Or maybe they got a tip Bush plans to attack Iran. Stay tuned.

I thought hey were al broke or strung out on coke by now. Afer all they haven't had a hit since early '70s.

excellent timing. watch Monday.

Kucinich: my very first - and top - choice for the presidency.

I favor impeaching the son of a Bush as much as anyone, but I'd hate to put aside the main issue of repairing eight years of damage for that. It seems to me that if we an neutralize him for the rest of the year we might be able simply to arrest him in January - for high treason, crimes against the environment, the world and the nation, grand theft on a virtually unprecedented scale (billions!), we might be able to convict him AND put the country back on track. herm

you crazy sunsabitches are running out of time.
and let me ask again.

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE DELAY PRISON SENTENCE FOR BEING GUILTY OF ALL OF THOSE CRIMES YOU SWORE TO ME HE WAS GUILTY OF>...............eh?????????????
?

I so hope it goes somewhere. Oh and Herm the only way one can get some healing to this Country REAL healing is when You prosecute those SOB's for their War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

Larry Mohr

Tune in C-Span now: He's at Article 29 of 35 now! (10:08 pm EDT/7:08 PDT)

A little overstated. This is the barest beging that Pelosi will kill in committee. I becha!!!

It's a start: and it'll take until after McClellan testifies before the committee votes on it. Betcha!

At least it's in the Congressional Record.

"WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE DELAY PRISON SENTENCE FOR BEING GUILTY OF ALL OF THOSE CRIMES YOU SWORE TO ME HE WAS GUILTY OF>...............eh?????????????
"

Has he even come to trail yet?

I wonder if Hillary is going to go to jail too, along with Bush for all deciding together to invade iraq. After all, Bush can't do anything without democrat approval. All intelligence estimates were given to congress.

Maybe we should impeach all of congress because not 1 of them actually read it.

LOL NONE OF THEM READ IT.

Seriously, Lenny Mohr, Danni, Dethspud, and B-Bob would be a far more intelligent and worthy members of congress compared to any democrat we have right now in there.

They read nothing, add in billions in pork, bandwagon for political motives, and have their bank accounts as their #1 best interest.

Thats a great party if you ask me, I elect Danni instead.

Kuma

SANANTONIOROGUE- Crap man get a new handle.

I believe you meant trials not trails. However if you meant to send Shrubbie down that long lonesome trail(to prison or just an unsupervised walk through the worst anti-USA area in Iraq-unarmed or guarded)

I think this should be done with a bit more thought. If we were to list every crime the slime ball was part of, century's might do it. Just go for the biggies and that should be adequate.

Let's face it, getting the country invading and truly ruining Iraq with lies, estimates of 600,000 dead and higher. Nuff said1

Yes Keith, I meant trial. But it was re: DeLay, not Bush. The trial of Bush, Cheney, et al is still just a faint hope for those of us who think this country deserves a little justice.

"This is the barest beging that Pelosi will kill in committee. I becha!!!

Yep, it's only a matter of time, and probably not much time.

In fact, I'll be surprised to hear that the Bush Administration's own Kitty Forman let Kucinich finich.

Every time anyone mentions anything distasteful to her, like the notion that Bush might not be perfect, she starts squealing, "Who wants some COCOA?"

"WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE DELAY PRISON SENTENCE FOR BEING GUILTY OF ALL OF THOSE CRIMES YOU SWORE TO ME HE WAS GUILTY OF>...............eh?????????????
"

YEAH!

I have never seen an inocent man delay his day of vindication for so long!
Eh?

It's a start: and it'll take until after McClellan testifies before the committee votes on it. Betcha!

At least it's in the Congressional Record.

Posted by townncountry at 2008-06-09 10:14 PM
What--Scotty talking about what he didn't hear or see --just hiiiiiiiisssss feeeeeelings!

Impeach them all--they all saw the data and voted on it. Impeach the UN--Impeach France and Jordan and SA and the whole friggin world!

This goes into committee and dies again --same as in 2007 when he did the same thing.

Like the Eveready Bunny, Kucinich keeps going, and going and going ...

Sock it to 'em, Dennis!

"...the only way one can get some healing ... is when You prosecute those SOB's..."

This country will not heal easily. The Bush/Cheney mafia will not get the hypo-on-the-gurney, and not even that would not spell closure. Israel's offing Adolf Eichmann was little closure for survivors of the six million killed in Nazi camps.

Some modicum of closure will come if President O'Bama takes meaningful, positive steps to undo the Bush damage, maybe recover from Bush's secret bank accounts some of the billions looted from his American subjects. herm

"...the only way one can get some healing ... is when You prosecute those SOB's..."

This country will not heal easily. The Bush/Cheney mafia will not get the hypo-on-the-gurney, and not even that would not spell closure. Israel's offing Adolf Eichmann was little closure for survivors of the six million killed in Nazi camps.

Some modicum of closure will come if President O'Bama takes meaningful, positive steps to undo the Bush damage, maybe recover from Bush's secret bank accounts some of the billions looted from his American subjects. herm

Another waste of time wishful thinking blog by the crazy nutbag left wing dipshits.

Clinton got impeached for lying on the witness stand in a trial. Its called perjury. He then lost his law license in Arkansas. You can all say it was about a blowjob but you know it was about the law.

The reason there can be no impeachment of Bush is because he has done nothing wrong. If he was wrong about Iraq so was Bill Clinton who bombed Baghdad in 1998 over weapons of mass destruction. I wonder call we still get our hands on old Bill and drag his sorry ass off to prison for lying to congress about weapons of mass destruction?

Of course there are all those democrats too. They each must have lied in order to vote for something they clearly knew otherwise about. Don't pretend they were tricked I listened to their speeches on TV at the time. They were emphatic about the evidence the CIA presented them.

Bee Swell

How about Clinton bombing for 72 days of Boznia?

Get some press on this and it will gin up the Repubs..

MARYTYLERWHORE-That was beginning-my bad.

Thanks for the heads-up, TC. We could use a lot more politicians like Kucinich.

Null, It's like he's been reading my mind! Everything he is saying is so correct. Now Nancy Pelosi is in the hot seat. Let's see how she deals with this in the morning. I wonder if she's getting any sleep tonight?

I'm watching it now. It's a very impressive presentation. Too bad most people won't see a second of it.

By the time RCade acknowleges this is going on, it'll be history. He's probably golfing before sunset. West Coast slacker!

acknowledges

RCADE is east coast slacker. Check the time stamps. THAT is the exact time it is in His home "Office" or whereever He keeps the high tech hoity toity equipment.

Larry Mohr

Article 35 -- the last article -- is being read right now (11:45 EDT / 8:45 PDT). Well done, Dennis!

LARRY -- Thanks for the hint. By the hours he keeps, however, I'm convinced he's a West Coast slacker. Maybe he'll weigh in on whether his slackness is East Coast or West Coast induced.

Kucinich is done! 11:52 pm ET / 8:52 PT

Impressive! Let's see who carries this in tomorrow's news.

Looks like several other Reps are behind the resolution. We'll hear more of this in the coming days.

A great boon for the Obama campaign would be a bunch of attention focused on the impeachment process, and similar views supported by McCain.

America can pat its head and rub its belly at the same time.

Its refreshing to hear something genuine from Congress for once!

heres what Clinton got brought up for, compare that to what Kucinich said about Bush and you get a fair comaprision of the two Presidents:


Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I



On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

and also:


Article III


The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

needless to say Bushes resolution would take days of scrolling of numerous counts of treason, violation of privacy, war crimes, neglect of domestic duty, etc.etc.

Its pretty clear to see that what Clinton did is a white lie compared to the destruction and abuse Bush has brought to his Presidency.

Bush is just pure evil. He is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country.

Darn, I missed it. Do you think it will be rerun again on C-span?

My thought on impeachment of Bush has always been -- even if it goes nowhere and Bush is out of office long before impeachment can take place -- impeachment proceedings still need to at least be started anyway.

The reason for this is simple.
If we as a people do not attempt to impeach Bush after all he has done to this country -- particularly misleading us into war -- then how much higher will the bar for impeachment have to be set in the future for all U.S. Presidents who follow him?

The level of crimes and misdemeanors for impeachment to begin (if we don't do it now to Bush) would have to be enormously high for upcoming Presidents if in order to be impeached each would have had to surpass all that Bush has done.

CC -- I would think that given the gravity of what Kucinich presented today, CSpan HAS to re-run it. But who know what motivates C-Span. There was so much good stuff that Kucinich presented. Will the Cleveland Plain Dealer carry it tomorrow? Who knows, but it's more likely than the NY Times, NY Post, Washington Post, Washington Times, or any Chicago or LA papers. Guess you had to catch it live.

I am ready for the impeachment proceedings of Obama to start right now. Just in case he makes it as president. Never too soon to start getting rid of the enemy. We don't need any facts because neither did the democrats. Accusations are good enough for the democrats so they will be good enough for us.

I can see it now 4 or 8 years of he lied to us, raised our taxes, didn't keep his campaign promises, used the government for personal benefit for himself and friends, turned the justice department into a political machine, cheated in Ohio and Florida, etc.

Oh there are plenty more like these for Obama but I don't have all night to list them.


Bee Swell

We should impeach Obama when he gets elected for "Stealing" the election, and claim voter fraud.

just claiming the fraud means it happened on a mass scale. We don't need to prove it, it's a fact because we said so.

Kuma

Don't worry with accorn working on Obama's side they will be making a good effort to steal this election.

Bee Swell

dennis, no one appreciates you more than i do... i've stated here more than once that you deserved much better in your prez run than what you got from the media.
this latest calling for impeachment - not your first, i know - is going nowhere just like your earlier callings did. i wish you would've succeeded last year. this monkey should've been voted off the island years ago.

i also miss your witty banter and outside-the-box remarks.
so sad, really.

oh, and your wife is really hot.
and...sorry.. you look like an elf


all the best

I do think it's funny that the little guy with a freaky wife is the only one with balls enough to call for the impeachment of GWBush.

Kucinich has always been the best presidential candidate. Unfortunately, Americans are too shallow to overlook his small stature and squeaky voice. The reason he has such a hot wife is because she isn't shallow, and she knows him.

Only 35 articles. Wow you democrats are slipping. An not a one of them will ever see the light of day. How refreshing politics can be when the crazy leftnuts are allowed to talk themselves horse and cry till their eyes bleed all while Bush finishes out his 2nd term unfazed.

Bee Swell

Dennis Kucinich RAWKS!

Luff that li'l guy.

If America were a little bit more mature as a nation the guy woulda been made POTUS by now.

George Bush and Dick Cheney both deserve to be impeached fer a laundry list of War Crimes, misdemeanors and various traitorous acts.

The fucktarded GOPhers won't hear of it, of course, and the Dems aint got the numbers to push for it so it prolly aint gonna happen, unfortunately.

Good on Dennis fer trying though.

He's a real mensch.

Be Well.

/Elizabeth Kucinich fer Nekkid '08! ^_^

Spudfuck, are there not some tree squirrels left in your neighborhood that you still haven't fucked?

Try worrying about stupid fukin Canada and its politics fer once you libfuck.

I know you have wet dreams about Barackula but even he wouldn't fuck you libturd.


SEE YOU IN DENVER!!!


Bee Swell

Good morning, Mrs. Speaker. Now what will you do with this tidy package in the chamber?

Kucinich has cajones! No wonder such a hottie married him!

Especially Her pierced tongue. I have one too and boy they are funn to play with.

Larry Mohr

Impeach them all--they all saw the data and voted on it. Impeach the UN--Impeach France and Jordan and SA and the whole friggin world!

This goes into committee and dies again --same as in 2007 when he did the same thing

Don't forget Poland!

90% of America will never even know about this.
I'm glad Pelosi had to sit through the entire reading, I hoped it spoiled her dinner plans.
Dennis Kucinich should be VP.

Sbe, sounds pretty foolish now doesn't it? Don't forget your mesd this morning and take your backpack with you to the schoolbus.

Cheney First.

Go Kucinich.

What gives?
Posted by townncountry

You know what gives... you're not stupid, you're just afraid to admit it because the price of admitting it is just to high...

What gives is that the citizens of the United States of America have NO REPRESENTATION!!!

Non Serviam.

HC

"Why is the media missing the story?"

Because it's a joke? Because Kucinich is a wacko? Because this issue has all the impact of Cindy Sheehan's run for Congress? You know...maybe because of reasons like that.

"Why is the media missing the story?"

Because the corporate owners of the media do not want to have to acknowledge how popular impeachment is. It wouldn't look good if the vast majority backs Kucinich so just ignoring it is much safer.

Kucinich for VP!!!

Obama/Kucinich '08!

The lack of major media coverage for such an honest and brutal assessment of the range of pillaging this president has done just proves that the media is owned by corporate fascist interest that has nothing to do with whats good for America.

All 35 Articles were great crimes against this country.

Wonder if Bush is man enough to testify under oath like Clinton? Nah, bush and his followers are spineless lil kunts.

**** Impeach them all--they all saw the data and voted on it. Impeach the UN--Impeach France and Jordan and SA and the whole friggin world!
Posted by MURPHY ****

......first things first......

Apparently Murphy didnt watch the Resolution. Voting for the war resolution was a minor part of the litany of reasons to impeach Bush. But stupid fucks like murph usually dont pay much attention and would rather talk out their assholes.

well if the congress and senate move in their normal swift manner---bush will be dead and buried before the impeachment begins --can you impeah an x president?

Its up to Pelosi at this point, if she will not do her elected duty then impeach her too!


Yeah - clean the whole damn house of corrupt leaders unwilling to protect the rights of our citizens and uphold the Constitution!

CNN makes no mention of this proposal and nor does any other news service on tv that I have seen so far say anything at all.

My bet is on this dying the death of the "Evil Pelosi". This disease has no known cure in the short run but take heart, her lifespan is just so long.

Pelosi has made her position on impeachment clear in saying that "Impeachment is off of the table." Short of a really great VooDoo practitioner having a good day, forget it.

Do you idiots really think this is going anywhere????

Please tell me what crimes he as committed.

Its up to Pelosi at this point, if she will not do her elected duty then impeach her too!
Posted by Repugnant

Hate to say it, but he's right... It's not up to them to only take on the issues they think they can win, they have a constitutional obligation to move for impeachment, even if they don't have the votes.

F'ing Reid and Pelosi...

Plus, how many of these new "executive powers" do you think will be put back in teh proverbial bag, regardless of who becomes president? The answer is, not all of them.... without impeachment.

I pray everyday that Osama Obama picks that look that was abducted by aliens to be his VP. I love guys like Kucinich. It makes me happy that I voted for Admiral Stockdale.

Impeach! Write yer Congressman/woman and support Dennis.

I am writing mine in support of Dennis...

It may not go anywhere but if you say and do nothing I guarantee it won't.


BTW I luv Elves (and their wives!)... after all I am just a large gnomish whore anyway...

My Congressman is in touch with reality and would rather watch Days of our Lights than listen to one of Kucinich's delirious rants

for high treason, crimes against the environment, the world and the nation, grand theft .... blather, blather, blather

Posted by herm at 2008-06-09 09:49 PM | Reply

and then try him in the World Court!

Article 35 -- the last article -- is being read right now (11:45 EDT / 8:45 PDT). Well done, Dennis!

Posted by townncountry at 2008-06-09 11:46 PM | Reply

This is the Democrat version of "Girls Gone Wild"

Dennis! Show us your tits!

As usual, Vern is trying to say something. I regard it right side up, upside down or standing on its side. I still cannot detect any content. herm

Resolution--filed under Alien Abduction and/or Sighting.

There is a lot to be said and much to be done. DK will most likely not be the one doing it.

To say that Bushco has committed no crimes of any kind is a little silly. Remember, they are politicians(sorry) breaking the laws is all to much of the time, the way t goes.

There is certainly sufficiently enough cause to undergo intense investigation. My belief is that in trying to block this or hide thing, Bush will convict himself.

Dangerous stuff.

With timely resignations, McCain could be President before November.

don't forget to add 911 stuff:>)

Posted by Bani

It had nothing to do with the principles involved - it was the second shooter on the grassy knoll behind the fence that brought the towers down - planes? What planes?

If they offer the job to Hillary to finish the term, would she take it?

By taking it, would that make her happy?

The Hague and the world court are a sham. If Bush gets away with killing a million innocent iraqis, then there is no hague or world court authority.

Their prosecustion of previous "war criminals" was completly political.

Do you idiots really think this is going anywhere????

Please tell me what crimes he as committed.

Posted by 08r4ever at 2008-06-10 11:44 AM

The Conservative Republican definition of a Presidential crime:

"Any crime committed by a President must include as a minimum standard the involvement of a consentual blowjob from another adult in order to be an impeachable offense"...anything less (I.E... sending 4000 US Soldiers to their deaths for fabricated lies, being responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi Citizens due to pigheaded ignorant "Shock & Awe " bombing Campaigns, or performing criminal acts of wars against nations who did not threathen the United States or attack us) does not meet this minimum standard.

The Conservative Republican definition of a Presidential crime:

"Any crime committed by a President must include as a minimum standard the involvement of a consentual blowjob from another adult in order to be an impeachable offense"...anything less (I.E... sending 4000 US Soldiers to their deaths for fabricated lies, being responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi Citizens due to pigheaded ignorant "Shock & Awe " bombing Campaigns, or performing criminal acts of wars against nations who did not threathen the United States or attack us) does not meet this minimum standard.


Posted by USATrueandBlue7


Of course perjory on the stand had nothing to do with it. Give it a try USA and see how long you stay out of jail.

Of course perjory on the stand had nothing to do with it. Give it a try USA and see how long you stay out of jail.

Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-06-10 12:37 PM


Of Course it doesn't matter that GW Bush lies every time he opens his fucking mouth and refuses to testify under oath or allow anyone in his administration to testify under oath claiming Executive Priviledge.

When you're a pathologic liar, that the the normal course you take especially when your the slimy fuck this President is.

So Blow it out your ass jack-off !

especially since the bj story was a year & half old killed La Times story during Doles last summer run for Prez...

Ron Brown's assassination page in Newsweek a year & half later was too much, so Monica became front page news...

Sex sells, aye?:>)




todays headlines in yahoo

It's a baby girl for Tori
Tori Spelling and Dean McDermott welcome their second child. Name

Details on Jessica Alba's new baby Brangelina's expensive nursery 'X-Files' star expecting third child

Please tell me what crimes he as committed.

Go listen to Kucinich and his 35 articles and then come back to what the adults are discussing, its all over youtube.

We aren't here to spoon feed you infants.

Fuck impeachment. They should just install a stupidity meter in each new president. If he goes into the red, his head blows up. This would have gotten the planet rid of bush, oh, about 6 months after he started.

Of course perjory on the stand had nothing to do with it. Give it a try USA and see how long you stay out of jail.

Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-06-10

Like Scooty Libby ???

Of Course it doesn't matter that GW Bush lies every time he opens his fucking mouth and refuses to testify under oath or allow anyone in his administration to testify under oath claiming Executive Priviledge.

When you're a pathologic liar, that the the normal course you take especially when your the slimy fuck this President is.

So Blow it out your ass jack-off !

Posted by USATrueandBlue7


What are you going to do next year when you can't blame your hangnail on Bush USA?

By the way, if any recent president should be branded pathologic it really should be Clinton.

todays top stories on CNN Politics

* CNN's Electoral Map: Who's ahead
* Bush: This Europe trip is my last
* Ticker: McCain calls again for gas tax holiday
* McCain: 'I will veto every beer'Video
* CNNMoney: Obama's $50 billion boost
* Bill Clinton accusers dish dirt on Web
* Gates recommends new Air Force leaders
* Ticker: McClellan to testify in CIA leak case
* Analysis: Bush trip could soothe ruffled feathers


nope no reporting on a Congressional resolution to impeach.

impeach who? el?

**** can you impeah an x president?
Posted by newjasman ****

......no......but you can prosecute him for crimes.......

***** Do you idiots really think this is going anywhere???? ******

......we pine for justice.....

***** Please tell me what crimes he as committed.
Posted by 08r4ever ******

.......read the articles of impeachment....its history in the making......

**** By the way, if any recent president should be branded pathologic it really should be Clinton.
Posted by ELCIDCE90 *****

...how many hundred thousand innocent Iraqis did he kill ?.....

**** By the way, if any recent president should be branded pathologic it really should be Clinton.
Posted by ELCIDCE90 *****

...how many hundred thousand innocent Iraqis did he kill ?.....

Posted by skizziks
"Innocent" Iraqis, I would not know - neither would you for that matter -

Obviously more iraqis have been killed during this war than during Clinton's Operation Desert Fox and the ongoing bombing during his term - where were you when that was going on?

By the way:

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 4,061. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in "peacetime" but, of course, who's counting?

I still cannot detect any content. herm

Posted by herm at 2008-06-10 12:09 PM | Reply

There's no 'content' on this thread. Dennis is just grandstanding and getting liberal pussies like you all juicy. Just be prepared to be frustrated when he goes home. No tongue.

Bush will no be impeached. Nor Cheney. Ain't gonna happen. You're a fool to even put your hope into it. You're more likely to be abducted by Elvis on a flying saucer.

That's why I say it's just Dem porn: you are whacking off, nothing more.

All this means is that all of the post offices in Cleveland have been renamed, so Dennis has nothing else to do.

Herm, go take a reality pill

Herm, go take a reality pill

Posted by vernon


I recommend DMG:>)

***** "Innocent" Iraqis, I would not know - neither would you for that matter - Posted by ELCIDCE90 *****

.....the number ranges between 200,000 and 600,000 depending on how the estimate was formulated......

......these are innocent people murdered in a war based on lies formulated by a criminal conspiracy......

......bush is responsible for these murders......

Why would they do a story on something so ridiculous..
- Vermin

Because if they allow bush to treat the presidency in this manner, then it sets a catastrophic precedence for future Presidents to ignore the will of congress and citizens, enabling the President to rule as dictator in a tyrannical empire where the executive office is above the law.

Now judging by the way Vermin reacts to things Im sure he would support living in a fascist Nazi like country, but the intelligent and forward thinking optimists would like to see to it that such an environment is not cultured. Thus Kucinich's call for impeachment is warranted and newsworthy.

Of course Prokaryotes like vermin don't have the capacity to rationalize this.

Why would they do a story on something so ridiculous as a dwarf talking about impeachment?

Posted by vernon at 2008-06-10 01:48 PM

He is an Elf you idiot!

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 4,061. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in "peacetime" but, of course, who's counting?

Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-06-10 01:35 PM

El Cid your numbers are right-wingnut BS. I researched these when they showed up on another message board I visit. Actually the numbers are correct it the years that are wrong. They are from the 80's under Ronny (I negotiate with terrorist) Reagan. If you going to try and deal with facts make sure they are correct. Otherwise it makes you look stupid just like our Moron-in-Chief.

I agree that the media coverage of this has been downright shitty. Makes you wonder what's going on.

I do believe- contrary to Chancy Nancy Pelosi's opinion- that impeachment of Bush and Cheney is a necessary first step in the restoration of confidence in our Federal government. I think Dubya and Big Dick should be impeached and tried in the Senate. After that, our civil courts should get a crack at their misdeeds.

But- as the Ginsu Knife people say in their commercials- that's not all:

I also believe that an Obama administration should move fast and decisively to restore trust in our Federal laws and institutions. His Attorney General (and please God, let it be Hillary!) should work hard and publicly to clean up the mess of hinky opinions and bad law left by Bush Muppets Gonzales and Mukasey. Habeas corpus should be fully restored. Gitmo should be closed, and its prisoners' status brought into full compliance with international law and American principles of due process.

There should be a full investigation of the Katrina mess- not only the debacle of the storm and its immediate aftermath, but how in Hell years have passed with so little real progress to show for the time, effort and money that have been expended.

I would also want Nancy Pelosi impeached. She has stonewalled impeachments and investigations of Bush and his cronies long enough. She is a personal friend of Dubya's, and it shows. Her conflict of interest needs to be resolved by impeachment and trial as well. She's running the House like a dysfunctional mom, forcing everyone to accept her view of The Way Things Should Be, instead of overseeing due process.

Only by swiftly and decisively repudiating- and remediating- what has been going on these past seven-and-a-half years can Obama hope to be counted as the leader he wants people to think is.

The moves I'm suggesting here would go a long way towards restoring trust in this nation by its citizens, as well as its prestige abroad. Without a real house-cleaning, an Obama administration doesn't stand a prayer- he'll be a one-term wonder.

Kucinich is doing the right thing, even if the media doesn't yet see it that way. I got news fer Dubya: History will vindicate Ol' Dennis much sooner than it'll vindicate you.

I would support President Bush if he decided to take over the gov't. America needs a dictator that will break down the gates of the DNC HQ's and steal the names of their largest donors. Then we must pick them up and put them in labor camps to compete with Asian labor

Stalwart liberal Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) became the first member of Congress to co-sponsor Rep. Dennis Kucinich's resolution calling for President Bush's impeachment.

"President Bush deliberately created a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people and the charges detailed in this impeachment resolution indicate an unprecedented abuse of executive power," Wexler said in a news release. "A decision by Congress to pursue impeachment is not an option, it is a sworn duty. It is time for Congress to stand up and defend the Constitution against the blatant violations and illegalities of this Administration. Our Founding Fathers bestowed upon Congress the power of impeachment, and it is now time that we use it to defend the rule of law from this corrupt Administration."

I stand corrected - sorry about that Billyray:

official June 29, 2007 report done by Congress's very own Congressional Research Service.
1993 1213 Clinton
1994 1075 Clinton
1995 1040 Clinton
1996 974 Clinton
1997 817 Clinton
1998 827 Clinton
1999 796 Clinton
2000 758 Clinton 7500
2001 891 Bush
2002 999 Bush
2003 1228 Bush
2004 1874 Bush
2005 1942 Bush
2006 1858 Bush 8792

However, you should check your facts also Billyray - from the same report:
1981 2380 Reagan
1982 2319 Reagan
1983 2465 Reagan
1984 1999 Reagan
1985 2252 Reagan
1986 1984 Reagan
1987 1983 Reagan
1988 1819 Reagan 17201

Obviously higher than Bush or Clinton - What were you saying about looking stupid? And if you think that misinformation was not circulated during the Clinton years, you are more of a moron than Bush is.

I would support President Bush if he decided to take over the gov't. America needs a dictator that will break down the gates of the DNC HQ's and steal the names of their largest donors. Then we must pick them up and put them in labor camps to compete with Asian labor

Posted by timbci

sounds good to me...I get to work out/off my karma faster if I get to go, too:>)

but I'm not a registered DEM...damn

"President Bush deliberately created a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people..."

I did not know that the American People voted to approve military action in Iraq? I guess the congressmen and senators who voted to approve the conflict should be impeached next?

I guess the propaganda started under Bill Clinton's administration when :

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

If you guys think democrats are any different kind of politician than republicans you are delusional. The Bush administration did not invent evil.

Ummm, don't you think it's a little too late for impeachment? Plus, impeachment is what Clinton got for lying to Americans about a blowjob.

Can we come up with something that will be officially historically worse than impeachment?

Regardless, he'll be viewed as a disgrace to America and the world.

The Bush administration did not invent evil.

They did perpetrate it though, and they should be held accountable to the law for it, not above it and allowed to skate away on executive privilidge.

Don't you understand how corrosive to our National Hertiage that would be.


The WHIGS and PNAC engineered a case to pre-emptively start a war whether or not what they assert was factual, also called lies, lies that were used to convince congress and Americans that war was the only solution.

Furthermore, congress did not authorize Bush to invade Iraq, what they did was authorize the use of force if the UN diplomacy had been exhausted. At the time of the invasion the UN said that Saddam was cooperating with inspections and that no evidence had been found to support the Bush allegations of WMD.

Ummm, don't you think it's a little too late for impeachment?

No!

He is still President isnt he?

He can still try to start a war with Iran cant he?

He could still have to appoint another supreme court justice if something happened to one of the older liberal justices eh...

but then again some people are just happier closing their eyes, putting fingers in their ears and yelling blah,blah,blah...

"If you guys think democrats are any different kind of politician than republicans you are delusional. The Bush administration did not invent evil."

Nope, we're not delusional. But we do want things to change, and agitating and working towards that goal is not a pipe dream.

We are in a situation that is very familiar to Americans of a certain age, the generation who lived through Watergate. Trust me, there were plenty of pols back then who didn't want to rock the boat. There were plenty of people who said that pursuing the wrongdoers would be divisive and would "tear up the country." In the end, the system worked, we got some closure (though not the full measure we needed), and the good old U.S. of A. rocked on through the rest of the '70s.

In hindsight, we should actually have pressed harder for even fuller closure. We did get Nixon to resign, and Ford was a decent guy and a decent Prez. But Ford- honestly, I believe- subscribed to the view that impeaching or prosecuting Nixon would be too much for the country to bear. He meant well, but his decision to pardon the First Crook left the nation without a precedent it sorely needs today. Had we had a mug shot of Tricky Dick to point to these past few years, it might have been easier to curb some of the excesses of Dubya and Company.

I think as we get deeper into more opportunistic and less moral times, we owe it to ourselves, and our country, to establish the precedent Ford didn't let happen. If the principles of our Founding Fathers mean anything at all, we must try criminal Presidents right along with criminal drug dealers and criminal tax evaders and criminal scofflaws who never answer parking tickets. We cannot be equal under the law if those who occupy the White House scream that the Constitution is a "God-damned piece of paper" and proceed to conduct themselves according to that belief.

When George W. Bush's Presidential Library is completed in the future, I wonder if the displays will have in built in piss protectors?

*** The Bush administration did not invent evil.
Posted by ELCIDCE90 ***

......but they are enthusiastic perpetrators of it.......

Dangerous stuff.

With timely resignations, McCain could be President before November.

Posted by Petrous


Not so. McCain is not in the chain of succession. He is only their candidate for the next election. If the Prez.VP and more resign, it will not give McCain any power or sudden ascension to the Presidency.

El Cid,
My apologies. The post I referred to had Clinton and Reagan data swapped and your post looked similar. I assumed (my bad) that you were referring to the same BS and I didn't check first. The numbers in your second post are right on. Friends?

I will repost what I had in the other board just to round this out...

I won't repeat the data in the table here, you all can look at that yourself (for the first time?), but I will summarize:
Reagan saw 17201 total deaths of which 58 were from hostile action and 293 from Terrorist attacks.
Bush I saw 6223 deaths during his four years of which 170 were hostile action and 2 from Terrorist attacks.
Bubba saw 7500 deaths 1 from hostile action and 75 from Terrorists.
Lastly, your idol and hero W in only 6 years (available data) saw 8792 deaths of which he is responsible for 2596 (a vast majority Iraq, Bush's war of choice) and 55 due to Terrorist attacks.

It is interesting to note, from Table 5, the number of suicides decreased by almost 50% from the Reagan years only to pick up again during W's reign. Deaths due to homicide and accident showed the same trends but not nearly as dramatic.

"Not so. McCain is not in the chain of succession. "

Cheney could resign and McCain become VP, and then Bush resigns. Fairly simple.

Does that fucking moron have a clue ? What is it with you fucking wimping whining girlie boy fucks ? Is there some kind of score card that you liberals keep ? The most worthless , fucked up , liberal moron who can make the most extreme brainless statement gets to kiss osama obama's ass or what ?
susan the brainless twit saranwrap wants to leave the country if mccain wins , OK susan , you get to kiss osama obama's brown eye first and then you are FREE to leave , don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out , we would'nt want the door to get damaged , brian williams , one of the worthless fucks that help break America with his perpetuation of the liberal lie is 2nd , kucinach your 3rd , but because your truly brain fucked , you get to kiss it twice .
Who is next , who is going to blow out their ass another worthless statement ?
GOD , you fucks need to get a clue , the majority of real Americans do not want to support the illegals , we don't give a fucking shit about your ideology , marxism is a disease that has to be iradicated from the planet .

"Cheney could resign and McCain become VP, and then Bush resigns. Fairly simple."

Yup, that's how Ford became Prez. Nobody elected him.

BillyRay, there's no reason to apologize.

If you want to make the numbers really stand out, restate them as a ratio to the size of the Military under each President. You'll find Bush's rate to be more than twice that of Clinton's.

Besides, El Cid is conveniently restating and mixing numbers. First he ignores the rate of death, then he reduces his comparison of only those killed in action in Iraq against TOTAL deaths under Clinton. He then drops back and tries to cover himself with "data."

Here's the data:
Military Death Rate:
Clinton: .05
Bush 43: .11

Useful numbers, if El Cid wants to engage in this dishonest little game:

Reagan/Bush:
Year: Active Duty: Fatalities:
1980 2,050,758 2,392
1981 2,093,032 2,380
1982 2,112,609 2,319
1983 2,123,909 2,465
1984 2,138,339 1,999
1985 2,150,379 2,252
1986 2,177,845 1,984
1987 2,166,611 1,983
1988 2,121,659 1,819 (19,593 deaths, 9 years)
Bush/Quayle:
1989 2,112,128 1,636
1990 2,046,806 1,507
1991 1,943,937 1,787
1992 1,773,996 1,293 (4866 deaths, 4 years)
Clinton/Gore:
1993 1,675,269 1,213
1994 1,581,649 1,075
1995 1,502,343 1,040
1996 1,456,266 974
1997 1,418,773 817
1998 1,381,034 827
1999 1,367,838 796
2000 1,372,352 758 (7500 deaths, 8 years)
Bush/Cheney:
2001 1,384,812 891
2002 1,411,200 999
2003 1,423,348 1,228
2004 1,411,287 1,874
2005 1,378,014 1,942
2006 1,378,014 1,858
2007 1,378,014* 902 (9694 deaths, 7 years)

"What is it with you fucking wimping whining girlie boy fucks ?"

Having our legal system raped and pillaged, our nation's international prestige annihilated, our financial well-being destroyed, and our political system subverted by Rove and his ilk mighta had something to do with it.

You righties are amazing. Not only do you want to fist-fuck the rest of the world, you want to be loved and admired for it.

Shee-ut.

Has he even come to trail yet?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


nope and it hasnt come to trial either.....hee hee.

2007 1,378,014* 902 (9694 deaths, 7 years)

* Only the Iraq US KIA are listed.

Having our legal system raped and pillaged, our nation's international prestige annihilated, our financial well-being destroyed, and our political system subverted by Rove and his ilk mighta had something to do with it.

You righties are amazing. Not only do you want to fist-fuck the rest of the world, you want to be loved and admired for it.

Shee-ut.


Posted by MaryTylerWhore


wow.are you a posterboy for moveon or something?
prestige annihilated.......only in democrat campaign slogans
legal system raped.......are you referring to the FEW fired lawyers in a group that CLINTON FIRED ALL OF>.........

political system subverted..........OH you are talking about being beaten at YOUR OWN FUCKIN GAME..........AND TWICE I MIGHT ADD...........

Having our legal system raped and pillaged, our nation's international prestige annihilated, our financial well-being destroyed, and our political system subverted by Rove and his ilk mighta had something to do with it.

You righties are amazing. Not only do you want to fist-fuck the rest of the world, you want to be loved and admired for it.

Shee-ut.


Posted by MaryTylerWhore


wow.are you a posterboy for moveon or something?
prestige annihilated.......only in democrat campaign slogans
legal system raped.......are you referring to the FEW fired lawyers in a group that CLINTON FIRED ALL OF>.........

political system subverted..........OH you are talking about being beaten at YOUR OWN FUCKIN GAME..........AND TWICE I MIGHT ADD...........

Bushlovertwo:

You tell me- who has the limper dick?

The people in this country who expect the system to work according to its own principles and laws?

Or a bunch of Pennsylvania Avenue crooks who don't have the balls to so much as answer a subpoena without stonewalling, prevaricating, and telling investigators that requested evidence has been destroyed?

I am SO sick and motherfucking tired of you righties defending this guy and his cronies. You know perfectly goddamn well that his actions are reprehensible and indefensible, and that his answers to Congress so far reek of contempt for everything and everybody.

What is it with you guys, that you cannot see what everyone else sees so clearly? There is need for investigation, with the laws of this nation followed to the letter. If Bush is so squeaky clean, he should have no trouble answering questions and complying with requests for open records. If he hasn't done anything, then the system should clear him. It's only if he has done something (or many things) that he has anything to worry about. What is he- and what are you guys- so fucking afraid of?

If you're such a hot-shit rightie, you ought to be urging your boy to get his ass in front of Congress, instead of refusing to comply with investigations. If you believe in the system, and if you believe your dog will hunt, it oughta be a breeze.

C'mon. I dare ya.

are you referring to the FEW fired lawyers in a group that CLINTON FIRED ALL OF>.

Are you a fucking retard, BLT?

You keep parroting this right wing talking point over and over again but you seem to not have clue one as to why it's complete and utter bullshit.

When Clinton first took office he did indeed fire all the USAs as is pro forma. When Clinton started his second term he didn't fire any of them.

Bush at the beginning of his second term specifically set out to fire a group of USA's who "wouldn't play ball" ie. Start malicious, politically motivated prosecutions of Dem contenders in order to swing elections.

He fired some good ones.

Hired some real sleazeballs like Tim Griffins.

Did so bypassing a senatorial vetting process through a sneakily inserted section of the (so-called) Patriot Act.

Other USAs quit rather than sully their reputations by giving into BushCo's blatent politicisation of the system.

Did you catch any of that info this time or will Spud have to repeat himself over and over again?

Schmuck.

Be Well.

hey bring it in a little..........


when it comes to appearing or not appearing and all that, when was the last president to appear as you mention? reagan maybe on iran/contra?

it wasnt clinton unless you talk about the time he got on my tv and pointed his finger in my face and lied...........

and thats enough of the well you did it so that means I can too stuff.
the fact is, his actions ARE NOT reprehensible and indefensible.
war on terror in iraq is more and more a success with each passing day of the surge and IF obama was the 'decider' there , that country would be overurn with alqaida and teliban and YOU KNOW IT WOULD.............and thats just on that issue.
economy........sure its getting bad..BUT ITS STILL NOT A RECESSION AS you and the media would JUST LOVE IT TO BE...........
I believe in the system as well as the rule of law which explains my OLD STATEMENTS about delay and others.........IF they are guilty THROW their ass in jail but you see...........IT WOULD be a media circus and used for political use only by libs and they would have no compuction AT ALL about fuckin the system to get more shit to lie about in their unquencable thirst for power........
SO my contention is that no matter how noble some of your request seem........and THEY DO.........that the rule of law is just A WAY to get what you want and what you want is bush's ass in a sling and the left will DO ANYTHING to get it............

and looky here.........its old spuddick again.........


so its okay to fire them all FOR NO REASON but you cant fire a couple because they arent on your side.
just wanted to clarify that.............

and you want PROOF............how about an investigation into a republican who the prosecutor KNOWS IS INNOCENT but keeps on anyway until he ENTRAPS HIM into something..........
sound like a hollywood script? of course not, SCOOTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you more drunk than usual this afternoon, BLT? If not, what is your excuse?

"how about an investigation into a republican who the prosecutor KNOWS IS INNOCENT..."

We went over that, remember, BL2? It's not just the first leaker, but EVERY leaker who is breaking the law.

"...but keeps on anyway until he ENTRAPS HIM into something...."

Too funny...now Fitzgerald forced Libby to lie?!?

Gee, if only Scooter had told the truth when he was under oath. Boy, that would'a showed 'em!

"it wasnt clinton unless you talk about the time he got on my tv and pointed his finger in my face and lied..........."

And I remind you that you righties blew out your wingtips running to impeach Clinton over that.

And guess what, BLT? You were right that time. Yep, you were right, and we admit it. Clinton lied to Congress. He should have been impeached, no doubt about it. And he was.

Now, since your team has provided us with such a riveting demonstration of the system in action, all the opposition is sayin' is that we'd like to use it for its intended purpose too.

And again I ask you- why is that such a fucking problem?

BLT=BraindamagedLittleTwat.

itsme......


or rather....
blt= big and lanky texan

or maybe

BLT..big large testicals

or what about

blt- Big Lover of TITS.


and then there is the good ole......

BLT- fuck you dip...........

I see the dr left wackos are out in full force! Proving their stupidity DAILY!!!!

Bush and Cheney have not only succeeded in beating Richard Nixon's historical low approval ratings, but make his crimes look like stealing someone's lunch in grade school in comparison.

We've never had such viable reasons for impeaching a President and VP in our history.

blt= big and lanky texan

or maybe

BLT..big large testicals

or what about

blt- Big Lover of TITS.


and then there is the good ole......

BLT- fuck you dip...........

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-06-10 06:38 PM


or maybe BLT.. Ball Licking Texan.

BLT... Big Large manTits.

If you all say so, then go ahead and impeach. Hatred comes easy to such free thinkers as the dr left!

What did he know, and when did he know it? Once done, then of course, you still won't shut up...it's what you do (BLAME OTHERS)

My, my, my...

BLT is now reduced to giving a range of possible explanations for his initials.

At least it beats his usual style of refutation, which is to inform us all grandly that since no one's ever proved any of the nation's suspicions about Bush, there is no justification for bringing Bush to trial.

Which rather begs the question of how anyone would ever establish Bush's guilt for any of the crimes he's accused of, if he refuses to be haled into court for a fair trial. But hey, that's Rovian reasoning for you.

And BLT is definitely a master of that, as we can plainly see.

If you all say so, then go ahead and impeach. Hatred comes easy to such free thinkers as the dr left!

What did he know, and when did he know it? Once done, then of course, you still won't shut up...it's what you do (BLAME OTHERS)

Posted by DavetheWave at 2008-06-10 06:53 PM

As he Blames "Others"...

Nobler to "hate" for what Bush has done than for what the right has done... Impeaching a sitting President for a Blowjob...are you proud of that? Are you aware of what happened during the time that the right was dragging our President through the courts and mudslinging of the Monica Lewinski scandal? Yes, thats right, Osama was a busy little bee in his cave planning his attack on America.

Good Job Rethugs!

Donnerboy:

Don't let your passion override your reason.

Clinton was not impeached over the blow job, or even the fact that there were multiple blow jobs.

What he was impeached over was lying under oath when questioned about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

It was entirely fair to impeach him over that, inasmuch as the nation must be able to rely on the honesty of a President's statements.

I mean, hey, look what's happened to us since we stopped being able to trust a Prez.

To all you libs who are about to jump my ass for conceding that the Right was right to impeach Clinton:

I am a lifelong flaming liberal Democrat, and I approve this message.

Danforth-Crap that is scary. You just know that the first executive act would be to pardon a small list of Shrubites.

I could have lived for a long time without that in my mind. Just saying it makes it seem a real possibility.

NOTICE_This poster has had a nearly terminal melt down and his brain currently has the consistency of tapioca puddle. A re-boot will be tried when possible.

Clinton was not impeached over the blow job, or even the fact that there were multiple blow jobs.

What he was impeached over was lying under oath when questioned about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

really? Refresh me plz Ms Whore...Why exactly were we asking our President about a relationship between two consensual adults again in a court of law?

Nevermind I will tell you.

Because the ReThugs were on a fishing trip and Bill Clinton did not evoke the mythical Executive Privilege.

Bush has OBVIOUSLY LIED about much more serious issues and yet HE evokes the mythical "executive privilege" in order to keep from getting caught in his lie.

Bush's LIE is quite a bit bigger than Clinton's Lie. Yet we are not going to Impeach him?

Please tell me why...

You have to figure the people that continuously defend Bush are the same idiots that voted for him and do not have enough sense to admit their mistake.. hah..just like the 'bubblehead'.. to not defend him is to admit that he is a stumbling idiot who lucked his way in like the same path Obama is treading and making more idiots of the nation... Bush not only needs to be impeached, but also voted to just put him, Cheney and Rummy in front of a firing squad, for acts of treason, represented by each branch of the service and see how arrogant and brave they are... put them to a real test...!!!!

Donnerboy:

You're exactly right. Clinton did not evoke the mythical executive privilege. Our system of checks and balances is such that Congress does have the power to question a President's conduct. Clinton's conduct occurred in the office wing of the White House, on company time, so to speak.

Clinton was engaging in an improper relationship, with a subordinate who was there to help White House staff do the people's business, not suck and swallow (Oh, wait, there was that dreadful, dreadful stain, wasn't there? Forget I said "swallow"). That is the business of any boss, which in the case of a President, is a role fulfilled by Congress.

Although Clinton did make an enormous mistake when he lied, he displayed cojones about four hundred and seventy-two times the size of Bush's when he complied fully and properly with all requests for information, including the request for the DNA sample he already knew would catch him out. Bill obviously understood that the system becomes damaged if a Prez doesn't step up to the plate when he makes a mistake. Bush never will, no matter what legal proceedings, sanctions, or punishments lie in his future.

Oh, and Donnerboy:

Don't worry, I do want Bush impeached, just like Clinton was. Very much.

And then a Senate trial, and then tried in civil courts, and then...

DethSpud -- You're right. A US Atty's job is to uphold the Constitution and the laws, not the VPOTUS's or POTUS's interpretation of the laws. And few if any are ever fired midstream between terms of office. You rightly pointed out another exception to the norm of the Bush Cheney administration.

Don't worry, I do want Bush impeached, just like Clinton was. Very much.

And then a Senate trial, and then tried in civil courts, and then...

Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-06-10 08:43 PM

Then I hope you have urged your Representative(s) in Congress to stand in support of at least one of the 35 articles of Impeachment. I am pretty sure at least one of them is true. If just one is true then both Bush and Cheney should be made to answer for it in Congress and on the record. That shouldn't take too long now should it? Then we can get back to business of cleaning up this MESSOPOTAMIA and the Constitution and the Peoples interests and History will have been properly served.

It is our duty to do so.

Too little too late...

The whole bunch in DC needs to be burned out.

This adminstration is a fucking disgrace to our country.

BLT Do you honestly beleive the things you say?

If so then you are
A. Delusional

B. Only saying them to gather the feeling that you didn't fuck up royally and vote for a fraud twice.

C. Pathetic

D. Eunich

E. Your mom dropped you a couple of times. (see "A")

F. on the koolaid (again, see "A")

Fuckem' I say carry on with impeachment then prosocute to the fullest extent of the law.

or maybe BLT.. Ball Licking Texan.

BLT... Big Large manTits.

Posted by itsme at


ah nice try...........

Bloviating Limpwristed Trumpetplayer? LOL

ah nice try...........

Here's some more...

Blind Lame Torturefan?

Braindead Little Turd?

Basically (a) Lousy Thinker?

Bloggin' Loser Troll?

Be Well.

Bushloving
Languishing
Texan?
:-)

OK, this game isn't fun. As much as I disagree with BL2 on almost everything political, we share a love of music and have made careers in it.

well here is one argument out the window.
someone talked about how the world hated us because of bush or thereabouts.

read jim hoagelands column about bush's trip to Europe.
AND I DIDNT KNOW until I read this that Berlusconui was back in power. when he lost we read that Splashed all over our papers and when he was voted back in WE HEARD NOTHING>........at least I didnt see it and I read more papers than some of you combined...........so WHY wasnt it all over CNN and other places when he was voted back in and he says that they will extend a helping hand in iraq and Afghanistan.
and did you know that the italians have trained thousands of iraqi policemen.
and Italian foreign minister , franck frattini says this.
"anti Americanism has not suck deep roots in italy, or the rest of europe."
he then went on to say that being a friend of bush IS NOT a fatal political condition in Europe.

so lets see......AMERICAN supporters back in power in Italy and we all know about the guy in France.........so that leaves germany...and you know how those germans are????

AGAIN..........more dispelling of liberal half truths and lies.

Then I hope you have urged your Representative(s) in Congress to stand in support of at least one of the 35 articles of Impeachment. I am pretty sure at least one of them is true. . . .

Posted by donnerboy

Wow, sounds like some really solid evidence.

has not suck deep = has not sunk



okay ILL play........

BLT....Blogger's Learning TWO be correct

BLT....boobs, legs, and tits..........

oh shit........I cant do better than legs and boobs and tits...........lol


AU.........I havent made a career out of music. I had no choice because it was either do music or stop breathing.
it was either music or not living.........and all of the other phrases from 'august rush'

TownNCountry - interesting polling results (so far).

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
613,529 responses so far.

"AGAIN..........more dispelling of liberal half truths and lies."
blt what the hell are doing now? and to start with 'again' in all caps. oh boy

Ho-hum....here we go again.

Hey folks, atheists and skeptics, listen....


God said Bush will never be impeached. God said Hillary will not be President.

Kucinich may try, but he is fighting a losing battle.

Poll: Do you believe that Bush's actions deserve impeachment?

~T&C

613,529 responses so far

~Yav.

90% of those who responded sed YES!

Spud wanted to say HELL YES! but there was no such option.

Where's the Firing Squad option?

Be Well.

Hey folks, atheists and skeptics, listen....


God said Bush will never be impeached. God said Hillary will not be President.

when exactly did god say these things?

BLT,

Libbey was convicted of lying under oath and obstruction of justice but Rove was not.

Fitzgerald gave both witnesses several opportunities to change their testimony, once it became clear they were both lying. Realizing he had been caught in a web of lies of his own creation, Rove changed his testimony but Libby refused.

No one ever offered Clinton such a fair deal. Fitzgerald is tough, fair and non-partisan. This really pisses off the White House.

If Clinton was impeached why did he not leave office? My understanding is that a vote was never held because the public was outraged by the process and the house members knew it. What actually happened?

Has anyone straw polled the house?

SCOTUS can't protect this prick if a vote went against him, that would be that. Correct?

Are the dems getting revenge for Clinton's impeachment or are they trying to deflect critism from the fact that they are completely impotent and even if they could get a hard-on, wouldn't know what to do with it.

"If Clinton was impeached why did he not leave office? My understanding is that a vote was never held because the public was outraged by the process and the house members knew it. What actually happened?"

Nutcase:

If you're going to swim at the Drudge Report, The Deep End of the Pool (TM), you really ought to understand what "impeachment" actually means. It's only the first step in removing a high official from office, roughly equal to being indicted for the rest of us. It lays out charges, called "articles of impeachment", which have to be voted upon by the House of Representatives. A simple majority carries the vote, and the official is then considered to be impeached, or officially condemned for his actions.

To actually remove a muhfugguh from office, the impeachment has to be followed up by a trial in the Senate, which the Senate may or may not agree to hold. This is where things could get damn tricky. A Senate trial is supposed to be presided over by the Vice President in most cases (the Veep is President of the Senate, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in others. Rather obviously, both these positions are currently filled by persons with a leeetle conflict of interest going where Dubya is concerned. It might be necessary to impeach both our current Veep and Chief Justice along with Bush, in order to create a situation where a Senate President pro tempore ("for the moment") would be appointed. Whatever. The Senate hears the evidence and testimony, and it votes guilty or not guilty.

A Senate trial takes a 2/3 majority to convict, and that's when your muhfugguh gets automatically thrown out of office. A Senate trial is not necessarily the end of the matter, either, because it has no bearing on criminal trials- the individual removed from office is still vulnerable to criminal prosecution. Heh.

So, it takes two steps to remove someone from office, and if the first step is taken, the second one is not automatic.

Class dismissed, and if you come unprepared again, we're going to kick your ass from hell to breakfast.

Kuchenich is gutter filth, nuff said.

Oops, I meant "Drudge Retort, the Deep End of the Pool (TM)."

Everyone knows that the Drudge Report is such a shallow end of the pool that the bottom-feeders who frequent it need no snorkels.

MTWO,
tanks

Nutcase:

You're weckum.

The scary thing about a Senate trial is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to be the one presiding when it's a President on trial. In the case of Chief Justice Roberts, the man has handed down so many DubyaCo-centric opinions already that the prospects of getting unbiased service from him in a Senate trial of Dubya would seem to be, um, slender at best.

Why a Chief Justice- who can easily be an appointee of the very President who's on trial- is supposed to fill this function is beyond me.

Was there crack in the 1700s? Our Founding Fathers were smoking something when they came up with that one.

In the case of Chief Justice Roberts, the man has handed down so many DubyaCo-centric opinions

Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Well, you are aware that John Roberts doesn't decide majority opinions on his own, right? It requires at least a plurality, right?

Tell us the names of some of his "DubyaCo-centric opinions".

You have got to be fucking kidding, someguy2.

Go drink your KoolAid.

The key question is this: If George W. Bush does not deserve to be impeached then what does a president have to do to be impeached?

Get a blowjob in the Oval Office.

I put my money where my mouth is and sent Kucinich $50 bucks. Thanks for the links T&C.

Writing to 600 Senators about how pissed off at them I am is for another day I suppose. Get a blowjob from an Intern; launch an $100million Impeachment Proceeding. Kill a million people and destroy their country, engage in systematic vote suppression, Corporate welfare wrecking our economy, DO NOTHING. Corrupt Motherfuckers.

I hope Cindy can oust Nancy, because Pelosi isn't worth a shit, from the antiBush city of San Francisco no less.

Bush's LIE is quite a bit bigger than Clinton's Lie. Yet we are not going to Impeach him?

Please tell me why...


Posted by donnerboy at 2008-06-10 07:52 PM

Now all you have to do is providde some form of proof. If you can prove the Bush is guilty of what you idiots claim on a daily basis there would be no problem with impeachment and removal from office. Good luck on the evidence thing.

By the way, real evidence does not come from this or any other liberal blog.

Useful numbers, if El Cid wants to engage in this dishonest little game:
YAV

I believe I tried to correct the faulty numbers the first time YAV by directly quoting the official June 29, 2007 report done by Congress's very own Congressional Research Service.

I cut and pasted the table from the report. How is this dishonest? I thought I was taking the responsibilty for posting incorrect information by researching and posting the correct numbers.

Obviously Billyray thought so - If you are looking for partisan BS look elsewhere. I want the facts same as you and will hold every politician accountable when the facts come out.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"They got little hands
And little eyes
And they walk around
Tellin' great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet

Well, I don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Round here"

By the way, real evidence does not come from this or any other liberal blog.

Posted by sickoflibs at 2008-06-11 10:13 AM


Then why are YOU here asking for it? idiot...

Kook kook Kucinich is a brave man...a man we should have as VP if not President...it takes a man with real backbone to start an impeachment process on a Presient who will be exiting office in 5-1/2 months! Kook kook...where have you been in the last 4 years? Yeah...this is not political.

Even if Congress accepts just one of the 35 Articles of Impeachment, they have to decide whether or not to debate the issue and then send it on to the Senate. I could just imagine the Chinese water-torture of Congress sending to the Senate one article of impeachment at a time. Oh, how painful!

You have got to be fucking kidding, someguy2.

Go drink your KoolAid.

Posted by MaryTylerWhore

I didn't think you'd be able to answer it.

You said, "In the case of Chief Justice Roberts, the man has handed down so many DubyaCo-centric opinions..." yet you CANNOT name ONE?

Who's drinking the KoolAid??? The person making unsubstantiated allegations, or the person challenging the unsubstantiated claims?

Substantiate your claim.

give 'em something to do other than funding W's ongoing wars of liberations of oppressed people like those in Iran who switch banks yesterday.



Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
Now it look as though they're here to stay
Oh, I believe in yesterday

Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be
There's a shadow hanging over me
oh, yesterday came suddenly

Why she had to go I don't know, she wouldn't say
I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday

Yesterday, love was such an easy game to play
Now I need a place to hide away
oh, I believe in yesterday

Why she had to go I don't know, she wouldn't say
I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday

Yesterday, love was such an easy game to play
Now I need a place to hide away
oh, I believe in yesterday, Mm

"Substantiate your claim."

How about you find one decision that favored the citizenry over government or corporations?

Did you know that Bush put a law on the books that would allow him to postpone elections if there were some kind of emergency? Is it a law ?

With about 700,000 votes, it's showing 89% support Kucinich's intitiative to impeach W.

Posted by townncountry

Wow, 700K out of 350M. That's quite a turn out.

Danforth, sure, here are two recent ones:

1) LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates Inc., No. 06-856

2) Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322

Wow, 700K out of 350M"

Where'd we get the extra 45 million?

are you referring to the FEW fired lawyers in a group that CLINTON FIRED ALL OF>. [QUOTING BLT]

Are you a fucking retard, BLT?

You keep parroting this right wing talking point over and over again but you seem to not have clue one as to why it's complete and utter bullshit.

When Clinton first took office he did indeed fire all the USAs as is pro forma. When Clinton started his second term he didn't fire any of them.

Bush at the beginning of his second term specifically set out to fire a group of USA's who "wouldn't play ball" ie. Start malicious, politically motivated prosecutions of Dem contenders in order to swing elections.

Yet that does NOT make it unconstitutional. U.S. attorneys serve at the *will* of the President. Now I will agree that a President should NOT be picking people to merely be "yes men", but that does NOT make it unconstitutional.

He fired some good ones.

Hired some real sleazeballs like Tim Griffins.

Did so bypassing a senatorial vetting process through a sneakily inserted section of the (so-called) Patriot Act.

It's for this reason it's NOT unconstitutional... Congress WAIVED their advice and consent rights. Can you describe what you mean by "sneakily inserted"??? Did it require a magic marker to make the words appear?

Other USAs quit rather than sully their reputations by giving into BushCo's blatent politicisation of the system.

Did you catch any of that info this time or will Spud have to repeat himself over and over again?

Schmuck.

Be Well.

Where'd we get the extra 45 million?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


It counts the canadians who represent about half of the internet poll of 700K.

Or was the poll confined to just US citizens?

Ha Ha right!

Ok then. Where did the extra 12 million come from?

so this morning...........IN THE SHADOWS OF EXXON INTERNATIONAL REFINARY JUST OUTSIDE OF HOUSTON, I paid $3.83 for a gallon of gas and this little UFO guy WAISTES time on this bullshit that will go NOWHERE............

and this is the SAVE THE REPUBLIC CONGRESS that you libs were so proud of??????????

oops forgot.

so maybe dennis can ask his little green friends from mars or whatever planet the ufo was from that he saw to help us with a new kind of energy..........

700K out of 350 mil is a pretty big sample statistically speaking. Now the fact that its on MSNBC instead of Fox is a whole other issue.

Nowadays, you just switch the channel to whatever reality you like the best.

.........before the Iraqi war was launched........

.......I can remember Dennis saying that this war was based on lies.........he had it right all along........

................go Dennis.!!..................

so this morning...........IN THE SHADOWS OF EXXON INTERNATIONAL REFINARY JUST OUTSIDE OF HOUSTON, I paid $3.83 for a gallon of gas and this little UFO guy WAISTES time on this bullshit that will go NOWHERE............

and this is the SAVE THE REPUBLIC CONGRESS that you libs were so proud of??????????

Posted by bushlovertwo


It's necessary!

Hopefully, it will send a message to future presidents that you can't go and start a war without Congress' approval. In the Constitution, the law says that the President must wait for a Declaration of War to start a war.

Any questions?

oops forgot.

so maybe dennis can ask his little green friends from mars or whatever planet the ufo was from that he saw to help us with a new kind of energy..........

Posted by bushlovertwo


No, I have one easier than that (and a little more realistic).

Bush could change his foriegn, energy, and economic policies to shift them away from OIL.

That would solve many many problems.

Any questions?

.........before the Iraqi war was launched........

.......I can remember Dennis saying that this war was based on lies.........he had it right all along........

................go Dennis.!!..................

Posted by skizziks


So did Ron Paul

... and so did Obama!

Actually, many of Congress knew what was going on, but were too chicken and wimpy to do anything about it.

BushLover,

If you are true Conservative and not so much a neocon, you would agree with most of what Ron Paul is talking about.

But, most of the Bush defenders are either too stupid to know better, or they are neocons (or just wannabes) who would like to see US control the world.

I was led down that path for many years. But, now I know better.

I trust Obama more than I trust Hilary, however, Obama does not have quite enough balls to get the job done of taking down the empire.

I trust Hilary more than I.... no I don't. She's a neocon.

TO LITTLE, BUT NOT TO LATE GET THIS FUCKING ASSHOLE, MURDER INDUCING BASTARD!!!!!!

Update:

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Bush to the Judiciary Committee for review.

The impeachment resolution's sponsor, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, requested a recorded vote on the motion around 3 p.m. Wednesday, and 20 Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in voting to send the impeachment measure to the committee, according to a vote count on C-SPAN.

The motion passed 251-166.

The impeachment resolution's sponsor, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, requested a recorded vote on the motion around 3 p.m. Wednesday, and 20 Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in voting to send the impeachment measure to the committee, according to a vote count on C-SPAN.

The motion passed 251-166.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


And poor Dennis lands up in Gitmo.

celisary Are you referring to Flop ears?

I'm voting for Denis ASSHOLE Kucinich for DORK HEAD of the YEAR!

"I'm voting for Denis ASSHOLE Kucinich for DORK HEAD of the YEAR!

Posted by ozzieoswald"

You forgot to say "plus he's a big old poopie pants."


God, where do they come from?

Then why are YOU here asking for it? idiot...

Posted by donnerboy at 2008-06-11 12:16 PM

Because a jackass like you who thinks because he reads it here it must be true. You know, I used to think that Boob was the a dumb sumbitch, but you are much dumber.

Chancy Nancy Pelosi, Friend of Bush, strikes again.

Posted by MaryTylerWhore


Nancy is a tool! What is she thinking? Is she afraid of losing her power?

She MUST do what the people want her to do.

El Cid, just to clear up my point - raw numbers are meaningless. It appeared you were attempting an equivalence without context. That's why I specifically posted (x) deaths out of a total of (y) active duty personnel.

That's why I posted the rate.

The death rates (for the last year of compete data) U.S. Military by President:

Reagan/Bush: 0.086%
Bush/Quayle: 0.073%
Clinton: .055%
Bush 43: .135%

YAV -

First of all I regret posting the numbers at all - I don't like to think of people protecting me as a statistic. However, using death rates as an equivalence is meaningless if the situations are incomparable. Bush 43 is prosecuting a "war" (argue about the term later) during his presidency - Clinton did not. So using a rate which excludes a war under Clinton is not an equivalent comparison.

That being said, all the soldiers who lost their lives were cognitive of the fact that this was a possiblilty when they signed up - right?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Elcid,

Do you know the difference between rhetoric and invasion?

"So using a rate which excludes a war under Clinton is not an equivalent comparison."

WTF? In your world Presidents get docked for not starting a war?!?

Un-frickin'-believable.

700K out of 350 mil is a pretty big sample statistically speaking. Now the fact that its on MSNBC instead of Fox is a whole other issue.

Nowadays, you just switch the channel to whatever reality you like the best.

Posted by BenFranklinn

It is a large "sample," but it's not *statistically* relevant. But why? Because you have to poll randomly -- the sample must be random.

For example, if you only polled Obama supporters to see their preference for the next president, of course it would be overwhelmingly, or perhaps 100%, for Obama.

All those enraged against Bush will go to the non-scientific poll and vote "Impeach!" Those not so enraged are less inclined. Furthermore, left-wing sites are likely posting links to the poll encouraging their readers to vote on it... it skews the results...

Elcid,

Do you know the difference between rhetoric and invasion?

Posted by Danforth


Yes - But I guess all the senators and congressmen that voted for the use of military force did not?

The point Danforth was that there was history before Bush 43 that Iraq had or was close to having WMD. How can anyone realistically claim that it was a huge media campaign by Bush 43 to convince the american public when only when 5 years earlier under a different administration that some of the same "propaganda" or "rhetoric" that Bush 43 and his administration were spouting? Other countries believed this also right? Clinton bombed Iraq how many times before Bush 43 was president?

Come on - a little honesty. Like the war or not, the WMD info started before Bush 43 and was believed by Clinton and other democrats/republicans in the late 90's.

"So using a rate which excludes a war under Clinton is not an equivalent comparison."

WTF? In your world Presidents get docked for not starting a war?!?

Un-frickin'-believable.

Posted by Danforth


"Docked" - no. But an accurate comparison of military deaths needs to contain similar circumstances. If you want to show deaths by accident, suicide, training, or other non-combative situations then you can compare the rates under Clinton/Bush43 or whoever. But if the president did not prosecute a war during his term, how can you claim the rate is an accurate comparison?

In my world? Live in the same one you do I hope - don't want any president to have to prosecute a war. Only insane people want a war. Sane people realize however that war when justified is sometimes a necessary occurance to protect a nation.

"Come on - a little honesty. Like the war or not, the WMD info started before Bush 43 and was believed by Clinton and other democrats/republicans in the late 90's."

And a little more honesty:

For all the rhetoric, Clinton didn't invade. Bush did.

El Cid, Recapping with your words:

By the way:

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 4,061 (sic). This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war... What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration:

Clearly I misunderstood your point. You were praising Clinton. After all, he had the lowest rate of military deaths compared to the all other Presidents (who happen to be Republicans) going back to Reagan.

Point taken.

And a little more honesty:

For all the rhetoric, Clinton didn't invade. Bush did.

Posted by Danforth

Danforth, Clinton bombed Iraq!!! Is that NOT an invasion?!?!??!!

"Clinton bombed Iraq!!! Is that NOT an invasion?!?!??!!"

Um, no...it's not. Sending American troops inside Iraq to topple the government and occupy the country is an invasion. Bombing is not invasion.

"But an accurate comparison of military deaths needs to contain similar circumstances."

Bullshit. That gives an advantage to warmongers, and penalizes statesmen.

El Cid, Let me drive my point about the contention you posited being "disingenuous":

You said:

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 4,061

What is never compared is the (total) number of military deaths during the Clinton administration:

How many U.S. Active Military killed in war under Clinton? Why mix the metrics mid paragraph? Why judge Bush for Iraq ONLY, but Clinton for ALL?

Choose your metrics carefully and honestly or stay away from such foolishness.

You know exactly how many U.S. Troops died in war under Clinton. Being honest would have destroyed your false equivalency.

Now you say "how can you claim the rate is an accurate comparison?" yet you were the first to make the argument.

As to That being said, all the soldiers who lost their lives were cognitive of the fact that this was a possiblilty when they signed up - right?

If I was one, I'd like to believe that the CiC was competent, honest and thoughtful enough not to take a chance of losing my life based on a falsely presented argument for a predetermined war that in no way serves the Citizens of the United States. I believe that if he said "Last resort" he better damn well mean it.

Bush was absolutely irresponsible with our Military.

"Clinton bombed Iraq!!! Is that NOT an invasion?!?!??!!"

Um, no...it's not. Sending American troops inside Iraq to topple the government and occupy the country is an invasion. Bombing is not invasion.

Posted by Danforth

Okay, well International Law considers it such. An invasion is the breach of a country's territorial integrity. Flying overhead is an invasion; bombing is an invasion; sending in soldiers on foot is an invasion.

Let's put it another way, if Bush decided to NUKE a country you would NOT consider that an invasion?

"Okay, well International Law considers it such. "

Rather than ask for a link, how about if I amend to Clinton didn't send in troops to topple the government and occupy the country. Bush did, and that's a huge difference, especially compared to Clinton's rhetoric and limited bombing.

Fair enough?

YAV,

Yes, I apoligize for the first comparison - it was a cut and paste from an e-mail I previously acknowledged as inaccurate.

You know exactly how many U.S. Troops died in war under Clinton. Being honest would have destroyed your false equivalency.

What war was Clinton in? Are you saying the number is 0? If so, I would not argue as I do not believe he prosecuted a "war" in the sense Bush 43 is.

Now you say "how can you claim the rate is an accurate comparison?" yet you were the first to make the argument.

Yes - my mistake.

Bush was absolutely irresponsible with our Military.

I would say the prosecution of the actual "war" was carried out very responsibly. The prosectution of the peace - not so for sure.

As to Clinton not invading the Iraq, someguy2 makes a pretty good case. If another country flew a non-sanctioned military flight over US airspace, wouldn't you agree that would be an invasion?

"If another country flew a non-sanctioned military flight over US airspace, wouldn't you agree that would be an invasion?"

If you don't see the difference between a handful of flights, and 155,000 troops in-country, I can't help you. Fight over semantics all you want; George Bush's approach to Iraq was different than Clinton's, (despite whatever rhetoric you can unearth to pretend otherwise). Different, and in my opinion, better.

Heard a conversation last night on BBC

Britain is in an uproar because some MOP's want to increase the number of days a terrorism suspect can be held without charge from 28 days to 41. Most thought 28 days was way too long.

The comment from MOP's (Member of Parliament):

"We're the country that created habeus corpus. This is outrageous."

We've held ours for how long? 6, 7 years?

I do see the difference, yes. I would not argue that Bush 43's approach is different than Clinton's. I would still say that Clinton "invaded" Iraq - certainly not to the scale of the current effort. That might be a little argumentative but true nontheless.

"We've held ours for how long? 6, 7 years?"

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

In Cuba.

We've held ours for how long? 6, 7 years?

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

From Wiki:

On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any person determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[4][5] by a vote of 6534. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 4851.[6]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially suspends habeas corpus for any non-citizen.

With the MCA's passage, the law altered the language from "alien detained ... at Guantnamo Bay":

"Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." 1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
On 20 February 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld this provision of the MCA in a 2-1 decision of the Case Boumediene v. Bush. The Supreme Court let the Circuit Court's decision stand by refusing to hear the detainees' appeal. On June 29, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its April 2007 decision and agreed to hear the appeals of Guantanamo detainees who are seeking habeas corpus review of their detentions.[4]

Under the MCA, the law restricts habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as "enemy combatants," or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged is the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status is upheld, then their imprisonment is deemed lawful.

There is, however, no legal time limit which would force the government to provide a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearing. Prisoners are legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason before a CSRT hearing takes place.


Sorry for the cut and paste - enemy combatants dude - don't remember any of our POWs geeting habeus corpus - could be wrong on that but am pretty sure.

Britain says simply, "Terrorism Suspects"

At least there's one country involved in our effort in Iraq who thinks habeus corpus is importsnt.

ELCID, were you aware that close to 90% of all Abu Gharib prisoners were released as innocent? How do we know who merits being called a detainee to hold indefinitely if no system is in place to determine their danger or examine the evidence against them? You think it's fair to hold someone for years without looking into their potential guilt or innocence?

Since you brought up WW2 I should mention that this Iraq War has lasted longer. By this time in 1945 most of the POWs were home with their families.

"ELCID, were you aware that close to 90% of all Abu Gharib prisoners were released as innocent? How do we know who merits being called a detainee to hold indefinitely if no system is in place to determine their danger or examine the evidence against them? You think it's fair to hold someone for years without looking into their potential guilt or innocence?"

AU - I have to belief the military knows who merits being called a "detainee". We can be policemen or soldiers in the war but not both. It does not seem "fair" to hold individuals without charging them - but when enemy recognition is so difficult and the rules of engagement so confining, I would err on the side of detention to protect the soldiers.

"Since you brought up WW2 I should mention that this Iraq War has lasted longer. By this time in 1945 most of the POWs were home with their families."

And we still have bases there - as we do in S. Korea - so what?

By this time in 1945 most of the POWs were home with their families.
Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Not the ones held by Japan.

"That might be a little argumentative but true nontheless."

But it's nothing but a foolish comparison: a couple of bombing flights, low cost, and no American deaths, vs. 5+ years in-country, trillions of dollars, 4,000+ dead and 25,000+ wounded. Get real.

MTW and SAR

"The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Bush to the Judiciary Committee for review.

... The motion passed 251-166.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-06-11 03:19 PM"

Thanks for the update. Still, it is possible that Conyers holds a big stick over Pelosi and Bush, and any thing the two of them do to tick off Conyers is going to result in this Resolution coming out of Committee just when the both of hem don''t want it. And the US voters can get that ball rolling, too.

Hope, hope.

From SAR -- The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Bush to the Judiciary Committee for review.
... The motion passed 251-166.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-06-11 03:19 PM

Well that's a cudgel over Pelosi's head that Conyers is wielding!

But it's nothing but a foolish comparison: wounded. Get real.

Posted by Danforth

Your right - how can you compare military deaths between administrations when one is fighting a war and one is not?

You mistake my comparison for criticism. My exercise was merely to point out that the numbers being thrown around by both sides were not comparable. There is plenty of material to use for criticism of any president in lieu of politicizing military deaths.

"You mistake my comparison for criticism"

No, I'm merely claiming your basis for comparison is bogus.

"My exercise was merely to point out that the numbers being thrown around by both sides were not comparable."

Except, then you tried to compare them.

"There is plenty of material to use for criticism of any president in lieu of politicizing military deaths."

True. I don't think Iraq was the worst aspect of the Bush Presidency, by far.

Except, then you tried to compare them.

He's off on another thread lying about Obama being a Muslim.

He's off on another thread lying about Obama being a Muslim.

Posted by YAV

Lying is such a strong word. How about my belief based on empirical evidence instead? By the tone of your comment I guess you are just as critical of Hussein for lying about his church attendance?

I never completed my comparison using th e correct numbers - got to busy, so yes the raw numbers should have been broken down with combat deaths removed from BUSH 43's numbers to make an "apples to apples" comparison.

Bush has made many mistakes - but his handling of Iraq after the military victory is #1 or #2 behind his immigration/border policy.

"How about my belief based on empirical evidence instead? "

Link to some.

Link to some.

Posted by Danforth


I have not figured out how to attach links yet. Sorry - however I am sure that you could find the same evidence as I just by using your search engine of choice - the difference being, I might believe some of what I read and you would just dismiss it all as right wing rhetoric or someother such nonsense because it casts a shadow over the new savior of the USA.

"I have not figured out how to attach links yet."

Then paste the appropriate "facts" and copy and paste the URL below it.

"you would just dismiss it all as right wing rhetoric "

If it's not a respected news site, you bet we'll dismiss it. So should you.

So the ball is in your court. Time to prove, or retract.

"I have not figured out how to attach links yet."

Then paste the appropriate "facts" and copy and paste the URL below it.

"you would just dismiss it all as right wing rhetoric "

If it's not a respected news site, you bet we'll dismiss it. So should you.

So the ball is in your court. Time to prove, or retract.

Sorry for the double.

I have not figured out how to attach links yet.

ELCID

OK, Here's how:

You start by copying the link to your clipboard (highlight it and select 'copy' from the 'File' popup top left of your browser.

Next: Type

a href="

paste in your link after the quotation mark

at the end of your link put a "

Now, at the beginning (before a href= put a < and after the end of your link type ">

I couldn't type out the whole thing because nothing would have shown up

Or just copy the link and paste it in your post if you don't care about naming it

Thanks for the help AU.

Is this a respected site Dan?

Again, not direct evidence but enough to question his disclaimer of never being a muslim?

"Again, not direct evidence but enough to question his disclaimer of never being a muslim?"

You're an ass, and a bigoted one at that.