|
|
|
|
|
Wilmo
|
Joined: 4/28/2008
Msg: 101 | |
| |
Wilmo
|
Joined: 4/28/2008
Msg: 102 | |
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/14/2008 9:07:34 PM | Supposedly (I haven't checked), every president elected in a year ending in zero since 1900 has faced an assassination attempt. Bush's term isn't over yet.
Yeah, but "they" got ELECTED....  
Pink in "Dear Mr. President: "...you've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine..."
Nice song, it's on YouTube, too. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/15/2008 2:28:34 AM | On topic....I don't know the rules behind executive priviledge, but I think it's been used more times in the last several years than since it's been instituted. And I think it should be able to be overridden. Bush needs to answer for what he's done, and yes it is illegal to lie about a case for war to get congress to vote on it....read the constitution yourself like you're suggesting we do.  | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/15/2008 6:34:19 PM |
Bill Clinton used air strikes to make a point and not to start a crazy war based on BS. I'll take effective air strikes over the craziness that has been going on in Iraq. But supposedly Saddam was contained when Clinton bombed so why bomb a country that is contained? or was Iraq a threat to us at that time? | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/15/2008 7:32:12 PM |
But supposedly Saddam was contained when Clinton bombed so why bomb a country that is contained? or was Iraq a threat to us at that time?
Clinton bombed in 1998 after Saddam refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors, who themselves reported frustration in the face of increasing restrictions that Saddam was placing on them, preventing them from doing their work. Was bombing the right thing to do? That's debatable--but the answer to that question doesn't really help with the present one. When Bush bombed Iraq in 2003, not only had Saddam been cooperating with weapons inspectors, the inspectors themselves wanted more time to complete their work. You are a C-Span addict, Glam. Do you watch any other real-time politics in action? Did you happen to catch Hans Blix reporting to the UN in the weeks before our 2003 invasion? He was CLEARLY frustrated and angry that his team was being pulled out.
Edit: In fact, all I ever REALLY needed to be convinced that this was a war because we wanted it, rather than a war because it was necessary, was the fact that the weapons inspections were underway, they were working, they were productive, and the best people in the world in a position to KNOW, were saying that they hadn't been able to find evidence of WMD but they wanted to KEEP LOOKING. Had we REALLY given a damn about WMD, we would have let them do their job. But we didn't. And it's my personal belief that the REASON we attacked when we did (and the UN had to recall the inspectors) is because we didn't want them getting any more evidence that the WMD were NOT there....the fake WMDs were our excuse, and Blix and his people (and the IAEA to boot) were screwing that up.
| |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/15/2008 9:45:35 PM | Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Impeachment is part of the system of due process. I really have to say people worry me about this toppic. Impeachment is a trail, and the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accusers. None of us know all the facts, and to say you do is foolish. You know little more than her say at this point.
Now if Bush is guilty then he should have a fair trail. However from what I have been hearing from the last couple of years is the desire to sentence him before a trail takes place like you know everything.
If you can do that to the person who holds the highst office of the land, how can you expect anything less from the government. You set a precedent when you start putting elected officials in front of kangaroo courts. Don't expect anything less for the public if we fall that new low. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/15/2008 10:46:23 PM | ... you miss the point like congress is going to miss the opportunity to impeach the guy..... impeachment IS off the table because there isn't time.... it is jail time that we need to look at for crimes against humanity, violations of the geneva conventions, and human rights violations.....
and there are plenty of facts... these guys liked to run their mouths........ Hans Blix has a thing or two to say about the facts and has called this invasion illegal.... | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/15/2008 11:24:10 PM | | Iraq has or had 2 things. Saddam which poppy Bush missed so baby Bush wanted to impress poppy Bush with getting him ....amazing that all the tech we have we can find Bin Laden. The other thing Iraq has is OIL. Cheney had all of the OIL FIELDS mapped out a LONG time before we attacked. Bush and Cheney have broken a LOT of laws and they should be impeached and sentenced to jail. Our men are fighting for OIL for the haves so they can control us the have nots. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/15/2008 11:48:12 PM |
you miss the point like congress is going to miss the opportunity to impeach the guy..... impeachment IS off the table because there isn't time....
Let's hope that's wrong. You can impeach after someone has served their term, I think it strips them of their perks and salary, and they go down in history as an impeached president. I wonder if they can still claim executive priviledge after they are out of office....anyone know? | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/16/2008 7:17:15 AM | | Pelosi took impeachment off the table a few months before the 2006 elections... so it's been over 2 yrs. that impeachment has been off the table.. there was time to have hearings and investigations but there have been so many vacations and hearings on steroid use, airline mergings, and other topics committees don't need to be involved in..alot of time has been wasted these past two years. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/17/2008 10:21:02 AM | Who really cares about slapping George's pee pee with impeachment?
Have you read / heard about the new book, The Dark Side by Jane Mayer? I'm envisioning dear George,**** and the usual suspects doing the Perp walk to their trial at The Hague for WAR CRIMES.
If George says it wasn't torture, perhaps we should water board him for a few days and THEN ask his opinion on the subject. . . (I'm hoping the water boarding would be on FOX News.)
The long-simmering pot is now at a slow boil and in the next 6 months will be boiling all over the stove. . . anyone near it is going to be burned.
I love a good instance of karma.
James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/18/2008 12:09:26 AM | Evidently he cares. He cares a lot.
It would be nice to see his and other's balls in a vice.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/cheney-plame-ag.html
The concept of executive privilege rings a special bell with readers of a certain age. It was relied on by the Richard M. Nixon White House seeking to shield documents and personnel from inquiring congressional committees and prosecutors during the Watergate investigations.
President Bush quietly claimed executive privilege on Tuesday, after Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey requested the shield. Mukasey is seeking to avoid delivering to congressional investigators documents dealing with interviews of Vice President****Cheney and members of his staff regarding the unmasking of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has subpoenaed the accounts of the FBI interviews, as well as notes about President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address in which he said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapon -- an assertion that proved wrong.
"The claim of executive privilege is ludicrous," said the committee's chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills).
On Wednesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined the fray. He noted that the claim of executive privilege exempts the attorney general "from complying with a subpoena," and wrote to Mukasey:
This executive privilege claim, and your justification for it, appears to turn the privilege on its head. The purpose of executive privilege is to encourage candid advice to the president, not to cover up what the vice president and White House staff say to investigating authorities when that information is requested in the course of congressional oversight.
-- James Gerstenzang
____________________________________________________
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOVmnMwLkjokxPMSuDKwFkmUNGMgD91V4V7O0
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush has asserted executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Michael Mukasey from having to comply with a House panel subpoena for material on the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
A House committee chairman, meanwhile, held off on a contempt citation of Mukasey — who had requested the privilege claim — but only as a courtesy to lawmakers not present.
Among the documents sought by House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman are FBI interviews of Vice President****Cheney.
They also include notes about the 2003 State of the Union address, during which President Bush made the case for invading Iraq in part by saying Saddam Hussein was pursuing uranium ore to make a nuclear weapon. That information turned out to be wrong.
Waxman rejected Mukasey's suggestion that Cheney's FBI interview on the CIA leak should be protected by the privilege claim — and therefore not turned over to the panel.
"We'll act in the reasonable and appropriate period of time," Waxman, D-Calif., said. But he made clear that he thinks Mukasey has earned a contempt citation and that he'd schedule a vote on the matter soon.
"This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person," Waxman said. "If the vice president did nothing wrong, what is there to hide?"
The assertion of the privilege is not about hiding anything but rather protecting the separation of powers as well as the integrity of future Justice Department investigations of the White House, Mukasey wrote to Bush in a letter dated Tuesday. Several of the subpoenaed reports, he wrote, summarize conversations between Bush and advisers — are direct presidential communications protected by the privilege.
"I am greatly concerned about the chilling effect that compliance with the committee's subpoena would have on future White House deliberations and White House cooperation with future Justice Department investigations," Mukasey wrote to Bush. "I believe it is legally permissible for you to assert executive privilege with respect to the subpoenaed documents, and I respectfully request that you do so."
(Meaning, "My ass is about to be fried and I'm scared. Umm can you do something here??")
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush invoked the privilege on Tuesday.
Waxman said he would wait to hold a vote on Mukasey's contempt citation until all members of the panel had a chance to read up on the matter.
The Bush administration had plenty of warning. Waxman warned last week that he would cite Mukasey with contempt unless the attorney general complied with the subpoena. The House Judiciary Committee also has subpoenaed some of the same documents from Mukasey, as well as information on the leak from other current and former administration officials.
Congressional Democrats want to shed light on the precise roles, if any, that Bush, Cheney and their aides may have played in the leak.
State Department official Richard Armitage first revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak, who used former presidential counselor Karl Rove as a confirming source for a 2003 article. Around that time Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was criticizing Bush's march to war in Iraq.
Cheney's then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, also was involved in the leak and was convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Last July, Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence, sparing him from serving any prison time.
Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. | |
|
| |
| |
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/18/2008 9:52:10 PM |
On topic....I don't know the rules behind executive priviledge, but I think it's been used more times in the last several years than since it's been instituted.
Care to retract that statement, Simmah, now that I proved you wrong by listing Clinton's use of it? Lets see if you're really interested in facts, or just mindless (incorrect) rants against Bush. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/18/2008 10:01:08 PM | But, but, Clinton...
From the supposed brain of a dittohead. Grade school mentality. But, but, they did something too, why can't I do it, only more, and over lying about a war.
Seems from that complaint, wisdom does not come with age. But, but, someone else did it. I'm sure you weren't red in the face when Clinton did it, right? You were fine with it, right?
This most unpopular president of all time, this dry drunk, over simplistic, non-reasoning, simpleton puppet of a current president is a disgrace to the office, to the country, and would never have been elected if they didn't steel the elections, twice.
Now with these articles of impeachment, and the one main one, taking the country to war when we were not attacked. Invading a country that was not a threat to us. The unthinking supporters of the undeserving president have no shame, and don't see the log in their own eye. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/19/2008 8:22:20 AM | ^^^^^^
Try using some basic intelligence and READ what's been written and is being responded to, ok?
She said "but I think it's been used more times in the last several years than since it's been instituted." With that statement being made, then YES, its relevant that it has NOT "been used more times in the last several years than since it's been instituted" because the previous President used it more than twice as much! Hope that's simple enough for you to understand now.  | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/19/2008 1:48:12 PM | She said "but I think it's been used more times in the last several years than since it's been instituted." With that statement being made, then YES, its relevant that it has NOT "been used more times in the last several years than since it's been instituted" because the previous President used it more than twice as much! Hope that's simple enough for you to understand now.
I doubt that the real issue is how he is using it but why ? What does he have to hide ? Oh yeah I forgot .......murder, torture, bribery, lying, coercion, should I go on ? this would take a while .
Iraq was never a threat to the united states and that is proven over and over for all the bush lovers out there ( just the idea that people could still back the man is absurd)
Iraq was never a threat to americans but the fourth riech bush administration certainly is. | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/19/2008 11:19:55 PM | Powervamp wrote in Msg#115
Impeachment is part of the system of due process. I really have to say people worry me about this toppic. Impeachment is a trail, and the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accusers. None of us know all the facts, and to say you do is foolish. You know little more than her say at this point.
Now if Bush is guilty then he should have a fair trail. However from what I have been hearing from the last couple of years is the desire to sentence him before a trail takes place like you know everything.
I don't think people are trying to sentence Bush before a trial takes place. People are expressing their frustration that NO TRIAL IS TAKING PLACE when their SHOULD be an investigation, likely articles of impeachment and an impeachment trial. The reason people get worked up about this issue is that Bush/Cheney and Co. are getting away with massive crimes.
While I'm proud of the American people for giving President Bush such a low approval rating, not everyone realizes that the approval rating for Congress is even lower than for Bush. There are reasons for this, high on the list is likely their decision to take impeachment "off the table" back in 2006 and do little to press Bush to explain how/why the war started or to try to get us out of it sooner rather than later.
Since Bush's term is almost over, impeaching and removing him from office are decreasing in importance. Since he will be out of office soon anyway focus should perhaps shift from impeachment to possible criminal and/or war crimes charges.
To PocoLoco44's Msg#96 ... "a bit nomadic" answered excellently in Msg#114. If her response was too nuanced for anyone I'll add my own explanation of 1998 vs. 2002-3
In 1998 Saddam was blocking the weapons inspectors who reported they were unable to carry out their mission. Iraq was showing some real danger of having/using WMDs. Taking into account the inspectors reports, the Clinton Administration undertook the rational, measured, proportional response of bombing some of the facilities.
In 2002-3 Saddam was largely cooperating with the weapons inspectors who reported no imminent threat and wanted more time to continue in their mission. The Bush administration ignored and tried to discredit the inspectors, manipulated and/or manufactured intelligence against Saddam to try to make a case to the UN for using force. When it became clear they could not get the UN to authorize the use of force, they quit trying and launched an irrational, disproportional, and arguably illegal full scale invasion of the country instead.
Anyone who can't see the difference between those two scenarios is either dreadfully dense or being deliberately difficult.
To DallasFlier: since you like comparisons to Clinton, perhaps you'd like to answer these questions:
1. Do you believe Bill Clinton should have been impeached?
2. Do you believe George W. Bush should (or should have) been impeached?
Why or why not for each of them perhaps? | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/20/2008 7:20:11 AM |
Care to retract that statement, Simmah, now that I proved you wrong by listing Clinton's use of it? Lets see if you're really interested in facts, or just mindless (incorrect) rants against Bush.
Sure, I'll retract it. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. You did prove me incorrect. I hadn't researched it, I was just going by memory. And I did not hear (or remember) about all of the times Clinton had invoked it. So yes. I was wrong.
Knowing what I know now, I still say the reasons for invoking it can be taken into account by the general population. And I didn't see my question to you in that other thread addressed.....so I'll ask it again here.
How many people died that were tied into Clinton's use of it?
How many people died that were tied into Bush's use of it? | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/20/2008 10:09:46 AM | "Clinton lied, no one died; Bush lied, thousands died".  A bumper sticker I see from time to time.
Lying about a war is WAY more serious than lying about a BJ. Clinton should not have been investigated for his personal matters. The other things that were investigated came up empty. The right wing wackos just never knew when to stop, and wasted taxpayers' money on a stupid witch hunt. Clinton would not have been cornered into lying about sex had the investigations been stopped in an appropriate manner.
The same nut jobs "Swiftboated" a good man who served honorably in Vietnam to get an AWOL coward elected, which will bite into my craw for the rest of my life. It angers me that Bush was allowed to even go near the presidency because it went AWOL. Even Al Gore served with honor, unlike Bush. Clinton's alleged "draft dodging" was basically the same as what Cheney did. (although Clinton did register after graduation, but was not called. so what?). Anyway, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We should have called Cheney and the rest of that crowd who used deferrals as "draft dodgers". That's why the right wing is so nutty, they are highly inconsistent when it comes to this issue--slamming honorable men who served our nation in time of war, or letting their own get away with dodging the draft while calling a man who did the same thing (deferrals) a "draft dodger". | |
|
| Screw impeachment, how about some jail time?
Posted: 7/25/2008 6:02:51 AM | check out King Lincoln bronzeville VS. Blackwell
www Bradblog.com Mike Connell is being threatened by Karl Rove to take the fall for election fraud in Ohio or they will target Connell 's wife Heather for Lobby law violations. Desperate times call for desperate measures they are now starting to
blackmail there own operatives.Connell is described as being the go to tech guy of the GOP. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
