have some karma to burn.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[DerekLyons]

I know that Slashdot doesn't have a neutral editorial staff (as evidenced from the various Linux vs. Windows debates that pop up every few hours around here) but, up until now, all political content had some sort of tech issue embedded within.

Where have you been? Slashdot created the politics section four years ago - during the run up to the '04 election. They've been posting blatantly political articles ever since. Read this search of Slashdot articles under the 'US' tag for example.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[Optic7]

Every time something political or otherwise not directly related to technology is posted on Slashdot someone comes out with "why is this on Slashdot?".

How did anyone get this idea that Slashdot is not supposed to post political or non-technology stories? For one, the slogan of the site is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Second, there is a Politics main section on Slashdot, and the slogan for it (look at the very top of this page) is "Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters." Third, this story came from the Firehose, so it was likely voted up by Slashdot readers themselves.

To me, all this indicates that Slashdot posts and promotes stories that intelligent people might be interested in reading and discussing.

Besides all that, Slashdot gives you the ability to filter out from the front page stories from any section that you don't like, right here: Customize Slashdot's Display

Hey, at least it isn't like Digg.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[frank_adrian314159]

Normally I would just sit here and stew about it quietly but this disturbs me greatly...

Nobody is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to read. There are filters. The FAQ says why they post certain articles (and hint... it says that the site is eclectic and not simply "News for Nerds"). Nor is there any evidence that Slashdot has lost readers (or influence in the technical community - if they ever had any) in the time since they brought their politics section on line.

So given all of this, why should I (because I, too, have karma to burn and *I* like the politics section) care that it disturbs you greatly? More to the point, why do you keep reading if it disturbs you so much? I'm sure there are many other technical sites that deal exclusively in technology issues. Hell, there may even be a conservative/libertarian techno site out there (since you dislike the non-neutral editorial staff) that might be better suited to your tastes. In fact, since this is the internet and all you need is a server and high-speed connection to do it, why don't you set up your own site? In fact, the folks at Slashdot are even kind enough to give you the software to do so!

In short, please stop whining.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[slashdotmsiriv]

"Politics for geeks. Your vote matters."

"News for geeks. Stuff that matters"

Politics matters, so zip it ...

Re:Why is this on /.?

[whoop]

Click this please.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't whine, show some personal editorial control: DON'T READ THE DAMN POST!!! No one came up to you at your computer, pulled a gun and said "read this or die". If no one responded, these kinds of things would end up not being posted. Clearly they get a lot of attention, so many Slashdot readers want to see it.

Really, you sound like you are complaining to you mommy about the icky peas on your dinner plate. Grow up.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[Fantastic Lad]

Eventually the events disturbing the world will grow so black and so vile and so wide-reaching that the warm & fuzzy wombs of studied ignorance in which so many choose to live will be encroached upon and flooded.

Good. The deliberately blind are largely to blame for this whole state of affairs. Let them drown.

-FL

Re:Why is this on /.?

[Blakey Rat]

I guess what I'm trying to say is it really cheapens the Slashdot brand in a way that stands a high-risk of alienating the core visitors (the bread and butter).

Considering the Politics section has been around for FOUR YEARS NOW, and considering the Politics articles are frequently the most commented-upon... somehow I don't think Slashdot is alienating anybody. Where have you been?

Besides, all the core visitors (except you, apparently) know how to turn off sections they don't like in the Preferences page.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[induhvidual]

This thread represents a sort of "tipping point" for me. The uninformed, mis-informed and flat out childish posts far outnumber the relative handful of posts worth reading. It is part of a trend I have been noticing more and more on /., and can no longer ignore. The simple solution: I won't waste any more time visiting this site in the future. Signing off now. Be careful out there.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[DerekLyons]

And this proves what? That you are too stupid to know when the "run up to the '04 election" was?

Re:Why is this on /.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they don't distinguish between civics geeks and tech-nerds. Nor between either of them, and any well-esteemed clique. Take a look at any astronomy thread... you'll see four "funny" comments for every one that's interesting or insightful. The real nerds are actually cruising websites about astronomy and science. This is a place for queerish kids who are hooked on videogames, pretending their lack of social skills comes from studying too much.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm headed that wy myself. THe posters here for the most part have proven themselves idiots. Impeach Cheney? Show me one CRIME he comitted? Cite specific evidence, time place and action, and the specific code of US Law that he violated. You know what? You cannot do so in a way that passes even cursory examination. Kucinich's "charges" are laughable, and boild down to "He did somethign I dont like, arrest him".

Bush has pissed me off with his decisions and ineptness, and Cheney is probably not a nice guy either, but thats a difference of opinion on how things should go. From what I can see neither of them has violated the law - there is the presumption of innocence (wich all the loony left here forgets), and the need to convict beyond reasonable doubt. And Bush and Cheny can claim, given that Congress saw and voted for war on the same info and had oversight, a degree of executive allowance for judgement as codified inthe Constitution, which constitutes reasonable doubt quite easily.

The lefty loonie crowd (Not Liberals in the old style like me) here seems to want to criminalze things every time someone deos something they dont like.

Buncha little slashbot morons here that are paving the way to dictatorship with their criminalization of speech and thier PC and speech codes. And their ignoring the consequences of their actions.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[master_p]

Politics is more important than the latest technological gizmo. You, as a self-proclaimed geek, should have more interest in things that average Joe does not know or want to deal with, since you are more educated and better trained in analysis and synthesis than the average Joe.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[alan_dershowitz]

I'll tell you why I think this, the entire reason Slashdot exists and is popular is because it targets to a specific audience and gives specialized news. Politics are a GENERAL HUMAN INTEREST topic, and as such of questionable value to a specialized site. I can go out onto the net and get a universe of news and debate on politics. The reason why I come HERE is because I want "news for NERDS." The topic at hand here has NOTHING directly to do with "news for nerds" because I don't see anything of SPECIFIC interest to me AS a presumed nerd. This does not exclude politics, but does limit it to a subset of politics, that which would foster debate on specifically "nerd" issues.

Furthermore, I take umbrage with your assertion that Slashdot is for debates that intelligent people might want to discuss. "Nerd" isn't a well-defined term, but it definitely is false that a nerd is just an intelligent person. I'm really interested in the history of the Olympics, and I'd like to think I've got a pretty good grasp on it as the result of a lot of reading and undergraduate study. I'd love to get into discussions about it with other smart people interested in the history of the Olympics, but that is not an appropriate topic for a "news for nerds" site, despite it requiring a high degree of knowledge and intelligence. Also, I don't care about "Firefly" or most sci-fi. It's not a prerequisite for intelligence, although interest in scifi is one of those things that gets you currency in the nerd category. "nerd" != "intelligent person."

OK, so people voted up politics stories, but no one is only a nerd, and are interested in many things. It is not their responsibility to keep the site on track, that is the responsibility of editors. So I don't blame people for being interested in politics, indeed I am as well. I blame the slow drift of the site on the last presidential election and the creation of the "politics" section which in its current form I believe is a mistake.

you may not agree with me, but I wanted to address your statement because I believe that by picking up general topics, Slashdot is diminishing its value. You can already witness the increasingly frustrating and snarky debate that goes on in every Politics post. It draws, feeds and creates new trolls, which in turn consume mod points that in turn cannot be used to increase the quality of discussion in EVERY OTHER PART OF THE SITE. There are actual, negative consequences to the entire site due to the inclusion of the politics section because it is a troll magnet that eats up mods points by downmodding.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a desire to impeach and remove from office, not to imprison, not to lynch, not to fine.

Most of your argument centers around the lack of an actual "crime" which is ironic, given Bush Cheney's belief, which they have aggressively asserted, that as heads of the executive branch (or with Cheney as someone outside the three branches) the law doesn't apply to them, that whatever they do is by definition lawful.

Looking at what has happened the last six years, and what could happen in the time remaining, what are our options in trying to prevent further disaster and damage to our country? I ask you in all sincerity.

Near single digit approval ratings for democrats

[Adam8g]

With democrats in charge of the house and senate, approval ratings are near single digits - far worse than President Bush.

Little wonder?

As for the riotously miss-leading heading - - -

I guess when folks are fed a diet of 'news' by the drive by media....

Well - no one ever accused techy nerds of rational thought and objective views.

And this story has WHAT TO DO with the Slashdot community?

Hummm

Why exactly is impeachment "off the table"?

[ngunton]

I have never heard a clear explanation of exactly why Pelosi and Reid are so against the concept of impeachment. I mean, they actually seem hostile to it. Why is this? The only argument I've seen is that they are somehow "afraid of a backlash" but that seems like a very flimsy reason given the obvious sentiment rising in this country. It seems almost as if the Democrats are somehow actually on Bush's side in some way, and not on the side of "the people" any more. It's almost like the "Opposition party" got taken over by a bunch of Republicans who now take great pains to squelch anything that feels like actual opposition. And they make noises about stopping Bush, but then roll over at every opportunity and give him exactly what he asked for.

I really, really dislike Bush, Cheney & Co. But I am truthfully starting to dislike the Democrats even more, if that's even possible - because it's somehow even worse to be stabbed in the back by a supposed friend than it is to be kicked in the face by your enemy (which you kind of expect). I feel like this country is now being betrayed just as much by the inaction of the Democrats as by the actions of the Republicans.

Re:Why exactly is impeachment "off the table"?

[FunWithKnives]

It all makes perfect sense when you consider that both major parties are in the pocket of big business. You see, this war may be an atrocity for Iraqi citizens, a lost cause for the military and a supreme embarrassment for the American People, but it means only one thing for corporations: profit. The Iraqi oil industry is being privatised, the electricity (what electricity is available, that is) is being privatised.. I wouldn't doubt one bit if they pull a "Chile" and attempt to privatise the water system at some point in the near future. Iraq is now a neoliberal experiment to see just how much cash can be pulled out of pain and suffering, and it is being backed by both parties, because they both have their hands in the cookie-jar. Frankly, I find it amazing that no one seems to be seeing it, as it's quite brazenly obvious. I've been forced to entertain the notion that maybe it's not that people aren't noticing, but instead that they are simply more concerned with conspicuous consumption. This is the reason that the consumer culture which has plagued our country for the last century was created, I suppose.

Either way, from my point of view, Kucinich is the only candidate who is worth anything at all out of the current crop. There is no way in hell that he will get the democratic endorsement, but once the primaries are over with, if he chooses to run independently, he will get my vote. Other than that, I will write in "Thomas Paine" and be done with it.

Re:Why exactly is impeachment "off the table"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never heard a clear explanation of exactly why Pelosi and Reid are so against the concept of impeachment. I mean, they actually seem hostile to it. Why is this?

Uh, because they're pussies?

Re:Why exactly is impeachment "off the table"?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

While Senator Clinton, Kerry, et al. mostly voted for war...

Where's the Democratic hands in the jar? What do the Democrats have to lose from a pull out in Iraq?

Re:Why exactly is impeachment "off the table"?

[Paladin144]

There are two possibilities:

One is that the Democrats are completely in the pocket of the corporate oligarchy and have no intention of standing up to the Cheney Regime ever because there is no real difference between the two parties and because they share a goal of world domination and fascism. This would be cause for revolution.

The second possibility is explained by this video of Ralph Nader talking about impeachment. He says, essentially, that the Democrats are afraid that if they begin impeachment proceedings Bush will attack Iran, declare a state of emergency, institute martial law, suspend the Constitution and refuse to hold the 2008 elections. This would be cause for revolution.

Either way, we're in deep shit.

Re:Why exactly is impeachment "off the table"?

[dabraham]

There are two possibilities:

or, you know, more.

I'm assuming that the Democratic leadership believes that in a senate trial with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding*, they won't get 2/3 of the senate to vote to convict. I happen to agree with what that assessment, but that's neither here nor there.

so

3) The last impeachment trial took over a month, and they'd rather get some work done instead.

4) They'd rather look like they're trying to get work done.

5) They'd rather look like people not interested in impeachment, than look like people who can't get it done.

6) They believe that the harm a (trial + not guilty verdict) would do to the country outweighs any possible benefits.

I'm sure there are more.

* It's unclear who presides if the VP is impeached. The Chief Justice presides when the president is impeached, but the President of the Senate (the VP) presides over other impeachments. I can't imagine anyone would be happy with Cheney presiding over his own impeachment trial, even him. But it seems to mean that he'd have to step down as President of the Senate so the President of the Senate Pro Tempore would preside. Ignoring the question of how happy Cheney would be to step down, who would that be? Harry Reid? Would it be a fight in itself?

Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[ukemike]

Worrying about who would replace an impeached Bush is beside the point. The point is that Bush, Cheney, et. al. BROKE THE LAW. Repeatedly. The congress has a responsibility to impeach such behavior because failing to do so condones the illegal behavior. A terrible precedent has been made. A cabal can steal two presidential elections, trash the constitution, and start illegal agressive wars of conquest, and that's a-okay.

-- Democracy in America July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001 R I P

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[bckrispi]

^ Mod parent way the hell up!

Pelosi did our republic a great disservice when she said that "Impeachment is off the table." Impeachment isn't a matter of convenience or political expediency, it is a matter of congressional Duty. Now, I realize that the 2/3 Senate vote to remove either Bush or Cheney from office will never be reached. But by not trying - by not at least bringing articles of impeachment out of the People's House, congress is effectively saying to us and future generations of Americans that the Executive Branch is free to operate above the Law. This is simply unacceptable. We need our Children to open their history books and see Bush and Cheney's name next to Clinton and Nixon. They need to see that the Laws that govern them govern ALL Americans.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[k_187]

You realize that the Democrats expect to win the next election and want the same powers that Bush et al. have had.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[dynamo]

HELL YES.

mod parent WAY UP.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Nate B.]

Nixon? I'm not here to defend the guy, but he was never impeached. He resigned in the face of a likely impeachment proceeding.

You may have Nixon confused with Andrew Johnson the 17th president who was impeached. In fact impeachment proceedings failed to make it out of committee in 1867 and then impeachment was successful in 1868. Johnson was acquitted by one vote in the Senate by
Edmund G. Ross of Kansas.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why should they be tarred with the bush legacy? Clinton and Nixon were at least competent statesmen, and Clinton's impeachment was a result of a 3 year witchhunt.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Kadin2048]

Nixon? I'm not here to defend the guy, but he was never impeached. He resigned in the face of a likely impeachment proceeding.

You may have Nixon confused with Andrew Johnson the 17th president who was impeached. In fact impeachment proceedings failed to make it out of committee in 1867 and then impeachment was successful in 1868. Johnson was acquitted by one vote in the Senate by
Edmund G. Ross of Kansas. Not to be terribly pedantic, but that sentence as written doesn't parse correctly.

What I think you meant was "You may have Nixon confused with Andrew Johnson, the 17th president, who was impeached."

(He was the 17th President, and was impeached; he was not the 17th President to be impeached. As of right now, I think it's only he and Bill Clinton who have actually faced impeachment proceedings, although there may have been others, like Nixon, who resigned when it became clear that they would be.)

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, to use an "et. al." you must name at least two people. Fail.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[bckrispi]

Nixon? I'm not here to defend the guy, but he was never impeached. He resigned in the face of a likely impeachment proceeding.

I'm well aware of that. But by the time he resigned, articles of impeachment and removal from office were all but a certainty. You cannot discuss the history of presidential impeachment without mentioning Nixon, as his actions demonstrated the very reason why Congress is vested with this power.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[aproposofwhat]

Sorry, but it's not "et. al.", it's "et al.", from the Latin "et alia", meaning "and others".

Secondly, "Bush and others", or "ignorant inaccurate Grammar Nazi and others" are perfectly valid constructs, so I don't know where you get the idea that "you must name two people".

Double failure - please fuck off and die.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[onefriedrice]

> Pelosi did our republic a great disservice when she said that "Impeachment
> is off the table." Impeachment isn't a matter of convenience or political
> expediency, it is a matter of congressional Duty. Now, I realize that the
> 2/3 Senate vote to remove either Bush or Cheney from office will never be
> reached.

So you're suggesting our Congress waste more time trying to achieve what they have chance of achieving? I suggest to you that this is perhaps _the_ reason why Congress has such low approval ratings: They're wasting time, going against the desires of the majority, and haven't really accomplished anything while they've been in power. Seeing as how they still have lower approval ratings than even the Bush administration, perhaps a few of our Congress men and women themselves should be more likely candidates for impeachment?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[StormyWeather]

Wow, an impeachment. Could this Dem controlled legislative branch possibly accomplish less? They are too busy trying to tear down Bush to accomplish anything. Maybe that's why their approval numbers are in the toilet too.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[moogs]

haha! you said duty. that sounds like doody! haha you said doody!

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, it's "et al.", not "et. al.". I.e. only the second word is an abbreviation, being short for "alii". "Et alii" is a Latin phrase meaning "and others", so no, enumeration of two or more items is not required, just one. You fail it at pedantry.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[shystershep]

Clinton's impeachment was a result of a 3 year witchhunt

It happened during the witchhunt, but it was a result of him perjuring himself. If he hadn't done that, there would not have been any impeachment, witchhunt or no.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[timmarhy]

right, so when clinton's impeached it's a witch hunt, but with cheney it's not? your tunnel vision is amazing sir.

Nixon was a monster, he deserves a tarring and feathering all of his own.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[leftie]

You realize real liberals want NOBODY to have the kind of power Bush has, right?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Nate B.]

You're correct. I did forget the commas and I'm usually quite pedantic with myself. That's what I get for not previewing.

Nixon is the only president to have resigned his presidency. Several have died while in office which have allowed several vice-presidents to be sworn in as president. To date we have not had the situation where both president and vice-president have been incapacitated at the same time to allow the Speaker of the House to be sworn in as president.

Only Clinton and A. Johnson have actually been impeached and each was found not guilty. I don't know how many, if any other, presidents have had articles of impeachment proposed but not actually drawn against them.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Zeinfeld]

Pelosi did our republic a great disservice when she said that "Impeachment is off the table."

Thats a mistaken attitude. Impeachment without the possibility of convicting is mere posturing. We don't have the votes in the Senate at this point so impeachment is off the table.

Impeachment has to be kept in reserve as the last recourse. There is a lot of very stupid talk going on in Washington and the only thing that seems likely to stop Bush from acting on it is the knowledge that history is not going to judge well, the first President to be impeached and convicted.

The current talk in Washington goes 'Iran is a dangerous threat to the whole region, therefore the US must bomb now, the US can bomb Iran with impunity as it is certain that they will not respond'. It is difficult to know if the speakers are merely delusional or stupid. If Iran is not going to respond to an act of war by the US it is absolutely no threat to the region.

It is a very dangerous situation. The governments in both countries have weak, unpopular leaders who would like to distract attention. Both governments would like a war, both would like the other side to start it.

When the US bombed Libya in 1986, Libya retaliated by bombing Pan-Am 103. If the US bombs Iran it seems much more likely than not that Iran will retaliate with a full scale war. Unlike the Libyans (or Serbs) the Iranians have a decent sized military and no shortage of US targets to attack. The have a massive arsenal of Chinese designed missiles, including surface to ship missiles that recently defeated Israeli countermeasures.

If the Bush administration was to launch an attack the US could easily suffer thousands of casualties in the first few days. The Iranian government is in a much stronger position because they really don't care how many of their people die. The US is not going to tolerate the loss of a capital ship or the casualties that would result from leveling the green zone. Not on top of the 4,000 deaths in the Iraq 'cakewalk', not when Bush as 25% approval ratings and even lower credibility ratings.

Thats why impeachment has to be kept in reserve. Without the threat of impeachment Bush and Cheney are fully capable of creating a far worse mess than they have created already.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Nate B.]

Almost impeached and impeached are sort of like almost pregnant and pregnant--one either is or isn't. Although impeachment against Nixon was a foregone conclusion had he remained in office, the fact is that he was not impeached, while Clinton and Andrew Johnson were. The result was that Nixon is the only president to resign from office which puts him in a league by himself.

I was responding to the implication that Nixon and Clinton are in the same category of having been impeached while they are not.

I agree that Nixon did fit the reason impeachment should be used while in the cases of Andrew Johnson and Clinton they faced impeachment more from a position of idealogical opposition than for an actual high crime or misdemeanor which is exactly how it should not be used.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[aproposofwhat]

but it was a result of him perjuring himself.

Not quite perjury, more terminological inexactitude - I can't count the number of times I've had to explain to my wife that 'it was only a blow job - I did not have sexual relations with that woman.', especially after office Christmas parties.

:P

I think conspiring to take your country to war based upon false premises (for your own profit and that of your friends, no less) tops a quick office gobble in the impeachment stakes - don't you agree?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[mmarlett]

I think you're having trouble with definitions.

A witch hunt is when one creates a fictional enemy and then goes looking for real people to foot the bill. See McCarthyism.

Clinton was actually the victim of a prolonged "fishing expedition" Which is "Legal grasping at straws; the use of pre-trial investigation (discovery) or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence you can use against your adversary." Basically, they asked him enough questions about enough stuff that they eventually were able to paint him into an embarrassing corner that no president in U.S. history had every been painted into -- i.e., publicly explain your mistresses or lie on the stand. We all know now what his error was.

Cheney is not a witch hunt, nor is it a fishing expedition. There is real and substantial evidence that that man is just a little less scrupulous than Satan. He doesn't make Faustian deals; he insists on waterboarding suspected rag heads until they confess to wearing their mother's underpants. And, perhaps, the problem is that Cheney has made a Faustian deal on behalf of the country, trading our liberty for security that doesn't actually make us more secure.

But Nixon was a pussycat compared to Cheney. So he broke into the Democratic headquarters and spied on them; so he made the White House Secret Service detail wear uniforms reminiscent of the Beefeaters; so he was a bit of an asshole who walked all over our civil liberties -- he did not start any wars and he did not funnel any contracts to any companies that he was a major stockholder of. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I'd never go so far as to compare him to Cheney. It's like comparing a drunk driver to a serial killer. Neither are good, but one is wantonly, ridiculously worse than the other.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[node 3]

It happened during the witchhunt, but it was a result of him perjuring himself. If he hadn't done that, there would not have been any impeachment, witchhunt or no. No, he was acquitted of perjury. I don't think you know what the term "impeachment" means. Impeachment doesn't mean you did something wrong, it means you've been *charged* with doing something wrong.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[josh_db]

America is not a democratic nation. The founders of our nation and the writers of the Constitution knew that a true democracy, which entails direct rule by the people, wouldn't work. They formed a republic.

So atleast recognize that we're not a democracy - We're a republic. And yes, there is a difference.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[node 3]

So, in other words, you don't want to charge Bush and Cheney with a crime, because if you do, they may commit an even *worse* crime?

Two things spring to mind. The first is the moral depravity of such a stance. I understand, however, that sometimes practicality can trump morality. Although I don't think this is one of those cases, let's assume it is. If Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted, how are they going to start the war? If they are impeached and acquitted, how does that help them if they commit this even *worse* crime? (This worse crime being essentially identical to the first, BTW.)

And if the fear of impeachment is the only thing preventing a war with Iran, if they really want the war, won't they just wait until impeachment would essentially be "too late" from a practical standpoint?

You exemplify the problem with the current Democratic party. Far too many Democrats look at the practical side, when the people just want them to do the right thing. I'd *MUCH* rather the House and Senate try and fail, then for them to not try at all.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[toddestan]

You realize that the Democrats expect to win the next election and want the same powers that Bush et al. have had.

Best I can tell, the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to lose the next election. Luckily for them, the Republicans seem to be doing exactly the same thing.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to elaborate on your wild claims of lawbreaking? Or are you just spouting off things you've read on left-wing blogs? If you can't specifically site one instance , then stfu.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[mqduck]

You realize that the Democrats expect to win the next election and want the same powers that Bush et al. have had. Indeed so. Which is precisely why they won't impeach him, which is precisely why this is so enraging. Actually, we can even back up a bit further: Holding the president accountable for serious violations of national and international law (as compared to having his dick sucked) is a dangerous president to set from the point of view of the government, since things like controlling the world through coercion and force is sort of its job.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[notamisfit]

True. Too bad there haven't been any real liberals in American politics since Goldwater. I think I see a few on the 'Net here and there. Maybe they oughta sue the progressives for trademark infringement.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[notamisfit]

Wouldn't Johnson have been acquitted by at least one-third of the Senate votes?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Doc Ruby]

Clinton didn't perjure. He asked for a court definition of "sex", was given one that specified mutual genital contact, and truthfully denied he had "sex". He gets a lot of heat for the (equally legit) "depends on what the definition of 'is' is", but really he did not perjure because it did depend on what the definition of "sex" was.

His blowjob wasn't "morally reprehensible". Lying to cover up a blowjob isn't "morally reprehensible". It's a little immoral.

But compared with lying us into war, it's not very immoral at all.

If you think Clinton's lie was so reprehensible it merited impeachment, don't you think that Bush's lie makes impeachment an obvious necessity?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[jabster]

Really? They've broken the law numerous times?

Sounds serious.

So why aren't you're Democrat buddies in the House bringing impeachment articles up for debate in the house? I mean, the Republicans even voted for Rep. Kucinich's motion so that everyone could finally publically debate the issue on the floor of the House.

Why did the Democrats not take this golden opportunity to finally begin the impeachment process?

-john

From the Weekly Standard website:
"While the roll calls are not yet available, it seems there were plenty of Democrats who voted to go forward with impeachment when they thought it would fail, who suddenly voted against impeachment when it mattered."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/11/dems_outmaneuvered_on_impeachm.asp

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Doc Ruby]

It's a constitutional democratic republic. The three roots of our government are by no means mutually exclusive.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

His blowjob wasn't "morally reprehensible". Lying to cover up a blowjob isn't "morally reprehensible". It's a little immoral.

Nah, telling the truth would be the immoral thing. Lying to protect a lady is considered the moral thing to do, or at least it was when he was a young man.

If you think Clinton's lie was so reprehensible it merited impeachment, don't you think that Bush's lie makes impeachment an obvious necessity?

Only if it ends with a cigarette and a blindfold.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

So he broke into the Democratic headquarters and spied on them; so he made the White House Secret Service detail wear uniforms reminiscent of the Beefeaters; so he was a bit of an asshole who walked all over our civil liberties -- he did not start any wars and he did not funnel any contracts to any companies that he was a major stockholder of.

No, that was LBJ

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

> It happened during the witchhunt, but it was a result of him perjuring himself.

And if it weren't for the witch hunt, he wouldn't have perjured himself.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Lord Kano]

The congress has a responsibility to impeach such behavior because failing to do so condones the illegal behavior.

Exactly. Let one President get away with perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury then just look at what the next one does.

LK

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Draconius42]

Neither do real conservatives, for what it's worth. Real conservatives favor a federal government that is as small and weak, as compared to state and local governments, as possible. But then, the Parties are hardly representative of the values they supposedly embody.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[DarkProphet]

No, I don't realize that. Enlighten me with some credible references. How did you get +5 for your comment? Idiots are the majority. Majority rules. Congratulations. Everyone expects to unconstitutionally abuse the American people, because this administration has already guaranteed it. The true winning candidate of the 2008 presidential election in the one that refuses those "rights" and relinquishes control of the country to the only people that have any sayso -- that is, to the American citizenry, not corporations. Its a shame that no candidate will ever suggest such a thing, because extremists on one side or another ( the left or right) will surely assassinate the man before his voice could be heard.

Here's to you America! Here's to ensuring that our progeny will be even more ignorant and subservient than we are! Yay! Didja catch the new episode of "The Unit"?. OMG!!! Here's to hoping that real life will never get in the way of our water-cooler banter!

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly think Bush et al. does not plan on giving up those powers.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Scudsucker]

Let one President get away with perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury then just look at what the next one does.

Too bad Clinton didn't actually do any of those.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[RulerOf]

The point is that Bush, Cheney, et. al. BROKE THE LAW.

Unfortunately, that isn't enough to merit an impeachment. Or a trial. And Presidents in their second term don't need to bother caring about approval ratings either.

If only he would cheat on his wife and lie about it... THEN we could get him out of office.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

What law did they break? Can you prove it. A journalist with an agenda saying it was so doesn't make it so. And again...what law did they break. If you are referring to wire tapping...conservative lawyers/judges say it's not illegal...liberal ones say it was illegal....wow..earth shattering.....

Again..you have no proof...you have conjecture and opinion.

Try again...

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[foreverdisillusioned]

Funny, I said the same thing back in '00.

...I hope to FUCKING god that isn't some kind of precedent.

/Florida voter

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[dpastern]

Amen, although I disagree with the bit about America being a democracy - it isn't and never was. Read some Noam Chomsky books and you'll see why :-)

Dave

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[vuffi_raa]

yes, a blowjob and a cigar has never killed thousands upon thousands of people.................

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[gordo3000]

obviously, you never read anything by Homer :-)

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Antique Geekmeister]

Let's not forget that that "quick office gobble" was with an office intern. That's a sexual harassment issue of which Clinton had previously accused, by Paula Jones, and whose accusations were discounted. It's nowhere near as bad as starting a really stupid war, but it's definitely grounds for impeachment. Like Al Capone being convicted on tax evasion, the perjury charge was the hook for convicting Clinton of a long, long-standing practice of sexual misbevior against subordinates.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[niktemadur]

You realize that the Democrats expect to win the next election and want the same powers that Bush et al. have had.

Seriously, the thought had not even occurred to me and is quite a revelation. If what you say is true, I can think of three scenarios:

1. The Pipe Dream: All that power may be used by the Democrat 2008 victor to undo a great deal of the damage done in the previous eight years. Think of an imperial presidency using this power to declare global warming a national emergency, restore civil rights, maybe even impose severe restrictions on Clear Channel and Fox propaganda, go after Haliburton, etc, then restore the Constitution to its' rightful state.
2. The Nightmare: You know the proverb, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". After a year we could witness a Bush in all but name, with a donkey lapel pin.
3. Politics As Usual, Democrat Version: Most of the boat will not be rocked. While Iraq remains a black void of attention and resources with no end in sight, corporate-sponsored neoliberalism will continue to pillage with no checks and balances, this time with a Democrat rubber stamp of approval. However, issues like stem cell research and global warming will be officially recognized, some measures will be taken. Ops like extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, etc, will most likely be dismantled. Talks with Iran, North Korea and Hammas will be established.

If past experience repeats itself, when the Democrat candidate takes over the Oval Office in 2009, Politics As Usual, Democrat Version will prevail.

A ray of hope: Considering the successes of Keith Olbermann, The Daily Show and the like, it seems that the MSM is realizing that far-right stances are not as viable anymore. Tucker Carlson may be canceled soon, a step in the right direction! Maybe we will live to see the day when the lunatic fringe, war-mongering chicken-hawk, jingoistic far right pundits will fade from most TV news shows, off to the wasteland wrought by Ruppert Murdoch. Maybe then the MSM can take a step or two to become, you know, mainstream (read: saner).

That said, anything's better than the last seven years, but I don't want the Democrats to even get close to the effing ring of Sauron that Cheney, Rove and Bush have forged. Temptation of this sort usually never leads to anything good.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[nadaou]

If a vote is won or lost by one vote, it is every voter who cast a vote for or against who cast the deciding vote.

Regardless if they went against their party.
We do not act alone.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[niktemadur]

Precisely why they won't impeach him, which is precisely why this is so enraging.

Too true.

Beltway mindsets regard the Clinton impeachment as revenge (petulant little fucking children) for Nixon, quid pro quo has been achieved, Democrats ponder that accounts are squared, don't open that door again.

Who wins? Regard this case as a tie achieved in 1998, as good today as a tremendous victory for Cheney/Bush, if not the GOP in general. Who loses? The rest of us (and I mean the whole world).

Still, I'd rather see a filibustered and flummoxed Democrat-controlled Congress than a full GOP monopoly in Washington. For the time being, we have to console ourselves with the fact that Senate and House investigation committees are in Democrat hands, without which, for example, Alberto Gonzalez would probably still be in office and Rove in the White House. If you can't or won't decapitate, at least chip away. Small potatoes, I know, but to use another metaphor, at least brakes are being applied to the runaway freight train.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[mqduck]

For the time being, we have to console ourselves with the fact that Senate and House investigation committees are in Democrat hands, without which, for example, Alberto Gonzalez would probably still be in office and Rove in the White House. If you can't or won't decapitate, at least chip away. Small potatoes, I know, but to use another metaphor, at least brakes are being applied to the runaway freight train. But what difference does it really make if the Bush gang is the one actually in control of those offices (wait, did they hold the same offices? - can't remember)? If I were cynical (which I am) I'd say that these were just symbolic attacks on the Bush regime, only to appease a good chunk of of the masses (you know, the people who thought the guy last election who called for increasing the number of troops and never once said that he'd actually stop the war - John Kerry - was an anti-war candidate).

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking on behalf of the worldwide communist front: you're right. We've so obviously won, motherfucker.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[niktemadur]

I get the feeling that the inevitable conclusion lurking behind your argument is that the political system is in need of a radical overhaul, and I wholeheartedly agree.

I still can't believe that in the Internet age, when all information anybody could possibly want to find out is at the reach of the fingertips, when perspectives from all over the world, of all events, can be accessed from the office or bedroom, we still suffer from massive ignorance and one-dimensional, pre-digested opinions on issues that directly impact everyones' lives.

To radically change the political system in any country, in a meaningful way, this willful ignorance must be eradicated, and the only way to achieve that is through education. Then look at the education system, cranking out generation after generation of perpetually bored masses, never having learned to think, only to memorize (and soon forget) sterile facts - the ideal mold for the creation of the malleable consumer citizen, good little citizen.

You overhaul the educational system - knowledge is power. You replace one figurehead with another - the cycle keeps on spinning.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[netglen]

Nixon bridged the gap with China. Cheney influenced the war with Iraq and now wants a war with Iran for the name of profits for his toad buddies at Haliburton.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[mqduck]

I agree with all your points and don't really have anything to add off the the top of my head. But I'll try anyway. ;)

I still can't believe that in the Internet age, when all information anybody could possibly want to find out is at the reach of the fingertips, when perspectives from all over the world, of all events, can be accessed from the office or bedroom, we still suffer from massive ignorance and one-dimensional, pre-digested opinions on issues that directly impact everyones' lives. Perhaps this is part of the reason why we're still encouraged to view corporate (that is to say, for-profit) media as the only trustworthy source? I mean, for all its flaws, Wikipedia generally gives you a much more informative and fair description than the corporate media does. Either thing I said is quite sad.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Considering the successes of Keith Olbermann, The Daily Show and the like, it seems that the MSM is realizing that far-right stances are not as viable anymore. Tucker Carlson may be canceled soon, a step in the right direction!
You do realize given how blatantly partisan Keith, Jon and the like are, that only Tucker will be the to say the emperor has no clothes if a Dem. President was in power. Talks with Iran, North Korea and Hammas will be established.
Been there done that still nothing changed. N. Korea cheated on their part of the deal or have you forgotten the '90s already? No the real answer as to what the future will be like is meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Oh some of the European leaders may say some nice things about whomever is elected, but the substantive issues that divide Europe and the US will remain.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[lightsaber777]

Yup. People need to be held responsible for their actions. Even if they are not guilty of the allegations, it should still be tried. I'm still ticked that Clinton got off for lying under oath.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you say the same thing when the Republican controlled legislative branch went on an equally pointless witch-hunt and impeached Clinton? If they're going to waste their time, I'd rather see a President impeached for something that has cost hundreds of American lives than one who lied about a damn blowjob!

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[R2.0]

But they do want the power to tell me
- what I can smoke (not tobacco)
- what I can eat (not trans-fats)
- who I must hire and can't fire (anyone but young white males)
- what I can say ("hate" speech)
- what I can do to defend myself (not use force)
- how my money will be spent (the govt. knows better what to do with my money)
- how I care for my children (daughter wants an abortion at 13? Not my business)

But that's OK - it's for the "greater good" and the protection of someone else's rights.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Jesus_666]

Holding the president accountable for serious violations of national and international law (as compared to having his dick sucked) is a dangerous president to set from the point of view of the government, since things like controlling the world through coercion and force is sort of its job.

Running the country is its job. Controlling the world is an expensive hobby.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[FatherOfONe]

Settle down now...

It isn't like he lied to a grand jury under oath :-) (That is a joke so settle down)

Also, I am going to assume that you are a citizen of the U.S.A. and a liberal. If I am wrong then I apologize, but there is something that the Democratic party needs to hear to guarantee a victory in the next presidential election. Nominate some moderate "normal" democrat like a Liberman or Evan Bahy. The Democrats puzzle me because a year when nominating a moderate traditional candidate would assure them victory they go and strongly back Hillary. What the heck are Democrats thinking? She "might" win, but there is a great chance that she will loose because the people in the middle generally don't like her. Most flat out hate her. It would be like the Republicans putting up Pat Buchanan as their candidate.

Next stop all the "911 was an inside job", and shouting/screaming/interrupting political figures talks. This makes you look like lunatics to that same "Middle America" that you need, given that it appears that Hillary is going to be the candidate. When you act like a lunatic you hurt your side as much as the right wing lunatics like Timothy McVeigh did for the extreme right. You may disagree with the war, and that is cool, but don't go and put blood on your hands and rush in to someone giving a talk.

One last request/suggestion - Stop bashing America most of the time. Speaking as someone who has been to quite a few countries, I can say that there are far far far worse countries, but more importantly those "middle Americans" generally like their country and get very tired of hearing the same people say how bad the U.S.A is. You may "think" you are influencing those people to your views but most of them just tune you off... This is perhaps the number one reason the Fox News has done so well in such a short time. They generally don't bash America 24/7 like say CNN.

Just some suggestions, from someone who lives in a state that will more than likely influence the election.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Zeinfeld]

So, in other words, you don't want to charge Bush and Cheney with a crime, because if you do, they may commit an even *worse* crime?

I don't want to charge them with a crime unless there is the prospect of conviction.

If Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted, how are they going to start the war? If they are impeached and acquitted, how does that help them if they commit this even *worse* crime? (This worse crime being essentially identical to the first, BTW.)

Impeachment now would simply bracket Bush's real crimes with the ridiculous charges against Clinton. I think that use of Partial Drowning Interrogation (waterboarding) and other forms of torture rank rather higher than lying about a blow job. Lying about the justification for a war ranks higher than lying about a blow job.

And if the fear of impeachment is the only thing preventing a war with Iran, if they really want the war, won't they just wait until impeachment would essentially be "too late" from a practical standpoint?

There is only one shot, a failed impeachment now means no chance of an impeachment later when we might have the conditions to convict.

What is stopping Bush acting is the pressure from the GOP Senators who can say, one step further and we will support moves to convict.

The GOP is already rejecting Bushism. They just voted to override a veto in the House and they will do the same in the Senate in the next week or two. We want the GOP to get used to overriding Bush vetoes. After they discover that there is no outcry from their base we can get S-CHIP through.

Every veto override means less credibility for President Irrelevant.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[notamisfit]

Nixon deserved to be impeached, only for the fact that he was using illegal methods to undermine the electoral campaign of George frickin' McGovern. That's like taking steroids and doping your blood to win a foot race against Richard Stallman.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak "Democracy" but you go against the very grain of it.

Consider that you accuse Cheney of breaking the law. However, there is no law on the books that he violated.

You may not agree with his position or actions but accusing him of violating a law that does not exist goes against the very tenants of a democracy!

Leave that to the commies ;)

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Fission86]

His blowjob wasn't "morally reprehensible". Lying to cover up a blowjob isn't "morally reprehensible". It's a little immoral.

But compared with lying us into war, it's not very immoral at all.

I don't think it should make a difference WHAT the lie was about, the fact of the matter is that they lied to the american public and should be held accountable for it. Yes one lie was about a personal matter and the other was about a national matter (btw. have you seen the pattern of dem/rep scandals here? dem's get sex, rep's get money), but the subject material of the event should not be used to justify the event itself.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Doc Ruby]

Cigar?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Johnny5000]

You may have Nixon confused with Andrew Johnson the 17th president who was impeached. In fact impeachment proceedings failed to make it out of committee in 1867 and then impeachment was successful in 1868. Johnson was acquitted by one vote in the Senate by
Edmund G. Ross of Kansas.

Did you honestly think that the OP got Nixon and Andrew Johnson mixed up, or did you just want to spout your vast knowledge of impeachment history to the Slashdot crowd? You did manage to get modded-up to 5... Kudos!

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[bcharr2]

Best I can tell, the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to lose the next election. Luckily for them, the Republicans seem to be doing exactly the same thing.

Then by all means let's hope they both achieve their objectives and lose. Perhaps then the American people will actually win an election, by voting for a national leader and not the least evil choice the powers that be present to us.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[SnarfQuest]

the 17th president who was impeached.

Who were the first 16 to be impeached?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[N3WBI3]

You realize real liberals want NOBODY to have the kind of power Bush has, right?

Must...not...laugh...at...parents...ignorance...

Bwhahahahaha

Liberal and conservative politicians want the same kind of power but for different reasons. You do realize that philosophically a true conservative wants less power for the federal government than a true liberal right? Hell a true conservative wants the 10th amendment enforced and a true liberal wants to pretend its not there.

Still there are no true conservatives or liberals in Washington (at lest not enough to do anything) so the point is moot..

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[N3WBI3]

If only he would cheat on his wife and lie under oath about it in such a manner that his license to practice law in his home sate was rescinded.

1992 Packwood (R) was forced to resign from the senate among a hail storm from the left for an accusation of sexual harassment of a subordinate. the the NOW president said that the accusations were so serious that he should have to resign before he fights them.

1996 Clinton (D) was accused of sexual harassment but hey, that was just his personal life. The silence from NOW feminist was deafening.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[fredrated]

You got that right. Our so-called representatives won't do a damn thing to undo what the bushit admin. has done because they want to do the same!

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rep's get the share of sex scandals (wide stance anyone?) and Dem's get their share of money scandals (Chinese laundered donations)

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[RulerOf]

As illegal as that may be, my point still happens to stand, regardless of the way I went about making it.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Doc Ruby]

Except the nature of the lie does matter. Or would you prohibit the president from calling opposition party senators "my friend from the great state of Pennsyltucky", when everyone knows he's a jerk, and Pennsyltucky sucks?

Lies might multiply the badness of their subject. But when their subject is as miniscule as a blowjob, and the format is a TV denial of an affair whose consequences should matter only to the president's spouse (and maybe to the people sharing the blowjob), the subject's badness can't scale up very much. When the subject is evidence sending the country into a catastrophic war that will divide the country deeply against itself, then even more deeply against its government, and the format is a long series of laws and official statements to Congress, as well as a lot of TV addresses to the public, then the immorality is vast at full scale.

But you are right that they should each be accountable for it. Clinton should have been accountable for telling us on TV "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". Which probably would have meant a harder time fighting with Congress to get his agenda through. Maybe made his endorsement of his successor to continue his agenda harder. But impeachment is totally disproportionate.

Bush lied us into war. His legacy is already crippled, his "integrity" destroyed. But it's not stopping the lying or the crimes it protects. Impeachment is the only way to do it.

That's the difference between lying about a personal matter and lying about the nation's most serious business. One results in a tawdry affair, the other in many thousands killed and maimed, in the name of a country severely damaged for generations. Don't you see that there is indeed a categorical difference, at the extremes of their possible differences?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Darby]

They are too busy trying to tear down Bush to accomplish anything.

Wow, you cowardly insane wingnuts are really losing it now.
"tearing down Bush" by which I mean impeaching, prosecuting, convicting and executing him and his entire regime is the most important responsibility facing this or any other Congress we've ever had.

Now, you, being a knuckle dragging moron or a sociopath (there is nobody else left alive who supports Bush so you're quite obviously one of those) think that taking their responsibilities seriously is a bad thing.

You might want to look into figuring out what integrity is you weak willed little worm.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[N3WBI3]

Clinton committed a crime, your post implied he was impeached over sex and as much as the left wants to believe that, its not true.. Clinton was not impeached for cheating and lying, he was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury, the purpose of his lie was to cover up a previous sexual harassment accusation. He, in effect, was denying a US citizen whom he had wronged (allegedly) her rights. Were a Republican to do that there would be howling on the rooftops (see Packwood who never actually committed an offense yet was chased out of office by the left).

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[jdjbuffalo]

If you want to be specific, it's best called a Democratically elected Constitutional Republic.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Cornflake917]

To you and I, it might seem like that. But then, again we aren't morons (like the majority of the voting population).

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Darby]

right, so when clinton's impeached it's a witch hunt, but with cheney it's not?

Exactly. It took 3 years and millions of dollars to find a blow job to pin on Clinton.
Cheney has willfully and with malice aforethought led a constant assault on the fundamental basis of this nation. His actions have damaged this nation quite possibly beyond repair. His treason is clear cut and blatantly obvious to all but the fools dumb enough not to see through something a child could easily comprehend.

your tunnel vision is amazing sir.

No it's called paying attention and not being a drooling moron without a clue as you have proven yourself to be by your failure to understand something as simple and obvious as the difference between those 2 cases.

Nixon was a monster, he deserves a tarring and feathering all of his own.

Duh, but Bush and Cheney are worse hands down in every category.
Again, you really sound like a whiny, deeply ignorant and naive child.
Go get somebody to change your diaper and grow a pair you fucking douchebag.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[RulerOf]

Very true. I always remember that Clinton lied under oath and he was impeached for perjury, not for a blowjob. However, that said, if you follow the logical chain of events (but not necessarily the legal ones), he lied to a grand jury to prevent the world from finding out about his politically incorrect sex life. Our current president lied to the entire nation to conduct an incredibly useless, fruitless war that has cost us a lot more money, time, and human life than Clinton's blowjobs. That, to me, and hopefully to most sane Americans, is much, much more immoral than lying to a grand jury (about a blowjob).

As much as I'd like to extend my point further, I doubt that doing so is going to wind up with a regime change sooner than January '09. :P

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[pxlmusic]

All excellent points. Thank you for clarifying the distinctions.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Fission86]

What I'm saying is that the nature of the lie shouldn't matter. Lying should hold the same weight no matter the reason, consequence, severity, et cetera. And yes, I would prohibit the president from calling his opposition something that he's not, people in general and a person of this much importance especially should tell it like it is, no lies, no fluff, no PC bullshit and actually tell people what he's thinking. This isn't a game of chess, this is life.

I'm willing to agree that these events are the two extremes of the ethical spectrum, except the key difference between these two events is that Clinton was under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and he didn't, he lied and committed perjury. Bush on the other hand was not under oath and lied his ass off. While one is legally wrong but morally acceptable (Clinton), the other is morally wrong but not technically illegal (Bush).

Clinton got impeached because what he did was already legally wrong, Bush on the other hand has broken no previous laws and that is why he won't be impeached. He will however go down in the history books as a bad president and this my friend is a pretty damn good example of reaping what you sow.

ps. before this turns into a flamefest fueled by party lines/political ideals, i just want to say that i don't support either of these men more than the other. I think clinton was a pretty darn good president that did a lot to further international relations and relieve the budget crisis, while i think that bush handled the 9/11 aftermath as well as any president could.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[misterooga]

Why not wait until Bush is out of the office. Then send him to jail for all the crimes on a fair trial. I remember South Korea sending a few of their former presidents to jail.

It won't make a difference at this point anyway since invasion happened already.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Doc Ruby]

But you're wrong about the perjury. You replied to my original post that clearly explained:

Clinton didn't perjure. He asked for a court definition of "sex", was given one that specified mutual genital contact, and truthfully denied he had "sex". He gets a lot of heat for the (equally legit) "depends on what the definition of 'is' is", but really he did not perjure because it did depend on what the definition of "sex" was.

He didn't perjure. He wasn't impeached for perjuring. He was impeached for partisan warfare, and was acquitted even on those flimsy charges. But he was blocked from doing quite a bit more work, as was the Congress frivolously impeaching him.

Bush, meanwhile, faked intel and lied to Congress. He dispatched his minions to lie to Congress repeatedly, even instructed them to violate Congressional subpoenas by not even showing up to invoke his Executive Privilege. Those are clearly violations of law, which he protects with illegal Justice Obstruction - for which one top henchman, Scooter Libby, was already convicted. Bush annulled his sentence. Moreover, impeachment does not require violations of specific law. It's the last resort, when the normal operations of law do not bind a rogue official. The question is only whether, for example, Kucinich's Impeachment Articles have enough evidence to debate as charges (they do, a mountain of evidence), and whether they're serious enough to debate removing the president (which is the only way it will stop him). Clearly a case for impeachment, perhaps the clearest we will ever see.

For which Bush will "suffer" in history books? What does he care? Meanwhile, the war that made him an emperor and his whole criminal enterprise richer than god, at the expense of the entire amassed reputation (and Treasury, and thousands of soldiers) of our country, rages on behind Bush's lies.

There is no case here for parity. I don't understand how you can come back to "Clinton perjured", when he provably did not, and we already covered that in this discussion. And how you can compare the consequences of either of their lies, or their impeachment.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[dwiget001]

Billy-boy Clinton *did* do all of those things, stop lying. Or are you taking lessons from Bill?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Fission86]

LoL this is what i get for slashdotting while writing a paper and helping a friend study for a test, i've lost track of the discussion.

What I was originally suggesting was that a divorce is needed between an action and the consequence of that action. Say for the sake of argument that clinton did lie (not under oath but just in general to the american public), I'm saying that clinton's lie should be equally as bad as bush's lie(s).

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Doghouse Riley]

"Pelosi did our republic a great disservice when she said that "Impeachment is off the table." Impeachment isn't a matter of convenience or political expediency, it is a matter of congressional Duty."

Apparently the idea is to impeach Bush and Cheney -- so that the Speaker of the House, that living profile in courage, can be sworn in as President.

Have I got it right??

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mistakenly placed the name Clinton where it should be Libby... and it wasn't about adultery it was about Richard Armitage apparently not committing a crime since he was not indicted in mentioning a name to a reporter(Bob Novak) about a CIA employee.....

I think that is what you were referring to when you mentioned fishing expeditions ... right???

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[animefanlee]

Clintion was a Facist gun control wacko who tried to aid the muslim terrorist finish hitlers goal of killing off all the jews like the kkk aka dnc is killing off black people with abortion and social program

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[bckrispi]

Apparently the idea is to impeach Bush and Cheney -- so that the Speaker of the House, that living profile in courage, can be sworn in as President. Have I got it right??

No, you don't. The idea is to impeach Bush and Cheney because there is compelling evidence that they have committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors against the People of the United States.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Doc Ruby]

But what was his lie? It's not the "perjury" you claimed, because that was true under the definition.

Besides, legally, the consequences, "damage", most certainly do determine liability. And even in criminal matters, breaking a law with minimal consequences has a much different legal result than breaking a law with severe consequences.

If we're talking about "sin", then you have a point. We're not: we're talking about laws, and government. Judging by sin throws everyone in hell, and we're obviously not in that business.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Scudsucker]

No, he didn't do any of those things. First of all, "sexual relations" was defined as intercourse in the Paula Jones case. As blow jobs are not intercourse, he did not lie when he said he did not have sexual relations with Monica. Secondly, even if he did lie, it's not perjury because the lie happens to be relevant to the case at hand. As the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it wouldn't have been perjury if he lied through his teeth. Witness tampering: weak allegations from Republicans. Obstruction of justice: just what justice was Clinton obstructing, exactly? The right of Republicans to remove him from office because they really, really didn't like him? We have laws and courts to punish the guilty, not conduct baseless investigations over and over, and when those turn up nothing, start asking questions about your sex life until they can manufacture a perjury charge.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton had nothing whatsoever to do with upholding the law. Republicans impeached him because they wanted to impeach him, and nothing has proved how full of shit they are like the last six years. We not only know for a fact that Bush has broken laws and violated the Constitution, he's proud of it. You had the same god damn people who called for Clinton's impeachment over supposed perjury passionately calling for a pardon of Scooter Libby's perjury conviction. For all their obsession with Whitewater, it was a bad real estate deal where the Clinton's lost money. Compare that to Harken Energy, where Bush sat on the audit committee yet dumped most of his shares in the company after being warned that it would lose money, and failed to date the sale. He made nearly a million dollars. But he was cleared in a quick investigation by the SEC, which was headed by his father's appointee. Where are the multiple Congressional investigations of Harken Energy then? Where's the special prosecutor with a vendetta and $60 million to burn?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a lie??? I guess it depends on what you consider deliberate falsehood to be!

Check out what presiding District Judge Susan Webber Wright said and did about Mr. Clinton's actions before her court:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/

I guess not "perjury", but Her Honor stated "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false"

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Doc Ruby]

So she's a bad judge. Her first problem was she had a preconceived notion of what the definition of "is" is, and the second was her preconceived notion of what "sex" is - both in contradiction of the definition in her court. She wasn't having some watercooler chat, she was facing the president on matters of very specific law and definitions. She failed to run the court properly to get what she wanted.

Webber was of course a partisan judge who'd worked to defeat Clinton in Hammerschmidt's reelection campaign, and had even challenged Clinton on a grade he gave her in law school. But even so, she dismissed the case against Clinton, and didn't put anything officially binding behind her words. Typically for a partisan Republican, she shot off her mouth so it could be quoted forever by partisan hacks like you, without it getting challenged because she gamed the system in dismissing the case, which left Clinton no traction (or sensible reason, other than to ape her partisan bias) to force her to correct that record.

Now let's see you defend Cheney from the Impeachment Articles we're discussing in this thread, since you've got such a precise legal mind.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[mqduck]

Why not wait until Bush is out of the office. Then send him to jail for all the crimes on a fair trial. I remember South Korea sending a few of their former presidents to jail.

It won't make a difference at this point anyway since invasion happened already. Hmm... Holding the president accountable after all his time to do the deeds is over with doesn't sound nearly as dangerous. Not that it has the slightest chance of happening either.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Lord Kano]

Too bad Clinton didn't actually do any of those.

Did I say "Clinton" in that post? The fact that I didn't, yet you still thought of him should tell you something.

LK

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Lord Kano]

First of all, "sexual relations" was defined as intercourse in the Paula Jones case.

No, it wasn't.

• It said: Sexual relations occur "when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky]."

Clinton admitted to fondling her breasts. His only defense is that he didn't intend to arouse or gratify either his own or her sexual desire.

I can't read his mind, but it's obvious that the intent of fondling someone's breasts is intended to arouse and gratify.

Secondly, even if he did lie, it's not perjury because the lie happens to be relevant to the case at hand.

Wrong again. In the Paula Jones case, he was accused of seeking oral sex from a subordinate. The Violence Against Women Act, (which Clinton himself signed)make it legal to try to establish a pattern of behavior on the part of an accused sexual harrasser. If you're accused of seeking sexual favors from your subordinates, it's certainly relevant if you have actually received sexual favors from your subordinates.

As the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it wouldn't have been perjury if he lied through his teeth.

Bullshit. He was disbarred for perjury.

Witness tampering: weak allegations from Republicans.

When he told Monica, that if she denied the affair then no one could prove otherwise, that's exactly what he was doing.

Obstruction of justice: just what justice was Clinton obstructing, exactly?

Paula Jones's right to justice. She had the right (because of a law that he signed) to establish a pattern of behavior on his part. He lied and denied her that. His lie was obstruction of justice.

You had the same god damn people who called for Clinton's impeachment over supposed perjury passionately calling for a pardon of Scooter Libby's perjury conviction.

Call it payback. You supported your guy even though he was as guilty as sin, so how can you expect us to do any different?

Where's the special prosecutor with a vendetta and $60 million to burn?

I guess you missed that part where congress didn't renew the law that provided the special prosecutor.

LK

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[rishistar]

A cabal can steal two presidential elections, trash the constitution, and start illegal agressive wars of conquest, and that's a-okay.

To be fair to them, they only stole one election.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[niktemadur]

Only Tucker will be the to say the emperor has no clothes if a Democrat president was in power.

Carlson is still fixated with Bill Clinton. Tucker is not rational. Tucker is considered mainstream. The important concept is "equal voice".
When MSM swings more to the left, the TV watching majority may become closer to rational, and we'll all win. Left voices disappeared in the jingoistic buildup to war. Remember that filthy communist/terrorist Phil Donahue? Common sense trumped by market penetration and bigger, oligarchical concerns. The Daily Show was always there, but little by little, Olbermann crept in. Then The Cafffey File in Wolf Blitzer's show, but how long does The Caffrey File last? Two minutes, at most.

Oh some of the European leaders may say some nice things about whomever is elected, but the substantive issues that divide Europe and the US will remain.
As we speak, the USA is a bullying laughingstock.
As soon as Bush is gone, any kind, whatever kind of international dialogue may begin. And that's a step in the right direction.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Carlson is still fixated with Bill Clinton. Tucker is not rational. Tucker is considered mainstream.
Considering how well Bill's wife is doing running for president as a 1.5 term Senator as her only elected office, I'd say Tucker isn't the only one fixated with Bill Clinton.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Copid]

America is not a democratic nation. The founders of our nation and the writers of the Constitution knew that a true democracy, which entails direct rule by the people, wouldn't work. They formed a republic.

There should really be some sort of mod category for these posts so we can filter them and the tiresome, pedantic posturing that invariably follows them. Add to that an automatic filter for posts that begin with "I know I'll be modded down for this, but..." and anything that uses the word "groupthink" and I think we could make real progress.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[josh_db]

What's wrong with my post, may I ask? Why should it be modded down?

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Scudsucker]

Did I say "Clinton" in that post? The fact that I didn't, yet you still thought of him should tell you something.

Well, I guess it is possible you are talking about someone else, instead of being a full of crap wingnut.

It said: Sexual relations occur "when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky]."

Clinton admitted to fondling her breasts. His only defense is that he didn't intend to arouse or gratify either his own or her sexual desire.

Nope, full of crap. But I helpfully bolded the parts you missed - your standard issue boob grab is for the male's satisfaction, not the female's. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it with intent to arouse her...didn't think so.

Wrong again. In the Paula Jones case, he was accused of seeking oral sex from a subordinate. The Violence Against Women Act, (which Clinton himself signed)make it legal to try to establish a pattern of behavior on the part of an accused sexual harrasser. If you're accused of seeking sexual favors from your subordinates, it's certainly relevant if you have actually received sexual favors from your subordinates.

A bunch of Googling of "violence against women act" + "pattern of behavior" and then + "sexual harassment" turns up...nothing. The "pattern of behavior" stuff is for domestic violence on current or former intimate partners. None of which applies to Clinton and Jones. So it looks like you are full of crap once again...at least you are consistent. Besides, Clinton getting it on with Monica in a consensual fling is a pattern of behavior for cheating on your wife in consensual flings - not harassment.

Bullshit. He was disbarred for perjury.

Ah, I see we come to the part of the conversation where you make up shit to back up your baseless talking points.

When he told Monica, that if she denied the affair then no one could prove otherwise, that's exactly what he was doing.

Hearsay based on one of Linda Tripps tapes. You know, where Monica lies left and right all on her own, and Tripp was the only person to actually be convicted of anything from the whole fiasco. But even if the hearsay was correct, it was Robert Jordan who supposedly told Lewinsky to lie, not Clinton.

Paula Jones's right to justice. She had the right (because of a law that he signed) to establish a pattern of behavior on his part. He lied and denied her that. His lie was obstruction of justice.

See above on pattern of behavior. And what was relevant and what was not. Then remember that her case was thrown out because even if what she said was true, it didn't amount to harassment.

I guess you missed that part where congress didn't renew the law that provided the special prosecutor.

I guess you missed the part where that could easily be renewed.

Call it payback. You supported your guy even though he was as guilty as sin, so how can you expect us to do any different?

A pathetic attempt to rationalize Republican hypocrisy, and another example that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Clinton was found not guilty by the Senate, whereas Libby was found guilty by a jury, in charges brought by a Bush appointed prosecutor before a Bush appointed judge. Clinton was caught up in a pathetic witch hunt to drive him out of office. Libby was convicted because a serious crime was committed: outing a covert agent working on nuclear non-proliferation. Specifically, Iran. And who do the Republicans want to attack now, and for what supposed reason? Hmm, what was it...something about bombs and Ajamindinad or something....

Spank spank Lord Crapo. You got schooled again.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Copid]

What's wrong with my post, may I ask? Why should it be modded down?

You clearly haven't been on the Internet very long if you haven't noticed that "The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic!" is almost always a pointless distinction that's really nothing more than tiresome pedantry that typically starts an avalanche of pointless highschool civics bickering over definitions. I know that slashdotters that being technically correct is, to quote Futurama, "the best kind of correct you can be" but really, give it a rest. Your post isn't wrong, and in an ideal world, it wouldn't have been modded down. It just wouldn't have been posted in the first place. We'll give you a call when we need somebody to derail a conversation by pointing out that "shooting stars" aren't really stars at all.

HTH.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Lord Kano]

But I helpfully bolded the parts you missed - your standard issue boob grab is for the male's satisfaction, not the female's. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it with intent to arouse her...didn't think so.

I don't know how YOU do it, but I've found that many women become quite aroused if their breasts are fondled. And on it's face it goes beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton't intent was to "arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"

Ah, I see we come to the part of the conversation where you make up shit to back up your baseless talking points.

You're so fond of Google, google for "Bill Clinton disbarred", you'll get over 100,000 results. Know why? Because he lied.

Then remember that her case was thrown out because even if what she said was true, it didn't amount to harassment.

That's a separate issue. Having a case that the courts ultimately determine to be without merit doesn't mean that the defense gets to lie under oath.

I guess you missed the part where that could easily be renewed.

You must not have been paying attention. The Democrats didn't want it renewed and the Republicans didn't care to renew it. Your definition of "easily" isn't very accurate.

Clinton was found not guilty by the Senate, whereas Libby was found guilty by a jury, in charges brought by a Bush appointed prosecutor before a Bush appointed judge. Clinton was caught up in a pathetic witch hunt to drive him out of office. Libby was convicted because a serious crime was committed: outing a covert agent working on nuclear non-proliferation.

Blah, blah, blah... Like I said, you supported your guy even though he was obviously guilty. I'm supporting mine.

LK

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[doom]

So you're suggesting our Congress waste more time trying to achieve what they have chance of achieving? I suggest to you that this is perhaps _the_ reason why Congress has such low approval ratings: They're wasting time, going against the desires of the majority, and haven't really accomplished anything while they've been in power.

(1) There's a difference between choosing to not impeach (or for that matter, choosing to fund the war) and swearing that that's the way things are going to be, no ifs ands or buts. Pelosi has thrown away any possible stick she could use to bargain with the Republicans, not surprisingly they're walking all over her.

(2) The idea that an impeachment is "against the will of the majority" is wrong in a number of respects. Polls on the subject range around 35% to 55% in favor of impeachment (wonder why there's such a big spread there, eh?): if the majority is not in favor (and I suspect it is), at the very least this is hardly a risky extreme proposition. Note that many people who don't say yes on the "I" word are still very unhappy with Bush and co, and are unlikely to be upset at someone trying to check them. Further, Nancy Pelosi's constituency is San Francisco. She doesn't have to guess if the electorate here is in favor of impeachment, we voted for a proposition directing congress to impeach.

(3) Even if removing Cheney/Bush from office via an impeachment hearing is politically unlikely, the investigation into the grounds for impeachment would hardly be a "waste". Under Bush, the executive branch has been raging out of control, these people deserve to be hauled on the carpet, whatever the actual outcome of the process.

Re:Lying Scumbag

[Anonymous Coward]

"I deny that weapons with Iranian serial numbers have been used in a large fraction of the lethal attacks in southern Iraq."

And what were the other serial numbers - Russian, Chinese, American? Does that mean that Russia and China and the USA are "actively training and equipping people to kill American soldiers"?

But, even assuming that you are correct that Iran is providing weapons and training to certain Shia militias in Iraq, there's another way to prevent American soldiers from being killed: bring them home. In Kucinich's world, Iran would not be even an indirect threat to American soldiers because American soldiers would not be in the part of the world where Iran is doing business.

If you really want to get mad at someone for endangering American soldiers, the Bush administration is the place to start.

Waiting Out The Election

[cmholm]

I was also surprised that Pelosi and Reid haven't moved their sides of aisle to refuse to fund the Iraq war. My guesses are that 1) they visualized what a withdrawal will look like on TV (shitty), and wiennied out; or 2) George played his "surge" card before they could get their act together, and they decided to let that strategy play out before pulling the plug.

At this point, they've had time to get the sense of the Congress, and know for sure that the GOP ain't gonna ditch George/Dick via impeachment. Since an impeachment proceeding becomes a Congress' full time job, the Democratic leadership probably decided that it was an albatross they didn't want to hang around the necks of members running for reelection/the Presidency.

Unfortunately, the first opportunity to cut further funding came too late, so we're just going to have to wait out the '08 elections. My hope is that if - for some bizarre reason - we end up electing a pro-war GOP President, and give him a GOP majority in Congress, it'll be one of those "only Nixon could go to China" moments, and we'll by and large cut bait.

Sure, he'll prolly follow that up by locking in the capital gains and estate tax cuts, so that *my* tax bracket ends up paying the bill, but that's something I have some control over.

Who tagged this

[Bongo Bill]

"impeachchenyfirst"?

I see it's not just the editors who don't check spelling.

Re:!technology

[Anonymous Coward]

I move that whenever a political story on slashdot is posted that the obligatory comment like that of the parent be assumed. All in favor?

Tar and feathers

[xjlm]

Congress was elected with as clear a mandate as I have ever seen in 2006: end the Iraq war. All it would have taken would have been a simple majority against the funding bill in the House, or 40 senators to support a filibuster in the Senate. Instead we get a bunch of hand-wringing and poor excuses (lies) about supporting the troops. "Support the troops; keep them in the middle of a civil war with no chance of victory and don't give them even the basics they need." We need a new government here in the US, one that puts the people of this nation first, second, and third.

Re:Tar and feathers

[MightyYar]

I don't care how much of a "mandate" they had, pulling out of Iraq now is even dumber than going there in the first place. Give 'em props for not making a stupid decision to placate "public opinion".

Re:Tar and feathers

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress was elected with as clear a mandate as I have ever seen in 2006: end the Iraq war. All it would have taken would have been a simple majority against the funding bill in the House, or 40 senators to support a filibuster in the Senate.

I agree that the Democrats have been spineless and could be doing a LOT more, but a simple majority would not be sufficient. First of all, the Republicans in the Senate have been threatening filibusters on virtually every bill (they've actually been breaking records in that regard), so a supermajority is needed, which the Democrats do not have in any sense. Secondly, the Democratic majority is pretty tenuous to begin with -- there are technically only 49 Democrats in the US Senate, and it's the two independents that caucus with them that gives them the "majority." And one of those independents is Joe Lieberman, who is more hawkish and conservative than most Republicans. And of course, there are plenty of so-called "blue-dog" Democrats that don't have much of a Democratic agenda to begin with.

That's not to excuse the Democrats, though. Reid, Pelosi, and the others have demonstrated an astounding lack of leadership and a unbelievable capacity to bend over and do whatever the Bush administration wants, either to "appease" some people they think of as moderates or for political reasons or whatever. It's a disgrace. They've passed a few decent bills, but fall all over themselves doing what the administration wants every chance they get.

Re:Tar and feathers

[MadAhab]

You don't always need a supermajority. For some reason, the Republicans didn't need one prior to 2006 elections.

Pelosi et. al are stupid enough to have forgotten how the game is played. If you can't get a vote to the floor, make them filibuster. Make them look like a bunch of obstructionist, whining babies who are standing in the way of good legislation because they are afraid of losing an actual vote. Argue publicly the merits of your legislation. And even if you can't put enough pressure on them to succeed in getting a vote to the floor, make a big stink and target the offenders by name.

The Republicans are more effective at this kind of Congressional Politics 101 - from a minority - than the Democrats are with many more votes.

Re:Tar and feathers

[nyekulturniy]

That's because the mandate isn't as clear as you think it is. Yes, there was displeasure with the Bush Administration's policy; however, the American public doesn't want to see a pullout that would make the situation worse than it is. Furthermore, the Democrats who are most fervently anti-war have strong negatives themselves.

If you recall the last major protests in Washington in September, only about 10,000 turned out for the ANSWER rally, and they were met by 1,000 Freepers. That's a piss-poor performance for a supposedly angry public.

They may hate the war, but they hate the Democrats too.

Re:Tar and feathers

[aichpvee]

The American public doesn't have a fucking clue what they want, to say nothing of what should be done. Democracy needs more than a flavor -of-the-week mob rule. Occasionally (often of late) the people need someone to save them from themselves. It's too bad that the democrats are such a lousy lot of cowards and morons, because after them we don't have anyone left to do the job.

Every last democrat who is not actively supporting the impeachment and trial for treason of the entire bush administration deserves a place beside them at the gallows. Especially these assholes who decided that spending time tossing each other off over one of the crappiest works of fiction ever put to print was more important than doing the people's work.

The United States of America should be the greatest nation on the face of the earth and it's about fucking time we had some "leaders" who understand that and act accordingly.

Re:Tar and feathers

[The Angry Mick]

If you recall the last major protests in Washington in September, only about 10,000 turned out for the ANSWER rally, and they were met by 1,000 Freepers. That's a piss-poor performance for a supposedly angry public.

Attendance figures from a rally in D.C. are never going to be an accurate indicator of the nation's approval or disgust. That's what polls are for.

I can think of many reasons that would prohibit attending a rally - none of which would have negative impact on my level of opinion. Family responsibilities (think of the children), job responsibilities (your boss doesn't give a damn about your politics), distance (D.C. is not exactly next door), and, most importantly, economic ability. With gasoline, utility and food prices way up, your average American is less likely to perceive a trip to D.C. just to vent some spleen as financially sane.

Re:Tar and feathers

[fredrated]

"a supermajority is needed"

a supermajority is needed for what? The point is, just don't pass the war funding bill. No supermajority is needed for that!

Re:Tar and feathers

[N3WBI3]

Congress was elected with as clear a mandate as I have ever seen in 2006: end the Iraq war.

Problem is you elected a bunch of corporatist democrats who played the electorate like a fiddle. Did you really think the dems were going to end the war at the first hint of resistance? Heck half the dem pickups were conservatives from southern states (blue-dogs).

All it would have taken would have been a simple majority against the funding bill

Ahh but then how would the dems have motivated you all to come out and vote for the super majority so they can really do some good in 2008..

We need a new government here in the US

2008 is coming fast start looking into third parties today..

Re:Tar and feathers

[sumdumass]

Un fortunately, you were lied to. Congress was elected by a combination of means including but not limited to impeaching Bush or Cheney. This isn't a clear mandate by any7 means. In the areas where the most democrat gains were found, there were minimum wage bills on the ballot. This increased voter turnout from labor union members who for the most part would normally vote for democrats. Every single state with minimum wage issues on the ballot saw at least a 20% increased turnout then what would be expected according to previous off year elections.

Now, I'm not willing to dismiss that that impeachment wasn't part of the picture. Some people may very well have turned out with the intent to impeach the current administration. But they are also the same types of people who would be political already and vote already. Very few of those people would be someone who decided on this issue entirely to change their vote from another candidate for a democrat.

The bottom line is, if you look at everything from a non biased point of view, a lot of what is being considered impeachable from the crowds pushing impeachment isn't really a top priority for a lot of Americans. Most democrats in power are afraid to start impeachment simply because they either would have done the same thing/would want the ability to do the same things or they don't see the actual creditable evidence as pushing impeachment and don't want the American public to know a big source of outrage was manipulated to win elections.

Another reason could be because Bush and Cheney's defense would be one of the role of commander in chief is in the presidential domain and congress cannot limit those powers as they are granted by the constitution. The end result would be a rushed ruling by the supreme court that most likely says that the president is correct in their interpretations. I base this from previous rulings where the supreme court said congress cannot impose restrictions on the roles that the constitution places on the president of the untied states accept where the consitution allows them to. for instance, Congress cannot pass a law saying the president must sign everything else they give him into law and more noted was Andrew Jackson who attempted to replace cabinet members when he first took office and congress passed a law claiming he couldn't. Then when he did (or tried to), they attempted to have him arrested and eventually attempted to impeach him. In any event, it won't be good for those supporting the impeachment just like it wasn't good for congress critters who supported clinton's impeachment. There is no better way to motivate people to goto the polls then to act like you have a vendetta against someone they can remotely identify with. With all the name calling from the other side, people see bush and cheney (by association with bush) as the mentally handicapped kid down the street who needs their help.

Re:Tar and feathers

[znerk]

Furthermore, the Democrats who are most fervently anti-war have strong negatives themselves.

So tell me, what's wrong with Dennis Kucinich?

Re:Tar and feathers

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you that there was a clear mandate to end the Iraq war and that it led to the Democratic majority. Unfortunately, I took a look at some left-wing blogs and pundits' columns and saw the election results in nearly every case being interpreted as a mandate for what amounted to the legislation wishlist of the writer. Accepting their premises would result in a lack of focus on ending the war. I suppose that this far after the election the interpretation of the mandate depends on which echo chamber you spend your time in.

Re:Tar and feathers

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving them a supermajority? Ridiculous. Since they haven't done jack with the majority they have now, I don't trust them with a supermajority. It's like they're saying:

"We're not willing to fight for you unless it's guaranteed that we'll win, looking like heroes and securing our incumbency to the end of our days. So just tear down every check and balance in sight, give us unlimited power to fight off Senate filibuster bluffs that we don't have the stones to call and Bush's dust-covered veto pen, sit back and relax."

I am aware of what Bush has done to checks on the executive branch, but I want to see the Democrats in Congress at least try to make use of the power they already have before giving them more. In the worst case, Bush is out of office in a little more than a year.

Re:Tar and feathers

[Scudsucker]

Yes, there was displeasure with the Bush Administration's policy; however, the American public doesn't want to see a pullout that would make the situation worse than it is.

Ah, no. The worst thing we can do is maintain the status quo. Our light force isn't stopping the violence, it's only getting killed in the violence. We either need to pull out completely, or find another 400,000 troops to send in.

Threats.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did the leader of a country threatening to wipe an ally of the United States off the map not constitute a real threat?

I do not speak Arabic, so I don't know. Do you speak Arabic? And, when did the ability to tell the veracity of a politician by seeing if their lips are moving change?

Via
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3211#comment-260805

This link exists:

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/0503arabs.html

Which says:

"Arabs are forced to overassert and exaggerate in almost all types of communications, as otherwise they stand a good chance of being gravely misunderstood. If an Arab says exactly what he means without the expected exaggeration, other Arabs may think that he means the opposite. This fact leads to misunderstandings on the part of nonArabs who do not realize that the Arab is merely following a linguistic tradition."

If Blackwater is correct - Was there a threat, or just overrated lingal/political hype?

slashdotliberalwhining

[Doc Ruby]

No one arguing against Cheney's impeachment will use a legitimate argument that he's not guilty of the impeachment charges. I suppose only "liberals" want criminals tried, when they're among the most powerful people, and abusing that power.

Re:slashdotliberalwhining

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah whats with this slashdot liberal whining. Conservatism is the future!!

Imagine this wonderfully bright conservative future! Where any citizen can be conscripted at will regardless of circumstance and the ones with liberal thoughts taken and eliminated! Where children are taught to mistrust or even hate those with differing religions and cultures to themselves! Where citizens have the freedom to carry any weapon through the streets unlicensed!

Conservatism will win the day! And the US will be just like....... er... Iraq? :P

Re:slashdotliberalwhining

[DaveV1.0]

Is that why the Democrats, a.k.a .those "liberals" you mention, are the ones who voted to table the bill(that means kill it)?

Now, please learn what is going on before you comment on something or STFU.

Re:slashdotliberalwhining

[Doc Ruby]

86 Democrats voted not to table the bill. Many of those are liberal, many are not.

!(Democrat == liberal)

Now shut the fuck up.

Re:slashdotliberalwhining

[N3WBI3]

Irony thy name is faceless ./ poster "Where any citizen can be conscripted at will regardless of circumstance" -- if you're referring to conscription, as in the draft, it was a Democrat who brought such a bill to the house floor last session "ones with liberal thoughts taken and eliminated!" -- Im sorry which party is it that supports 'hate crime' legislation whos purpose is to get into the head of a person and punish not for actions alone but unacceptable thoughts "Where children are taught to mistrust or even hate those with differing religions" -- Ohhh yea Liberal atheist don't teach there kids that evangelicals are superstitious nut bags who are dangerous. "Where citizens have the freedom to carry any weapon through the streets unlicensed!" -- Funny I don't see to many conservatives opposing *registering* and denying ex convicts from holding. BUt I do see allot of liberals who (see above) want to tell you what is ok to think wanting government to be the only one to hold weapons.

Re:slashdotliberalwhining

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    50% Interesting
    50% Flamebait

Of course no one defended Cheney from impeachment charges on the basis that he's not guilty. But of course TrollMods tried to stop me pointing that out by calling it "Flamebait". Because Cheney worshipers will flame you for saying that liberals don't have a monopoly on justice, even when Cheney's mob isn't interested in it.

You idiots keep talking about Iran. Meanwhile ...

[Nicolas MONNET]

You idiots keep talking about Iran. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, a country with actual nukes, martial law has been declared, and it's a big mess.
Iran isn't sponsoring terrorism those days. Pakistan is harboring most of what you call Al Qaeda.
9/11 hijackers were sunnis. Iran is shiite. Pakistan is sunni.
Iranian religious leaders say they oppose nuclear weapons on religious grounds, they consider them evil. Sure, they could be lying. In the mean time, hot headed extremists in Israel, Pakistan and the US have no such qualms.

It's a plan

[caitsith01]

Albeit a stupid one.

The Dems believe that their best course is to continue to let Bush & Co trash everything in sight until the Presidential election. The theory is that at that point the Republicans will have so little credibility left that it will ensure a Democratic clean sweep of both houses plus the White House - and ironically, the supposed "permanent majority" of the Republicans will quite possibly give way to something much more long-lasting for the Democrats.

The main problem with this plan is that they are allowing Bush to set some very, very dangerous precedents (unilateral wars, signing statements, executive detention, torture, etc etc) without pulling him up on it. The longer that stuff goes on, the harder it gets to stop.

The other major problem is, what if Bush does attack Iran (or Pakistan...)? Wars inevitably make leaders popular immediately after they start, and a strike against Iran sufficiently close to the next election could conceivably destroy any advantage the Democrats glean from the Republicans running amok for another 2 years.

Objection!

[BlackCobra43]

Why in blazes do you want to STOP people from shooting lawyers in the face with rifles?

Re:Objection!

[m.ducharme]

Keep in mind that in Pakistan, it's the lawyers who have been leading the protests against a military strongman. Of course, most of them are in jail by now. Just because your lawyers suck, doesn't mean all lawyers suck.

This could really back-fire on Republicans

[erroneus]

While the Democrats tried to suppress this action, the Republicans are hoping this will embarrass the Democrats. But I think the voters of the U.S. are being underestimated on this with Bush's and especially Cheney's approval ratings are pretty damned low. If the Democrats stand up as they should, they could create a lot of momentum in restoring constitutional law to the nation.

Republicans should have allowed the Democrats to table the motion... this is a can of worms they would have been safer not opening. But that said, the resolution to impeach Cheney and eventually Bush is LONG over-due. Perhaps real justice might begin to occur.... maybe even a little.

Re:This could really back-fire on Republicans

[seriesrover]

If you want to use approval ratings as a way to judge the mood of US voters you may want to consider that Congress are even lower than Bush.

Re:This could really back-fire on Republicans

[The Master Control P]

Enough of this Fantasia crap! Will this retarded talking point please just die already?

To start with, a president's baseline approval rating is about 50%, whereas by default everyone hates the "other half" of Congress so it's baseline is more like 25%. Second, it's rather meaningless to compare the approval ratings of an executive and a composite of 535 men and women in any condition; Congressional Democrats have an approval rating 10-15% higher than congressional Republicans on average, and people's view of their particular senators and representative is generally quite positive. More importantly, people are angry at Congress because it isn't doing enough to fight the Bush administration's all-out attack on civil liberties and the Constitution (which is a subset of its all-out effort to protect itself from criminal prosecution for violating said liberties and document). You may recall that the majority of the public now supports the impeachment of Cheney, contrary to the apparent belief of Nancy "off the table" Pelosi.

And why, if the Democrats are so unpopular, are they poised to pick up a great many seats if the election were held now?

pension

[hey]

If he's impeached does he get his pension?

Re:pension

[Nate B.]

Clinton was impeached and he receives his pension. Impeached != conviction, and I suppose that a conviction would disqualify one from any pension.

Re:pension

[freedom_india]

Clinton was NOT impeached.
An impeachment is when BOTh houses pass the impeach motion.
Technically and legally Clinton was not impeached.
On a totally different note, his crimes were far less in capacity than GW and DC.

Re:pension

[Nate B.]

Indeed, President Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted as a result of impeachment. The trial was conducted by the House Managers in the Senate and ultimately the Senate found him not guilty.

It's not just me that says Clinton was impeached, Wikipedia agrees. Had the impeachment not been legal, the Clinton administration would have likely contested it. However, Clinton rode it out and probably gained popularity for it.

Its time to quit posturing for the home folks

[davmoo]

I think Dick Cheney is an ass, and is a true embarrassment to the United States (and hunters, but that's another topic). He, along with King George, is ***FAR*** more of a threat to American freedom than any foreign terrorist group. And I would agree he and King George both need to go. I'm eagerly awaiting Jan 20th, 2009, as there is no way any of the current candidates could be a greater fuckup than either Darth or King.

But its time for the Democrats to quit posturing for the cameras and get the real work done. In the current Congress, there is absolutely zero chance of either Darth Cheney or King George being impeached. All the Democrats are doing when they introduce impeachment legislation is drawing time and attention away from work on the nation's business that really could be accomplished. And all that people who demand that the Democrats introduce articles of impeachment are doing is kidding themselves and tying up Congress.

Re:Its time to quit posturing for the home folks

[swordgeek]

Speaking as an outsider, I think I can say that most of the world (a) doesn't much care how you get rid of them as long as you do it soon, (b) doesn't think there's anything worthwhile that can be done internally or externally as long as they're in power, and (c) thinks that your country has waited too long. In 15 years, the USA will be where Russia is today, if they're lucky.

Re:Its time to quit posturing for the home folks

[soulhuntre]

Of all the reasons a US citizen should take action in the political realm trying to kiss the ass of foreign sentiment is the least useful.

People make it seem like before the Bush administration the US was love and adored worldwide... and it's bullshit. The US has >ALWAYS taken shit from every "also ran" ex superpower and wanna be influential country. The only time people stop complaining about us or blaming us for something is when they need us to save their ass. Hell, even when their taking out aid a lot of countries still feel free to take potshots.

It's a constant whine fest and long ago lost it's power to matter.

Liberal Whining?

[localman]

This article got tagged as "slashdotliberalwhining"? Are you fucking serious? Conservatives or liberal, you've got to be kidding if you don't think that George Bush and his administration has done more to damage this country than any president in your lifetime. No, seriously: forget about your pet cause, let go of the the party affiliation. Look at where we were five, ten, twenty years ago -- tell me where the improvements have been. By any measure, even conservative social goals, Bush and his administration have accomplished little if any good, and in every other area enormous bad. His approval rating is below what Nixon's was at the point of impeachment. And this article is "slashdotliberalwhining"? Get real.

I'm a moderate. I respect candidates from across the spectrum. George Bush and his administration have been a goddamn nightmare.

I don't care what your religious, political, or social affiliation is. If you don't recognize this administration as crap, you are in deep ignorance or denial.

I love this country. And I could cry over what these people have done to us.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[seriesrover]

I can asure you the US was in doldrums of international opinion long before Bush got into power. I spent my entire uni life in the UK defending the US amongst a sea of anti's. Bush represents everything that liberals [inparticular from abroad] hate - hes a God-send to them. A right-wing Republican Texan with uneloquent speach.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[Scudsucker]

I can asure you the US was in doldrums of international opinion long before Bush got into power.

Sense of proportion much? Attitudes from 10 years ago aren't in the same anti-American galaxy today.

Bush represents everything that liberals [inparticular from abroad] hate - hes a God-send to them. A right-wing Republican Texan with uneloquent speach.

If you're a conservative and have any respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, or a desire for a modicum of competence in your elected officials - you'll have a perfectly justified disgust for Bush. If not, you're just an IOKIYAR tool.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[onefriedrice]

> Irony?

And he gets modded insightful for it? That's funny.

In reply to GP, before I can list any improvements we have seen in the past seven years, these are your allegations so it is _your_ responsibility to put forth your list of transgressions made by the administration. To say "Boo hoo, I don't like this President" without giving reasons isn't insightful in my book. To me, it's just a rant. What exactly are you unsatisfied with?

By the way, I also have complaints about the administration, mostly having to do with how they are [not] dealing with illegal immigration and things of a domestic nature, but I'll try not to karma whore the liberal extremists by ranting and raving.

On the other hand, if my karma goes to hell, so be it.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[localman]

Not in the least bit ironic, because as I said I'm not a liberal.

And I'm not whining (which would generally be defined as a "feeble or petulant complaint"). On the contrary, I'm expressing deep justifiable disgust about extremely serious issues.

Rather, it's closer to irony that you are, after my comment, still jumping on the "liberal whining" issue without good reason.

I'm saddened by how cavalier you are over something so serious.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[Sammy Loo]

I'm a conservative Christian, and I also must say, the Bushites are friggin ridiculous. I mean when I voted against Kerry, it wasn't because Bush is good. It was cause I disagreed with just about every issue on Kerry. Not like its helped, because Bush's crap is almost-as-bad/worse depending on opinion.

I would disagree with impeaching bush, not because he's even half deserving to be president at this point, but only because he really didn't do anything that can be "impeachable". He is just dumb. Stupidity isn't really his fault, its the republican party's fault for choosing such a lackluster candidate. Well there is a shortage of leadership in the republican party to begin with...but lets not go there.

However I do feel that Cheney is a viable target for impeachment because the bastard was one of the two or three guys giving info to the Bush retard sitting on the throne and causing our nation to be in this Iraq quagmire. He's one of the puppeteers trying to pull strings on the dummy. Its worked thus far, but it shouldn't go on. Lets get rid of him while we can! This is our chance to make up for not charging him with attempted manslaughter by shotgun!

Re:Liberal Whining?

[localman]

It's hard time believing that you are seriously asking for a list of transgressions as though this is the first you've heard of it. It's not like some 70% of the country disapproves of his performance, the burden is somehow on me to demonstrate that the Bush administration has caused problems? Do you think that maybe I have some unique idea about it? Honestly I don't -- my complaints are pretty run of the mill.

A couple that pop into my mind right now would be the misguided decision to go to war without understanding what we were getting into, the crackdown on civil liberties, the insane spending habits, the sanctioning of torture and holding prisoners without a trial -- a sore spot for me since my innocent grandfather was imprisoned and tortured in communist Poland without a trial during the cold war... I'll stop there.

Do I sound like a liberal yet? I'm not. A heck of a lot of conservatives that I know would agree with every criticism I've listed. If you honestly don't agree, fine, but don't dismiss it as "liberal whining".

Re:Liberal Whining?

[localman]

btw, insightful or not, my post wasn't "boo hoo i don't like this president" it was "isn't it awful that this article got tagged 'liberal whining' when a lot of people on both sides of the fence are very upset with this president". I maintain that such mindlessly partisan crap (from either side) is a bad thing.

Cheers.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[DaveV1.0]

You are not a moderate. Your post belies your bias.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[localman]

Really? How so? Is it because I'm not fully steeped in your side (whichever that may be)? If you can elaborate how you're making that judgement about me I'd be curious to hear it.

I've voted Republican, Democrat, and Independent, depending on the candidate and the issues. Don't confuse moderate with dispassionate. I believe in balance, but I believe in balance very strongly. I think the harping on "bias" as a means of dismissing other people's opinions is a logical fallacy.

Cheers.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[callen]

I think this was the whining part?

Re:Liberal Whining?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a moderate. I respect candidates from across the spectrum. George Bush and his administration have been a goddamn nightmare. Ah, you see, that is where we disagree. I don't respect ANY of them! ;)

Re:Liberal Whining?

[moosesocks]

That's a pretty baseless accusation, is it not?

People can have all sorts of reasons for being moderates. Considering that elections are NOT consistently won by the same party every time around, it's fair to say that a rather significant portion of Americans are moderates.

Different times call for different strategies. The priorities of the nation change. The parties themselves change -- the Democrats are now championing many of the ideas the Republicans originally espoused regarding small government. I'd say that you'd be an outright idiot to vote for the same party year after year.

I lie somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. I want the government to be as small as possible, but still provide adequate social services to its citizens in areas where it's necessary such as education and healthcare. Perhaps you could think of it as trimming the fat.

I'd hypothetically support a candidate like Ron Paul so that we could abolish unnecessary and outdated federal agencies. However, I'd be in support of later re-establishing similar agencies in a manner that is more efficient and suited to today's society. The IRS is a fantastic example, as the US tax code has become so convoluted and enormous that it requires a gigantic federal agency to make sense of it, not to mention the huge portion of the financial industry that's devoted to explaining this tax code to "normal people". A simplified (not necessarily flat) tax code would reduce a vast portion of the overhead associated with the IRS, would close loopholes exploited by the wealthy, and just might make people despise the government a tiny bit less.

Tangent: Now I'll note that I don't support Ron Paul, because he'd allow states to establish their own agencies in areas where the federal government would no longer have oversight under his idealistic plan. After spending the majority of my life in New Jersey, I can safely say that this would be a catastrophe at best. If there's one thing (actually 50) more corrupt and less efficient than the Federal Government, it's state government.

I could also point to the vast number of state governments that would have banned the teaching of evolution if they had their way. Many more have passed marriage amendments aimed at restricting the rights of same-sex couples, but also have a number of nasty side-effects such as also restricting the rights of single parents, or unmarried couples with children. If you want to make some conservative Virginians piping mad, explain to them how their marriage amendment encourages abortion. Then ask if they read the damn thing before voting on it. (Do not attempt above if said Virginian might be carrying a gun. This is a state where it's legal to carry a concealed firearm into a school board meeting -- no, I'm not making this up). End tangent.

What the GP poster was pointing out is that by virtually any accepted political ideology in the US, George Bush has failed on all accounts. He's accomplished none of his conservative social agenda, has vastly increased the size of the government as well as push the national debt to new highs. Free-market capitalism is out of the question, with the number of no-bid war-profiteering contracts he's handed out to his friends. Conservatives have every reason to hate his guts with a firey passion.

Liberals also have quite a few reasons of their own to hate him that I don't think I need to go into.

No matter how you look at it, there is practically no positive spin on the Bush presidency. It is a dismal failure on all accounts unless you're Halliburton.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[localman]

Whining is generally considered to be complaining about insignificant things. I would be shocked if you really believed the issues we're facing as a nation are insignificant. So you calling it whining is a dishonest attempt to dismiss it. Also, I'm not a liberal.

So again, I call out: please stop the weak-minded, partisan thinking.

Cheers.

Re:Liberal Whining?

[localman]

All well said. I have a question though, about one of your points: on states making laws against teaching evolution and same-sex couples. Without worrying about what is right or wrong there for a moment, is it that bad a thing if states chart their own course and become distinctive? As long as people can move freely from one state to another, maybe it is okay if the laws are substantially different -- assuming they're constitutional.

I haven't totally decided what I think of that, but my sense is starting to go in that direction because it would finally put some of these ideas to the test... as it is, the country makes a decision and then we never see what the alternate result would be, so the argument goes on forever. Perhaps if we just let different states do things "their way", the winners and losers would naturally arise, and eventually the losers could emulate the winners.

Would this make the country more divided? Or would it make us more tolerant if everyone could control their own back yard to a higher degree.

Just a thought.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Original Replica]

Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to President Cheney. Even typing that revolted me.

You're an ignorant fool

[Nicolas MONNET]

Why don't you read up about democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddeq and what happened to him, courtesy of the US gov't?
The hostage crisis ... well it's NOTHING comparing to the massive raping the US administered to Iran and Iranians over 50 years ago.

Don't listen to a Dick

[Jeff1946]

Both George and Bill followed the advice of a Dick and went (or came) where they shouldn't have with dire consequences.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Obfuscant]

Meaning someone (e.g. a former V.P.) can serve up to 2 years followed by being elected twice, for a total of 10 years.

And then be elected as VP again, and become Pres. one day after the inauguration, which makes 14, and then be elected VP and promoted, making 18... that's how Bill's going to weasel his way back into office, as Hill's VP. Just watch.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[trolltalk.com]

You forgot the rest of the sentence ...

"during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

The second amendment became operative in 1947. I think Harry Truman is safely dead.

Are you enlisted?

[xjlm]

Sounds like what they need is your wisdom leading the way on the front lines. From what I understand they're pretty open to guys like you, too. Why don't you go enlist today? http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2005/07/operation-yellow-elephant-overview.html probably has all the info needed on a guy (or whatever) like you.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[MightyYar]

Way to counter my argument by just calling me a chicken-shit.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[timmarhy]

Oh so your in favour of pulling out of iraq and leaving millions of innocent people to be murdered and tourtured by insurgents, simply because they might have done business with the americans? because that's exactly will happen if we followed your dumbass cut and run attitude.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[notamisfit]

What the Iraqis do to each other is no concern of ours. It wasn't in 2003, and it isn't now. The only valid reason we have to be anywhere else in the world is to deal with threats to our own defense. This entire war has been worse than doing absolutely nothing would have been in that respect. We've lost 3000+ of our own troops in a pointless nation-building exercise, spent billions of dollars, handed off the oilfields to China and Vietnam (instead of using them to pay for the occupation or even returning them to whoever the hell the Iraqis looted them from in the first place), allowed the Iraqis to vote themselves into theocracy, given Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood the apparatus of statehood to carry out their murderous plans (cos hey, it's democracy, right? Democracies *never* do anything bad), allowed Saudi Arabia and Iran to even more brazenly indoctrinate upon the glories of dying for Islam, and forcing me to vote for a Democrat for the first time in my life. To top it all off, we're no safer than we were six years ago, despite onerous violations of privacy and ludicrous security regulations, and we're no more likely to actually deal with these nutjobs who want to kill us until the next national landmark falls down and goes boom. (if even then) Fuck this stay-the-course nonsense. Just think of it as a strategic retreat.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[ookabooka]

While I agree that there is plenty wrong with the war in Iraq, I don't think isolationism is the answer, we can't just ignore the entire world and think "Hey, not our problem". Didn't work very well in WWII. (No I didn't invoke Godwin the US was very much an isolationist nation back then and had we gotten into the war sooner it would have probably ended sooner.)

Re:Are you enlisted?

[notamisfit]

Since you brought up WWII, how well did we make out? Really? We freed Western Europe from one dictator (who political and philisophical factors across the entire continent had practically forced into the driver's seat) only to lose Eastern Europe to another without so much as a shot being fired. We curbed Japan's empire-building, and drove them out of China, only to see China fall to the Maoists. We fell into the Wilsonian trap of "self-determination of nations", joining a world organization that put jack-booted thugs on an equal footing with the elected leaders of free nations. We became the deal-makers of the world (the American Left, while freely admitting the excesses of the CIA during this time, blanks out the fact that Wilsonian realpolitik is at the heart of their own foreign policy). We fight half-war after half-war, trying to win by not losing. We give land we didn't own to the Jews, then do everything in our power to prevent them from defending it. The moral code we had on Dec 8, 1945 is the only foreign policy we have ever needed: Fuck up our shit, and we will kill you.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[gordo3000]

I think you mean 1941... unless something incredible happened 4 months after the a bomb(well, almost 4 months)

Re:Are you enlisted?

[coolbox]

No no no. How you present the idea is crucial! Instead of "Just think of it as a strategic retreat." re-phrase it as "We are not retreating, we are advancing in the opposite direction". That would probably be more acceptable to the warmongering crowd.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck this stay-the-course nonsense. Just think of it as a strategic retreat.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of money to be made by keeping this war going.
Soldiers and citizens take the brunt, but don't make the decisions.
I say, follow the money. I suspect that for Cheney & co. this was a very profitable enterprise.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Kagura]

What the Iraqis do to each other is no concern of ours. It wasn't in 2003, and it isn't now.

What the Germans do to each other and what the "Asians" do to each other is no concern of ours. It wasn't in 1938, and it isn't now.

Isolationism is a horrible idea. A line must be drawn somewhere eventually as to when a country deserves an invasion to protect ourselves and the world, but "what the iraqis do to each other is no concern of ours" is the worst argument you can come up with on the issue.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[lightsaber777]

First, the land the Jews live in was purchased... this is an old, old story that gets glossed over by Anti-Semites. Go into conspiracy theories if you like, but if you really want to talk about people who stole land, you have to look no further than the people who owned it. They sold their own people into poverty, don't blame that on us. Second, getting rid of an expansionist nutjob like Hitler was the victory in WWII. Eastern Europe became Communist, I understand that, but in the end, we have won that battle as most of Eastern Europe has elected governments now. At least the USSR was not bent on destroying everything they couldn't have. However, there's never been a truer statement, "We fight half-war after half-war, trying to win by not losing." Politics and war don't mix. If we're going to send them over there, we need to give them every resource they need and stop allowing politics and elections to stand in the way of their success.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[notamisfit]

I'm not anti-Semitic nor anti-Israel, but I've heard a lot of conflicting information about the status of Jewish/Palestinian settlements between the Balfour Declaration and 1948. Ultimately, I just think that's probably one of those things that should have been cleared up ahead of time, and in any case, the statement above was meant to be an indictment of our hypocrisy for helping to establish the state of Israel, then holding Israel back whenever somebody decides to attack it.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Shakrai]

(No I didn't invoke Godwin the US was very much an isolationist nation back then and had we gotten into the war sooner it would have probably ended sooner.

Not very likely for a number of reasons. The least of which is the American public was completely opposed to the idea of getting involved and if FDR had tried he probably would have been impeached.

Beyond that, with the exception of the Navy, our armed forces in the 30s were a joke. They only started to expand them in 1941, several months before Pearl Harbor. Why do you think it took until 1944 before the Allies were ready for the cross-channel invasion of Europe? There is little to nothing that the United States could do early in the war that would have changed anything.

FDR did the best he could with the resources and public opinion that he had to contend with. He started to quietly build up our forces, work on public opinion and do everything in his power (lend-lease) to keep the UK and Russia in the war. I don't see what he could have done differently.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Richthofen80]

What the Iraqis do to each other is no concern of ours. It wasn't in 2003, and it isn't now. The only valid reason we have to be anywhere else in the world is to deal with threats to our own defense. This entire war has been worse than doing absolutely nothing would have been in that respect

Well, had the US intelligence community known that there was no active WMD program, we would not have invaded. This was never about 'what Iraqis do to each other'. It started as a response to a dictator that could not assure us he wasn't in possession of certain weapons . He was given ample opportunity to prove to us he didn't have them. We offered to provide and pay the people to gather that proof. He refused. What other option did we have, given that he could have potentially sold these weapons or smuggled them to the same type of people who attacked us in 2001? The fact that he didn't have any is tragic, yes, but those deaths from the resulting military action are Saddam's fault, not ours.

To top it all off, we're no safer than we were six years ago, despite onerous violations of privacy and ludicrous security regulations, and we're no more likely to actually deal with these nutjobs

What do you mean, 'deal with these nutjobs'? Who do you think is causing all this shit in Iraq? its the same foreign fighters, recruiting and stirring up local populations. Iraq has become a calling card for foreign jihadis. If we are going to 'deal with these nutjobs', we are going to find them in Iraq. Pulling out would be avoiding dealing with them.

You can debate the individual policies and strategies, fine. But it was an exercise in pre-emptive defense to invade Iraq, and its to the benefit and safety of the people of the US to remain there and keep terrorists out of there.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Pragmatix]

Fuck this stay-the-course nonsense. Just think of it as a strategic retreat.

I am always amused by how people seem to accept sound-bites like 'stay-the-course' and 'you don't change horses mid race' like they were some kind of universal wisdom.

You don't 'stay-the-course' if you are headed towards a cliff. And you certainly do 'change your horse mid race' if it is running the wrong way.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[MightyYar]

Okay, so now that you've established that I'm a chicken shit, would you like to explain how that in any way impacts US foreign policy? A chicken-shit can still be right about foreign policy - the two are mutually exclusive.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Obyron]

Not going to address the rest of your post, but the phrase "Wilsonian realpolitik" is so wrong. Realpolitik is the essence of Realist politics, encompassing guys like Metternich, Bismarck, Clausewitz, and, more recently, Hans Morgenthau. Wilson was firmly of the idealistic political school, which is the complete opposite of political realism and realpolitik.

Also, I have one other point of contention. We did not "give Land we didn't own to the Jews." The British owned Palestine in every way that mattered after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire (vide: The Sykes-Picot Agreement, The Treaty of Sevres, The League of Nations Mandate For Palestine), and it was the British who went about creating the Israeli state under the auspices of the United Nations Partition Plan, which owed its ideological roots to a British internal policy memo from 30 years before known as The Balfour Declaration. When the Partition Plan fell apart due to squabbling between Arabs and Jews, the Brits pulled out. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq declared war on the Israelis and proceeded to invade them. The Israelis fought like hell using surplus World War II weaponry, and took their country for themselves. The United States didn't give them anything, although individual sympathizers within the country contributed money.

Hope this clears up a few points of, er, factual weakness. :)

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the Iraqis do to each other is no concern of ours. It wasn't in 2003, and it isn't now. The only valid reason we have to be anywhere else in the world is to deal with threats to our own defense.

Yeah but you forget that the Jews in that region make it their business (some of it understandably so since the Arabs are pissed that the Jews act like a55holes in the region) and that Jews have a lot of money to influence a lot of elections! Their vote counts more than yours and mine because they have more money.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[ookabooka]

Precisely my point, I'm not criticizing the administration at the time, rather the public opinion on how foreign policy should be done. My argument was that if the public was ok with the US building up sooner and entering the war sooner it would have made the war shorter and possibly saved lives. . .arguably the atom bomb would have still come around at roughly the same time (which effectively ended the Asian theater) but I still don't believe in the complete isolationism proposed by the great-grandparent post.

They came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. . .
Especially nowadays when globalization is happening faster than ever, we're all pretty much entwined in some fashion. It's a complex problem but ignoring foreign affairs and hoping it won't ever affect you seems like a bad plan to me.

Lol, I seriously apologize for the WWII analogies, it's the best example I could think of, Godwin should have an affirmative defense for logical arguments that actually make sense and are on-topic versus random name-calling.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[MightyYar]

Yes, typo. Congratulations. I think the rest of humanity grasped what I was trying to say.

By the way, your quoting method is totally bogus. You really suck at teh internets.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[FreeForm Response]

The word you're looking for is probably orthogonal.

Normally I wouldn't bother with the vocabulary-naziism, but it's one of my favorite words. :-)

Re:Are you enlisted?

[MightyYar]

Yes, that would be a better word. I of course meant to type "not", but it didn't come out that way. The important thing is that my being a chicken shit has zero to do with my opinion on foreign policy. Personal attacks generally do not lead to constructive discourse.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[djasbestos]

War? What is it good for? Profit! Say it again!

No war = Raytheon doesn't sell very many Tomahawks or FLIRs or anything of that sort. Cheney's buddies at Halliburton don't get to do their no-bid contract thing. Blackwater doesn't get to go postal with fucking impunity (at four to five times the rate that real soldiers get paid). Even our legitimate servicemen and women are twiddling their thumbs. CNN doesn't have something really gut-wrenching to cover (although it seems the media have become bored with the war because it's the same thing on and on now). And our fearless leader (and the puppeteers, ie, PNAC) has no glorious cause with which to catapult America back to its "former" greatness. I guess the first neoconservatives read 1984 when it was published back in the 50's and said: "Hey! This is a great model of government, except let's throw in more capitalism. And have Hate Week all year long!"

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Shakrai]

Precisely my point, I'm not criticizing the administration at the time, rather the public opinion on how foreign policy should be done

Well, consider the events of the time. The United States intervened in the First World War, only to have most of our "allies" default on their war debts and completely ignore Wilson's 14 points in favor of imposing a harsh peace treaty on Germany. A peace treaty that arguably set the stage for the Second World War. Also consider the fact that the United States had a sizable German population not exactly eager to go to war with their native land and that the evils of the Nazi regime weren't exactly obvious in the late 30s.

I'm not defending isolationism because hindsight proves that it was the wrong approach. Just trying to explain it in the context of the times. In any case, I'd place the blame less on the United States for WW2 and more on Britain and France for appeasing Hitler (at a time when the German military machine was actually quite weak) and allowing him to over-run Poland while sitting on their collective butts and giving the initiative to the Germans.

Lol, I seriously apologize for the WWII analogies, it's the best example I could think of, Godwin should have an affirmative defense for logical arguments that actually make sense and are on-topic versus random name-calling.

Eh, I'm a WW2 history buff, so they don't bother me. And I think Godwin's law only relates to making comparisons to the Nazis -- not US Foreign Policy in the 30s ;)

Re:Are you enlisted?

[xilet]

Other then the fact you can't prove a negative. And the series of investigations from both the US and the UN that found no traces of WMD. (Ok granted there were still some chemical agents around, but they had all been disclosed and they were all from decades earlier, and were not considered WMD anyway).

Well, had the US intelligence community known that there was no active WMD program, we would not have invaded. This was never about 'what Iraqis do to each other'. It started as a response to a dictator that could not assure us he wasn't in possession of certain weapons . He was given ample opportunity to prove to us he didn't have them. We offered to provide and pay the people to gather that proof. He refused. What other option did we have, given that he could have potentially sold these weapons or smuggled them to the same type of people who attacked us in 2001? The fact that he didn't have any is tragic, yes, but those deaths from the resulting military action are Saddam's fault, not ours.

What do you mean, 'deal with these nutjobs'? Who do you think is causing all this shit in Iraq? its the same foreign fighters, recruiting and stirring up local populations. Iraq has become a calling card for foreign jihadis. If we are going to 'deal with these nutjobs', we are going to find them in Iraq. Pulling out would be avoiding dealing with them.

Yes there are outside influences from terror organizations. However much of the violence are from rival internal factions, many of whom are trying to get the occupiers (us) out of their country.

All the shit in Iraq is because we went in, and systematically dismantled every existing social structure they had in place to keep order. You want to talk about creating a vacuum, we did it alright. Pulling out entirely would create another one of course, however us staying there and not working to withdraw is just sitting poking a hornet's nest. As long as we are there it is not going to stabilize, and is just going to continue to escalate the problem.
The other issue is the fact we are not rebuilding, we are not creating new infrastructure, sure we are paying people to do it, but with no accountability or oversight we all see how much they are doing. The entire situation can easily be described using the word cluster, but us being there just increases the number of terrorists and people around the world who hate the US.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[sbillard]

I hope your post is sarcastic, but I don't see a tag. I can only assume your rebuttal is genuine.

we would not have invaded
The intelligence was fabricated. Google "Hans Blix" for more info about Saddam's weapons program and degree of compliance with UN inspectors.

He was given ample opportunity to prove to us he didn't have them
You can't prove a negative.

Who do you think is causing all this shit in Iraq?
Put the shoe on the other foot. If a foreign army was rolling up and down your block in their urban assault vehicles, going door to door shaking down you and your neighbors, what would you do? Sit there and take it? I'd cause as much trouble for that occupying force as humanly posible. So would you. So would any of us. We are creating "nutjobs" with our presence, not "dealing" with them.

it was an exercise in pre-emptive defense to invade Iraq
No, it wasn't. It was the greatest robbery in history. Stealing public money and giving it to well-connected corporate insiders. It was securing cheap oil to be sold to the American public at premium prices.

its to the benefit and safety of the people of the US to remain there
I'll say it again. We are creating "nutjobs" with our presence in Iraq. How can you not understand this? We won't stay there forever (I hope). And when we leave, there WILL be a revolt, or a civil war to tear down the puppet government we've tried to establish.

In my opinion, the only way to "win" in Iraq is to be overthrown by insurgent "nutjobs". Only then will they have the national pride to install a govenment of their own making. In other words, we are going to lose. We just need to decide how many lives will be lost before it's over.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[spun]

Lovely. I suppose when you are shopping, and accidentally break something, you make a 'strategic retreat' instead of paying for it?

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how I've not seen this before now...Thanks xjlm, I think I have some righty relatives that I need to email right away!

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Richthofen80]

The intelligence was fabricated. Google "Hans Blix" for more info about Saddam's weapons program and degree of compliance with UN inspectors.

Well, if it was fabricated, then the entire world and UN must have been in on that hoax.

You can't prove a negative.

We didn't ASK to prove a negative. We asked for unrestricted access to all sites so we could determine within a reasonable expectation. Access to cherry-picked sites, access after delays and not being able to move freely all indicated deception. Saddam played politics with it... instead of taking it seriously as a mandate backed by international consensus.

No, it wasn't. It was the greatest robbery in history. Stealing public money and giving it to well-connected corporate insiders. It was securing cheap oil to be sold to the American public at premium prices.
Please provide evidence of this. According to the UN:

Under a May 2003 U.N. Security Council resolution, the Coalition Provisional Authority must deposit all proceeds of oil exports into the Development Fund for Iraq.

I'll say it again. We are creating "nutjobs" with our presence in Iraq.
Most of the weapons are coming from out of country. a large number of foreign fighters with Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Al-Sadr's Medhi Army are from Iran and other arab nations. Whether we create 'nutjobs' or not isn't really part of the strategy. Foreign policy is not a popularity contest, its about doing what's right for your security and for the world in general.

In my opinion, the only way to "win" in Iraq is to be overthrown by insurgent "nutjobs".
That's what happened in Gaza. The radicals won, and instituted their own pirate state, complete with oppressive laws and gangs of looting thugs. Same thing happened in Somalia and some African Islamic nations, too. You think that will fix anything? It will give another Osama another hiding ground to train men to take advantage of our social systems and find ways to murder us.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[FreeForm Response]

Agreed.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[sumdumass]

The ottoman empire started selling off land to the jes back in the 1100's. Immigration and settlement had been promoted by the ottoman empire long before the Balfour declaration existed. There had been issues arising from this long ago too.

The balfour declaration was more or less and official extention around this resulting from the fall of the ottoman empire after WW1. The UK (or it's equivalent at the time) was charged with overseeing that area in conflict into it's own statehood. They (the league of nations) drew up borders for quite a few areas including Iran and Iraq from that area and only Palestine has had the Issue we are discussing. This is one reason for the western influence in that area outside of the misguided comments on oil. The western worlds spend decades developing governments and self rule in order to release our obligations in the area and have a viable and sustainable state. Most of the territories have done this even though there have been some hiccups along the way.

Without going into specifics and complexities, I can say that the real issue isn't even close to how it is being portrayed in the media. If you ask most people who haven't look further then a news report they will tell you that we took the land from palestine and gave it to the jews because of what hitler had done. Thay have no idea that palestine was never a country in the last two centuries. They have no idea that the jews who were historically not the aggressors were forced into a state of unity around the lands now called israel because of violence towards them. And Israel becoming a state was a direct result from that.

If you want to see the issues surounding Israel, you have to go back several centuries before Israel was ever a country. It becoming a country only served to aggravate things but it provided a common defense for the jews in the area.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[sumdumass]

Just a point of reference. The unscum personnel was finding new stashes of chemicals up to the invasion that was supposedly already destroyed. After the invasion, they found missle parts and chemicals in st least two buildings we destroyed that was supposed to have been removed and destroyed several years before we invaded. A blurb on "ok there was some chemicals that they we already knew about over there" doesn't do this subject justice. A good portion of those chemicals were already supposed to have been destroyed which shows an intent to keep them without our knowledge or extreme incompetence on the UN weapons inspectors and any other controlling agency over there. I doubt it is/was the later.

I'm not going to address your other comments. While I believe they gloss over some important and imperative facts too. I'm not going to be bothered with looking up references because they are all opinionated as to the history in question just as much as your statement is.

I do know one opinion I have though. I also have no problem sharing it with you. Iraq was continuously rejecting and not cooperating with the UN and the resolutions. They were also continuously attacking the US and other countries with their antics in the no-fly-zone. This show members of al qaeda that we wouldn't do anything serious as a result of their attacks on us. They tested it with the bombing of the USS Cole and verified it. If we dealt with Iraq much stronger in the early days, the 9/11 attacks most likely never would have happened. I forget his name but the number 2 Al Qaeda official we caught close to the beginning of the wars said they never expected a response like the one we gave to the 9/11 attacks and probably wouldn't have done it if they knew what was going to happen. To me, this confirms that all the BS going on with Iraq before the invasion only served to empower the people behind 9/11. They literally thought that life would go on uninterrupted and that outside a dew missile strikes aimed at infra structure, they had nothing to worry about. This may be the wrong way to think about Iraq and the war but I am glad to see it finally happened and no other groups think they can kill thousands of American people on our own soil without serious repercussions. I would hate to see this turned into a situation like when France paid off the vikings to leave them alone.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[sbillard]

Well, if it was fabricated, then the entire world and UN must have been fooled by(sic) that hoax.
Wilson was "in" on the hoax and for his honest and decent service to his country, his wife, Valerie Plame was "outed" by the Bush administration as a warning to others that they'd had better toe the line and go along with the cherry picked "intelligence".

Please provide evidence of this
Hours after the UN endorsed Resolution 1483 (creation of the Development Fund for Iraq), Bush signed Executive Order 13303: in part. "..any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void", with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."
This executive order means if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco, for example, touch Iraqi oil, anything they do with it is immune from prosecution in the US.
The fund is used by the by U.S. Export-Import Bank to back the financing of projects typically awarded to Bechtel and Halliburton subcontractors.
In other words, it is a slush fund for well-connected US corporations.
This adminstration has bankrupted the country while enriching favored insiders.

That's what happened in Gaza. The radicals won, and instituted their own pirate state, complete with oppressive laws and gangs of looting thugs. Same thing happened in Somalia and some African Islamic nations, too
So, why aren't we occupying those regions too? All of these are breeding grounds for OBL camps, right? Drain the swamp? No, nothing to pillage there. No enough ROI in monetary terms, security of the nation be damned.

Iraq is considered a quagmire by many, but perpetual warfare is exactly what this crooked administration wanted. We can't leave, ever, and this is exactly what the Bush administration intended. Pure evil.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Grishnakh]

We fell into the Wilsonian trap of "self-determination of nations",

Personally, I see nothing wrong with nations being able to determine their own destiny, and choose their own leaders. Anything less than this is absolutely immoral, IMO, because it says that one group of people is somehow superior to another (living in a different place), and has the authority to tell them how to live their lives.

However, part of this, I believe, means that if the people in a certain region decide to allow a jack-booted thug to become their leader, then that's their problem, and they have to live with it. It's their own responsibility to pick good leadership, by force if necessary. If they're not willing to do that, then they'll get the government they deserve.

And along with this, I believe that other nations have absolutely NO business interfering with that country's internal affairs. If the Chinese want to be ruled by Maoists, then that's their choice, and we don't need to be wasting our time trying to change things.

The only place where it isn't so cut-and-dried, IMO, is when there's different groups of people involved, and one group is oppressing the other. For instance, in Turkey, the Kurds are an ethnic minority, but happen to sit on a lot of oil, and are oppressed by the Turkish government (ruled by the majority Turks). The Kurds in Iraq were in the same boat under Saddam. These Kurds were minorities in both places, with country borders drawn by outside forces (the British Government after WWI), so they didn't really have the power to stand up to their oppressors, so I can see a case for forcibly separating them from the Turks and Iraqis, and giving them their own country. But after that, their choice of government is in their own hands.

Part of the problem with present-day occupied Iraq is that different groups of people, inside national borders drawn up a century ago by the stupid British, are being forced to live together in one country even though they hate each other. This country should be split into three, with each group given their own country. After all, how many patriotic Americans like the idea of being forced into one big North American country where the USA is joined with Mexico? I wouldn't like it either, but if it had been that way for the last 100 years, instead of a new proposal by our current Administration, that wouldn't make it a good situation either.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Grishnakh]

Especially nowadays when globalization is happening faster than ever, we're all pretty much entwined in some fashion. It's a complex problem but ignoring foreign affairs and hoping it won't ever affect you seems like a bad plan to me.

I don't think it's really quite that complex, unless you really care about the well-being of people in other countries where you have no authority or power to affect them (unlike their own government).

Personally, I don't go around to all my neighbors' houses and check up on them, to make sure they're not beating their wives or whatever. It's not my problem. It's the same between countries: every nation of people has a responsibility to choose the best government for themselves. After all, the government is always smaller than the total populace (usually by many orders of magnitude); the people can't be forced into anything involuntarily. If they allow a jack-booted thug to come to power, it's their own fault. Other countries have no duty to fix this problem; their only duty is to protect themselves in case this thug convinces his idiotic followers to go to war and attack other countries. If one of my neighbors decided to break into my house and steal my stuff, I'd shoot him. If he did it to one of my other neighbors, I'd probably go help the neighbor defend his house. But if this nutty neighbor is living with his brother, and beats him regularly, and the brother just lets him do it, I'm not going to get involved.

Re:Are you enlisted?

[ookabooka]

Personally, I don't go around to all my neighbors' houses and check up on them, to make sure they're not beating their wives or whatever. It's not my problem.

Ok, makes sense, if it doesn't affect you you let whoever is involved make the decisions and keep your nose out of it. I can certainly understand this. It isn't your duty to make sure everything is hunky dorey. However, what if it did affect you in some fashion, what if a husband beats his wife, then kills her, then moves on to his neighbor. Would you wait until he eradicated the entire neighborhood before stepping in? What if the wife doesn't have the option to leave,escape, or otherwise change the situation, would you intervene or just assume it was somehow her fault she got into that situation in the first place? What if this man's wife happened to be your employee, and while she was injured and in the hospital your company experienced losses which causes all sorts of problems for you, would you be tempted to intervene now?

It's easier to turn a blind eye to things that don't affect you. My point is that when it comes to a nation's government and how they conduct their foreign affairs, it tends to affect more nations now than it did previously, and I don't expect this trend to reverse.

I could go on and on about "put yourself in their shoes, would you want someone to step in and intervene?" but I won't unless someone cares to debate that too :-p

Re:Are you enlisted?

[Grishnakh]

Ok, makes sense, if it doesn't affect you you let whoever is involved make the decisions and keep your nose out of it. I can certainly understand this. It isn't your duty to make sure everything is hunky dorey.

Exactly my point. Not only that, but my idea of "hunky dorey" isn't the same as other peoples'; I have no right to force my idea of "the way things should be" onto other people. After all, if I were in charge, I'd set up all kinds of crazy rules most people probably wouldn't like. If my neighbor's wife was hot, I might require her to perform "services" for me and other neighborhood men. If you lived in my neighborhood, are you sure you'd want me poking into your business? Maybe you should value your freedom instead.

However, what if it did affect you in some fashion, what if a husband beats his wife, then kills her, then moves on to his neighbor.

That's different (the neighbor part); the guy is now outside of his house, and may present a future threat to you. It'd make perfect sense to ally yourself with the neighbor he's attacking, and help defend him. You can't do much about the wife, however; what he does inside his house is his business. You can't see what he's doing in there without violating his privacy.

Again, if I were to get involved before he killed his wife, I might not just physically put a stop to his mistreatment of her. I might require her to perform "services" for me as well, in exchange for my trouble. I might also require the same of their teenage daughter. Again, are you sure you want other people poking their noses in? Their intentions may not be pure. Every time the USA gets involved in some other country, there's some other motivation at work, after all.

Would you wait until he eradicated the entire neighborhood before stepping in?

Again, no; this is why alliances exist, so groups of countries can mutually protect themselves from other aggressors. This is completely unrelated to internal affairs.

What if the wife doesn't have the option to leave,escape, or otherwise change the situation, would you intervene or just assume it was somehow her fault she got into that situation in the first place?

This is where it starts to get a little hairy. For true domestic situations, yes, I'd just assume it's her own dumb fault. That's how it really is in the real world, after all; it's trivially easy to walk out your front door and leave your husband, after all. If you stay, it's your own choice. The courts are also very helpful towards battered wives when they finally do something about it.

The problem is they just don't want to most of the time because it makes them feel better to be abused. It's just like how bad kids will keep doing bad stuff because negative attention is better than no attention. I see this phenomenon every single day with one of my cats, who's constantly doing things (scratching furniture, etc.) to get in trouble, and then see if she can avoid getting squirted by the water bottle; it's like a game to her. You'd think that people would be smarter about things than housecats, but unfortunately that's simply not the case.

With countries, it's a little different. The problem is, where do you draw the line? You can't very well invade a country and forcibly move people around to separate them, when they live in the same cities. However, if the country is composed of separate ethnic groups, living in separate regions, it's not so hard: just draw a new border.

So for me, it seems pretty obvious that a good place to draw the line is whether separate ethnic groups are involved, and are living in separate regions. So, for instance, if one group is oppressing another group, but they all live in the same place, well too bad. But if one group is oppressing another group that lives in a separate region (which may happen to sit on some valuable natural resource), then a very good case can be made for intervention there. However, it's a lot easier to justify if the actio

Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[big_paul76]

It never ceases to amaze me that the USA (speaking as your northern neighbor) could possibly see states like Iran or North Korea or, even more laughable, Iraq, as a possible threat to the USA.

You guys stared down the USSR for the entirety of the cold war, facing an enemy with superior numbers and brutal methods who you were very much aware had nukes, and you got by just fine.

OK, they might get nukes, but so what? Lots of countries have nukes. If you wanna take bets on who's going to be the first country to actually _use_ them, my money's on Israel.

Look, the deal with the non-proliferation treaty goes like this. The countries that don't have nukes agree not to produce them, and those that do agree to gradually phase out their stockpiles.

If the US doesn't feel the need to rid themselves of nukes, why should Iran or anybody else feel the need to obey the Anti-Proliferation Treaty?

The country that has the dubious honor of being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on humans doesn't get to take the moral high ground and lecture Iran about their nuclear ambitions.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[4D6963]

You guys stared down the USSR for the entirety of the cold war, facing an enemy with superior numbers and brutal methods who you were very much aware had nukes, and you got by just fine.

I agree here, for about 30 years the USA stared at the USSR in the eyes with both the finger on the button that would unleash a crapload of ICBMs on each other, and we got many times close to seeing that happened, and now we're scared of a couple of crappy countries who are trying to develop a military nuclear program to make sure they survive (Iran obviously doesn't want to nuke us only to undergo an ICBM shower that would entirely tick it off the map, they just want to make sure they're not the next Iraq).

After us vs. the nazi/fascist/japanese axis of evil, and after us vs. the communist axis of evil, it's like we don't have a real enemy to produce bombs and drop them on anymore, so we declare that we have a new axis of evil, whose attacks against us are resumed by a handful of nutters attacking us every once in a while (last time was 6 years ago). Sad.

The country that has the dubious honor of being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on humans doesn't get to take the moral high ground and lecture Iran about their nuclear ambitions.

Well actually, no, while the US were the only ones to use nukes during war, they weren't the only ones to use them against people. Think about atmospheric tests. As for morality and lecturing, it's more that the US want to keep the option of invading Iran, which would be impossible if Iran had operational ICBMs.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[JackieBrown]

You guys stared down the USSR ...who you were very much aware had nukes I can take the mod hit so I will tell you the difference:

The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no)

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[timmarhy]

911 made everyone crazy, because for all the wars america has been in in recent history, none of them has impacted home. I think that's part of the reason american's are so gunho about going to war, because it's not THEIR homes that get bombed.

with 911 there came the sudden realisation that the USA was a target, and that you could no longer sit from afar and push the button and make the bombs rain.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[Macgruder]

While the USSR had a very different ideology, they were a) stable, in the sense their government wasn't designed to collapse overnight, and b) rational.

If you've ever read the rantings of Iran's president or that of Kim Jung-il of North Korea, you can certainly see how people would have doubts about their rationality and stabilty. For all of the flap in the US over the last 7 years, we're still a nation of laws, the highest enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, it's under attack, but until it's burned and shredded, I won't give up hope.

Plus, the problem with letting Iran or North Korea have nuclear weapons, is that it's very unlikely that they won't share them with other nations, or, worse yet, non-governmental bodies. Hamas and Al-Queda spring to mind. China can, and has, leaned on North Korea, so they are less likely to do something too foolish.

I'd much rather prefer that nuclear weapons not be involved at all. But if I have to declare a choice between the two, I'd much rather rain nuclear fire upon Iran than vice versa.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[node 3]

I can take the mod hit so I will tell you the difference:

The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no) There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is suicidal (which is what you should mean, since "insane" doesn't make any sense here). You may be referring to Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. Two points to remember, here:

1. He's *not* the top guy in Iran.
2. Iran was on *our* side after 9-11. It wasn't until the Iraq war, and the abysmally idiotic "Axis of Evil" statement, that the Iranian people swerved hard to the right and elected him. (what would *we* do if the most powerful nation on the planet called us out like that?) Calling Iran our enemy is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[mqduck]

The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no) My god, I'm sick of that argument. Everyone we don't like but have no excuse to bully is called nuts. Kim Jong-il is craaazy cause he's... wait, why again? Cause he's short and wears sunglasses? Man, that guy's nuts! Obviously he can't be trusted to have nukes like we can!

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[ArcherB]

My god, I'm sick of that argument. Everyone we don't like but have no excuse to bully is called nuts. Kim Jong-il is craaazy cause he's... wait, why again? Cause he's short and wears sunglasses? Man, that guy's nuts! Obviously he can't be trusted to have nukes like we can!

OMFG! You are the epitome of moon bat. You are so blinded by your hatred for America that you completely ignore the fact that N. Korea's population is starving in the dark while their army eats well. They have no food and no power because the bulk of their economy goes towards their military. And you sit there and defend their leadership... wait, why again? Because he's not America. Because he's afraid we are going to attack? The Korean cease fire has been in effect for about 50 years! Korea could be united tomorrow and the population could eat and heat their homes. It's not because Kim Jong Il likes the power... and you defend him... wait, why again?

Please tell me why dictator that starves the population good. America bad. I really want to know the thought process behind that one.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[ArcherB]

It never ceases to amaze me that the USA (speaking as your northern neighbor) could possibly see states like Iran or North Korea or, even more laughable, Iraq, as a possible threat to the USA.

Probably not, but it is possible. They are a threat to many of our allies, however. Of course, I'm sure you'd like to see America abandon it's allies world wide. You probably wouldn't feel that way if Canada were located somewhere between Israel and Iran though. But then again, why should you worry about any place you need to take a boat to get to. Those people are brown and don't matter, right?

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[Anonymous Coward]

"a) stable, in the sense their government wasn't designed to collapse overnight" ...isn't that kind of what happened though? Granted, it took a while, but the collapse was sudden when it happened. They collapsed over a relatively short period of time.

I think people underestimate how serious the ussr was, and how much courage it took for us to stand there and not change who we were as a country while they had hundreds of nuclear weapons pointed at us.
You can argue that, because of mutually assured destruction, they would have never used them. But then you would have to ask yourself, "What about us? Were we prepared to use the nukes we had pointed at them?" It seems to me that if we were, they were too.

Weren't we on the brink of a nuclear war multiple times with them? And, with the stakes that high, we still maintained our freedoms, and even had time to gain more (i.e. civil rights movement)!

I don't see why we're so afraid of Iran. It isn't even mutually assured destruction, it's just assured destruction. We would survive whatever they threw at us and we'd completely obliterate their entire country with plenty to spare. What are we afraid of? If we are attacked, we'll defend ourselves, that's a given, so what do we have to fear?

"If you've ever read the rantings of Iran's president or that of Kim Jung-il of North Korea, you can certainly see how people would have doubts about their rationality and stabilty."

I'm sure there are plenty of crazy leaders to go around. What do we do, eliminate them if we think there is the possibility they might attack? Either we wait until we are attacked, which causes our people to die, and respond with so much force other countries get the point. Or we attack preemptively, which causes our people to die, and other countries hate us. Or, we try to avoid getting into a conflict in the first place, in which case none of our people die, and we still have the capacity to defend ourslves.

"For all of the flap in the US over the last 7 years, we're still a nation of laws, the highest enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, it's under attack, but until it's burned and shredded, I won't give up hope."

I hope you're right, but from the looks of things, Bush and all the other people who've taken shits on the law are not going to face any consequences.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[pipingguy]

For what it's worth, I don't think the person you're replying-to represents many Canadians' outlooks or attitudes.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[mqduck]

Please tell me why dictator that starves the population good. America bad. I really want to know the thought process behind that one. I don't think you responded at all to what I said. In fact, you provide another example of I was talking about: Don't have an excuse to bully someone? Call them evil. It's a really good one, cause if remind people that we have no right to bully them, you "support" the evil.

And by the way, I love this land, where I've lived all my life. Let's get that straight. What I despise is the government, in particular its role internationally.

...BUT! Please note, as I'm sure you won't, that I said nothing about which government is "worse". If you wish to have that debate, one I never entered into, perhaps you can find someone else (doubtful, of course: even communists aren't too happy to defend North Korea, if they do at all - which a lot don't).

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[clambake]

You are so blinded by your hatred for America that you completely ignore the fact that N. Korea's population is starving in the dark while their army eats well.

Actually, the army does NOT eat so well either... but they eat BETTER than te rest of the population mainly because, well, if they didn't they have all the guns and there is little that you can do to stop them from using the pointy end to get food.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[DaveV1.0]

Been to Canada much?

I have been there and seen how they sneer at people from the U.S. behind their backs.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Iran was on *our* side after 9-11.
Wanting blue jeans, and ipods doesn't make them on our side. And your half right Ahmadinejad was elected as a reformer, not as a bulwark against the US. The only reason he is popular is b/c of the axis of evil speech. Still it is kind of silly to talk about fighting Islamic terrorism and not mention one of the largest state sponsors or someone who has called your country the Great Satan

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[b1ad3runn3r]

I don't think anyone is worried about a rogue state nuking an American city as a start of some great conquering war. They're more worried about a rogue state nuking someone in the region as a last act of defiance before they topple in one of the coups or revolutions that frequent said countries. Or... that theoretical terror supporting government would hand a nuke (or sell) to a terrorist cell and try to extort concessions from the US ("We can't find this missing nuke from these terrorists unless you give us some breathing room on the human rights and embargo issues").

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/

esp. Chapter 2

They helped us get the northern alliance to work with us again after they'd been tossed aside after the afghan-soviet war.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[Johnny5000]

Wanting blue jeans, and ipods doesn't make them on our side.

Maybe not, but the more they enjoy American cultural exports, the less likely they're probably going to be to hate America.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[T.E.D.]

Everyone we don't like but have no excuse to bully is called nuts. Kim Jong-il is craaazy cause he's... wait, why again? Cause he's short and wears sunglasses? Man, that guy's nuts!

You are so blinded by your hatred for America that you completely ignore the fact that N. Korea's population is starving in the dark while their army eats well.

I'm really really sick of people accusing anyone who wants to improve America as "hating" it. Politics aside, its a crappy way to carry out a discussion. Where does this silly logic end? Does the GP get to postulate that you in fact hate cute kittens, and thus your opinions should be ignored (thereby re-enabling his)?

That being said, the GP did pick a horrible example in North Korea. The examples are legion, but a good one is their long history of kidnapping people just for the heck of it. My personal favorite is the film director and his wife who were kidnapped and forced to make movies for Fearless Leader for several years. I mean really, who would risk an international incident like that just to get a particular director to make films for them? I'd almost believe it from a Bond villain, but not from a real-life world leader.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[fuzzybunny]

This will probably be brutally misinterpreted, so disclaimer, I'm not in favor of invading anyone, but:

The Soviets were rational actors, arguably as scared of the US as the US was of them.

North Korea and, to a lesser degree Iran (yes, think about it) are theocracies. I would be less afraid of Iran (as a global as opposed to a regional threat) as they are far more susceptible to conflicts among various interest groups, ranging from fanatical (Ahmadinejad) over pragmatic (Rafsanjani) to liberal (not up on my Iranian domestic politics right now, just as the US is. Theocracies are not rational actors (beyond being really really hard-core gamblers with opaque motivational structures and, especially in NK's case, little to lose.)

Drawing parallels between North Korea and the USSR is a stretch, to say the least.

As far as Israel's concerned, its neighbors will, barring a major geopolitical change, not invade them again (see where it got them the last few times.) Being invaded by an NBC-capable enemy is the one scenario under which I can see the Israelis hitting first with nukes. Beyond that, they're not stupid. Any strike from them would be a response to a nuclear attack, assuming there's anything left of the country after they were hit.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[buzzcutbuddha]

If I could burn all my moderation points to mod the parent up I would. It amazes me that 50 years ago the US was willing to stand up to the Soviet Union and risk total nuclear annihilation in the process in the name of preserving essential liberties. And today we have leaders who ask us to give up our liberties, while undermining them in secret out of fear of a potential terrorist attack in some vague future scenario which may or may not include a nuclear bomb.

It makes me wish for a leader like Eisenhower, who incidentally said:
"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?"

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[Zaphod2016]

Hello my Canadian friend. I agree with your overall argument, but feel the need to correct you on one point.

The "cold war" turned hot during the Korean War, and then the Vietnam War. In both cases, the U.S.S.R., supported by China, fought a "proxy-war" against the USA. Neither Vietnam nor Korea nor even Cuba presented any threat to us- however -once you add a few million Chinese ground troops, some soviet tanks, and a serious nuclear capability, the threat becomes very real.

In many ways, Iraq 2 is a repeat of the 'ole proxy war m.o. from the last century. Iraq presented no serious threat to the USA, having been clobbered following the '91 invasion of Kuwait. However, if we are to believe this current administration, Iraq (under Saddam), Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc. have been fighting us via proxy, using terrorism, rather than a direct soviet-style invasion.

However, herein lies the fallacy: we are apparently ready for war against Iran because they *might* have a nuclear capability within the next 10 years. Meanwhile, Pakistan, a majority-muslim state, already has nukes, a history of disagreement with our Indian allies, and more importantly, a de-facto junta who has just declared martial law. Beyond Pakistan, we have Turkey ready to step-in and occupy Iraq's northern territories. Furthermore, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R., we have seen far reaching nuclear proliferation, not only throughout the former soviet block, but to several radical/revolutionary groups located in Latin America and the Middle East.

It would seem to me as though the USA has two options:

#1: Continue to play a bad game of RISK, forced to forever occupy 70% of the world in hopes of keeping allies and removing potential threats.

#2: Centralize our military force here in North America, take on a completely defensive role, and begin developing superior SDI technologies so that one day the threat of an ICBM is moot.

Of course, SDI does not address suitcase nukes, or the plethora of other methods a terrorist might use against us. For these, we need superior law enforcement, coupled with a foreign policy that does not force the rest of the world to either accept our ideologies as fiat, or, to attack us by any means possible in hopes of ending our occupation of foreign lands.

Yes, in a fair fight, the U.S.M.C. would single-handedly destroy every single terrorist on the planet. However, a terrorist is a terrorist because they cannot win a fair fight. Immoral? You bet. Horrific? No doubt. Effective? Depends who you ask. Twenty years ago, Bin Laden was a psudeo-ally, using terrorist tactics to end the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. From "their" point of view, I can certainly understand why they do what they do- it has worked before, and assuming public opposition to the war results in a new direction in '08, it will have worked again.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[ozphx]

Pretty certain FEMA would've loved to be able to buy food for those hurricane chumps from all the money that your retarded monkey-frog president was sending over to Iraq...

Oh well hopefully Darwin will hurry up and finish off your rapidly collapsing economy.

Hooray for Australia. We send a handful of chaps over to "support" your crazy plan, and get all the trade concessions we want. Playing you all for chumps, as it were. Our economy is booming, mainly because our govt knows better than to waste heaps of cash on a war. We'll just let you chumps "our allies" spend the majority of the cashola to secure some nice oil. Then maybe you can borrow some money from us to feed your people.

Tards.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[pipingguy]

Been to Canada much?

I am Canadian and have lived in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and Alberta over the past 45 years. The "sneerers" are few and far between (many are mainstream media types and those who have inferiority complexes) but I guess that depends on who one chooses to hang around with.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[DaveV1.0]

Funny, when I was there, I heard it all the time.

You just don't notice it.

We both agree and disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your conclusion that it's bullshit, but I disagree with your reason. I believe it is absolutely plausible and likely that both the Vice President and President intentionally misled the nation into a war and have committed numerous illegal acts without repercussion. Therefore I believe that impeachment proceedings are absolutely appropriate.

Slightly off-topic for moment... Remember, impeachment isn't like conviction; it's kind of like a grand jury indictment. That's when the real trial begins. I think the reason our popular culture equates impeachment with conviction is that Richard Nixon resigned after being impeached. Anyway, back on topic...

The bullshit is that no Democrats will actually stand up to the President for fear of losing "moderate" voters (not sure what's moderate about letting the President do whatever he wants...) This resolution almost reached the floor for debate because the Republicans tried to get it there, knowing the last thing the Democrats wanted to do was to actually have to pick a side on the issue. I could have sworn that we elect people to debate the issues and vote on them.

My big question is this: If, as a member of Congress, you're so afraid of losing an election that you can't make a significant positive impact on the country, then why do you want to be a member of Congress at all? My guess is that it's because politics as a career is quite lucrative. We need to do something about that.

And remember, there's nothing liberal about the rule of law. There's nothing liberal about demanding a transparent government that answers to the people. It's democracy, and it's about damn time we got it back.

laugh now.. but it's true you fools

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to inject technology relevance I just fast forwarded this event on my flat panel time screen.

Apparently, in 2008, the American people mobilise to overthrow their Govt after pornographic videos featuring a threesome with Bush, Clinton and Bin Laden are leaked across the internet.
In response the President declares the population at large are all terrorists and the Army is called in to quell the uprising.

Stock in weapons and oil go skyward. The Bankers cheer and Slashdot reports the latest trend for 2009 is RFID to the brain.

Another little tweak

[trolltalk.com]

"What a crock of shit. Iran may be run by religious nuts ..."

"What a crock of shit. The US may be run by religious nuts ..."

A real PKB situation if there ever was one ...

Re:Another little tweak

[Leftist Troll]

Hey, I don't disagree.

Fixed that for you

[copponex]

Since when did the leader of a country threatening to wipe an ally of China off the map not constitute a real threat? I'm not saying we should go to war against The United States but the World at large really needs to grow some balls when it comes to dealing with The United States. They constantly threaten to attack a country which did nothing to them. They are at the same time working to achieve missile defense technology and say that nobody can stop them.

Re:Fixed that for you

[Bryansix]

I forgot that Missle Defense can be used offensively

Re:Fixed that for you

[copponex]

Yes, you did. You should think tactically instead of not thinking at all.

Re:Fixed that for you

[Bryansix]

I think it has more to do with protecting us from rouge nations that somehow aquire ICBM's then gaining any tactical advantage in conventional warefare. The United States is already the only SuperPower in ther world.

are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[big_paul76]

"Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US?"

Yeesh... How old is the guy who wrote this, anyway? Ever hear of a time in history called the "cold war"? Let me skip to the relevant point: The USSR had hundreds or thousands of nukes pointed at the US, and it wasn't the end of the world.

If Iran wanted to hurt the US, they know very well they can't take them in a head-to-head fight, so they'd close the strait of Hormuz, and collapse the economy of most of the world, US included.

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[Attila Dimedici]

"Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US?"

Yeesh... How old is the guy who wrote this, anyway? Ever hear of a time in history called the "cold war"? Let me skip to the relevant point: The USSR had hundreds or thousands of nukes pointed at the US, and it wasn't the end of the world.

If Iran wanted to hurt the US, they know very well they can't take them in a head-to-head fight, so they'd close the strait of Hormuz, and collapse the economy of most of the world, US included. You do know that the people who run Iran are members of a religious group that teaches that it is their religious obligation to bring about Armageddon if the opportunity presents itself. They are the disciples of a man who used children to clear minefields by having them walk out into them and setting off the mines. Some co-religionists of the current rulers of Iran have blown themselves up in order to produce casualties among the civilian populace of those they considered their enemies. The rulers of the USSR on the other hand believed that when they died they ceased to exist. While it is possible that the fear of Iran getting nuclear weapons is exaggerated, the comparison with the USSR doesn't hold up to careful examination.

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[seriesrover]

Exactly. What kept the cold war at bay was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Whilst the communists loathed the whole western democratic way of life they were equally keen not to be destroyed themselves. There was at least logic and processes that held up the USSR pressing the button. It seems that the powers that be in Iran (perhaps NKorea) see MAD as almost being a virtue.

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[node 3]

You do know that the people who run Iran are members of a religious group that teaches that it is their religious obligation to bring about Armageddon if the opportunity presents itself. The same is true of America. Different religion, same Armageddon fetish.

While it is possible that the fear of Iran getting nuclear weapons is exaggerated, the comparison with the USSR doesn't hold up to careful examination. Right. The comparison is absurd. The USSR had the ability to end the USA's existence. A nuclear armed Iran does not. Nor have they ever threatened to, while the Russians had, and almost tried on more than one occasion.

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[ArcherB]

The same is true of America. Different religion, same Armageddon fetish.

Really? Link? Do you just make this shit up as you go along? Here's proof that you are either retarded-gold-fish stupid or a liar. WE ARE STILL HERE The US has had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world since 1946. And yet, we are still here. No Armageddon. That should be all the proof you need.

Right. The comparison is absurd. The USSR had the ability to end the USA's existence. A nuclear armed Iran does not. Nor have they ever threatened to, while the Russians had, and almost tried on more than one occasion.

Again, not just wrong, but fucking wrong. How about if I showed you a picture of Ahmadinajad watching a military parade with banners that read "Death to America".

Of course, I won't even get started on how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions. That alone is an act of war.

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[node 3]

Really? Link? Do you just make this shit up as you go along? Here's proof that you are either retarded-gold-fish stupid or a liar. WE ARE STILL HERE The US has had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world since 1946. And yet, we are still here. No Armageddon. That should be all the proof you need. The fuck? Christians are taught to welcome Armageddon and the end times, and there are Christians who are doing everything they can to bring that about. There's a Christian group that, as we speak, is trying to build some temple that's supposed to happen before Armageddon can happen.

Right. The comparison is absurd. The USSR had the ability to end the USA's existence. A nuclear armed Iran does not. Nor have they ever threatened to, while the Russians had, and almost tried on more than one occasion. Again, not just wrong, but fucking wrong. How about if I showed you a picture of Ahmadinajad watching a military parade with banners that read "Death to America". Shit, I had to double-quote just to show how fucking pathetic your argument is. Those banners aren't threats. They're just a bunch of fucked up posturing Ahmadinajad does to appeal to his base. No worse than the idiotic nonsense that comes out of our leaders' mouths. Remember "bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran"? Remember "Axis of Evil"? But even if you consider that a threat, it's a non-critical aspect of what I stated (which undermines your "not just wrong, but fucking wrong" statement). The rest still stands.

Ahmadinajad can't do *shit* to us. Even if left completely free to make all the bombs and missiles he wants and given 50 years to do so, he *still* wouldn't be able to do shit to us.

What's it like to fear a mouse like Iran?

Of course, I won't even get started on how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions. That alone is an act of war. No. Please do get started. How many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions? What actions are you talking about, exactly? If you *really* want to go down this road, how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of the Bush administration's actions? All you're really doing is grasping at any straw which you can stuff your imaginary enemy with to make him bigger.

Iran isn't a threat to the US. To fear them is absurd, and makes you a pathetic coward. Seriously, stop and think about it for a moment--YOU'RE AFRAID OF IRAN. How pathetic is that? Iran? Really?

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[ArcherB]

The fuck? Christians are taught to welcome Armageddon and the end times, and there are Christians who are doing everything they can to bring that about. There's a Christian group that, as we speak, is trying to build some temple that's supposed to happen before Armageddon can happen.

Really? Never heard of them. Is George Bush a member? No. Has GWB stated that the purpose of America is to usher in a post Armageddon Christian World Government? No. So shut the fuck up. There's a bunch of celebrities that think science fiction is a religion. What does that have to with anything? About as much as your example.

Shit, I had to double-quote just to show how fucking pathetic your argument is. Those banners aren't threats. They're just a bunch of fucked up posturing Ahmadinajad does to appeal to his base.

Holy Shit!??! What the fuck does he have to do? I mean, if "death to America" is not a threat, the WTF is? What would he have to do in your eyes to be considered a threat? Kidnap Americans from their embassy? Attack our ally's navies on the high seas and kidnap their sailors? Provide arms to the enemies that want to destroy Israel? Provide arms and training to our enemies? Oh wait, they did all of that. Seriously, what the hell does this guy have to do to be taken seriously?

Ahmadinajad can't do *shit* to us. Even if left completely free to make all the bombs and missiles he wants and given 50 years to do so, he *still* wouldn't be able to do shit to us.

As I stated, he has killed Americans in Iraq and bombed a US Marines in Lebanon. You refuted that by bringing up George Bush (which I'll get to in a minute). Do you deny that Iran is actively killing Americans? Do you deny that attacking Americans is an act of war? Again, WTF does this guy have to do?

No. Please do get started. How many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions? What actions are you talking about, exactly?

I was hoping that I would not have to hold your hand through this but... google "Iranian made ied" for your answers. However, if you really don't know the basics, you shouldn't be trying to participate in an advanced discussion like this. You are in way over your head if you don't know about Iranians training and supplying weapons to our enemies in Iraq. Then there were the Iranians actually captured in Iraq... but that is in the next class. You need to pass the pre-req's first.

If you *really* want to go down this road, how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of the Bush administration's actions?

That's like blaming all the deaths in WWII on Roosevelt or all the lives lost in the Revolutionary war on Washington. Please try to make a coherent argument.
While we are trying to speak for the soldiers in Iraq, let me stop you there. I've been there. I've talked with the people there. I've seen the severed limbs and gouged eyes. Don't for one second try to tell me that those soldiers are over there because of GWB. They are all volunteers. Any of them can leave at any given moment. All they have to do is ask. If they are denied, they can try to kiss their same sex commanding officer. Instant out. Those men and women in Iraq are fighting to bring freedom to people who have never known it. You see, when you meet these people, you realize that Americans aren't special. What had I done to earn my freedom? Nothing! What can I do now to earn my freedom? Nothing, it was given to me by birth. We are the rich kids born into the luxury of freedom. They are the poor that wonder every day if it is going to be their last. They wonder if they are going to be shot because some Baath party member thought that their 10-year-old little girl is hot. Or maybe today they'll get accused of being "counter-revolutionary" and drown in a pool, only to be taken out and revived to be thrown in again. You have no idea what these people went through. To say they don't a chance because... why? They are brown? They were not born

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[node 3]

That's like blaming all the deaths in WWII on Roosevelt or all the lives lost in the Revolutionary war on Washington. Please try to make a coherent argument. WWII was not a preemptive, elective war. Neither was the Revolutionary War.

To say they don't a chance because... why? They are brown? They were not born in the right place? What's your reasoning as to why they don't deserve a chance? How *dare* you, you swine. They deserve a chance, but *I'm* not the one taking it away. The ones taking it away are the superstitious thugs they are surrounded by. If you want to advocate eradicating superstitious thugs from the planet, that's a valid topic, but it's not the case you are making now, it's just a convenient red herring.

What I'm afraid of is Neville Chamberlain types that hold us down until we have good reason to fear them. Ahmadinajad is not Hitler. Ahmadinajad is not the ruler of Iran. Ahmadinajad is no threat to the US. Ahmadinajad, given free, unsupervised reign for the remainder of his life could not attain even 1/100th the power over the world that Hitler attained. He talks shit, but he's got no game.

And don't forget, the only reason he's the president of Iran at all is due to the bumbling lunacy called the Bush foreign policy. Prior to the invasion of Iraq and the "Axis of Evil" nonsense, there wasn't a chance in hell someone as fucked up as him could have been elected president. But when the biggest, baddest mutherfucker on the planet calls you a member of the "Axis of Evil", and invades the only other member of that "axis" who doesn't have nuclear weapons on false pretenses, the people get a little scared, and tend to take a hard right in their politics.

How would *YOU* have reacted had the roles been reversed?

People like you that scream you'd rather die than give up a single freedom and in the very next breath claim that "war is never the answer." Like hell we do. War definitely *is* an answer. But in the case of Iran, it's not. And it doesn't seem likely it will become one any time soon. Iran poses no significant threat to the US. What *does* pose a threat is taking on yet another war of choice. Iraq and Afghanistan already look to cost us over two trillion dollars, has spread our resources thin, and utterly destroyed our esteem in the world.

You're nothing but a coward, a paranoid swine who'd rather wage a never-ending war for fear that some nation some where might some day be able to attack us. An attack that, were they ever to take it, would ensure their destruction.

North Korea is *FAR* more powerful than Iran, is led by a man who is *FAR* more insane than Ahmadinajad, has made *NUCLEAR* threats against our cities, has launched *ACTUAL* missiles over Japan, has a *STRONG* ally in China, has, right now, the capability to *DESTROY* the capital of their nearby enemy, and is still *AT WAR* with the US, and even *they* won't attack us. And if they did, that country would become a footnote in history, while the US would continue. But if we spread ourselves thin and spend ourselves bankrupt chasing after boogeymen who can never be defeated, it is *we* who will become that footnote. You list Chamberlain as a model to fear. I list Rome and the USSR. Let's not take ourselves down the paths they took.

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[Attila Dimedici]

You do know that the people who run Iran are members of a religious group that teaches that it is their religious obligation to bring about Armageddon if the opportunity presents itself. The same is true of America. Different religion, same Armageddon fetish. There is a key difference. In Christianity, Armageddon is started by the bad guys. So, for a Christian, if you start Armageddon, you are by definition one of the bad guys. In Shiite Islam, Armageddon is started by the good guys. So, for the people ruling Iran starting Armageddon is a goal.

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[Johnny5000]

That's like blaming all the deaths in WWII on Roosevelt or all the lives lost in the Revolutionary war on Washington.

If FDR fucked up WWII as badly as Bush did the Iraq War, we'd all be speaking German right now.
So I think at least some of the blame for the colossal mess lies with Bush.

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[ArcherB]

If FDR fucked up WWII as badly as Bush did the Iraq War, we'd all be speaking German right now.
So I think at least some of the blame for the colossal mess lies with Bush.

We lost around 2000 men in a single day during WWII. It was called D-Day. The UK lost 382,600 soldiers in WWII. The US lost over 400,000. We've lost around 3000 soldiers in Iraq over four years. If you just run the numbers, Iraq is one of the greatest military victories in history. It's the spin battle that we've lost.

Sprechen Sei Deutsch?

Re:are you old enough to remember the cold war?

[Johnny5000]

We lost around 2000 men in a single day during WWII. It was called D-Day. The UK lost 382,600 soldiers in WWII. The US lost over 400,000. We've lost around 3000 soldiers in Iraq over four years. If you just run the numbers, Iraq is one of the greatest military victories in history. It's the spin battle that we've lost.

And if you do more than "just run the numbers" you find that we've created an even bigger mess than we started with.
The initial invasion may have accomplished its goals of defeating the Iraqi army and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. And I'll acknowledge that American soldiers really were greeted as liberators immediately following the invasion. However, the subsequent occupation was bumbled nearly every step of the way. During an occupation, it really is the "spin" that matters- not just the 'spin' in the US, but in Iraq- the people of the occupied country need to believe that the occupying army will improve things. Once we lose the hearts and minds of the occupied people, it's hard to get that back.

Also, 2007 was the deadliest year of the occupation so far, so it seems that things haven't started to improve yet.

Have a little think

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the United States needs to make a point of being allied to peaceful nations who don't unilaterally attack their neighbours and practice apartheid. Then they would be much more convincing with diplomacy.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[rujholla]

Can I mod that as +1 paranoid. :)

Debate the Republicans want

[xzvf]

All the people on this thread are missing the point that the Republicans voted to debate the issue on the floor and the Democrats moved the debate into the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats didn't want the debate in public and wanted it buried. Regardless of a person's political views, this is not a victory for people that want to impeach Bush/Cheney. Far from it... The Republicans want a public debate because the people that want to impeach are significantly in the minority, but the statements the fringe make will be used against every Democrat in a general election. It's easy for people that are antiwar to assume that dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war is support for never fighting the war.

Re:Debate the Republicans want

[roystgnr]

the people that want to impeach are significantly in the minority

Where by "significantly in the minority", you mean 54 percent.

Re:Debate the Republicans want

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy for people that are antiwar to assume that dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war is support for never fighting the war.

That's my greatest disappointment with our country about the war. Opinion polls about the war go up and down in relation to whatever the current situation is reported to be. It's the pragmatic approach to war. Blow some people up, force a democracy in there, seems to take: good job! Kill some people, there's resistance and we get a bit of egg on our face: we no likey.

Where's a committment to principles? Why no consensus that aggressive military action against countries that aren't threatening us is bad karma, and we regret it.

Re:Debate the Republicans want

[Starlet Monroe]

He means the people in Congress who will vote to support the impeachment are significantly in the minority. Bad phraseage.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Martin Blank]

It's debatable if someone who had served ten years could even be sworn into office as vice president, but even if possible, and the role of the president became vacant, the vice president would be passed over in favor of the Speaker of the House, as anyone who is sworn in must be eligible under the Constitution to serve.

Paul/Kucinich debate

[Anonymous Coward]

These two candidates are both very promising. I'd like hear them debate their visions for our future.

Re:Paul/Kucinich debate

[halivar]

Dennis would like point to Ron as evidence that TEH UFO'S ARE REAL!!!11!!1!one!!

*ducks*
*runs*

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[DurendalMac]

That's what Kucinich is thinking. He's moving to impeach Cheney when he knows it wont happen. Even if it did, it would be too late to have much of an effect. Kucinich is posturing for the next presidential election.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[ceejayoz]

Even that's a little debatable - the amendment doesn't seem to set any limits on the number of times you can be elected VP and become President by resignation/impeachment, just on the number of times you can be elected President. Could Bill Clinton become VP and have the President step down on day 2?

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[BlueshiftVFX]

There all just a bunch of puppets for the central bankers and the will of the Bilderberg Group. Anyone that has any power has been associated with this consortium of power worldwide. So no it doesn't really matter who gets to replace them, they will have the same boss anyways. Those that don't agree and try to buck the system will probably end up like JFK, In a body bag attributed to some patsy who then gets wacked by a patriot before they can be questioned. You know It's funny how many times the Military has some patsy dishonorably discharged for some sort of "bad" act that the US would never condone. but soldiers don't think for them selves they take orders, they follow their chain of command, so here are these pawns that get removed but the real boss/badguy stays in power.

Where are all the democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

... to jump in here and tell us all how they're different from republicans and that they are worth our votes?

There's no difference between the democrats and republicans that makes one worth the vote of a sincere person over the other, except maybe some horribly pathetic argument that the democrats aren't as corrupt. They certainly don't seem to be as corrupt, but, if this were my business, I wouldn't fire a corrupt employee and replace them with a useless do nothing employee, then pat myself on the back as if I achieved some good.

As for democrats having a shot in 2008... I wouldn't count them out yet. Giuliani is a one trick pony and Romney has come to boldly embody the cowardice that is underlying to modern republican political philosophy, that the government needs to take care of us and protect us(see his remarks on the government protecting us as being a civil liberty, argh). As for the rest of the candidates, I would be seriously surprised if any of them beat either of those two. And if it's either of them versus a Clinton or Obama, the race will be seriously up in the air.

Shit or bullshit america. You decide in 2008.

It wasn't "successful" it was killed

[cmay]

Kucinich didn't want the bill moved to the committee.... that is how they killed it. He introduced that same impeachment stuff into the committee months ago, and they have refused to act on it. So now, they will just refuse to act on BOTH copies of it. Kucinich wanted a debate on the floor, and the Dem leadership successfully killed it so that didn't happen.

Some painful truth....

[jmorris42]

> No, we send them to secret torture prisons

Not at all. Gitmo isn't exactly a secret. Rendition was a bit more odious but it didn't stop Clinton's first administration from using the practice. It is just a reactiom to our overly lawyered up society not being able to face the reality that the spy vs spy game is nasty business, and totally not comparable to law enforcement and the somewhat graeter limits that can be imposed on their range of action without the liberty/security balance going totally out of whack.

> to avoid US laws and throw out habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention on a new
> made-up class of people, "enemy non-combatants"

They aren't US citizens so US law doesn't and shouldn't apply, thus speaking of things like habeas corpus is just proof of your ignorance. Same for your parroting stock Kos/moveon about the Geneva Convention. Sorry Charlie, terrorists must NEVER be given the protections of the GC or it becomes worthless. I'm serious.

Only a few working brain cells should suffice to figure it out on your own, but since half of /. seems to lack them I'll spell it out one more time. The Geneva Convention is a wonderful idea. But it is an agreement between NATION STATES who signed onto the treaty and can only function in that context. To extend the protections promised by that treaty to non-state actors who 1) have not signed the treaty, 2) have shown no signs of believing in the ideas it codifies and more importantly 3) themselves flagrantly violate the provisions of it on a daily basis (see Youtube.com) (which isn't a bad thing in itself... see #1) would totally undermine the rationale for nation states to sign the damned thing and lead to bloodier and more inhumane war in the future. The only reason a country would sign the GC Treaty is because they think the benefits (and probablity) of having THEIR nationals extended the protections promised outweigh the expense of putting enemy combatants in proper facilities and forgoing the potential intelligence that could be gained by torturing them and the propaganda points from exploiting them.

Re:Some painful truth....

[spikedvodka]

BUZZZZ... Wrong

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

Re:Some painful truth....

[SirSlud]

Daily beheadings? Why do I picture you masturbating while you say these words?

Re:Some painful truth....

[Copid]

They aren't US citizens so US law doesn't and shouldn't apply, thus speaking of things like habeas corpus is just proof of your ignorance. Same for your parroting stock Kos/moveon about the Geneva Convention. Sorry Charlie, terrorists must NEVER be given the protections of the GC or it becomes worthless. I'm serious.

I see where you're coming from, but then how do you propose that we prevent our government from simply permanently disappearing people? If you're not a prisoner in a criminal case with rights afforded by the criminal justice system, and you're not a prisoner of war, then what are you, exactly? Further, let's say we do create a third classification of people--a classification that's special enough that we're allowed to drop you down a deep dark hole forever more. What is the burden of proof that we should apply to allow people to be dropped in? Is "we paid a guy in the badlands of Afghanistan $5000 to bring us a terrorist and he brought us this guy" enough?

Yes, it can be debated that there's a legal distinction between me as a US citizen sitting at my desk and a farmer in Afghanistan with respect to the provision of rights under US law. What I don't understand is that most people also seem to think that there's a valid moral distinction as well. Frankly, that creeps me out. "They're not people like the rest of us," is a very scary philosophy for people who are debating basic human rights to hold, but it seems to be the prevailing one. Why do I deserve a fair trial when foreigners do not?

Re:Some painful truth....

[jmorris42]

Ok, you are rational enough to be worth a followup post. Apology in advance, I just looked at a preview and this one is long. I got on a roll. :)

> If you're not a prisoner in a criminal case with rights afforded by the criminal
> justice system, and you're not a prisoner of war, then what are you, exactly?

Well we can look to the Geneva Conventions themselves for some of the answer. Combatants out of uniform, hiding behind civilian populations, etc. are mentioned. And what it has to say about an 'unlawful combatant' ain't pretty. Basically we could just line em up and shoot em on sight and be 100% in compliance. Read some history of the French Resistance for an example as they are a fairly close case except that they were careful to target military/political targets. The Germans shot em and nobody uttered a peep about the Geneva Conventions because it was kosher. For all their other sins the German Army considered itself to be professional and 'civilized', certain notorious units obviously excepted, thus they generally adhered to the Geneva Conventions[1]. We should be doing likewise in Iraq and Afganistan. In this case I doubt prompt public executions would discourage them very much but it certainly couldn't hurt.

In a nutshell the original Geneva Conventions were designed to define the conduct of war between Great Powers using ranked formations of conscript soldiers. Later additions (some of which the US didn't sign onto) are mostly Cold War relics where the Soviets were making it easier for their proxy states and revolutionaries to win by conning Western Civilization into fighting with one hand tied behind it's back.

None of which is applicable to the current GWOT being fought with no massed armies and one side without even a proxy nation state to sign the GC even if they believed all that 'touchy feelly crap that just illustrates how weak and spinless the West is' was something they wanted to be a part of. But notice that Taliban soldiers in uniform did get GC protection. We didn't get bogged down with rule book lawyer questions as to whether the Taliban were the lawful descendent of the previous soviet puppet state that had signed, they were recognizable soldiers so we extended them the protection of the GC.

Terrorists hiding in civilian populations and as often as not attacking those same civilians deserve no protection. Catch em, give some minimal justice where needed to try to make sure the Mohammad you caught really is the same Mohammad that blew up a marketplace last week and then shoot the bastard.

For all that most of the action is taking place away from the TV cameras this IS a total war because they won't stop until we kill em or they cut our heads off. Longer term we have to change the conditions that breed this brand of nutter but GWB's drain the swamp and plant democracy theory certainly hasn't been working out all that well.

So we try, try again until we find a way that works since failure isn't an option. I'm an agnostic so I'll get my head cut off right behind the queers and athiests.... assuming I don't go out shooting earlier.

> Yes, it can be debated that there's a legal distinction between me as a US
> citizen sitting at my desk and a farmer in Afghanistan with respect to the
> provision of rights under US law.

No it can't be debated because it is obvious to any sane persion that there is a night and day difference. The expectations a Free People have regarding their relationship with their own government can and indeed must be vastly different from that governments's obligation to enemies taken on the field of combat. Even if taken inside the camp of an enemy a known US citizen (John Walker Lindh for example) has the expectation of certain rights. Inalienable Rights.

Just like there is a world of difference between law enforcement and intelligence. Rules that apply in the context of criminal investigations of citizens have almost to resemblence to how the law of the

Re:Some painful truth....

[Copid]

Terrorists hiding in civilian populations and as often as not attacking those same civilians deserve no protection. Catch em, give some minimal justice where needed to try to make sure the Mohammad you caught really is the same Mohammad that blew up a marketplace last week and then shoot the bastard.

Rather than fly further off topic and quibble on points where I have minor disagreements, I'm going to key in on this. I honestly have no qualms about summary execution or even brutal interrogation of terrorists--provided that they're actually terrorists and there's reason to believe that those tactics are effective. In fact, I have a hard time dealing with the fact that war has "rules" at all. War is what you do when the rules no longer work.

My major problem is the question you didn't answer: What's the appropriate burden of proof for executing an unarmed person in the field or disappearing him to a prison site for the rest of his natural life? I'll accept for the sake of argument that these things are effective ways of dealing with the problem, but I'd like to see some serious rules applied before I give the nod to classifying somebody as a person with no rights, locking him up, and throwing away the key. So far, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that we're doing a good job of figuring out who we should be disappearing, and I've seen enough evidence that we aren't to be hesitant to give the government an "arbitrarily disappear, torture, and execute whoever you want as long as it's not me" card. When you combine death / permanent imprisonment with accusations and evidence that look like a scene out of The Crucible, I get nervous.

Why? Our government derives it's powers FROM US. By definition we hold a claim for our government to respect (and defend) our rights. Think of government as a mutual defense pact.

Hmmm... I think that we look at the world in a fundamentally different way, then. I tend to think that in all but the most extreme circumstances, it is universally wrong to deprive somebody of life or liberty without a way of meaningfully defending himself. To me, that principle isn't just a convenient legal fiction that happens to work out well for me. It's a fundamental concern about the unfairness of being kidnapped in the middle of the night and shipped off to be held incognito in the middle of nowhere until you die. Add to that the fact that it's bad PR at a time when we're losing a PR war to the types of people who blow up hospitals, and I think that you have the makings for a policy we'll be embarrassed about in the hindsight of history.

Re:Some painful truth....

[Antique Geekmeister]

Some of the torture prisons are in Turkey, and other nations that permit legal "water-boarding" and other tortures. I suggest you check for the articles in the New York Times: it's an ongoing program to transfer prisoners in Iraq and other places and transfer them to nations where torture is legal. And there's been fascinating testimony, in front of Congress, that the US still engages in "waterboarding" in our own prisons in Iraq. This is a banned torture involving drowing the victim to just shy of death. It does occasionally kill, adn these are prisoners who have never been tried, much less convicted, of anything.

This secret extradition and torture treatment is also in direct violation of the US code of military justice, a set of US laws, which describes court procedures for military procedures and has no magic clause for this newly invented "military non-combatants". I'm afraid you've not glanced at the set of laws being violated: please spend a bit of time checking out the news articles on these tortures and on

We signed the Geneva Convention. We also wrote the US constitution, and numerous court decisions since then provide a minimum of human rights for even enemies in combat, much more for prisoners. The Geneva Convetion is an agreement *by* nation stat4es, and includes their handling of non-signatories. And like parents without children paying taxes for schools, many nations sign it to help prevent trouble worldwide. Better yet, it also includes standards for how nations treat their own citizens, forbidding genocide and yes, torture. So it's not just aimed at protecting one's citizens oversees, it sets a legal minimum standard of behavior worldwide. So let's not pretend that there's only one reason for signing it. That kind of rationalized thinking leads to people only obeying traffic laws when it feels important to them, and it's not safe.

Please examine the history of the US code of military justice, if not of the Geneva Convention, to see how many ways we're violating it. I'm not saying that it justifies beheading of innocent victims, but one does not justify the other: both are illegal and violations of international treaty, and need to stop for either practicioners to be treated as just.

Re:Some painful truth....

[Darby]

Rendition was a bit more odious but it didn't stop Clinton's first administration from using the practice.

Ahhh, the old "Clinton did it" chestnut.

You do know, don't you, that using that tired old bullshit line demonstrates to everybody reading your idiotic mewlings that you are an idiot, you're deeply dishonest and so far outside the realm of rationality that only a fool would believe anything you had to say?

It's way too obvious at this point.

You are incapable of defending your position (because even you aren't stupid enough to think it's defensible) so you bust out that old tired out nonsense? Seriously?

Grow up and quit being a whiny little bitch.
Your mom should really spank your dumb ass more you desperately need something to sane you up.

Re:Some painful truth....

[Johnny5000]

Rendition was a bit more odious but it didn't stop Clinton's first administration from using the practice.

Actually, when the Clinton administration did it, they took steps to make sure the receiving country did not torture or mistreat the prisoner.

The Bush admin, not so much, which is one of the aspects of the Bush version of rendition that is sharply criticized.

Re:Some painful truth....

[ArcherB]

My major problem is the question you didn't answer: What's the appropriate burden of proof for executing an unarmed person in the field or disappearing him to a prison site for the rest of his natural life? I'll accept for the sake of argument that these things are effective ways of dealing with the problem, but I'd like to see some serious rules applied before I give the nod to classifying somebody as a person with no rights, locking him up, and throwing away the key. So far, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that we're doing a good job of figuring out who we should be disappearing, and I've seen enough evidence that we aren't [shu.edu] to be hesitant to give the government an "arbitrarily disappear, torture, and execute whoever you want as long as it's not me" card. When you combine death / permanent imprisonment with accusations and evidence that look like a scene out of The Crucible, I get nervous.

I think the main rule that you are looking for is efficiency toward the completion of the mission. This is important to military leadership. It simply serves no purpose to take someone from their home in the dead of night, fly them to an "undisclosed" location and torture them for no apparent reason. It is a waste of time and resources. First, you have men risk their lives to raid the guy's house. Next, you use a plane and pay for the fuel to fly this guy to the "undisclosed" location. Then you waste the interrogator's time, and prison resources (food, space, AC... whatever) to hold and "interrogate" this person. Finally, every step of the way, you need armed guards to make sure the guy doesn't run away or hang himself. The fastest way to ruin a military (or spy) career is to waste resources like that. You send 5 guys to be interrogated, waste about 100 hrs of the interrogators time only to find out that these guys are completely innocent, your General is going to hear about it. From there, it rolls back down to you. It is well known in military circles that not only does shit roll downhill, but it gets bigger as it goes.

This is why there are no hard and fast rules about who gets picked up and who doesn't. Well, that and the fact that it would bog down soldiers to have to work their way through a checklist of who is a terrorist and who isn't. "OK, step 15 reads, 'The subject can be taken into custody if he is carrying a weapon.' Well, he had a donkey with a bomb strapped to it. Does that count as a weapon, livestock or farming equipment? Also, do we take him or his donkey? Maybe we should count it as an old-school car bomb."

It's like pornography, they can't really define it, but they know it when they see it.

Re:Some painful truth....

[Copid]

I think the main rule that you are looking for is efficiency toward the completion of the mission. This is important to military leadership. It simply serves no purpose to take someone from their home in the dead of night, fly them to an "undisclosed" location and torture them for no apparent reason. It is a waste of time and resources.

All of that makes great sense in theory, but there's plenty of evidence that they're not doing a very good job of avoiding that waste. In fact, it looks to me like they're doing a great job of rounding up a bunch of people who shouldn't have been picked up at all. The Seton Hall link I posted above has some classic examples of this. Let's go where you're going with this: If people can't be made to be sympathetic to an innocent guy who has just had his life thrown away because we've removed the safeguards from our process, they should at least be concerned about the fact that a huge portion of the people we're sweeping up and holding as enemy combatants appear to be non-threatening individuals who we're housing at great cost for no real intelligence benefit. On top of that, we're pissing off their friends and families and confirming to their paranoia that the US really is an evil empire whose all-powerful CIA will snatch them up for being Muslim.

The idea that the military / intelligence community wouldn't do something inefficient or make poor decisions with its resources seems to me to be a myth along the same lines as the one that private industry is always a model of efficiency. Sure, it works out in theory, but the reality is much uglier than that. I've done contract work developing gizmos for the intelligence folks, and while they're sharp people and professionals at what they do, they also have a ridiculously hard job and in the end, they're only human. It's a safer bet to throw somebody in the can and let him rot than risk the possibility that they're throwing away something useful. That's why we typically implement safeguards to keep bad things from happening: systems like that one are rigged in favor of keeping you forever once they've picked you up.

This is why there are no hard and fast rules about who gets picked up and who doesn't. Well, that and the fact that it would bog down soldiers to have to work their way through a checklist of who is a terrorist and who isn't.

I'm not really concerned about who gets picked up and who doesn't. I'm more concerned about whether they'll be let out later if they turn out to be of minimal importance or threat. And if they are let out, I'm also concerned about them going home and telling their friends that as it turns out, the Americans really are out to get them and they should all take up arms to stop us. We should never take our eyes off the fact that while this is both a shooting war and a law enforcement problem, it's above all else a PR war, and we're doing an abysmal job on that front.

It's like pornography, they can't really define it, but they know it when they see it.

To some extent, that's true. But I would hope that if the penalty for possession of pornography was execution or a short life in a 4x6 cell in Syria, we'd have at least some reasonably objective measurement of what pornography is. As I see it, "I know it when I see it" is good enough for parking tickets but not nearly good enough when we're sending people off to be beaten with speaker wire.

Re:Some painful truth....

[SirSlud]

In my line of work, we call that office politics.

It simply serves no purpose to take someone from their home in the dead of night, fly them to an "undisclosed" location and torture them for no apparent reason.

I make you look thorough to your superior.

Next, you use a plane and pay for the fuel to fly this guy to the "undisclosed" location. Then you waste the interrogator's time, and prison resources (food, space, AC... whatever) to hold and "interrogate" this person.

If its not my budget I'm spending, then it only matters that I am marginally able to justify the costs.

You send 5 guys to be interrogated, waste about 100 hrs of the interrogators time only to find out that these guys are completely innocent, your General is going to hear about it. From there, it rolls back down to you. It is well known in military circles that not only does shit roll downhill, but it gets bigger as it goes.

Defender of the public sector as I am, but I have a very difficult time believing this given how much of the federal budget is for military spending. It doesn't strike me as an institution which is cut throat when it comes to cost efficiency. Your point depends very much on 'the General hearing it (I'll add, caring about it, if hes unable to pass the intelligence buck elsewhere)' and the interrogator thinking his time was wasted, even if the guy is totally clean.

This is why there are no hard and fast rules about who gets picked up and who doesn't. Well, that and the fact that it would bog down soldiers to have to work their way through a checklist of who is a terrorist and who isn't. "OK, step 15 reads, 'The subject can be taken into custody if he is carrying a weapon.' Well, he had a donkey with a bomb strapped to it. Does that count as a weapon, livestock or farming equipment? Also, do we take him or his donkey? Maybe we should count it as an old-school car bomb."

I don't even know what to make of that.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[knivesx11]

Yes it does if you have served for more than 6 years as president you can not serve as vice president.

Re:!technology

[that this is not und]

Don't start listing additional reasons why it shouldn't
  be on Slashdot. Remember, three strikes, and you're OUT.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[m2943]

I don't see where you get that from. The Amendment only talks about how often you can be elected to the office of president; it doesn't talk about any limits on how long you can become president.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Obfuscant]

... as anyone who is sworn in must be eligible under the Constitution to serve.

While the 12th Amendment says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States", the 22nd prohibits only the ELECTION to office, not serving therein. Nothing I see in the Constitution talks about eligibility to serve as President (other than natural born citizen and the age limit.) It is reasonable to assume that when the word "elected" is used, it is limited to that action, and that the 12th Amendment serves only to ensure that the citizen and age limits apply to the office of VP so that the VP can assume the role of Pres. if necessary. (There was nothing in the Constitution preventing someone for running for Pres. who was too young or not a natural born citizen, only that he could not serve. Apparently, he could serve as VP.)

If you thought the furor over SCOTUS stopping Gore's shenanigans trying to keep Florida's electors from being certified according to Florida's laws was something, just wait until SCOTUS has to rule on whether the 22nd A means one cannot SERVE despite clear terminology that the limit is "elected", and Bill gets passed over for a Republican speaker of the house when Hill steps down. I'd almost pay to watch that.

Here is his speech (gotta love cspan)

[ostomator]

Here you go : cspan feed of kucinich )ok, you don't trust links : http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=e2700866-e9e8-4b59-8d67-d8df83c107ae. You gotta love the moxy. and the hair.
Bob
if at first you don't succeed...oh never mind

Re:Here is his speech (gotta love cspan)

[ostomator]

And here he is on the early show defending his position : http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=c0b13b09-58eb-488b-b6c3-608a7766216f

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Q-Cat5]

Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to total abolition of civil and human rights in the US. Even typing that revolted me.

I attempted to quote you above, but something keeps happening to the bold text. Let me try again:

Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to imminentizing the eschaton. Even typing that revolted me.

Okay, one more try:

Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to victory for Emperor Palpatine. Even typing that revolted me.

I give up.

Bush is not a conservative

[m2943]

America is a conservative country with conservative voters following a conservative agenda.

Bush is not a conservative. Conservatism is generally against foreign adventures, against foreign borrowing, against big government, and against government interference in private matters. Bush has engaged in multiple military adventures, has borrowed like no president before him, has increased government spending to unprecedented levels, and has been pushing government interference in religious and private matters.

Bush actually presents himself as a populist nationalist. But like many populist nationalists, he really hides corporatism and borderline corruption under that veneer.

Re:Bush is not a conservative

[MillionthMonkey]

Conservatism is generally against foreign adventures, against foreign borrowing, against big government, and against government interference in private matters.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. Bush is as conservative as they come, and under Bush, conservatives have gotten everything they wanted: foreign wars of choice, a replacement of tax revenue with foreign borrowing, a massive expansion of government power (outweighing the decimation of government services), and an aggressive effort to bring the power of the state to bear on influencing individual moral decisions. Bush is unpopular because the inevitable results of conservative ideology are unpopular. Period.

I have to laugh when I see conservatives pretending they don't recognize this guy. He is hanging on your necks like a sack of shit and you all smell just like him. Not only is your next candidate going to be Rudy (you can just forget about this Ron Paul crap), there's a good chance Rudy will win since you're still going to vote for him.

Re:Bush is not a conservative

[Scudsucker]

Bush is not a conservative.

Bullshit. Money quotes:

One of the few propositions on which Bush supporters and critics agree is that George Bush does not change and has not changed at all over the last six years. He is exactly the same.

And none of the supposed grounds for conservative discontent -- especially Bush's immigration position -- is even remotely new.

If Bush isn't conservative now, he wasn't conservative in 2004 or 2000 either. And yet conservatives backed him 110% right up until he started hurting their electoral chances.

There is really only one thing that has changed about George W. Bush from the 2002-2004 era when conservatives hailed him as the Great Conservative Leader, and now. Whereas Bush was a wildly popular leader then, which made conservatives eager to claim him as their Standard-Bearer, he is now one of the most despised presidents in U.S. history, and conservatives are thus desperate to disassociate themselves from the President for whom they are solely responsible. It is painfully obvious there is nothing noble, substantive or principled driving this right-wing outburst; it is a pure act of self-preservation.

The conservative movement tied itself to Bush as tightly and loyally as possible for years when they perceived that Bush was a wildly popular president who would bring glory to "conservatives," and that their movement would receive credit for the heroic and powerful Bush. When he was popular, they depicted him as the Embodiment of Pure Conservatism. That's just undeniable, historical fact.

The newfound storyline that Bush's failure is attributed to the fact that he was never really a conservative (and, all along, was really liberal) -- and that movement conservatives are thus his disappointed and betrayed victims -- is pure fiction, the most transparent form of revisionism.

Digby:

"Conservative" is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals.

George W. Bush will not achieve a place in the Republican pantheon. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. (And a conservative can only fail because he is too liberal.)

The problem isn't just Bush. The problem is that the conservative movement has completely, utterly failed America.

Re:Bush is not a conservative

[baffled]

Don't confuse conservatism with neo-conservatism. The OP is correct, and Ron Paul is the only candidate fitting the bill of a traditional conservative.

Re:Bush is not a conservative

[lhbtubajon]

I disagree. Bush has been pissing off real conservatives ever since he took office.

If you recall, in 2000 Bush ran on a VERY conservative platform: lower taxes, increase moral accountability in the executive office, lower taxes, rein in U.S. spending and nation-building, and lower taxes.

At almost every turn since his election, Bush has failed to actually follow through with his conservative campaign rhetoric, and has instead adopted a starkly neo-con agenda that his political base rejects. No real conservative presides over the largest increase in deficit spending and national debt in U.S. history. At least Reagan had a legitimate evil empire to fight. Bush has done this to us over IRAQ of all things!

The only reason he got re-elected in 2004 was that his conservative base harbors a really screwed up pseudo-romantic notion that you should never change presidents in the middle of a war, which is just about the worst ideological and electoral precedent I can imagine. Plus John Kerry was so underwhelming that he was about a half-notch above Mondale in his electability.

Anyway, Bush is not remotely a conservative. More like an Authoritarian Centrist. It's a pretty ugly combination.

Re:Bush is not a conservative

[Darby]

Conservatism is generally against foreign adventures, against foreign borrowing, against big government, and against government interference in private matters

So, you mean Conservatism is Liberalism?

That's the funniest part of the whole "let's destroy the whole concept of Liberalism" the right and left pushed so hard for here.
OK, it's the only funny part. It's really disgusting on the whole.

Re:Bush is not a conservative

[BlueStraggler]

Conservatism is about supporting entrenched interests, as opposed to replacing them with new interests. That is the fundamental meaning of the term. Being against foreign adventures, big government, etc. is understood as conservative in the USA because historically that happens to be what the U.S. government was like up until the 1930s, so it's the system under which all of the great families of the U.S.A. (the old guard, so to speak) achieved their positions of wealth and power. What conservatives of this ilk fail to understand is that from the 1940s onward, the U.S. establishment has progressively been taken over by new interests that are heavily invested in the military-industrial complex. This is a consequence of the Allied victory in WWII and the subsequent Cold War. This new establishment achieved its position of wealth and power in a system of corporate welfare through massive military spending, and the foreign adventures that resulted. It is now two or three generations old -- it can rightfully claim the mantle of Conservatism in the U.S.A. because there is a well-established system of privilege to conserve.

Re:Bush is not a conservative

[Scudsucker]

Uh huh. So who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004? Do you have a sticky spot on your bumper where a Bush/Cheney sticker used to be? Conservatives who opposed Bush from the beginning are like Boomers who went to Woodstock: only a few people actually went, but now everyone claims to have gone.

If you recall, in 2000 Bush ran on a VERY conservative platform: lower taxes, increase moral accountability in the executive office, lower taxes, rein in U.S. spending and nation-building, and lower taxes.

Actually, he ran on a moderate sounding platform. Compassionate conservatism, and all that (sorry, SCHIP). Once elected, he moved hard right and stayed there. As for "moral accountability", that's just a slogan. Remember all the members of the GOP that either had affairs or were currently cheating on their spouses when they were impeaching Clinton for getting it on with an intern, and all the current Republicans getting busted for hetero and homosexual affairs.

And low taxes and government spending for the sake of low taxes and spending is no better than high taxes and spending for the sake of high taxes and spending. "Limited government" gets you thinks like Katrina and the 35W bridge collapse and screwed in the event of a pandemic because emergency rooms have been closed to reduce "excess capacity."

Bad Choice of Words

[Nom du Keyboard]

successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee.

He wasn't successful at all. Heck, the Republicans were voting in favor of the debate. It is more accurate to say: the articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney have been buried in the House Judiciary committee, and will not be seen again.

Which is sad, since a majority favor impeachment

[LarryWest42]

As of July, a majority favored impeaching Cheney, and it was close on Bush:

• http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/.

So the Congressional Democrats are distancing themselves from the majority and certainly from their party members. Probably partly because they get saturated with "info" from all the boot-licking media and consultants based in Washington and NY.

Of course many people try to characterize impeachment as a fringe movement... because that's the only rhetorical angle left: per the Constitution or the will of the people, impeachment of Cheney is quite reasonable. Particularly considering the damage done to the country.

Hopefully we'll see criminal proceedings at some point. There's a lot of personal responsibility that still needs to be apportioned.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Martin Blank]

Pedantry aside, the point is probably moot, as it's almost certain that no party would risk selecting a vice presidential candidate who might be passed over as president in case the higher office became vacant.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[butterwise]

Bush, we all know, is not that smart of a cookie.

Methinks you mean, "Bush [...] is not as smart as a cookie."

Watch the original

[rockhome]

Here you go : cspan feed of kucinich )ok, you don't trust links : http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=e2700866-e9e8-4b59-8d67-d8df83c107ae.

This is good stuff. Regardless of whether or not the resolution is worthwhile, effective, or politcally reasonable, it is good to see the Congressional record including SOME kind of (relatively) strong repudiation of this administration's actions.

They only need to aim a bit to the left of Iraq.

[sethstorm]

Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S. You misspelled Israel. In the Middle East, that's just as good as attacking the US thanks to AIPAC.

Investigation/sworn testimony must be done

[leftie]

The Congressional investigation for an impeachment process, and the sworn testimony that would go with an impeachment process has to be done. Bush and Cheney have to be forced to sit down in front of Congress and be forced to testify under oath to their acts during the Bush Presidency in a situation where they could not refused on the basis of executive privilege.

Bush and Cheney must allow themselves to be sworn in and testify in an impeachment investigation.

mod parent up

[CeramicNuts]

Here's a good link that thoroughly debunks the "wiped off the map" myth:

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

Yeah

[/dev/trash]

And if just one soldier got as much as a stubbed toe because of zero funding the Congress would be all GOP in 2008.

Re:Yeah

[Scudsucker]

That's a (lame) Fox Noise talking point. Defunding the war means ending the war and bringing the troops home, not leaving them stranded with dwindling gas and bullets. And the response to the "stubbed toe" is to ask why this toe is suddenly sacrosanct, but the previous 4,000 American lives were expendable?

Re:Yeah

[/dev/trash]

I have no idea what the 'latest' talking points are. I don't have cable and FN dot com refuses to load in Opera for me.

Re:Yeah

[Scudsucker]

Opera? Isn't that a little subversive? Reminds me of the time I saw a Bush/Cheney sticker on a Honda Insight. I wanted to stop and ask the guy if the other Republicans knew about this.

John Conyers Chair of House Jud. Comm

[leftie]

Yeah... and John Conyers, one of few truly outspoken critics of Bush and Cheney during Bush's whole Presidency, is the Chair of House Judiciary Committee.

Sure... Pelosi could buy Conyers off with a ton of Pork... but Pelosi's gonna come up with enough pork to rebuild Detroit (Conyers district) from the ground up. Let's be honest. A little pork just ain't gonna make enough difference to anybody in Detroit to back Conyers off.

You had an argument?!

[patiodragon]

"Way to counter my argument by just calling me a chicken-shit."

All you said was "dumber". You started the name calling, not some kind of a discourse.

Those two arab factions (and no, I can't spell them) have been fighting each other for hundreds of years. The idea that some new tactic, number of foreign troops, or other outside intervention is going to stop the fighting is kind of short-sided, it seems.

It will have the desired effect, however: a permanent military base in the region and control of the oil pipelines. It's a banker's war, just like all the rest.

Re:You had an argument?!

[MightyYar]

The difference is that a course of action in Iraq can (in my or your opinion) be wiser or "dumber". My unwillingness to join the army has nothing at all to do with what is best for the US or Iraq. People who attack character instead of the issue at hand are usually being deliberately evasive, though I'll allow that they can also just be too stupid to explain why they believe something on its own merits.

As to your contention that Arabs (Shia and Sunni) cannot be civilized, I will point to Europe as a counter-example. Europe was in more or less continuous warfare for thousands of years. When they weren't fighting in Europe, they were fighting through proxies. Western Europe has not had a significant conflict since World War II. Certainly the Middle East can get 50 years of peace, no?

I would also contend that giving up after a few years would be short-sighted, though I agree that the administration severely underestimated the consequences of getting involved (or at least did so publicly).

I certainly agree that we wouldn't even be over there if it weren't for oil, and we can debate the merits of that if you like. But that, too, has little to do with what the best course of action is right now. I am arguing that to leave the country in the midst of a civil war of our creation is irresponsible, and the end results are probably not in the best interest of the US or the bulk of the Iraqi people.

Re:You had an argument?!

[orclevegam]

No. Europe's wars were primarily about borders or cultures, and fueled by various governments trying to make land grabs. Middle east conflicts on the other hand are primarily fueled by religion, which has the added punch of being the core of many of their governments. When two groups of people are arguing over who owns what, it's a lot easier to resolve, then when two groups of people are arguing over some topic of religion (ironically enough even more so when their essentially the "same" religion). Probably the biggest hurtle to be overcome is that a large chunk of all their governments are hardline religious extremists, so even if you could get a sizable portion to be reasonable, you'd still have that hardcore faction trying to incite war.

Re:You had an argument?!

[MightyYar]

Don't be fooled by the religious face on the conflicts in the Middle East. It's still all about power - religion is just one of the tools used in the pursuit of power. People in the Middle East are just people - humans through and through. If people of different races and religions can tolerate (and even like) each other in New York City, then it is possible in the Middle East. I agree that it will be hard, but that is not a reason to just give up.

Plenty of European history is dominated by "religious" conflict, too. From persecution of Jews last century to the Reformation, Europe's history is full of religious conflict. NOoooooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Re:You had an argument?!

[BlueStraggler]

Europe's wars were primarily about borders or cultures, and fueled by various governments trying to make land grabs. Middle east conflicts on the other hand are primarily fueled by religion

All wars are fueled by governments trying to make land grabs. If the two governments happen to have different religions, then that will be used as a convenient propaganda device to build support for the war. If a formerly allied region falls under the control of a competing religious faction, then it's all about liberating the noble people of Fooland from the infidel. But really it's about getting Fooland. This was true in the Muslim conquests of the 8th and 9th Centuries, the Crusades of the 11th-14th Centuries, the Reconquista of Spain, the Thirty Years War, the wars against the Ottomans from the 15th through 20th Centuries, the Arab-Israeli Wars, and the Gulf Wars. All of which could be (and were) spun to be about religion. You can bet the people financing those wars knew better, though.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[anagama]

I can't even begin to express my annoyance at the next election. We'll have Guliani and Clinton vying to be the next dictator-light of the US. Back in 2000, there really was a difference between Gore and Bush and I was pretty bitter with Nader, but this time around, we have a choice between more of the same or more of the same from a female. I'm voting 3d party this election, or if no third party, then for my cat, or for a dead opossum rotting on the side of the road.

If the democrats really wanted a landslide, they'd get someone who could realistically unite the country. Obviously they aren't interested in doing anything real. ..... You know what -- Fuck the Democrats! I've been a democrat all my life but I'm just done with them. Right here and right now, I'm packing my bags and moving on.

It was not killed.

[leftie]

John Conyers is the chair of the committee the bill was refered to. Conyers is one of the most progressive members of Congress. Conyers decides what happens next.

Re:It was not killed.

[cmay]

Yes, and as I said in my post, Conyers has already HAD a copy of that bill in his committee for months, and has already decided "what happens next", he will let the bill die.

The reason Kucinich brought it to the floor was because Conyers and the J.C. were refusing to do anything on the matter.

Here, this article pretty much sums it up: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/6/164257/349

"The previous question was ordered, Hoyer moved to refer the bill to committee, and the 80+ Democrats who earlier insisted they didn't want Kucinich's bill to die on the Speaker's table instead voted to let it die on Chairman Conyers' table instead.

So the bill goes to the Judiciary Committee. Where it will sit next to Kucinich's other resolution calling for the impeachment of Cheney, which was offered through regular channels back in April."

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost thought this was about that horrible TV show...

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[node 3]

He's moving to impeach Cheney when he knows it wont happen. It *definitely* won't happen if no one tries. At least Kucinich is trying.

Even if it did, it would be too late to have much of an effect. Not much of an effect, except having accomplished "doing the right thing". People respect that, and it builds character. It also sets precedent, which will help make things more difficult for the neo-cons to trash things so horribly in the future.

Don't think for one moment that after Bush leaves office, they're going to stop trying to implement their "Project for the New American Century". They've been trying ever since the Nixon administration (where do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld come from?), if they can wait 30 years, they aren't going to just give up just because it's the end of an inning.

Blame the citizens.

[MikeFM]

What good would it do? They're all a bunch of scum but in the end it's not our leaders fault that our country is so screwed up. It's the citizens fault. For not voting. For voting without thinking. For being stupid, uneducated and emotional. For being lazy. For being morally bankrupt. For being a bunch of pansies. For not caring about the future of our country or our descendants.

Yes, it's our fault. People get the government they deserve.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[LilGuy]

But what if he wasn't elected? Couldn't some wormy lawyer work around that?

Everyone knows he wasn't elected his first term. He was appointed.

..and to top it all off

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those terrorists didn't even come from Afghanistan or Iraq, but from Saudi Arabia...

so what exactly does Bush have to do

[Scudsucker]

for it to no longer be IOKIYAR? Getting close to killing more than three times as many Americans killed as Osama bin Laddin? Nope, he's done that already: 911 + Katrina + Afghanistan + Iraq. Making a mockery of the Bill of Rights? Outing a covert CIA operative in a fit of pique? Turning the Department of Justice into the Department of Help Get Republicans Elected? How about apologizing to communists for an air crash clearly caused by their pilot? Putting a gay prostitute into the White House press corpse to ask softball questions during press conferences? Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

So just what the hell does Bush have to do for guys to finally turn on him? Change his party affiliation and get it on with an intern?

The Number One Problem

[inKubus]

I'd say the NUMBER ONE problem is the rapid decline of the dollar, American anything, Gold is shooting up, etc.

This war is making Cheney and his friends in the military contracting business RICH. We are paying for it with deficit spending (IE Diluting our currency). The war goes far beyond oil, killing terrorists (and our own lads). War is always about money and power, period. Cheney did what he set out to do. They can impeach now, and he'll get pardoned. Nothings been happening from congress because Bush doesn't give a fuck anymore and just vetos everything.

We are screwed people, if you haven't been following the gold market (www.kitco.com is one decent site), you should see what's happened there in the last 30 days. Now China is thinking about moving it's currency reserves to Euros. They hold a significant percentage of treasuries and dollars and any move on their part would destroy both markets. And they'll get hit the hardest, of course, because the economy will crumble in China because of that. But they'll still have those 1B workers and factories and you know what they're going to make until we start buying shit again? PLANES, TANKS, SHIPS, and guess what? All of us Americans are going to have to get off our asses and sacrifice to keep up. Something we haven't had to do for a long time.

So what has Cheney done? Oh, he's just destroyed the American dream in favor of helping a few of his friends take and keep power for years to come. Because guess what, it isn't the rich who are going to hurt when the job cuts start.

And when the dust clears and the economy somehow regains stability, Europe will be the new largest economy on Earth will little old evangelical America bringing up the rear. Luckly we have land, resources, oceans separating us from the shit that's going to erupt but now they have the Bomb, and it's not going to be easy to shoot them all down.

What can we do? First of all, the worst thing we can do is to lock ourselves up in our rooms and pray for someone to save us. We need to get out there, leverage the global communications network, let the WORLD know that we aren't all like them. Because if we don't, we're doomed. Doomed. Boomers are retiring left and right and our dollars are worth less and less each day, this is a horrible feedback loop!

#1, impeach Cheney. #2, hire a kindly old grandmother for president. Do something to help our image in the world. U.S. Treasuries have just gone from the safest investment in the world to .. Subprime mortgage B paper. MEXICO has better ratings. We have to stop the bleeding before they take us all down, while they stay free at the top with all the power and we have no way to remove them.

Or just keep doing what you're doing, hopefully it will all work out.

Re:The Number One Problem

[notamisfit]

At this point I'm counting on it. The problems with our money go well beyond Bush, he's simply aggravating them and bringing them to the forefront. If the dollar goes, it'll hopefully do two things: 1.) Show the infeasability of the current welfare-statist policies (If the American people had to bear the actual burden of government spending, as opposed to inflating it away or selling more pieces of scrap to China, it'd probably start a wide-scale riot), and 2.) Show the value of real money, hard money over bullshit money. It's all just paper, and burning off that paper doesn't evaporate the values it's supposed to represent, the goods, services, and intellectual capital of the American people (long abused, long neglected, but still there).

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[nyekulturniy]

I only wish that Hillary Clinton was as hard on the enemies of the United States as she is on the enemies of Hillary Clinton.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Doc Ruby]

What's the difference? Except he'd have to cover both jobs at once, and couldn't be free to lurk in that undisclosed bunker controlling things.

Remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Impeachment is not as much a check on a particular politician as it is on a particular power of a politician.

It is for this reason that you will hear many constitutional scholars calling for impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. It is easy to argue that the Executive is out of control and that the powers of the Executive must be checked.

Even if they stay in office, the impeachment of the President and Vice President will be enough to drag back some of the powers that have originally been allocated to Congress and finally begin to swing the balance of power back towards a system of checks and balances.

At least their is one person trying to go forward with impeachment. Shame on both parties for surrendering the people's power (Congress) to the Executive.

Americans! Take back your country...

[GrahamCox]

..from the power-mad fools who have got control of it. You have spent your credit with the rest of the world. Even your friends have serious disquiet about what's going on (I speak as one of them). When that happens, surely it's time to take your collective heads out of your collective a(r)ses and fix it!

News for nerds?

[incripshin]

News for nerds?

Re:News for nerds?

[incripshin]

This is not off topic. The only thing off topic is the story. How does some story about Cheney and impeachment have anything to do with Slashdot? It is not news for nerds. It is news for liberal psychos (like the tag says).

A reason why VP's traditionally do nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason why American vice presidents traditionally do nothing but PR and bang a gavel once in a while. Vice presidents are people who were competing for the presidency but couldn't win, so they chose to run along with a more electable candidate...

Re:It's a small world

[notamisfit]

I've got no sympathy for Hussein, or any other dictator; the sooner they're given the Mussolini treatment, the better. But it's not our part to sacrifice for the sake of others, giving money and lives for alleviating suffering. Prosperity in this world isn't an automatic; it's the product of a rational mind fully engaged in one's reality to serve one's goals. The prosperity enjoyed by the European states, and later America, is a direct product of the ideals of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the ideals of *objective reality*, of *reason*, in the concrete form of the Industrial Revolution. We can rebuild Iraq, but will it do any good? The ultimate drive behind jihad (and it's counterpart/antagonist, the Arab nationalism that led to Hussein and is still strong in Egypt and Syria (to the extent that the latter isn't an Iranian proxy)) is ultimately that the fundamentalist Muslims want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the prosperity and the cultural dominance we have (Islamic culture peaked around the time of the Abbasids and has been going downhill ever since) while continuing to blank out reality and live according to the whims of their sky-god. They're not alone, either; show me an impoverished country, and I'll show you people who have thrown their reason to the curb and are praying for grain to fall into their hands. To the extent that we provide aid, we help them to continue this evasion (yeah, we do it here too, hopefully *that* reckoning isn't too far off).

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[zippthorne]

Conservatives don't really like Guiliani, either. Though I imagine they'll probably vote for him because they think he's "electable." Which, ironically (in a thoroughly unironic sense), is precisely how Bush (43) came into office by the skin of Floridian teeth. It's also how Kerry planned to get in (from the other side of the aisle).

If people would stop trying to play the "who is everyone else going to vote for" game*, then we'd have a chance of getting someone in who at least a few people actually want. But the "first across the finish line" nature of American style elections makes that very difficult, and the constant drumbeat of carefully manipulated polling spewed forth by lazy journalists doesn't help.

*which for some reason invariably has included the "looks good on TV" expansion set since Kennedy/Nixon in '60.

I'm glad you've shaken off the shackles of party dependence, but please vote for an actual person who's actually eligible to serve as president. Even if it's your neighbor. (also, find a way to include your neighbor's address in case he's got a common name....) Fictional characters just make a mockery of the whole process.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Anonymous Coward]

True. The man almost lost an argument with a pretzel after all...

Re:It's a small world

[cowwoc2001]

I agree with your comments. One of the primary problems with democracy (as I've heard it said) is that no one knows how to migrate to it. So as much as we want other nations to become democratic and their people claim they want to do the same there is no clear road map to doing so.

I personally believe (though I could be wrong too) that at least part of the problem is political correctness. People wrongfully assume that western culture exists outside our homes. It does not. You do not negotiate the same way in the US as you do in the middle-east. When bootstrapping democracy, "the bad guys" need to understand from day one that you mean business and you carry a big stick while "the good guys" need to feel your constant support. This implies stepping on a lot of people's toes but I don't think there is much choice. In this specific case of Iraq, the politicians need to understand that unless they stop playing games and agree one the *basics* very soon then you will make a decision on their behalf which will surely be worse than anything they can possibly agree to themselves. It's funny how people can argue about the most mundane things unless their back is to a wall (which is part of the reason our own politicians accomplish nothing unless their own neck is on the line).

This brings me to a funny story I once read: http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h11mon.htm
"People in Bukhara opened the city's gates to the Mongols and surrendered. Genghis Khan told them that they, the common people, were not at fault, that high-ranking people among them had committed great sins that inspired God to send him and his army as punishment."

What I take from Genghis Khan's story is that one needs to be witty and take the target audience's belief system into consideration. We in the West need to remember that most of the people in the world do not live under a Western mentality so it makes little sense to negotiate or deal with them as we would with fellow Westerns and expect good results. Specifically, if you tried negotiating in a middle-eastern market using Western values you would get stepped on many times over. You need to adapt to the culture of the people you are dealing with and use wit in trying to accomplish your goals.

My understanding is that our goals are quite simple: spread Democracy far and wide because not only does it empower oppressed men and women but it also opens new opportunities for our own people. Let's be honest, we would have far more opportunities (both cultural and financial) when dealing with a Democratic China than we do with it today. The same goes for Iraq and any other country in the world. Look at the fall of the USSR for example. It defused a serious military confrontation, opened new markets for our businesses, and empowered their people with rights and money to boot. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

Awh, you cry.

[SmallFurryCreature]

But sadly you got it wrong. The fault lies with the voter who has let media turn them into simple minded monkeys who can only vote based on the most idiotic notions.

The voter is supposed to use the media to inform himself about the world and that does NOT include hour long segments of the antics of the latest hollywood bimbo.

Because the media has become all about eyeballs, and the voter has made it clear he gives his eyeballs to the media that shows the most no-panty shots, we now have a media that has a day long following of some tart with a short cut to some news from some war that seems to be going on somewhere, sorry for this, some old fogey insists on putting this in but we will be right back with more famous peoples being prats right after this commericial.

Bread and Circusses, NOT given to us by the goverment, but by a handfull of superrich people who just happen to have very close ties to the powers that be, in fact ARE the powers that be.

Some people like to talk about conspiracies, but that is just another form of mindless entertainment. The real simple story is "follow the money".

A media outlet makes more money from trash then it does from real investigation. So why bother with the latter? It may be what the press is for but it don't sell ads. The voter is totally incapable of resisting, goes uninformed about what is going on and then is asked once every couple of years to vote for a person they know nothing about, backed by people they never heard off and that is how you elect your leaders?

Don't worry about conspiracy plots to keep the people dumb and take power away from them. The people don't need help doing that, just give them a choice between a real news channel and a light entertainment channel, add a dose of free market and before long you will have killed of the free press.

Why do you think the powers that be are so dead set against state television. Why do you think the BBC is under constant pressure to improve its ratings and supply programs people want to watch rather then be an "elitist" station airing intellectual stuff that gets no viewers? Because those programs are way to dangerous. Every hour a station airs another reality show, it ain't airing investigations of the goverment.

So don't cry over that 'these'[sic] people have done to you. Ask yourselve what you have to done to stop them. But don't worry, big brother is on next, and after that Idol, and it is all to late anyway, and your vote don't matter. Be a good little consumer.

Really, it may just be too late, unless something really big happens it just seems goverments of any type are doomed to slide down this path. It doesn't really matter if it is democracy or a dictatorship, left or right. Unless something big happens to shake a nation out of it, things just slide down. It is not just the US, look at britain, they too got a leader that should be in jail getting of free. A system that despite changing from right (Conservatives) to left (Labour) doesn't seem to have changed at all. Other countries show the same effect. Perhaps after decades of peace it just happens. Have the belgians finally gotten a goverment together after months of haggling? How many times can a dutch goverment fall? Have the Italians actually gotten around to arresting that corrupt guy who EVERYONE knows is corrupt to such an extent that you can just say it without fear of being charged with libel?

I sometimes think it is human nature, to change the world you need to be angry, and it is hard to stay angry 24/7 year in year out.

Re:Awh, you cry.

[moosesocks]

But sadly you got it wrong. The fault lies with the voter who has let media turn them into simple minded monkeys who can only vote based on the most idiotic notions.

I'm not 100% sure where you're going with your argument. Bush has run his administration in a manner that has been completely contrary to both of his campaigns. Is it really the voter's fault that we didn't get what was advertised? Don't forget our original point that Bush and Cheney have been spewing lies from the start, and that those lies didn't become quite so apparent until his second term.

Couldn't you also blame the democrats for pitching two candidates in a row that didn't have clearly defined campaigns? Although I think most will agree that Al Gore was a good candidate, he had an absolutely horrible campaign. John Kerry also had the disadvantage of not having clearly defined campaign goals, and was also the subject of a smear campaign. Such a bland candidate had absolutely no chance running against an "idealist" like Bush -- someone like Howard Dean would have fared much better in this situation.

In the business world, good products fail all of the time because of bad marketing. Any marketer who blames consumers for failing to properly appreciate the product will quickly find himself out of a job.

Re:Awh, you cry.

[Scudsucker]

Although I think most will agree that Al Gore was a good candidate, he had an absolutely horrible campaign.

No, he didn't. The media lynched Al Gore in 2000. The "he ran a bad campaign" line is a lame excuse on their part rather than face up to the fact that they screwed him and the country over. If they had given Gore a fair shake, they might have spent a little less time reporting on the "Inventing the Internet" yarn and a little more time on things like, say, George Bush taking credit during a debate for health care legislation passed in Texas that he actually vetoed as governor. If the media had given Gore a fair shake, the election wouldn't have been close.

Re:Awh, you cry.

[senor_burt]

Yes. It is the voter's fault. It is also the fault of the corporate media, but that is more of a complicity/methodology/nefariousness issue than due to stupidity and lack of information.

Anyone who is a single issue voter should not be allowed to vote on general principles. I've always maintained that people should be given a quiz before voting (simple questions with simple answers to demonstrate that they are current on the issues at hand: identify the candidates and their parties, identify key positions on the top issues). Hell, you can give the answers out in advance in newspapers, flyers, radio, TV, whatever. The problem is uninformed voters.

Anyone who paid the slightest bit of attention before 2000 would know Bush was a serial liar and a piss-poor leader. Anyone who paid the slightest bit after 2000 would know this as fact - plus the litany of pure evil. Just take a look at this site - it was maintained by Jesse Berney until he just gave up in 2003. If you can read this, and still agree that voters aren't to blame for 2004, I'm willing to hear you out.

Kerry did a piss poor job - but the "anyone-but-Bush" candidate SHOULD have won hands down, despite the smears. That the swiftboating was even given credence speaks volumes about the quality of voters in the US. I'm from Canada - it's a bit different here, but not much. I would still like to see the quiz-to-vote process in place, here, too.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[orcrist]

You forgot the rest of the sentence ...

I didn't forget shit. I said "in part...", and I left out the part which was completely irrelevant. Yes, Harry Truman could have technically served more than 10 years. So?

I'm with Bill Maher

[HangingChad]

Impeachment isn't a matter of convenience or political expediency, it is a matter of congressional Duty.

I would join Bill Maher in calling on the Democrats to grow one ball. Just one. I'm disgusted with both parties but I'm most disappointed with the Democrats.

A pox on both your houses.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[TriggerFin]

If people would stop trying to play the "who is everyone else going to vote for" game*, then we'd have a chance of getting someone in who at least a few people actually want. If people polled would say "third party," then there would be an indication that there actually were enough people of such sentiment to make worthwhile voting for the best candidate, rather than the less bad of two parties.

If that doesn't happen, then when people vote they have to try to stop the worst choice by voting for the second worst choice.

So complain about the polls instead.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Chapter80]

Yes it does if you have served for more than 6 years as president you can not serve as vice president.

So does that mean that a president who has served for more than 6 years cannot hold any of these positions?

Vice President, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.

See Presidential Line of Succession

If not, then why can we have foreign-born people in these positions?

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Anonymous Coward]

The really interesting part of this is that its really a Judo move. The Articles of Impeachment moved forward because REPUBLICANS changed their vote, realizing that watching the Deomocrats try to impeach and try Cheney would be the best way to build sympathy for Republicans. After this switch, the DEMOCRATS killed the effort, realizing that you get more mileage from speculating about what the VP might have done wrong than from having to prove it in hearings and a trial. This is all without considering whether Cheney is actually guilty of any of these things. Democrats also realize that this would set a precedent which would undoubtedly be used against them at some point in the future.

a bit off on your timeframe

[Trepidity]

While the national party flipped in the 1960s, the segregationists controlled state Democratic parties in many southern states at least through the 1970s. Take a look at Alabama: George Wallace ran and won the 1970s Democratic primary against an incumbent governor on an explicitly racist message, attacking Albert Brewer for reaching out to blacks. Wallace remained governor through 1979, and served as governor again 1983-87, though he claimed to no longer be a racist during his last term. I mean it's still mind-boggling to me that the Democratic Party didn't dump George Fucking Wallace until 1987. And things are worse if you look at the Democratic machines in rural areas---the clean-up there is going far slower than at the state level.

Re:a bit off on your timeframe

[Captain Splendid]

That explains quite a few things, actually. Thanks.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

100,000 protesters, not 10

[empedocles]

If you recall the last major protests in Washington in September, only about 10,000 turned out for the ANSWER rally, and they were met by 1,000 Freepers. That's a piss-poor performance for a supposedly angry public.

Except your missing a 0 there, the mainstream media reported that "thousands" of people showed up on September 15, but organizers and people who were there estimated it at 100,000 people. That's not a small number by any means, and photos (and friends of mine who were there) corroborate that number. It also demonstrates that the mainstream media, again, is distorting the truth... technically any number above 1000 and below 1,000,000 is "thousands" Just like they don't discuss the polls that show 54% of Americans want Cheney impeached, and 75% of Democrats.

Re:100,000 protesters, not 10

[N3WBI3]

but organizers and people who were there estimated it at 100,000 people

Oh well if someone who had alot to gain estimated there were 100K people who am I to be skeptical...

"Associated press reported "several thousand." A permit for the march obtained in advance by the ANSWER Coalition had projected 10,000.[4]"

Re:100,000 protesters, not 10

[empedocles]

Oh well if someone who had alot to gain estimated there were 100K people who am I to be skeptical...

And the media has nothing to gain from playing down pro-peace stories? Of course they do, they've long decided to marginalize the anti-war movement, and that there best interest is aligning themselves with American foreign policy... it's is very rare to see the American media really questioning American foreign policy.

As to your AP quote, there have a been widespread reports that the AP number was extremely inaccurate. Personally, from all the articles I've read and discussions I've had with people who were at the protests, I believe the numbers were in the tens of thousands. But heck, neither of us were there, the media barely reported on it, who are we to believe?

Go ahead and believe the AP, just like we all believed them when they said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Re:100,000 protesters, not 10

[N3WBI3]

Never said I believed the AP but I dont think there were anywhere near 100K people there, 30-50 I could buy...

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[DaveV1.0]

Yes, the difference was that Bush came across as one of the people while Gore came across as a wooden, deluded ass.

Gore lost and Bush won for the exact same reason that Dole lost and Clinton won.

Not sure about pension....

[bodland]

But secret service protection is for life. And then after impeachment if crimes were committed the person can be indicted for them.

Gerald Ford "saved" the country the embarrassment of seeing a former President indicted for crimes commited while in office by pardoning Richard Nixon after he resigned office. He was destined to be impeached and the votes were there for conviction.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Choad Namath]

I don't know where you got this from, but it's not in the 22nd Amendment. If you take it literally, it says that you can't be elected President if you've served two terms or 6 years. It doesn't mention Vice-Presidency.

Lied to Congress - By presenting FALSE intel

[bodland]

To committees and to the body that resulted in a vote to grant Bush authority to invade Iraq.

You do not have to be under oath to lie.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[JimFive]

The 12th Amendment specifically states that the Vice President must be eligible to be President. Those other offices do not have that restriction. However, if the Speaker of the House was not eligible they would be skipped over in the line of succession based on (3 USC Sec 19e) according to your link.
--
JimFive

Re:It's a small world

[JerkBoB]

Right, because ignoring "other people's problems" worked so well for us in World War 2.

We didn't enter WWII for humanitarian reasons. We entered the war because Japan drew us in with a massive attack on our naval base at Pearl Harbor.

Up until that day in December 1941, there was a strong sense that the US should stay out of the war, because we remembered what happened in WWI. We were sending supplies to Britain, and providing other resources to our allies, but there was no support for declaring war on anyone.

When Japan made it clear that they intended to work with the other Axis powers to rule all of the world, there was no question that we needed to fight back, and so we did. The difference between WWII and all other conflicts since is huge. The Axis powers were clearly an existential threat to the continental US (Hawaii first, lower 48 next); unlike the theoretical threats embodied in "domino theory" and "global war on terror".

Sure, Al Qaeda did attack us, and we attacked back -- in Afghanistan. We were making some good progress there, too... Until the majority of our resources and attention were refocused on the Iraq boondoggle. Now look what's happening in Afghanistan: the Taliban is coming back, poppy/cannabis harvests are booming, and Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan is having major problems due in no small part to the increasing influence of radical islamists who operate from the safety of the afghanistan/pakistan border.

The only entities that are benefitting from this Iraq shitstorm are Al Qaeda (it's a fucking recruiting wet dream) and the guys like Halliburton, Blackwater, and all the other Military-Industrial Complex hangers-on.

Feh.

Re:It's a small world

[Jesus_666]

They're not alone, either; show me an impoverished country, and I'll show you people who have thrown their reason to the curb and are praying for grain to fall into their hands.

Except for those cases where there is food but whoever has all the guns sits on it.

Re:It's a small world

[notamisfit]

Different symptom, same disease. Sadly, when one of our misguided attempts at aid actually goes somewhere, it ends up in the pockets of the men with the guns.

It's an issue of congressional overreach

[stupidpuppy]

If a Russian Bomber penetrates US airspace, do you think we need a warrant to listen in on their radio communications? Or do you think that since they are agents of a foreign (and potentially hostile) power that eavesdropping on them is a national security issue -- not law enforcement, and as such falls under the purview of the president?

Then why do we need a warrant to listen in on an AQ operative? In fact, a recent (absurd) court decision stated that even if the AQ operative was overseas we would need a warrant to listen in to his phone conversation. When you heard about emergency FISA legislation lately, this is what it was meant to remedy.

On top of being absurd, getting warrants in these cases would likely be impossible. Law Enforcement is all about processes and procedures because you need to adhere to these things to get a conviction. Obviously, intelligence worries only about gathering intelligence and wouldn't know how to obtain a warrant.

The biggest problem with the "Bush and Cheney Executive Dictator" argument is that they get the sole blame for endorsing policies that every president has endorsed. No president has ever maintained that they could not run warrantless wiretaps for national security reasons.

Re:It's an issue of congressional overreach

[Tony]

No president has ever maintained that they could not run warrantless wiretaps for national security reasons.

Wrong.

Basically, every argument you present is incorrect. Warrants in these cases can be applied for up to 72 hours *after* the wiretapping occurred. The *entire* point of FISA is to provide oversight while minimizing interference. It worked just fine for 25 years, through the Reagan/Bush years, and then the Clinton years.

This is about oversight, or the lack thereof. This has nothing to do with the ability of government agencies to perform their duties, which were performed quite admirably before Bush destroyed the "checks and balances" (remember that from your civics class?) that were in place.

Right now, Bush is exempt from FISA. It's as if it doesn't even exist. It's as if Bush thinks he can pick and choose the laws he wishes to obey. That's called, oh, "above the law."

Fuck that. Bush is no more above the law than I am. He too is an American citizen.

Dumbasses!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the hell does everybody come up with this crap? I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that Cheney lied about Iraq. Maybe he didn't present accurate intelligence on the situation, but he was just going by what the NSA knew. The information that was gathered under the Clinton administration wasn't accurate, but I don't hear any bitching about that? What's funny is that the dumbasses in congress that have been decrying all along that Cheney needs to be impeached finally got called on their bluff. Enough republicans voted to impeach Cheney so that the resolution passed, and knowing that there is no evidence that Cheney did anything worth impeachment, Kucinich tried to save his ass by pushing the matter to the Judiciary Committee. Shows you who the true liars are in DC.

"anonymous writer" got it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Kucinich didn't "successfully move articles of impeachment" to the judiciady committee. IT being moved there was becasue they wanted to kill it. Its not going anywhere.

Democratic leadership doesn't want to impeach so Kucinich offered it as a privileged motion, which lets you bypass leadership and bring it right to the floor. Leadership then motioned to have it tabled (meaning kill it) and during the vote, which went on for an hour, Republicans changed their mind and voted NOT to table it. Their strategy was since they knew the bill would never have enough votes to pass, they could use the debate time given to the bill bashing Democrats on their record in the majority. When Democrats saw this they scrambled. Once it wasn't tabled, and in order to avoid the debate, Steny Hoyer immediately moved for it to be sent back to Judiciary committee where it will die.

Liberalism is a mental disease

[Adam8g]

Ahhh Democrat Kucinich.

A walking talking exemplar of "Liberalism is a mental disease".

Is this the astute statesman that was ripping the US on Syrian TV a few weeks before Israeli / American jets blew up their nuclear reactor site?

No! He's the Kucinich that was on Art Bell's show telling us about his alien abduction.

Look up in the sky - the Mother Ship !

Did anybody actually read the article?

[hshana]

This was a political stunt to embarrass the Democrats. Republicans changed their votes at the last minute and pushed the measure through to force the debate. Democrats then backtracked and sent the measure to a committee, never to see the light of day.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[The Spoonman]

Forgot the next election, if we impeach Bush first, we get...President Cheney. If we take out Cheney first, then Bush, we get President Pelosi. And, if Pelosi was the first female president, wouldn't that just twist Hillary's nuts right off?

Is the bar set that low?

[framauro13]

While I'm not a huge Kucinich supporter, at least he tried. Clinton was impeached for lying about a matter that had no influence over the American people. It was a personal matter that should have been dealt with within his family and no one else. Granted, it took place in the oval office, but it had no effect on the average citizen.

So why is it that he had to go on national television and apologize for something that, in comparison to what's happened during the Bush administration, was trivial? President Bush has most definitely lied about things far worse than Clinton ever did. Cheney, Rove, that entire administration have completely gone behind the American people's back to execute their own agenda, at the expense of American lives and the credibility of our nation. And where's the justice? Where's, at the very least, the effort? Why is it that he's been allowed to run wild, ignore the rights and liberties set forth by the Constitution, turn his nose at the Geneva Convention, and nothing happens? Where's his press conference apologizing for the lies he's told? In my opinion, impeachment (not expulsion from the office, I understand the difference) should happen at the very least. At least it would be on record in the history books that an effort was made to hold this President accountable for his actions. I don't blame republicans, I don't blame democrats. I blame our government for taking advantage of us, and I blame the people for letting it happen.

So you know what, as futile as it may be, hats off to those who at least tried to hold this President accountable for his actions.
---
"If the standard for impeachment is lying about a blow-job...shouldn't Bush have been executed by now?" - Patton Oswalt

Mexican Standoff

[prelelat]

I also think that the Democrats have not done a job at all in showing that their were wrong doings from this government. If you ask me they could have spread a lot more information around to people to get them to realize how wrong this war and policies are. We on slashdot are fortunate we read news keep up to date in breaches of privacy and such, but the majority of people globally don't seem to care. They are too busy with other things, and it's not being pumped out into the mainstream media half as much as it should. The media is to blame, the American people are to blame and the government is to blame. In the end you bring it on yourself when you don't get involved. If your not involved you let these travesties go unchecked. Some of the major ones like treatment of prisoners are dealt with quickly because of pressure from media outlets and people. These are two large things, if they put pressure on the government they have no choice but to act, but that kind of pressure has not been put on anyone.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe more Americans do seem to care than I think, but I think they are more concerned on what is going to happen on American idol than the Nation. People just don't care, and I don't think the Democrats are going to push something so controversial if it's not publicly charged.

That's a sad thing because in the end if the Democrats pushed for it, it would become publicly charged. So I don't think it will happen. The people won't act before the Democrats and the Democrats won't act before they know it is a safe topic. It's a bloody Mexican standoff.

----------
I know my grammer are bad.

And this makes sense how?

[why-is-it]

It happened during the witchhunt, but it was a result of him perjuring himself. If he hadn't done that, there would not have been any impeachment, witchhunt or no.

Clinton lied to cover up the fact that he got a hummer from an intern. Bush/Cheney lied to start an unprovoked war of convenience.

Clinton was subjected to a political show trial that was (to borrow a phrase) full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Bush/Cheney continue to operate as if the laws of the land do not apply to them.

The human cost of Clinton's lies are utterly insignificant. The same cannot cannot be said to be even remotely true for Bush/Cheney.

Yet Clinton was the president who was impeached...

Honestly - what's wrong with you people?

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Johnny5000]

If you thought the furor over SCOTUS stopping Gore's shenanigans trying to keep Florida's electors from being certified according to Florida's laws was something, just wait until SCOTUS has to rule on whether the 22nd A means one cannot SERVE despite clear terminology that the limit is "elected", and Bill gets passed over for a Republican speaker of the house when Hill steps down. I'd almost pay to watch that

I can pretty much tell you right now what would happen-

If the presidential candidate in question was a Republican, then the more conservative members of the court would vote in favor if him becoming president, and the more liberal members would vote against it.

If the presidential candidate in question was a Democrat, then the more liberal members of the court would vote in favor if him becoming president, and the more conservative members would vote against it.

UFO Candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

"Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)" was just doing the Alien's bidding. The Gray's know that if they invade Earth, Dick will blast them to pieces with his shotgun. Once Dick is out of the way, The Gray's plan to turn the Earth into a human ranch for Mc'Gray's burgers "Over 1.00 x 10^100000000 served daily." can proceed unhindered. I think Dennis Kucinich would make an excellent candidate under the X-Files "The Truth is Out There" Party.

I have seen the light....

[Slash.Poop]

.....and why is this news on Slahdot? The House of Representatives voted on whether or not to hold a floor debate, like they do all the time. Congressional procedure is both dull and none news. So why is a technology website covering this? Oh, I get it. You are not objective. You only reported this because it has to do with the current administration and your bias against them. Well I now know you also are pushing an agenda. In the future I will not lend credence to your reporting. PS You know the funny thing? I agree with the bias but you are a technology news site. Try to act like it.

Here's your answer, Sherlock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, Richard Armitage ( Colin Powells deputy at State ) not Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame- who had a desk job in DC and was not any kind of undercover "operative". As for falsifying a report - what report? Where is your evidence showing that this alleged falsification led to war?

President Bush publicly enumerated many reasons for going to war- you would have to show that Cheney magically fraudelantly concocted all of them.

Why is this news for nerds again?

[SnarfQuest]

Why is this news for nerds again?

Oh, Keep forgetting the full quote:

News for nerds, and propaganda against G.W Bush and the evil Americans.

Re:Why is this news for nerds again?

[One Childish N00b]

For goodness' sake: There are all sorts of nerds. Look at the list of sections on /. for a good idea of the main types of nerd found in the wild - there are IT nerds (and their sub-nerds, the Linux nerd, the Apple nerd, the Gamer nerd, etc), hardware nerds, science nerds, book nerds, and - shock! horror! - politics nerds. A (near) debate on the possible impeachment of the Vice President of the most powerful country on earth seems pretty important an issue for politics nerds everywhere. Just because a story doesn't squeeze your particular nerd-gland, doesn't mean others don't want to read it.

If Pro is the Opposite of Con...

[edraven]

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. ~ Mark Twain

Irony thy name is facelss slashdot poster (POT)

[N3WBI3]

Irony thy name is faceless ./ poster

"Where any citizen can be conscripted at will regardless of circumstance" -- if you're referring to conscription, as in the draft, it was a Democrat who brought such a bill to the house floor last session

"ones with liberal thoughts taken and eliminated!" -- Im sorry which party is it that supports 'hate crime' legislation whos purpose is to get into the head of a person and punish not for actions alone but unacceptable thoughts

"Where children are taught to mistrust or even hate those with differing religions" -- Ohhh yea Liberal atheist don't teach there kids that evangelicals are superstitious nut bags who are dangerous.

"Where citizens have the freedom to carry any weapon through the streets unlicensed!" -- Funny I don't see to many conservatives opposing *registering* and denying ex convicts from holding. BUt I do see allot of liberals who (see above) want to tell you what is ok to think wanting government to be the only one to hold weapons.

Question.

[Anonymous Coward]

If

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) yesterday successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney then how did

House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney No, I didn't RTFA.

state of the union

[Anonymous Coward]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rwZSQrDuYzo

Responsibility?

[Prien715]

What the Iraqis do to each other is no concern of ours. It wasn't in 2003, and it isn't now.

It's OUR mess. We made it our mess when we invaded. While Saddam was no paragon of moral superiority, the number of innocents who died under his charge were less than under ours. It's like Valdiz incident. While it would have surely been profitable for Exxon to retreat and say "Not our problem", you cause a mess, you clean it. There wasn't Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, or any other suicide bombing group in Iraq before the invasion.

I'm all in favor of a pull-out, but for God's sake, we've got a moral responsibility to clean up our own mess before we do as best we can.

Re:Responsibility?

[SCHecklerX]

I think the OP meant that we should never have invaded in the first place. Now we are spending money, time, and lives on something that would have been much better spent on fixing problems within our own country.

Re:Responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are speaking of the Valdez incident, Exxon has yet to pay 1 cent
for the cleanup or reparations to the lives of the good people of Prince
William Sound it disrupted so rudely. They recently asked the judge to
lower the judgement against them.

Also, the IRAQ government, as bad as it is, has asked repeatedly for the
US to leave to help stabilize the regions. But that is not part of this
administration's agenda.

Re:Responsibility?

[cpeterso]

Yes, we created the Iraq mess (in the 2000s and the 1980s). But are we making it be better or worse these days? Our soldiers draw terrorists and chaos there. If we leave, how much of that problem leaves too?

Assume much?

[Bryansix]

I never said to go in "Nukes blazing". I never even said to go to war with Iran. It would be a mistake. I'm just saying that Iran is a REAL THREAT.

Re:Assume much?

[RevHawk]

Define threat. China is a threat. Iraq 'was a threat' ??? Lots of nations COULD be threatening to the US...preemptive war is stupid. We've got enough nukes to flatten most of the planet... We destroyed their democracy. Heck, they're not even threatening us, they say they want nuclear power. I say we let them do what they want...They don't even have a delivery system. Maybe if we talked to them things wouldn't be so tense? Just an idea. I know, I'm a nutjob.

Irresistable Redundancy

[ConallB]

Clinton gets a blowjob by an intern and everyone screams "Impeach!!!"

Bush/Cheney f*cks the whole nation and gets a second term!

The USA - Home of the weird!

Oath? It doesn't matter.

[cat_jesus]

One thing people seem to misunderstand is that it doesn't matter if a law was technically broken or if Cheney or Bush were under oath or not. The Constitution gives the power to impeach to congress in order to remove executives who abuse their power.

From http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/newsletter/oct98nl.html Based, then, on the historical evidence, Professor Tucker correctly concluded:

"The words "high crimes and misdemeanors" cannot be confined to crimes created and defined by a statute of the United States. (emphasis added)

"In fact, Justice Story believed that any such interpretation was preposterous:

"What are to be deemed "high crimes and misdemeanors"? ... No one has as yet been bold enough to assert that the power of impeachment is limited to offenses positively defined in the statute book of the Union as impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.

"Story then emphatically punctuated his conclusions by summarizing the history of impeachments:

"Congress has unhesitatingly adopted the conclusion that no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.... In the few cases of impeachment which have hitherto been tried, not one of the charges has rested upon any statutable misdemeanors." (emphasis added)

"Indeed, the history of every impeachment case brought before Congress to that point proved the correctness of Justice Story's conclusion. For example, in 1797, William Blount was impeached for seeking to violate American neutrality 16 (as explained by justice Story, "The offense charged was not defined by any statute of the United States. It was for an attempt to seduce an United States' Indian interpreter from his duty and to alienate the affections and confidence of the Indians from the public officers residing among them." 17); in 1803, federal judge John Pickering was impeached for issuing an order which contradicted an act of Congress, for Judicial high-handedness, and for drunkenness and blasphemy; "in 1804, Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase was impeached for judicial high-handedness and for excluding evidence from a trial; " and in 1830, federal judge James H. Peck was also impeached for judicial hi -handedness.' (Ibid. pp. 22-23)



Impeachment is not done often enough, in my opinion. The president and vice president should not think for a minute that they can screw people over, cause thousands of deaths and not be held accountable because they may not have technically broken a law. That's simply ridiculous and gives far too much power to those who would abuse it.

Mismanagement is enough. Brazen war mongering, profiteering and trampling of the rights of citizens should result in swift and unanimous impeachment and removal every time a president tries it.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[trolltalk.com]

Harry Truman is the only person it could have applied to. "during the term within which this article becomes operative" waa during Truman's term. No other president, past or future, is covered by that clause.

Re:It's a small world

[cowwoc2001]

Iraq is just an excuse for Al Qaeda, like anything else. Before that there was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Chechnya, and countless other lands they claim needed to be "liberated". Some of them are damn silly, like some Muslims are fighting to "liberate" parts of China. Good luck with that :)

My point is quite simple: these people will always come up with an excuse no matter what you do. Look at what happened when Israel fully withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 (as certified by the UN) and from Gaza in 2005. In both cases extremists moved in to fill the void and rather then fading into the dark they actually got *inspired* by withdrawals to carry out future attacks. So excuses are endless.

Another thing most people don't seem to understanding is that terrorism is a war tactic, like anything else. The only reason Al Qaeda uses it is because it works so darn well and the West is pretty toothless in its response. Numerous studies across the west have shown that most domestic terrorists have brainwashed in radical mosques as opposed to spontaneously springing into existence as a result of the various wars abroad. Desperation has nothing to do with it either as there are many desperate people across the globe (think Sudan, Tibet for example) that never resorted to terrorism or suicide bombings. This is very much a war of information and as you can see on YouTube (where many Jihad videos are hosted) the west is fighting with kid-gloves on. If we really cared about fighting the information war we would remove those videos anywhere they are found online (especially if they're hosted by businesses based in western countries!) and post our own counter videos to explain our case.

It's quite simple actually: countless people have had their countries invaded in history but only radical Islamists seem to have the perverse notion that any land that was previously under Islamic rule must be "liberated". This is even worse given the fact that Islam was a ruthless invader itself. Millions of people were slaughtered in its name as Muslim armies invaded across the globe. Now a few hundred years later many of those countries they suddenly want to get those countries back. Excuse me but I find that very hypocritical :)

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube is censoring Ron Paul videos. After you view, rate, and favorite a Ron Paul video refresh the page and look to see if the number of views, ratings, or favorites has gone up. It never does. They have the # of views, ratings, and favorites locked on his videos. They are also not listing the "most recent" Ron Paul videos up until 1-3 days after they were posted even though a new RP video is posted every 5 min. They are also censoring comments.

PLEASE COPY AND REPOST

censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIm8qsJupY

YouTube is censoring Ron Paul videos. After you view, rate, and favorite a Ron Paul video refresh the page and look to see if the number of views, ratings, or favorites has gone up. It never does. They have the # of views, ratings, and favorites locked on his videos. They are also not listing the "most recent" Ron Paul videos up until 1-3 days after they were posted even though a new RP video is posted every 5 min. They are also censoring comments.

Hey, Boss

[Tony]

That's a bit like saying a mob boss isn't culpable for the people he has whacked.

At the end of the day, I'm responsible for the team I manage. Considering the people who outed Plame were *all* on Cheney's team, he's responsible, whether he made the actual call or not.

Causing a store? Kicked it's ass?

[Anonymous Coward]

As in, "causing a WalMart"? Walmart's CEO can cause a WalMart, but I don't think Ahmadinejad can.

As in "kicked it is ass"?

Not dumb. Numb.

[Tony]

Not all Americans are dumb but there are really a lot of dumb Americans. Though in reality people in general are dumb. Its why propaganda is such an important part of government and why it works so well.

That's just it. Learning the truth about the world is tough. There's a lot of bullshit to dig through, and discerning facts from fiction takes a lot of work. Most Americans (most *people*, I'd wager) would rather the world were simple.

Evangelical Christianity is like that: easy answers to tough questions. Those folks who support G. Bush just because he's our President are also like that: easy answers. Avoid the tough questions altogether.

It's not that people are dumb. They're just numb

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Neanderthal Ninny]

Remember the Amendment 25 of the Constitution succession rules will make Dick Cheney President if we impeach Bush first. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 If the worst "evil" twin in this administration is Cheney then they need to remove Cheney first before we remove Bush. However this will be mute in a year since the elections will be done by then we have a new President-elect. However I would like to be a witness to a full impeachment, conviction and sentencing of a sitting President and Vice President for what they have done. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton where impeached but got acquitted by the Senate and Nixon resigned before he got beyond the impeachment hearings. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html The best quote here is "Out from the frying pan into the fire" if we inpeach Bush first.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Obfuscant]

If the presidential candidate in question was a Republican,

There is no Presidential candidate involved. The hypothetical situation is a Democrat President (perhaps Hillary), a Democrat VP (perhaps Bill), and Republican Speaker of the House.

then the more conservative members of the court would vote in favor if him becoming president,

While that would be the EFFECT of their vote, their actual "votes" would be either the 22nd Amendment does or does not prohibit serving as President if the pathway to the office does not include being ELECTED as President. In other words, the coservative members would vote for a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, and the liberal members would seek guidance in the laws of other countries and ignore the explicit language of the Constitution they took an oath to support and defend.

Your statement echoes the mistake that many people make about the SCOTUS decision regarding Gore. They did NOT elect Bush, they did not vote FOR Bush, they upheld the right of a STATE to enact their own laws regarding the selection of electors. The Constitution is rather clear about that. If Gore didn't like the Florida laws about selecting electors, the right time to file suit was before they got in his way.

Re:It's a small world

[darkonc]

The only entities that are benefitting from this Iraq shitstorm are Al Qaeda (it's a fucking recruiting wet dream) and the guys like Halliburton, Blackwater, and all the other Military-Industrial Complex hangers-on. In other words, the radicals on either side -- 'people' who are completely willing to kill innocent civilians for their god (allah vs moola) and independent of any annoying morals.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Johnny5000]

If the presidential candidate in question was a Republican,

There is no Presidential candidate involved. The hypothetical situation is a Democrat President (perhaps Hillary), a Democrat VP (perhaps Bill), and Republican Speaker of the House.

By "presidential candidate" in this context I mean someone who has a claim to the office. If you don't want to call them a "candidate" that's fine. I think we're both on the same page here, though.

In other words, the coservative members would vote for a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, and the liberal members would seek guidance in the laws of other countries and ignore the explicit language of the Constitution they took an oath to support and defend.

You're showing your bias a bit here in your wording :) I think both sides could have a valid argument here, with the Constitution written as-is. The 22nd amendment does explicitly say "elected" but common sense dictates that the intent of the amendment was to prevent someone from being president-for-life, with political games being played to keep someone in power for longer. That said, if we had a Congress worth anything I would hope they'd clarify and codify this one way or the other, before we get to the point of a constitutional crisis.

Your statement echoes the mistake that many people make about the SCOTUS decision regarding Gore. They did NOT elect Bush, they did not vote FOR Bush, they upheld the right of a STATE to enact their own laws regarding the selection of electors

Seeing as the SCOTUS overruled Florida's Supreme Court regarding the recount, I have to disagree with your assertion that they upheld the right of a state to enact their own laws regarding the selection of electors.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Keybounce]

How about this:

Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to President Quail.

Hmm. That anti-impeachment strategy worked for Raygun. Regan. Reagan. Whatever.

No joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to incessantly mocking republicans when that happens for being such shortsighted unprincipled jackasses. It will be their fault that democrats come to power with all those gobs of new power and they will suddenly start sounding like the founding fathers again, the spectre of terrorism hiding out of sight as their partisan programming directs them to focus on the new issues off too much executive power, and it shall be dubbed a return to the "core values" or some other bullshit of the republican party, until of course, the next republican president...

I stopped caring altogether about what happens next. As far as I'm concerned, republicans and democrats are clowns here for my amusement, and since baffoonery on an international scale is what they seem so adept at, might as well accept it and enjoy the show, because after all, we have no other choices, just ask the democrats and republicans and they'll tell you so you know it's true.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Gregour]

Even if it did, it would be too late to have much of an effect. It would have the effect of setting the precedent that a president and vice president that lie and commit treason will be impeached. That might make future presidents take a second thought when they want to disregard the constitution.

Re: You fail.

[znerk]

First off, STFU, you poor broken excuse for a grammar nazi.

Secondly, from dictionary.reference.com :

et al
-noun
  1. and elsewhere. Origin: et alibi
  2. and others.
Origin: et ali (masc. pl.), et alia (neut. pl.)

Nowhere in there does it say anything about usage. Looks to me like it was used correctly. When you bitch about how someone uses the language, it helps to be correct.

At being a grammar nazi, you fail.

Re:It's a small world

[jafac]

Idiot!

The US did not "stay out of the war".

We fired the first "shot" at Japan, when we took sides, and embargoed their oil supply.

They were busy building an empire, and having no domestic oil supply of their own, got kind of pissed when we cut them off. Do you blame them for attacking us?

If Saudi Arabia said to us tomorrow; "Hey, America, we don't like what you're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we're cutting you off until you get out - " how long do you think it would take for the order to go from the White House to a Submarine in the Persian Gulf to fire a barrage of SLCM's at Ryadh? All of 5 minutes?

Yes.

WW II was also, about oil.

Growing, industrial superpowers, Japan and Germany, as soon as they ran out of domestic energy supplies, and as soon as they got sick of being extorted by their neighbors for energy, they took matters into their own hands. And when their neighbors got nervous, and cut them off, Japan and Germany went ballistic. Literally.

Does any of this sound familliar?

Maybe history does not repeat itself.
But as Mark Twain said; "it does rhyme."

Re:It's a small world

[kelnos]

Right, because ignoring "other people's problems" worked so well for us in World War 2. Straw man. No one's claiming the US's entrance into WWII was a mistake. The US entered WWII not to bail out Europe, but because failing to do so likely would have lead to a much-stronger Nazi Germany being capable of successfully attacking the US.

Leaving Iraq alone to its own devices is a bit different. I tend to think we should have left them alone -- or at least have done a much better (WWII-era, Japan-style) job of 'introducing' Iraq to democracy -- but there are certainly valid reasons for believing otherwise.

Re:It's a small world

[JerkBoB]

Idiot!

Nice ad hominem, dickface dillweed. Poo-poo pee-pee. Nyah! There, that should lower my response to match the level of your post.

The US did not "stay out of the war".

I think, generally speaking, that most people would agree with the assertion that "staying out of a war" is functionally equivalent to "our people not shooting at anyone." Yes, one can be a goddamned pedant and point out that there are methods of aggression that don't involve the military, but the common understanding of state-based aggression is "sending in the cruise missiles/troops."

We fired the first "shot" at Japan, when we took sides, and embargoed their oil supply.

They were busy building an empire, and having no domestic oil supply of their own, got kind of pissed when we cut them off. Do you blame them for attacking us?

No, I don't. Nor did I deny this precipitating factor in my original post. In fact, I never mentioned it, because it was beside the point. What I was getting at was that the US entry into WWII was not initiated for humanitarian reasons.

Since you brought it up, though, I think it's incorrect to assert that our embargo was an act of aggression. It was a response to the growing Japanese empire that was getting uncomfortably close to the Philippines and Singapore. We (meaning the US and its allies) tried negotiating with them to pull out of China and to stop invading their neighbors, but their terms were ludicrous. They wanted a staged withdrawal over 20 years or something nutty. We didn't want to send in our military (nor were we in much of a position to do anything with our military at the time anyhow), and so Roosevelt mandated the embargo.

Yeah, there are some theories that Roosevelt deliberately provoked Japan because he'd pledged earlier that he wouldn't get involved in any foreign wars unless we were attacked. Frankly, I give that stuff about as much credence as the Vast (Right-Wing|Liberal) Conspiracy junk.

If Saudi Arabia said to us tomorrow; "Hey, America, we don't like what you're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we're cutting you off until you get out - " how long do you think it would take for the order to go from the White House to a Submarine in the Persian Gulf to fire a barrage of SLCM's at Ryadh? All of 5 minutes?

Remember 1973? Probably not. Yeah, that's exactly what they did because of our support of Israel. I don't remember any US missile attacks on any middle eastern countries at the time.

You finished waving your dick around? We can all read history books and sound smart. Nothing that I wrote was factually incorrect. I would admit to oversimplification for the sake of brevity, and because my point was, and is, that the US did not enter WWII for humanitarian reasons.

I'm sick and tired of people justifying the Iraq boondoggle by clinging to the notion of it being a humanitarian mission. Even that clusterfuck in Somalia was more of a humanitarian mission. I'm even more irritated by anyone who tries to equate the GWOT with WWII.

Re:It's a small world

[cowwoc2001]

I tend to think we should have left them alone -- or at least have done a much better (WWII-era, Japan-style) job of 'introducing' Iraq to democracy -- but there are certainly valid reasons for believing otherwise. I agree. I also think we should have done a much better job of introducing them to democracy. Though, to be fair, I don't think the same thing would work today as it did back in WW2. "Resistance to occupation" and rebelling against your own government is the latest fad nowadays. How did the allies manage to deprogram Nazi Germany and Japan once the war was over?

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[bobkoure]

So... you think they're all as bad as Bush and Cheney?

Really?

I'm not saying the alternatives are great, mind you, but... really?

Kucinich

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, it's simple. Dennis Kucinich is the only Democrat in the Democratic party (Well, except maybe Maxine Waters and the other three reps who stood by Kucinich on impeachment, on Tuesday November 6, 2007). So what that means is I am voting Kucinich for President in the primary/caucus and in the election. Yes, it is that simple.

And if you believe this article, you're an arse

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans voted for this? Why? Because the Democraps voted against Kookoo Kucinich and his team of UFO (Unidentified Flying Orifaces). The Republicans wanted this to be discussed so America could see just how wacked out Dennis the Menance and the Dumocrap party really is.

Re:And if you believe this article, you're an arse

[doom]

The Republicans voted for this? Why?

Presumably because they own the media at this point, and they new they could count on their bitch barking their way no matter what gets said in an impeachment hearing.

And they probably realized Pelosi would panic at the thought of having to do some real work, and they knew they could make her look bad this way.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Obfuscant]

... but common sense dictates that the intent of the amendment was to prevent someone from being president-for-life,

I disagree. Common sense tells me that if the goal was to prevent serving more than a set number of terms or years, the authors would have written something talking about years or terms, and not about the number of times being elected to the office. Now, the goal of the people initiating the amendment might have been just what you say and perhaps a compromise was required to get the amendment passed. I can believe that. BUT, if a compromise was necessary, it is dishonest to then revert to the precompromise action once that amendment passed.

In many pieces of legislation, the goal of the author is often considered when the courts consider the law itself. "Didn't word it well enough" or "meant it to say" are perhaps valid concerns in that case. But when a deliberate compromise is required to get something to pass, the initial intent of the initial author should no longer be the guiding principle. He accepted the compromise, too.

Seeing as the SCOTUS overruled Florida's Supreme Court regarding the recount, I have to disagree with your assertion that they upheld the right of a state to enact their own laws regarding the selection of electors.

Just as SCOTUS is not authorized to change or create law, the SCOFLA is not authorized to change or create Florida law. SCOTUS said SCOFLA erred by overstepping their bounds in changing the Florida legislature's election law. The legislative branch is the ones who make the laws, and they are the ones who make the law setting deadlines for things. Thus, SCOTUS did, indeed, protect the legislative process in Florida, which is how Florida determines how its electors are chosen. The most SCOFLA can do is call the process unconstitutional and have the legislature start over, but that is not what SCOFLA did.

Further, as someone else pointed out, I think, equal protections means that everyone gets recounted, and not just the hand-picked few counties that might change the result. Of course, this was not a recount, but a re-recount. There is a limit to the number of times a recount should be allowed, given there are Constitutionally-written deadlines for completion of the process. Allowing lawsuits in one state that are aimed to prevent them from finishing in time also violates the equal protection clause, since that state's electors not being certified by the deadline means the voters in that state have NO say in the result.