Impeach Bush Now (Go Dems Go)

Mainstream Democrats are ducking and covering, running away from intrepid heroes like Feingold, Boxer and Conyers. You blog Dems - hold their feet to the fire. Write to them. Call them. Give ‘em hell. Shovel piles of money on moveon.org. Show them the money, passion and obsession. Reverse the verdict of 2004.

Make sure those perfidious Dems in Congress close ranks and rally round Russell. Without pressure from you, they will slink off and hide under conveniently available rocks. They will give the President permission to do what he did. He will get away again. He will smile unless you stop him.

This does sound silly, doesn't it?

Posted by Jack at March 18, 2006 10:33 PM
Comments
Comment #134455

Sounds like hypocrisy to me. Let’s take the immigration issue. The Democratic Party wants to talk about the law applying to everyone and hold Bush accountable to the FISA laws. But, on the other hand, the Democratic Party wants illegal immigrants to be given a free pass and the law ignored for them because doing othewise could cost them Hispanic votes.

Frankly, in this regard I see little difference between the two parties, they both put power and votes in the front seat and what is good for Americans and America’s future, in the back seat. Both parties would rather play political war games than solve the problems that are hurting our nation.

A pox on both your parties. I want politicians who put solving problems and living up to the principles of our Constitution in the front seat and party alleigance in the back seat. That is who I will vote for, if such candidates are on the ticket in my district. If not, I will just vote for any challenger who happens to be running. Can’t be worse than keeping these incumbent do-nothings but get richer, in office.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 18, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #134458

David,
Sure the immigration issue is something that should be addressed; but the a more urgent matter is when the President breaks the law and enforces policies that do not correspond to the Constitution.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 18, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #134474

Greenstuff, you miss the point. Both parties are quite willing to AVOID enforcing laws for special classes of citizens if it is politically expedient for them to do so. That is the far more important than the actual lawbreaker incidents themselves, because it leads our nation toward rule of men, not rule of law, and there can be no greater affront to our Constitution than that. Our Consitution was designed specifically to prevent King George’s rule of men type government where the law may apply according to the whims of those in power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 19, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #134475

Jack,
I’m confused. What are you saying? Feingold is a Senator who wants to censure Bush for violating FISA laws. Censure is obviously not the same as impeachment. Conyers is in the House, and wants to begin the process of impeachment because Bush lied to Congress about Iraq. A Senator cannot initiate impeachment proceedings. How can Feingold lead an impeachment of Bush?

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #134476

President Bush has made several mistakes that people do relize and I am not gonna deny that. But how can everyone forget the good that he has done, some of his policies I feel are needed. I know that our country is going through a tough economic stretch, so everyone decides to blame the one man that seems to have the the control over it. President Bush does not control how our markets fluxuate, he can not control the highs and lows of the economy. Impeach him, why? Just because some people do not agree on some of the things he has done, thats not a good enough reason for me.

Posted by: drew at March 19, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #134478

okay this is the way i see this whole impeachment thing get out of iraq: granted. we were lied to, you cant deny that. you can say there was evidence but they were just pictures. “no WMDs were found but while we’re here lets take out Saddam!” and since some people put this blind trust into our president, we went and did that. now we’re fighting over there when we shouldntve even been tehre in the first place. however, i am for staying in this stupid war bc if we pull out now all of the soldiers who died, died for nothing. BUT i do think bush should be removed not only because we went into this war for the wrong reasons but because of the way he conducts him self in office. as the president of the united states, you can not run around saying how it doesnt matter if 2 people love one another or not if they arent of different sexes they can be married bc marriage is a religous thing. and abortion is bad bc its killing an unborn baby. well you shouldnt let youre religious views get in the way of your job because one of the major policies of this nation is a seperation between church and state.

if we just got rid of him in 04 then there may not be this issue of impeachment right now. im not exactlty sure of his approval rating right now but i heard it was at 30%. that right there is enough evidence that he should be removed. if we dont like him anymore, hes out. and the people in congress are trying to do that. what benefits are there to him staying in office?


and drew. when the majority of the country doesnt like the man the elected, bc they feel he isnt doing his job properly then he should be out.

Posted by: hannah at March 19, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #134479

Phx8

Of course both Feingold and Conyers will fail in their respective fools errands.

I am just hoping the Dems give it the old try. It will show the country what they are like.

Drew

Bush is a good president. The economy is very good, one of the best in our lifetimes. People will come to understand that much faster if the Dems do their impeachment/censure thing. Right now they have it easy. They can be against. Against what? That is less well defined. Let’s let them define themselves a bit better. This will do it.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #134481

David,
I think you’re missing my point; all I said was that President Bush’s breaking of the law is, curently, a far more urgent matter than illegal immigration. I said this remark because you’re comparing illegal immigration to the President enforcing a policy that is against the Fourth Amendment.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #134482

Jack I agree with you completely.

Ok Hannah this is how I see it, apparently the country likes bush more because they elected him instead of kerry. When you elect a president its not like you dont know what your getting its not mystery meat, they campaign and do such things. Bush is religious man end of story, he feels that way he does and the way he feels on same sex marrage is because of his upbring just like how you feel the way you do, its becaue how you were raised. Ok we did have false information, and we are fighting the Iraqis war. But just take a second and thing about it. How would the Iraqis have taken out Saddam who tested biological weapons on hte kurds in his own country. Now when people say America is a power house in the world, then when something happens they do not expect America to do something, give me a break. And not liking someone is not enough reason to impeach him, Hoover was not even impeached and he was president during the great depression when people felt he did not care. There has to be a better reason for impeachment then simply, hmmm i dont like this policy and that he is religious so yeah lets impeach him. Our system does not work in such a way that, if someone does something wrong then they are out. you have to see both sides of the story not jsut the one u wanna see.

Posted by: drew at March 19, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #134483

Incompetence is not an impeachable offense. Neither is unpopularity. Impeachment involves “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Lying to the public is not an impeachable offense. However, lying to Congress is most certainly impeachable.

Actions by Democrats will be symbolic, since they’re a minority, and unable to push anything through Congress.

But we all know what will happen if the Republicans lose the House or Senate this November. A Dem majority in either will allow investigations to occur unimpeded.

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #134485

i totally see both sides like im not blind. its just my opinion is he keeps digging us into this hole and its going to be really hard to be back out unless something is done soon.

and bush is completely entitled to having his views, but religion with federal matterrs is not what this nation is about. america is america bc we are not all one race, religion, ethnicity, etc. you can not force an entire country to think the way you do just because you are in a position of power.

and if you look at recent polls bushs approval rating is at 30%. meaning only 30% of the country thinks he is doing a good job NOW. 2004 was 2 years ago and unless you’re a phsycic i dont you knew what would happen in the future. but the future is no and we have to act fast before things get worse.

Posted by: hannah at March 19, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #134486

Jack,
Do you actually believe that President Bush is a “good” president; then how do you explain the 34% approval rating he has.
Sure, our economy is great; yet we have an almost 10 trillion dollar national debt and are fighting in a losing war that was initiated under false assumptions based on false facts. Also, our President has handled Hurricane Katrina horribly and was late in responding to it.
To top this whole list, our President has authorized wire-tapping on American citizens, a policy which is unconstitutional according to the Fourth Amendment.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #134487

I dont understand what you mean but get, worse, our country is not in a state of depressino or anything like that. And yeah 30% of people like him, or so the poles say, but none of this is grounds for impeachment. And everyone is entitles to his or her opinons, and America is a land of equality, and I dont believe bush made the right choice in what he did with the same sex marrages. But thats one thing, i mean i really dont understand why so many people hate bush I really dont. I dont think he is doing a bad job

Posted by: drew at March 19, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #134492

This does sound silly, doesn’t it?

Posted by Jack at March 18, 2006 10:33 PM

Same question I was asking the last time an American president was impeached.

My, my, how fast the rightwing cult rats change the rules, ugh?

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 19, 2006 3:25 AM
Comment #134494

Greenstuff, saying the President’s illegal wiretapping is more important than leaving our borders wide open to an army of terrorists to slip through unnoticed, is bizarre, to say the least in my view. Both are equally dangerous to our nation’s future. Only difference is, with the one the threat is from without, and with the other, the threat is from within.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 19, 2006 3:51 AM
Comment #134495

my object here is not to defend bush but to look at this with some perspective; the latest usa today/ gallup poll this weekend bush at 36% the ap poll was 37%. the same poll asked about the economy 59% said very good to good. lets look at some other presidents lowest ratings harry trumans lowest rating was 27%. jimmy carters lowest rating was 28%. lyndon johnsons lowest rating was 33%. bill clintons lowest rating was 36%. gerald fords lowest rating was 37% my favorate president out of that bunch was harry truman he also had the lowest rating of 27% mr truman was rated as near-great president by the historians. i also consider bill clinton as darn good president today. and president ford as a good president, i also consider bush as a good president at this time. i also agree he has made some mistakes. all of those other men did also.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 19, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #134496

Here is another case of the Dems having no backbone. As one who has been all over this wonderful earth, I can simple say, “shame to all you that dare no stand up for those unfortunate or less fortunate soles that can only dream of living in peace!!” I say, fight to the death, all these terrorist who would kill anyone that dares go agaisnt their criminal and hateful agendas.

Posted by: Everett Hatton at March 19, 2006 3:59 AM
Comment #134497

i agree with rodney—pretty much
although polls can be skewed by the wording and the way the questions are asked

hey dems—with your poll pushing, how bout looking at the democrat party approval rating. its actually below bushes. funny

the nsa wire tapping and surveillanceis NOT ILLEGAL. IT DOES’NT TARGET DOMESTIC CALLS. only calls to or from a foriegn or overseas country. these are international calls and the 4th amendment does’nt apply in times of war for these kind of calls. its NOT A DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM

Posted by: charlie w at March 19, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #134498

charlie

“these are international calls and the 4th amendment does’nt apply in times of war for these kind of calls.”

Care to cite a case for this outlandish claim? Moreover, do tell me when war was declared, and with what nation. I’m sure we’d all like to know.

Wow. Be sure to communcate that sophisticated understanding of constitutional jurisprudence to the vast majority of the legal community — they seem to disagree with you.

I’m tired of this issue. It’s pretty much settled that the president has violated the law. Why else would the Republicans feel a need to modify existing law to encompass what Bush is doing?

I’m adding the claim that the wiretaps are legal on any grounds whatsoever to the list of “Wildly Unsupported Claims that are No Longer Allowed to Be Made”. It can fit somewhere between “Iraq was connected with 9/11” and “Frist Sees Terry Schiavo Doing Jumping Jacks on that Tape”.

Posted by: Yossarian at March 19, 2006 4:55 AM
Comment #134500

Talk about your herd mentality. For years, you couldn’t find a Republican on a blog who would admit the President made any mistakes. Suddenly, in a radio address, the President admits mistakes were made, and VOILA! , now Republicans wear the President’s mistakes like a badge of honor. And they are so proud of his mistakes because it shows he is human afterall.

The human race is a hoot and a holler and belly laugh all rolled up into one.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 19, 2006 6:26 AM
Comment #134503

i really get a kick out of whats going on.it just shows the dems have what they want a bunch of dumbass constituents/

Posted by: hnthrd1 at March 19, 2006 7:45 AM
Comment #134505

Did anyone catch Christopher Hitchens on Larry King Friday night? He was on a round table discussion with Dianne Feinstein and the noted commie asshat Katrina Vandanhuevel (sp?). Hitch literaly carved them up on the Iraq war. It was priceless. Go tto cnn.com fot the transcript. You will laugh your ass off.

Posted by: nikkolai at March 19, 2006 8:19 AM
Comment #134506

Funny how the lefties always are screaming about such and such a poll. The only polls that count come in November, people. Too bad you can’t win one of those once in a while. They say Truman’s approval number was 17% when he left office. Top 5 president. Lincoln’s number probably would have been lower than that at times. Last time I was in D. C., they had a monument of him there. So, as for the impeachment thing, either bring it on, or put a freaking sock in it, already.

Posted by: nikkolai at March 19, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #134510

Greenstuff

Yes. Bush is a good president. Polls are important, but not always right. The only polls that matter are in the first weeks in November.

Re FISA - I don’t believe the president broke the law. It is not a settled question constitutionally. If the Dems bring this issue up in an impeachment, everyone will learn appropriate memebers of Congress(included some Dems) were fully briefed and none of them complained until they read the NYT and saw a political advantage. And we will have to ask ourselves whether or not we think it was right to listen in on conversations with suspected terrorists.

We will also have to ask whether or not that whole FISA debate has compromised our security. Read a good discussion on the subject.

Expat

It sounded silly then too. It was silly when they did it to Andrew Johnson too. Political disagreements should not be drawn into the legal sphere.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #134515

Is violating your oath of office an impeachable offence?

The Constitution says

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
But Bush unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty on 13 December 2001, thus violating his oath of office to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution.

nikkolai

commie asshat Katrina Vandanhueve
My, what witty repartie. My grandfather once told me that when you start calling people names, you admit that you’ve lost the argument. Scroll up and read the top of this column. Note that is says to critique the message, not the messenger. Aside from making you look like you’ve lost the argument, name-calling like that will get you kicked out of here.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 19, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #134516

hannah
There is no such thing as separation of church and state.

Greenstuff

Explain to me what you mean by false facts. That just blows me away.

Posted by: tomh at March 19, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #134524

Yes, it is silly Jack. I also like your point that our economy is one of the best in our lifetimes. Thats not what I see on TV, here I thought we were in the greatest depression since the Great Depression and I thought the Chinese were about to take over. Im gonna go tell fox news what’s actually going on someone made a (honest, im sure) mistake.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #134525

Elliot

So you think every time we withdraw from a treaty or maybe don’t comply with all the provisions, it is impeachable. We have to ask the UN for permission to do anything?

If I were the Dems, I would stay away from that sort of formulation.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #134526

Jack

“Re FISA - I don’t believe the president broke the law. It is not a settled question constitutionally.”

This issue is about as closed as any Constitutional issue can be.

“If the Dems bring this issue up in an impeachment, everyone will learn appropriate memebers of Congress(included some Dems) were fully briefed…”

Irrelevant. Briefings do not satisfy the requirements of law.

“And we will have to ask ourselves whether or not we think it was right to listen in on conversations with suspected terrorists”

Irrelevant. What we think doesn’t matter. Popular opinion is irrelevant to constitutionality. If you really think that this issue matters so little to a broad enough base of American citizens, by all means, start a grass roots movement to have the 4th Amendment repealed. That’s the only way such issues of popular opinion can hold sway over the Constitution.

Until then, the Constitution has been violated. There is no meaningful disagreement about this, except from those who really don’t understand the issue.

Posted by: Yossarian at March 19, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #134530

Yossarian

The president has the implied power to carry out his duty to protect the U.S.

As it stands now, opponents of information gathering on international calls can say it is illegal. If Dems really try to impeach on those grounds, it will force a legal decision, which will show that the conditions were unclear but the president broke no law. That is why I am eager for the Dems to push this issue.

This is a common Dem trick. We have seen it on many occassions where they prejudge a legal case, which doesn’t pan out. Remember all the evidence we were going to see about fraud in Ohio? And merry Fitzmass.

So re impeachment - bring it on. Go ahead, make my day. Feeling lucky? What other over the top phrase can I use? Do it if you think you can.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #134533

George Bush will go down as the worst president in the history of the united states. some day (your deity willing) you will be able to soak in the arguements that support that claim, and hopefully, be the wiser for having acquired said knowledge.

many believe that will be the same day that hell freezes over, with flying monkeys escaping out of unsuspecting asses, and the brewers winning the world series.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 19, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #134536

I can’t believe that a wiretapping of citizens is what started the impeachment talk, not an illegal war killing and maiming hundreds of thousands, costing billions in deferred debt, permanently scarring the US’s reputation worldwide.

personally, wiretapping is the scratching the surface as to the many reasons why this man should be taken down— quickly.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 19, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #134539

Be careful, Tree Hugger. Big Brother is listening and the phrase “this man (Bush) should be taken down - quickly” could be interepeted as a threat against the life of the president of the United States. That knocking at the door could be the Secret Service.

Posted by: Moose at March 19, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #134543

Be careful, Tree Hugger. Big Brother is listening and the phrase “this man (Bush) should be taken down - quickly” could be interepeted as a threat against the life of the president of the United States. That knocking at the door could be the Secret Service.

========

haha, if that were the case big brother would already know that i am a big baby.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 19, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #134545

Be careful, Tree Hugger. Big Brother is listening and the phrase ⴨is man (Bush) should be taken down - quickly⠣ould be interepeted as a threat against the life of the president of the United States. That knocking at the door could be the Secret Service.

==

plus i loath all violence that doesn’t include a lightsaber. haha.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 19, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #134548

if president bush broke ANY law or violated the constitution—-dem leaders—every dem in congress would be behind the sensure prop—not happening—no law was broken concerning nsa surveillance

Posted by: charlie w at March 19, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #134550

Jack,
Nice try at distraction. I wasn’t talking about the UN and I wasn’t talking about failing to comply with all the provisions of a treaty. I was talking about a fundamental failure to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution by abrogating an entire treaty. Sorry you don’t like the facts, Jack, but the constitution is pretty clear.

Wrong winger: We must STRICTLY adhere to the Constitution. We can’t let those activist judges re-write it!

Centrist: The constitution says that all international treaties that we’ve signed must be upheld as the supreme law of the land. But Bush doesn’t uphold them. He cancels them. He’s violating his constitutional oath.

Wrong winger: Well …. uhhh …

Well, Jack?

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 19, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #134558

Jack,

Yep. Don’t worry - he broke the law and he’ll be impeached. I don’t doubt it for a second. You think this will rally Republicans but they’re on their hands and knees praying for it too.

Posted by: Max at March 19, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #134563

It distresses me that so many make misguided judgements on enduendo, misinformation and outright lies! Is The American Public really so uneducated that it bases the performance of our elected leaders on the critical overviews presented by a liberal media? May God help us all!

Posted by: Skyblue at March 19, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #134573

Jack,

Nice try. “Implied powers” applies to Congress’s powers to make laws, not to the President.

The argument that you are perhaps referencing was that the power to spy on Americans was part of the inherent powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief. However, that argument was pretty much laughed out of the discourse by the vast majority of legal scholars. Soon after putting it forth, the administration shifted away from that argument to their fall-back position of, “we were authorized to do this by Congress.”

If you want to put that argument forward, go right ahead — it’s just about as ridiculous as the others. It’s definitely a giant stretch to say that Congress intended for the authorization to use force to tacitly repeal FISA.

But at least try to be consistent with the administration’s absurdity if you’re simply going to pass it along uncritically.

Funny thing is, the people you call the “opponents of information gathering” are really nothing of the sort. Everybody supports information gathering. It’s just that the rational people see no good reason that FISA couldn’t have been complied with…because there is none.

Posted by: Yossarian at March 19, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #134578

Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge.
No more kid’s should die for this Son Of a Bitch & Loser Cheney… Impeach Bush!!!!!

Posted by: shawn at March 19, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #134580

Yossarian

Sorry if I got my term wrong.

That is why I welcome getting this whole thing out in the open. Let’s do it. If the Dems want to stop the program or make an issue of how it is done, let’s put it all on the table and decide.

The Republicans smashed themselves on the wall of impeachment. They hurt Clinton, but they hurt themselves more. If Dems want to go that path, fine.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #134589

The best thing that could happen to the Republican Party is for the Democrats to take back the White House and Congress in ‘08. (Osama is rooting for them, too.) They’d pull all the troops out of Iraq, gut the military, turn the war on terrorism over to the dictators and butchers in the United Nations and raise your taxes. After four years of that, and the new terrorist attacks on the U.S. that would be the result of their appeasing ways, a Democrat couldn’t get elected dog catcher in this country for the next 100 years.

Posted by: Moose at March 19, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #134590

david remer , your post about (herd mentality) sounded kind of immature, in 1976 i kind of went with the herd and voted for carter, you know president ford, was this big clumsy guy who keeped falling down. (bad knees and back from playing football) he was a nerd , but carter was cool man ,he was happing man , he was the in thing , hell all my best tv shows like chevy chase and the cast at saturday night live said carter was the man and ford was a square ,i was young i was no square so i voted for carter,that my friend was a herd mentality . i like chevy chase , kind of ironic now he has the bad back and knees from all those funny falling down gerald ford skits, i can relate ive had back fusion surgery myself.hey keep up your herd mentality slams and digs and no new ideas . the dems kind of looked like a herd to me when they stood up and clapped and high fived each other during bush’s state of the union address about his comments dealing with social security. oh yes they blocked it, at least he had a plan, the dems had no ideas but it was worth a high five!.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 19, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #134595

I keep hearing all the republican senators and congressmen saying Bush has done some good things for our country. But I never hear them say what those good things are. Maybe I’m out of the loop, or maybe the media only prints the bad but I can’t think of anything that Bush has put out that has helped our country. I’m sure they are going to list the new medicare drug coverage. But I can tell you that by next year all the insurance companies will drop this. They won’t be able to make a profit off of it and will stop providing. Then what is the government going to do? Other than that what has Bush done? Also about impeachment, the fourth amendment says that there must be a warrant to perform wire taps. Bush broke the law, no way around that. He can say as many times as he wants that congress gave him the power. But if that were true then why didn’t they change the law at that time. Clinton was impeached for bringing shame to the presidency. I thing Bush has brought more shame.

Posted by: robertphillips at March 19, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #134599

Jack to me it does not sound silly at all but this shore does —-$$$—-Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick —-$$$—-what afrigging cry baby. France is great this time of year.Why not draw little Hilter mustache’s on all the pictures of bush and the dick you find. It might help keep your political pee-pee stiff and your pantie’s from pinching. please keep beating that Impeachmemt drum from the left the sound gives me great comfort but Shawn with a posting like yours you make me look like a political genius—-$$$—-Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge Impeach bush & the Dick in charge.
No more kid’s should die for this Son Of a Bitch & Loser Cheney… Impeach Bush!!!!!—-$$$—-damm that’s good stuff.See Dick and George run? Run run George run run Dick run away fast from the impeachment boogie-man.

Posted by: angry white man at March 19, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #134601

WELL ITS EASY TO BE AN ARMCHAIR QUTARBACK! FINGOLD NEEDS A SHRINK! LETS LET CNN ABC NBC CBS AND FOX NEWS GO FIGHT OUR BATTLES AND MAKE OUR DESISIONS THOSE MEN AND WEMEN IN WASHINGTON COM FROM 50 STATES NOT JUST 3 OR FOUR AND THE TROOPS THAT FIGHT OUR WARS COME FROM 50 STATES AND YOUR PHONE CALLS OH LIKE THE GOVT REALLY CARES ABOUT ABOUT WHAT YOU DID WITH YOUR WIFE HUSBAND GIRLFREIND WHAT EVER BUT JOHN Q TEROORIST OVER IN IRAN OR SERIA OR TINBUCK TO WE SHOULD NOT LISTEN IN ON HIS PLANS TO KILL HELL OUT OF US WHILE WE WAIT TO ASK SOME JUDGE IF ITS OK TO DO SO BY THE WAY THAT JUDGE LET A CHILD RAPIST OUT OR HAS 20 DUI S OUR JUST PLAIN MAKES LAWS UP HUM? LIKE EXAMPLE BRAZIL IS ENERGY INDEPENDENT ETHONAOL SUGARCAIN THEY LEARNED IN THE 70S AND WE NEED TO LEARN YOU KNOW IN YOUR TOWN COUNTIE PARISH YOU AS AN INDEVIDUAL CAN MAKE A DIFFERANCE SAY 30 OF EVEN 10 OF YOUR NEIBORS GOT TOGETHER AND GO TO LOACAL RESTRUNTS ETS GET THER OLD COOKIN OIL AND YOU AS A GROUP VERY CHEAPLY COULD CONVERT TO BIO DESIEL 1 MAN IN COLORODO DID IT AND HIS PERSONAL AVG COST TO RUN HIS P/U TRUCK IS 80 CENTS PER GAL! WHAT OUR ELECT OFICIALS BOTH DEMS AND REPS NEED TO TALK SALOTIONS NOT CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS WE HAVE LOST LESS MEN AND WEMEN HAVE DIED THAN ALL PREVIOUS WARS BUT THE NEED FOR ENERGY IS THE ENIMIES TRUMP CARD AND OUR EVERY DAY LIVES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME 10$ A GALLON FOR FUEL INDEED THIS IS A WAR OF ATRITION AND WE ARE LOSING

Posted by: F.A. STEPHENS SR at March 19, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #134605

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OR LAST TIME I CHECKED THE ACLU HASNT MADE THAT AGAINST THE LAW YET. OUR OWN CIVIL WAR SHOULD HAVE TAUGHT US MUCH BUT THE ACLU WANTS TO KEEP OUR HISTORY FROM OUR CHILDREN! YET THEY WONT KNOW THAT THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE OUR NATON IS TO GET TO THE ROOT OF OUR NATIONS PROBLEMS.THIS COUNTRIE WAS BUILT WITH BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS AND MUCH HUMAN SACRAFICE AND LABOR AND IT WAS BUILT OUTA LOVE AND THE HOPES OF OUR PARENTS AND THERE PARENTS ETC AND WE AS A NATION ELECTED GEORGE BUSH IF YOU DIDNT VOTE FOR HIM WELL IN 2008 YOU CAN CHANGE. KATRINA WILL HAPPEN AGAIN NEXT SEASON AND THE TERRORIST IS STILL GONA BE THERE JUST LIKE NOW ONLY PROBLEM IS WE TORRORIZE OUR SELEVES BY OUR OWN INDEFERANCE TO EACH OTHER

Posted by: F A STEPHENS SR at March 19, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #134610

Definition of commie-asshat Katrina Vandehuval:
communist leaning airhead who inherited The Nation magazine—head so far up her ass that she is now wearing it for a hat.

Posted by: nikkolai at March 19, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #134617

nikkolai

Still with the name-calling, huh? Thank you for proving that sometimes Darwin was wrong.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 19, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #134619

hey, jack

how do you get the most ignorant, unintelligent, crude people on one thread?

label it impeach bush.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #134624

Jack,
Yes, it is true that polls aren’t everything, but they show on how the people feel, and that is that they feel Bush is a horrible president.
If anything I am shocked on how high the approval rating is for Bush. His rating should be lower that 34% for numerous reasons; I mean, c’mon, how much more can the American people take?
-First it was leading us into a war for the weapons of mass destruction that were never there to begin with
-then it was appointing incapable people to high positions in gov’t, such as Mike Brown as head of FEMA
-also he hasn’t been able to lessen our national debt, which is almost 10 TRILLION DOLLARS, highest it’s ever been in U.S. history
-and to top it all off, he has allowed wire-tapping American citizens, for a crime that MIGHT BE committed, this is downright unconstitutional and a high crime.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #134626

tomh,

Explain to me what you mean by false facts. That just blows me away.

Your not the only one being “blown” away, for I am also. What I mean is that our glorius President made statements of there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that these statements and claims were based on factual evidence, however, we have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, therefore the President is wrong (shocking isn’t it) and his statements are false, thus his evidence is false. In conclusion these would be false facts.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #134630

greenstuff im not going to bother explaining to you facts are not false… cleary its not worth it.

And there is also allegations Mike Brown falsified things on his resume… you cant blame bush for katrina. If you want to point to human error (which you shouldnt it was a natural disaster) you should point to a) the governor or b) the mayor of New Orleans. Both were incopetent and slow in response.

And we are in a war on terror, and anyone who thinks terrorists arent in iraq well…

and our national debt has been around since Jackson and if we werent forced into a war im sure, as you probably are too, that that debt would be lower.

And the Patriot Act has already helped save lives and capture terrorists, unfortunately many americans believe the odds of them being personally attacked by a terrorist is low. They believe the other guy will get killed so why do they care.

the constitution was made to protect peoples rights, and the Patriot Act protects people’s rights (before you respond to that please think about it)

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #134631

CommonSense,
Can you please cite some examples when the Patriot Act saved a person’s life, because I would gladly want some.
Although it is true that Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster and couldn’t been preventable, the handling of the situation could’ve been better. The Bush Administration is just trying to defer the blame on them to the local and state gov’ts, even though there is a video recording showing that Bush was briefed on the facts that the levies of New Orleans would fail.
Also the Administration was late in responding to the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina, such as not sending in National Guards and FEMA, until couple days afterward the disaster. When hurricanes hit Florida during Clinton’s presidency, the response to the natural disasters were quicker and better.

there is also allegations Mike Brown falsified things on his resume

If Bush is appointing people to a high gov’t position, he should “triple” check their resume, since so much responsibility is given and it is apparent that he doesn’t do this, i.e. Harriet Myers.
The national debt has always existed, however, never this high. I don’t think you comprehend how much 10 trillion is, just to give you a gist of it, a billion seconds ago it was the year 1975, now think of that except multiplied by a thousand.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #134635

hey carter was going to rebuild the ghettos of new york city, gh bush had a simpler kinder nation with a thousand points of light, bill clinton was building a bridge to the 21st century. gw bush said conservatism with compassion. john kerry said to bush you did not pass the european bistro cafe’ kind of crowd test, during those debates i keeped on saying give me a reason to vote for you, nope all negative, negative, negative, where was the fire of jfk the ideas, the brilliance,the chudspa !nope all negative , negative, negative, is this what the dems have been reduced to is monday morning quarterbacking? third string at best.where’s your ideas? negative, negative, negative, how about finding a hobby.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 19, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #134636

Greenstuff

If Commonsense doesn’t mind me taking his question about saved lives…

If the authorities had stopped the highjackers on the morning of 9/11 for carrying box cutters and subsequently deported them for visa violations, all that would have happened is that liberals would have accused the police of racism and the ACLU would have complained that their rights were violated. How many lives would have been saved? Bush critics would have said zero. Sort of like the wiretapping of terrorists.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #134637

Jack,
Once again, I asked CommonSense if he could specifically name any examples when the Patriot Act saved an American life. Not about some hypothetical situation.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #134641

My point is that you probably can’t prove the negative, especially since much of it would be done in secret. No significant terror attacks in the U.S. is since 9/11 is a good start.

So most of the success is hard to show because success means nothing happens. But here is one clear example and another.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #134644

karl wb schwarz at www.rense.com/general68/gop.htm said the purported 1.6 trillion surplus under clinton was bunk a rosy scenario at best.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 19, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #134650

“If Bush is appointing people to a high gov’t position, he should “triple” check their resume…”

greenstuff

George Bush is the president of the United States of America. World’s third largest country, it has 15 dependant territories, has the largest economy in the world. I can think of a few things the President shouldn’t have to do. Triple-checking a resume is not the commander-in-cheif’s job.

And although they should have pointed the finger at state and local governments, the administration didn’t. Bush took responsibility because he is an honorable and good man.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #134657

CommonSense,
Okay, your right, the United States is a very large country. However, making sure that the President is appointing the correct people should be his job; he’s probably too busy spending time at his ranch in Texas to be looking over resumes.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #134661

If the President is looking over resumes for anyone under the cabinet or NSC level, he is not doing his job. Jimmy Carter sweated the details and look where that got him. Clinton did not, BTW.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #134664

Jack,
I said “high gov’t positions” like head of FEMA. I’m not saying he should look over the resume of the vacuum cleaner of the White House or something like that.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #134665

Is there anything negative with the president being put under pressure?

I’m not sure, but I think it’s ok for the president to feel he is still accountable to the people.

By the way, it’s been a LONG time since I’ve posted here; so, howdy to everyone who still remembers me :)

Posted by: Zeek at March 19, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #134671

Has anyone thought about what you get if you impeach bush?

President Dick Cheney.

As president he has broken no law.

I do not think you can impeach a vice president.

Posted by: George at March 19, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #134674

Jack, you asked a question. The answer is “yes”.

(BTW, didn’t Frist call for a vote immediately after Feingold called for a Censure … . I believe the bi-partisan answer was “crick-et … . crick-et . . chirp … . crick-et … “

Posted by: Ken C. at March 19, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #134675

I agree with George, It would be a bad idea to impeach the president, while Bush is the worst president that this country has ever seen, his strings are just being pulled by Dick Cheney.
The reason that there is no Demacratic voice is because the majority of the government at the moment is republican, why do you think that world is in such trouble?

Posted by: Jason at March 19, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #134676

It is possible to impeach any public official; thus the vice president can also be impeached.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #134677

Presidential succession. Maybe you can just go down to Donald Rumsfeld. But how long do you think it will take to impeach each in turn.

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior (Vacant)
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security4 Michael Chertoff

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #134679

time to move on from impeachment people. i understand you know it takes a two thirds majority to pass. if you remember it really did not have the desired effects that the republicans thought it would. you get the majority and vote for it, bush will gain 20 + points in the plus direction

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 19, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #134684

Impeach Bush Now!
Top Reasons for Impeaching Bush
What are the top reasons for impeaching Bush?

Iraq

Invading Iraq without any threat to the U.S.
Lying about Iraqi WMD’s to Congress and the American people
Causing the deaths of over 2,000 U.S. troops and the maiming of over 10,000 more
Failing to provide adequate equipment and armor to U.S. troops
Allowing illegal torture and murder of prisoners
Causing the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians
Spending $300 billion in just two years for an occupation that could last for decades
Letting Halliburton steal billions through no-bid contracts
Using vast quantities of depleted uranium weapons that will poison Iraq now and for generations to come
September 11

Ignoring countless warnings of an attack in the U.S.
Reading “My Pet Goat” during the attack
Letting Osama Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan
Holding no bureaucrat accountable for ignoring warnings
Delaying and obstructing the 911 Commission investigation
Turning Afghanistan into the world’s largest opium producer
Terrorism

Allowing international terrorism incidents to quadruple and trying to cover up the facts
Failing to secure our borders and ports to prevent terrorism
Creating a new generation of terrorists through the invasion of Iraq and the killing of 100,000 civilians
Letting terrorists buy high-powered weapons inside the U.S.
Letting North Korea build nuclear bombs and missiles that can cross the Pacific Ocean
Refusing to shut down Pakistan’s nuclear weapons exports
Foreign relations

Turning the world against the United States
Preparing for another war with Iran
Signing treaties that cost America jobs and undermine American laws
Economy

Letting gasoline prices double at devastating cost to the economy while oil companies make record profits
Letting corrupt companies like Enron steal billions from consumers and employees
Cutting taxes for the rich and turning a $5 trillion budget surplus into a $5 trillion budget deficit
Adding trillions to the national debt, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay off with interest
Letting millions of American jobs go overseas
Freedom

Letting bureaucrats wiretap Americans without a court order
Locking up suspects for years without charges or trials
Arresting nonviolent protesters at Bush events
Packing the courts with right-wing judges to outlaw abortion
Ordering federal courts to interfere in the Terri Schiavo tragedy
Taking away our right to sue corporations through class actions
Taking away our right to declare bankruptcy under Chapter 7 and forcing middle-class Americans into debt slavery
Democracy

Stealing the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004
Refusing to investigate the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters in Florida and Ohio
Promoting black-box electronic voting machines without paper trails
Embracing dictators in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, and China
Overthrowing democratically-elected leaders in Haiti and Venezuela
Environment

Allowing global warming, which will cause massive environmental damage
Allowing more toxic mercury in the air and water
Allowing oil drilling in wilderness areas
Scandals

Illegally “outing” CIA agent Valerie Plame, an important anti-terrorism official
Letting a gay male prostitute (Jeff Gannon) roam free in the White House
Paying journalists to give favorable coverage to the administration
Relying on an earpiece for answers during debates and press conferences
Going AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and covering it up ever since
Defending the most corrupt Member of Congress (Tom DeLay)
Impeach a repuke, SAVE A LIFE

Posted by: shawn at March 19, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #134689

Shawn

You really seem to be sincere. Go Dems Go. Keep it up. This is the kind of thing Dems are good at. I suggest you should list everything you can think of and put it into the articles of impeachment. That will fix Bush’s wagon and you can have president Cheney. Then you can go after him and then whomever he had as new VP. It will keep you busy for a long time. Terrorists will be happy.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #134696

Jack,
Bush Ignoring countless warnings of an attack in the U.S. this isnt bushs fault?
Do you have your head so far up bushs ass that you can not see the sky is blue?
you talk down to me i talk down to you
b.t.w. did Bush make you God too?
come November there will be new people in charge in ware will this leave you? Praying for your dumb ass Bush

Posted by: shawn at March 19, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #134697

I am always suprised on how much the American people can take. How can anyone support or even like this president, I mean how much more does Bush have to do to get impeached; if anything, this censure is a bit too lenient on him.
I’m sure terrorist will be even more happy when Big Brother is listening to my calls and reading my e-mails.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 19, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #134700

sean, jack did not use any bad language. dick head

Posted by: mb at March 20, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #134717

On Iraq,
Lets not forget that in the 2000 Vice-Presidential debate, Sen. Lieberman advocated forcible regime change in Iraq, using the “success” of ousting Milosevic from Kosovo, as a template for future policy …..

Posted by: Gary at March 20, 2006 6:24 AM
Comment #134718

I find it very interesting that the Republicans and the media continue to try to point out the debate and the give and take of the Democratic party as a bad thing.

My God, don’t people understand that the whole concept behind Democrats and “Liberals” is that each person has a chance to voice their opinion. To be heard. Something to contribute?

The Republican party has made it virtuous to “lock step or else.” We can see where that got us. What if there had been differnece of opinion heard and respected leading up to the war. Not just the justification of the war but the execution of the war and the immediate aftermath?

This is a very interesting article concerning the difference between the administration and the military that the Republicans love to point to as being “Fully behind the President.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/fallows.html

What if the Republicans didn’t believe that they knew it all. That they didn’t have to listen to anyone else because “they were in power” (at this moment).

Talk about not standing behind your man? Even members of the Republican party and the conservatives are jumping ship.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3733092.html

That there is disagreement within the Democratic party should not be news. Is should not be seen as “bad” or a sign of “weakness.”

Hey, I am a liberal, disabled vet who was opposed to the justification of the war, the execution of the war and the aftermath. But I support staying. Actually in spite of President Bush! Why? Because we are now morally obligated to clean up his mess.

To me, that is the bottom line of the whole thing. I believe that President Bush needs to admit that he “screwed the pooch” but as the leader of the “Moral Party” we are now obligate to fix what he broke. Because that is the only honorable and right thing to do.

Believe me, I am not happy with this… but the “right” thing, the “moral” thing isn’t always easy. However, because we have to do this I don’t credit President Bush… I blame him. If the worse thing he gets out of this is a censure then he should count himself lucky.

As I have asked before on this site… can anyone show me where a government consisting of a single party has been a good thing? I will suggest that the “unity” of the Republican party recently is a microcosim of what happens when there isn’t “room” for differences.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 20, 2006 6:54 AM
Comment #134728

GREENSTUFF IS THE CORECT NAME FOR WHATS FOUND IN BABY DIAPERS AFTER A LIBERAL INAMA! YOU ABVIOUSLY HAVE FOUND SOME FOLKS WHOM COULD CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW.THERE IS NOTHING WROUNG WITH CRITISIZUM BUT IT FLYS BOTH WAYS JUST LIKE FART STINK IN A WHIRLWIND! PITY THE POOR SOLE WHOM ALWAYS PINTS HIS /HER SMELLY FINGER AT OTHERS WITH OUT WASHIN THERE HANDS FIRST SOMETIMES SUFFER FROM FLY BACK RULE AND RESULTS IN BEING GIVIN THE USA 1 HAND SIGNAL!

Posted by: F A STEPHENS SR at March 20, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #134739

Using past history as a predictor of the future, Bush would not be impeached even if he had a very clear violation(s) of his office. You can pick the reason for impeachment, it would not matter.

If you examine the votes when three article of impeachment were drawn up, voted and passed against Nixon which caused his resignation you will see the following. There were 22 Dems and 17 Reps on the impeachment committee in the House of Representatives, which is the first step to remove a President from office. Of the 17 Reps on the committee, 6 out of 17 voted for impeachment even though it was obvious at that time due to the tapes that Nixon had broken the law and violated his oath of office. I believe that Bush has more support in this congress from Republicans than Nixon had from Republicans when he was in office.

So, no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, as long as the House of Representatives is Republican controlled, Bush will never be impeached.

Now, if the House turns to the Democrats in November, I would say “Katie bar the door” because an impeachment hearing is coming on ___________. You can fill in the blank.

Posted by: its_ok_to_disagree at March 20, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #134740

Using past history as a predictor of the future, Bush would not be impeached even if he had a very clear violation(s) of his office. You can pick the reason for impeachment, it would not matter.

If you examine the votes when three article of impeachment were drawn up, voted and passed against Nixon which caused his resignation you will see the following. There were 22 Dems and 17 Reps on the impeachment committee in the House of Representatives, which is the first step to remove a President from office. Of the 17 Reps on the committee, 6 out of 17 voted for impeachment even though it was obvious at that time due to the tapes that Nixon had broken the law and violated his oath of office. I believe that Bush has more support in this congress from Republicans than Nixon had from Republicans when he was in office.

So, no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, as long as the House of Representatives is Republican controlled, Bush will never be impeached.

Now, if the House turns to the Democrats in November, I would say “Katie bar the door” because an impeachment hearing is coming on ___________. You can fill in the blank.

Posted by: its_ok_to_disagree at March 20, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #134751

“GREENSTUFF … SIGNAL!”

um…what is this?

Please, please, please…learn to write before you post!

Posted by: Beijing Rob at March 20, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #134758

Let’s not get into the grammar and typos thing.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #134768

To those of you who feel that the economy is “going great” or “the best of our lifetimes” I want to ask:: Why wouldn’t the economy be great? We’ve borrowed 3,000,000,000,000 in a short 5 years to make it “great”. This is republican economics and to those of you that think it represents sound economic policy, you must be insane.

Posted by: Charles Ross at March 20, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #134772

ElliotBay: With which part of my definition do you disagree?

Posted by: nikko at March 20, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #134783

Perhaps those who think the wiretapping is illegal should go back and re-read the fourth amendment. It protects against UNREASONABLE search and seisure. The bill of rights was never conceived of by our forefathers to become a death trap. That’s why they included words like UNREASONABLE. If an American citicen is on his cell phone with Bin Ladin, I think that’s fairly reasonable to me. Besides, it didn’t seem to be a problem with you liberals when president Clinton had Janet Reno send in the ATF to massacre the David Koresh followers.

Posted by: James at March 20, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #134789

To those of you who feel that the economy is “going great” or “the best of our lifetimes” I want to ask:: Why wouldn’t the economy be great? We’ve borrowed 3,000,000,000,000 in a short 5 years to make it “great”. This is republican economics and to those of you that think it represents sound economic policy, you must be insane.


Takes money to make money..
And we have had a few very big issues to deal with at the same time. I guess you would just have us all pay more in taxes and slow down the economy. Keynesian economic policy has kept this economy moving even though American debt has been rising. Without it the much needed capital for economic expansion would not be available and our economy would go into recession. Allowing that would be insane.

Posted by: Adam at March 20, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #134793

James,
Yes it is reasonable to find out if some American is calling bin Laden; however, can we really trust the Bush Administration enough to take some of our privacy after they lied to us about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and mishandling Hurricane Katrina.
Also FISA is just as great, yet the Administration wants to be secret and wants to spy, without warrents, on innocent American people to “make sure” they’re in line and not talking to “would be terrorists”. I just hope Big Brother isn’t wiretapping me as I make my daily calls to bin Laden’s Cingular Razor cellphone.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 20, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #134805

Greenstuff
Bush didn’t lie to us. Factcheck.org took the allegation apart. It does not make Bush look good or prescient, but it he didn’t lie. As you know, most leading Dems drew the same sorts of conclusions. Which part of the factcheck.org do you dispute?

You might also like to look at their chronology of Katrina.

These are realistic assessments. We can all find things we don’t like, but your assertions about Bush lying etc just don’t fit the facts.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #134821

I actually laughed out loud reading shawn’s post. Haha!

He actually listed “democracy” as a policy Bush is doing wrong.

Keep ‘em coming shawn you’re making us look great!

Posted by: CommonSense at March 20, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #134827

Jack, being purposefully misleading is worse than lying in my opinion. Lying can be explained by ignorance or an honest mistake. Purposeful-misleading can only be explained by deceit and dishonesty.

I agree that many people merely have a negative perception of Bush rather than hardcore evidence, but if you’d like me to say why I believe Bush (as well as almost all politicians)are misleading I will give you a list.

Oh, and CommonSense, what in your mind makes democracy necessarily a good thing?

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #134831

The democrats want to talk about how bush is illegaly spying on suspected terrorists or people in relations with the terrorist. 1st of all, were in a time of war, he has the power.

2nd of all, Bill Clinton constantly searced poeples houses in the U.S. , get this, Without a warrent. That is to be noted as Illegal. but did the republicans cry about it. I dont think so.

So I think the democrats need to stop acting like pre-schoolers and find a platform to stand on, inthen we will talk like adults. Untill then, no one cares about democrats.

Posted by: Justin at March 20, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #134833

Jack,
Oh man, your soooooo right!!! Wow, now that I think about it, Bush was just misleading us to thinking there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; but the funny thing is that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Oh screw me! I’m too dumb to know what’s going on; I just listen to his speeches like this one that said Iraq has biological and chemical weapons.
Also, we all know that President Bush knew of the levees breaking the night before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, yet he didn’t respond until the day after the Hurricane hit.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 20, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #134835

Justin,
Since when was war declared on Iraq because I don’t remember there being a declaration. Unless your talking about the “War on Terror”, come to think of it, the boogey man has been terrorizing me, let’s bomb the crap out of him.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 20, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #134866

Zeek and Green

It was commonly believed that Saddam had such weapons. You can find Democrats saying the same thing over and over. The intelligence was flawed. That is why they call it intelligence and not news.

The president has the duty to make decisions based on incomplete information. If information is perfect, we really don’t need a decision maker.

And Green, about being too dumb to know what is going on …

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #134869

You people need to wake the hell up!!! If it wasn’t for President Bush This country would be at war on our own soil! You democrats are spineless! Bush won the election with record breaking numbers, stop crying about losing and start being an American instead of a bunch of spoiled brats that didn’t get their way.

wa wa wa. You guys are a joke!

Posted by: Republican at March 20, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #134872

any one happen to catch the news a couple of days ago. about a group of people who want to oust the extremist goverment of syria? he was qouted as saying something about bringing the walls down and forming a more moderate type of goverment. havent heard any more about it .

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 20, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #134874

Hey Greenstuff,

does your name mean snot? Or Greenpeace? I bet your in to the global warming crap too huh? Bush is to blame for global warming too huh? Global warming my a_ _ today is the coldest 1st day of spring in a long time in the USA. Wake up dude and start thinking for yourself instead of being told what to think by the liberal media. DUH!

Posted by: Republican at March 20, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #134876

i thought it was punxsutawney’s phils fault! i am sure your aware he saw his shadow this year.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 20, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #134881

Jack,

“It was commonly believed that Saddam had such weapons. You can find Democrats saying the same thing over and over. The intelligence was flawed. That is why they call it intelligence and not news.”

Ok, then why was it not (and still not) admitted that the pretense of Operation Iraqi Freedom was false? If what you say is true, why has no one taken responsibility and said, “Hey, we screwed up, big time. Now we gotta clean up the mess.”

?

In any case, I was not refering simply to 9/11 and the events which it spurned. I also meant that in general politicians are apt to phrase things in ways which distort the truth to their own ends without really “lying.” In light of this Bush is not particularly at fault, but he is part of the problem.

To clarify, I am NOT singling out Bush here.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #134889

you heard jack,

be a patriot, IMPEACH BUSH

Posted by: diogenes at March 20, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #134890

Zeek

I can actually tell you why, without trying to be facetious.

Despite your persistent error in being a Democrat, you seem like a smart guy who understands decision criteria. Before 9/11, we believed we were in a more benign world, where we would have sufficient warning before a catastrophe. 9/11 changed the trigger for decision and how much risk we were willing to tolerate. On September 10 we might have required a higher trigger. After we were unwilling to cut as much slack to a potential aggressor.

All major intelligence services believed Saddam had WMD. In fact, he was maintaining the capacity to make WMD. We had to minimize the maximum treat and that was that Saddam would develop and use WMD.

I supported the attack on Iraq in 2003. Knowing what I know now, I believe it was a mistake. However, knowing what we did then, I still consider the invasion a good decision. In other words, just because you are subsequently proven wrong does not mean the decision was wrong. For example, if I predict that you will not be able to flip heads on a coin ten times in a row, and then you achieve ten heads in a row, I still made the correct decision.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #134892

nikkolai

That wasn’t a definition - it was a string of invective. It’s considered flamebait here and is unwelcome.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 20, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #134911

Republican,
Since when did I ever mention Global Warming; I never even mention it and you going on a tangent on how it’s all Bush’s fault. Critique the “message”, not the “messenger”. Easy rules, you think you can follow them?

Posted by: greenstuff at March 20, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #134921

I’m a Democrat? When the hell did that happen?

Back to the point:
Can you tell me where we make the jump from 9/11 to Saddam Hussein? I see how things “change” after 9/11, but where does Saddam get dragged into this? Is he somehow a relevant threat to us? Does he pose a particularly significant threat? What is our goal in invading Iraq?

I feel these are the questions which should have been asked pre-invasion. If they were, even with the information we had then it makes no sense to consider Iraq our priority.

You claim Saddam was a potential aggressor. Him and what army? We stomped him in the first Gulf War didn’t we? What infrastructure did they have much less weapon-delivery systems?

I get that you’re saying hind-sight is twenty-twenty and that we couldn’t know for sure what we know today. However, I return to the fact that no one has accepted blame and said “we messed up.” Because there was a screw up and a mistake was made. If we refuse to acknowledge a fault we will make the same mistakes in the future.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #134924

Greensnot,

Read the post…it was a question!

Posted by: Republican at March 20, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #134925

Jack,
It might have been a good idea to invade Iraq, IF they had weapons of mass destruction, but they didn’t. Although it was possilble they might’ve had weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, any possiblity of having or creating them were destroyed by the Israel Airforce.
Even though it is true that not all mistakes are “wrong”, but the choice to invade Iraq under insufficient intelligence and not enough armor and equipment to supply our Hummers and troops was wrong. Currently Iraq is in a civil war where about 60 people are killed each day. Yet the Bush Administration tries to hide this by saying that the insurgency is down and so is the sectarian violence. However the former interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, said that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, saying, “If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.”

Posted by: greenstuff at March 20, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #134932

greenstuff, it’s not as though the region was in better shape before we invaded it (as far as the civil war goes). Plus, Sunni/Shia tensions have been present way before the U.S. came in and are only now erupting because Saddam is not there to squelch them all.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #134937

zeek,

you have to understand, jack is not a conservative. he is a neocon. this means that anyone who does not agree with him is a liberal/democrat. neocons use this as one of their many distraction tactics to preemptively attack you for their own ‘crime’. neocons are not conservatives (in my opinion, they’re far closer to liberals themselves), and they are understandably a little bit pissed that they are being called out on this fact. (big, centralized government; borrow&spend, fiscal irresponsibility —> that’s bush… does that sound like a conservative?)

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 20, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #134940

Republican,
I don’t think there’s anyone named greensnot here; but there is a guy named greenstuff, so I’ll assume that you are talking to me.

I bet your in to the global warming crap too huh? Bush is to blame for global warming too huh? Global warming my a_ _ today is the coldest 1st day of spring in a long time in the USA. Wake up dude and start thinking for yourself instead of being told what to think by the liberal media. DUH!

Well then, to answer your biased questions, yes I am a environmentalist and Bush isn’t to blame for global warming. However, the glaciers around Greenland have been melting at a rate faster than ever.
Also this year has been the warmest year, globally, and the temperatures of the oceans have risen up to 2 degrees thus causing more hurricanes. As one can apparantly see, global warming isn’t your “a_ _”.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 20, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #134944

“Global warming my a_ _ today is the coldest 1st day of spring in a long time in the USA. Wake up dude and start thinking for yourself instead of being told what to think by the liberal media.”

global warming does not mean warmer temperatures all around. it means more inclement, far less predictable weather. some places will experience drought, others flooding, some inordinate heat, others intense cold. need an example? check the news. also, as is now common knowledge, the end effect could be a new, human-induced ice age.

do some research before you accept bush’s ‘word’ for anything. in fact, not that i’d advise it, but you’d do better to consider everything bush says a lie - you’d at least have a much higher batting average. there is no place for politics in hard science.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 21, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #134961

ElliotBay—It was less invective than most of the other comments here! But you really should see the Larry King transcript. Classic Hitchens as only he can do.

Posted by: nikkolai at March 21, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #134993

Somewhere in there I read a comment that “since when is democracy a good thing?” For the answer to that question, ask the billions of people around the world who don’t have it. Ask the millions of people who have and continue to come to America looking for it. And, FYI, America is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. Big difference. Pure democracy is anarchy and, like communism and facism, looks good on paper but don’t work in the real world.

Posted by: Bill M. at March 21, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #135004

I have been reading through this and keep wondering one thing, why you people are even bothering to debate with these liberals? It is a complete waste of time and effort. They already have their minds made up so they won’t be confused by the facts. Everyone knows that the before the Iraq war started the Dems were saying Sadam had WMDs and would use them. Everyone knows that the Congress gave the President the authority to use force. Everyone knows that the President’s war powers include the authority to gather intelligence (if you don’t know that it’s in a long forgotten, little known and used document called the Constitution of the United States, you should read it sometime). It makes absolute sense to me that Congress would let the President order troops to be able to kill the enemy, but don’t listen in to find out where they are planning to kill us. It should be a well known fact that President Clinton ordered more DOMESTIC wiretaps then any president in history. I don’t recall the ACLU or other liberal organizations having a problem with that. Yet when President Bush orders the NSA to listen in on TERRORIST communications all the libs get excited. Go Figure

Posted by: Paul A at March 21, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #135006

diogenes, I don’t care what Jack “is,” I was merely explaining to him that I am not a Democrat (or liberal for that matter). I am confident he has the mental capacity to understand this and that he won’t label me a Democrat/liberal arbitrarily in the future.

Bill M., my question was, “why is democracy necessarily a good thing?”

In my opinion, it is analagous to religion. Religion works with some people, but not others. Trying to convert every government to a democracy is like trying to convert everyone to Christianity.

Thank you for bringing up the fact that we are not a democracy. I would like to elaborate and say that there isn’t a nation in the world that is a pure democracy. To keep things simple I refer to our government as “democracy,” though “representative government” would indeed be a more accurate term.

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #135025

Once again, George Bush went before the world without a single idea in his head, just an earpiece in his ear feeding canned answers from Karl Rove. And once again, the press acted completely oblivious to the farce in their faces. When the truth about Bush’s earpiece comes out, the entire corporate media will collapse with the Bush administration and the GOP.
Bush appeared to answer the first question from the AP - whether Iraq was in a civil war, as Iyad Allawi said this weekend - from his own head. But then his brain was too fried to answer Reuters reporter Steve Holland’s question, so he tuned into the earpiece and mumbled his way through the answer.
Bush’s reliance on his earpiece produced at least one glaring error: when babbling about the strategy of Al Qaeda, he first said they wanted to overthrow “modern” Arabic governments. But that was not the word Karl Rove had used, so in the next sentence he had to correct himself, referring instead to moderate Arab governments.
Now on to the “substance” of the press conference.
1. Helen Thomas hit Bush right between the eyes with the question Bush cannot answer: why the hell are we in Iraq, wasting thousands of American lives and trillions of America’s taxpayer dollars?
Thomas pointed out that every reason Bush gave for the war turned out to be lies. She also pointed out that Cabinet officials like Paul O’Neill said Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the day he stole the White House.
Bush replied with his Biggest Lie: that Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq, and refused to disclose all of his government’s records on WMD’s.
I wonder if they are finally asking, in the republican cloakroom, “who in hell sold us this guy?”
Too late to get your money back, guys, you bought him and you own him.
CNN just ran the tape of bush announcing that major combat had ended in Iraq, one problem…there was no longer a banner behind him saying Mission Accomplished, I think they photoshopped it out!

Posted by: shawn at March 21, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #135033

Zeek

Sorry for calling you a Democrat. We are suppose to critique the message not the messenger, and I can understand why you would not want to be called something like that..

Re your comment.

In a normal environment, you would acknowledge a mistake, analyze why it happened and learn from the process. In a political environment, if you acknowledge the mistake, all that happens is your opponents up the ante. It is a poisonous environment. It is not new. Republicans did it to Clinton. That is why the sphere of politics should be kept as narrow as possible.

But I do not think anyone “messed up”. There is no blame. A mistake does not necessarily require blame. If you make a decision that is logical on the basis of the information available, which is then shown to be wrong based on subsequent information, you made a mistake, but you did not mess up. In fact, the right decision based on the wrong process is more of a mess up. If I just get something right by random chance, it doesn’t mean I am a good decision maker.

It is also true that in any complex operation, anyone will make lots of mistakes. My father was at Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge. We won both those, but from what he told me and what I read it was generally chaotic. That is why they came up with the SNAFU term. Remember, situation normal.

We made mistakes in Iraq and learned from them. We analyzing a problem, you can look backward or forward. Looking backward, we try to find out whose fault it is so that we can blame. A forward looking person asks what can be done to make the situation better.

Green

The stated objective of Al Qaeda is to provoke a bloody civil war in Iraq. These are really horrible people who seem to enjoy death, even when they are killing many Muslims. They have so far been unable to do that. (During our civil war we had a population about the size of Iraq’s. How many men were shot during a fifteen minute period during the battle of Antietam and how many died all together?).

If the bad guys succeed in provoking such a war, the whole world will be worse off, so we should support the Administration’s efforts to prevent them from succeeding. Some people have good suggestions about this. Others not. The operative question is, “so what do we do?”

If you answer is “pull out” you are not really interested in preventing a civil war.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #135050

Most of you are idiots.

You cite poll numbers and seem to think that because Bush’s poll numbers are low, that alone is justification for his removal from office. Ever hear of something called “the tyranny of majority rule”? Thank God we live in a country ruled by law rather than the current whims of the majority.

I take that back - Most of you are not idiots. Most of you are DANGEROUS idiots.

Posted by: Chris at March 21, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #135054

Jack,
I’m sorry to dissapoint you, but unfortunately there is a civil war going on currently in Iraq. It’s been reported by many Iraqi officials that about 60 people die everyday due to the sectarian violence; even the former interim minister of Iraq, Ayad Allawi, supported the claim that Iraq is in the mist of a civil war. He said,”If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.”
Yet, the Bush Administration is being as optimistic as ever and acting like everything in Iraq is going according to plan. Iraq is in an even worse state of chaos and violence than when Saddam and his Bathe Party were in control.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 21, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #135061

It appears the left is rooting for a civil war in Iraq. And that’s not gonna be good for anyone….

Posted by: nikkolai at March 21, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #135065

Greenstuff,

The civil war is here at home because of all the negative liberal media tearing this country apart.

Whats wrong with Bush being optimistic? Maybe the democrats should be more optimistic…oh wait a minute that word isn’t in your vocabulary is it?

God forbid be optimistic that might be a positive thing.

Since you guys have a better way of dealing with terrorist lets hear it.

Posted by: Republican at March 21, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #135072

Re Civil war

About 2,300 casualties, mostly Pennsylvanians, were taken Between 9:00 and 9:15 on September 17, 1862 in a cornfield in western Maryland. That was only the start of the battle.

You can find worse in other civil wars. I hope it doesn’t happen in Iraq, and it has not yet.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #135081

Republican,
As usual, whenever something goes wrong, especially in Iraq, the typical Republican blames the “liberal media.”
I never said there was anything wrong with being optimistic, but there is something wrong when someone has lost touch with reality and then is optimistic.

Jack,

You can find worse in other civil wars. I hope it doesn’t happen in Iraq, and it has not yet.

Sure, the current war in Iraq doesn’t have the casualties equivalent to America’s Civil War; but like how you said it yourself, it hasn’t happened YET. Also, when about 60 people die everyday in a civil war, I consider it a pretty violent one, not as violent as America’s Civil War, but nevertheless still a pretty violent one.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 21, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #135096

greenstuff,

How about answering the whole question, if Bush is not doing it right then maybe you could tell us how it should be done!

Typical liberal only answer half the question, talk about how the war is wrong but don’t give us your opinion on how to deal with terrorist.

answer whole the question!

Posted by: Republican at March 21, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #135105

Jack,

“In a political environment, if you acknowledge the mistake, all that happens is your opponents up the ante.”

Well, I believe that Regan expressed regret and gave what (in the political world) amounts to an apology for the Iran-Contra scandal. Bush has not expressed any such notion. This leads me to believe he is just another politician watching his own back.

“A mistake does not necessarily require blame.”

Fair enough. Then the question I would ask is, what have we learned? Has our intelligence gathering improved? As far as I can see, we’ve pumped more money into domestic surveillance and nothing else.

You speak of making the situation better as we go forward, how can we possibly hope to do that by “staying the course?”

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #135153

ITS AMAZING THE EXTENT THAT THE LEFT LEANING FOLKS WILL SAY DO AND THE INSULTS THEY TOSS AT EACH OTHER. DEBAIT IS OK WHEN CONTROLED SOME MINDS WILL NEVER CHANGE. WE AS HUMANS CANT SIT BACK AND WATCH CIVILIATION DISTROY ITS SELF ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACKS. DO NOT WIN GAMES NOR WARS AND THE ALMITY AND POWERFUL INSULTING NEANDRATHAL LEFT WING SELF IMPORTANT FOLKS WHOM WOULD SELL HIS OR HER FELLOW COUNTRIEMEN DOWN THE ROAD WILL BE THE FIRST IN THE CRYBABY LINE IF THEY WIN AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY ARE FACED WITH DOOMS DAY AND ALL THEY CAN DO IS PICK THERE NOSE AND WIPE THE ASS BEFORE THEY TALK OUT OF IT MANY OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE NEVER FACED THE TRUE HORROR OF THERE FAMILYS BEING SLAGHTERD IN FRONT OF THEM AND CONTRIES ARE SO POOR THEY HAVE TO PAY YOUNG PEOPLE TO BLOW THEMSELEVES UP YET CAN BUILD WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCKTION THEY CARE NOT ABOUT HUMAN LIFE MAN WOMEN OR CHILD CHILDREN WERE USED AS BOMBS IN NAM BY THE COMUNIST PARTY AND TO LOOK INTO THE LIFLES EYES OF A CHILD WITH NO HOPE!AND SO LONG AS THAT BOMB OR GUN IS NOT AMIDE AT YOU YOUR OK WITH THAT UNTILL THERES NO ONE LEFT BUT YOU AND THE TRUE KILLER AND YOU LOOK AT HIM BUT THAT SHARK CANT SEE YOU CAUSE HES IN A KILLING FRENZY AND YOU ARE HIS LAST SUPPER SAD TRULY SAD

Posted by: F A STEPHENS at March 21, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #135158

Zeek

Reagan was the great communicator. He could pull it off. Bush is less so.

Reagan was also very popular. He just had more capital.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #135197

Jack,

How about answering the whole question, if Bush is not doing it right then maybe you could tell us how it should be done!

Well first, the President should admit that going to Iraq was a mistake. We can’t pull out of Iraq as it is in its current state because only god knows what will go on if the place is left be. Instead we should go to the UN and ask for help in rebuilding Iraq; ask for aid and troops from the international community in order to form a new stronger gov’t. In this way, the US won’t be as burdened money and military wise, and security in Iraq will increase with more troops occupying the country.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 22, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #135199

Green

That wasn’t my question.

But I can answer. Bush has asked for aid from the international community. Many times. Sometimes they promise. Often not. Even in a “popular” and not dangerous thing, such as AIDS research, we don’t see the international community actually coming up with its share. Which countries do you think will send troops? How will they get to Iraq (since few countries have transport capablility)? Will they fight? Has the international community ever ended a war without the U.S. and its allies doing most of the real fighting? Can you think of one time? Maybe E. Timur (if you are generous).

Remember those UN troops in Srebrinica? Good job there of protecting Muslim civilians. Darfur? Rwanda?

Posted by: Jack at March 22, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #135304

Jack,
The United States and its allies are the UN. Most of the “heavy lifting” in Iraq has already been done, now all that is needed to do is to make better a post war Iraq. The UN seems to do a good job at nation building, one example is Sierra Leone where it has continued to this day to be a strong democratic gov’t; another example is Kosovo where reconstruction is going along nicely.
Srebrinica and Rwanda was a tragedy and will always be a stain on the UN’s record but Darfur hasn’t been taken over yet by UN peacekeeping forces, it is still under the jurisdiction of the African Union, which has done a horrible job. Fortunatly the UN will take over peace operations in Darfur soon.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 22, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #135382

nikkolai,

It was less invective than most of the other comments here!
And if all the other kids jumped off the bridge, would you jump off the bridge too? C’mon - I quit letting my kid get away with a lame excuse like that when he was ten years old. Grow up.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 22, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #135390

Green

And where will those UN troops in Darfur come from? Are we thinking NATO?

Do you believe the heavy lifting in Iraq is done. We (the U.S. and allies) brought the settlements to Bosnia and Kosovo. The UN was impotent. I am an optimistic guy, but you are more optimistic than I am if you believe Iraq is in a condition where the UN could (or would) be able to take over. I wish it was so.

Posted by: Jack at March 22, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #135397

Jack,
It’s very simple, U.S.+U.S. allies = UN.
Why isn’t Iraq in condition to be given to the UN, I guess Bush’s neoconservative propaganda isn’t fooling even the typical republican.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 22, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #135449

Green

So NATO and the U.S. are the same a the UN? That means that we not only pay for 25% of the UN’s general expenses, but we also pay for 90% of its military arm and take ALL the crap for anything that happens. Not a good deal.

So if we “give” Iraq to the UN we still do all the actual fighting and dying. But now we report to the UN. How does that make us better off.

Posted by: Jack at March 23, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #138976

to all the politian’s from the president on down, the so called people we elected to office to maintain and keep our country safe,unfortunely you have failed to keep your oath’s.we do not want our constitution made new to suit some politian’s fancy. we need is to clean house and put official’s in office who know what this country is about.america is now invaded with alien’s,criminal’s, and none of you have kept your promises.america is being laughed at because of the politian’s we have in office.it’s time to close the border’s,no alien’s,no amnesty,make america safe again. the american people are tired of these games.
concerned citizen

Posted by: evelyn at April 7, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #144215

A significant number of Americans of both major political parties believe strongly that the problem of illegal immigration must be dealt with decisively.

We would do well to understand that the only solution that is likely to be effective, and yet timely enough to head off economic and cultural disaster, is the threat of impeachment to George W. Bush.

However, conservatives who favor Bush’s impeachment are in a distinct minority, and liberals so inclined, despite a loud volume of rhetoric from the left, are also a minority.

I believe the lack of support for Bush’s impeachment, across the political spectrum, stems solely from the impeachment movement’s sole reliance up to now on anti-war grounds. Like it or not, there are not enough Americans who are convinced of the wrongness of the Iraq war effort itself. Stated another way, there are too many voters who supported, and will continue to support, military intervention in Iraq on any grounds whatsoever.

If the two minorities from either end of the political spectrum could make common cause, a coalition with enough votes in Congress might be formed with could at least begin the impeachment process. In this way the Bush administration might feel sufficiently threatened to move to the right, taking the actions conservatives desire as to illegal immigration, namely: securing our borders, deporting illegal aliens, and prosecuting employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens. Concurrently, Bush might be moved to begin a decisive disengagement from Iraq.

How could such common cause be made? It would involve a significant and far-reaching compromise between the liberals and conservatives. Let’s re-state the situation which makes compromise imperative: a) Some liberals favor the impeachment of Bush over alleged lies and abuse of power related to the war in Iraq, while conservatives discount these factors, in whole or in large part; and, b) Some conservatives believe the Bush is in violation of his oath of office…certainly an impeachable offense…for failing to act decisively on the illegal immigration question.

To effect a compromise that would significantly increase momentum for Bush’s impeachment, articles of impeachment should be drafted which include not only the left’s charges concerning the war, but also the right’s charges that Bush has violated his oath of office.

Each side would have to “give,” as follows: Liberals would have to come out against illegal immigration, and conservatives would have to endorse the liberal position concerning the war and national security power abuses.

Naturally, each side would insist on a “gain.” The gain for liberals would be tacit conservative endorsement of the liberal position, and likely political gains for the Democrats in Congress in 2006, and an increased possibility of regaining the White House in 2008. Democrats have been accused of fringe mentality so long that such an endorsement would likely appeal to them, and appear as considerable and tangible in their eyes.

The gain for the conservatives could be twofold: 1) decisive action against illegal immigration, or a clear declaration that such will be necessary for any politician seeking conservative support; and 2) negotiation of a mutually acceptable, yet decisive “exit strategy” from Iraq that would establish U. S. power credibility and largely break the back of the insurgency.

A possible such “exit strategy” would include cordonization and ensuing destruction of the Sunni triangle…preceeded by a suitable period allowing any person the opportunity to exit through screening checkpoints…this to be followed with a phased withdrawal of combat troops (definitely short term, but without announced timelines) leaving only advisory-type units to train and coordinate operations of the Iraqi security forces. Further, the exit of combat troops should be tied to tangible evidence of Syrian and Irani disengagement from support of the insurgency, delineated through direct diplomatic efforts. Failure to meet such targets, it would be made clear, would be cause for re-introduction of direct U. S. combat power.

Such a compromise between the liberal and conservative patriots in this Country appears to be necessary to accomplish what we both desire, i.e.: the removal of an administration which is proving itself increasingly unable or unwilling to address critical problems facing America.

What we lack is only agreement on the grounds which could constuct such a compromise, and a core of leadership in the Congress, from Members on both sides of the aisle, which could take this idea and begin to move it forward.

I am appealing to such leadership, through this forum and website, that it begin the process. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.

Posted by: Proposal for a Compromise at April 29, 2006 6:51 PM
Post a comment