Slashdot Mirror
35 Articles of Impeachment Introduced Against Bush
vsync64 writes "Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) spent 4 hours reading into the Congressional Record 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Interestingly, those articles (63-page PDF via Coral CDN) include not just complaints about signing statements and the war in Iraq, but also charges that the President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,' 'Direct[ed] Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens,' and 'Tamper[ed] with Free and Fair Elections.' These are issues near and dear to the hearts of many here, so it's worth discussing. What little mainstream media coverage there is tends to be brief (USA Today, CBS News, UPI, AP, Reuters)." The (Democratic) House leadership has said that the idea of impeachment is "off the table." The Judiciary Committee has not acted on articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney introduced by Kucinich a year ago.
Impeaching him would have been a better idea 7 years ago. Right now, it would have no real benefit.
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
Everyone knows this won't pass. Everyone knows that this will get tabled at the first opportunity. Everyone knows Bush will be gone in seven months. What's the point?
Most likely, in February there will be a Democratic president and a more heavily Democratic congress. That's the time to open up investigations, because that's the time when investigations will actually have teeth.
This is just pointless grandstanding.
The cake is a pie
too bad it won't get mainstream press coverage or any hope of coming through.
"I am a shaman, magician. The sun is purple. 3-D dimensions, I am for mental extensions."
Well at least we know what future presidents will be allowed to get away with if we don't impeach the current one.
Actually, I think it's a good idea to force representatives to read out loud any legislation that they propose/endorse. Maybe then they'll actually read the fine details instead of just signing off on legislation that lobbyists wrote up for them.
than Kucinich ever could. Many historians consider Bush to be one of the worst presidents in US history. And the funny thing is that Bush still believes that history will prove him RIGHT.....
Plus, the Democrats are looking to rout the Republicans in November at least in the Senate and House(President is still a bit up in the air), doing something showboating like this can only benefit the Republicans.
Monstar L
Kucinich just wants to look like he gives a shit. If he had the balls to actually do this, he'd have done it years ago.
Oh yeah, as if the President has time to personally spy on anyone is pretty laughable as well.
Try him for crimes against humanity - like Pinochet. Whoops! I thought I could visit Spain!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Some points are intruiging for me, such as: Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter As the UN is not particularly an US insitution, can you charge the US president for impeachment for not following the UN charter ?
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Shouldn't count for much, as I'm not american, but impeaching this president might set a precedent and send a warning to newer presidents to tread lightly or be out of a job.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
I don't understand why this is silly. If "GWB's assault on the Constitution" doesn't merit impeachment, what does?
It seems like everyone is just dicking around with the election by pulling stunts such as this. There's no way this will go through.
.-.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich read off all thirty-five articles of impeachment, each one accompanied by a great deal of supporting evidence, so that the other Congress Critters couldn't avoid hearing about it, and that at least people watching C-SPAN could witness it for themselves (as he probably knew it would get ignored by the traditional media). The vile actions of this administration need to rest on the consciences of all our representatives, whether complicit or just complacent.
:)
If you want to complain about wasting time in Congress, look up which party has done more filibustering in recent years.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
Is it stupid because you disagree with the terms, or stupid because it will accomplish nothing?
In the latter case, is it still worth the effort to read it before Congress or are you suggesting that this act of grandstanding actually hurts the position (that Bush is bad and needs impeaching)?
Unless there is some real harm from the action, I say go for it. Realistically, nothing will come of it now, though that may change come February. Raising these issues again and again may annoy some, but it's the only way to force discussion and that is something sorely needed.
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
I'm not familiar with that allegation. I think he would have been better served to have limited the charges to a core set that are clear cut. Its perhaps a good idea to have the charges entered into the congressional record, but I don't think its going to go much farther than that. I don't think most democrats want to go to that extreme with so little time left. In general I think we should reserve impeachment for when the normal term limit end isn't soon enough. I believe any crimes can still be prosecuted after officials leave office, which also diminishes the possibility of pardons.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I was thinking about this, because it makes 4 minutes per page. Then, I realized that he must have been interrupted during his speech and must have taken at least 2 breaks ...
... Your idea of an email is absolutely horrible ...
:p
I also realize that your post is sarcastic, but you need to present your ideas, you can't attack a president without presenting your ideas
what next ? Let's create http://www.youimpeach.com/ ?
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Most of the articles are stupid stuff that does not involve breaking the law.
How interesting is it that attempting to impeach a president because he got a BJ and lied about it gets so much more publicity than one who kills thousands in an unjust war, breaks the constitution, and effectively turns a "free" country into a police-state. /me weeps for the future
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
here goes the anti bush slashdot band wagon again, bush screwed up, we all know that, impeachable? no, Kucinich is just a nut trying to get PR and thats why the major media outlets are not giving it more then a brief mention with a laugh at the end. Seriously this has little to nothing to do with tech, leave it for the smear sites and put your political beliefs on the back burner when you are posting stories for slashdot.
Well, I agree with your point there.
...just a thought.
Now there needs just needs to be a Constitutional Amendment which requires the ENTIRE US TAX CODE to be read into the Congressional Record every single year for it to be legally binding! Of course, that would either require CSPAN to get another satellite or for the tax code to be shortened into the flat tax...
Then again, I was under the impression that "earmarks" were not required to be read into the record either? Whoops... confusing the Congressional Record's purpose with that of Official Congressional Business as Usual...
What? What was its purpose again?
As a practical matter, impeachment is impossible. Whether Bush's actions were or weren't illegal is beside the point. Impeachment is an inherently political process, not a strictly legal one. A conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate. The Democrats would have a hard time getting enough Republican votes for conviction if Bush murdered a decorated war hero on national television, and there's no chance at all with what he's actually done. The best they can hope for is to shine enough light onto what he's done that anyone associated with his crimes becomes a political pariah.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Despite the howls from the far left, Bush didn't actually "lie and people died". Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, own report proves that. For example,
The list goes on, and Rockfeller's committee could only say, over and over, "Generally substantiated by intelligence information," though there was some exaggeration (which isn't the same as a lie).
HOWEVER! Spying on citizens, arresting and holding without probable cause or a trial, wiretapping -- basically using our Constitution to wipe his ass -- now that's a good enough reason to impeach him and the majority of assholes sitting on their fat asses in Washington DC (both Democrats and Republicans).
-- Will program for bandwidth
There's no reason for the Democrats to impeach Bush, since Bush makes the Republicans look bad. If Bush suddenly manages to make himself look good, the Democrats can drag out the impeachment stick and drag him forcibly through the mud.
The presidential race is already tight enough, so any Republicans with a conscience won't bring up impeachment, since they would risk jeopardizing their own re-election bids.
Most importantly, if Bush and Cheney were impeached, then Pelosi, a Democrat, would take over and inherit a huge mess of unsolvable problems. Which would make the Democrats look bad before the election. Better to let a Republican president stew in a bad economy and an unpopular war.
I hope I'm not the only one who heard Homer Simpson in my head when I read "Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)".
It's concerning that so many are so quick to dismiss these as a political stunt by a talented, albeit annoying, senator. I see no problem with holding people accountable, regardless the amount of time that's elapsed since a serious crimes were committed. If the Congress would grow some teeth and start investigating the DOJ for corruption, I think the DOJ would stop pussyfooting around and hold Bush's feet to the fire. It has been proven time and again - those world leaders that are royal screw-ups usually are held accountable after they leave office. I wouldn't be surprised that once a new Attorney General is at the helm, there will be plenty of investigations launched into the various violations of Constitutional and legal principles committed by the current administration. GWB only has 7 months left in office. Once he's gone, it will be interesting to see which civil rights group will step up and begin to personally deconstruct the last administration through legal battles that will continue long after our generation is gone. If Bush is no longer president, he no longer holds the strings that control the prosecutorial branch of our government - and a new president is, of course, allowed to declassify any document(s) he or she sees fit, even if they would send Bush to prison to do some hard time. I don't think it will happen (too much politics involved)... but it's nice to dream.
So what if he's impeached? Will that solve anything? Will the other entire government then turn around and impeach itself? Will voters stop trying to rob each other via the ballot box, and vote for Constitutional candidates? No. Have fun with this while not actually doing anything about the underlying issue...
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
It would've taken a year to read the USA PATRIOT Act aloud.
Actually, that would've been a good thing -- the people hearing it would've actually known behind a doubt what they were stealing from us all.
>Everyone knows Bush will be gone in seven months. What's the point?
There's a value beyond the symbolic one. Article I, Section 3 allows the outcome of impeachment and conviction to include "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States". We've had convicted felons re-hired into the Executive branch before. Impeachment and conviction could remove the risk of something like that happening.
Is that I finally have a good reason to use the phrase "Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D'OH!)" in casual conversation.
Part of being the group leader is taking the blame, even if its not your fault. Basically the masses don't care if its personally Bush's fault, just as long as somebody takes the blame. Sure it would be better if the right individual people were judged, but its just easier for people to sit back and take it out on one person.
I don't apply this to just Bush, but everything else too.
See now, I did learn something from Final Fantasy 8...
Then why did he say "The House is not in order"? Who banged the gavel? Your post had no resemblance to fact whatsoever. :p
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
... is awesome. He's the only candidate I would have bothered driving to the polls for, despite the fact that when I got there diebold would have just erased my vote.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
How to get attention:
1: Marry hot wife.
2: Run for Presisent
3: Look for UFO's
4: Constantly throw in use legislation that no one is interested in.
Really, there are more intersting things to be politcal about....
I sure hope he realizes he can't impeach the President for going to war, since Congress votes to go to war. I would assume someone in Congress would realize this.
If the article is based on lying, you'd have to prove the person knowingly lied. And lying isn't against the law, unless you're talking perjury. And I though Democrats didn't think perjury was impeachable.
That being said, I'm not a Bush lover by any means, and I find it fairly interesting that he is being brought up on charges of spying on citizens. Whether or not that is illegal is debatable, even if it is reprehensible, and again, we're talking about bills that have been passed repeatedly by a bipartisan Congress. In Bush is guilty, again, so is everyone who voted on those measures.
Thusly, the impeachment isn't going anywhere.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
What kind of a smart, beautiful woman with an interest in world conflict and politics wouldn't want to marry an easily guided politician and aim to steer him towards positions of political clout? She's probably closer to the front lines of politics where she is now than she'd be in Zimbabwe, Iraq, or China... longer life span, too.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581
My sig of choice is Marlboro
While I applaud Dennis Kucinich for introducing his articles of impeachment in the House, I also realize that there's zero chance that the House will do anything but sit on them. The current Congress is filled with chickenshit liars and cowards. These are mostly the same spineless toadies who voted for Bush's fascist Patriot Act and his bogus Iraq War. There's no way they're going to impeach him. If they did, they'd only be implicating themselves. After all, they colluded with Bush to make it all happen. They rubber stamped his belligerence at almost every turn, most Democrats included. And to the ones who said they didn't know that Bush was lying to them when they voted for the Iraq war, I say BULLSHIT. The rest of us knew. The rest of us sat in disbelief in front on our TVs every night while the Big Lie was played out for us. A few of us protested against the inevitable nightmare. The Congress and the corporate media ignored us. And only now, when it's popular and risk-free to do so, do they cry foul.
If the President is going to be routinely impeached, arrested, and jailed during or after his term, why should any President ever allow another election? Wouldn't it be suicidal for him to do that?
This type of thing is a recipe for civil war. Consider whether you want that.
Speaker Pelosi said so
Dennis Kucinich is such a joke and a waste of time with is posturing. Bush isn't going to get impeached any more than Clinton was ever impeached - and for precisely the same reason. The president's own political party in each case will block it in the Senate, provided it ever gets there to start with. Kucinich is a fool, and has just demonstrated it to the world!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If you honestly believe any nation's politics is a game of two "sides" then you deserve the American political system.
There are some potentially serious charges that might warrant impeachment; domestic spying, for instance.
But it's a shame that those are mixed in with whackjob conspiracy accusations like fixing elections.
As Lincoln said "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."
Between the Civil War and Western Expansion Lincoln committed many of the same illegal acts attributed to Bush, same with FDR during WWII.
So, I'm curious, how do propose to impeach a president who is already out of office?
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Does this really matter?
Now as I remember, people have been calling for Bush to be impeached since his first 6 months of office. It died down for a little bit during the "we are one" period after 9/11, but then came back.
Now to impeach him then would have meant something. Doing it in '04 would have meant something. Doing it in '06 would have meant something.
It's July '08. It's too late. You can't impeach him and have something useful happen.
Let's just assume that you could get the impeachment passed in under a month. That's impossible thanks to the grandstanding that will happen in this election year. Having both major candidates be Senators won't help. They'll stretch it on as long as they can. Then there is the impeachment trial. That will last months and months and months.
By the time the whole thing is over (assuming he is impeached and convicted) he will have been out of office for... months. Congratulations, you've accomplished nothing.
This is pure theater. Whenever some of the Dems want an anti-republican issue they bring this one up. The hard-core left pipes up about it for a while and gets a little air time. The fact that the leadership doesn't even support it shows how far it's going to go in reality.
A quick look at Wikipedia seems to show that he isn't running again. He has nothing to lose, he can grandstand like this with no repercussions in the next election.
Congress did (next to) nothing to control Bush (both sides). They had plenty of chances. Congress changed hands with a bunch of people coming in or being reelected on promises of changing things, and we all know what happened then: nothing. It is up to history at this point to judge Bush. Whether some of his policies turn out for the best, he is the worst president in history, or just a footnote as "the guy who got us in Iraq." Various policies may be changed by the next administration to undo/fix things Bush has done "wrong", but it's too late now to kick him out. He's already gone, and has been out of political capital for at least months.
So, does all this matter that much? It's too late to change things.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
- an elected member of US Congress, and
- in possession of relevant facts, and
- willing to step-up and present the facts, to
present a case that an employee of US Taxpayers is violating his oath to uphold the US Constitution.Further, Article II, Section 4 demands it.
Article VI
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I have mod points. But I want you to repeat for us your assertion that the Attorney General has the power to issue warrants. Alternately, you may explicitly state your belief that a law may override the Constitution.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The Bush administration has played havoc with our infrastructure, with our laws, with our educational system, with our resource pools, with the cost of those resources, with the effectiveness of academic research, and with our ability to do business. If you don't understand that these things all are crucial to tech then maybe you should go back to your Visual Basic tutorial and leave the discussion to those of us who know better.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Kucinich is an idiot; He hurts the Democrats chances in 2008 elections. Having Bush around is the most powerful electoral advantage that Democrats have. Trying to get rid of him is such a distraction. What will Obama do for his "Bush-McCain policies" sloganeering? Bush may be bad for U.S. But he has done a lot of good to rest of the world unknowingly.
This has no chance of going anywhere. Why is this on the front page? Kucinich is perceived as a nutjob by the vast majority of the United States. Why should we care what he thinks or introduces in the House?
That sounds like a good enough reason to me.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
And do you really think Bush will be tried of any of the indictments? As head of state, he'll be found innocent thank you very much indeed.
My web domain.
Very smart! You want Dick Cheney to President?!
This was put together during the Clinton impeachment proceedings: it's a long and fascinating account of what the authors of the Constitution had in mind as grounds for impeachment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm
So, in your opinion, what is "the underlying issue"? I'm not just being snarky; I'm genuinely curious. What do you think the "real problem" is and what are you doing about it?
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
If you impeach Bush and successfully remove him from office, then you get Cheney.
But, maybe if they SIMULTANEOUSLY impeached Bush and Cheney on the same charges, then Pelosi could be President.
paintball
On a related note...
A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.
For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.
A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.
The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.
(more)
Is it stupid because you disagree with the terms, or stupid because it will accomplish nothing?
I think that it is stupid because it distracts from core issues and fails to separate the constitutional and legal issues from the reasons people dislike the President. Bush is unpopular because Iraq isn't going the way people wanted to believe it would and because you can no longer make yourself rich by getting an ARM in a rising housing market.
But those aren't the things that come close to impeachable offensives. The possibly impeachable offensives (signing statements, domestic spying) are things that people don't care about and my even agree with the President on.
I would like to try to focus attention on those issues without it being about the individual. An impeachment circus isn't the way to do that.
Mostly, I dislike the idea of impeaching any President who becomes unpopular. We (correctly) don't have a "recall" mechanisms for federal elections, and we shouldn't use impeachment as a substitute.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Then you might want to get behind the Read the Laws Act.
a blow job from an unattractive woman who apparently doesn't like to take clothes to the laundry.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
...someone please tell me what a President has to do to deserve it. Seriously, if this shitwit isn't removed from office, what will a President have to do to have that happen?
All's true that is mistrusted
* On weapons of mass destruction overall? "Generally substantiated by FALSE intelligence information.".
(fixed that for you)
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Available evidence leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability.
They made up lies and based a case for war on them. they lost that case and went to war anyway. substantiated by intelligence? can it even be called intelligence, when it's wrong, deliberately? why don't we call it what it is, stupidity, bald faced lying, and greed.
then bush can change his opening remarks at the impeachment trial to
"your honor, my decisions were substantiated by the least credible most biased sources of stupidity i could find."
funny that an impeachment can't happen in an election year, what a pity. you'd think that'd be the best time, if Kucinich was on the ballot he'd get my vote! That's the clincher for Obama, he should bring his own impeachment against Bush.
And just so everyone knows that I'm not a Bush lover, I do think Bush can and should be impeached. The spying is a tough one, again because Congress passed it, and because our Constitutional right to privacy is more one of not being forced to self-incriminate. It would certainly be interesting to see played out in front of a court, but it isn't slam dunk by any means.
I'd have impeached Bush a long time ago over Jose Padilla however. Padilla is a scum bug, but he is an American citizen all the same. I routinely disagree with fanatics who scream the sky is falling, and that we'll all go to gitmo for being unpatriotic, but the Padilla case did happen. There should be fallout for suspending the rights of a US citizen.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
As if it were just about being unpopular. Get a grip... if you actually READ the articles in the .pdf there is seriously strong evidence for the criminal acts this president has wrought upon us. The political grandstanding comes when there is failure to act on this!
But, the upside is that the senate won't get much done while they're busy pointing fingers.
.....for doing this now (and it is, nevertheless, a good one) is that there will be a neat and tidy permanent summation of the misdeeds Herr Bush is accused of in the Congressional Record. It will at least provide a handy "Cliff's Notes" overview for future historians -- a starting point for research. Obviously, there will be no actual action taken. Even more obviously, Bush would be long out of office before the process could possibly end anyway. It may be a naively quixotic quest on Kucinich's part, or just a means for him to get attention (and I discount either theory -- Kucinich may be a bit of an eccentric, but I believe him to be an honorable man). No, I think his only motivation is to make sure it's all "on the record" in an official and permanent manner.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
A lot of people are saying that those who control the U.S. government, obviously oil and weapons investors, are planning another terrorist attack on the U.S.*, which they will use to justify an attack on Iran so that there can be even greater control over oil supplies to make the price rise further.
*Buildings do not fall symmetrically into dust and small pieces, even if there is destruction at the top. The destruction of the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition.
There is a lot of evidence that whoever controls the U.S. government is planning to declare martial law. It's a top-rated story on Digg.com.
Search for "martial law" on digg.com or reddit.com. There are hundreds of links.
Mod parent up.
Treaties ratified by the congress are Law in the United States. That would include agreements made with the UN.
The Supreme Court recently scoped that down a bit, eloquently saying 'uh, but not REALLY'.
I'll leave it to the Constitution to tell you who's right about this (hint: apparently not the 'conservative' and 'strict constructionist' Court in that decision):
Article VI: [...] This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [...]
What would he have to have done for you to consider impeachment merited? And do you consider his actions so typical that we should assume that any standard that justifies impeaching him would, de facto, justify impeaching anybody simply for being president?
Oh, and btw, he has yet to be arrested or jailed.
Though we can certainly hope ;->
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
cnn, abc, cbs, nbc, npr, etc.
The Clinton Impeachment had 35% public support at the peak of public support, but the press harped on the blowjob endlessly and grilled Clinton interminably.
This impeachment already has more than 50% public support, but the MSM will not cover it for fear of people realizing that if the majority demands impeachment, it will happen.
So, this is getting covered by the blogosphere, CSPAN and in the international press.. untouched by the "mainstream" "liberal" press.
Disgusting, as usual.
Okay. That makes sense. But if he can be charged after he leaves office then doesn't that make it even more important to get the ball rolling as soon as possible?
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Quick, someone buy bush a hooker.
enough said. Living, breathing relic of "Stupid is as stupid does."
When you are old and think you're sweet, Take off your shoes and smell your feet.
Here we have a US Representative reading 35 articles of impeachment (with lots of supporting documentation and citations) on the House floor and there's virtually no media coverage. There's an AP wire paragraph that's quoted about it several places and that's about it. No commentary. No detail on any of the articles. How is this possible? What the hell?! Google it yourself. NOTHING. What does it take? ITMFA!
The Clinton thing was blown out of proportion because they had a provable lie under oath. The fact that it was a lie about a trivial matter (trivial to the public anyway; obviously not trivial to the Clinton family) was irrelevant to the right-wingers who attacked him on what many of them saw as a matter of principal. The problem is the same principals are ignored when one of their own engages in provable lie after provable lie about matters of grave public importance such as war and peace. But Bush and co. have been smart enough not to find themselves in the position of uttering provable lies under oath (they avoided this simply by refusing to take an oath when testifying to the 911 Commission, for example, and by refusing to testify altogether). So we don't have the "gotcha" moment that we had with Clinton. I can agree that Clinton's lies were shameful whether under oath or not and that perhaps I'd have more respect for him had he come clean, but it doesn't change the fact that the issue he lied about was one I had no business knowing anything about in the first place. Whereas Bush & Co's lies have been about issues that the public does have a right to know, and thousands of Americans have died as a direct result of these lies. I hope people can see the difference.
Get The Fuck Out Of MY Sex Life. It's not just idiotic, it's insulting that some people have tried to make it into such a big deal. It's insulting because there are so many truly important things going on, at any given time, independent of which flavor we have in office.
You get your dick sucked and lie about it. I lie my way into war and domestic spying. Prioritize.
Quack, quack.
If you've ever set foot near the Capitol, you'd realize the chamber is constantly on an internal multichannel CCTV feed with captioning.
Just because no one is in the room does not mean it isn't being watched or heard in the members' offices.
How about every bill being publicly posted without alteration for 90 days before any voting is allowed? That would stop a lot of bad legislation from being pushed through congress.
So what do we do now?
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
No! No!
It's lying about a blowjob.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"Articles of homage to Lord Zebulon of Orion" "Articles of request for step stool"
BTW: I'm a Brit living in the US and find the War Profiteering very distasteful. I would be quite happy to strongly say that I don't support the war, but support the troops there.
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - HGTTG
Is it American to ignore impropriety because it's inconvenient? Just imagine it's a democrat if you have to, corruption isn't drawn on party lines.
Quack, quack.
The evil of those that stand aside, equals the evil of the heinous vile amoral acts of others.
... and sociopathic serial killers. George&Dick have sever antisocial personality disorders that prevent them from considering repercussions of their evil and traitorous actions, and most USA politicians again refuse to honourably act would never feel sincere guilt and remorse for anything performed by USA politicians (POTUS, vPOTUS, Speaker ...). Analogy: There is a cancer in US and it is not diagnosed; Therefor, expect demise not treatment or a miracle cure from our politicians.
... go unanswered and unpunished is an insult to US, our ideals, honour, ancestors and posterity, and an indictment of our valueless, worthless, and treacherous politicians.
Again most USA politicians prove they are the equals of Hitler, Stalin, Mao
Impeach a POTUS for a blowjob in a private office and a little fib to congress, but let real crimes happen against "The USA Constitution", humanity, USA Citizens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathic
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
There is no case for impeaching Bush.
He hasn't broken United States law.
What we ought to do is turn him over to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.
Which is why Bill Clinton was *not* convicted of perjury *or* contempt. The byzantine rules of the US court system *allow* you to lie *IF* the question you are asked has no bearing on what you are being charged with. Therefore, his lying under oath about Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case was not perjury, because his relationship with Lewinsky had no bearing on Paula Jones' accusations. Don't blame me or Bill Clinton. That's the law.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
because he thought what he was doing was the right thing to do. Would Al Gore have stepped up security, fought the terrorist and taken us into a war (the war is justified that we thought that terrorist were in Iraq, and rightly so)? Probably not.
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
it's the only way not to be squelched. If he just submitted it to the register it would be sure to be buried in 1000 pages of republican comments nobody would read. By reading it aloud it's "minutes" and must be given space in the register as official discussion. He may be ignored now, but his complaint is legally registered for historians to come.
If ever an article needed this tag...
20th century Marxism is not progress...
It came from Reddit. Home of the Paultard campaign. There's actually plenty of coverage in the media for the worth of the story, but Reddit-anoia makes it into a huge conspiracy by the shadowy MSM.
Should we fail to do anything then we assert that we are tolerant of these violations and should expect ongoing erosion.
Quack, quack.
Bush is a shitty president, I'll give you that. But do you remember a little thing called 9/11. It may be a mess right now but when the war started, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagreed with it. And Sadam, he's gone! one less dictator on the planet! and for those WMDs we can't even find osama bin laden, who's to say he didn't just dump them in some cave. The War has dragged on way too long, I'll agree with that. but dammit we went in for the right reasons!
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
After the 2006 election, Nancy Pelosi's first action as Speaker of the House was to take impeachment off the table. Why would she do that when the vast majority of the Democratic base clearly wanted it? Because, even if it had succeeded, it would have hurt the Democrats' chances in 2008. The first interest of the Democrats was to ensure that they remained in power, or solidified their grip on power. An obligation to the Constitution and their constituents was a second priority. And before anyone thinks I'm taking sides here, I'll say that both major parties do this.
Why are they doing it now, when Bush has only seven months left in office rather than a year and a half ago? Election year theater.
And that's why I cringe when people say "We really need to get the Democrats the White House and majorities Congress in 2008" or something to that effect. They have no interest in you, the country, or anything but power and money.
Kucinich is an exception among them. We need more like him, but he is an anomaly.
Lincoln's suspending of habeus corpus was actually not that widespread, nor were most of his other questionable activities, none of which even began to reach the scale of Bush's ones. As for FDR, well, first of all, we really did have a world war going on and secondly, yeah, no sh*t, and look at how much trouble his actions have gotten us into since. The "Military-Industrial Complex" that Bush is so tied to grew directly out of FDR's policies and his obsession with secrecy (not to mention the influence of Hoover) played a huge role in Truman getting suckered by the security establishment into creating so much of the core institutions that are so central to our current national security state. If FDR had lived a few years longer he probably would have faced impeachment hearings. He certainly had enough enemies. Gawd knows Churchill was out on his butt as soon as anybody was in a position to do so.
If you want to try that line of patter, might I suggest that you start with the Alien and Anti-Sedition Acts and Wilson's various illegal actions against folks like Eugene Debs.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
You have no idea what it's like to live in a police state. If you did, you would not make this kind of statement.
and "unjust" is murky. A blow-job is easy.
In political systems, how does entropy affect freedom?
Quack, quack.
What good has Bush done?
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Who would fuck /him/, though?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Clinton is not the brightest lawyer in the box.
He could have avoided the whole thing and saved a ton of money by:
1. paying of the lawsuit, this means going to the court house and submitting the money asked for. No pleading guilty or not. This action satisfies the legal requirements.
2. going on TV and saying he is the POTUS and cannot be distracted by dumb stuff.
The point is not that he banged another woman. But that he lied under oath.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
The lie that is the problem is the written response. Not what said in front of judge.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
Think on this concept ... President Cheney ... Can't you hear the chanting ... four more years, four more years, four more years.
A form letter email generator for your local congress-person can be found here.
Yes, Even as a republican, when I started to hear the charges and allegations and whatnot about Clinton, I thought, "No, Republicans are making this up, my president better have higher standards than THAT woman."
The case for treason is quite clear. If this bastard is allowed to get away scott free with trying to change our republic into a monarchy, it's pretty much game over for democracy in the US. If he is instead made to account for his actions we might have a chance.
If we had some ham, we could make a ham and cheese sandwich
You apparently live outside of the Cleveland area much less the State of Ohio.
If
... Paula Jones. She cared too because her case was thrown out as a result of his obstruction of justice.
Keep in mind, the President's first job is to ensure that the law is faithfully executed. When you violate that responsibility for political expedience.
If he could have argued that violating her rights actually helped the nation, then it wouldn't have been an issue.
Am I blind, or is this not mentioned on CNN at all? It's not linked on their Bush topics page anywhere I can see, and search doesn't find it.
This seems like huge news, so it seems odd that CNN wouldn't be all over it?
YOU might have given YOUR support. I didn't support Bush's war. I fought like a badger against the Iraq War. Anyone actually paying attention knew Bush and his cronies were lying before that war even started.
The UN weapon inspectors said there were NO WoMDs in Iraq well before combat began.
Are you saying the democrats are in favor of having an evil corrupt president? Is that because they aspire to get one of their own?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
>Clinton LIED under oath in a federal court after taking an oath to tell the truth.
Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
What about the monkey torture?
Clinton did not lie about anything pertaining to his duties as President.
The record has been doubled by the Republicans. That needs more explanation than just being in the minority.
Several statements by the president and the vice president were either contradicted by the intelligence they had or made up from thin air. These are statements made to convince the public and Congress that Iraq was a threat to the United States. If that's not lying, then what is?
Didn't you watch There Will be Blood? It's called drainage! We should have been drilling down there years ago, now the Chinese have beaten us to it. Yes, it is a global market, but the last thing we need to do is increase our trade deficit for no reason at all.
Well, it's certainly not harmful to Bush!
Think about it: after 7 years of being in power and being rabidly but informally accused of every crime under the sun, the only "official" accusations against him are made by a well known lunatic in an after-hours reading into the congressional record.
I'd say that's a commendation of Bush, rather than a condemnation. If that's the worst his enemies can come up with then he's either covered his ass amazingly well, or the accusations against him are 99% bullshit.
I'm leaning toward the latter, btw. The vast majority of the things he's been accused of really ARE bullshit. He's certainly not the greatest president in the history of the US, but the guy has been demonizied beyond any semblance of reality.
Frankly, I find the whole thing rather amusing. It's like watching a bunch of the fat ugly losers in highschool hanging out in a corner of the cafeteria and talking about how horrible and disgusting the Captain of the football team is.
What happens in the Middle East over all, but specifically in Iraq. If Iraq stabilises and becomes a flourishing democracy, it'll be attributed to Bush's visionary leadership. The flaws and the problems will be slowly forgotten, replaced with the idea of a leader willing to stand up and do the right thing and free people. He'll be hailed as a great president. If Iraq stays the same or degenerates, he'll be remembered as a failure, who screwed things up and was a really shitty president, maybe even the worst.
A quote from a Bond film (which may have been somewhere else first but that's where I heard it) is "The line between genius and insanity is measured only by success." Well, there's some truth to that. Something that is "An insane stunt," when it fails can then become "A brilliant feat," when it succeeds. Success or failure often clouds how we evaluate the situation that lead to something.
Thus it will most likely be for Bush. The Iraq war has been the major thing of his presidency, so it's outcome will likely shape how he is judged. Doesn't matter if it's outcome really has nothing to do with his actions, or is even in spite of his actions. If it comes out good, he'll likely be held up as a great president, if it comes out poorly he'll be held as one of the worst.
Please bare with me on this for a moment, and put aside your feelings about if the Clintion or Bush impeachments are warranted...
I have a bad feeling we are witnessing a new trend in politics... that from here on out damn near every president will be impeached by the other side of the isle.
If I'm right on this it's going to hurt us as a nation in the long run, and make the act of impeachment have little meaning.
Think about it, if every president is officially pronounced a criminal.. what message does that send to the rest of the world about our nation? How strongly will our citizens back a president in times of crisis?
"Whackjob?" Voting machine fraud aside, there are many ways to cheat in a presidential election.
A LOT of smart people called Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein names as well, but their efforts resulted in the Nixon impeachment because they took the time to research the subject matter rather than bow to ridicule, lies and threats. --Rather than take the easy way out; to simply go with the flow and believe what they were told; that only 'whackjobs' think that corruption exists.
-FL
This is all TROLL worthy.
Please read up on the Starr Report then. There was all kinds of evidence linking him to a laundry list of crimes. He was charged however only with perjury and abuse of power if I recall.
The biggest problem with the Starr report, is that it dug up far too much, so both parties then quickly sought to bury it, so as to not make the entire country look bad.
And I am extremely suspect of anyone who claims that Clinton wasn't a liar. Primary Colors was written by a close friend of his, and even that book suggested he was a life-long pathological liar.
As a disclaimer, I consider myself very liberal in my political platforms. That doesn't mean I have to worship Clinton, and hate Bush absolutely. There are reasons to hate Bush certainly, but I feel the need to play devil's advocate to try to keep such discussions factual.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Another Reason... I suspect the timing on this is no accident... we finally got a democrat candidate and the election is right around the corner. There is going to be tons of press about how evil Bush is, and will likely cause people to think "I don't want another criminal republican in office". I suspect those behind this are more interested in casting republicans as evil and therefore sealing the deal for Obama than actually impeaching Bush.
I'm a huge fan of factcheck.org, and oddly enough I discovered it during the Vice Presidential debates 4 years ago when Cheney was advocating it (except I think he called it factcheck.com mistakenly).
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I know, right, reading is for fags. ...brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Someone wants to make sure he is re-elected this fall. After 2 badly failed attempts at President some of his constituents have figured out he is in it for power.
By the time Congress acted it would be to late anyway. This is just a big "look at me" grandstanding event for the cameras.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Your national public broadcasters were on to a lot of what went wrong and were stating so in their broadcasts. But since too many people watch/listen/read the news as brought to you by News Corp, the neo-cons won the communications victory and got their war.
Scott McClellan's book says not only that they were lying, it says they KNEW they were lying about the intel when they said it.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Washingtons-Culture-Deception/dp/1586485563
Scott McClellan's book says not only that they were lying, it says they KNEW they were lying about the intel when they said it.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Washingtons-Culture-Deception/dp/1586485563
How is this insightful? The guy basically says there is no evidence for impeachment, and it is just about popularity. Yet the raticle is a PDF listing the evidence for impeachment?
Kucinich:
X+3 = 4
X=4-3
therefore, X=1
Charles Dodgeson:
But X is a variable! An unknown! You'll need to submit a proof to know the actual value.
Seriously, what the hell is this doing on Slashdot?
Go back to CNN or MSNBC. I'm starting to see major political leanings on my nerd news.
Not to mention anything of the millions of people of other nationalities (perhaps an order of magnitude higher) who have died, been irreversably wounded or displaced as a direct result of Bush's lies and mis-leading of the American public. A few Americans might have a problem with that, too.
Sounds like a good idea, but sometimes you need to act faster than 90 days in order to be effective. Unfortunately, any exceptions you can come up with would then be abused, much like everything else by this administration.
- passion
However it won't. Congress is not at all willing to stand up to the president, it seems, even though the party majority has shifted. Impeachment is a long process. The articles being introduced doesn't really mean anything. For the President to actually get impeached, the House of Representatives has to vote to do so, and they aren't going to. Well then getting impeached in itself doesn't really do anything. To actually be removed from office or anything more serious, there's then a trial conducted by the Senate. 66% have to vote to convict. If convicted, then he'd be removed from office. After that, criminal charges could be leveled in criminal court if appropriate.
Unfortunately, this is likely to just be for show, as I doubt the House will even vote on it, much less pass it.
Took long enough. Now it's completely pointless to do this.
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
The purpose of reading it out is to ensure that it is recorded in the parliamentary records (eg, Australia's Hansard. I'm assuming there is an equivalent system for the US Congress
If its posted to the records office, it doesn't count because it wasn't part of the verbal proceedings (which is transcribed into the records)
Maybe they should have asked Bill if it was any good. If he says no charge her with impeachment.
I plan on using this impeachment attempt to sample the people in power.
The people that try to push this to the back burner, or fight it, will never receive a vote from me again. Not that I can vote in most of the areas these people are from anyways, but I am sure a lot of you folks can.
I can't wait to see the guy gone -- but think about it, folks. Even if our Congresscritters grew a collective spine and acted on this, we do *NOT* want to impeach Bush.
I mean, does *anyone* here want "President Cheney"?!?
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
I watched Kucinich read all 35-counts. His mailing list was the first to inform me that he was about to do it, and I'm thankful I was at my computer at the time.
Some of it was just jaw-dropping. Children being detained as enemy combatants? Going on vacation while the terrorist attack sirens were blaring? Sitting back and doing nothing while Katrina destroyed the gulf coast? Usurping FISA's exclusive authority to issue electronic surveillance warrants for intelligence purposes?
Never, in the history of the United States, has any President, EVER, deserved to be impeached and removed from office more than George W. Bush.
As a Progressive Democrat, I understand why my party is moving for the impeachment of George Bush. What I really *don't* understand is why the Conservative Republicans aren't doing the same thing? If there's *anything* in the world that will give McCain even a slight chance against Barack Obama, it would be rallying the Republican party to impeach George W. Bush. Republicans who supported him might even be allowed to keep their jobs in the next election cycle! Why aren't they all over this like flies on dog shit???
Let's remove this tyrant from office. For the good of the Presidency, for the good of America, for the good of the American people, and finally for the good of the whole damn world!
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
Maybe the goal isn't to actually impeach him now, but to have this on the record for the unexpected national emergency we're all expecting.
...That would be Obama.
Please tell me Slashdot isn't turning into Digg....
A lot of people including myself deeply respect Dennis Kucinich. Do you know anything about his accomplishments, or are you just parroting back what the conservative media tells you to say?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If the articles only included things that actually were criminal in the technical sense, I would feel better about it. But all but a few of them are actually criminal, even if they are tragic, awful and venial. I mean trying to impeach the President for "Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change" just shows the inanity of effort. Sure that was extremely bad policy, but if we are going to start considering bad policy and the rhetoric used to sell bad policy as impeachable offenses then every politician to the end of time will be impeachable.
Even the few that may really involve criminality are things that should be resolved by the courts (signing statements) or aren't clearly about the President himself (Meirs and Rove failing to answer subpoenas) are hardly impeachable offenses.
The political grandstanding comes when there is failure to act on this!I respectfully submit that you are the one who hasn't read the indictment. Or that you have very peculiar ideas about what impeachment is actually for.
I hated the investigation and the impeachment of President Clinton. Although GWB's "crimes" are certainly worse in terms of their impact and deceit, the bar for impeachment should be much higher than "Well, it's better than what they did to Clinton."
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Locked away in prison for the rest of their lives.
Or better yet - handed off to all of the various countries who would love to bring charges against them.
I completely agree. Also, laws need a time-limit which is shorter than a president's term in office, and the laws also need to be read to congress and ratified.
On a point related to the article, apparently Bush authorized the outing of Valerie Plame. This is one crime I think Bush should stop pretending he didn't do. He should admit his involvement, and take his punishment.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Nonsense. The Legislative Branch should not be responding to emergencies. That's the Executive Branch's job.
The quintissential case is a Pearl Harbor style scenario, where America is under attack and we need a declaration of war. I'd argue that, in this day and age, we could have a provision stating that the President is free to deploy the troops for up to 90 days, but, following that grace period, he must get a declaration of war from Congress (not a resolution, or an authorization, but a formal declaration of war), otherwise he has to bring the troops home. This would allow ample time for the president to respond to short term emergencies, while still leaving leeway for the US to respond credibly to unprovoked attacks.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Yep, back then it would have put Cheney in office...or more likely not gone anywhere.
Seven years later I don't feel like my rights have been abridged in any way. I don't feel like I lost any critical privacy. I don't feel less free. I in fact feel good about stepping thru scanners, being sniffed by dogs, and being searched at the airport. I feel more put off by having to listen to Congressman K talk than by people being locked up in Gitmo or putting up with any of the changes.
If you feel like someone really is abridging your rights then get on to your rep about why there is no MI5 style unit here in the US, with restrictions and judical & legislative oversight. It would be a great middle ground. Right now if I have to take an extreme - everything starts with security.
Dennis Kucinich is an idiot. No, I don't mean that euphamistically. I mean he's an actual idiot. If you want such a measure to be taken seriously, get someone who's NOT an idiot to bring it forward.
Prosecutors didn't indite O.J. Simpson because they didn't like him and wanted to send him to prison for the rest of his life, they indited him because they had two dead bodies in the morgue and a ton of evidence.
What led to Clinton's impeachment wasn't a crime he committed, but a desire among Republicans to remove him from office by any means necessary. Whitewater and Vince Foster were investigated and re-investigated and no dirt was found on the Clintons. So Ken Starr and House Republicans settled for a manufactured perjury charge.
Whereas with Bush and Cheney, we know for a fact that they have broken the law and violated the Constitution countless times. They violated Habeas Corpus, the 4th Amendment (warrantless wiretapping), 5th Amendment (due process), 6th Amendment (speedy trials), 8th Amendment (cruel & unusual punishment) and laws against using federal agencies for partisan gain (attorney firings, Don Siegelman prosecution).
Democrats shouldn't remove Bush and Cheney from office because they don't like them, but because they committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I would like to add that the death of 4,095 American soldiers is nothing.
Well, maybe the 30,000+ wounded and 40,000 or so that have already returned with mental issues makes it a little more interesting for you? We see a lot fewer deaths but more injuries owing to the more effective armor our soldiers wear now. An explosion that would have killed a soldier in Vietnam now "merely" takes his arm off. And all this for something that does jack-all to contribute to our national security, which is the *only* reason these guys should be subjected to the risk of losing life or limb.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I think you can make a 90 day waiting period before a vote work even taking into account emergency acts.
Emergencies generally are in the category of natural disasters or cases where we are attacked or are at war. In each of these cases contingencies are already available for a response: natural disasters are supposed to be handled by the states first (hence, "first responders"), then federal funding is then sent afterwards, generally after about a week or two. In the case of war, the President has the authority to operate unilaterally for a short period of time before review by Congress--and the commanders on the ground are able to respond before notifying the President. (For example, if a bunch of guys took a shot at our soldiers in Germany, they don't have to call the President to defend themselves.)
This sort of delegated authority allows for the handling of an emergency--it's just a matter of updating, extending and modifying that delegated authority so that, for example, the military can continue to operate on "contingent review" for the first 90 days. Or we can pass an "exemption" for very narrow areas, such as an exemption for financing FEMA response to a natural disaster.
The last time the Speaker of the House was of the opposite political party when there was the prospect of both the president and the vice president being tossed out, he said in such a situation, he would resign after handing the reigns to a Republican vice president. I would hope that Nancy Pelosi would do the same.
But that PDF doesn't contain evidence for impeachment. It contains evidence that GWB makes even Warren G. Harding look good by comparison. But being a bad President, even being the worst one ever, isn't an impeachable offense.
"Misleading Congress and the American Public" isn't a crime. Anyone pushing any policy is selective about the evidence they present. Bush and Cheney have been extreme in their selection of evidence and the consequences are tragic. But I see no evidence for impeachment. Or the one or two articles where there is a shadow of a hint of a case are buried in a pile of BS.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
And rightly so. When Carter left we had just finished boycotting the 1980 olympics in Moscow because the Soviet army had invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The Solidarity movement in Poland was being persecuted, and millions lived in brutal gulags which amounted to [slow, work you to] death camps. The KGB was funding and training islamofascist terror, including the attempted assassination of the pope. Let's not forget that 1000's of warheads were pointed at American population centers and all of western Europe. That's some serious mind bending you got going there to describe the detente of the 1970's USSR under Breznev and Andropov as "well and truly over", but I guess the ability to twist history to support your illiterate and ahistorical yearning for one party rule is what makes you an outstanding useful idiot.
Israelis want the U.S. taxpayer to pay for eliminating a threat to their nation.
I suppose the parent comment was written by someone who sympathizes with that.
I would take anything said or written by Dennis Kucinich with a ton of salt.
He is the original tin hat congressman. He puts Alex Jones to shame.
And Richard Armitage outed V.P.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
> People that hate Bush 43 are going to have to choose: too stupid to tie his own shoes or the mastermind of the Iraq war for his oil buddies. I believe he is neither, but he can't be both.
How about "puppet figurehead of a corrupt regime"? I believe that proves that someone CAN be both, even if you try to argue that it's not actually true.
Never mind the fact that it's been corroborated by insiders many times over. But don't get me wrong, I still don't think the impeachment will ever go anywhere, even if I strongly believe that Bush deserves it far more than Clinton deserved one for lying under oath.
That last part? Yeah, that's because I know the charge Clinton was actually impeached for, being one of those life-long Republicans who are turning their back on the party right about now. Those who are saying that you'd have to kill the Republican party to save it have it right in my book.
I just hope that we get a better name than Whigs, Know-Nothing, or Bull Moose...
Why is the C-Span video censored on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOUZvv0nIAc
I was specifically looking at article II, lying to the world about the war... that's not exactly small beans is it? I do agree about climate change, but what can you do...
Part of the blame is on Clinton. Clinton made Nixon look ok, and Bush makes Clinton look like a boy scout. Clinton should have seen jail time but Bush should be executed by international court. Still, the Clinton machine's hatchet job on the impeachment congressmen ensures that noone will ever try to hold the president accountable for their crimes again. The dems know all too well how the Republicans can exact revenge for an impeachment. They themselves handed over the blueprints in 1998.
What on EARTH are you people going to do in 10 years when not a bloomin' history book reflects a damn thing you're so seriously and deludedly whining about? One hundred fifty years after Lincoln's crimes, he's become a hero he certainly wasn't in his day. In Lincoln's day, if any of you whiners were newspaper publishers or politicians, you'd be in jail 24 hours after posting. People should definitely air their concerns. But people also shouldn'e be freakin' deluded morons. This post is NOT in defense of Bush. It's in shock at idiocy that's a couple centimeters from trutherism.
That's all there is too it. The David Broder's of the world would throw a fit if Democrats impeached Bush, even though they wanted Bill Clinton to resign for getting a blow job. Democrats need to learn one lesson from Republicans: telling the media they're full of shit will not only not cost you elections, it will gain you respect with voters.
The Iraq occupation is a good example of this; the only Dems to lose seats in Congress were those who voted for the invasion like Tom Dashel and Max Cleland. Democrats were terrified of being viewed as "weak" on national security long after the majority of the public started to oppose the occupation. Ned Lamont helped break that dam by successfully primarying Joe Lieberman while vocally opposing the war. The mass market media, however, is as pro-war today as it was in 2002. The military contractor/analyst scandal has been ignored. The only people invited on-air to about the war were those in favor of the invasion from the beginning - not those who had it right from the start.
Another example: NSA wiretapping. There was the usual blathering from idiot pundits like Joke Line of Time, and the Senate caved as usual. The House, however, held firm...and the sky didn't fall.
Democrats need to learn to stop being afraid of their own shadows and asshat pundits.
Wow...
/. were supposed to be at least above average intelligence...
All this nonsense based on spin and innuendo... And people actually believe this stuff...
I thought that the people on
I know, I'm trolling, thats not like me... But Wow...
---
When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out fact and reality, is your conclusion true?
--- When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out any facts that don't agree, is it true?
200 billion barrels in the Bakken Formation in North Dakota.
ANWR
Both coasts and the Gulf.
We have the oil. JUst too many stupid laws that prohibit drilling for it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. He has greatly reduced U.S. role as a global hegemon. Now on, it will be a multipolar world. No more railroading through UNSC etc., Good for world peace. 2. (Indirectly) Greatly increased petroleum prices. This will promote conservation and reduction in emissions strictly by market forces without the need for Kyoto or Al Gore. 3. He has greatly weakened U.S. military; there won't be an aggressive war for another generation. 4. He has helped to enhance the credit crisis that was created by sub-prime lending by making the federal government impotent to help (due to large budget deficits and national debt). This will tip over the point of living extravagantly by borrowing. 5. The monopoly of U.S. $ for international reserve seems to be breaking. This is good for U.S. and the world. This will keep us honest in terms of production & consumption and fairer to others. etc., etc.,
Nonsense. The Legislative Branch should not be responding to emergencies. That's the Executive Branch's job.
Right, the executive branch has to impose martial law and suspend habeus corpus in times of war. If the legislative branch actually passed a law about it, then we'd have a much bigger problem when challenge in court bounced off a law instead of logical reasoning vs constitution and assessment of how much power the president needs right now.Support my political activism on Patreon.
That would be a solution to a host of problems. Impeach the Republican party, remove all republicans from office. Impeach the Democrat party, remove all Democrats from office.
Maybe then we can get into the real meat like tax reform, making them read what they vote for, and getting the government out of every room of our house (not just the bedroom, though that is important).
so it'd probably be a good idea to do this soon.
No matter how cynical you are, throwing the bums out is a Good Thing. Even if you install equally bad bums you've avoided getting entrenched bums.
Kucinich is nuts. Like most of the members of Congress, he engages in spurious insults rather than dealing with the real problems of the country like taxes, taxes, taxes and taxes. . . and, oh, yes, gas and oil prices. How do you take profits from oil companies (5%) when the taxes add 15% to the price. Seems hypocritical just like these bogus charges. Why do we pay these clowns hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to engage in self-promoting diatribe? What a vacuous disgrace!
Any formation when taken by itself is a small part of the worlds supply. If everyone took that attitude, we wouldn't have any oil. And no, alternative technologies would not provide more bang for your buck. At the vary least, if we drilled this oil, we could use it to build new alternative energy sources more cheaply. Good luck building your nuclear reactors, the same forces that stop new drilling will stop them too.
How many more Americans are going to be killed in Iraq before the next president takes office? How many more phones will be illegally wiretapped? How many more suspects will be tortured? How many more times will federal agencies be used as wings of the RNC, as with the U.S. States Attorney firings and the Don Seigelman prosecution? Bush is still the president, and will continue to trash the Constitution until he leaves office.
Imagine if prosecutors had your attitude when Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were found dead: "sure we have this mountain of evidence, but sending O.J. to jail wont bring them back. We'll just let him go so he can get back to what's left of his family."
Remember: no bush, no dick.
(damn I was all set for +5 insightful and had to spoil it down to +5 funny with that last line ...)
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
What possible reason could there be for needing a new law in less than 90 days? We've gone 230 years, but suddenly we need this new law *right* *now*? Give me a break.
If it's that important, maybe they should've planned ahead more than 90 days.
Maybe not
You guys DO know that even Kucinich isn't serious about this stuff don't you? The guy has a very tenuous grasp on reality at best. He believes that it is prudent to legislate against mind control rays being used in space but even he has to be secretly laughing at the mad hatter crowd who takes this stuff seriously. But if we are going to do it then let's at least be thorough. We need to have war crimes trials for the leaders of all of the other countries that sent troops (there are a LOT of them) and for the UN which authorized the use of force and for Hillary Clinton and the rest of the gang who voted for it. We will need to arrest the members of the Czech, German and British intelligence agencies who are still standing by the false information that led us to war. Then we will need to do something about all of the judges who ruled the wiretapping acts as being legal and about the congressmen on the intelligence committees who knew of and approved what was happening. Then we need to release all of those nice young men in Guantanimo... maybe somewhere like San Francisco, where they can recuperate from the injustices they have suffered. Since they have been unjustly held we sure wouldn't have anything to fear from them now would we? Oh yeah, and what about the Iraqis? We need to round up all of the ones who fought on the wrong side of this "illegitimate war" and charge them with war crimes of some sort. We need to remove the democratically elected government of Iraq and replace it with Saddam's nearest relative. We will also need to make reparations to Al Queda for all of their brave young soldiers that we killed while trying to stop them from turning Iraq into the new caliphate. We can reopen the torture houses and refurbish the mass graves so that they can hold more bodies in a more environmentally sound manner. We will also need to pay the French and Germans for the income they lost from Saddam; the legitimate president of Iraq elected with 99% of the vote. At least THEY acted honorably in this whole affair. Then, after all of this is accomplished, we will finally have purged all of our sins and the world will be a better place. We can elect the Obamessiah safe in the knowledge that He will talk to our enemies and our security will be assured. Or we could just laugh our asses off at anyone who takes this stuff seriously. I bet Dennis is... at least when his tinfoil hat is getting particularly poor reception.
Suddenly, impeachment looks like a really, really bad idea.
I can see why the USA wants to export there quality semi democracy around the world.
One knows it a quality system when it takes 1 thing to impeach a president on one side of the isle and on the other side even 35 reasons end up shrugged off...
i hate to rain on your parade, but CIA world factbook put's Canada's total oil production is only about 4 million barrels per day, and the US consumption at just over 20 million barrels per day.
I don't know by who's definition "the bulk of" = app 20%, but not mine.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
It's not remotely debatable. What part ofdo you not understand?
and again, we're talking about bills that have been passed repeatedly by a bipartisan Congress
Congress never passed any bills to legalize warrantless wiretapping, and even if they did, it wouldn't be Constitutional. And in addition to the 4th Amendment, the Bush administration has also violated the 5th (due process) the 6th (speedy trials) and 8th (cruel and unusual punishment).
To say that Bush and Cheney should not be impeached for their long, long list of crimes marks one as either grossly ignorant or an incompetent tool.
And I am extremely suspect of anyone who claims that Clinton wasn't a liar.
Your suspicions are irrelevant. Unless you read his mind, there is no way you can say Clinton lied about "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky.
The right to privacy is implied, but not very clearly defined in the Constitution.
Again, what part ofdo you not understand?
It simply is not factual to call the war illegal.
What a surprise, the facts don't meet your storyline. Wars are only legal if it's in self-defense or there's a humanitarian crisis, and the invasion of Iraq fails on both counts.
Given that oil price is being caused by
a) rising demand
b) declining value of the USD
what pray tell can congressional democrats, or anybody else, do about it?
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Thats a good idea. We should call it the War Powers Resolution.
First, the proles elected him, they love him, and they find matters such as this to be the work of crazy bitter men. Their standards are for the president to be an extremely rich working class kinda guy (insanity knows no bounds) and that he be forgiven for trying to do "What's right" instead of doing anything actually right It doesn't help that people give the president and his cronies credit for things that reek of blatent incompetance as opposed to conspiracy. One might even argue that he is grossly incompetant and that he should be removed for that reason alone. No one would have their job still if they fucked up as often and as profoundly as this president. When the world goes past wanting well meaning but stupid, goes past wanting devious and good at it, to devious and retarded, then Rome isn't burning. It's in ashes, in an urn, ejected into space on a course heading directly for the sun.
George Washington. What area? He was perhaps our most careful POTUS as he knew everything he did was the first and would be emulated.
Thomas Jefferson (depends on LA purchase view)
Adams was about as bad as Bush if not worse with the Alien and Sedation Acts.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Congress shall make no law exceeding in length this Constitution.
(Let's make them earn their pay by holding a separate vote on every pork-laden amendment.)
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
>wording that gives any member nation unilateral authority to ensure compliance with existing resolutions.
While carefully and deliberately avoiding phrasing that would authorize military force. The Security Council removed "all necessary means", the diplomatic code for using force, and substituted "serious consequences".
Legal opinion on UN resolution 1441.
the reason it doesnt get publicity is because it is a complete crock and will never get any consideration because it isnt based on any solid fact. its designed simply as another chip to throw at the republican ticket when election time nears. most of you posting know nothing about the impeachment process or the general state of the govt. /agree with Israfels... why is this on slashdot? "near and dear to the hearts of many of us here" speak for yourself.
You can't even prove Clinton lied in the first place. And even if he did lie, it has to be a relevant lie to be perjury. And since the judge ruled that what happened between Bill and Monica wasn't relevant to the Jones case, it would have been impossible for Clinton to commit perjury on the subject.
Clinton's impeachment wasn't about perjury, it was about Republicans trying to remove him from office by any means necessary.
It helps to be old enough to have read a newspaper at the time instead of getting the mindless revisionism required to paint Reagan as a dead hero. The Soviet union fell apart under it's own weight - Thatcher fortunately pointed it out to Reagan who was not going to listen to any of his own advisors on the topic.
Ahem, I'd like to begin with a reading of the Articles of Impeachment. Here goes.
(You know, some of these are actually plausible. It will be interesting to see where this goes.)
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II. Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V. Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI. Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII. Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII. Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX. Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X. Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI. Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII. Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII. Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV. Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV. Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI. Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII. Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII. Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX. Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX. Imprisoning Children
Article XXI. Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII. Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII. Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV. Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV. Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI. Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII. Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII. Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX. Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX. Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI. Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII. Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII. Repe
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
The real question about Clinton is not that he did it while in office. After all it is a powerful position. Men do not ascend to positions of power and be choir boys.
The only problem with his sex is that he got caught. You should be more worried about a man who ascends to high office and has tons of power and does not get some nookie on the side.
I know this is not PC to say, but alas it is a truism
Read and pay attention to number 9 http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4359.html
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
My God, man. You could find a silver lining in the blackest of clouds.
...want to move to Australia. I love this country and think its the greatest in the world but we've got some of the worst people in office imaginable. This dumb shit waists my tax dollars (I live in Ohio) to try to impeach a president in the last 6 months of his 8 year term. Maybe Dennis needs to be smeared with meat paste and locked in a room with hungry wolverines... Yeah... I like that... Maybe with a web cam....
While it's probably in our best interest to avoid a war with Iran, when oil passes $150, I think at that point it's unavoidable.
If the current crop of politicians had been in Congress 35 years ago, Nixon would have served a full second term.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
I would like to try to focus attention on those issues without it being about the individual
But it *needs* to be about the individual. Having a single point of executive responsibility answerable to the people is part of the reason the framers of the Constitution gave power to a single President instead of a plural executive. It also needs to be about the punishment being swift and severe enough that it serves as an example to others who take office in the future.
I agree that it needs to be about the offenses instead of popularity or politics, but I believe it needs to happen.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
And that's why he did it. A permanent record.
Yes, the impeachment is going nowhere. Even if Pelosi did go forward with it, a split Senate would never get the 2/3 majority to actually oust Bush.
But at least people in the future will be able to look at the record and know that we all weren't duped.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Bush doesn't have to be an evil genius to be guilty of mass murder. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The buck stops with him, and it's HIS fault if he was to ignorant to think analytically about the bullsh*t that Cheney, Rove, and Rummy were spooning him.
Bush must be accountable for his decisions, whether or not they were his ideas or not...he's the 'decider' as he was fond of saying.
That said, I think he should be impeached, booted out of office in disgrace (along with Cheney), tried for many crimes, but I would stop short of saying he should be put in court for mass murder.
Thank you Dave Raggett
*shudders at a Cheney presidency*
;P
Don't kid yourself, he's probably in on it.
Twinstiq, game news
>and they have to decise that he has committed a crime
That was a good summary but this particular point leaves out something important.
An impeachable offense does not have to be a crime. Some, such as bribery and treason, definitely are. Historically, others aren't. We got the idea of impeachment from the English, whose history included the 1450 impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk for "obtaining offices for unfit persons and delaying justice by stopping writs of appeal". Official misconduct and misuse of power were among the problems impeachment was meant to solve but which were beyond the criminal code. Hamilton in the 65th Federalist Paper described impeachable offenses as those "which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
There are wagers in Vegas as to the next inside attack against their own citizens. I'm betting on a nuke if you try to impeach or vote away from McCain. You get the same options Saddam had.
To me this issue is as simple as can be. We are (in theory) a nation governed by rule of LAW, not men. This administration has committed serious crimes. The proof is clearcut and easy to find for anyone who bothers to look. For some of the crimes, the domestic spying, we have public admissions of guilt. So being a nation of law, we put the accused on trial. The likely outcome of the trial is totally irrelevant at this point. In fact it doesn't matter if you support the republicans or the democrats, if you support the constitution you support impeachment and trail. It is the process that matters not the outcome. I supported the impeachment of Clinton, the crime was clear and so was the evidence, put him on trial and see how it works out. I was glad to see he was acquitted, but no man especially the President is above the law. If we let them/him get away with all of these crimes, then we set a precedent and since these crimes are about basic constitutional issues and issues of life or death for thousands of Americans and many more Iraqis, and the evidence is very strong, the precedent is that we become a nation governed by men. Laws become irrelevant to those in power.
Of course that's just my patriotic rhetoric. I believe that we stopped being a nation governed by law a looooong time ago. It's just now we have to live with it thrown into our faces on a daily basis, and there will be no consequences for these criminals except that a marginalized senator reads a bunch of accusations into the record.
-- QED
The real reason it took 4 hours to read 35 articles was that Kucinich had to stop every couple minutes to check in with the mother ship.
How many more Americans are doing to die in Iraq by January of next year? How much more spying will be done without warrants? How many more people will be tortured by our government?
You sir, are a fool and a tool.
As long as we also require all the rest of the representatives to sit there and listen to everything be read...so they will all hear the fine details instead of just signing off on it....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
>unless the U.S. specifiably signed a treaty saying that it would follow that guideline
The US Senate ratified the UN Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2. We committed to not making war except in self-defense or as part of action agreed on by the Security Council.
From what I remember from college history, Congress impeached Johnson because he was doing the exact opposite of what Lincoln would have wanted.
Lincoln picked Johnson as his VP because he was from a southern state, but refused to side with his state, and continued to sit in Congress during the Civil War even though his state seceded from the union. Lincoln made him his running mate to try to unite the country back together, he had no intentions of dying.
FYI-
No U.S. president has ever been removed from office from an impeachment.
>Btw an impeachment can also result in jail time
Not so, explicitly: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7--"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States".
This is by design. Impeachments in England could lead to criminal punishment, but the founders didn't want to recreate that here.
Jail time would have to be the result of a separate criminal prosecution, which is authorized in the Constitution but is not part of impeachment.
TO cut off U.N. oil for food corruption.
These money are being used by terrorist and KGB operatives world wide. That includes the Jews that are controlling the left-wing in the U.S.A.
Patriot Act + ENabling Act + Martial Law = peace
FUCK DA JEW
I will choose fascism over communism at any time.
That's not how classification works.
First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time. You can check the Congressional Record to read the testimony of the author of the governing regulations.
Second, the ultimate classification authority is the President. This has a long history of precedent. If the President wishes to reveal something which is classified, that's his prerogative. The Soviet nuke missile sites in Cuba were classified information and JFK didn't need anyone's permission to reveal that.
Third, it was Richard Armitage who revealed the information about Valerie Plame. Even the special prosecutor knew that before investigating.
This is a country of laws, It's the usA, not the usSR.
And how's Pelosi's approval rating?
Maybe his co-conspirators in Congress can prevent the criminal impeachment, but what about hitting his pocketbook?
You assume that just because something is posted that people will read it.
This sig is false.
Impeach Cheney first and refuse to confirm any VP nomination before removing Bush from office as well.
Fascism at it's heart is unaccountable, corporate militarism. That is the Bush Administration, straight up - deal with it.
Congress shall make no law exceeding in length this Constitution.
(Let's make them earn their pay by holding a separate vote on every pork-laden amendment.) ptriot act section 56889
fbi n cia can spy on ppl. dnt need to ask cngress only prez. prez can amend ptriot act with exec order. prez is root. sudo ptriot act.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
98% consider his presidency a failure. The percentage who think he's the worst ever is only 61% (http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html).
One more point I have to make. 4,095 Americans have died for us. 50,000 others have been injured for us. Not a single one of them was forced to do so. We held no drafts of any sort for the Iraq War. All soldiers currently in the US Armed Forces are in it on their own accord.
After the Speaker of the House comes the president pro tem of the Senate, who is Robert Byrd (D-WV).
Byrd on Iraq February 12 2003
Byrd on Iraq, February 26 2003
Actually, the money went to black Ops, and illegal payoffs to warlords... see the invoice lines listing the millions or $500 hammers and $800 toilet seats purchased ....
ABOUT
FUCKING
TIME.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Hmm...let's see, what merit impeachment, how about something illegal?
Bush is dumb and has led the country into the shitter. He has not done so illegally. He has done so by convincing people he's right, somehow, even though every word out of his mouth sounds idiotic.
First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time. You can check the Congressional Record to read the testimony of the author of the governing regulations.
Even if she weren't, and I've seen noone but Bush defenders saying she wasn't, any other agent, front, or contact she'd dealt with in her career is now potentially exposed.
Second, the ultimate classification authority is the President. This has a long history of precedent. If the President wishes to reveal something which is classified, that's his prerogative. The Soviet nuke missile sites in Cuba were classified information and JFK didn't need anyone's permission to reveal that.
Ever hear of abuse of power? Was JFK giving up secret spy plane specs so that he could get revenge on an op/ed writer? In any case, your argument rests on the notion that Bush ok'd the leak. Did he do that?
Third, it was Richard Armitage who revealed the information about Valerie Plame. Even the special prosecutor knew that before investigating.
This is very hard for Bushies to understand, but if one person in the administration reveals a secret, that doesn't make it ok for the rest of the administration to launch a campaign to make sure the secret is as widely heard as possible.
This is a country of laws, It's the usA, not the usSR.
It sure is! There are laws against abusing presidential powers, against lying to congress to start wars, against trying to force US attorneys to prosecute people for political reasons, against torture, against arrest without trial. We've got a lot of laws, but no guts to enforce them.
Play Command HQ online
Goddammit, is that all it takes? Hell, I'll give him one if that'll help. I won't even ask for a medal of honor or anything, just some mouthwash....
The US blocks any resolution that reflects badly upon itself or Israel.
Saddam handed over a 10,000 page report detailing their destruction of WMDs, and since we have only found ridiculously small quantities of mustard tipped artillery shells, I would say he was telling more truth than our own government.
Saddam was megalomaniac, and kicked the UN out to piss the US off. Unfortunately for him, he didn't realize or believe that the top levels of government were filled entirely with lunatics who consider the Christian God part of their foreign policy. I really wish I was making that up.
If you really value UN resolutions, as other posters have said, we should be paying reparations to Nicaragua for war crimes, yanking funding and military support for Israel, and perhaps even helping people in Darfur. Unfortunately for those in Darfur, there aren't billions of barrels of easily obtained oil under their feet worth trillions of dollars. Otherwise we might pretend to care for them as well.
The point is, really, that Bush has no morals. His ethics are fucking meaningless, and in my opinion that sentiment fills the whole executive branch, the CIA, the FBI, and probably a majority of the congress and judiciary branches as well.
The American government has not only lost touch with it's own constituency, it actively goes out of it's way to ignore their will through gerrymandering, spreading bullshit during their campaign, and using wedge issues to divide the country for their own benefit. You have swallowed that empty rhetoric hook, line, sinker, and reel.
But hey! Welcome to the Repocratic Party! Enjoy your jetski, and keep shopping.
If the Haliburton invoice signature doesn't fit, you must acquit!
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
I am so sick of this. Clinton LIED under oath in a federal court after taking an oath to tell the truth. He lied ABOUT sex.
No, he didn't. The impeachment of Bill Clinton wasn't about perjury, it was about removing him from office by any means necessary. In this country, we're supposed to investigate crimes, not people. Starr and the Republicans in the House should have been thrown in jail for malicious prosecution.
I know you're being funny, but I kind of like the idea of a parsable legal coding language. Employ a decent supercomputer to recompile the lot every time something gets changed and notify us of contradictions, divide-by-zero errors and broken dependencies.
Even if half of it is true, it's more than enough.
No wonder Kucinich was able to snag such a young, sprightly and attractive wife. The man has the biggest balls in Congress.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
You might want to think that over again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
The Rockefeller report seems to make the case Bush didn't lie despite Rockefeller trying to indicate that he did. Speaks badly for the press, politicians, opponents of Bush, and Bush himself for not defending himself better.
Mod parent up!
He actually knows his history and gov't/politics.
Believe it or not, we already have one.
Of course, the double edged sword of parsibility is that things which seem otherwise synonymous can be radically different in certain contexts because of otherwise subtle to the point of triviality differences in meaning. The law says and does precisely what it is supposed to, it's just that those of us who don't know the exact mechanics don't always see what is causing the supposed breakdown.
Take the tax code: one explanation for the wealthy being able to pay a substantially smaller portion of their net income in taxes is that there are unintentional loopholes that unscrupulous outsiders are exploiting. The other is that virtually all politicians, being personally wealthy, have unscrupulously written the laws such that they and their friends 9read: other wealthy people) can pay fewer taxes. there's nothing unintentional about it, that's how they wrote the "code" in the first place, it's just obfuscated with near synonyms and complicated function calls.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Does anybody out there still take this guy seriously? He's nothing but a stalking horse for the Democratic leadership, every time some issue threatens to generate a base of left wing political support independent of the Democratic party they roll out Dennis with all his talk about being the "last real Democrat" and once he's sucked all the life out the the independent movement he quietly steps back behind the party line.
This is just the Democratic leadership trying to make sure the anti-war folks on the left believe that the Democrats are on their side. Once any possibility of a serious anti-war movement breaking off from the party has been eliminated then Kucinich will fade back into the woodwork in 2008 just like he did in 2004.
Clinton's actions were immoral in that he cheated on his wife, but those actions and the subsequent testimony did not meet the standard one would normally require for criminality (let alone "High Crimes and Misdemeanors").
All sufficiently complex systems must also be incomplete. Lawyers have another name for this "the law is an ass".
In a democracy the incompleteness of the law isn't a problem because the legislature can keep adding laws to patch up the most obvious holes. Though I suppose you could argue that what you're talking about is patching up too.
But I think the difference at least with English law to software is that it's not designed to be objectively readable. The law says something and the CPS interpret it before deciding to try someone. But they jury might decide to interpret it differently. The meaning of the language can even change retroactively depending on case law. All this stuff is far too subtle for current machines to check. But a democratic society can do it. If the law is deficient so that the outcome of court cases strikes people as unjust the legislature can patch it.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
If one is true, it is enough.
-----
I watched part of it on C-SPAN but, judging from the coverage by the so-called "liberal" media, it doesn't even seem to qualify as news. Didn't happen. Nothing to see here...
You missed the nutjob with the hot wife tag.
Im just sayin'....
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
Hey Man, When the president does it, it is not illegal.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
More holier than thou posts. Great!
While we're at it, can we impeach Carter and all the other nutcase Democrat Presidents for the crap they pulled while in office? You can pretty much thank this wonderful president for making Iran the disaster it is today. Thank you Mr. Carter!
Oh, and thank you for meeting with Hamas. That is *really* going to bring peace to the middle east! Great job!
You should read Torture Team by Philippe Sands.
Anyway that is a separate and additional criminal prosecution.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
I suppose they would be experts at damaging the country by now. I wonder why the change of heart? Ah, they don't want anyone else to do it. They don't like to share.
Dennis is cool, and so is his lovely and outspoken British wife. (In fact, I think I'll have to get myself one of those as soon as possible!) What's more, we're going to have him on Vegan Radio really soon, so tune in sheeple!
-- thinkyhead software and media
The US Attorney's Manual makes the difference between criminal contempt and civil contempt
Bill Clinton was not convicted because he never got a trial and the charge was non-criminal.
And no, no one would've gone to jail over this. It was politics, pure and simple. During the impeachment, both Gingrich and Delay were having affairs (not with each other) and Republicans are still okey-dokey with both of them. Where is the moral outrage? Where are the lamentations that they have sullied the nation, and eroded our moral fabric? Basically Republicans don't care a whit about affairs by Republicans. They wanted to take down Clinton because he is a Democrat.
First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time.
Sorry, I was barely paying attention to this thread, but couldn't help noticing this bit of misinformation.
Plame was covert agent at time of name leak --MSNBC
Yes, Valerie Plame Was Covert --CBSNews
Leak Prosecutor says Plame was Covert --NYTimes
Video: Valerie Plame confirms her covert status --thinkprogress.org
etc.
You may be confused because of the following misinformation campaign:
Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert --Salon
+1 depressing...
Adultery is not a Democratic monopoly--during the impeachment both Delay and Gingrich were having affairs. During! Do Republicans care? No, which shows that the whole sordid thing was, after all, only about politics.
Which do you consider more morally wrong--Clinton's blowjob, or people being tortured at Abu Ghraib?
I think this is my favorite /. post so far this year. I loled!
Limina.Log
...is that articles of impeachment are fairly routine. Yes, it's true - they were introduced by various congressmen at various points against Bush prior to this, against Clinton (before Lewinsky), GB I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson...
Any congressman can introduce articles of impeachment. Big deal. 99.9% of the time, it's a publicity stunt. Just like this time.
Advice: on VPS providers
I think you can calmly make the case that many of the decisions of this administration were morally repugnant and in violation of written law, but you can't make this case with a wacko, however well-meaning, screaming "mass murderer!" right next to you.
By that logic every president worth his salt should be impeached.
The "great" presidents were the ones that creatively interpreted or outright broke the law - it is history that place the violations as great advances or horrible steps backwards.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
It's funny if the BUSHADMIN spent as much money on fixing problems in the USA instead of creating problems for the USA imagine where they would be..... If you ask me i think its a bigger problem then CLINTON LIED ABOUT HIS SEX LIFE!(which was never really relevant to ones leader ship IMO)
Guess what alpha males tend to have BALLS... But at least unlike bush, Bill has brains to go along with those balls... I am just glad obama will be the next president and the bushwackers can go back to collecting profit and clearing BRUSH....
Try to remove your bias and read what I typed. The facts are the facts.
No, it's very naive to think ANYONE a person who was supposedly an undercover agent 15 years prior has dealt with is "potentially exposed." Semantically, your statement is correct but it's not realistic. Everyone, you included, interacts with thousands of people over 15 years. You may have heard of the concept of six degrees of separation. Apply that and it's quickly apprent the words you used, while semantically correct, yield an impossibly large number of contacts when seen from the "outside." It's common for people who have never been in these types of environments to think that type of thing. As I said, read the Congressional Record. The sworn testimony during a Congressional investigation is more accurate than projections.
No, my "argument" does not rest on "the fact that Bush OK'd the leak." By definition, the President can't "leak" anything because "leaking" would involve unauthorized disclosure which, by definition, the President cannot do. It is impossible for the pre-requisite to exist. The President has the authority to declassify, at will, either explicitly or implicitly.
"Abuse of power" is a phrase with no legal definition. The Executive Officer is not subservient to the Representitive Brach of the Federal Government. The CIA is in the Executive Branch, under the authority of the Executive Officer. Again, the President cannot be guilty of violating classification. It really is that simple.
As as aside, the legal basis for action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq was laid years ago. The first Gulf War was never officially ended according to the U.N. conditions and Saddam's troops kept violating the cease fire agreement. An existing war cannot be "started" again, it can only be in stasis, continue or end. (The Korean War never ended, either. It's in the same situation, a cease fire agreement.) Saddam's troops violated the cease fire repeatedly during Bill Clinton's terms in office. History didn't start in February of 2001.
WRT "a campaign to make sure the secret is as widely heard as possible", it was Valerie Plame and her husband in conjunction with Vanity Fair and the traditional news media who were proclaiming a "secret" had been revealed. Those are not Federal Branch entities and, most certainly, not controlled by a Republican administration. The President didn't force all the "reporting" and speculating in the press. He didn't put a scarf and sunglasses on Valerie Plame, sit her in a convertible next to her husband, take a photo, write an article and publish them. Valerie, most certainly, wasn't trying to "hide" and wasn't concerned about any past contact who might have been "potentially exposed." If she was, she wouldn't have taken those actions. You can dig through archives such as Lexis-Nexus or even the recorded press briefings on C-Span's website if you wish. What you'll find is the Executive Branch overwhelmingly said there wasn't any "there" there.
Joe Wilson was a paid staffer for John Kerry's Presidential campaign before he wrote the article in which he claimed the VP sent him on a secret mission to gather intel in Niger. Curiously, there was no record of such a meeting, Joe's story changed significantly over time and even he said there was no written record. Additionally, he did state that Iraq was seeking to build increase imports from Niger whose primary exports are livestock products, onions and Uranium ore. Look at a map. Iraq wouldn't get importing onions across Libya then onto ships when they could come from much closer areas. Liby's public renouncement of NBC porograms wasn't an isolated occurrence. It's all in the Congressional Report.
What you are promoting fits the structure of a halfway decent conspiracy theory but only with "a willing suspension of disbelief" given the facts.
Wow, okay, most of these don't even make any sense. Most of these resort to the conflicting ad hominem attacks on President Bush (either that he is an idiot or an evil super genius). Imprisoning children? What's next, Bush likes to kill kittens and little bunnies? Some of these are related to Bush acting on authorizations from Congress (Invading Iraq without a declaration of war, for example). Some of these aren't high crimes and misdemeanors, they're just political opinions (wasting money on Iraq for example). Many aren't Bush's fault (Katrina, failure to respond...). There might be one or two that could be true, but when it is surrounded by such complete and utter non-sense (when will the people of Cleveland realize they have a crackpot for a congressman?), I don't see anyone touching this with a ten-foot pole. The charges would be a ultra left-wing liberals wet dream, but that's all.
The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
I don't think it's enough; It is my opinion that nothing (big) will happen.
I got this description (from someone who lived in the states) that if you don't like how your congressman votes, you can call him at home and ask him why; If you don't like his answer, you can put it in the newspaper and maybe, get him to resign.
I think it was an oversimplification, but I also think that with all the American democracy(TM) nothing will happen this time.
I get the feeling (I've never been to the states so I may be wrong) that what you're starting to see here is a well-oiled leadership machine, changing it's public figure every four (or eight years), but with the same system behind, with the same small group of people amassing power (how is that for representing the people?).
There may be a scandal and that's it (when he started his speech no major news agencies even touched the subject, and that in itself might be bigger news that what the president did: it's part of the system for covering it up).
I hope I'm too cynical about this.
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
Then, it would fall in the hands of the lobbyists.
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
it wasnt a blowjob moron, Clinton lied under oath
its unbelievable how anti bush this entire forum as become...
the only problem with the iraq war, is we underestimated the insurgency...
going in was probably a good thing, success will be even greater... the only argument one can have on the iraq war is the gross underestimate of insurgents... none of this Bush Lied bullshit
not to mention no one wire taps americans... its a computer searching for keywords OF CALLS ORIGINATING FROM OUTSIDE THE US
Actually, due to a law (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive) Bush passed without congressional review in '07, it does.
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." Dwight Eisenhower
I would like to amend that with:
"Legislation which restricts the rights of the people or the functionality of governmental social institutions must be read out loud by either Gilbert Gottfried or Fran Drescher before it can be officially considered.
Jesus Fucking Christ....if you are hanging your hats on the rantings of some nutjob who thinks he's been contacted by UFOs you're kidding yourselves. It's shocking that horseshit like this is "news for nerds" - "news for nuts" is more the case.
Kittens and bunnies were not mentioned I believe.
News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
Hello All, As someone who has spent the last year or so working on impeachment with folks who have been working on it a lot longer than myself I can say with some level of confidence IMPEACHMENT can happen if you want it. That is, every time we have a face to face with a Congressperson or their staff, we get the message that Congress isn't hearing from *enough* people. Moreover, whenever we're out in the streets protesting we don't actually get a lot of folks to join us. Sure we get a bunch of honks and thumbs up from passersby, but we need people standing with us AS WELL AS people calling their Congressperson, House Speaker Pelosi, House Judiciary Chairperson Conyers, and as many other House Judiciary Members as you can afford the time to call. Faxes and postcards are good too. The bottom line is knowing that Bush and his cohorts are literally getting away with murder while the Congress rests on their butts. We ALL need to stand up like Dennis did on Monday and let Congress know we want IMPEACHMENT NOW! It is that easy. Just call and state that you support impeachment investigations for both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Tell them you're sick and tired of Congress's lame excuses not to do their jobs. That's about it. I truly believe if enough of us call, fax, write, and get out into the streets we will see justice served. Oh, and one other thing. Folks who think this is a political thing need to read Representative Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment throughly and with an open mind. Once they do I'll bet they'll change their tune. This is about saving our Democracy. That's it. Thanks for listening. :-)
Reality has a "liberal" bias.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Maybe they weren't so great after all.
The most dangerous people in the world are those who believe that violating human rights for any reason is worse than not doing so. These people realize that peace can become viral, and if they are charismatic enough, they can start persuading people to give up force as a form of politics. Those who rely on force fear these people more than anyone else. Ghandi was such a person, as was MLK. Look what happened to them.
In fact, this is the central story in Western culture. A guy suggests (just suggests... doesn't start a revolt or hit people or act like a bigot) that we abandon violence and hate as a means of life and promptly gets nailed to a piece of wood for his trouble. I'm not a believer, but the essence of the story is spot on.
That's my dose of idealism for the day.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
Or even require that people read the legislation and sign off on having read it under penalty for perjury.
The problem with the Patriot act wasn't that it wasn't read aloud, it's that it wasn't read period. And with the President inventing new powers to give himself it has yet to be tested in any meaningful way.
The President does have the right to hold certain information secret, but that only applies in certain circumstances. Executive embarrassment is not an accepted reason for doing so.
Legally speaking, he's eligible for impeachment. Doing so would be a horrendous mistake though. At this point, there's less than a year, his approval rating is roughly the lowest ever, the other party has enough seats to block him from doing anything. Just let him hold office until the next President comes in.
With the Republican opposition the Dems aren't going to do any better. Bringing up articles of impeachment is just going to make that even worse. At this point, the best point for the Dems is that very little has gotten done since they took control in 2006.
History will judge him harshly, there's really no way that this pile of shit that has been his term in office is going to look any better. His destroying evidence isn't going to help anything.
So he lied about a blowjob to safe face/marriage.
To me that sounds even more ridiculously than the first one.
"How about every bill being publicly posted without alteration for 90 days before any voting is allowed"
Aside the practical aspects, I doubt it would change anything. The case for Irak was sold through disinformation, not lack of information. What might have prevented this could be (1) listening to the rest of the world, which was largely against this insanity (for good and bad reasons), (2) having effective accountability, which obviously is not working here.
Nice to see everyone can agree on this... but where the hell were all of you five years ago? Hell, even four years ago. The guy's not suddenly more of a douche now. Seems like most of the crazy bullshit was pulled off during his first term - Iraq, spying, torture, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Enron, etc etc etc. And only NOW he's worthy of impeachment? For what, high gas prices?
In 2004, half of America voted for a guy who did nothing right and everything wrong. They chose to continue down the path of complete fucked-upedness. I say, you wanted it, you got it, bitches. The Republicans, the Limbaugh fans, the Christian wackos, they all had everything they ever wanted - blind control of Congress, the Supreme Court, an executive who felt he was above the law and could do whatever he felt like - yeah, how that'd work out for ya? Me, I won't forget all the bullshit and vitriol those people put us through, and how everything they believed in ended up in failure and ruins. But where are all these people now? Give them a little impeachment filing that goes nowhere, and that's it? These people were chock-full of evil. C'mon, what ever happened to being tarred and feathered?
Oh, sorry, I'll just go put on my flag lapel pin... carry on, nothing to see here...
Not to diminish their importance, but non-violent movements were mirrored with violent subgroups. Naturally those in power preferred to deal with the non-violent activists rather than the extremists. The threat of violence looming in the shadows was a powerful motivator for change.
My dose of cynicism for the day
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
No, he's broken the constitution. Which is more serious than breaking the law.
Plonker.
I'll never understand the american political climate. Bill Clinton boosted the economy, slashed foreign debt, was very well received by most of the world, yet he almost got impeached because of some affair with a secretary. George Bush lied to the american people numerous times, is throwing incredible amounts of money away for a war based on false facts, has boosted terrorism and anti-american sentiment all over the world, ignores human rights and international law, didn't accomplish anything at all except increasing military spending and oil price to historical levels... and there he was... happily going about his business for the full 8 years of his two terms, without anybody stopping him. Can someone please explain this to me?
Actually you are probably not far from the truth.On the other hand, its a cheap shot to try and shoot down a "sitting duck" president, no matter how well-justified it may be.
C|N>K
What's the point? I'm sure congress has also given Dubya the right to veto his own impeachment. Also didn't he get immunity to just about everything with some bill?
In a perfect world Dubya would be tried in Hague after his impeachment.
The system doesn't work as intended, because members of Congress have nothing to gain in this case. In Clinton's case, or Nixon's case, the other side stood to gain from impeachment. It made the impeached and his party look bad. In this case, the most serious reasons, such as the Iraq War, were only possible with the support of many (but not all) Democrats. They signed off on several bills that were at the heart of all this. We've seen Obama attack Clinton because she was in favour of the war before she was against it. Obama's hands are clean in that respect, because he wasn't in office when those bills were on the table. One more reason why he is better set than Clinton to take on McCain, at least when those issues are being discussed.
Voting for impeachment would in this case result in a lengthy investigation of what went wrong and many people on both sides have plenty of reasons not to want too much scrutiny of what happened. If you want to be really cynical, you can also argue that Democrats are also feeling the pressure of lobbyists for those profiting of all of this. Money talks...
The only way that impeachment could work as intended would be if the people deciding over it were impartial. Perhaps SCOTUS would be in such a position, but even they are not entirely independent, having been selected for office by the president himself. That might be one more thing to adress in the future...
Try to remove your bias and read what I typed. The facts are the facts.
No, it's very naive to think ANYONE a person who was supposedly an undercover agent 15 years prior has dealt with is "potentially exposed."
What's your position here, that everyone else's cover must have already been blown in 15 years or that intelligence services are too lazy to trace back 15 years to uncover other agents?
No, my "argument" does not rest on "the fact that Bush OK'd the leak." By definition, the President can't "leak" anything because "leaking" would involve unauthorized disclosure which, by definition, the President cannot do. It is impossible for the pre-requisite to exist. The President has the authority to declassify, at will, either explicitly or implicitly.
You're argument rests on the fact that Bush must have given the OK to tell the press Plame was CIA. This is exactly opposite to what Bush has publicly maintained. We already know he lied when he said he'd fire anyone involved, did he also lie when he said he had nothing to do with it?
You say "Abuse of power" is a phrase with no legal definition. I say blowing the cover of an agent who worked to stop nuclear proliferation to get back at an op-ed writer is an impeachable offense.
As as aside, the legal basis for action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq was laid years ago. The first Gulf War was never officially ended according to the U.N. conditions and Saddam's troops kept violating the cease fire agreement.
Which is up to the UN security council to enforce, if they feel is necessary. The passed a tough resolution, found violations, and forced Saddam to comply. Consequently, they refused to authorize the use of force. The history of 2002-2003 seems to be completely missing from the thinking of most Bush defenders.
WRT "a campaign to make sure the secret is as widely heard as possible", it was Valerie Plame and her husband in conjunction with Vanity Fair and the traditional news media who were proclaiming a "secret" had been revealed.
Let's see, you're leaving out Libby and Rove's successful efforts to get prominent newspapers to publish Plame's CIA role which led to saturation news coverage then months later Vanity Fair did it's bit. Where do you get these talking points?
Joe Wilson was a paid staffer for John Kerry's Presidential campaign before he wrote the article in which he claimed the VP sent him on a secret mission to gather intel in Niger.
By the time Wilson wrote the op-ed, he'd already warned the administration repeatedly that it's Niger claims were false, but they refused to drop the claims.
What you are promoting fits the structure of a halfway decent conspiracy theory but only with "a willing suspension of disbelief" given the facts.
Let's see: the administration claims that Iraq was buying Uranium from Niger, their sole evidence is a amateurishly forged document that didn't even have the right fake signatures, but *just to be sure*, Joe Wilson is sent to Niger, and finds that no, there's nothing to the story, writes an article to that affect.
And you believe the administration and doubt Wilson even though Saddam already had a stockpile of yellow cake, and he didn't have a nuclear program, and not a single piece of real evidence of a Uranium deal has ever been found anywhere in 5 years since. Now that's what I call "a willing suspension of disbelief".
Play Command HQ online
I don't think GWB ever had the intention to test the Power of Office to get them removed
First it is very clear that this depends greatly on what you mean by "liberal". If you mean non-totalitarian, then perhaps you're right. If you're going more for "libertarian", such as including gay marriage or some such, history and reality would seem to indicate reality has a VERY anti-libertarian bias, it's just that a small part of the world currently has a small pocket (about 15% of living people) of libertarianism, that's showing constant signs of collapse at that. Especially in Europe the libertarian vision is collapsing at an astonishing rate (unless you call observing that muslims, one protected class of the libertarians, are attacking and even killing gays, another protected class, a success story)
... all fell to barbarians, and persia fell to muslim immigration and became VERY anti-liberal).
If you truly mean liberal, in the sense of republican party liberal, that would the American theory. But in reality the America is the first (and currently only) country that can be called in any way "liberal" that has survived like that for 200 years.
So in fact, if you study history, you'd say that reality has a strongly anti-liberal bias (roman republic, athens, persia,
And you'd call America currently an aberration in history. Then again, even though American law was very liberal 100 years ago (as it was 200 years ago), in actual "real" social situations it wasn't at all very liberal.
Given history and the structures that lasted the longest (which would be a Christian kingdom, in case you're wondering, by American standards that would be non-free and illiberal), I'd say reality has had up till now a strongly anti-liberal bias. Perhaps that's changed in the last 100 years. You're claiming that the situation that was true for all of recorded history somehow excludes the environment you live in.
To be honest, I wouldn't want be caught dead making a point that arrogant.
Now if you could make such things convincing and I could just hire you to do my sales presentations I'd be doing great ;->
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Ghandi suggested to the people of Germany to commit suicide to save Hitler from committing the crime of murdering them.
hilarious
I assume this was meant to be funny, but in reality it seems like that statement is closer to the truth than it should be.
If anything, the punishment for breaking a law should be more severe the higher up in the government you are.
This would discourage people in power from abusing their power.
Granting them any kind of immunity is asking them to abuse you...
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
I do know that having just once had to run down a street as gunfire went off, mobs set buildings on fire (damnit, I liked that McDonalds!), and the local government was "threatened" by idiots with loaded weapons, I have no desire whatsoever to see it happen here in the U.S. In my experience this kind of thing seems much more romantic and "cool" to folks who have never huddled in a basement stairwell wondering if they're about to get shot.
I'm curious. You ever been somewhere like that?
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Peaceful civil disobedience is breaking the law and suffering its consequences to draw attention to the law and have it changed.
That is a whole lot different from breaking the law and trying to get away with it. The point of civil disobedience is that you don't want to get away with it.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
...they could revoke the sweeping powers they gave the government. But that would amount to admitting they made a mistake in the first place. A very un-politician act ;-)
C - the footgun of programming languages
Impeach and imprison!
If only the Democrat-led leadership in Congress had the guts to impeach this criminal president, they would find that not only would they have the support and backing of a majority of the American public, but also the rest of the world, and likely guaranteeing a Democrat win in November for the White House.
The strength of America has always relied on the foundations set forth in its laws and Constitution. To ignore those cherished laws now in the republic's time of need, is a crime in itself, and indeed possibly a greater one.
Ever hear of abuse of power? Was JFK giving up secret spy plane specs so that he could get revenge on an op/ed writer? In any case, your argument rests on the notion that Bush ok'd the leak. Did he do that?
No - JFK used the White House and the Oval Office as his own personal brothel...or didn't you get the memo of the numerous affairs and tet-a-tets, including Marilyn Monroe?
Only time will tell whether Pres. Bush ok'ed the leak or not. I find it funny that there is more emphasis on the "leak" than the business that Plame's husband had in Nigeria on the C.I.A.'s request - trying to either verify or disprove the 1 Downing Street claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing "yellowcake" from Nigeria.
--ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
To my mind your view of history and politics is astonishing. What is most astonishing is you seem to believe you have a reasonably deep knowledge. What books have you been reading ?
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
You are contradicting yourself and the evidence. I'll answer but this is the last time.
First, the supposed threat to an undercover agent would be exposure. By definition, that means exposure to someone other than their own association. You seem to have missed that point. Second, it is impossible for any entity to find every person someone has interacted with over the course of 15 years in free societies. It's very clear you don't have any legal or intel experience. Statement of fact.
It's not possible for the general public to know if President Bush "lied" when he said he'd fire anyone involved in revealing a covert agent. First, you'd need inside knowledge to ascertain at what point the administration knew Valerie's actual status. Second, since she wasn't covert, nobody could reveal her as being covert. You refuse to admit the claims have prerequisited which were not met. It is just as valid to say President Bush did indeed fire everyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name as a covert operataive. She did not have the legal status of being covert. That's all there is to it.
You're trying to build a straw man again. By definition, anything the President chooses to release is unclassified. That's all there is to it. You are more than welcome to study the laws.
True, the UN Security Council could issue a piece of paper condemning Saddam but that's all it can do, in and of itself. The UN Security Council is really nothing more than a group of Ambassadors to the UN. Their agreements become the responsibility of the memebre nations. The United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and carries the responsibility to enforce the Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council has no military forces of its own. The conditions of the cease fire did not cease to pertain simply because a subsequent unanimous decision was not reached. The UN Security Council has reached unanimous vote to take military action twice; the Korean War and the first Gulf War. Neither war had been ended. Fact.
Uh...can't "blow a cover" which doesn't exist. See previous message, comments above, basic logic and law.
Joe Wilson was not privy to all intel. He was an unemployed ex-Civil Service worker with no security clearance. In fact, yellowcake from Niger was found in Iraq and there were commercial records of the transactions. Even if it were not, the mere act of pursuing negotiations with Niger for Uranium violated the cease fire. That's all there is to it. 10 years of violating the cease fire agreement of an active war created the obligation and authority to respond militarily. That's the law.
No, it was Jack's column which revealed Valerie's name. Wilson's "article" was so full of lies the Congressional investiagtion threw it out. If it had been an actual trial and he made such claims, he would be guilty of perjury. Jack couldn't reveal Armitage told him Valerie's name until after the falrse trial without creating legal risk to himself. The press will promoteo whatever it chooses to promote. They built a strawman because that's what they wanted.
No, the forged document was widely acknowledge to be forged. That wasn't the only evidence. President Bush stated that the British intel believed Saddam was pursuing Uranium purchase. That statement of fact was followed by Joe Wilson's strawman "article" which has been totally debunked. (Again, Congressional Record to read the investigation testimony and evidence.)
You don't have access to intel information of the sort which would be required to state, with any surety, wether or not nuke materials were found. All you have is free market information.
You're wasting time chasing a poorly-constructed conspiracy theory.
Ghandi did break the law, repeatedly. Mainly "inciting unrest". I don't know anything about MLK, but I would be very surprised if he didn't too. Unjust regimes rarely allow pressure for change to be applied against them without making that pressure illegal.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Does it really have all those Pointless Capitals in it? If it does, it deserves to Fail on the Grounds of Illiteracy.
There is even less to this story than the title. I can't believe that I wasted time and electrons responding. Oh, the tin-foil, anti-Bush crowd (who STILL haven't figured out he's not running for re-election) will have their knickers in a bunch so it may be worth letting them fuss over defending a blowhard like Dennis Kucinich. Go ahead, mod this down. I don't read replies to my posts.
Clinton killed several thousand troops and who knows how many Iraq citizens on two lies about Iraq. This doesn't make any sense. There is no law in the US, just who has the most power.
You idiots are so silly in regards to this BJ crap. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury. In case you do not know much about the law, that is a felony.
This statement, which is a paraphrase of what the president said once, is actually true in this case.
The authority that protects classified documents lies with the executive branch of government, and as the head of that branch the chief executive holds ultimate authority to classify, declassify, disclose or deny any material information held by the government.
Which doesn't mean the action and the statement weren't dumb. They were. But as regards disclosure of classified information: When the president does it, it's not illegal. Really.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
So who did Jeff Gannon blow?
Impeach and imprison!
If only the Democrat-led leadership in Congress had the guts to impeach this criminal president, they would find that not only would they have the support and backing of a majority of the American public, but also the rest of the world, likely guaranteeing a Democrat win in November for the White House.
The strength of America has always relied on the foundations set forth in its laws and Constitution. To continue to ignore those cherished laws now in the republic's time of need, is a crime in itself, and indeed possibly even a greater one.
I was paraphrasing Richard Nixon, Who we all know was not a crook.
And it is far, far closer to the truth than it has any right to be.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
IMO Bush needs to provide a valid reason for invading Iraq or sensible people will continue to lambast him for it, it doesn't matter if the war technically never ended if all the whole thing amounted to was an act of bullying to appropriate Iraq's resources. I think that's the generally held public opinion of what really happened recently, whether it's accurate or not.
which is totally what she said
I think you mixed up your presidents, but yes.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Cheney has also been impeached earlier. You need to take out both heads of this snake to get rid of the evil.
I don't watch the weather channel anymore because it's too left-wing.
Can I bum a sig?
I don't know what you are smoking, but if I ever decide to go and do drugs I want some :)
MP3 Search Engine
Then you're gonna LOVE November, cause the 'moonbats' are going to be running the 'koolaid drinkers' out on a rail.
'Moonbats' and 'koolaid drinkers' are both terms widely used for liberals. Then again your post didn't make you sound all that astute, unless you think of that as two words. You seem to be the only one frothing at the mouth here.
You may consider my favorite quote from Samuel Beckett (below) as my response to any further comment you may have.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
Any historical atlas contains this information. There were few non-tyrannical states in history, and the ones that existed did not last, due to "barbarian"* invasion, do you seriously contest that ?
* barbarian in the greek meaning of the term : non-locals. So the muslims that invaded persia were barbarians under this definition despite that then they were still maintaining a (small) part of the previous civilization they conquered.
The pubs have passed a number of laws that gave W. and top ranking pubs all sorts of "get out of jail free". These guys learned a lot from Nixon and reagan. If you can not be moral and legal, well, just pass laws that retroactively give you an out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If being an idiot were a capital offense the world would have far fewer people. With the reduced demand gas would be $.50/gallon. We'd have a new president every few weeks. Orgy of hate and execution? You ain't seen nuthin yet. In 20 years the current troubles will be long forgotten. They'll be trivial by comparison to the issues of the day.
Yes our president is an idiot. I'm saddened both that I voted for him and that I'd do it again. I knew he was an idiot at the time. An idiot is by chance only wrong half the time. I'll still take an idiot over a coward every time because a coward is by definition always wrong. Who is responsible for offering me this painful choice? That's who I'm mad at.
BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you -- spies, saboteurs, unlawful enemy combatants, the falsely surrendered = shot on site or exploited for information and then dealt with in the most profitable way. War is a cruel sport. Neither the Geneva Convention nor any other treaty I know of that the US is a party to offer any protection for these sorts of combatant. This is the way it must be. Otherwise the common mode of conflict would be espionage, sabotage, terror and betrayal. Machiavelli and Byzantium would be the chaotic order of the day.
Is it a good rule? I don't know. It may be useful to remember that in war the history of whose cause was just, whose heros the most noble, which side was divinely favored is written by the survivors.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
As a foreigner who admires the US constitution from afar, I am puzzled by this:
'The (Democratic) House leadership has said that the idea of impeachment is "off the table."'
If the president is alleged to have broken a whole swathe of laws, and the Democratic party refuses to do anything about it - what is the point of the Democratic party?
Furthermore, if the constitution can be selectively ignored by the executive branch, and the legislature and judiciary steadfastly look the other way, what is the point of the separation of powers?
I feel as if I'm watching a man jump out of a plane, wearing a functioning parachute, but making no attempt to deploy it.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
But it's nice to see a congressman with some balls. To stand alone on this issue takes guts, and I respect Kucinich for that.
This is a bit like closing the barn door after the animals have left.
This corrupt, selfish, and incompetent administration has done its damage. If democrats other than Kuccinich gave a dam about anything else other than their jobs and themselves, they would have fought the Bush administration numerous times over numerous egregious acts over the past 7.5 years. Instead they rolled over with their legs in the air and did nothing. The Bush administration only has about 7 months left. I say it is time to move on. Vote for Obama. Nobody can reform the country, but he is the closest thing to a breath of fresh air we will get.
He did not say it was a spaceship, or ethereal intelligence, or whatever the current woo is.
He saw a light in the sky and he didn't know or speculate about what it was.
An astrologer in-law of his (name escapes me, but a fairly well-known mistress of woo) added a bunch of crap in some interview about how he felt a great sense of peace blah blah, which he subsequently denied, repeating that it was just an Unidentified Flying Object.
It's shocking how little it takes to get labeled a nutjob. Apparently accurately reporting facts is enough - as with the UFO and as with these articles of impeachment.
He read it into the record when? When everyone was asleep?
My guess is that Kucinich wasn't doing it because he believed in it, so much as he's going to use the fact that he read them into the record in a future election bid. Mark my words... Politicians are, by definition, sneaky devils that cannot be trusted to do anything but lie, cheat, and steal.
Besides, why would impeaching Bush be "off the table"? If Bush really did violate laws, then of course he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
Everybody said the same of reagan. One of the items that I was in on (HIV in 1981), I know for a fact he was very active in deciding to stop our extra funding, and yet the pubs, media, and history later record that he had nothing to do with it. We went to the man for 50 million for epidemiology to be able track and stop the active transmissions. He shot it down multiple times. At that time, there were less than 1000 infected. Could not have been stopped, but could have set it back a decades worth.
This had multiple repercussions. One of the later figures, my boss, who approach reagan for the 3rd time for this money was the first man asked because he he WAS the best person for this. He turned it down right away. Even though this man had been a life long pubs himself, he was absolutely disgusted by what he had seen. The "band played on" actually gets the early history of HIV wrong WRT CDC.
Ok, I don't me "we" as in /. but "we" as in this nation. Why has this stuff gotten this far and nothing has been done about it? Why do we (Americans) continue to elect politicians who will not do the hard parts of their jobs? Will any of us still be alive when the revolution comes?<complaint>
Wow. I check Slashdot every few weeks or months and threads like this are what keep me away. If this is what the technical "elite" think about things, we are well and truly screwed.
Read the Rockefeller report (not the summary, the actual report) if you want to understand the pathetic lack of evidence for Bush's "lies" and "crimes." Criminalizing policy differences, as liberals have tried to do with John Yoo and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush is a terrible idea. You know why? It's simple, and I will try to explain it here to people who spend too much time in front of a computer screen bloviating on the Internet and not enough time using common sense:
If you make it a crime for policymakers to disagree with the opposition, nobody good will agree to serve in office for fear of being ruined or jailed when they leave. And the people who ARE willing to serve in office will eventually decide they won't leave at all. You get my drift?
Dennis Kucinich replied succinctly, "I read it."
There has been more than enough evidence presented to justify invading Iraq. Continued attacks on coalition forces (UN Security Council surrogates, no less), continued WMD research, terrorst training camps (Google Salman Pak for the most public example), continued research into theater missiles and biochem delivery, cash payments to terrorists, no evidence of destruction of huge stockpiles of WMD, etc., etc., etc. I'm not sure if there have been open press revelations about counterfeiting. That's also very possible, The Iranians had been doing it. That's where the term "superbill" came from. Saddam was supplying US bills to the PLO and other Arab terrorist groups which were counterfeit. His whole regime was based on the Third Reich. Far better to disarm somebody who is very blatant about planning to attack you than after they do it. Smoking guns have already fired.
Immediate disclosure of all intel is never a good thing. Information has value. Sometimes its used to "turn" people. Look at the public disclosure by Libya of their WMD programs, turn over and cesation. That didn't happen because Moamar had a dream. It happened because of intel operations and non-public communications. Publicity makes it much harder to dismantle an enemy because they hide more.
Rational people don't have any problem with this.
Interesting list, but what about:
1) Defense Authorization Act enacted by Bush in 2006 which repeals Posse Comitatus and authorizes the president to use the US military against its own citizens "to suppress public disorder" at his discretion
2) The Military Commissions Act signed on the same day which empowers Bush to arbitrarily deem any US citizen "an enemy of the state", thus removing their rights to representation, a fair trial, etc.
Oh wait, both of these acts where approved by Congress as well. Guess if they were on the list we would have to impeach them too.
Read, learn, cast off your ignorance.
... catchy slogan, but ignorant.
...
http://www.amazon.com/Moment-Truth-Iraq-Greatest-Generation/dp/0980076323
For all you 'bush lied people died'
Of Course, when you are draining the swamp, you need to start somewhere
It all just a setup so the next administration can pardon Bush and Cheney making absolutely sure they don't go to jail.
Elizabeth Kucinich is smart too, or at least faked it really well when I met her.
I am officially gone from
I've thought this is where vehicles should be going for a long time. Kind of a retro return to vehicles in cloth (ie: WWI fighters).
Even more interesting is the talk of expanding materials being used as bomb proofing material. These materials actually thicken when stretched due to molecular structure.
Take a strong lightweight titanium frame and overlay it with materials like kevlar and newer fabrics that expand when stretched. And you might have the world's safest vehicles. With the additional caveat of being bomb resistant.
Can't we get some DOD/DARPA funding for development of a prototype?
as they were covering this story at least in the morning of Wednesday 6/11
the history of the world
Bill Clinton boosted the economy
It depends on which economy you are talking about. In American politics, it is always city vs industry. Clinton was about the city, Bush is about the industry.
Under Bush, the dollar is devalued, and this, coupled with global demand, is driving commodities prices through the roof. This means that American resource extraction companies and manufacturing export companies are making tons of money. So, oil companies, coal companies, gold companies, farms of all kinds, are all doing really well under Bush. However, the falling dollar is bad for investment and so Wall Street in particular and the services sector in general, are taking a beating. The mortgage and other banking crises are ultimately a consequence of this.
Under Clinton, on the other hand, you couldn't make a dime in any of the commodities or farming sectors, and those people took a beating. Manufacturers went out of business in droves in favor of offshore production, whereas under Bush, manufacturing is actually doing rather well as a whole - exports have surged to a record 15% of US GDP. However, services people made out like bandits, as a strong dollar is good for investment.
Just look at the stock market, and you can see what companies are pro-Bush and Republican and which ones are Democrats. Banks right now are donating big to Democrats because they like a strong dollar and don't care about the consequences to American manufacturing and resource extraction, and they are supporting Obama in droves. On the other hand, Exxon Mobil is getting hauled before congress but, their shareholders (Republicans), are making out extremely well.
The problem is that, we're at the extreme end of both approaches. Clinton's strong dollar gutted American manufacturing, and Bush's weak dollar gutted American wallets. An excellent government would peg the dollar to world currencies so that it is stable at a level protective to American manufacturing, but also not falling so much that banks are screwed and investors are hiding in commodities. You would have some environmental deregulation - we should be drilling for oil in anwr and off the coasts, simple to take the money in an era of rising demand. Unfortunately, neither of what Obama or McCain propose are sane. Obama wants to have a strong dollar but guard against the effects of it by restricting imports, which, is silly, because, lower prices of imports are a benefit of the strong dollar and it will only trigger a trade war. And, on the other hand, McCain wants to keep the weak dollar but attacks the only sectors (commodities), that are actually making money right now. So we have two idiots running for President.
Compared to the fates of millions of commodities workers versus millions of service sector employees, really, Bush's supposed reputation abroad, or even Clinton's, don't matter one bit.
Even in the case of Europe, most European leaders could care less about Bush invading Iraq, than they do about access to American markets, and Obama does threaten that stability. For example, Germans don't like the war, but if Germans have to lay off 500,000 steel and car workers because of American protectionist legislation, they will miss George Bush... but they will still miss Clnton more because Clinton had that nice strong dollar. On the other hand, McCain might well go and invade Iran or do something else crazy, which will upset the Germans to no end, but... if he keeps the present open nature of American trading in place, they will live with American moral failings and take the profits the same way they take them from the Chinese.
This is my sig.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) should be fired for wasting 100's, perhaps 1000's of hours of congressional time. Get to work and actually accomplish something that will help the American people. Punishing Bush for something that most of the rest of the congress agreed with is stupid and will not hold up anyway.
Take the massive hours wasted in making this document and start fixing health care, the Tax system, anything...
I can't believe we want to pat the Congressman on the back as if he accomplished some great act of goodness for the American people. This is exactly why our country is so screwed up right now. The congressman is only adding to the bullshit by producing more of his own!
At least Kucinich can say he tried to do the right thing, just like McKinney tried in January 2007.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
I can understand that some information is better kept secret, but how exactly is it of any benefit to not divulge that you found what you originally went in for, when you are already basically in control (to an extent) of that country anyway? And how is "no evidence for destruction of huge stockpiles of WMD" a valid argument unless you have evidence for huge stockpiles of WMD? This is well worthy of some eye rolling, especially considering you used the word 'rational'.. I admit that I haven't been following the news on this stuff much, but like I said, I think I'm representative of the general public who think that the US just went in there for oil using WMDs as an excuse, and Americas image would be vindicated (to both foreigners and Americans alike) if they did find some evidence of WMDs. The current administration would be a lot better off if they did find such evidence, so don't try to pretend they would have any reason for hiding such information - honestly can you think of any situation where it would be preferable? You think even if it has some benefit for the country over the next decade that the current administration will care if it means the difference between them staying in power or not?
which is totally what she said
It's an interesting problem that leaders like MLK or Ghandi can only exist in countries that do have in general a rule of law and some right to free expression.
How long do you think either of them would have lasted in the USSR, Mao's China, or most African dictatorships?
And for the record, Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross for his support of being peaceful - he was nailed to the cross for directly challenging the theocracy's right to rule. He walked into temples and trashed the place (read the bible closely in the story about the money lenders - no offense intended, but it sounds like a standard moderately violent protest to me). He claimed that people went to heaven through *him*, not through the established hierarchy. He was also a charismatic demagogue of a conquered people - one of many claiming to be the Jewish Messiah who would lead his people to freedom - most of the others leaned toward freedom in the military sense. So whether you hold he was set up by the Jews for challenging the established hierarchy or by the Romans for rebellion... it's not so much because he was preaching peace and people didn't like it.
Your president are failing your country, stealing your rights and he and his friends are a real threat to the world and humanity. If your congress is bought of or to chicken to deal with this... don't sit by and complain!
YOU ARE THE PEOPLE! YOU HAVE TO POWER! THEY ARE FEW, YOU ARE MANY! OVERTHROW THEM IF NESSECARY.
Please rally, please unite, please fight for your rights! It is not the citizens of USA that is to blame for this mess, this could have happen in any mighty western country. You've been fed lies, we've been fed lies. You got fooled!
Our civilization will allways have maniacs and humans with evil intentions, that is not the problem! The problem is our incapability to REACT. We have built our society with more and more centralized authority which is totally wrong in a 'democratic' world. We need to disolve centralized power and equally spread it among many institions, so that people get more power. Granting people more power will enforce them to learn to take more responsability for shaping their local community. Internet was created for withstanding any attack, it got design with decentralized responsibilities.... why not design our society the same way?
Vote for Obama. Nobody can reform the country, but he is the closest thing to a breath of fresh air we will get.
See, there's the rub. If I work for Exxon, in the Clinton era, I was screwed. Under Bush, I'm making out pretty good. When Obama comes in, I'm going to get screwed again. So, if I work for an oil company, a gold company, or an American farm, or, for an American export manufacturing company, why should I vote for Obama, in strictly economic terms. All of his policies are going to screw me, and I want Bush economics to continue.
Paradoxically, Bush is probably doing more for the environment than any Democratic law ever could. Democrats railed about the puacity of transit ridership and the SUV, but, under Bush, the SUV is dead, mass transit is up, gasoline consumption is down, and the USA in one year of high prices has already significantly reduced its carbon dioxide production.
The dirty secret of the environmental movement of this... is that, if you really want to save planet earth, you want another 8 years of Bushonomics, because, when gasoline is $10/gallon, nobody is going to drive, and we'll easily hit the 80% reduction in greenhouses gasses.
This is my sig.
Not so much.
However, I do appreciate the opportunity to observe the left-wing (sorry, I refuse to attribute the honorable term "liberal" to this crowd) echo chamber in action. The madness of crowds has always been of interest to me.
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
For god's sake, if you have a counter-argument then make it!
What congressmen should do when they see these articles is to judge whether they are credible, serious, and criminal.
If you read through the articles, you will see they are well enough supported to justify the charges. Whether the charges would be proven is a matter for the Senate. All of them seem to be serious. There are no "lied about parking tickets" charges here. All of these charges involve real and large consequences for real people. Many of them are matters of life and death or worse (torture). Most of them involve matters that are truly criminal. Some of them are more like "criminal negligence" or "reckless disregard". For example, the charges relating to Katrina and the 9/11 responders, while both credible and serious, are not - in my opinion - criminal enough to justify impeachment.
What I expect Congress to actually do is to let this die as quiet a death as they can manage. They will say (perhaps with a little merit) that the cost of impeachment outweigh the benefits. To that I would only say "That's the thinking that let this go on for seven years. That's the mindset the Bush/Cheney team was counting on when they did these things".
Read the articles. Judge for yourself: Do you believe the evidence merits consideration? Do the charges involve serious consequences to people or nations? Do they involve criminal actions? Anyone who distracts you from those three considerations is doing just that: distracting.
An conglomeration of techies wants representatives to read reams of complicated legalese, when said group of techies generally can't bother to browse a one-paragraph article summary before engaging in debate? (No, I didn't RTFA.)
Besides, assuming that congressmen can read gives many of them too much credit.
They're not preventing it from happening. It's increasing it.
First off, the Gulf is being drilled. Just not by us. Cuba & China. And you know those crappy products you get from China. Imagine that sub-par drilling. And guess what. They don't care because if they release a billion gallons of oil into the gulf. It's simply going to destroy Florida's coast. Oh well.
ANWAR, one of the drilling spots is 700 miles from the nearest tree. Drill, even a leak could be easily cleaned by collecting it from the ice. Which would freeze and harden the oil.
The wise thing would be to have the military drill those spots regardless of Congress in order to make the military independent of foreign oil. Then have all the excess sold for profit to fund tax breaks for those who put solar cells on their homes, and buy plug-in hybrids & electrics.
But that's the type of thinking Conservatives have...solutions. Versus Liberals who just want to blame.
> Nancy Pelosi promised that her congress would reduce gas prices from the outrageous $2.30. It is now more than $4.
Lies, deceit, falsely misleading the public.
> Now we have Democrats in Congress threatening to "take control" of the oil companies. Blaming the high price of oil on oil companies. Yet, they make less money per gallon than the milk companies. An affront to the American system of capitalism (and exactly what Putin did in Russia).
> Almost ALL of congress votes themselves abnormal raises, participate in the most lucrative of retirement programs, spend pork barrel upon barrel. Congress is a 1,000 times worse than any president.
They just happen to sell a gallon of oil for about everything else sold. And of course they're going to have record profits. Oil usage is sky-rocketing. It's called CHINA.
Oh, why are oil prices so high? Three reasons:
1. Foolish environmental protections: Like not drilling in the gulf. While Cuba, China and Venezuela begin drilling there. Except with a lot less safety and environmental protections than we'd have. And the Anwar. Yes, drilling in a tiny pin drop of Alaska 700 miles away from the nearest tree is BAD....
We'd be better off drilling, and offering a special tax, with that tax going to provide tax breaks on solar cells, and plug-in hybrids.
Refinery's we haven't built any in years because of environmental regulations. The result is we don't have the capacity we need. No nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. for decades. And it's been nearly half a century since they were designed. The safety has improved a lot. It's like comparing a Prius to a Ford Model-T.
2. We're not innovating, developing new technologies, and protecting those technologies. (ie: last time new technologies were being developed, OPEC slammed the prices down in order to kill them).
3. Increased demand as more and more nations industrialize. Meanwhile, Congress - yes Congress, not the President, has so mis-allocated the funds and taxes. Spending the next few decades today. No, it's not just the war. We've been in budgetary financial crisis for decades. Money that should have been devoted to weening us off of foreign oil is squandered on pork-barrel projects.
EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS (both Democrat and Republican) SHOULD BE DRAGGED OUT AND "TARRED & FEATHERED"
Slashdot is so funny. Other than dailyKOS, this is about the only forum this will get any attention. Real nice waste of electrons.
Now if we could just understand why the boy blunder keeps getting elected by the poor Cleveland people that forget what he did to the city as mayor?
Please tell me you are not trying to put Bush in the group of the "great" presidents.
If the kids were in the US and murdered someone they would also be in jail.
Am I missing something?
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
It sure does seem odd that there hasn't been much documentation released of WMD but don't forget that WMD doesn't only mean nukes. Genetically-modified smallpox could bring Biblical-level problems if it were released and it doesn't take much. I read the book, "Demon in the Freezer" which discussed it. The book was written before the invasion of Iraq and isn't a "drum beating" book. Anyway, it says the Soviets had satellite tech to carry live spores and drop them. It also says Iraq was working on modifying pox. You can read the book to get a better idea of the scale that bio could bring. What is some of it is missing? What if they are scared to tell people that because of possible panic? What if they know some of it is in Western Europe or the U.S. but don't know where? Saddam had used a lot of chem weapons on the Kurds and the whole world thought he had a bunch of stuff. He had been acting as if he did have it. It's possible he HAD destroyed all of it or used it up or somebody else destroyed/stole it. Maybe he was bluffing too long. There were reports of a Russian truck convoy going into Syria just before the invasion. Is that true? If so, what was in the trucks? In the first few weeks after the invasion there were a lot of news stories about huge caches or small arms and cash that were found all over the place. Who knows what was there and where it was hidden. Maybe that stuff doesn't exist and hasn't for years but then why didn't Saddam admit it? He had enough military power to keep the Iranians at bay. Maybe it's being used to blackmail somebody. It doesn't make sense to me but neither do the people who scream WMD didn't exist because they all said it did. I have no idea why the Administration hasn't defended themselves more vigorously. You're right, it looks like a huge PR mistake. I'm not "pretending" there could be a good reason for not releasing information. I don't know any of the "inside information." I'm just thinking about the stuff I see in the press and history. If you look at other intelligence "flaps" with a long-term view, you'll see lots of similar occurrences. The Venona transcripts weren't released until about 10 years ago. Obviously, there was some value in keeping them classified. Just last week it was finally publicly announced that Bill Ballard was actually hunting for the subs Scorpion and Thresher when he found the Titanic in 1985 (I think it was that year.) Obviously, there were reasons not to release the information at that time. Surely, there are valid reasons not to release more information about Iraq. Do you remember the initial reports and all the complaining about how the U.S. troops supposedly allowed some important antiquities museum in Baghdad to be looted? Turns out it was the currators who hid a bunch of the stuff and some of it was stolen by them. Sometimes information is withheld because it would reveal other things that are important. Things are not always what they seem.
If the U.S. wanted the oil, why hasn't it been taken? If, as you claim, the majority of the public thinks it was an oil grab, who gave them that idea? It's a dumb idea, actually. If the U.S. had that motivation, it would be far easier and more productive to take over Argentina. If the U.S. wanted that oil, why isn't the world supply of oil much higher? That would have been a huge expense compared to buying oil. It doesn't make sense.
I looked at a map before my first post to this thread and saw Libya is between Niger and the ocean, a relatively short distance from Iraq. The way Libya gave up their WMD sure looks like they were rolled. There must be lots of that sort of thing that happens but isn't revealed in the open. Just a few days ago there were some reports (I think it was also here on Slashdot) about the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture's laptop and suspicion the Chinese had copied the hard drive. Why would THAT have been in the news? It seems more like trying to send somebody a message than anything else.
This is a country of laws, It's the usA, not the usSR. So, the question remains, did Bush and Cheney use Armitage as their patsy, or did they seize on the opertunity of an Armitage slip to try to use the situation to push their case for war? Either way is impeachable.
about his penis size? No, he's just pissy because he missed his recall to the mothership.
What a nut job.
I think the reason the dems want to bring this up now is because of the current election coming up. They want to highlight all of the ridiculous stuff the bush administration did and put that in the spotlight to help in their campaign in all of the elections in November.
Paging Bill Hicks...
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
That was true two or three years ago, but with with as little time as Bush has left in office, by the time everything's said and done we may have already elected their replacements. There's nothing left for either of those two to do except go on "farewell" tours to Europe and such.
Liberal Socialist like you have no concept of reality anyway. You are the worst at trying to rearrange reality to fit what you want. If it doesn't fit your outcome then it must not be true.
I bet you believe the US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks.
It is a high-security prison where people are tortured, not suitable for adults, let alone children. Most civilized countries treat criminal children differently by not putting them in prison, but instead rehabilitating them in special institutions.
Of course, it is highly questionable whether children have committed a crime, since:
- they aren't given anything approaching a fair trial.
- we know that the evidence against several inmates was non-existant (one prisoner was accused of looking through binoculars at US troops, others were sold to the US in exchange for money).
After reading the comments on this article, it has become clear to me the easiest way to get modded up: 1) Laud the actions of Senator Kucinich. 2) Say something negative about Bush (perhaps "He's a mass murderer" or "He's an idiot" or my personal favorite "He's an idiot AND a mass murderer") 3) Throw in some extra bashing of Republicans. I've discovered the Secret to Slashdot Success! Maybe I should go write a book or something...
As I recall, the question went to applicability of the laws which went into effect after Agee was publishing lists of covert agents. You can research the name of the woman who wrote the statute. She specifically said, under oath during the Congressional investiagtion, that Valerie did not fit the prerequisites for being undercover. It's applicable because there must be prerequisite grounds for prosecution. Historically, it's very, very, very difficult to bring a charge of treason for instances such as these. It's been a few months since I reviewed this stuff. You're more than welcome to read the Congressional Record and the Federal codes. The statue was written only for a very narrowly defined circumstance.
I don't remember Haydn making any such statement. Can you provide a reference? The exact language would be very critical because if, as was widely stated, Valerie HAD BEEN covert but it had been 10 or 15 years, whatever the time limit was, then wether her name was released would be illegal would depend on a lot of things. As I understand it, she wasn't undercover in the legal sense, which is all that mattered. There are many levels of less-than-open legal status. They are not all "undercover" and not all are "spies" or "agents."
Even so, as I've already stated, if the President directed revealing Valerie's name, there was no crime committed because the President's authority to declassify is absolute and both implicit and explicit. For there to be a crime, there must be grounds. There ain't no "there" there no matter how much anyone tries to parse it.
Intelligence isn't law. It doesn't work that way. Pieces of information have relative authenticity and the aggregate is what is important. The "bad guys" don't follow a script and don't stop what they're doing, surrender and turn everything over to the "good guys" when they are caught.
You could theorize any possible scenario you want. Why didn't Armitage come to Libby's rescue given Libby had saved his butt yers earlier? Why did Bush commute the sentence of Libby? Why did the investigation continue, or even start, given the special prosecutor already knew it was Armitage who revealed Valerie's name? Why did Wilson contradict himself so often?
a blowjob.
If that's democrat for Perjury then you'd be correct. I agree that Clinton's hearings were total BS, but the man did lie under oath.
It's pathetic the American media, just unbelievable how much they have become an arm of the government (Dem or Repug) and there to sate the masses into acquiescence.
They are all crooks, and they are fucking you collectively up the ass. The really horrifying part is how they have managed to convince so many men to defend their crimes, both financial and moral. Tens of thousands of people dead for this farce of a war, billions of dollars in your tax money just gone up in smoke. Wake the fuck up and be angry, give people like Dennis Kucinich some support and encouragement for having the cajones to go after these crooks.
All governments are corrupt, but this is a new gold fucking standard of monumental proportions of corruption.
Salut,
Jacques
What the World has witnessed is the greatest heist in history. BushCo effectively robbed the U.S. Treasury. US citizens, and our children's children, will have to pay it back.
Nice straw man!
As a Sexist Conservative, I bet you believe women shouldn't get to vote.
(Unlikely to be true but since we're throwing ridiculous generalisations around, I thought I'd add it to the mix)
I am not a fan of Bush but this is laughable.
V It was authorized by Congress but then facts won't stop this idiot.
VIII Fuck the UN and ANY person in the government that bows to it rather than the US Constitution that they swore to defend (and that authorizes ANY authority they have).
IX Congress is in charge of supplying the troops it is YOUR fault Mr K.
XVII I agree on US citizens, foreign people that were not in uniform and mingling with the citizenry deserve the protection that the Geneva Conventions Treaty provides, none.
XXVII Please just take a deep breath and get over it. AlGore lost.
XXXI Again the constitution spells out ZERO of this duty (or even the authority) and the people that failed to plan was New Orleans (party on dude) and the state of Arkansas. We had damage in Alabama as did Mississippi and we dealt with it locally and fast. Guess what we have done that EVERYTIME including more direct hits. Only in a communist government is the centralized authority responsible for every minor thing and that has been demonstrated to be even worse. If you want to criticize the federal government it should be for the massive amounts of cash given away down there after being confiscated from responsible people.
XXXII Spreading Green madness is not a constitutional duty
I could address everyone of these but cannot be bothered to refute such a loon.
But first get rid of the criminal(IMHO) behavior of Speculators such as Morgan Stanley and others which is adding between 30 and 50 percent to the price of a barrel of oil.
I'm am so sorry that you didn't get the nomination. I was pulling for you.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Just like the pointless Microsoft bashing that goes on around here, why exactly is this news? It's not even IT related. It's just flame bait for people with a liberal agenda. Think how many productive hours have been wasted already with 1000+ people posting and reading all this drivel.
His whole regime was based on the Third Reich
Nobody's going to call this idiot on this statement?The United States as an governing entity has become rotten. No matter who is President, who the congressmen are, and who is in the senate, nothing will change. I've become convinced that the real power is hidden away from prying eyes, and their agenda will be unknown untill it comes into full fruition. Unfortunately, it's not only a problem in the United States, but with governments all over the world. Regularly so-called 'leaders', business magnates, lobbyists, and media get together 'behind closed doors', such as Bohemian Grove (you don't think those guys just sit around fishing and playing Gin, do you?), discuss and make policy without concern for what the people want.
If you are not in the United States, and believe your country doesn't participate, or is blameless, then you are part of the problem.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
As I've said in another post, misleading the public in the pursuit of a bad policy, no matter how terrible the outcome, isn't an impeachable offense.
I do agree about climate change, but what can you do...What is different between Article II and the climate change article? Both involve misleading Congress and the public by being highly selective about what evidence to present. So I don't see how you can think one is an impeachable offense and the other one isn't.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Start a little "they stole the election" noise, then work it up with news stories EVERY night of the world, and we get here. Impeaching a guy in the last remaining days of his term, permitting us to repeat the lies of Sororos again....is IS an election year, after all.
But let's not forget: these are the same people who picked up a CENTURY OLD ARGUMENT with Turkey so that they would no longer help our troops in Iraq. Yeah, they're some good people, alright. So giving- it's all about making us happy.[SARCASM]
First, because America has government school, important historical facts are forgotten- facts like a plane hitting the Empire State Building somewhere around 1948, how we attacked an ally as our first serious action of WW2 (look it up- not the Tokyo attack, I said serious.) If you know these things, there's nothing spooky about Bush not responding for 22 minutes to the first plane crash, or attacking Saddam, a known trouble source deep in the thick of it.
So today we have people blaming Bush for Katrina, both for the actions of FEMA [The AFTER the disaster people] not being able to stop the hurricane in it's tracks, as well as promoting Global Warming with the specific intent to kill negros in Louisiana.
I've seen it; ask people why they don't like Ashcroft. Much passion, no answer. Cheney? Much passion, no reason, despite 50+ investigation of the company with whom he was linked, Halliburton.
Robots. We've created millions of robots.
The "housing crisis" has "doubled" according to the mainstream media, but they forget to mention that it brings the number of failed mortgages to an ENTIRE percentage point- not quite the Great Depression of our time, unless you're on TV.
Don't you see this, too? No one's critical thinking anymore. Everyone's become Homer Simpson, equating a good haircut with a good president. When in reality, a liberal president (taxing everything, giving The Fed a reason to insert themselves into everything we do) is a long-tested, long-failed idea....yet people will vote that way, because "they need a change".
We'll get a change, alright. Having 96% employment, for example. For no terrorist attacks in many years, for what little freedom we have left. Sadly, all three stooges we can vote for are all just about identical.
So no, no answers here...just the observation that people are being programmed to hate upon command of Tom Brokaw and friends, forgetting history, and hoaxes like Global Warming and the concept that the government can care for you better than YOU can.
1) You would not go to jail for failing to spy on US Citizens.
2) People are unaware of NSA directives because they are largely classified. The one you cited earlier was only recently declassified.
3) Since you have confirmed your belief that the Constitution and the laws passed by congress are irrelevant. And since you have also asserted your belief that NSA directives can provide for exceptions to the US Constitution. Would you kindly tell us if there are any other (secret) NSA directives that you feel provide for exceptions to the rights protected by the US Constitution?
4) You should be aware that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. But in this case I hope you're right that NSA obtained the Attorney General's permission every time they spied on US Citizens. And I hope they are able to produce those documents when required.
5) You can see my name above. If you really work for NSA then you can probably get the names of everyone else in this conversation (go ahead and ask Gonzo for permission, if that's all you feel you require). Would you be so kind as to provide us with your name?
6) If the answer to #5 is no, do you think it would be okay for Taco to give us your IP address if, say, he issued a secret "Slashdot directive" providing exceptions to the Terms of Service beforehand?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Why are you "done with politics?" You sound like you're still pretty interested.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This reads more like a resume.
Your (or someone's) dislike for policy doesn't equal an assault on the constitution. The president's oath requires him to protect it to "the best of his ability" too. In case something is in conflict, he isn't required to "not violate" it in some way if that is the only way he can seem to work it.
Now seeing how that all legislation is promoted and passed in the congress before the president can sign it into law or take credit for it, I'm willing to bet that policy in which you (or anyone) thinks is an assault on the constitution has the support of congress to some degree. And BTW, congress has no "to the best of your ability" escape clause in their oath. To seriously think about impeaching a president for something that they enabled is a ridiculous proposition to expect congress to consider. It is better served by them as campaign initiatives and fodder. That is of course, as long as they can keep up the impression of it all being the president's fault.
At least with Clinton, he actually broke a law (by lieing in court) that surrounded a law that Clinton actually signed into law (allowing other incidents involving the accused to be used as supporting evidence in discrimination suites.) Sure, to the wanted ignorant, it is still just a blow job. But don't let that cloud your perspective.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
this guy should be doing something productive instead of spending his time being a d-bag.
Fair enough, I would usually think of WMD as nukes, but I suppose any kind of death could be regarded as 'destruction' even if it leaves all the buildings untouched. While people would be pretty panicked hearing about them having anthrax delivery systems and whatnot (though AFAIK Iraq does not have satellites nor even true long range ballistic capability..), it's not like the government isn't already playing on the fears of the population to justify things like the PATRIOT act and Guantanamo.. I'm still of the opinion that they haven't actually found anything in Iraq that would be a significant threat to the US.
I wasn't sure if they'd been exporting any oil to the US, but it must be a tempting option for them (or one that they are reserving for the future).
In any case, I of course may be wrong in my beliefs about the situation, and at least some good has come out of the situation (in that Saddam is dead), but a little paranoia is natural between different levels of authority (ie governmentgeneral population), though it may not always be healthy.
which is totally what she said
Just checking in as another liberal who supports the right to keep and bear arms. Personal responsibility, including self-defense, is needed to keep the US from falling apart.
Second, it is impossible for any entity to find every person someone has interacted with over the course of 15 years in free societies.
Some spies who knew Valerie Plame were able to avoid exposure. This is probably true of every blown cover in the history of the world, so it doesn't really win Bush any points.
By definition, that means exposure to someone other than their own association. What does this mean?
It's not possible for the general public to know if President Bush "lied" when he said he'd fire anyone involved in revealing a covert agent. First, you'd need inside knowledge to ascertain at what point the administration knew Valerie's actual status. Second, since she wasn't covert, nobody could reveal her as being covert. You refuse to admit the claims have prerequisited which were not met. It is just as valid to say President Bush did indeed fire everyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name as a covert operataive. She did not have the legal status of being covert. That's all there is to it.
First point we now know that Armitage, Libby, and Rove were behind the leak and attempted earlier leaks, by their own admission. Second, she was covert and under an unofficial cover which means that merely revealing her as CIA blew her cover. Her cover, BTW, doesn't become useless just because she wasn't in the field. Anyone with intel experience would know. You're also putting words into the Whitehouse's mouth. They pledged to fire "anyone involved in it." There wasn't always your careful parsing about "covert agents".
No, the forged document was widely acknowledge to be forged. That wasn't the only evidence. President Bush stated that the British intel believed Saddam was pursuing Uranium purchase. That statement of fact was followed by Joe Wilson's strawman "article" which has been totally debunked. (Again, Congressional Record to read the investigation testimony and evidence.)
"British Intel" is not evidence, a point which becomes crystal clear when you research the source of their belief, which was the same poorly forged documents, and which lead to Bush's tortured phrasing, since they didn't have any evidence that could convince American Intel.
You don't have access to intel information of the sort which would be required to state, with any surety, wether or not nuke materials were found. All you have is free market information.
This is nothing more than deluded authoritarianism. Consider that they paraded around every piece of crap "evidence" that they could find, then try to convince anyone that they withheld the good stuff.
Play Command HQ online
Wow, we could have elected _him_ president.
I know what irony is. Yours is too subtle for me. Or maybe I your strident tone made your irony less than obvious. That was certainly the reaction of the moderators who rated your post "informative".
Then you should support the Read The Bills Act.
Just sayin.
folks, what we are witnessing, is the End of America. It has taken the International Bankers and Big Oil about 100 years, but they have finally succeeded in 'eating the elephant one bite at a time'...slowly, over the years, more and more of our government has eroded away and our freedoms with it. We are possibly the last generation that will be alive before America becomes another banana republic.
Somehow I thought there would have been more...
You do know that the Congress that approved Bush's crimes was different from the one now entertaining motions to impeach him, right? And that official impeachment introduction is a lot more than just "hot air".
Ever since Congress was converted by the 2006 elections from the Republicans who undeniably conspired with Bush on these crimes into a Democratic one, there's been actions towards impeaching Bush. It's true that not all Democrats are willing to do it. And that some of the worst foot-draggers are those who run the Senate and the House, because they indeed are more interested in running against Bush in 2008 than in stopping his crimes.
But your argument against impeachment puts you in league with them. Impeaching Bush would stop his crimes now, rather than leave him 1/8 of an entire presidential term to commit more.
But more important, impeaching Bush now would make it harder for the next president - probably Obama, a Democrat - and subsequent ones from committing these kinds of crimes. It would stop Congress, even a Democratic one, from collaborating.
What kind of masochist doesn't want that fix put in place ASAP?
--
make install -not war
Nice....
Now how about a constitutional amendment to make lawmakers who introduce legislation later declared unconstitutional PERSONALLY liable for te lives they have ruined.
I want serious bucks for my pain and suffering, being unable to play DVDs on linux for years, and I want those bucks from Hillary and the other sponsors of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, once we get through striking it down. Edward Felton and Dmitir Sklyarov deserve compensation, and maybe there is a case for all the linux distros that went bankrupt.
Ahem, I'd like to begin with a reading of the Articles of Impeachment. Here goes.
(You know, some of these are actually plausible. It will be interesting to see where this goes.)
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II. Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V. Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI. Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII. Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII. Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX. Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X. Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI. Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII. Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII. Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV. Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV. Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI. Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII. Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII. Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX. Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX. Imprisoning Children
Article XXI. Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII. Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII. Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV. Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV. Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI. Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII. Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII. Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX. Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX. Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI. Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII. Misleading Congress and the American People, Syst
Continued attacks on coalition forces (UN Security Council surrogates, no less), continued WMD research, terrorst training camps, continued research into theater missiles and biochem delivery, cash payments to terrorists, no evidence of destruction of huge stockpiles of WMD, etc., etc., etc.
Is that a valid criteria for invading a sovereign country? Let's rephrase the semantics for a comparison:
Continued attacks on any country we want (whether the UN approves or not), continued WMD research, BlackOps and CIA training camps (Google Iran Contra for a historic example), continued research into theater missiles and biochem delivery, cash payments to terrorists (we used to fund Saddam's regime and worse), the world's largest stockpiles of WMDs including chemical and biological weapons, etc., etc., etc.
So by your criteria any nation on earth not allied with the USA would be justified in a pre-emptive strike to help defend against our potential threat. Is it any wonder that Iran is developing nukes as fast as they can? It is the only way they can hope to stop us from invading. America is the most violently aggressive government on earth.
We are all just people.
AMENDMENT XXIV
[insert text of Project Gutenberg here]
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Access to a lawyer? A fair trial? Humane conditions? A fixed sentence if found guilty, with freedom at the end? That sounds like a good start...
The essential problem is that Guantanamo is not in any way a normal jail. If it were, far fewer people would be complaining (and then only about the child soldiers).
To know recursion, you must first know recursion.
it wasn't Afghanistan, al-qaeda, or osama bin laden either. Here's some quotes, but i'm sure you know all this already right?
Who were the perpetrators?
a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.
c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story
THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006
Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.
b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "data base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?
All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.
Poisoning New York
The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.
Anthrax
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?
The Stonewall
a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was
Unless it involves interns...
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
... the Democrat leadership chooses to milk the damage that Dubya is doing to the Republican party and ignore the damage he is doing to the nation.
That's pretty much the only reason that impeachment is "off the table" -- the Democrat party is benefitting too much from Dubya's incompetence to dream of removing him before next January.
If they could, they'd have Dubya run again, and would field a candidate sure to lose against him (regardless of how difficult it would be to find such a candidate). The gains they are making in the House and Senate make the Presidency almost superfluous.
It's pretty damn hard to provide evidence that WMDs are being destroyed when THERE ARE NO WMDs
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
Well, if you're basing 'reality' on historically what types of government lasted, um, forever. Reality is anti-everything (at least as far as human social constructs are concerned). This may, in fact, be true, kind of pointless, but true. I guess the reasoning is that since all other civilizations have changed, we shouldn't care about or try to improve ours.
More amusing, following your logic, we (as a nation, society, and race I guess?) really should be moving away from Democratic Republics and towards Monarchy as Monarchy was the most, um, 'real'. Do you truly believe we should have a Monarchy (aka King Bush, King Oboma, King McCain, Queen Clinton, pick your poison), or have you gotten so far off the deep end defending the current administration that perhaps you should sit back and re-think some of your beliefs.
2- That is one of the reasons I said that popular opinion is often wrong.
3- I have not confirmed any belief that I think the Constitution is irrelevant, only that the directives that I live with every day exist, and that most people are unaware of them, thus making public opinion wrong, a lot of the time. I have confirmed that there are laws and rules and guidelines and directives that exist in EVERY industry that require no understanding whatsoever of the Constitution. Please, don't put words in my mouth. USSID 18 provides clear cases ("exceptions") of when and how it is LEGAL to collect on US Persons, period, full-stop. If it isn't Constitutional, then do something about it. As much as I personally disagree with blanket authority given to the AG (especially when said AG is appointed by the President), it is not my place to determine the constitutionality of it all.
4- You can't get some of the documents, because, gasp, they are protected by classification guidelines and exempt from declassification. Tell us more what you don't know.
5- Again, your ignorance is not my problem. Show me where I said I work for the NSA, because I don't, nor did I say I do.
6- Taco is not a Government agency governed by the Intelligence Oversight as outlined in USSID 18. Therefore, I would trust Taco about as far as I could throw him.
Since GW, every action by the US is considered highly suspect. Were as in past history there was usually *some* moral ground the US could stand on to justify action (eg. Nazis in WWII, Communism in Korea and Vietnam, the first Gulf War), all US policy for the last 7 years has been based on lies and an alarming lack of anything resembling common sense, with an inbred stupidity and lack of understanding of world culture and forces enough to create a crushing snowball in the desert (I'm feeling poetic...). Astonishingly, many either believed or followed for personal / national gain. The result is an embarrassment. How can the US possibly be trusted as a world leader now?
Also, the American people (and the media) never questioned obvious fallacies throughout the current term such as: Iraq has WMD, Iraq was behind 9/11, fight them there so we don't fight them here, we are safer. Nobody questions why Osama was allowed to escape by blatantly ignoring Afghanistan in comparison to Iraq.
The Democrats have also shown a sorrowful lack of spine. Anyone who bothered to think about the issues at the time could conclude that George was a crazed, idiotic, lunatic (or worse, a cold, calculating, ruthless opportunist). But they all decided to hedge their bets... and we all lost. I think impeachment is vital to reclaim some credibility. If not now... then I hope that the Dems recover some of their lost courage and during the next term begin the process. McCain sure as hell won't do anything if he wins. For all his progressive stance, I gather he is very shortsighted still if rehtoric is anything to judge by.
So... impeachment is vital. It will allow the legislative and judicial branches to flex some long unused muscle, and allow the American people to learn the truth for once and for. The greatest benefit from learning the truth? We may just learn something... at least we'll have a better notion of what to avoid.
http://iilj.org/documents/Jordan-47_BC_L_Rev_000.pdf
Since most of you want to ONLY talk about the Constitution, you might want to start on Section II of the paper, which discusses all FOUR elements that form the Legal framework of this discussion. It appears that the "Supreme Law of the Land" has some friends, and most slashdotters don't care to recognize them.
Well then, I'll take one impeachment, please.
History will add concision to the assessment of lil bush, however history will see the devastating long-term effects to add to it's verdict.
Unable to see how history can only add more damaging information to the record of Bush, the talking points to distract from his current culpablity, grasps for this vapid idea that somehow history will smile on bush. (Leaving aside that money might be used to apply "Truth Ministry" treatment to the record).
It takes very little informed imagination to see that Cheney/Bush's misinformation dam is developing some critical leaks. What better way to fend off prosecution than to rat out the other guys do these traitorous felons have?
Bush is one of the three worst presidents in the history of the U.S. History will simply confirm his position in that ranking. He will not be reformed by history, only increasingly impeached by the truth. History will be even more critical and indicting of Bush. Nixon actually made some improvements to life in America to give minimal moderation to pronouncements of his evil. Bush has advanced nothing, and accomplished nothing to improve life. (period) History will have nothing positive to add to Bush. He will be reviled. His accomplishment will be to join the Torquemadas, and Caligulas.
The potato it is uninformed.
So what you've been elaborately and self-assuredly telling us is that you operate as part of a classified system that is illegal under the law and that can't be challenged by the public in court since the public doesn't know about it. Apparently, it can only be challenged by the Intelligence committee of the Senate itself.
I think that fits nicely into the definition of treason. If you're part of a system that is not only theoretically, but - as demonstrated in the past few years - practically in violation of the law, and takes elaborate action to evade that law, the responsibility for any resulting abuse is divided between you and your co-workers with the same level of knowledge.
I understand that national security operators sometimes have to overstep the bounds of laws that provision their work, and must keep their work secret. It's the codification and routine rationalization of this that I find completely unacceptable. If your work is both illegal and secret, then it becomes your responsibility to evaluate it from a moral ground. Your moral obligation as a public servant is to serve the best interests of the people, and creating an operational framework for evading the law goes about as far away from that as it can.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
It's clear you have no intel background. You are incorrect.
Those comments are deranged and devoid of history.
Wow, you're easily impressed ;)
everything in moderation
Where did they go? Why did the entire world believe Saddam still had them? Saddam had produce and used WMD against Iran and the Kurds. Why did Saddam monkey with the UN inspectors?
Even if they somehow magically disappeared, that does not invalidate the attacks on coalition forcdes for ten years, violation of the oil sles sanctions and continued development of prohibitted missile technologies, among other things.
What proof does anyone have that no bio weapons existed. Why do you assume the status of such things would be public knowledge? That's dangerously naive.
Not to diminish their importance, but non-violent movements were mirrored with violent subgroups. Naturally those in power preferred to deal with the non-violent activists rather than the extremists. The threat of violence looming in the shadows was a powerful motivator for change.
My dose of cynicism for the day
That's not cynicism. That's truth.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're not helping your case.
Its too late. Its meaningless. Its a waste of taxpayer money. Kucinich must be up for re-election or just wants his name in history. Even if its for being a dolt.
I have never seen some many "so called intelligent" people who can't see this for what it is...it is yet another attempt to tarnish the Bush administration in order to insure that a Liberal Democrat will take office. I don't see how making Bush look bad has anything to do with the present Republican nominee.
But then again we are dealing with a totally ignorant extremist liberal faction of the Democratic party, who obviously rightly think most Democrats are also ignorant.
And for the record, Obama is nothing less than a Socialist....and you are going to vote for him due to the hate propaganda that Democratic party has fed to you. Oh yeah, propaganda, isn't that what communists use to control?
I know many of you believe all that you have been told...but how many of you really know what you are voting for?
If you think that it's the banks fault that people can't manage their credit spending...you will be bailing those people out. Can't handle your mortgage? Government will pay...problem is the money is yours and mine, not the governments.
College? Government will pay...Food? Government will pay...Medical insurance? We already have universal healthcare, it's called medicaid! Oh, but you will still pay for more, even those who can afford it....
This is all that your so called "liberal" and "democratic" party has offered you...are you really voting for that? If you are, there is not any reason for me not to call you ignorant sheep.
Or, gay sex in a toilet stall.
I think I'm going to write a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking to change impeachment laws to that trials may only go forward if the President has committed bawdy lustihood while in office.
Article Four protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Granted, no problems there. However, there are provisions...
EO12333, FISA 1978, USSID 18 put limitations on electronic surveillance of US citizens, IN SUPPORT of Article Four of the Constitution. These documents provide the required OVERSIGHT to assure your tin-foil scenario of treason doesn't occur. They also happen to outline those few instances where security trumps rights. Don't attack me because I didn't write any of these documents. If you don't like them, do something about it.
In addition, you can throw in the US Patriot Act, passed by Congress (not George Bush, to get this back to the topic on-hand). I've thus avoided it, because, for the 14th time, it's not my area of expertise, and I don't pretend to be an expert in something I'm not (yeah, I must be new here).
All four of these documents provide the balance that is required in maintaining Security while at the same time safeguarding civil liberties.
You wouldn't happen to be Fred Dalton Thompson, would you?
You're probably right, but let's say by some miracle a stable government is established in Iraq, and somehow moderates the region... all his transgressions will be ignored.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, shut down newspapers, ordered attacks on civilians in the South, broke treaties, and had generals broadcasting their desire to commit warcrimes. Yet it's largely ignored because he helped free the slaves. FDR restructured the economy to suit banking interests, put Japanese in internment camps, and spied on Americans. Yet he is revered for putting Americans to work and winning the war.
Founders of the US were tea smugglers, Reagan lied to the government about illegal wars, Kennedy got into power with the help of mob ties and bootlegging profits.
Those who achieve powers are never saints, and history judges results above all else. Bush's legacy will be tarnished not because he broke the Constitution, but that he failed in accomplishing anything.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I'd argue that, in this day and age, we could have a provision stating that the President is free to deploy the troops for up to 90 days, but, following that grace period, he must get a declaration of war from Congress (not a resolution, or an authorization, but a formal declaration of war), otherwise he has to bring the troops home. This would allow ample time for the president to respond to short term emergencies, while still leaving leeway for the US to respond credibly to unprovoked attacks.
So we let the president declare all-out war on country X, and then after 90 days the congress can step in and pull the troops out if indeed we shouldn't have gone to war. We just up and leave, nothing to worry about -- the president just made a mistake. Sorry about the carnage. I don't see why you'd attack us, country X, our president just made a little mistake and we don't want to fight you.Your idea would be fantastic if only actions didn't have consequences.
Those oil companies you're so keen on protecting are the ones not drilling down there.
This coming from a guy who swears he saw a UFO. Seems to me that term limits would keep trash like this out of our government. That guy really gets paid $167,000 for crap like this?
No they are all facts. ...5. The projectile of claim 4, wherein the aerosol composition is further selected from the group consisting of smoke, crowd control agents, biological agents, chemical agents, obscurants, marking agents, dyes and inks, chaffs and flakes.
The US has the worlds 2nd largest stockpile of chemical weapons. We have less than Russia now, because we have been slowly destroying our supplies, but only since 2006 have we dropped into second place.. We still have 15,000 metric tons of nerve agents and mustard gas.
The CIA has been training terrorists since the 1950s. Most of the anti-American sentiment around the world can be traced to CIA operations attempting to influence foreign politics.
In 2006 the US Army patented A rifle-muzzle launched payload delivering projectile
The US government ignores the UN whenever it is convenient. The US has used it's military on foreign soil 70 times since 1980.
To prevent future moral failings, we must first as a country acknowledge the failings of the recent past. To hide our heads in the sand and pretend that US hasn't earned the animosity of the terrorists and insurgents we fight is to ensure our failure both in the battles we fight and in our rapidly eroding position as a world leader. Ignorance is unpatriotic.
We are all just people.
Inspired the visual of Shatner impacting the dome on the Enterprises saucer and breaking his neck. Leaving us to follow the misadventures of a 171cm actor for the rest of the post.
Alternatively: Uhura squeezing one of his buttocks in the Turbolift. Maybe Spock would be more amusing?
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Is it because he doesn't cater exclusively to billion-dollar oil companies?
Is it because he doesn't encourage torture and illegal detainment?
Medicaid is not universal healthcare.
Okay, so this reply will go unread by you, anonymous coward, but I still considered it a good idea to point out that you're a moron. I could go on and on about how ridiculous you look, but you really did that to yourself.
Why your Congressman is bound by oath to endorse and support Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment- their oath of office: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.' Everyone should repeat this oath in the ear of their Congressman, and of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. Call them through capitol hill at (202)224-3121 and ask them why they are not honoring their oath! Our nation is going down the tubes because the war criminals and back-stabbers are not being put behind bars where they belong. Impeachment hearings may be our only chance to keep the warmongers from attacking Iran! Demand impeachment! Let them feel the heat...
The Muslim extremists could be sending more of their terrorists (and maybe even REAL soldiers) our way to fight a battle that would kill many more Americans than what's going on right now.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: [pause] Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
He actually served his citizens before the business interests. It's not an uncommon thing over in that part of Ohio.
Businesses are not $DEITY, and Kucinich recognized that quite well.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
America voted for him...... twice.
What does that say about America?
Now you leave him in power, pissing away your reputation with the rest of the world, your ecology and your economy and you sit by while his pals in Washington stall and the press (who like their comfy little world) gloss over it all.
Will the election bring anything better? Possibly... but unless a clear message is sent loud and clear now where is the incentive for the President (Obama, Mcain or whoever ends up with the job) or any of your other elected officials to treat the law as more than a guideline and care about the American people as more than a source of revenue and sometimes cannon fodder?
You should be proud of your elected officials, your mechanisms of State and your country... not apologizing every time you meet a foreigner.
The independent media - Slashdot and the rest of the citizen journalist world - are the last line of defense against the brainwashing and dumbing down that traditional media are very complicit in supporting.
Gosh, I feel like a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist reading this but.... am I that wrong?!
This is not on the record. I saw the C_SPAN clip, but it does not appear on the Floor Summary at http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html
LEGISLATIVE DAY OF JUNE 9, 2008
110TH CONGRESS - SECOND SESSION
11:55 P.M. -
The House adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on June 10, 2008.
On motion to adjourn Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Kucinich moved that the House do now adjourn.
11:54 P.M. -
At the conclusion of the notice provided by Mr. Kucinich, the Chair announced that the proper determination would be made in accordance with the rule.
7:12 P.M. -
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO OFFER RESOLUTION - Mr. Kucinich notified the House of his intent to rise to a question of the privileges of the House and to offer a resolution. Mr. Kucinich was recognized to notice the form of his proposed resolution.
H. Res. 127:
recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the entry of Alaska in the Union as the 49th State
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 375 - 0 (Roll no. 390).
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
What really is the point of this impeachment fantasy some democrats have? I think Dennis is seeking attention. He got none during the democratic primaries and I doubt anyone would know who he was if he did not do these insane stunts.
The lengths liberal idios go to paint President Bush as a criminal, idiot, and liar are the only thing more pathetic than Dennis. If you check your facts you will learn that the 1st Gulf War was never legally settled. The peace agreement required that Saddam and the government of Iraq cooperated and abided by several agreements. He failed to comply, he sought retribution against his own citizens killing thousands and thousands of them. His military attempted time and again to shoot down our pilots as they patrolled the no fly zone over northern and southern Iraq established by the United Nations and agreed to by Saddam during his surrender after the First Gulf War. His non-compliance and agression towards us warranted the invasion and toppling of his government. It should have been done the first time, but the world community gave him a second chance. He blew his second chance and most of the world preferred to enrich themselves off of the oil for food programs they were pilfering for profits.
What reasoning is there from you people that claim Bush is a mass murderer? Are you saying he has ordered and orchestrated the murder of innocent people? Or are you saying he is responsible for the actions of the insurgents and terrorists that operate in Iraq, killing innocent civilians, American troops, and Iraqi security forces. Suggesting that our invasion of Iraq is the only reason they are killing without discretion is ludicrous. Who did we attack when they planned and executed 9/11? It is tragic that so many innocent people have died in Iraq the last few years, but let us put the blame where it belongs, on those who will kill anyone for any reason. Not our troops, not our president.
But I suppose the hatred rhetoric spewed by so many against Bush and anyone identified as a republican is only to be expected from the same group of morons who think 9/11 was an inside job. It is amusing that people with no structural engineering education somehow come to the conclusion that jet fuel cannot "melt" steel, so therefore the buildings were blown up. Have you ever seen an ironsmith work with metal? He does not have to melt the metal to mold it and shape it. He just has to heat it up to the point that it loses its structural integrity. Then he is free to bend it anyway he wishes. So in a structure designed under the laws of reality can only support themselves plus some extra weight that makes the structure functional as a dwelling for humanbeings and their stuff. The parameters that dictate this are based on some assumptions. One of those being that the building structure is not much hotter than room temperature, let alone 800, 900, 1000+ degrees. Then realize that one floor in the world trade center tower was not designed to be cut in half by the impact of a plane and still maintain its structural integrity. Now when those few floors collapse their load is transferred to the floor below it and the result is a pancake effect. After a few floors stack up as the building falls the combined weight can sheer and twist any material known to man.
One of the things going wrong with this country is that there are people whose lives are so mundane they have the time to consume themselves with paranoid conspiracy theories. They don't have to worry about providing for themselves or their family, they don't have any real concerns in their life so they have to invent some to occupy their feeble minds. Previous generations were so much tougher than this current adult generation. My god, we have turned into a nation of pathetic babies.
You would be making that guess because of my comments about legal issues of intelligence, separation of powers and stuff like that?
Funny you should ask. Somebody sent an almost identical email to my personal address today.
I'm Fred Thompson Jr. who grew up in Tennessee and served in the USAF in SAC and at NSA while Fred Dalton Thompson was a Senator. My Dad, Fred Thompson Sr., has taken Fred Dalton Thompson's dinner reservations in Tennessee a few times totally by accident. A few months ago, any business phone call I made was very, very quickly answered. People in South Carolina see my name on the credit cards and say they voted for me. I usually tell them one of three things; "Law and Order gave me a better offer", "I'm holding out for Attorney General" or "My wife wouldn't let me do it."
Aliens told Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to file the charges. They are really pisssed that Bush is considering using their technology, currently held in Area 51 in spite of a United Galaxy ruling denouncing the holding and use of alien technology by Earth. Bush was planning on using the technology to complete his war on terror prior to his leaving office on January 20th 2009
You haven't done anything to validate your assertion.
Possession of weapons, in and of itself, doesn't make anyone an agressor. The Police and Federal law enforcement have far more weapons than the American citizens. Possession of chem isn't illegal and is necessary for training and to develop countermeasures.
Almost every nation trains and supplies unsanctioned fighting forces.
"Most of the anti-American sentiment around the world can be traced to CIA operations attempting to influence foreign politics." There have been some interventions but your statement of causation is pure conjecture for which proof is impossible. Greed, jealousy and "fall guy" are also reasons for "resenting" America. Emotional immaturity on someone else's part does not create an obligation on the part of the U.S.
The selectable grenade launcher thing you mention has conceptual roots to the movie The Dogs of War and is shown in one of the Futureweapons episodes on TLC and The Military Channel. There was a similar weapon made in South Africa in the 1980s. It's a neat piece of gear but irrelevant to the position you're unsuccessfully trying to validate.
The U.S. is not subservient to the U.N.
You confuse soverignty with sanctuary and absolution of accountability.
Stating the U.S. "earned the animosity of the terrorists and insurgents we fight" shows either a dangerous lack of knowledge of history, a choice to ignore it, or collusion with the adversaries. Arab/Islamofascists have been attacking the West for more than 40 years. Violent lunacy on their part is not caused by the U.S.
The U.S. has had very, very few failures in battles. There is no better equipped, trained or disciplined military than that of the U.S. currently.
The world respects strength and resolve, not self-paralyzing navel gazing. Even so, it's great that destructive people resent the U.S. Those types of people resent all achievers. Respect manifested as security for the U.S. is far more important than the capricious whims of despots.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge. It has nothing to do with patriotism.
Well, sort of. In my opinion, the War Powers Resolution sets the bar too low. It allows for Congressional "authorization", which could be something as small as a nonbinding resolution. I don't think that's a strong enough requirement. Congress should have to formally declare war in order for US troops to be deployed.
Now, for cases like Osama bin Laden, where war cannot be declared, that's what Bills of Attainder are for.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Heh. In that case, forget 90 days; 90 seconds ought to suffice.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Legally speaking, he's eligible for impeachment. Doing so would be a horrendous mistake though. At this point, there's less than a year, his approval rating is roughly the lowest ever, the other party has enough seats to block him from doing anything. Just let him hold office until the next President comes in.
I think you are deeply, mistaken.
A very similar argument was given by a man named Gerald Ford once upon a time. Your common argument of political expediency at the expense of justice, presidential accountability, and the rule of law led him to pardon Nixon.
So the next time Nixon's minions got into office with Reagan, they knew that they could get away with anything. Now it takes audacity to use the CIA to sell cocaine to buy weapons for terrorists in direct violation of congressional orders, but why not if nobody's going to be held accountable? Reagan sure wasn't a "Buck stops here" kind of guy.
Sure Clinton pulled some shit but he's a n00b compared to these guys.
Now we have the same damn thing happening all over again and you're saying let it go no big, $THE_OTHER_PARTY will come and magically fix it. They'd never misuse that power once granted.
We can't keep repeating Ford's Folly.
"If anything, the punishment for breaking a law should be more severe the higher up in the government you are."
:P
That wouldn't be equal protection, though. Accountability should be higher as responsibility increase, true.
"I was paraphrasing Richard Nixon, Who we all know was not a crook."
Yeah, Crooks steal things. Nixon's guys were planting documents in the Democrat offices in the Watergate building.
What in this world is actually important and exigent enough - that a lawmaker can effectively address - that can not wait 90 days?
Congress has no actual power but to allocate funds and approve laws (end even that's somewhat tenuous). These laws then get enforced by federal agencies: the military, law enforcement, regulatory, and so on and so forth.
Name me one instance (and explanation) where Congress passing a law which hasn't fermented for 90 days would actually be fundamentally useful. Hurricane Katrina couldn't have been averted or saved by lawmakers - there were no limitations at that point, and nothing they could've done could've resulted in quick, effective resource allocation.
No, for quick responses, you need a standing and ready structure to deal with problems. This is why countries have professional militaries, lawmakers, and regulators: forming anything effective in short order is beyond human coordination abilities.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
That's one of the most dumbass assinine things I've just about ever heard. That's like demanding that Bill Gates reads me the whole corporate charter of M$ and entire budget for every department EVERY time I buy a copy of Windows or even if I used hotmail (shudder).
Society in both the public and private sector is WAY too complex now to function at all if we had to engage in such Tom Foolery. What's more I'm quite certain you know that so stop asking the public sector to do something you'd never ask the private sector to do. It just makes you free market true believers look like the unreasoning fanactics you turn out to be.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I found this which is interesting: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=762144
There are many ways classification works. Without actually seeing the document mentioned at the end of that discussion, it would be very difficult to ascertain if the information was classified or not. Why do I say this? Because each piece of information would have its own classification. The overall classification of the paragraph might be Secret but that doesn't mean every compoent was Secret. Some documents have markings to designate the classification of each line or text and are formatted to separate classification by lines.
There's also the reality that open revelation of the documentation would reveal information which is still classified. Think of the redacted documents where only bits and snips are visible because the other portions are still classified, even down to components of lines. Again, the actual document cited would need to be viewed in its entirety. Actually, the entire set of evidence and testimony would need to be reviewed. The link mentions a judge's opinion but does not provide the actual statement nor is there any mention of vetting of that opinion. Judges can be wrong or act capricously. Maybe the judge only saw portions of the pertinent information.
There are also different levels of "undercover" status which is why I mentioned the laws/statutes that were created after Agee was publishign lists of agents. They are very, very, very narrowly defined. Valerie didn't meet those criteria, all of which must be met.
From a legal standpoint, the sworn testimony and evidence in the Congressional investiagtion trumps any statements made to or by the press. Maybe Valerie lied. Maybe she said what she thought was the truth but was incorrect. At some point, it should have been clear to her that the classification of her name and such no longer existed. The question then becomes one of at which point she was insubordinate to the Chief Executive.
Hmmm...I wonder what practices are followed regarding unintentional release of classified material by the President's staff. It's bound to happen. (Don't get all anti-W, I'm talking about the practicalities of the office.)
Having said that, the whole thing is a dead end because if the President decided to release that information, as is his Prerogative, that information would no longer have been classified, concurrent with his action. Whether she knew it or not is irrelelvant.
Not true, and honestly there were quite a few presidents that yes, should have been impeached at one time or another. I really think Andrew Jackson should have been impeached for moving the indians despite a supreme court order telling him it was unconstitutional. Mind you I also think Andrew Jackson would have, with his popularity, promptly slaughtered every one in congress and declared himself the democratic king of America. Don't get me wrong, fantastic president for history and he knew how to keep his country in order, but really some horrible decisions. The real problem isn't that many past presidents would have been impeached by this persons guidelines, rather, that future presidents will not be held accountable because of your logic.
He started a War. Despite what FredThompson says, that the war was never over and it was a technicality, if you ask the average American when the war started, they'd say 2001,3, or 4 (whichever year the remembered having something to do with 9/11 Afghanistan or Iraq). You don't make the case for going to war when you are already in a war. Very few presidents have gone out of their way to put American soldiers in harms way when the real threat to the US or our allies was difficult to ascertain at best, and those that have are villified in history despite whatever greatness they might have done otherwise. Lincoln did not start the civil war, hell he didn't even promise to free slaves and I would argue that during a CIVIL war domestic spying is nearly unavoidable. I think you'd be hard fucking pressed to claim the terrorist threat was significantly lessened by the domestic spying, Iraq war,reckless spending, etc. Bush is the modern day Grant sans the whiskey bottle.
Seems that that you're too concerned with the mote in your democratic cousins eye when you should be more concerned with the log cabins in the presidents.
And do you know how costly it would be for people who depend on oil for their work machines if everyone who is using oil to commute to work in an obscenely large air conditioned monstrosity was forced to bike their ass to a bus or train? Not a whole hell of a lot.
Mind you I'm in Japan and I agree, price per gallon is nothing to rant about. What people in the US are ranting about is first, filling up for close to a hundred dollars because they have huge inefficient air conditioning suites on wheels, and second they live at least 15-20 minutes by drive from work. None of that is in an orderly fashion, the roads were never meant for the current level of traffic in most cases and so trying to build additional public transport or adding buses is a futile effort in the short run, and people do not wish to hear that it will be years or decades before their transportation woes are ammended.
Future presidents will do the same thing, pragmatic manipulation of the law and let time be their judge. Transgressions get discovered after the fact, and it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, especially if the results are "positive."
The point is there is nothing new to see here.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
What was the difference between "Operation Just Cause" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" other than how many resources are needed? Heck, just compare it to the Banana Wars the Marines even use the same book, all that's changed is that instead of fruit the US fights for oil.
Economic & military domination to preserve an expansionary agenda has been the standard for 200 years.
And to not just pick on the US, but European powers are also involved in such warfare - France and Britain still have military conflicts with former colonies, not to mention the times when the countries organize under the banner of NATO or the UN to participate in conflicts.
Spying is one thing, shutting down the media and throwing citizens of the north in jail without cause is another. Lincoln is the template Bush was fashioned after - a president who treats the Constitution as a set of suggestions. If the south had won Lincoln would have not been seen as the Great Emancipator, he would be the president that ignored the Constitution and destroyed the Union.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Fine rhetoric from an anonymous coward. Step out from behind your cloak of anonymity to say that.
I'm the one in this conversation that is proud enough of my political beliefs to wear them "on my sleeve" or at least my login ID here.
I've gone by that name here since I found this place shortly after Dubya took office, and wore it proudly right through Dubya's 93% approval ratings.
Go away and troll someone who your nonsense might get a rise from.
Scott McClellan's book says not only did the Bush Administration lie about the intel on Iraq about WoMD (including African uranium), it says the Bush Administration KNEW they were lying about the intel on Iraq MoMD.
OK.
From the Washington Post:
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.
Even more damning,
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson.
And it only gets better:
Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
Next, Robert Novak speaks out on Plame's "outing". Of note, he said:
I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."
And another article dispelling the myth. A quote:
How covert was Valerie Plame at the CIA? Her top-secret code name was "Valerie Plame."
And yet another, exposing this whole thing for the farce it really is.
Seriously, I can go on forever with this stuff. It's just not true.
Finally, none of your assertions are cross referenced.
Because of the HIGH-QUALITY(!!!!!!) content you've provided, I assure you that the following has been cross-referenced and super-duper-double checked for it's validity.
It is well documented that Dick Cheney is Satan.
It is common knowledge that george w bush is actually mentally retarded. The movie "Forrest Gump" is actually a memoir of his life (they had to change the names for legal reasons, you see).
It is well documented that the "bush administration's" 'justice' department was mainly peopled by illegal immigrants, including John Ashcroft.
Everyone knows that we're actually dropping smarts bombs and nougat cluster ordinance on women and children in Iraq. People aren't actually dying there -- they're being transferred to a park of Fleetwood trailers in Oklahoma (they really don't care about the formaldehyde anyway).
Conspiracy theories are for stooped jerks. We've got fakts to back up our assertions!!!!
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
The point I was making was merely that history does NOT have a liberal bias. In fact it's biased very much against certain types of freedom.
... like the venezuelans did, then you will find yourself with a monarchy pointing guns at you.
Meaning that if you want a liberal society, it'll be hard work, and continuously remain hard work.
I don't understand how people like you think. It must be evident, for even kids, that Obama is very anti-freedom. He's stated on numerous occasions that he's against freedom of speech. He wants to increase taxes, even if it means less money for the government, for "fairness". He wants to sue people based on their opinion.
If you give in to demagogues, socialist or
Quick, someone buy bush a hooker.
We already did get stuck with the bill for his gay hooker. Republicans like to whine about other people's morals. They don't actually have any of their own.
Jeff Gannon.
As much as I personally disagree with blanket authority given to the AG (especially when said AG is appointed by the President), it is not my place to determine the constitutionality of it all.
No, it's your place to swing from the gallows for committing treason. "I'm too stupid to do anything but follow orders", was invalidated as an argument at Nuremberg.
I am in favor of the process except that it will take more than 7 mos and the guy is out of the office already. Alot of money and time would be wasted. We could use that time to focus on moving toward solutions to the mountain of problem that this Republican Administration has caused, namely House, Senate, Executive and dare I say Judicial. What I would like to see instead is the nullification of post office benefits. No Secret Service protection, no book deals, no speech engagements. Any money raised from such should go toward retifying the deficit, Veteran benefit, no child left behind, etc... What you have read is but a dream, my dream. Anyone knows anybody who can make this humble dream a reality?
The problem is that Democrats are not asking us how we feel about this. They are on the assumption that we want to simply focus on the election. But, my question is what if Obama doesn't win? Will McCain reverse the constitutional damage or take advantage of the "new rules". I think the latter. And I'm not convinced without a doubt that we will win, so our right to Impeach is the only way to get rid of these atrocious new presidential rights that completely disregard the Constitution. Or we are going to see this all over again with McCain and Iran 2009. And where is MoveOn.org in all of this...baking cookies? WTF? Call these people today and say you want to hold the president accountable for using our tax dollars to hire ex-generals to help build the case for war, wiretapping Americans, creating secret prisons, torture and most of all not upholding his sacred oath to protect the constitution. And you know what else, he LIED about it. It is our right to Impeach, so do it! Pelosi is wrong, this is not about revenge. This is about doing the right thing. Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-0100 Majority Leader: Rep. Steny Hoyer 202.225.3130 DNC Chairman:Howard Dean:202-863-8000 Judicial Committee Chairman: John Conyers: (202) 225-5126 And your local representative: http://www.house.gov/
We should be able not only to vote people in but also voting them out. If a candidate has 1000 votes for, but 1 million votes against, the right thing to do is to kick him out. That would have been the case with GWB in the last election.
The current system does not work well, as it allows manipulation... we the citizens are disposable, and the intention of the ones in power is totally misaligned with the expectation of common people.
Political parties' groupthink does not help either.
Some people argue that Bush has violated civil rights, some argue otherwise.
Some people think the Holocaust didn't happen and that the Sun revolves around the Earth. We have a word for such people: morons. But the Bush Administration has gone way beyond that because they've admitted to spying on Americans without warrants, holding suspects with no trials, torture, the whole nine yards. There's no way you can read the Constitution and not see that these are blatant violations of said Constitution, unless you are a tool.
My point (and I was keeping it non-partisan) was that Kucinich is perceived as a nutjob, and unless he has someone with him who isn't perceived as a nutjob, it's not going anywhere.
And Ron Parsons thinks the United States was founded to oppose Islam. Doesn't make either one a reasonable position.
You can get bills that have been presented from thomas.loc.gov
or http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=H.RES.1258&congress=110&size=full
In America's present situation, I can't think of an easier way to spread the word about bills than on the net. One would think that the MEDIA should do us a favor and report what is going on. That is what they are supposed to do.
But all joking aside, in politics, you won't be handed what you want. You have to work for it. If Americans want their civil rights or their income taxes back, they will have to use their voting power while they still have it.
Thank you for the kind reminder to use "were" in stead of "where". That being said, I don't think anything was wrong with the spelling itself.
News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
Impeachment is a disruption, but that's the point. There's never a good time for impeachment, which is why it is so grave. Personally, I believe it would help us join the civilized world, because it would attest to our belief in our nation being one of laws. I mean, preemption is a terrible concept, a war-mongerer's concept. So a disruption would be most welcome, especially considering 35 articles (each of which are pretty weighty in their own right) is only the tip of the iceberg. Kucinich vows to come back with even more articles the longer HJC stalls. Plus, I hate to think that the man stood for four hours in an empty House floor droning on and on to an irritated Speaker about such important charges and to have nothing come of it when the evidence behind the charges are so overwhelming. He's doing what he's supposed to be doing; she isn't. (The fact that they are both Democrats only highlights the absurdity of political faction affiliations in the face of real issues.) So I wrote my representatives and let them have my two cents on the matter. I'm sure I'm not the only one who did, and I hope others who haven't yet, do so. Cynicism, apathy and cheap skepticism among us ordinary citizens is exactly what those who abuse their power want, so we should get involved in the war against all this executive overreaching.