I still don’t think Bush is going to escape impeachment like I called for in December. My conservative readers scorn impeachment because their boy can do no wrong. I still don’t understand how Republicans support a man who is more liberal than Bill Clinton, but hey, I guess this will piss them off. That’s fine.
The California State Legislature has moved to pass legislation calling for the impeachment of Bush and Dick Cheney. The lawmaker introducing the measure is Paul Koretz of L.A.
The resolution, in the words of Koretz’s press release, “bases the call for impeachment upon the Bush Administration intentionally misleading the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify an unnecessary war that has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives and casualties; exceeding constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq; exceeding constitutional authority by Federalizing the National Guard; conspiring to torture prisoners in violation of the ‘Federal Torture Act’ and indicating intent to continue such actions; spying on American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Agency Surveillance Act; leaking and covering up the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, and holding American citizens without charge or trial.”
I think a lot of this is political posturing and I don’t agree with alot of what is said. My sole reason for calling for impeachment is based on NSA eavesdropping and civil rights. Read the article I linked to and the comments that followed.
Source: CensureBush.org
{ 116 comments }
A. J. 04.27.06 at 2:42 pm
It’s so ridiculous…Congress will not do anything as long as it remains in Republican hands. I’m glad some states are moving to raise the issue. Republicans went after Bill Clinton and Hillary from the time he stepped foot in office and called them everything from theives, rapist, and even murderers. What did they settle on and spend millions investigating? A blow job…Chanting “rule of law”. Funny they turn a blind eye when the President walks all over the Constitution and threatens civil liberties, plus, there are too many reports that support he intentionally misled us on Iraq.
A. J. 04.27.06 at 2:42 pm
It’s so ridiculous…Congress will not do anything as long as it remains in Republican hands. I’m glad some states are moving to raise the issue. Republicans went after Bill Clinton and Hillary from the time he stepped foot in office and called them everything from theives, rapist, and even murderers. What did they settle on and spend millions investigating? A blow job…Chanting “rule of law”. Funny they turn a blind eye when the President walks all over the Constitution and threatens civil liberties, plus, there are too many reports that support he intentionally misled us on Iraq.
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 2:44 pm
But Congress might not be controlled by Republicans come January 20th, 2007.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 2:44 pm
But Congress might not be controlled by Republicans come January 20th, 2007.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 2:51 pm
wait a second. impeach him? Why? Oh, because you don’t like him. Not liking a president isn’t enough to impeach him.
Spying on America? If that’s what you want to call it go right ahead, and if you want to get rid of it, go right ahead, and if you want to start digging that bomb shelter, I suggest you do that ASAP, because the terrorists are going to stop at nothing to attack this country. complete privacy, which was lost years ago, in case you didn’t notice, has a heavy price, including, in this case, loss of security
and just what is going to be accomplished by impeaching Bush? It would be an embarassment to the country and a victory for the french and the arabs, and nothing more
Jesse 04.27.06 at 2:51 pm
wait a second. impeach him? Why? Oh, because you don’t like him. Not liking a president isn’t enough to impeach him.
Spying on America? If that’s what you want to call it go right ahead, and if you want to get rid of it, go right ahead, and if you want to start digging that bomb shelter, I suggest you do that ASAP, because the terrorists are going to stop at nothing to attack this country. complete privacy, which was lost years ago, in case you didn’t notice, has a heavy price, including, in this case, loss of security
and just what is going to be accomplished by impeaching Bush? It would be an embarassment to the country and a victory for the french and the arabs, and nothing more
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 2:57 pm
Oh this is so loaded I have no idea where to start.
You didn’t read my article then did you? It has nothing to do with not liking him. I think he’s a fairly likable guy. It has to do with the rule of law, the same way the Clinton impeachment was about lying under oath (not a blowjob like A.J likes to think). There is no legality to the NSA eavesdropping without a warrant. The argument has already been made. Read it.
If the right to privacy can be used to justify abortion rights, it certainly can be expected as a basic tenant of American liberty. If you’re so willing to give it up, I suggest you go turn yourself in to the FBI so they can document your life, take fingerprint and DNA samples of you and place a tracking device on your car. I, for one, am not willing to simply give up civil liberties because some guy from texas and his gangster adviser say it’s necessary. If it’s necessary, run it through your own Republican Congress and have the Constitution amended to remove the 4th amendment. Until then, yes, I expect privacy.
Since when has this been a popularity contest in the world. This is a nation of laws and three branches of government, not one that can do whatever he wants. Give me a break.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 2:57 pm
Oh this is so loaded I have no idea where to start.
You didn’t read my article then did you? It has nothing to do with not liking him. I think he’s a fairly likable guy. It has to do with the rule of law, the same way the Clinton impeachment was about lying under oath (not a blowjob like A.J likes to think). There is no legality to the NSA eavesdropping without a warrant. The argument has already been made. Read it.
If the right to privacy can be used to justify abortion rights, it certainly can be expected as a basic tenant of American liberty. If you’re so willing to give it up, I suggest you go turn yourself in to the FBI so they can document your life, take fingerprint and DNA samples of you and place a tracking device on your car. I, for one, am not willing to simply give up civil liberties because some guy from texas and his gangster adviser say it’s necessary. If it’s necessary, run it through your own Republican Congress and have the Constitution amended to remove the 4th amendment. Until then, yes, I expect privacy.
Since when has this been a popularity contest in the world. This is a nation of laws and three branches of government, not one that can do whatever he wants. Give me a break.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 3:37 pm
Oh I read your article. So you like Bush, fair enough. That wasn’t really the main argument for either of us, but this:
The issue, though, is that we both have a completely different view on this. I don’t think he broke the law. It was a little sketchy, but I don’t think he did anything illegal. You’re coming from the opposite direction, so we’re just going to end up going in circles.
I don’t know if you’re being serious or not, but the idea that allowing abortion is giving the mother privacy is one of the lamest excuses ever to circumventing constitutional law
I’m not saying I enjoy loss of privacy, merely that I’m not “naive” (if you will) enough to think I ever had it.
That still doesn’t answer what you expect impeachment to accomplish. It will embarass the country, be a victory for the enemies, and be a huge battle won for the likes of John F’ing Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Michael Moore.
I don’t like any of those three
Jesse 04.27.06 at 3:37 pm
Oh I read your article. So you like Bush, fair enough. That wasn’t really the main argument for either of us, but this:
The issue, though, is that we both have a completely different view on this. I don’t think he broke the law. It was a little sketchy, but I don’t think he did anything illegal. You’re coming from the opposite direction, so we’re just going to end up going in circles.
I don’t know if you’re being serious or not, but the idea that allowing abortion is giving the mother privacy is one of the lamest excuses ever to circumventing constitutional law
I’m not saying I enjoy loss of privacy, merely that I’m not “naive” (if you will) enough to think I ever had it.
That still doesn’t answer what you expect impeachment to accomplish. It will embarass the country, be a victory for the enemies, and be a huge battle won for the likes of John F’ing Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Michael Moore.
I don’t like any of those three
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 3:46 pm
1. I don’t care if it embarasses the country. What does that have to do with enforcing law and the integrity of the Office of President?
2. How is it a victory for enemies? I thought the real war was a battle over ideals. Was not aware it was a battle over George Bush. In that case, let’s hold steady because the 2008 election will mean the end of terrorism because George Bush will be out of office. Please.
3. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy. Who cares? It’s not political. It’s legal.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 3:46 pm
1. I don’t care if it embarasses the country. What does that have to do with enforcing law and the integrity of the Office of President?
2. How is it a victory for enemies? I thought the real war was a battle over ideals. Was not aware it was a battle over George Bush. In that case, let’s hold steady because the 2008 election will mean the end of terrorism because George Bush will be out of office. Please.
3. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy. Who cares? It’s not political. It’s legal.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 3:57 pm
I don’t think a law has been broken, and I don’t think there is any integrity missing from the current oval office.
Like it or not, anything involving this presidency and this regime is going to be all about bush. at the moment he is the face of the nation. having congress impeach him is a victory for those all over the world who hate him and hate what he’s done
For being a legal issue it’s remarkably partisan
Jesse 04.27.06 at 3:57 pm
I don’t think a law has been broken, and I don’t think there is any integrity missing from the current oval office.
Like it or not, anything involving this presidency and this regime is going to be all about bush. at the moment he is the face of the nation. having congress impeach him is a victory for those all over the world who hate him and hate what he’s done
For being a legal issue it’s remarkably partisan
Michelle 04.27.06 at 3:59 pm
“It was a little sketchy”? He didn’t do anything illegal? That’s the best one can do to defend what appears to be at best a ruined presidency, and at worst a criminal one?
All of a sudden, privacy means a loss of security, and we should all give up our privacy for little if any security? Where does this logic come from? Didn’t Ben Franklin address this already?
Fearmongering!
Name one single shred of evidence that supports the idea that being spied upon by the NSA directly prevents terrorist attacks. How about basic old ordinary police and intelligence work! You know, the boring kind that doesn’t result in a ruined morale, wrecked legal code, and the sort of bullcrap that went on in all those “other” countries like the Soviet Union and East Germany. They had the absolute best of intentions with keeping tabs on their citizens. You see how that turned out, don’t you?
This crap has got to stop - the “post 9/11 terrorist addiction” robs taxpayers of both money and freedom and offers a fig leaf of a shadow of a half-assed promise of “security” and “safety”.
It’s insulting to see the same right-wingers who decried and deplored relatively mild gun laws as evil pre-emptive desecrations of the sacred right to keep and bear arms suddenly fall in love with the idea of pre-emptive laws concerning communications and terrorism and then up the ante by many order of magnitude with a pre-emptive WAR!
What hypocritical garbage. Can it! Grow some nads and be a Republican of merit, not a Republican of convenience!
There, I’ve said my piece. And now I need to count to three. Or ten! Twice!
Michelle 04.27.06 at 3:59 pm
“It was a little sketchy”? He didn’t do anything illegal? That’s the best one can do to defend what appears to be at best a ruined presidency, and at worst a criminal one?
All of a sudden, privacy means a loss of security, and we should all give up our privacy for little if any security? Where does this logic come from? Didn’t Ben Franklin address this already?
Fearmongering!
Name one single shred of evidence that supports the idea that being spied upon by the NSA directly prevents terrorist attacks. How about basic old ordinary police and intelligence work! You know, the boring kind that doesn’t result in a ruined morale, wrecked legal code, and the sort of bullcrap that went on in all those “other” countries like the Soviet Union and East Germany. They had the absolute best of intentions with keeping tabs on their citizens. You see how that turned out, don’t you?
This crap has got to stop - the “post 9/11 terrorist addiction” robs taxpayers of both money and freedom and offers a fig leaf of a shadow of a half-assed promise of “security” and “safety”.
It’s insulting to see the same right-wingers who decried and deplored relatively mild gun laws as evil pre-emptive desecrations of the sacred right to keep and bear arms suddenly fall in love with the idea of pre-emptive laws concerning communications and terrorism and then up the ante by many order of magnitude with a pre-emptive WAR!
What hypocritical garbage. Can it! Grow some nads and be a Republican of merit, not a Republican of convenience!
There, I’ve said my piece. And now I need to count to three. Or ten! Twice!
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 4:02 pm
1. Well then that’s the premise that we can’t agree on. If there’s no law broken then it would be about embarassment. If there is a broken law, as I believe there is, then it’s all about legality and integrity isn’t it?
2. Okay, so it’s a victory for those who hate him. It’s a victory for a nation built on justice as well.
3. Yes it is partisan, as was Clinton’s impeachment. NAturally. I don’t think anything can be done in Washington that isn’t partisan these days. AND it’s still a legal issue. Wow… 2 for the price of one.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 4:02 pm
1. Well then that’s the premise that we can’t agree on. If there’s no law broken then it would be about embarassment. If there is a broken law, as I believe there is, then it’s all about legality and integrity isn’t it?
2. Okay, so it’s a victory for those who hate him. It’s a victory for a nation built on justice as well.
3. Yes it is partisan, as was Clinton’s impeachment. NAturally. I don’t think anything can be done in Washington that isn’t partisan these days. AND it’s still a legal issue. Wow… 2 for the price of one.
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 4:05 pm
Hey, hey… HEY! ;-) I happen to be one of thos pro-gun conservatives and I obviously haven’t fallen in love with this stuff.
Damn… preach it.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 4:05 pm
Hey, hey… HEY! ;-) I happen to be one of thos pro-gun conservatives and I obviously haven’t fallen in love with this stuff.
Damn… preach it.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:24 pm
Unless I forgot something, I don’t think I ever said that I like eavesdropping. I’m not completely sure I agree with the decision to do it, and I’m not completely sure I’m not a little bit upset it happened
BUT
I think the legality is far too grey to say Bush is a criminal
and
Bush hardly deserves to be impeached for this, which was what the original argument was.
It’s insulting to see the same right-wingers who decried and deplored relatively mild gun laws as evil pre-emptive desecrations of the sacred right to keep and bear arms suddenly fall in love with the idea of pre-emptive laws concerning communications and terrorism and then up the ante by many order of magnitude with a pre-emptive WAR!
I don’t think I follow your logic here. Being anti gun laws doesn’t really have a ton to do with Bush getting impeached over this
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:24 pm
Unless I forgot something, I don’t think I ever said that I like eavesdropping. I’m not completely sure I agree with the decision to do it, and I’m not completely sure I’m not a little bit upset it happened
BUT
I think the legality is far too grey to say Bush is a criminal
and
Bush hardly deserves to be impeached for this, which was what the original argument was.
It’s insulting to see the same right-wingers who decried and deplored relatively mild gun laws as evil pre-emptive desecrations of the sacred right to keep and bear arms suddenly fall in love with the idea of pre-emptive laws concerning communications and terrorism and then up the ante by many order of magnitude with a pre-emptive WAR!
I don’t think I follow your logic here. Being anti gun laws doesn’t really have a ton to do with Bush getting impeached over this
Facebook User 04.27.06 at 4:28 pm
“If you don’t let me do whatever I want, the terrorists are gonna getcha…” That’s a terroristic threat, and it’s exactly the justification used by the Bush administration.
Aaron, you brought up abortion rights, and that’s a good point: abortion ends as many live daily as terrorists did on 9/11. Sounds like “penny wise, pound foolish” to me.
Travis Seitler 04.27.06 at 4:28 pm
“If you don’t let me do whatever I want, the terrorists are gonna getcha…” That’s a terroristic threat, and it’s exactly the justification used by the Bush administration.
Aaron, you brought up abortion rights, and that’s a good point: abortion ends as many live daily as terrorists did on 9/11. Sounds like “penny wise, pound foolish” to me.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:31 pm
Forgot about this:
I still don’t understand how Republicans support a man who is more liberal than Bill Clinton, but hey, I guess this will piss them off.
I…I don’t quite know where to begin on this one, so I’ll take the bait- how is Bush more liberal than clinton?
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:31 pm
Forgot about this:
I still don’t understand how Republicans support a man who is more liberal than Bill Clinton, but hey, I guess this will piss them off.
I…I don’t quite know where to begin on this one, so I’ll take the bait- how is Bush more liberal than clinton?
Facebook User 04.27.06 at 4:39 pm
::raises hand::
Ooh, ooh! I’ve got one!
No Child Left Behind.
Travis Seitler 04.27.06 at 4:39 pm
::raises hand::
Ooh, ooh! I’ve got one!
No Child Left Behind.
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 4:41 pm
Well the easy answer is that Clinton actually vetoed spending bills. Bush has yet to veto a spending bill in 6 years.
Also, Clinton was guilty of doing nothing economically, which is exactly how we ended up in a 90s boom. Low government interfereance, high private sector performance.
Also, Clinton never increased the size of government as Bush has…. can anyone say Department of Homeland Security?
Added: +1 on NCLB
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 4:41 pm
Well the easy answer is that Clinton actually vetoed spending bills. Bush has yet to veto a spending bill in 6 years.
Also, Clinton was guilty of doing nothing economically, which is exactly how we ended up in a 90s boom. Low government interfereance, high private sector performance.
Also, Clinton never increased the size of government as Bush has…. can anyone say Department of Homeland Security?
Added: +1 on NCLB
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:46 pm
I’ll admit I hate big govt. spending, but to me this is what a democrat is:
*pro abortion
*pro gay rights/marriage
*anti death penalty
*pro big spending/govt.
*pro socialism
*pro gun control
*pro reverse discrimination
*pro environment crap
and Bush is one out of eight
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:46 pm
I’ll admit I hate big govt. spending, but to me this is what a democrat is:
*pro abortion
*pro gay rights/marriage
*anti death penalty
*pro big spending/govt.
*pro socialism
*pro gun control
*pro reverse discrimination
*pro environment crap
and Bush is one out of eight
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 4:47 pm
That’s a liberal not a democrat. Democrat is party affiliation. Liberal is worldview.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 4:47 pm
That’s a liberal not a democrat. Democrat is party affiliation. Liberal is worldview.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:48 pm
be technical if you want, the two are nearly identical
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:48 pm
be technical if you want, the two are nearly identical
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 4:49 pm
By the way, you’re going to have to do better than that, Jesse.
By the way, I do hope you understand that neoconservatism is not conservatism. You do know that right?
Aaron 04.27.06 at 4:49 pm
By the way, you’re going to have to do better than that, Jesse.
By the way, I do hope you understand that neoconservatism is not conservatism. You do know that right?
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 4:50 pm
Make sure you explain that to Zell Miller or Rudy Giuliani… ;-)
Aaron 04.27.06 at 4:50 pm
Make sure you explain that to Zell Miller or Rudy Giuliani… ;-)
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:51 pm
do better than what? arguing my case? It’s not like I expect to convince you anyways, and you’re certainly not going to convince me
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:51 pm
do better than what? arguing my case? It’s not like I expect to convince you anyways, and you’re certainly not going to convince me
A. J. 04.27.06 at 4:52 pm
What I don’t understand is these people who think they are so patriotic think we shouldn’t even INVESTIGATE what Bush and his administration has been doing. How many millions were spent INVESTIGATING Clinton over an affair!? Now we have a President who is trampling the Consitution, eliminating civil liberties, making up the law as he goes along, and misled us into going to war in Iraq using 9/11 as a backdrop!
….And all these people who believe they are so patriotic are the first ones to give up their civil rights out of fear! During WWII the entire world was at stake as millions were dying and what did a real leader say?? “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” - FDR… Here’s an older one - “They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty” - Ben Franklin…
Taht’s patriotism…Not blind support for George W. Bush.
A. J. 04.27.06 at 4:52 pm
What I don’t understand is these people who think they are so patriotic think we shouldn’t even INVESTIGATE what Bush and his administration has been doing. How many millions were spent INVESTIGATING Clinton over an affair!? Now we have a President who is trampling the Consitution, eliminating civil liberties, making up the law as he goes along, and misled us into going to war in Iraq using 9/11 as a backdrop!
….And all these people who believe they are so patriotic are the first ones to give up their civil rights out of fear! During WWII the entire world was at stake as millions were dying and what did a real leader say?? “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” - FDR… Here’s an older one - “They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty” - Ben Franklin…
Taht’s patriotism…Not blind support for George W. Bush.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:56 pm
and your point is? I never said we should ignore it. I’m saying bush didn’t break the law/shouldn’t be impeached, and had a semi valid reason for doing what he did. you’re saying I’m too scared to care about my rights
as for iraq, that’s a completely different issue.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 4:56 pm
and your point is? I never said we should ignore it. I’m saying bush didn’t break the law/shouldn’t be impeached, and had a semi valid reason for doing what he did. you’re saying I’m too scared to care about my rights
as for iraq, that’s a completely different issue.
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 4:57 pm
Jesse: I presume you are privvy to data documenting the fact that Bush
is not guiltydid not commit a crime and therefore should not be investigated? If you have acceess to this information, I’m sure there are reportes dying to speak with you.Aaron 04.27.06 at 4:57 pm
Jesse: I presume you are privvy to data documenting the fact that Bush <del datetime=”2006-04-27T20:57:36+00:00″>is not guilty</del> did not commit a crime and therefore should not be investigated? If you have acceess to this information, I’m sure there are reportes dying to speak with you.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 5:00 pm
I’ll flip the question- explain why bush did break the law
Jesse 04.27.06 at 5:00 pm
I’ll flip the question- explain why bush did break the law
A. J. 04.27.06 at 5:10 pm
He went around the secret FISA court and authorized warrentless wiretapping without their approval…They can wiretap, and then get retroactive approval, and they didn’t even do that. So, who knows who they were spying on and for what reason. Ignoring FISA is a breach of the law, is it not? He’s using “wartime” to justify doing anything he wants.
When you regurgitate all that stuff about giving up privacy because we are at risk of being attacked by terrorists is opening a door that shouldn’t be opened.
A. J. 04.27.06 at 5:10 pm
He went around the secret FISA court and authorized warrentless wiretapping without their approval…They can wiretap, and then get retroactive approval, and they didn’t even do that. So, who knows who they were spying on and for what reason. Ignoring FISA is a breach of the law, is it not? He’s using “wartime” to justify doing anything he wants.
When you regurgitate all that stuff about giving up privacy because we are at risk of being attacked by terrorists is opening a door that shouldn’t be opened.
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 5:13 pm
Obviously, you did not read everything in that article. Ask Duncan how much I like repeating myself. ;-)
Aaron 04.27.06 at 5:13 pm
Obviously, you did not read everything in that article. Ask Duncan how much I like repeating myself. ;-)
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 5:15 pm
THEN, he admitted it. :-)
It’s an admission of guilt and impeachment isn’t even necessary. Remove ‘im from office! :-)
Okay, so maybe we couldn’t be that lucky.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 5:15 pm
THEN, he admitted it. :-)
It’s an admission of guilt and impeachment isn’t even necessary. Remove ‘im from office! :-)
Okay, so maybe we couldn’t be that lucky.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 5:16 pm
I read it, and I didn’t find it a satisfactory explanation.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 5:16 pm
I read it, and I didn’t find it a satisfactory explanation.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 5:17 pm
you obviously want him out. who would you like instead? Kerry? Hillary?
Jesse 04.27.06 at 5:17 pm
you obviously want him out. who would you like instead? Kerry? Hillary?
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 5:17 pm
Oh well then. If you can’t see warrentless wiretaps as illegal, I really don’t understand where you’re coming from.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 5:17 pm
Oh well then. If you can’t see warrentless wiretaps as illegal, I really don’t understand where you’re coming from.
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 5:19 pm
Jesse: You really think this is about the man? This is not about the man, this is about the Office. Don’t forget I voted for Bush in 2000 and endorsed him (though did not vote for him) in 2004. He broke the law.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 5:19 pm
Jesse: You really think this is about the man? This is not about the man, this is about the Office. Don’t forget I voted for Bush in 2000 and endorsed him (though did not vote for him) in 2004. He broke the law.
Jesse 04.27.06 at 5:24 pm
I’m not backing up wiretapping, I’m not looking the other way on anything, I’m not giving up my personal rights, all I’m doing is saying Bush doesn’t deserve either impeachment or getting thrown out of office.
The one man who I think is behind a lot more of this than people think and who very well might have broken countless laws is Donald Rumsfeld
Jesse 04.27.06 at 5:24 pm
I’m not backing up wiretapping, I’m not looking the other way on anything, I’m not giving up my personal rights, all I’m doing is saying Bush doesn’t deserve either impeachment or getting thrown out of office.
The one man who I think is behind a lot more of this than people think and who very well might have broken countless laws is Donald Rumsfeld
Aaron Brazell 04.27.06 at 5:33 pm
Jesse: You make no sense at all. On one hand you’re saying you’re not giving up personal rights, but yet its okay for NSA to wiretap Americans illegally without any kind of oversight?
On the one hand you say you’re not backing up wiretap, but it’s been done so it’s okay?
On the one hand Bush doesn’t deserve to be impeached…blah, blah, blah, but Donald Rumsfeld is behind a lot? Wasn’t it Truman who said the buck stops here?
If Bush didn’t authorize the wiretaps then he is still responsible for his direct reports. But Bush did at the very least know about them because he admitted as much. Doesn’t that make him even more culpable?
Listen to yourself for a minute and ask yourself why you are taking the position you’re taking. It’s so all over the map that you might as well be John Kerry!
You have yet to present a reasonable argument for Bush not being impeached (or at minimum investigated). There’s a rule of thumb in the intelligence business (of which I am familiar given my job) that generally classified infomration taken in part is not usually sensitive but when taken as a whole becomes dangerous in the wrong hands. When you look at one incident of the President’s administration you might say it’s harmless by itself or it’s a mistake. But when you combine everything into a solid timeline and portfolio of failures and shortcoming, one starts to wonder if this man is fit for office.
Aaron 04.27.06 at 5:33 pm
Jesse: You make no sense at all. On one hand you’re saying you’re not giving up personal rights, but yet its okay for NSA to wiretap Americans illegally without any kind of oversight?
On the one hand you say you’re not backing up wiretap, but it’s been done so it’s okay?
On the one hand Bush doesn’t deserve to be impeached…blah, blah, blah, but Donald Rumsfeld is behind a lot? Wasn’t it Truman who said the buck stops here?
If Bush didn’t authorize the wiretaps then he is still responsible for his direct reports. But Bush did at the very least know about them because he admitted as much. Doesn’t that make him even more culpable?
Listen to yourself for a minute and ask yourself why you are taking the position you’re taking. It’s so all over the map that you might as well be John Kerry!
You have yet to present a reasonable argument for Bush not being impeached (or at minimum investigated). There’s a rule of thumb in the intelligence business (of which I am familiar given my job) that generally classified infomration taken in part is not usually sensitive but when taken as a whole becomes dangerous in the wrong hands. When you look at one incident of the President’s administration you might say it’s harmless by itself or it’s a mistake. But when you combine everything into a solid timeline and portfolio of failures and shortcoming, one starts to wonder if this man is fit for office.
MarkusQ 04.27.06 at 7:02 pm
1) The law (and the constitution, as it applies in this case) clearly state that domestic wiretaps require a warrant
2) Both Bush and his Attorney General have said that such wiretaps require a warrant
3) Bush has admitted ordering domestic wiretaps and specifically refusing to request a warrant, even though he has access to a special court dedicated to just that purpose, and can even wait and request the warrants three days after the fact if he wants to.
Liking or not liking Bush is not the issue. That’s the sort of argument you make in a feudal society, or a despotic one.
Agreeing or not agreeing with his goals is not the issue. That’s the kind of argument you make in an anarchy, or a bastion of corruption.
Here, we have laws. He broke them, and admitted it. End of story.
– MarkusQ
MarkusQ 04.27.06 at 7:02 pm
1) The law (and the constitution, as it applies in this case) clearly state that domestic wiretaps require a warrant
2) Both Bush and his Attorney General have said that such wiretaps require a warrant
3) Bush has admitted ordering domestic wiretaps and specifically refusing to request a warrant, even though he has access to a special court dedicated to just that purpose, and can even wait and request the warrants three days after the fact if he wants to.
Liking or not liking Bush is not the issue. That’s the sort of argument you make in a feudal society, or a despotic one.
Agreeing or not agreeing with his goals is not the issue. That’s the kind of argument you make in an anarchy, or a bastion of corruption.
Here, we have laws. He broke them, and admitted it. End of story.
– MarkusQ
Mike 04.28.06 at 9:33 pm
I’m jumping into this conversation a bit late, but the idea of impeaching the president for defending the American people and the very Civil Liberites you are arguing about makes me sick… What king of American’s are you? What the F… would you be willing to do to defend YOUR country? When it comes down to life or death I am willing to give up some of me “Civil Liberties”… It’s much better to have a country to live in than to have one destroyed because of little thinkers who are not willing to fight for what we have… Keep this BS up and the day will come when you won’t have the ability or right to spout your BS… Islamofasicism is coming and you can keep up the BS about who did what and who didnt, but they don’t care… They only want you and me and every other AMERICAN DEAD… WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS… GO ahead and put Hillary or Pilosi, or Reid or the ASSHOLE KENNEDY in control… Can you speak Arab?
Mike 04.28.06 at 9:33 pm
I’m jumping into this conversation a bit late, but the idea of impeaching the president for defending the American people and the very Civil Liberites you are arguing about makes me sick… What king of American’s are you? What the F… would you be willing to do to defend YOUR country? When it comes down to life or death I am willing to give up some of me “Civil Liberties”… It’s much better to have a country to live in than to have one destroyed because of little thinkers who are not willing to fight for what we have… Keep this BS up and the day will come when you won’t have the ability or right to spout your BS… Islamofasicism is coming and you can keep up the BS about who did what and who didnt, but they don’t care… They only want you and me and every other AMERICAN DEAD… WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS… GO ahead and put Hillary or Pilosi, or Reid or the ASSHOLE KENNEDY in control… Can you speak Arab?
Aaron 04.28.06 at 9:36 pm
See this is what is wrong with brainwashed Republicans. Because I question the integrity of a man my Americanism is questioned.
I have no time to have intelligent conversation with you, Mike.
Aaron 04.28.06 at 9:36 pm
See this is what is wrong with brainwashed Republicans. Because I question the integrity of a man my Americanism is questioned.
I have no time to have intelligent conversation with you, Mike.
Mike 04.28.06 at 9:40 pm
There’s no brainwashing here… If there is its on your part… Bush did this, Bush didn’t do this… What do you have time for Chris? What do you believe Bush should have done with the intelligence he had prior to invading Iraq? The intelligence all of the Democrats had?
Mike 04.28.06 at 9:40 pm
There’s no brainwashing here… If there is its on your part… Bush did this, Bush didn’t do this… What do you have time for Chris? What do you believe Bush should have done with the intelligence he had prior to invading Iraq? The intelligence all of the Democrats had?
Travis Seitler 04.28.06 at 9:43 pm
Mike,
On 9/11/2001, roughly 3,000 people were murdered. The U.S. has since invaded two nations and is currently overseeing the establishment of new governments in their places.
Since 1/22/1973 over 40,000,000 children have been murdered “legally.” Nothing has been done to stop this.
Muslim jihadists are not a Big Threat to this nation.
Travis Seitler 04.28.06 at 9:43 pm
Mike,
On 9/11/2001, roughly 3,000 people were murdered. The U.S. has since invaded two nations and is currently overseeing the establishment of new governments in their places.
Since 1/22/1973 over 40,000,000 children have been murdered “legally.” Nothing has been done to stop this.
Muslim jihadists are not a Big Threat to this nation.
Jesse 04.28.06 at 9:46 pm
Muslim jihadists are not a Big Threat to this nation.
I can’t even begin to tell you how stunning those words are. You obviously don’t have a clue about the Islamic goal. If threatening to launch nuclear attacks against us isn’t a threat, what the #@$& is?
Jesse 04.28.06 at 9:46 pm
Muslim jihadists are not a Big Threat to this nation.
I can’t even begin to tell you how stunning those words are. You obviously don’t have a clue about the Islamic goal. If threatening to launch nuclear attacks against us isn’t a threat, what the #@$& is?
Aaron Brazell 04.28.06 at 9:47 pm
That was me. My browser memorized form fields and I didn’t look before hitting enter.
Mike, we’ve had these conversations more than I care to. The fact is you blindly follow a man whose ideals are nothing similar to yours. You say the alternatives are people like Kerry or Kennedy or Pelosi when they are clearly not and you’re being irrationally dramatic about it. There are TRUE c onservatives out there, such as Sen Chuck Hagel for one, that would do a fine job leading the nation in a war on terror and who are true conservatives and don’t buy into this neo-con bullshit of America’s superiority and soveregnty in the world. Because thats what this is. It’s about putting bases in the middle east and Osama and Saddaam are just means to that end. If we were concerned about safety and terrorism we’d be more worried about immigration policy and North Korea. But no, those problems are too big and don’t have the same kind of return on investment that middle east pimping does.
And you buy it hook line and fucking sinker. There is nothing conservative about Bush’s policies and you questioning my Americanism and patriotism because of a man is nothing short of ludicrous. Let’s just change the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to George Bush of the Executive Branch of the government. And to the war in which he stands, one middle east, under America, indivisible, with ill-concieved liberty for all.
Aaron 04.28.06 at 9:47 pm
That was me. My browser memorized form fields and I didn’t look before hitting enter.
Mike, we’ve had these conversations more than I care to. The fact is you blindly follow a man whose ideals are nothing similar to yours. You say the alternatives are people like Kerry or Kennedy or Pelosi when they are clearly not and you’re being irrationally dramatic about it. There are TRUE c onservatives out there, such as Sen Chuck Hagel for one, that would do a fine job leading the nation in a war on terror and who are true conservatives and don’t buy into this neo-con bullshit of America’s superiority and soveregnty in the world. Because thats what this is. It’s about putting bases in the middle east and Osama and Saddaam are just means to that end. If we were concerned about safety and terrorism we’d be more worried about immigration policy and North Korea. But no, those problems are too big and don’t have the same kind of return on investment that middle east pimping does.
And you buy it hook line and fucking sinker. There is nothing conservative about Bush’s policies and you questioning my Americanism and patriotism because of a man is nothing short of ludicrous. Let’s just change the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to George Bush of the Executive Branch of the government. And to the war in which he stands, one middle east, under America, indivisible, with ill-concieved liberty for all.
Mike 04.28.06 at 9:48 pm
I apologize… I’m actually speaking directly to Aaron… A brainwashed Republican… Your Americanism isn’t being questioned, but I would question your motives and your desires for keeping this country secure… Bush has the LEGAL right to do what is needed to defend us from terrorism… What would be your response if he didn’t do everything within his means and we were attacked? Would you question why he didn’t do more? Would you question why he didn’t follow up on that one little clue that might have stop the attack? Oh… But if he had followed your plan he would never have known what the terrorist were planning… No problem. 100,000 dead…
Mike 04.28.06 at 9:48 pm
I apologize… I’m actually speaking directly to Aaron… A brainwashed Republican… Your Americanism isn’t being questioned, but I would question your motives and your desires for keeping this country secure… Bush has the LEGAL right to do what is needed to defend us from terrorism… What would be your response if he didn’t do everything within his means and we were attacked? Would you question why he didn’t do more? Would you question why he didn’t follow up on that one little clue that might have stop the attack? Oh… But if he had followed your plan he would never have known what the terrorist were planning… No problem. 100,000 dead…
Jesse 04.28.06 at 9:50 pm
what we really need is to get Tom Coburn elected president.
Jesse 04.28.06 at 9:50 pm
what we really need is to get Tom Coburn elected president.
Jesse 04.28.06 at 9:51 pm
oh, and aaron, you wanted to nail down my position, here it is:
I don’t like wiretapping.
The legality is grey
Bush isn’t the best president ever
I respect his responsibility to do anything and everything he can to protect this country.
Jesse 04.28.06 at 9:51 pm
oh, and aaron, you wanted to nail down my position, here it is:
I don’t like wiretapping.
The legality is grey
Bush isn’t the best president ever
I respect his responsibility to do anything and everything he can to protect this country.
Aaron Brazell 04.28.06 at 9:52 pm
We go back to the origin of my calling for his impeachment. NSA wiretapping.
I don’t buy that he did everything he could. I DO however buy that he did what his agenda-pushing advisors told him to do.
Aaron 04.28.06 at 9:52 pm
We go back to the origin of my calling for his impeachment. NSA wiretapping.
I don’t buy that he did everything he could. I DO however buy that he did what his agenda-pushing advisors told him to do.
Mike 04.28.06 at 10:00 pm
Aaron go F… yourself… I don’t blindly follow anyone, and you have no idea how to follow anyone… Bush is making huge mistakes with the illigal aliens and I am totally against what he proposes to do… It’s the same on the Democrat side so nobody wins… This is not about Conservative or Liberal it’s about having someone in office who will fight for our country.
In regards to Iran… What do you propose we shoud do? Of course in your thinking Bush was wrong to invade Iraq… He keeps you awake at night because your phone is tapped… The evidence keepss pouring in that justifies what Bush did, but because you feel some of your Civil Liberties have been violated Bush is BAD… Impeach BUSH… So Fn… Childish… Grow up… You might live longer…
Mike 04.28.06 at 10:00 pm
Aaron go F… yourself… I don’t blindly follow anyone, and you have no idea how to follow anyone… Bush is making huge mistakes with the illigal aliens and I am totally against what he proposes to do… It’