Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
At this rate I think Gallup will have a historical first - negative numbers for job approval ratings.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
k. Done. And?
rewriting history since 2109
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.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
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.
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.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
"Stuff that matters."
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Iraq...Iran...Pakistan....anyone else we can piss off before congress does anything?
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
An even bigger landslide victory for the Democrats?
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
Yeah how could something as irrelevant as this end up at politics.slashdot.org? It is outrageous!
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.
Gone!
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
However, I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy.
Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S.
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
expandfairuse.org
"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.
Unlike, say, North Korea. Who we know has nuclear weapons and rockets capable of reacing the US.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
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.
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.
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.
The original generic sig.
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.
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
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.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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?
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
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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!
-----Chaz
Here it is straight from Youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYbgouqlMw
What do you mean?
The original generic sig.
I can swim. Recovering from getting shot in the face... I dunno...
Don't trust any concentration of power.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Please refer to my point above.
The original generic sig.
Iran is no threat to America? No wonder our Democratic Congress has worse approval ratings than Bush... they're diluted.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
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.
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.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
or possibly japan, or possibly not.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
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.
Well, in the remotest of sense they do use semi technical terms like tubes and dump trucks.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
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 )
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.
Of course Archer. The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud...
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.
Oh no, not Hans Brix!
Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
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.
We came,we saw, we kicked it's ass!
The head of the CIA has testified they can reach the US, so we at least ostensibly believe they do.
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.
No doubt you are right and, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
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?
So, do unto others before they can do unto you?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
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.
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.
What is there to debate? Impeach already.
Dennis Kucinich once saw a UFO.
HELLO! UFO = Technology!
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.
"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.
What a crock of shit. Iran may be run by religious nuts, but they aren't suicidal.
Hell no! I for one am going to stock up on marshmallows!
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
> 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.
What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
Why on Earth would /. be posting this on the main page? What does this really have to do with Geekdom?
/. 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 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
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.
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"
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Sarcasm, I was directly quoting Bush.
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.
http://www.iaea.org/
Go away, please.
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?
"The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
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.
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.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
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"
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
yeah,
he nearly blew chaneys cover pre (illegal) iraq invasion eh?
better make sure he doesnt come back and help get chaney impeached....
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
-- QED
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.
Luke, help me take this mask off
"impeachchenyfirst"?
I see it's not just the editors who don't check spelling.
...but is it art?
Rule 13: Do unto others.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
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.
The Tea Party is just the GOP with a bag over its head.
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.
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?
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.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
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?
you'll have to wait until he finds out how to respond from Sean Hannity.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
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.
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.
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
I don't therefore I'm not.
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.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
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.
Read Pynchon.
Why in blazes do you want to STOP people from shooting lawyers in the face with rifles?
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
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.
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.
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If he's impeached does he get his pension?
^ 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.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
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.
I'm not saying they're correct, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in their drive for war with Ira*.
Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to President Cheney. Even typing that revolted me.
We are all just people.
Why don't you read up about democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddeq and what happened to him, courtesy of the US gov't? ... well it's NOTHING comparing to the massive raping the US administered to Iran and Iranians over 50 years ago.
The hostage crisis
Both George and Bill followed the advice of a Dick and went (or came) where they shouldn't have with dire consequences.
point taken, your subtlety is noted :P
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
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.
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.
Kevin Smith on Prince
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.
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.
The Tea Party is just the GOP with a bag over its head.
No Bush isn't trying to rush it. Hes just said that he communicates directly with God.
That makes me feel much safer.
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.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
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.
"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 ...
Kevin Smith on Prince
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.
"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.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
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.
We are all just people.
Can I mod that as +1 paranoid. :)
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.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
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.
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.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
That aside, as far as causing a store and leading the provocation he would appear to be the front runner
We came,we saw, we kicked it's ass!
I want to send him back in time and throw him in front of Jack or Bobby or something.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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.
> No, we send them to secret torture prisons
/. 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.
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
Democrat delenda est
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.
I use friend/foe to signal strong [dis]agreement instead of mod points. What else are f/f good for?
Yes it does if you have served for more than 6 years as president you can not serve as vice president.
Indulge me:
Killing thousands of innocent civilians for the next 6 years while failing to bring justice to the perpetrators is utter madness.
Don't start listing additional reasons why it shouldn't
be on Slashdot. Remember, three strikes, and you're OUT.
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.)
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.
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 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
I attempted to quote you above, but something keeps happening to the bold text. Let me try again:
Okay, one more try:
I give up.
Raoul Mitgong: Unhelpful.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_dysfunction#Plot_summary
Ask me about repetitive DNA
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
>>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.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
As of July, a majority favored impeaching Cheney, and it was close on Bush:
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.
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?
Yeah, fuck me, that's got me pissing my pants alright! Better nuke 'em. It's the only way to be sure.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
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.
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.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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.
Here's a good link that thoroughly debunks the "wiped off the map" myth:
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
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.
You just got troll'd!
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.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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.
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.
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
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And if just one soldier got as much as a stubbed toe because of zero funding the Congress would be all GOP in 2008.
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.
"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.
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.
..... 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.
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.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
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.
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.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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.
You're nothing; like me.
Quit being such a pathetic coward.
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?
Beheading only comes into the picture when all you've got is a sword.
I'd say the NUMBER ONE problem is the rapid decline of the dollar, American anything, Gold is shooting up, etc.
.. 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.
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
Or just keep doing what you're doing, hopefully it will all work out.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
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.
Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
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.
--
make install -not war
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,
Get your facts straight. The shit you make up will seem more believable.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Oh wait, I forgot, Trolls don't need facts when bullshit and bluster is available - how very Chenny of you.
-GiH
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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!
Chicken fried butter sticks? Do
..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!
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.
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).
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
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.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
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.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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?
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
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.
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.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.
You just got troll'd!
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.
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
Here's your sig.
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?
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.
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dennis would like point to Ron as evidence that TEH UFO'S ARE REAL!!!11!!1!one!!
*ducks*
*runs*
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?
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
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.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
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.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
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.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
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.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
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.
And I would rather not cop jokes from Larry the Cable Guy. (I'd resort to Bazooka Joe comics first.)
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
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.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
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.
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?
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
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
In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
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.
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?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
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.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
.....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.
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. ~ Mark Twain
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.
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
Are those my feet?
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.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
> 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?"
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
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.
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.
... 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.
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"?
"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.
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.
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.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
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.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
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.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
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.
Kevin Smith on Prince
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
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.
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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.
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.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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.
You're showing your bias a bit here in your wording
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.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
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.
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.
You just got troll'd!
Secondly, from dictionary.reference.com
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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
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."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
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.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
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?
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).
+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.
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.
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?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.
You just got troll'd!
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.
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.