At least it's good to see Kucinich isn't abducted and held hostage in a UFO somewhere. The other ngood thing is that he's harmlessly engaged in D.C and not castigating the United States in Syria and other unfriendly countries. Maybe he and Rev. Wright can team up for an international Abbott and Costello team and go on tour after the election.

today's Lefty masturbation

So Vern, how did you vote?

The web link will not process your letter unless you are a member of Pelosi's district. Tried and failed. Use the email address.

while dennis could be viewed as too impetuous, one cannot disregard 35 counts.
he missed treason | not protecting our borders at a time of war (he had to allow big business their cheap labor) but that's ok.
really - those who still support W... you are simply being too proud to admit a mistake. tisn't the last one you'll make. fess up - you'll feel better.
and besides, supporting him just makes you look and sound dumb.

i still hear that he was better than gore and kerry.
as stated here a number of times, i wasn't a huge fan of either but i would be amazed if either one of those guys could fuck things up like this monkey has.
and if all three were fuck ups... george beats them out on simply being more corrupt.

all the best.

Hag -- Thanks for the info. I, too, just sent Pelosi a note asking her to sent the issue to the floor to be discussed openly.

just sent Pelosi a note asking her to sent the issue to the floor to be discussed openly.

Posted by townncountry

That makes two of us... Larry Mohr will prolly get to it at some point today.

- G.D.S. Hagbard Celine

Dont did HC about an hour ago. Do keep up.

Larry Mohr

Make it three.

(PS: I also sent Dennis a note telling him I was proud that he is my Congressman)

Damn DONE did NOT Don't did Jesus Christ You would think I would learn how to type someday.

Larry Mohr

(PS: I also sent Dennis a note telling him I was proud that he is my Congressman)

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

LOL.. I did the same thing with Nadler as a way to implore him to back Kucinich.
If flattery were currency... *sigh.

Will this be the time when you lefties jerk off to climax, or stop mid-stroke?

Well, "W" is God, I think your nom de guerre pretty much sums up your relevance.

Well, "W" is God, I think your nom de guerre pretty much sums up your relevance.

Posted by Jomama

Wow, first post today that wasn't focused on your fixation with Corky. Well done, Auntie.

Waste of time.

Only the Republicans are permitted to waste our time like this.

Nancy has always said that she would not seek impeachment.

Now if we could only get someone to suck George's dick, THEN we can pursue this and waste the country's time.

Waste of time.

Posted by Manypaths

MP, just like pelosi, you put political desires ahead of constitutional obligation.

You don't just fight the battles you think you can win.

Besides, it's not like the republicans have allowed a single bill to go through since 06 that was worth anything, so what do you think we'll accomplish while not pursuing impeachment?

Our biggest failure post 06 was believeing that the GOP would be reasonable.

What do you think will be accomplished BY pursuing impeachment Celine?

Are you crazy enough to think it would be successful?

I uderstand exactly whree you are coming from Celine. But I will stick with my initial thought that it would be a waste of time. I am all for accountability and I have a sign above my desk that reads:

"Always question authority and demand the truth"

But in all honesty, the Republicans will never let us get to the truth when it comes to this Bush Administration, and the Democrats do not have the power to override them.

George Bush going down as the worst President in the History of this country will just have to do.

That being said, I believe that we should SLOWLY execute Dick Cheney and collectively piss on his dead bloated body.

Please, do not take that wrong.

Tis My opinion only but I sincerely believe Pelosi is making bank off of this Illegal War therefore She will not bring this to a vote so as to not upset the "Apple Cart" Just My gut feeling. I have NO proof of this.

Larry Mohr

Have a nice visit with the FBI, Manypaths.

I am all for accountability and I have a sign above my desk that reads:

"Always question authority and demand the truth"
Posted by Manypaths

You're breaking my heart, MP. Don't get too pissed when I say this, but...

If by "always question authority" you mean "only when you think you'll get an answer" and by "demand the truth" you mean "ask politely" then I guess that's an appropriate sign for above your desk. Hell, it sure sounds like it would be appropriate over Pelosi's desk by those definitions.

MP, it's just as much about reigning in a future W, as it is about assuring accountability from this one.

By not moving for impeachment, we are essentially rubber stamping everything that he's done during his presidency... correct that, it's OUR presidency, not his.

Please, do not take that wrong.

Posted by Manypaths

Why?



"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." John Lennon, before his murder by CIA mind-control subject Mark David Chapman

Have a nice visit with the FBI, Manypaths.

Posted by Alexandrite


Pussy alert......Pussy alert.......

By not moving for impeachment, we are essentially rubber stamping everything that he's done during his presidency... correct that, it's OUR presidency, not his.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

amen...

MP, it's just as much about reigning in a future W, as it is about assuring accountability from this one.

By not moving for impeachment, we are essentially rubber stamping everything that he's done during his presidency... correct that, it's OUR presidency, not his.

Agreed, but I think that we will be more successful getting to the truth and punishing this administration AFTER his Presidency has expired.

It will be a lot easier to convict Bush of criminal wrong doing once he is out of office. Show boating with impeachment hearings isn't the best way to prosecute him for his crimes in my opinion.

Trying to take down a sitting President without a smoking gun would be very difficult and these folks learned from their experience with the Nixon admin.

Burning offices..........deleted emails.......they have their tracks covered.

It will be a lot easier to convict Bush of criminal wrong doing once he is out of office.
Posted by Manypaths

Who is going to do that convicting while he's safely tucked away on his paraguay ranch? I'm not trying to be facetious here, seriously. What court has jurisdiction, and what court would exercise their jurisdiction?

We haven't even ratified the extradition treaty Clinton signed in 98, curiously.

Forgot that link

many paths is just that...many paths, but one sure way to nail the no. 1 terrorist in the world now ~ impeach him.

did ya vote yet?:>)

1 terrorist in the world now ~ impeach him.


Fine. Let me know how that works out for you. I'm on your side. I'll show up. I'll vote, but I still don't think it'll do any good. And actually, if he were to survive the hearings, wouldn't that justify all that he has done?

...........89.%............

.........Democracy Talking..........

This is going to be very tough for Pelosi and Hoyer.

If they squash the impeachment immediately, they will earn the vitriol of every left-of-center blog that becomes aware of their actions; that jeopardizes Obama, because it may lead to some radical conversions toward (ugh!) Ralf Nadir come election day.

And if they let it waste away in committee, then the media will eventually learn about this and the inaction will be seen as a deliberate stalling tactic.

So, it is an interesting week for the House leadership.

What is so tough about it for Pelosi?

"I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table," Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.



She was elected on this promise. People should not be surprised. She has always said NO to impeachment.

Why is that so hard to understand?

We should praise elected officials that keep their word. Why that bothers you is your problem, not hers.

It's like drinking....I'll stick to vodka martinis for awhile, then I'll move on to Scotch on the rocks...it's only mild OCD - unlike my neighbor who inexplicably sweeps his driveway at 1:00 in the morning.

wouldn't that justify all that he has done?


Posted by Manypaths

lol double jeoparody

well, it will probably die in that committee anyway...bunch of aipac shills will most likely wait for their next 'donation' before making a decision:>)

No, MP, if I recall correctly, Pelosi never spoke about impeachment until after she was elected, conveniently. Up until then it was all change. change. change, end the war, end the war, end the war.

How in Hell did that pompous ass ever get 11% of the voters to say anything but yes?

Best thing about an impeachment proceeding would be that it would paralyze Washington, and nothing would get done for months.

So, by all means, proceed.

she would make a great Vp, too...almost Clinton quality:>)

How in Hell did that pompous ass ever get 11% of the voters to say anything but yes?

If you can find an impeachable offense.

Well, "W" is God, I think your nom de guerre pretty much sums up your relevance.

Posted by Jomama

In all fairness, Jomama, his nom de guerre refers to Wisconsin. I thought what you did at first too. But, that's not the case.

So the democrats at MSNBC want to impeach Bush. What's new about that?


Be Swell

"In all fairness, Jomama,"

Seeing that phrase and my ID in the same sentence is just plain weird, man.

If you can find an impeachable offense.

Posted by MSgt

I don't know, unless lying to involve this country in at least one war.

How many times has he decided to suspend the constitution?

You can find nothing?

RCade you can't be serious putting a link to an online poll up on the front page...

Haven't you written IT books and know all sorts of shit about the internet... was this just kind of a stirring the pot thread to get some good fights going, because there is no way you take this type of polling seriously.

IT IS TOO LATE FOR IMPEACHMENT, Impeachment is a loooong process and has no real support at this time. He has got to be charged with CRIMES, prosecuted in an international court, just like any tyrant, and sent to prison. Impeachment is too good for him.

Ah...you crazy lefties...what a thread.
Good laugh though.
Thanks.

.......89.%............

.........Democracy Talking..........

Posted by skizziks at 2008-06-11 02:30 PM

You take the prize...skiz!

A Day Late an a Dollar short, but HELL Yes!!! If the Impeachment clause of the Constitution is to mean something this ignorant fuck need to be IMPEACHED....No matter how many days he has left this fuck needs for History to know that the American people believe in our Constitution!!!

Ye Gods.

Now that Chancy Nancy has made sure to shunt Kucinich's articles of impeachment to committee, the election is officially The Democrats' to Lose.

Note to Nancy: If you disregard all our other attempts at input, we will give you our opinion of your party's actions at the polls.

Rats Flee the S.S.(Sinking Ship) Bush Regime!

So all the rats have started to flee the sinking "Bush Regime" ship and one of the biggest "Rats" is MSNBC,who along with the rest of the big American media outlets,aided,propagandized and covered up for Bush & Cheney every step of their sleazy,slimy,murderous way!

MSNBC only posted this one sided poll because they're now desperately trying to distance themselves from the Bush "Disaster" while at the same time,trying to con the American public into believing that they're sincere and dedicated proponents of morality and democracy!

I don't think anyone ever anticipated the deadly nexus of an executive branch so willing to usurp the constitution and a House and Senate of the same party and a media so willing to ignore their constitutional duty to act as a check and balance against that executive. After several years of this the illegality and cynicism became so embedded in the zeitgeist that most of us just took the easy way out of thinking that since our elected representatives were not going to do anything about it then neither could we. There were some honorable exceptions of whom Kucinich is one but they were very few and their voices were easily drowned out by propaganda and jingoism from partisan lawmakers and media.

There's no doubt Bush and Cheney are impeachable and would almost certainly be found guilty because their transgressions have been so many and so serious. But that time has passed. So they'll finish out the rest of their misbegotten administration and disappear into nonentity both unindicted and disdained. History will judge them harshly but as The Decider says they'll be dead by then, anyway. Perhaps if the Deity that Bush believes in really does exist then they'll get their just deserts there.

If not the World Court and The Hague are about politics not justice.

This entire scenario validates or invalidates their authority.

I don't think we should waste the money but wait till he's out of the white house and then throw the book at him. Including a trial for war crimes.

As a very decorated WWII veteran once described to me, the "bubblehead" in a boxer pose, as "the new assassin"... Bush should pay the price for every American soldier lost in Iraq with the highest of punishment... and, he can hold hands with Pelosi in taking it and sharing it with her...
Bush should not be allowed to leave office without some form of accountability assigned to him through impeachment, or at the least, CENSURE..!!! He does not deserve to leave office without an official stain on his record larger than the one that is unofficial now...
As to the cost, reduce the budget for war, bring some troops in and spend that on frying the SOB..!!!

I don't know which is going to be funnier... When Bush isn't charged with a single crime, or IF Obama is elected and there are still troops in Iraq in 4 years...

That's like asking someone to pick which child they love most I guess... both will be hilariously funny to see liberal reactions...

I just e-mailed Nancy Pelosi:

Mme. Speaker: Please start the impeachment process. Rep. Kucinich has offered 35 reasons why. It need not tie up the business of the country for longer than it takes to vote on it, but even if there's just one day left in the Bush presidency, the effort will have been worthwhile as a gesture that we still care about morality. (herm)

We are at almost $5.00 a gallon for gas and the friggin congress is wasting their time with this BS!

Bush is out of office in months--the Resolution by Kukucinich is going to the committee for the second time and into the trash.

The reasons are ludicrous--as is Kukucinich...

Celisary....you are right, as to the time left in his administration bears no relevance to the issue at hand.. he and Cheney both should get the full load of barrels... it only eats the time of a few on a committee; the remainder could be doing something useful on energy policies and bills to show at least a working Congress in spite of an ignorant President..!!!

We are at almost $5.00 a gallon for gas and the friggin congress is wasting their time with this BS! - Murphy

That's right...Congress should be figuring out how we can give the oil companies more tax breaks and subsidies because they don't have enough money for oil exploration.

Yes put him on trial he misled everyone.

I just e-mailed Nancy Pelosi:

Mme. Speaker: Please start the impeachment process. Rep. Kucinich has offered 35 reasons why. It need not tie up the business of the country for longer than it takes to vote on it, but even if there's just one day left in the Bush presidency, the effort will have been worthwhile as a gesture that we still care about morality. (herm)

Nicely put, Herm!

Spud tried writing Nancy P an e-missive but kept getting so angry all I came up with was bad swears some of which Spud is haff to invent cos the old ones just weren't cutting it.

Nancy Pelousy is an enabler of War Crimes and a protector of Traitors and she needs to either step up or step off.

Truth and Justice are never "off the table"

Be Well.

I just e-mailed Nancy Pelosi:

Mme. Speaker: Please start the impeachment process. Rep. Kucinich has offered 35 reasons why. It need not tie up the business of the country for longer than it takes to vote on it, but even if there's just one day left in the Bush presidency, the effort will have been worthwhile as a gesture that we still care about morality. (herm)


Posted by herm


I can just picture what's going down in her office right now...

"Madame Speaker, Herm just emailed you."

"Holy shit, Herm? From the Drudge Retort? For fuck's sake get out of my way so I can read it... he says I need to impeach the President. Well why are you all sitting around with your thumbs up your asses? Let's go people!! THE Herm from the Drudge Retort, yes the same one that thinks Bush has killed more people then Hitler or Stalin, gave us our marching orders... MOVE!!!"

"hilariously funny to see liberal reactions..."

Yes it's very funny how 4000 troops died because Bush rushed into war. Very funny how tens of thousands of families are ruined because Bush didn't do his homework and rushed into war. Very funny how our dollar is practically worthless because everyone in the world hates us because of the war. Very funny how the gap between the rich and the poor is at it's widest margin ever in history. Very funny how gas is at it's highest price ever in history because of the weak dollar. Very funny how unemployment is at it's highest mark since 1986. It's very funny how our veterans are going homeless because of the bureaucratic bullshit brought to you by Bush and his policies.

ha ha ha - I'm sure the people that are suffering because of Bush's irresponsible policies are just laughing hysterically - to insanity.

It amazes me how you "republicans" completely ignore reality. It's gotta because you hide in your mansion all day long snorting your crack and banging whores. You simply don't see the real world and how much suffering is really going on out there. Maybe you should stop watching the bullshit from Fox News/CNN etc and actually get out of your house once in awhile.

I can just picture what's going down in rob's office right now...

Rob's Boss: Where the fuck is that asshole? I bet he's on drudge wasting company time again. If he wasn't my wife's cousin I'd fire that goldbricking little jerkoff.

I can just picture what's going down in rob's office right now...

Rob's Boss: Where the fuck is that asshole? I bet he's on drudge wasting company time again. If he wasn't my wife's cousin I'd fire that goldbricking little jerkoff.

Posted by Alexandrite


Its 12:20 in the morning... you moron.

Like I care what time zone you live in, rob.

Like I care what time zone you live in, rob.

Posted by Alexandrite

Every time zone in the continental United States is out of work... you're an idiot... you tried to be funny and ended up being really stupid... admit it and move on.

Rob...if you post here instead of working ALL THE TIME how does the time of day when I comment make any difference?

It doesn't, lazy fuck.

Now make yourself 50% of the comments in this thread.

Because you said you can only imagine what's going on in my office and made up a quote by my boss... why would he be in the office at 12:20 in the morning... why would the office even be open?

Just admit you're an idiot, and we can move on...

I can just picture what's going down in her office right now...

"Madame Speaker, Herm just emailed you."

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-06-12 12:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

So nancy pelosi is working midnight tonight and reading emails?

You're not only a dumb unfunny fuck, but you're a hypocrite as well.

Just admit you screwed up and we can move on...

No..wait, you're right rob...

Nancy Pelosi is working in DC at 12:07 AM, but everyone else in America,(even in california where it would be 9:07) is off work.

Schmuck.

So nancy pelosi is working midnight tonight and reading emails?

Speaker of the House... I'm sure there is someone there...

Alex, before this back and forth continues on and on, I'm just curious. Why do you have such an obsession with what I do or when I do it or how I do it... you more then anyone else here has such a problem with what I do for a living... I'm just curious why that is...

You don't see me giving a fuck about what you do, or what you should be doing while posting...

you more then anyone else here has such a problem with what I do for a living...

Not really. I just like to bust your tiny balls. Why? Because you seem incapable of anything but disruption and unfunny jokes. That and spam. Any thread you partake in is 40% you you you.

At least be funny like 101 chair if you're gonna scream for our attention. Don't be the madonna of drudge and have nothing to add after dry humping a midget over a cross.

Any thread you partake in is 40% you you you.

I reply to people who post back to me...

Douchebag, this is a liberal leaning blog filled with people who love to argue... I'm one of few consistent right leaning posters... so yeah, when I'm arguing on a thread people are posting towards me, because the majority here are leftist, and they're going to argue with the rightie...

Its pretty sad the source of your anger, and constant/pathetic "goldbricker" attacks is that more people talk to me then they do to you.

you wackos.....( said with sincerity).......had better not read the washington post because if you do, you will hemporage and start having fits......
fred hiatt is the editorial page editor and his latest column will not sit well with you.

here is a sample.

iraq's nuke program..."were generally substantiated by intelligence information"

chemical weapons......"were generally substantiated by intelligence information"


WMD overall in iraq......."were generally substantiated by intelligence information"


delivery vehicles such as ballistic missles......."were generally substantiated by intelligence information"


unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver WMD......."were generally substantiated by intelligence information"


and was this a report from fox news......or cheney';s office......uh no.....
it is all quted from a report released last thursday by........DRUM ROLL>........

john D rockefeller IV, DEMOCRAT from W VA........

and a quote from the same mr rockefeller..
from October 2002..
"there have been some debate over how imminent a threat iraq poses. I do believe iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after september 11,2001, that question is increasingly outdated...to insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow americans aat risk. can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."


so I will now wait on the outcry to impeach this lawmaker from W VA. but of course I will not hold my breath..

and was this a report I missed or what? I didnt see it splashed all over the screen on msnbc or cnn......

and the most important issue with this now.....at least as far as not making mistakes on it....

hiatt asked about the threat this poses to president mccain or obama....."WHEN to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security in a democracy that will always be reluctant"

THIS is what congress and others should be talking about rather than some bullshit articles from a short little man trying to make up for his lack of height.......

Isn't there a flag for, that post hurts my eyes, gives me a headache, and motion sickness? The BLT flag.

Nullifidian- if you read the 'content' your head would hurt even more.

Well, "W" is God, I think your nom de guerre pretty much sums up your relevance.

Posted by Jomama at 2008-06-11 12:06 PM | Reply

Once again, Wisgod owned by a DR retorter.
*yawn*
That's all you girls got? Masturbation-related insults?
But I suppose that considering you voted for the Deciderer twice, any projection or deflection is better than self-reflection.

Manypaths:
I disagree with your assessment of the Deciderer as the worst president in US history. I put Fillmore and Hoover behind him.

Slightly behind.

SAM

By now WISGOD's passed out on the couch snoring with his mouth wide open. Had his own beerfest.

Rob wrote:
"...you're an idiot... you tried to be funny and ended up being really stupid... admit it and move on.

The DR ultimate case of the "pot calling the kettle black."

Is putting a horse farmer in charge of a disaster management agency an impeachable offense?

Let me state the facts so all you crazy Bush hating liberals can get a dose of the truth here>

1. Bush has committed no impeachable offenses while in office. Certainly not concerning going to war because if he had then numerous democrats would be jailed with him for misleading the country.

2. He will not be impeached!

3. He will not be tried in internation court!

4. He will finish out his term completely unfazed by the leftwing nutballs.

5. He will leave office and resume a happy, healthy life as a civilian.

6. He will spend the rest of his life enjoying travel, vacations, and doing whatever philanthropic things he so chooses.

6. Little democrats heads will explode because they have worked themselves in a frenzy over this and want be able to accept these facts.

Isn't there a flag for, that post hurts my eyes, gives me a headache, and motion sickness? The BLT flag.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-06-12 01:28 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Nullifidian- if you read the 'content' your head would hurt even more.

Posted by Alexandrite


spoken like two libs who have NO ANSWER for my post or points made........when it comes from bush, you rant and rave about impeachment.....when it comes from your own......you are silent except for this nonsense from the both of you.....
CASE CLOSED.......

today's Lefty masturbation

Posted by vernon

Hi Vernon. It seems Right that you came to say that.

"spoken like two libs who have NO ANSWER for my post or points made........"

Did you make some points? Who would know, given they're buried in a sea of illiterate gibberish?

Maybe you ought to go back to the good old grade school concept of an outline.

Isn't reading a Bushlover post akin to viewing the face of Medusa?

Did you make some points? Who would know, given they're buried in a sea of illiterate gibberish?

FF and a "no shit" flag for Nulli.

Of course, W SHOULD be impeached. Most people think so too. Hiding the fact that there's an impeachment move in the House is like trying to hide the fact that someone farted in the elevator. But, like the wingnuts here postulate, this will likely blow over without consequence to W, Cheney, or the rest of the reich-wing Bush-Cheney administration

..........89 %......of America........

.......can't just be the Left Wing Democrats.......

......if the country is split 50 / 50 left-right.....

......then 80 % of the Right Wing must also want Bush impeached.......

She is getting government contracts for her husband.

Isn't reading a Bushlover post akin to viewing the face of Medusa?


I can only imagine.......................
....what his research papers looked like in "college" where......he...........got...
..his "degree" to be a "teacher".

All Joking aside.

How does one reconcile a President or believe a word he says when he makes an an open claim:

"Jesus Christ is the most important person in my life because he changed my heart"

and then refuses to even try to apply the most basic of Christs teaching to his life such as:

"Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the Sons of God"

USA

You don't suppose it's because he's a pathological liar, do you?

"Spud tried writing Nancy P an e-missive but.....
Be Well.

Posted by dethspud"

Hey taterbrain! Do you think Nancy P cares a rats ass what some dumbfuck from canada (not capitaized because it's not a real country) thinks?

"Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the Sons of God"

Posted by USATrueandBlue7


You forgot this quote:

"Why is everybody so upset, they were just Kurds"
Sadaam H.

And this one:

"aaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaay" Joe Zilch jumping from Twin tower #1 covered in burning jet fuel

Maybe Bush should have just turned the other cheek?

I'm sure Pelosi cares as much about what that spooky little 3rd person talking fuck has to say as the rest of us do.
He's probably lucky it didn't go through otherwise he'd get another order of protection against him.

That guy needs to be kicked to sleep daily.

Posted by FreddyK at 2008-06-12 08:50 AM

Yuck!

*** Maybe Bush should have just turned the other cheek?
Posted by FreddyK *****

....how can you keep repeating the 9-11 mantra when it was Saudis who carried out 9-11 .??.....

....of course, Bush kisses Saudi ass, so he put the Bin Laden family on planes out of the US the next morning before the FBI could question them......

......so next time we get attacked by Russia we should strike back agains Lithuania because some people couldn't pick either one out of a map......

**** Hey taterbrain! Do you think Nancy P cares a rats ass what some dumbfuck from canada (not capitaized because it's not a real country) thinks?
Posted by FreddyK *****

......they have a balanced budget, plus public health care, plus full employment without a mortgage crisis........

......you call that a country ?..........

......yup...I'd say we could learn from them and some other countries, about running a country for the people, by the people,..... instead of...... for the rich people, by the rich people........

..........89 %......of America........

.......can't just be the Left Wing Democrats.......

......if the country is split 50 / 50 left-right.....

......then 80 % of the Right Wing must also want Bush impeached.......

At this point maybe impeachment would not be practical, however a congressional censure has been earned.

" Truth and Justice are never "off the table"

Posted by dethspud at 2008-06-12 12:06 AM"

Very true.

For those who said that there's been NO impeachable offenses, let's try and refute the charges:

Here's a sample of them ...

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a ... Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of H. J. Res114.

Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor.

Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes.

Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq.

Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries.

Hey SOMEGUY2 go read Article 2 clause 4 of the UN Charter sometime. Oh and Yes the UN Must Authorize a War when dealing with it's UN Resolutions passed in the UN Security Council. Please do so ever try yet again for You know not what You speak about.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

Larry,

You forget ALL the other articles!!! You can't just read ONE article. You must read them together. For example, Article 2, clause 4, says not to take action "inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." That means, read Article 2, clause 4, in conjunction with other articles.

Article 51: authorizes self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a UN Member. America was attacked -- NOTE Article 51 does NOT limit self-defense to ONLY the country who attacked... so a country exercising self-defense may take those actions calculated to protect itself.

Article 52: authorizes regional arrangements to take "REGIONAL ACTION" so long as not against purposes and principles of the UN.

Article 53: authorizes regional arrangements to take "ENFORCEMENT ACTION" -- taking "ENFORCEMENT ACTION" requires United Nations Security Council approval.

NOTE the use of "REGIONAL ACTION" in Article 52 and "ENFORCEMENT ACTION" in Article 53. Article 52 does NOT require Security Council authorization.

Someguy2 needs to get an education sometime before He spews His BULLSHIT. First of all Terrorist attacks are NOT acts of war. Secondly Iraq never attacked the United States. Nor any ALly since the Safwan Treaty in April 03 1991 so Article 51 does NOT apply. Article 52 Does not apply either because there was no regional agreement. The Agreement was with the UN Security COuncil as a whole. Please do try yet again for You know not whaty You speak about.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-06-12 09:52 AM | Reply

And some more:

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq.

Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors.

Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives.

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements.

Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply.

Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency.

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001.

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.

Just a few of the charges. That any POTUS could win office through the very narrowest of margins, create more animosity toward his administration than any other president in a lifetime, engage in sneaky tricks to disenfranchise voters in Ohio in order to re-win another narrow victory even while serving as a "war-time president" (no other POTUS has ever come so close to losing reelection while sitting as a "war-time president"), and rack up an approval rating of just a paltry 24% throughout his final term in office, AND NOT BE IMPEACHED is a virtual miracle!!!

Dubya better keep going to church! He owes the Big Maker a lot for protecting his tookus big time (even if Dubya himself hasn't protected the skins of his servicemen and women very well).

SG2 -- It was all (the crap to conflate Iraq with 9/11's attack, and the much touted risk of a "smoking mushroom cloud") BS. 100% pure West Texas and Wyoming oil country BS!

It came down from Dummy and Dick, with Dick traipsing through Langley EVERY f.in' day, and Dummy demanding more commitment from the DOD brass to do what the analysts were telling them shouldn't be done. It was a fraud that had almost purely pro-business goals dressed up as Wilsonian democratic goals. And just ask any of the hundreds of servicemen and women and State and Intel analysts who didn't deliver the fraudulent products that Dummy And Dick wanted.

They (the accurate analysts) got canned or marginalized and Rummy and Dummy never took a fall for their bad estimates, miscalculations, hubris, negligence, incompetence, and strategic over-reach. And Dubya never got into trouble for the greatest fraud since US history began.

Correction: "Rummy and Dummy" should be "Dick and Dummy" (Dummy = Rummy)

TownNCountry,

It's fine if you think that, but that does NOT make their actions illegal.

I'm not making an argument about the merits of Bush and Cheney's actions -- I'm simply discussing which, if any, international laws they violated.

You dumb fuck SomeGuy2 You can't go to war against say France if Germany attacks You. You reaqlly do not have a clue as top what You espouse. The same goes for Iraq. Had Iraq attacked the United States We could have defended ourselves by waging war against them. Secondly 678 only authorized the use of Military force to remove Saddam Hussein and His Military from Kuwait. NOTHING further. Oh and that authorization ended with UN Resolution 687 Articles 33 and 34 respectively. Please do get more educated upon the subject matter at hand for You are totally ignorant of the facts at hand.

Larry Mohr

Oh and what the fuck is an armed attack but an act of War. You really aren't too bright are You??

Larry Mohr

Oh and what the fuck is an armed attack but an act of War. You really aren't too bright are You??

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

Read what it is in International Law. Why would they use "armed attack" and NOT "act of war" if they really mean "act of war"???

There is no way You can intellectual honestly declare that Saddam Hussein nor His Military was poised to attack. You are being dishonest if You do. Please do try again for You know not what You speak about as usual.

Larry Mohr

There is no way You can intellectual honestly declare that Saddam Hussein nor His Military was poised to attack. You are being dishonest if You do. Please do try again for You know not what You speak about as usual.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

Just read the article I gave you. Why won't you read it?

Well that's a different argument. You said that if the Security Council didn't authorize the war then it's illegal. I was simply saying that's not necessarily a true statement.

Why can't you just debate without name calling? It's okay if people disagree with you... seriously.

But, many would disagree with you from an early 2000s perspective about whether Hussein was "poised to attack". Of course, in hindsight, it seems pretty clear Hussein couldn't have done much. But hindsight is irrelevant in determining the reasonableness of peoples early 2000s beliefs.

Did you make some points? Who would know, given they're buried in a sea of illiterate gibberish?

Maybe you ought to go back to the good old grade school concept of an outline.

Posted by nullifidian at

this answer is for you AND your twin sister.....the morphodite known as alexandrite.......

the point was and is.....that when you say bush lied about iraq, then john d rockefeller and his report DONT AGREE WITH YOU and isnt he a leading democrat and anti war on terrorism in iraq???????

I guess each of you cant comprehend that when presented to you.......OF COURSE THATS NOT TRUE as I wont call you the same things I get called. the reason you cant 'get it' is because you dont want to because it shows you ARE WRONG when you blindly say bush lied and leave it at that.......
SHIT I thought you guys were like......the smartest people alive.......

I can only imagine.......................
....what his research papers looked like in "college" where......he...........got...
..his "degree" to be a "teacher".

Posted by Axiom at


I could yell and argue with you but that would not do as much good as just reminding you and so many others of your ilk that when it comes to posting here on this site, I think of it more as just talking to you and others. And therefore, I normally dont take the time to write in a formal sense or style and rarely even think of the proper rules of grammar and such. Now if you care to take this site into a different way, where all writing is done in a formal and correct manner, then I suggest you start with me but end with larry, and so many others who subscribe to the same notion that there just is not enough time for formal writing and thus, we get a more informal style of prose.
I end this response with the sincere hope and desire that all posters of both sides begin to lose thier extemporanous way of just thro..........WHAT>..........WHAT WAS THAT>.....

OH its only ME and rightwingers that you TALK THIS SHIT ABOUT............nevermind.... ...

sorry larrybud.....but your post above was the last one I read and besides.......FIX THAT CAPS BUTTON ON YOUR KEYBOARD..............yuk yuk

"......yup...I'd say we could learn from them and some other countries, about running a country for the people, by the people,..... instead of...... for the rich people, by the rich people........"

Posted by skizziks

Except they don't freedom of speach

"....how can you keep repeating the 9-11 mantra when it was Saudis who carried out 9-11 .??....."

Posted by skizziks

Let me see.... Some of the hijackers were in this country doing pilot training before Bush was elected, one was here doing training as early as 96.

Yep must have been a Bush conspiracy.

You sir are left wing nut job!

This thread is best example of a left wing circle jerk I've seen here on DR so far.

You forgot this quote:

"Why is everybody so upset, they were just Kurds"
Sadaam H.

And this one:

"aaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaay" Joe Zilch jumping from Twin tower #1 covered in burning jet fuel

Maybe Bush should have just turned the other cheek?

Posted by FreddyK at 2008-06-12 08:50


I guess all I can do is respond to you by quoting "Jesus" one more time. (Again...the same "Jesus" President Bush claims is the most important figure in his life because he changed his heart)

"Dearly beloved... Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written "Vengence is mine, I will repay"... saith the Lord.

**** Yep must have been a Bush conspiracy.
You sir are left wing nut job!
Posted by FreddyK ******

......I did not say that 9-11 was a Bush conspiracy.....

......I said that it was committed by Saudis and we subsequently attacked Iraq, which was totally unconnected......

...and you are wilfully ignorant & dismissive of the facts, that being that since George Bush and family have been in the oil business with the Bin Laden family, your Bush assisted in the removal of Bin Laden family members from America before they could be interrogated by the FBI......

......you invoked 9-11 to justify Iraq and that is one of the big lies of this administration......

.......remember, 89 % of Americans want our criminal Mr Bush impeached, thats democracy talking, and 89 % means that at least 80 % of conservatives also want him impeached..........

In the eight weeks since the attacks, over 1,000 suspects and potential witnesses have been detained. Yet, just days after the hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same airport whisked 11 members of Osama Bin Laden's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not concern the White House.

Their official line is that the Bin Ladens are above suspicion - apart from Osama, the black sheep, who they say hijacked the family name. That's fortunate for the Bush family and the Saudi royal household, whose links with the Bin Ladens could otherwise prove embarrassing. But Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of other members of the] Bin Laden family for links to terrorist organisations before and after September 11th.

This document is marked "Secret". Case ID - 199-Eye WF 213 589. 199 is FBI code for case type. 9 would be murder. 65 would be espionage. 199 means national security. WF indicates Washington field office special agents were investigating ABL - because of it's relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, WAMY - a suspected terrorist organisation. ABL is Abdullah Bin Laden, president and treasurer of WAMY.

This is the sleepy Washington suburb of Falls Church, Virginia where almost every home displays the Stars and Stripes. On this unremarkable street, at 3411 Silver Maple Place, we located the former home of Abdullah and another brother, Omar, also an FBI suspect. It's conveniently close to WAMY. The World Assembly of Muslim Youth is in this building, in a little room in the basement at 5613 Leesburg Pike. And here, just a couple blocks down the road at 5913 Leesburg, is where four of the hijackers that attacked New York and Washington are listed as having lived.

The US Treasury has not frozen WAMY's assets, and when we talked to them, they insisted they are a charity. Yet, just weeks ago, Pakistan expelled WAMY operatives. And India claimed that WAMY was funding an organisation linked to bombings in Kashmir. And the Philippines military has accused WAMY of funding Muslim insurgency. The FBI did look into WAMY, but, for some reason, agents were pulled off the trail.

...and you are wilfully ignorant & dismissive of the facts, that being that since George Bush and family have been in the oil business with the Bin Laden family, your Bush assisted in the removal of Bin Laden family members from America before they could be interrogated by the FBI......


There is not a doubt in my mind that GW Bush cut a deal with the Saudi Bin Laden Oil Family to save their little boy Osama's boys life.

Bush being the mental ginat he is I think confirmed it when he stated publically... "I don't know where Osama Bin Laden is...I really don't care... I just don't think about it much"


Says it all folks... Wake up and smell the roses.

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

Seems like posing that question to the legions of typical, shrieking left-wing fucks that inhabit the blogosphere is akin to asking a barber if he thinks you need a haircut.

Groundbreaking stuff from PMSNBC.

"At this point maybe impeachment would not be practical, however a congressional censure has been earned."

Uh, honey....

"Congressional censure" is pretty much what an impeachment is. You don't get kicked out of office over impeachment. That takes a Senate trial resulting in a guilty verdict.

Where the fuck was everybody when they were supposed to be in civics class?

Larry,

Yeah, that's no doubt the argument against it claiming it was valid under Article 51. The concept of "imminent" though is a tough one in the modern world. International Law is difficult because of its fluidity -- things change with time. Clearly, Bush has made his case that in today's world, with WMDs (which we now know Saddam did NOT possess), that "imminent" in today's world is broader than it was when only conventional wars were available (when you could literally watch your adversary amass troops on your border rather compared to secretly releasing dangerous chemicals against an enemy country). If you read the article I provided you, it makes the case for what is "imminent" in the modern world considering WMDs.

It's true that under the old concept of imminence Bush's action likely could not be justified under Article 51. But International Law is ALWAYS evolving, and mere international custom impacts the definitions of terms. In fact, doesn't your article support that at some point, the idea of self-defense *began* to include anticipatory self-defense? Clearly an evolution.

That's the true battleground -- what is "imminent" in today's world?

Of course, the Article 51 justification ignores the Security Council Resolutions 1441... that article I provided you also discusses that along with both 678 and 687.

I pose this question to you: IF Saddam had possessed WMDs, and Bush honestly believed Saddam was going to use them against the U.S., would that be imminent?

IF Saddam had possessed WMDs, and Bush honestly believed Saddam was going to use them against the U.S., would that be imminent?

Posted by SomeGuy2 at 2008-06-12 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nope cause Russia has nukes poised to attack the United States. Same with China. Not justifiable NO Article 51 allowance.

Larry Mohr

I pose this question to you: IF Saddam had possessed WMDs, and Bush honestly believed Saddam was going to use them against the U.S., would that be imminent?

Posted by SomeGuy2 at 2008-06-12 11:38 AM | Reply

BTW Those Illegal No Fly Zones prevented Saddam Hussein any secrecy with regards to the WMD question so thats a moot point anyways.

Larry Mohr

and Bush honestly believed Saddam was going to use them against the U.S., would that be imminent?

Posted by SomeGuy2

NOBODY could argue that Saddam's WMD's, were they to actually exist, could ever be used against Americans. He lacked the means to get them to us.

And why would it be so hard to get them to us? Sure, a nuclear weapon would be very difficult -- but you don't think *individuals* could bring in some sort of poisonous substance? en.wikipedia.org

Posted by SomeGuy2

I was speaking conventionally I guess, but by your argument, that could be applied to any person or group of people or government at ANY time... Sounds like justification to declare war against the whole planet.

Posted by skizziks at 2008-06-12 11:03 AM-- Great info. Do you have a link?

USATrueandBlue -- I'd suspect what you just hypothesized is a good bet. Problem is that while there's motive and capacity, there's no proof yet. Ay! There's the rub.

BL2, I am constantly amazed by you. It's kinda like staring at a fresh pile of dog-shit. It is so natural and correct on some level but it stinks and draws flies on another.

ultimately, it's just a pile of shit.

Thanks Lipzoidial!

Yeah, I certainly see the arguments against it (and I'm trying to discuss what is "imminent" and not necessarily justify Bush's actions). All these questions like, "but did he *really* believe it was imminent?" Who could ever know?

But let's ignore the merits of the Iraq War -- what is an imminent threat today? How is it defined?

Does a country have to wait for conventional war like circumstances where troops amass on your border? Or do WMDs change the equation? Things today can be hidden from the naked eye; whereas in the past you could see the threat physically develop.

What is the answer? Bush wants to expand it; others clearly don't. I see merits on both sides...

Lots of wishing thinking in these posts. I see a lot of people saying we live in a democracy and to contact Nancy to sway her to impeach "W".

First of all, we do not live in a democracy...we live in a represenatative republic. We vote for the idiots to represent us. The idiot can do whatever he/she wants to do. We can pressure the idiot to do otherwise but it ultimately comes down to what the idiot decides to do. In a democracy we would all have an equal say and our veto to impeach would have to be executed.

Second, this is purely political. Where has Kook kook Kucinich been for the last 4 years? Why is he now presenting these articles for impeachment when "W" only has 5-1/2 months before he exits his current term? Kook kook has nothing to loose because he knows it's not going anywhere because Nancy will not allow it.

Lastly, Kook kook sits on the Domestic Policy Subcommittee and Education and Labor Committee. What security clearances does he have to know what is going on in with our national defense/

Come on people...common sense must prevail!

I never said we live in a democracy. I know we live in a constitutional republic, made up of entities known as states with more or less arbitrary boundaries with no real significance.

But I believe that impeachment is a constitutional obligation... at this point you can't say that the only ones who know what is up with national defense are still only the ones with national security clearance on certain committees. Coommon sense.

Another thought on this poll...

Like all polls, this one is skewed to get a "Yes". Why would there only be one vote for "Yes" and two selections for "No"? Pretty easy to figure out...the intention before the first vote was cast was to make sure there were more yes votes by splitting the no votes.

You got to love the polls!

Another thought on this poll...

Posted by scoobymagoo

okay, scooby, add the 4.2 and 4.5 and get 8.7... how much of a difference does that make against the 89% who are calling for impeachment...

Gotta love poll readers.

All I am saying is there is a lot we do not know about the government's actions and there is a lot more others know who sit on the committees. How many people knew about the bombs that existed before we dropped them on Japan? There is a lot more to this thing in Iraq than what meets the eye...things we may never know.

I agree with your math...that's obvious. But also obvious is the the attempt in the beginning to manipulate the poll before votes were cast. Also obvious is this is not a scientific poll so the outcome may not trully reprent the majority of people in our country. If these numbers were accurate, Nancy would pull the trigger on proceeding with the impeachment.

What percentage of those 89% also don't want gay marriage?
Oh, never mind. That percentage doesn't matter. The will of the people only matters if we agree with it.
Sincerely,
Liberals


I wonder what percentage of the poll voters on KKK.com want to lynch Obama?

Sorry went out to get some 3.72 cent a gallon gasoline. You have no Article 51 allowance presented. Case in point. You and I are in the same bar. I see You have two fists and I decide to Premptively attack You. Think the cops are gonna buy My(Your) theory that I was merely defending Myself from a preceived attack from You?? They would laugh Me straight to jail that is what would happen. You have NO Case.

Larry Mohr

I agree with Larry on the UN Charter stuff.
It's a real treaty.

Problem is, the US has broken so many treaties in the past that nobody cares. Treaties are like pie crusts. Ask any American Indian.

"If these numbers were accurate, Nancy would pull the trigger on proceeding with the impeachment."
Posted by scoobymagoo

I know this is an unscientific poll, if there can even be a scientific poll.

I mean if, say 25% of people still support bush according to real polls, then how can 89% say that he should be impeached?

"I wonder what percentage of the poll voters on KKK.com want to lynch Obama?"
Posted by 101Chairborne

OUCH! Ugly example to demonstrate your point.

OUCH! Ugly example to demonstrate your point.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-06-12 12:37 PM | Reply


Subtlety doesn't work on the retort. You know that.

"I mean if, say 25% of people still support bush according to real polls, then how can 89% say that he should be impeached?"

Futhermore, how many of the 75% who do not support "W" would be for impeachment? Not more than 50% would be my guess. Just because his favorability rating is low doesn't mean they would automatically be in favor of impeachment. Heck, Congress' approval rating is less that George's! Something like 18% if I remember correctly. Kook kook should be impeached on that basis.

"Come on people...common sense must prevail!"

You're dreamin'. Actually, I think I'm gonna vote a straight Democrat ticket this election. I only wish I could vote in every state. We could have Kuchinich in Ohio, Cindy Sheehan in California, Jerry Springer, Al Franken, and a whole bevy of clowns in Congress to entertain us for the next four years. Hell, I hope Obama gets elected and calls up Joycelyn Elders for Surgeon General again. Just imagine the laughs we would have. The Comedy Channel would go out of business.

I wonder what percentage of the poll voters on KKK.com want to lynch Obama?

Posted by 101Chairborne


Which way did you choose Liz?

Not more than 50% would be my guess. Just because his favorability rating is low doesn't mean they would automatically be in favor of impeachment.

Posted by scoobymagoo

Impeachment is not a matter of political popularity, it's a constitutional obligation.

You're dreamin'. Actually, I think I'm gonna vote a straight Democrat ticket this election. I only wish I could vote in every state. We could have Kuchinich in Ohio, Cindy Sheehan in California, Jerry Springer, Al Franken, and a whole bevy of clowns in Congress to entertain us for the next four years. Hell, I hope Obama gets elected and calls up Joycelyn Elders for Surgeon General again. Just imagine the laughs we would have. The Comedy Channel would go out of business.

Posted by jestgettinalong at 2008-06-12 12:47 PM

Or maybe we could change the law and allow same Ignorant DumbFuck we have now to be President for another term.

"Or maybe we could change the law and allow same Ignorant DumbFuck we have now to be President for another term."

No need to do that....we would still have YOU to be our DR Ignorant DumbFuck!

Yes, of course his actions justify IMPEACHMENT.

If we dared to drag a President through muck for lying about a blowjob then we certainly have the duty to the same for any of the thirty five Articles brought forth by Kucinich which seem to me to be much more severe than lying about a sex act between two adults.

It is our duty and the duty of Congress to do so regardless of whether there is "time" or whether it is "off the table" or whether it will "divide" us.

It is the right thing to do.

But, will it happen?

I seriously doubt it.

I'll re-ask the question: how do we define "imminent" in the modern world considering WMDs?

Posted by SomeGuy2

Like I said before, sounds like the argument to declare war against anybody at anytime... especially since you never have to prove the existence of the WMD's after the fact.

Like I said before, sounds like the argument to declare war against anybody at anytime... especially since you never have to prove the existence of the WMD's after the fact.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

This is why I'm asking the question! On one hand, it's a dangerous precedent. On the other, it could prevent catastrophic attacks.

Think of this hypothetical: Obama gets elected and takes over next year. Two months into his presidency intelligence says that country X is going to unleash substance Y on the U.S., and the threat to human life is enormous. Obama is NOT positive about the intelligence, but thinks its chances of being correct are 75%. Should Obama view that as an "imminent" threat or does he have to wait until the substance is unleashed???

It's easy to say, "Iraq didn't have WMDs so it's moot" -- but disregard Iraq, we're not talking the merits of the Iraq War. Rather, I'm asking how would ***you*** define an imminent threat?

Someguy2,

I guess we would have to make a distinction between potential and imminent, and view that through the lense of previous statements about the desire for war with that country independent of any evidence...

You can't invade a country based on imminent threat when there is NO PROOF of an imminent threat (no WMDs).

That's pretty friggin' simple to understand.

Besides, preemptively attacking a country you believe to be 'dangerous' is nothing but an unwarranted attack... which is much worse than an 'imminent attack' don't you think?!

Someguy2,

I guess we would have to make a distinction between potential and imminent, and view that through the lense of previous statements about the desire for war with that country independent of any evidence...

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Yeah, that's a good point. What's so unfortunate about articulating a standard of what is "imminent" is that it seems to require absolute trust in the potential aggressor (preemptive striker). Clearly, Bush does not receive absolute trust (or any from many) at this point. I wonder how that might effect future presidencies -- will there hands be tied even though they may turn out to be correct? If Obama were elected, would he be absolutely trusted? What consequence would occur if, like Bush, Obama were wrong?

The real rub is hindsight is 20/20. We can all look back and say, "Bush was wrong." Flip reality though -- if Bush had been vindicated (meaning WMDs found in Iraq), would we even be having this discussion? Maybe we'd all be in agreement about the ***effectiveness*** and ***requirement*** that countries be able to premptively attack others if intel indicates WMDs with intent to use...?

The idea of what poses an "imminent threat" is *bigger* than Bush and has far broader implications.

The real rub is hindsight is 20/20. We can all look back and say, "Bush was wrong."
Posted by SomeGuy2

Thing is, many knew he was wrong at the time... you just had to have a suspicious questioning mind... but those things were verboten at the time. HE certainly knew he was wrong but didn't care... he was going to do what he wanted no matter what... He looked at the presidency as a dictatorship before he was even elected.

Buzz words there are "actionable intelligence". What is "actionable intelligence"?

And this highlights the complexity of these types of decisions.

1) The threat must be "imminent" under Article 51;

2) To determine what is "imminent" we must rely on intelligence; and

3) The only intelligence worth relying upon is "actionable intelligence".

I see LOTS of room for disagreement about what is "imminent" and what is "actionable intelligence".

I don't know how to objectively define it. For example, if Obama were to attack Pakistan and turn out wrong, then many would say his intelligence wasn't "actionable". But that determination would require hindsight -- without hindsight, it may appear "actionable" even though it truly is not.

Okay...

Obama's words LOVE to be taken out of context.

In this article, Obama is referring to AL QAEDA targets....

Al QAEDA is responsible for 911.

Iraq and Saddam weren't (directly anyway).

So.... attacking Al Qaeda is not unwarranted, nor is it preemptive... because they attacked us first.

Nice try though.

Pakistan (the nation itself) is a supposed ally of the U.S.

I have no problem bombing PROVEN al qaeda camps in Pakistan, as long as we don't commit the blunder we just did, which was killing Pakistan military members accidentally, then being like, "oops, my bad."

Nice try though.

Posted by mc1135

Talk about taking words out of context...

We were having a conversation about language, not the rightness or wrongness of anyone's statements... jeez

Historically, you could NOT attack a country for individual private actors within the country unless there was a connection between the government and the individual private actors (e.g., Afghanistan).

Has the Pakistani government been involved in individual private terrorist actors???

But yes, we were just talking about "language". I'm sure there are juicy quotes from McCain too, but Obama's Pakistan stuff came to mind.

International Law seems to be designed to promote these types of conflicts. The U.N. Charter itself does NOT even have a "definition" section to define its own terms!!! Which is why customary law supplements its meaning -- which creates a flimsy commitment.

But flimsy commitments have their advantages -- they can bring countries together for a common purpose, even if there is substantive disagreement on how to define terms. But when major hostiles, like the Iraq War, occur the definitions of the terms are VERY important. Otherwise, it becomes something like this, Country A: armed attack means a person shooting a pistol across our border; and Country B: no, armed attack means a contingent of military troops crossing into your border with advanced weaponry, not just shovels.

see LOTS of room for disagreement about what is "imminent" and what is "actionable intelligence".

So if we had actionable intel back on 12-6-1941 it would have been OK to attack Japan?

Well, the U.N. Charter had not been ratified yet, and I do not know what international legal customs were at the time, but I think there was precedent at the time for anticipatory self-defense against an "imminent threat".

Article 51 though does provide for self-defense which is largely recognized to include anticipatory self-defense against an "imminent threat". I'm no history buff so I cannot tell you the "imminence" of the threat in 12-6-1941. I mean, if the President believed the Attack on Pearl Harbor was to occur the next day, then that sounds pretty imminent to me.

But imminence requires more than just timing I think. It also requires a balancing of timing and potential threat. For example, if Country A told Country B, "we're going to develop a nuclear weapon and then blow you up" and it was clear it would take *exactly* 5 years to do so, then I'm not convinced Country B would have to wait until a day before 5 years were up.

For example, if Country A told Country B, "we're going to develop a nuclear weapon and then blow you up" and it was clear it would take *exactly* 5 years to do so, then I'm not convinced Country B would have to wait until a day before 5 years were up.

Posted by SomeGuy2 at 2008-06-12 03:17 PM

Saddam claimed he had them and would use them. Hell the UN decided to write how many resolutions? We know there was a lapse of any CIA agents in Iraq during the end of the 90's.(US Senate Intel Report)We also know the previous Administration had regime change plans drawn and given to Bush. I for one am glad Saddam is dead and buried.

Saddam was a bowling pin at USA Lanes.

Saddam was a bowling pin at USA Lanes.

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-06-12 04:16 PM |

The military was the bowling ball. We just didn't have any porters to clean up the mess.

Iraq was declared dangerous by Congress before Bush. That declaration was never reversed. Therefore, attacking Iraq had the support of Congress' belief in the existence of danger.

Problem is, nobody liked the fact that Bush didn't blink or bluff.

To some, that's his strength. If Bush says he's looking at Iran, I'll bet you people believe Bush is considering action. That's not true about other people.

Latest results:

Q. Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 702345 responses

A1. Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 89%!!!!

That's a response rate of 0.2%!!

Big sample!

Pinchemao scribbled:
"Seems like posing that question to the legions of typical, shrieking left-wing fucks that inhabit the blogosphere is akin to asking a barber if he thinks you need a haircut."

Ok, dammit don't get PERSONAL.

HP, it does represent an anomaly. MSNBC isn't particularly biased, and serves all points across the spectrum of public opinion. You would have thought that the conservative Media Research Center (MRC), run by Swift Boat veteran Brent Bozell in cooperation with Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, would have mobilized their minions to boost the votes in this poll. It seems however, that the MRC and Fox News ran as far away from the story as possible out of fear that the more they publicized the story, the more life it would gain.

BL2, I am constantly amazed by you. It's kinda like staring at a fresh pile of dog-shit. It is so natural and correct on some level but it stinks and draws flies on another.

ultimately, it's just a pile of shit.

Posted by Lipzoidial



wells thanks. I sometimes amaze myself. thank you very much for noticing.

and of course, your whole post is nothing of substance at all like most responses I get from the liberals here. most can only do just what you did here. avoid any real response on the question at hand and go right for the personal "touch"....

putz!

"MSNBC isn't particularly biased, and serves all points across the spectrum of public opinion"

yea, right, what an idiot!

Will this be the time when you lefties jerk off to climax, or stop mid-stroke?

Posted by wisgod at 2008-06-11 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Another self-loathing, closeted righty looking to talk about masturbation techniques.

Yaaaaaaawn.

Best thing about an impeachment proceeding would be that it would paralyze Washington, and nothing would get done for months.

So, by all means, proceed.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-06-11 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:


I'm sure the sarcasm level was as high when they wanted to impeach Clinton for lying to the righites about getting a blowjob.

You're such a partisan hack.

I've long see-sawed on this, but finally e-mailed Pelosi and the judiciary committee to please proceed. I KNOW there's national business to be done, but you just CAN'T let the sob of a b itch run free. herm

son of a bitch. you knew that ...it posts before i'm ready. herm

MSNBC - From the Land of Mathews and Olbermann, the most biased news coverage known to man.

And you lefties bitch about Fox News - fucking hilarious.

------------------------------
--------------------

I'm sure the sarcasm level was as high when they wanted to impeach Clinton for lying to the righites about getting a blowjob.

You're such a partisan hack.

Posted by COMMONSENSE

Common,
Why is it that you always bring up a 'blowjob'? He was IMPEACHED FOR LYING IN COURT.

Moron

"Why is it that you always bring up a 'blowjob'? He was IMPEACHED FOR LYING IN COURT. "

CurrentDouche,

No, Clinton was impeached because of republican attacks. In case you forget he was also found innocent despite Star spending something like $40M on the investigation of which the evidence was illegally obtained by Tripp. Then there was also Star investigating Whitewater and Paula Jones. Basically your typical right-wing witchhunt.

Now its coming out that Bush intentionally lied to the US Congress, the American people and the US military about the reasons to go to war with Iraq.

How you can piously tout that Clinton's impeachment is valid but to do one on bush is wrong?

Get a fucking clue.

Liberal Democrats feel that just because that lying scum Bill Clinton was impeached that a Republican has to go down too and the little losers want some kind of twisted revenge for losing 2 straight elections.

President Bush has done absolutely nothing to justify impeachment hearings. Get over it libs. You lost the elections and you will lose them again with Barack Hussein "his church hates whiteys" Obama.

For example, if Country A told Country B, "we're going to develop a nuclear weapon and then blow you up" and it was clear it would take *exactly* 5 years to do so, then I'm not convinced Country B would have to wait until a day before 5 years were up.

Posted by SomeGuy2 at 2008-06-12 03:17 PM


Here's a better example...

If country "A" said it was going to develop a nuclear bomb within 5 years and blow country "B" up one day with its (1) bomb and country "B" had 3500 existing nuclear warheads in its arsenal already and possessed the capability to position those nuclear warheads thru computer targeting on country "A" within (5) minutes and issued an open threat to country "A".... "If you try and use your (1) nuclear bomb on us Country "B" or any other other country on the face of the earth....We Country "B" will use our 3500 Nuclear warheads and blow your entire sorry ass country "A" off the face of the planet"... Wouldn't Country "A" be complete fucking fools to try and use their one nuclear bomb?



Now isn't this a better and more realistic scenario of the real situatuion...ASSHOLE ?

Liberal Democrats feel that just because that lying scum Bill Clinton was impeached that a Republican has to go down too and the little losers want some kind of twisted revenge for losing 2 straight elections.

President Bush has done absolutely nothing to justify impeachment hearings. Get over it libs. You lost the elections and you will lose them again with Barack Hussein "his church hates whiteys" Obama.

Posted by utastaff at 2008-06-13 07:42 PM |


Can you believe this pond scum defending the biggest piece of pathological lying murdering war criminal dogshit President this country has ever had in its 230 plus year existence?

It is fucking comical.