Voting for Impeachment

From Vermont to Illinois to California, voters this fall will be deciding the fate not just of candidates for Congress but of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Communities that are home to more than 1 million Americans will have an opportunity to cast ballots on the question of whether Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president.

Only the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach a member of the executive branch, and only the Senate can convict the targeted official and remove him from office. But the founders always intended for citizens to have a voice in the process. Thomas Jefferson, who argued that power must ultimately rest in the people, as they alone are the surest defenders of the republic and its democratic aspirations, observed, "It behooves our citizens to be on their guard, to be firm in their principles, and full of confidence in themselves. We are able to preserve our self-government if we will but think so."

Duly troubled by a president and vice president who have launched wars without congressional declarations, who have spied without warrants, who have disregarded and disdained the Constitution, citizens across the country have put themselves to the task of preserving self-government by raising the call for impeachment. Dozens of communities have considered resolutions calling on Congress to act, and this fall's referendums will raise the volume.

The precise wording of the questions varies from town to town. Prepared with the assistance of activists with the Constitution Summer project (www.constitutionsummer.org), the propositions in San Francisco and Berkeley read like actual articles of impeachment. In urging members of the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, for instance, San Francisco's Proposition J goes far beyond now standard complaints regarding abuses of power related to invasion and occupation of Iraq and argues for holding the administration to account for the mismanagement of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

The proposal is more to the point in tiny Pittsville, Wisconsin -- population 866 -- where voters will be asked to vote "yes" or "no" on a local resolution that declares: "The U.S. House of Representatives should start an impeachment investigation against President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney now."

If the voters say yes, says Bob Hoch, organizer of the Wood County Impeachment Coalition's petition drives, a call to act will be dispatched to the state's congressional delegation -- two of whom, Madison Democrat Tammy Baldwin and Milwaukee Democrat Gwen Moore, have already joined a House call for an impeachment inquiry.

There are those who will suggest that referendum votes in handful of communities as distinct as San Francisco and Pittsville can't possibly mean much to the national discourse. But, surely, the cynics are wrong.

The referendums in those communities, and Montpelier, Vermont, and Urbana, Ill., and other locales across the land are classic illustrations of the petitioning for the redress of grievances that the Constitution does not merely protect but in fact encourages. The impeachment-from-below movement is the modern-day expression of the oldest of American ideals: No man, be he pauper or president, shall stand above the law. And it is wholly appropriate that it is beginning at the municipal level.

Former Harper's magazine editor Lewis Lapham, was asked during a recent visit to San Francisco: "Do you think that's the way we should go about impeachment -- municipally?"

"I don't see why not," Lapham, one of the Republic's most thoughtful and consistent defenders, replied. "I don't see any other way to go about it. I think that the impetus for any revival for democratic government is going to come not from a national level but from a municipal and state level."

There is something satisfying about the fact that the communities that are voting on impeachment -- which range from urban centers to college towns to rural towns -- cannot be stereotyped. That is as it should be, says Buzz Davis, the Veterans for Peace activist who has been leading the impeachment campaign that has qualified two referendums for the November ballots in Wisconsin cities and hopes to qualify many more for next spring's local election ballots. "Impeachment is not a partisan issue but a question of whether our nation will live under the rule of law as our Founding Fathers believed," argues Davis.

James Madison said that "it may, perhaps, on some occasion, be found necessary to impeach the president himself."

It would come as no surprise to Madison or Jefferson that citizens are the first to recognize the occasion and to call upon Congress to act. Nor would this trouble the founders; indeed, they would say that the impeachment-from-below movement is the truest expression of the patriotism that alone will preserve the republic.

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

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (269)

1. Impeachment would be far too kind for this group.......let them wallow in the filth they created for another twenty four months. Furthermore, after America watches the congressional hearings during the next two years, it will become apparent to all why BALANCE is so important in Government. Hopefully the same mistakes wont be made again im my lifetime. Watching this administration has been like watching a run-away train barreling off the tracks. It's time to right the course, and restore checks and balances to our government.

   Posted by jpolston at 10/17/2006 @ 11:40pm

2. Diplomacy aint a bad thing thang Georgie............you'll get to try it with N. Korea and Iran now that you wont own the Senate and House. Get used to it.........it's the new American way......SENSIBLE.

   Posted by jpolston at 10/17/2006 @ 11:44pm

3. So Zero and WillC, are you going to open some wine and watch the Cantwell – McGavik show tonight?

   Senator Maria Cantwell debated her GOP challenger today. It will be televised tonight in a few minutes. We progressive in WA have few good choices in this election.

   Posted by seattlescribe at 10/17/2006 @ 11:56pm

4. Is Dixon out of jail yet? (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.) He was arrested for trying to enter the TV studio - they said he did not meet their criteria so he could not participate in the entertainment. I guess he thought otherwise.

   Zero is right to call this sham a "debate." I don't know how these events are going in other states, but tonight's performance in Seattle consisted of some local reporters lending semi-legitimacy to the pols regurgitating their advertising sound bites. It was truly underwhelming and very different from debating as one learned in college.

   Posted by seattlescribe at 10/18/2006 @ 01:13am

5. Is it any wonder why democrats continually lose elections? One of the main fears of the red folks are an impeachment of gw. Why anyone would want to stir up the pot like this is beyond me. Yes, there will probably be investigations , but why throw a red flag in front of the republican base? The democrats best chance of retaking control is republican malaise. If the democrats continue on this path, they will once again snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory.

   Posted by frytlon at 10/18/2006 @ 08:21am

6. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 12:20am

   What's the matter, Lvliberty(for me and mine)1, referendums that might put the squeeze on the criminals at the pinnacle of our government, and that are protected by the Constitution (remember that document? Neither do Dick and George), are an "...abandonment of our constitutional republic...", but referendums on religious topics (gay marriage, abortion) that are strictly intended to drive up the concentration of single-issue evangelicals to the ballot box, those are just fine and dandy in your opinion?

   Imagine that!

   Posted by Turk33 at 10/18/2006 @ 08:45am

7. when they know they can never win at the ballot box.

   you'll eat these words, Liberty, and I will be happy to supply the gloating.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2006 @ 09:20am

8. since when are referendums anti-constitution?

   When referendums are in fact... a states right.

   (see amendment ten luvvy)

   Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 09:35am

9. after you wake up that is

   Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 09:35am

10. Just wrote this on 'Drips...' before looking at this one and perhaps it's more appropriate here.

    Just woke up with a horrible thought, perhaps it was the alarm clock radio chiming on with N. Korea 2nd nuke testing and the ramifications, but the idea, the conspiracy of conspiracies, that being that somehow the 'axis of evil' includes the hsuB admin, that it's all by design, going into Iraq, legalizing torture, losing our rights to privacy and access to courts and egging on and being egged on by Iran and N. Korea in a 3-way dance to an idiotic tune that's getting louder and louder as we slowly get closer to Nov. 7th.

    I'll wait for the coffee before hitting the button, perhaps I'll laugh at what I just wrote once I'm fully awake.

    As I wake up the thought isn't getting funny but more obvious. Why is our government getting more and more like the gov's we appose. The crasness once associated with Saddam is now all over Iraq and worse, but he's in prison and the 'decider' is in charge. N. Korea has no reason to be pushing buttons at this time but yet it takes the news away from all the other repub scandals, corruption and incompetence and yet another loss of our freedoms occurs without revolt. Soon Iran will get into it with us as we see N. Korea using up all it's material on itself as not necessarily a bad thing.

    Every inch we get at removing the repub neosans from power, they're inching closer to manipulating their 'powers' so that it doesn't happen.

    But no matter what happens between now and Nov.7, the numbers of citizenry opposed to the hsuB regime, and their need for 'powers' over 'we the people', have to cast votes so overwhelming and overpowering, like an effective 'war' campaign, that they understand who it is in the USA that has the 'power'. We have to take back what's been lost.

    Otherwise, we are the enablers, the core, the gravity holding the 'axis of evil' together, not the ones attempting to dissipate it.

    And which is more evil, repubs covering up for their perv or covering for a gov that's turning out to be not all that dif from the ones it purports to oppose?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/18/2006 @ 09:27am

    YES, definitely vote for impeachment as well as for as many dem's as possible. That's a start.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 09:43am

11. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 09:48am

    What's too sophisticated about the people using a constitutionally protected states right like referendum to precipitate a constitutional duty that their elected representatives have… like impeachment Luvvy?

    Sounds like salt of the earth democracy to me.

    It's we the people at its finest.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 09:53am

12. you should have stayed asleep son

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 09:53am

13. .

    SENATOR GRAHAM CALLS FOR ACTION AGAINST AMERICANS WHO DISAGREE WITH BUSH

    Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration's domestic operations -- Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy.

    "The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements," Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.

    "I stand by this President's ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that," Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat. "Senator," a smiling Gonzales responded, "the President already said we'd be happy to listen to your ideas."

    http://uncapitalist.com/blog/?itemid=1329

    CHERTOFF SETTING THE STAGE FOR ARRESTING BLOGGERS:

    http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com% 2Fs%2Fnm%2F20061017%2Fwr_nm%2Fsecurity_chertoff_dc%3B_ylt%3DAq31AQx4TKjh 9chd4l0E4ZQjtBAF%3B_ylu%3DX3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

    .

    "PROBABLE CAUSE"

    These are the two words that represent the threshold required to obtain a warrant under FISA.

    "REASONABLE SUSPICION"

    These are the two words that separate Bush's existing program from falling within the law of the land.

    Bush and Gonzales have attempted to reinterpret the Constitution, claiming that spying on US Persons is justified when there exists a "REASONABLE SUSPICION" of wrong doing.

    The threshold is "PROBABLE CAUSE" - a HIGHER THRESHOLD than Reasonable Suspicion.

    They will avoid using these two words at all cost.

    Regardless, a warrant under the supervision of FISA is ALWAYS a requirement for spying on US persons...period.

    The ONLY reason not to seek a warrant under FISA is if the target of the spying is a US person for whom there is no "PROBABLE CAUSE" of a direct connection to terrorism.

    Logic dictates that those who have been the subject of NSA surveillance without benefit of FISA have been US Persons not likely to be involved with terrorists.

    Spying on US Persons for political purposes (or revenge) is the stuff impeachments are made of.

    IMPEACH

    .

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:04am

14. .

    CHERTOFF SETTING THE STAGE FOR ARRESTING BLOGGERS:

    http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com% 2Fs%2Fnm%2F20061017%2Fwr_nm%2Fsecurity_chertoff_dc%3B_ylt%3DAq31AQx4TKjh 9chd4l0E4ZQjtBAF%3B_ylu%3DX3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

    .

    DID MICHAEL CHERTOFF PERSONALLY ORDER THE ATTACK BY DHS ON AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST?

    Was Homeland Security Behind Attack On 911 Investigative Journalist Bollyn?

    Christopher Bollyn | September 1 2006

    The "undercover tactical unit" involved in the assault and TASERing of a 9/11 investigative journalist at his Chicago-area home was most likely an operation ordered by the Department of Homeland Security, according to a former high-ranking police official.

    Since the bizarre and brutal attack against me by three heavily-armed agents at my family home in Hoffman Estates , Illinois , a number of people have commented on the seemingly odd use of an "undercover tactical unit" to respond to a non-emergency 911 call.

    Some of the most insightful comments have come from a former senior police official from Illinois , who spoke to a source close to AFP. The former police chief was familiar with the details of the incident when he made his comments.

    In the opinion of the former police chief, the operation appears to have been ordered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the leadership of the Israeli-American dual national Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, who has been the subject of several of my articles about 9/11 and the failure of his department to respond to Hurricane Katrina, is the son of Livia Eisen, one of the first agents of Israel's military intelligence agency, the Mossad.

    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/September2006/010906Bollyn.htm

    BOLLYN'S ACCOUNT OF THE ATTACK:

    http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bollynbeaten.htm

    BOLLYN'S ARTICLES ABOUT CHERTOFF AND MOSSAD:

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=91721

    http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=68463

    http://americanfreepress.net/html/ally_backs_assassination_netwo.html

    http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-9-11-Controlling-the-Message.html

    CHERTOFF DOES NOT WORK FOR YOU.

    WHY IS HE ATTACKING JOURNALISTS WHO SEEK THE TRUTH OF 9/11?

    .

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:04am

15. .

    CHENEY DID 9/11 UNDER THE DIRECTION OF BUSH 41 AND WITH THE COMPLICITY OF MOSSAD AND OTHERS.

    THIS IS A FACT. DEAL WITH IT.

    PROMIS software appeared in the early 1980s. It was developed by Inslaw Inc., and proved to be the perfect intelligence tool. Though designed for the Department of Justice to help prosecutors in case management, it hooked the attention of corrupt officials and Israeli intelligence. Subsequently stolen from Inslaw, the software was hacked and given a "trap door." This trojan gave it the power to retrieve info for the US and Israel from the very foreign intelligence services and banks it had been sold to in some 40 countries.

    PROMIS Plus P-Tech Equal Disaster

    The Ptech story is a crucial piece of 9/11 because the software was used to simultaneously coordinate the FAA with NORAD and the Secret Service.

    "PROMIS Connections to Cheney Control of 9/11 Attacks Confirmed." It's part of a startling piece "PTECH, 9/11, and USA-SAUDI TERROR. Here's a piece of it . . .

    "FTW: You said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings that Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.

    "Indira Singh: Yes, I have a good diagram for that.

    FTW: In your view, might it have been the case that Cheney was using Ptech to surveil the function of the people in FAA & NORAD who wanted to do their jobs on 9/11, and then intervene to turn off the legitimate response?

    "Indira Singh: "I believe that Dick Cheney also had the ability using evolutions of the PROMIS software, to penetrate and override any other radar computer or communications system in the government.

    "The power of the Ptech evolution of PROMIS represents a daunting new surveillance and intervention capability in the hands of the same elites who planned 9/11.

    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/347682.shtml

    .

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:06am

16. That story about Halliburton acquiring the asbestos liabilities of Dresser Industries raises an interesting point...

    Cheney KNEW that Dresser had the most massive liability issue on planet earth (he had to have known) yet decided to pay good money to bring Dresser's problems under Halliburton's tent.

    This raises the question...who were the largest shareholders of Dresser - in need of a lifeboat to save their own personal bacon? Anyone named Bush? Anyone named Carlyle?

    The deal went like this:

    Cheney agrees for Halliburton to take on the Dresser asbestos liability.

    It is determined that Bush and Cheney will be (s)elected, and that the PNAC plan will be implemented - using 9/11 as the essential pretext.

    Ken Lay plays his role using his Enron smoke and mirrors tactics to create a faux energy crisis in California, causing the public to demand an energy-savvy administration be elected.

    With the asbestos liability and other matters hanging in the balance, the election of 2000 simply had to be rigged in order for the plan to go in to effect.

    Following the appointment of Bush and Cheney, the secret energy planning meeting established which oil companies would reap the rewards of the pending invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

    The timing and the pretext were predetermined, and 9/11 was greenlighted for 9/11/2001. Cheney outsourced the implementation to Mossad, and ran the show from his bunker on D Day under the cover of preplanned drills simulating the exact attack that was proscribed, with NORAD as coconspirator. At least 50 administration officials and countless foreign agents were in on it.

    Once the entire charade was concluded, the Administration generally, and Cheney specifically, had every reason in the world to blame Iraq.

    The Afghanistan mission could not provide Halliburton with enough revenue to offset the massive asbestos liability claim. Iraq and Iran are essential wars in order to provide cover for the infusion of the billion of TAX DOLLARS necessary to both profit Halliburton for its actual work AND cover the massive asbestos liability claims.

    Now you know why Halliburton was awarded the contracts without the need to bid for them. This was all prearranged.

    NOTE: Private enterprise pushed its legal/financial obligations onto tax payers using war as the excuse.

    The asbestos liability claims of Dresser Industries were ultimately paid by you and me, and our troops in the field, all to ensure that the investors in Dresser didn't take the multibillion dollar loss.

    Just one piece of a very large chessboard.

    Hang them for TREASON.

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:06am

17. .

    9/11 WHISTLEBLOWER BOMBSHELL!!!

    Military Sergeant Reveals The TRUTH OF 9/11:

    http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.php

    Honestly I could care less what is done with this letter, but I feel that I should speak my mind and I'll tell you some things that I have not told many people at all. From 1995 till 2002 I was a Sergeant in the United States Army. Not only this, but I was stationed at United States Central Command, which is located at MacDill AFB in Tampa Florida. I was on active duty when 9-11 happened. In the days prior to the tragedies, we were involved in many exercises. Some of these exercises included the scenarios of hijacked planes crashing into, our building the world trade center, the White House, Sears Tower, and the Pentagon. These drills or exercises as we called them, where classified Top Secret. Having a Top Secret rated clearance I was dumbfounded that they would ever push a training exercise above the level of Secret. Over my 8 years in the Army, I had participated in many exercises around the world, none of which were ever classified over the Secret level.

    I'll start by saying a few months prior it was announced by President Bush that Dick Cheney would be heading up operations over NORAD our North American Aerospace Defense Command. Along with many of my peers, we were shocked. Over the years, if you research NORAD, it has always been under the command of a Military officer. It was done this way because the defense of this country has always been in the hands of such. Prior to the months before 9-11 this was all of the sudden changed. Like I said, if you research NORAD and the command structure you will find that it was imposed long ago that the military should be in control of the order to scramble planes in the defense of American air space. For some strange reason, Bush changed this and gave that power to a civilian person on his Staff team yes I know, very interesting.

    Back to the morning of 9-11; the command was busy with this training exercise. We were instructed to bring all our gear in to prep for a mock (staged) deployment to the Middle East. On the morning of 9-11 I had been on base prepped and ready to go since about 0400am. During my time at the base that morning, they were setting up barriers around the command and placing gun posts on the roofs. When I questioned one of the security officers about the machine gun and shoulder fired rockets on the roof I was given the answer its a precaution for a plane attempting to crash into this building.

    So, I was standing in the SCIF (Secure Compartmented Information Facility), which is basically this underground bunker command post for USCENTCOM, when the first plane hit. We were watching the fly patterns of all the planes on the aerospace grid. This contained not only all commercial flights at the time, but all military flights, and fake enemy planes that were supposedly put on there for the exercise. Many of the planes sent to intercept the fake blips were scrambled from Andrews which is an air defense AFB for the East Coast. They were sent across the US and left very few planes to defend the capital. After the first plane hit the tower we were all in disbelief. After the initial shock was over, our questions were what are the odds this could happen for real, during a training exercise that's covering the same scenario? We were all at wits end. Then to top all of this off, Cheney gave NORAD the order to stand down scrambling jets to intercept. A few moments later tower 2 was hit. Only after the Pentagon was hit, did he give the orders to scramble the jets to intercept the plane bound for the White House.

    All of this is very interesting to me it sickened me so that I left the Army after coming back from an 8 month deployment to Afghanistan. There were just too many questions that no one could answer, too many things that did not make sense. How is it possible to have a training exercise about planes hitting the WTC and then actually have planes hit the WTC? This kind of thing just does not happen unless its pre-planned. What reason would there be to have this type of exercise on that morning, Ill tell you if you are placing fake planes all over the north American aerospace grid then you have no way of knowing which planes are real and which are fake. Then to thicken the plot you put a civilian in charge of NORAD so that the military does not have the power to initiate the order for jets to be scrambled to intercept. If the military would have still commanded power over NORAD they would have scrambled jets because they would have simply followed the procedures that had been in place for this type of situation for years and years and scrambled jets.

    To delve even further, as Im standing there watching the towers collapse, next to me is one of my good friends and a former commander of the Army Corps of Engineers. He is a demolitions expert. He was even more surprised than me. When the towers collapsed he kept saying this isnt right, this isnt right. When I asked him what he was talking about he told me that steel buildings dont fall down that way. Even if they are struck by objects; he went on to say that in theory if the top 10 floors were hit, then possibly just that part of the building would fall over and off, but the rest would remain standing. When I asked him, not understanding the implications of demolitions, he told me that it looked as if they were brought down by controlled demolitions. I was utterly amazed, but after he said that it did sort of appear that way.

    I'll tell you what gave this whole thing away was building 7. If they would not have brought this building down, then they probably could have gotten away with it all. It was the most amazing site I have ever seen. Not only was it amazing, it bore reality to the truth of the situation something was not right here. Now, Im going to tell you all I have learned, but I urge anyone to just spend 1hr reading about this incident on the internet and learning the facts. There have been numerous scholars, numerous physicists that have analyzed this over and over and over again. And they all come to the same conclusion, something does not add up. Building 7 was never directly hit by a plane. Now it was stated that a piece of one of the towers fell onto the side of building 7 and caught one of the floors on fire. A few moments later we all witnessed the most perfect example of controlled demolitions to ever be caught on camera. It could not be proved that building 7 fell due to fire. My friend and I standing there in the SCIF watching in uninterruptible awe with all those other military members; watching building 7 fall perfectly onto its footprint; my friend stating that it was beautifully done.

    We all knew then we all realized that this was not some group of unorganized cave dwellers from Afghanistan orchestrating a perfect hit on American soil. It was impossible. Shortly after the Pentagon was struck I called my close friend that I went to Basic Training with. All civilian lines were down and I had to contact him via STU which is a black line classified phone system. He did not answer, but one of his soldiers did. I asked if SGT Worthington was ok and he said yes. I asked if the plane did severe damage and he told me I didn't see any plane. Then when I finally got to speak to my friend, he started acting strange saying he could not talk about the incident over this line. He was shipped off overseas a few weeks later and I never to this day have had the chance to speak with him.

    The Pentagon crash tape was released a few months back after 5 years. You need to watch that tape no where can you see a plane strike the Pentagon. This is because it was not a plane. I cannot tell you exactly what hit the Pentagon, but its unanimous; it was definitely not a plane. I can assure you that there is more than one CCTV camera around the Pentagon. On September 25, 4 days before my 25th birthday, I deployed to Afghanistan. Over the 8 months I was there I had never seen one intelligent Afghani soldier. They were all tattered and scrawny and could barely shoot their weapons straight. This does not mean that there were not men that could fly a plane, but after what I saw it was extremely hard to believe they could be taught to fly a sophisticated piece of aeronautical equipment.

    My point Mr. Editor is that I spent 8 months in combat watching my brothers die in the name of Freedom. I killed, in the name of Freedom and to this day my brothers are still being killed for this illusionary war we call the War on Terror. Where the enemy has no face where there is no clear objective. In this War, anyone with ill thoughts toward this country can be defined as a terrorist. Well, I guess that includes me in this group as well as everyone else who questions the events of 911, because we all hold ill thoughts toward the leadership of this country and I say the real terrorists in this world sit right in the heart of its capital.

    I have bled for this country and would do so again in a heart beat but only to protect its people, the true Americans that live here. I would never again offer my life under the leadership whose real goal is oil and money. The same ones who staged the most perfect illusionary tactic in our history that was a pretext to a war on terror that would never again go away. Their goal was to scare the American public into submission making it easier for the world powers to do their evil and get away with it.

    Now that may sound like a typical conspiracy theorist I guess, but how many do you actually talk to? Im not here saying that Aliens came down and used laser beams to bring the towers down or control the planes that were flown; Im telling you as a sane, logical and intelligent individual, something does not add up about this. Earlier this year I was watching the Discovery channel. They have a PBS program called Rebuilding America. This particular episode was about the WTC building 7. They interviewed Larry Silverstein (the owner) about building 7. He stated on national TV the following which is the direct quote and can be found here: http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html

    I remember getting a call from the, ER, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

    I actually have the program recorded and you are more than welcome to come by my house and watch it. He actually stated this on national TV. I was so amazed that I almost shat myself. I could not believe he actually stated this on a nationally broadcasted TV program. You can ask any person who has done controlled demolitions please interview someone they will tell you it takes weeks of planning to do this. We are expected to believe that this was facilitated and planned in a matter of hours for building 7, while the damn thing was on fire you have got to be kidding me. If that is not enough to make you believe something was fishy well then nothing will ever do.

    Since that time there have been numerous scholars, some of which have actually been publicly broadcasted on CSPAN. The latest program was called: Theories about 9-11. American Perspectives and you can watch this (which I advise you do) per this link: Theories about 9-11 (American Perspectives) or you can go to www.c-span.org and look under their video/audio section to find this title. Its an outstanding video and encompasses the thoughts of not only the American public, but also Dr Steven Jones from Brigham Young University a physics professor that actually received a piece of the rubble from the WTC. Not only does he profoundly agree that building 7 was a controlled demolition he can prove it. After he analyzed the piece of debris they found; there were large traces of sulfur and Thermite found. If you did not know, Thermite is a chemical compound found in many explosives including C4 which I have used many times in the Army. It leaves a distinct smell and identifiable residue upon explosion. Dr Jones found large traces of this from the rubble.

    Sir, there are many things that I never wanted to know for one that the government that is supposed to be caring for the American people could be corrupt. This was the last thing that I ever wanted to be true but its time we wake up and smell the bullshit because its permeating throughout the American public and we are all starting to realize whats really going on. If your news station actually did a similar Zogby type poll here in Cincinnati, I think you would find that a lot more than 1/3 of the people believe this. I know tons just in this area.

    I could literally write you 100 pages of truths that could prove that 9-11 was an inside job, but Id probably just be passed off as some crazy conspiracy theorist. Instead I want to give you the tools to look for yourself because the quest for wisdom is a journey we must all take alone. So, to you I add the following links and if you just spend a small portion of your day reading and watching some of this footage, who knows you may wake up and stand along side the rest of us in utter amazement.

    Respectfully,

    SGT Lauro Chavez United States Central Command

    Thanks to the Internet, one of the few freedoms we have left, thesem truths can be sent to the public. Thank God we dont have to rely on news media to get this information out to everyone!

    This is only about a 10th of my list of sites. Enjoy; and when you are sick with the truth of things, let me know and Ill buy you a beer to ease your nerves.

    Loose Change Volume 2 (An outstanding documentary done about 911 that includes news reports and live footage of the tragedy and finds that some things are not what they seem) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=loose+chan ge

    Official Pentagon Plane Crash Video (You tell me where the plane is) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213

    Silverstein saying we decided to pull the building The collapse of building 7 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6455428412411043437&q=WTC+build ing+7

    Another video of bldg 7 (In this you can see the widely noticeable crinkle that is common in controlled demolitions) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=wtc+7

    Watch the following in sequence:

    1. Showing the Thermite at work. (In this video you can see the molten concrete and metal spewing out of the WTC. This is what happens when a Thermite type explosive is used to cut down steel pillars) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=thermite

    2. Then watch this video (it shows the spot where the molten metal is coming out the same spot where the building crinkles and collapses) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4763320529356355623&q=wtc+7

    Misc Links for research:

    http://www.911truth.org/

    http://www.st911.org/

    http://www.infowars.com/

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/020806tapesintensify.htm

    Zogby Poll Results http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZogbyPollFinalReport.htm

    As you can see, I'm not your typical conspiracy theorist I actually have a good job! I thought at first I might send you this from an anonymous email address, but you know what now you know I'm not just some stupid kid.

    Thanks for taking the time to read.

    Respectfully,

    Lauro "LJ" Chavez Director of Information Security Domin-8 Enterprise Solutions 513-492-5831 lchavez@domin-8.com www.domin-8.com

    As the guardians of technology; security shall be our shield and vigilance our sword

    http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.php

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:07am

18. .

    LOSING THE IRAQ WAR ON PURPOSE:

    The following takes a few twists and turns to prove my point, but once you read through it, you will be hard pressed to conclude that Donald Rumsfeld ever had any intention to WIN & LEAVE Iraq.

    It's time to view the global strategic game with fresh eyes, and realize that our assumptions about traditional victory and success run completely contrary to those of the GLOBALISTS who have stolen our country from us – and reside in our White House.

    First there is this:

    September 18, 2006 at 09:49:22

    U.S.-Israel-Iran Alliance: The Great Game Updated

    Excerpts:

    "The public leadership is put in place by power brokers with unlimited global access to high-level military, intelligence, economic, and strategic analysts, policy-makers, influence brokers, and puppet-masters. The broader objective of extending the power of the military/industrial elite without regard to national interest.

    The ideology of a ruling elite both determines and reinforces favored decision-making algorithms that, despite their complexity, generally result in the same rather obvious determinations: exploitation of labor, strategic use of military force, allocation of resources for purposes of social control rather than social empowerment, and even choosing which party and candidates can best represent the elite's interests in national elections.

    This kind of strategic chess game has been going on for centuries unabated. Manipulating a few dozen national entities and a few core industries simply does not require a unique brand of "smarts".

    Iraq is in ruins, U.S. corporate interests have taken the U.S. taxpayer debt incurred by the war and destruction and converted it into windfall profits, the U.S. has control of Iraqi oil, the country is in the midst of a violent conflagration that creates a power vacuum that strengthens both Israel and Iran, and we're building massive military bases and the world's largest and most heavily fortified embassy as a governor's mansion for our new 51st state. Of course, 3,000 U.S. troops have died with many more severely wounded, and who knows how many Iraqis. U.S. casualties are especially tendered by Americans as proof of the catastrophic handling of the war. But this concern represents a total misreading of the mindset of military command.

    Perhaps it's time to get this straight: 3,000, even 10,000, dead soldiers means nothing to the Pentagon or the Defense Department. When will Americans get that through their heads?

    Barton Kunstler, Ph.D

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_barton_k_060918_u_s__israel_iran _all.htm

    More of my own thoughts follow:

    I was told directly by someone with intimate knowledge that the State Department had learned that Rumsfeld planned to FOMENT CHAOS in Iraq from the outset…and that literally all of the apparent failures in Iraq were part of Rumsfeld's goal prior to the invasion of Iraq. If ETERNAL OCCUPATION and PERMANENT BASES are your ultimate goal, this strategy makes sense – as peace and stability would eliminate the justification for US boots on the ground.

    The recent revelation that Rumsfeld actually threatened to fire any General who continued to work on the planning for the aftermath of the invasion ("The future Of Iraq Project") makes total sense when you consider that the actual goal of Donald Rumsfeld was to "AVOID WINNING."

    THE FUTURE OF IRAQ PROJECT:

    Washington, DC, September 1, 2006 - The National Security Archive is today posting State Department documents from 2002 tracing the inception of the "Future of Iraq Project," alongside the final, mammoth 13-volume study, previously obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. "The Future of Iraq Project" was one of the most comprehensive U.S. government planning efforts for raising that country out of the ashes of combat and establishing a functioning democracy. The new materials complement previous postings on the Archive's site relating to the United States' complex relationship with Iraq during the years leading up to the 2003 invasion:

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB198/index.htm

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Future_of_Iraq_Project

    RUMSFELD HAD THIS ADVICE, AND NOT ONLY CHOSE TO IGNORE IT, BUT THREATENED TO FIRE ANYONE WHO CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT IN THE LEAD UP THE WAR.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php

    Our troops, and the citizens of Iraq, are dying needlessly as the direct result of a dishonest strategy, intentionally designed to result in quagmire. They got the best advice the State Department had to offer, then intentionally chose to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE in order to guarantee failure, which in their view, meant success.

    The Rumsfeld / Bush / Cheney plan from the outset, contrary to ALL LOGIC, was to both allow for the complete destruction of this civil society AND to stay there with troops in place forever.

    IMPEACHABLE LIES REVEALED:

    The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's newly-issued chapters showed that top Administration officials, including the President, Vice President, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, repeatedly misrepresented intelligence community findings, to support the Iraq invasion with lies that Iraq was tied to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, and had advanced WMD programs.

    RUMSFELD'S EVIL REVEALED…

    HOW RUMSFELD STEAMROLLED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE UTTER DESTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND THE QUAGMIRE – WHICH WAS ALWAYS HIS GOAL:

    INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD HAASS ADVISOR TO COLIN POWELL ON IRAQ WAR PLANNING

    Q. Why did we go to war?

    A. I think the first thing to say about this war is that it was an elective war. It was a war of choice. We didn't have to go to war against Iraq; certainly not when we did, certainly not how we did it. It wasn't as though the Iraqis were poised to suddenly do something or break out. So the decision to go to war -- which obviously was the president's decision -- like everything else about this war, was an elective decision.

    Q. Did we do enough to plan for the postwar?

    Q. Is it fair to say that the Pentagon were too optimistic about the postwar situation?

    A. I'll let you make the judgment and characterizations. I would just simply say that the aftermath has proven to be far more expensive in every sense of the word, in terms of human expense, in terms of the financial expense. I think in part, it was based upon some planning assumptions. I think part also, what made it a lot more difficult was in the immediate aftermath of the war, the degree of looting that took place. Looting doesn't really capture the degree of physical destruction that took place. [It] meant that the job suddenly grew in magnitude and some precious time was lost. So the entire undertaking became far more demanding because of what happened in the initial days and weeks afterwards. …

    The question that I think is legitimate to ask is, should we have had more forces ready to deal with the so-called peace stabilization side of things? Should we perhaps have been more sober in our expectations of how the Iraqis would react once the thumb of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen was lifted? So one can argue that the coalition forces at that point, there simply weren't enough of them and they weren't involved enough to deal with it. Or to put it another way, there was too long of a lag between war fighting and then dealing with the war's aftermath.

    Q. Your view on that would be that we didn't have enough troops on the ground.

    A. In part number, in part mission; we were slow to transition from war fighting to dealing with the afterward. That either would have argued for additional forces or a more rapid transition from one mission to another. Though to be fair, it was a difficult call to make -- how fast to make that transition -- because you still had the reality or the possibility of residual resistance from the Iraqis.

    Q. You were making recommendations about the postwar period while you were in the State Department. You made recommendations to Secretary Powell. What were your recommendations as to what that situation was going to look at and what it was going to require?

    A. I'm not going to go into every detail of what sort of advice or recommendations I made. What I simply did was look at the history of these situations, really going back to Germany and Japan and looking back over the more than one dozen experiences the United States had had since the German and Japanese occupations after World War II and ask questions. What it was we could likely expect? What is it we needed to be prepared for?

    My view was that we should be thinking very large; that we were talking about a situation that would be very demanding; that we should try to use local forces as much as possible; that while we should dismantle the upper level of those, say, who had been involved in the Ba'ath Party, we should try to take advantage of the lion's share of the army and police.

    Interestingly enough, after World War II, the initial thinking about de-Nazification was to get rid of lots of people. But very quickly on, the United States and others realized that we really needed to work with the existing German forces and only get rid of the top level. So that was a lesson that I thought we should apply here.

    But essentially, also I was arguing that we should make this as international as possible. There was no reason to hoard this to ourselves in some "victor gets the spoils" mentality, but rather that we should see this as something to be shared with others -- for two reasons.

    ACTUALLY THERE WAS ONE REASON…THE PERSONAL GREED OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE.

    "We did not want this to drain the human and financial resources of the United States."

    YOU FAILED – IT DID.

    Q. When did you hear Chalabi being flown into Nasiriyah?

    A. Pretty much when everybody else heard about it. When it became public. …

    Q. But you're in charge of policy, I mean, you're at a high level. Presumably, you would have known.

    A. I learn never to use the word "presumably" when it comes to government. All I can tell you is, I didn't know about it in advance, and I don't know who of my colleagues might have known about it. … I don't know that anyone knew about it in advance. All I can say is, in my own view, such initiatives were and are unwise, because they're an attempt to get too involved in the internal politics of Iraq. I just don't think that's the sort of thing that's wise or sustainable.

    Q. I spoke to General Garner. He told me that he was instructed by Secretary Rumsfeld to shelve the "Future of Iraq Project."

    A. I can't speak to that. I don't know what sort of instructions or communications went on within the Pentagon. I would just simply hope it's not true, because I thought a lot of good work went into that project.

    Q. That's what he said. He said that he looked at the papers. He talked to the some of the people in the State Department. He thought it was good work. He wanted to use the work. But then he was instructed not to. Does that surprise you?

    A. Yes.

    RUMSFELD & CHENEY TOOK THE BONE-HEADED INITIATIVE TO FLY IN CHALABI ON THEIR OWN, AND IN SO DOING, DESTROYED US CREDIBILITY WITHIN IRAQ.

    HERE IS A POLICY EXPERT WHO FORMULATED POLICY FOR COLIN POWELL. HIS ADVICE WAS

    A. TO KEEP THE POLICE AND MILITARY IN PLACE TO ENSURE LAW AND ORDER.

    B. TO ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS WITH NO OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

    C. TO BRING IN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FOREIGN PARTNERS TO SHARE IN THE JOB OF SECURING THE COUNTRY, AND IN SO DOING, TO SHARE IN THE "SPOILS OF WAR."

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/haass.htm l

    The War in Iraq is about "SUCCESSFUL FAILURE."

    In the words on Chalabi: "We are heroes in error."

    Dead soldiers and civilians are of virtually no consequence to Rumsfeld and the rest of the criminals in charge. Picture a chessboard, and we are all merely pawns.

    THE FAILURE IN IRAQ IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERSONAL HUBRIS AND GREED OF RUMSFELD, CHENEY AND BUSH ON BEHALF OF THEIR GLOBALIST OVERLORDS.

    Your leadership does not represent your interests.

    IMPEACH.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:08am

19. WHY DOES LIEBERMAN FAVOR WAR?

    Just follow the trail of the money!

    MEL SEMBLER:

    .

    MEL SEMBLER HOSTED A FUNDRAISER FOR JOE LIEBERMAN???

    WHAT'S THE DEAL...REALLY?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/21/top-republican-hosts-fund_n_299 69.html?p=1#comments

    .

    WHY DOES LIEBERMAN FAVOR WAR?

    Just follow the trail of the money!

    MEL SEMBLER:

    Mel Sembler---U.S. Ambassador to Italy, although he can't speak Italian. Election Fraud specialist. Owns the Bay Point School in Florida allegedly used for testing election fraud devices in 1999.

    Involved in creating the forged yellowcake documents that led to the War in Iraq. National Finance Chairman Republican Party, head of finance for Bush presidential campaign. Past hon. Pres. Republican Jewish Coalition.

    The United States has given Israel over 90 billion dollars in foreign aid. In 2003, Israel received $53.4 Million dollars a day from the traitors in Congress. That's a very solid return on the AIPAC contributions that Israel pays out to U.S. Congressmen.

    ISRAEL RECEIVED up to $75 billion as emergency aid, directly connected to the war on Iraq. This amounts to 2500% increase in aid to support Israel in a war that they have claimed they are not involved in. Who is benefiting from the war on Iraq?

    Follow the trail of the money!

    Iraqi oil flowing to Israel….

    http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

    WHO IS MEL SEMBLER???

    WHY IS HE HEADING UP THE SCOOTER LIBBY LEGAL DEFENSE FUND?

    HERE'S WHY:

    WHEN was he Ambassador to Italy? Does 2002 ring any bells in your head? Well it should-- remember all the secret meetings in Italy involving Ledeen et al, and the forged documents about uranium from Africa that turned up at the US Embassy that October? Yes, THAT October 2002.... So we have Sembler at the scene of the crime related to the crime Scooter is being investigated for.

    WHO ELSE HAS RUSHED TO LIBBY'S DEFENSE?

    Sounds like a PNAC Picnic roster…

    http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4299

    WHY DID ISRAEL WANT THE US TO INVADE IRAQ, AND INVENT FALSE INTELLIGENCE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN?

    http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

    MEL SEMBLER:

    The Washington Post gave him its "Narcissism Run Amok" award for buying a monument to himself.

    As a Bush supporter since 1979, Sembler capped nearly 10 years of campaigning on November 8, 1988, when Bush won the bid for the presidency.

    In February 1989, President George H.W. Bush appointed Sembler United States Ambassador to Australia and Nauru, where he served for three and a half years

    Sembler has been a Republican fundraiser since 1979, raising a record $21.3m at a single dinner in April 2000.

    Mel Sembler was appointed by President Bush as Ambassador to Italy and was sworn in by Vice President Cheney on November 16, 2001.

    In February 2005 Sembler had an annex to the US Embassy in Rome named after him (the Mel Sembler Building) - an unheard of honour for a sitting diplomat. The naming was due to an amendment by Rep. Bill Young to an appropriations bill.

    Bush thought this unusual. "And he said," Young recalled, " 'We don't do that, do we? We don't name buildings for ambassadors where they have served.' And I said, 'Mr. President, I introduced the bill and you signed it.' "

    But there was more. If you go, as you should, to the Web site to look at the stunning photo display, you'll come to a gorgeous photo (shown above) of the frescoed ceiling of the C.W. Bill Young Conference Center right there in the Mel Sembler Building. And there are a couple of fine bronze plaques naming the center that go on the walls there.

    And so it is only fitting that, despite this being only early March, the coveted In the Loop Narcissism Run Amok Award for 2005 goes to Sembler and Young for their efforts to establish an excellent new trend in American diplomacy.

    Sembler is an Honorary Chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5165-2005Mar3.html?sub=AR

    http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/757886.php

    His Own Private Abu Ghraib

    He created a system to reprogram bad kids. He modeled STRAIGHT after another program, creepily named "The Seed," shut down after the U.S. Congress literally issued a report in 1974 comparing it to "the highly refined 'brainwashing' techniques employed by the North Koreans." Sembler's imitation wasn't shut down until 1993 for illegal child abuse: beatings and sexual humiliation.

    Gov. Jeb Bush once named a "Betty Sembler Day" in Florida to honor his wife's ongoing, taxpayer-funded campaigns on behalf of workplace urine tests.

    http://media.orkut.com/articles/0145.html

    OH, YOU MEAN THAT MEL SEMBLER?

    SEMBLER & LIEBERMAN ARE JUST PART OF THE MACHINE THAT RESULTS IN THIS:

    Israel has acquired three Dolphin class diesel submarines in 2002 that it is arming with newly designed cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. According to Pentagon and Israeli officials, Israel now has a triad of land-, sea- and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time. Now, Germany has agreed to sell Israel another two Dolphin-class submarines.

    THIS STORY WAS SLIPPED OUT INTO THE MEDIA AT THE HEIGHT OF KARL ROVE'S PHONY LONDON LIQUID BOMB TERROR SCARE:

    Recently the mainstream media has kept the stories of Ariel Weinmann and Adam Pearlman out of the news. Weinmann was a Navy Petty Officer arrested approximately four months ago for passing extremely sensitive national security information relating to nuclear submarines to the Israelis – ever heard of him? Adam Pearlman is an Al Qaeda terrorist by the name of "Azzam the American." It isn't that the media is keeping Azzam out of the news, hardly, he made the front page, and prime time on every network, but not a single network has mentioned the fact that he's in reality a Californian Jew named Adam Pearlman, whose grandfather was a sitting Board Member on the Anti-Defamation League.

    WHO CONTROLS THE MEDIA???

    Zionist forces are in control of the United States. When Ariel Sharon said:

    "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

    Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael

    it was no idle chatter. He was telling the truth.

    Nary a single network has mentioned an Israeli by the name of Asher Karni that was arrested at Denver International airport in January of 2004 for having sold Pakistan nuclear weapon detonators known as "spark gap igniters,"

    Not one network has told you about a New York Orthodox Jew named Yehuda Abraham, who was arrested for having sold shoulder fired surface to air missiles to FBI agents posing as Al Qaeda operatives, with the understanding that they were to be used against non-Jewish Americans.

    Zionist media seeks to suppress uncomfortable facts, like the indisputable fact that Israel intentionally attacked an American Intelligence ship, the USS Liberty, in 1967 killing more than fifty sailors, and then compelled the United States government to cover that fact up.

    The MSM censors any thing to do with the infamous Lavon Affair, where Israeli's attempted to bomb American assets in Egypt in the 1950s and frame the Egyptians for the attack.

    The establishment media struggles to keep all [and there is a great deal] of the damning evidence implicating the United States government and the Mossad in the attacks of September 11, 2001

    In conclusion the evidence that Israel is behind the invasion on Iraq is more than circumstantial. You just need to look at who stands to gain from all this. Those that can't understand why Dubya is so determined to attack Iraq, probably haven't considered that Israel is running the show. If you just look at who stands to gain from Iraqi oil you see the picture but it doesn't seem to be the whole thing. But when you add the dancing Israelis and Senator Graham's statements about foreign governments involvement in 911 and Sharon's orders on who Bush is to attack next, the whole picture begins to get in focus.

    WANT TO UNDERSTAND?

    READ THIS SITE:

    http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

    IRAN IS NEXT...THE OCTOBER SURPRISE...

    WILL CHENEY NUKE THE US TO PROVIDE THE PRETEXT?

    ASK JOE LIEBERMAN.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:08am

20. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/01/cheney.halliburton/

    Given what we know about VP Cheney's direct financial ties to Haliburton, isn't it clear that he has committed a fraud against the United States for the purpose of illegal financial gain, in accordance with the following statute? Couldn't the same be said of any US official who knowingly made false statements to advance the cause of war, while owning shares of companies that stood to gain substantially from that war? Cheney was acting specifically on behalf of the Contractor, Haliburton, to ensure no-bid contracts were awarded, based on knowingly fraudulent information generated by his own Office Of Special Plans. It might also be construed that any official who had a relationship to the Carlyle Group was also lying on their behalf - for their own financial benefit.

    Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States

    (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent - (1) to defraud the United States; or (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    (1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or

    (2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/47/se ctions/section_1031.html

    The financial links between those who lied, and those who benefitted as a direct result of the lies (primarily in the oil and military industries) are clear. The evidence that the President's speech knowingly included a lie about the Niger Yellow Cake is proveable in a court of law under oath.

    That the Vice President knew for a fact that the claim was based on a forgery in advance of the President's speech is a given. That he instructed others to ensure that the sentence made it into the speech is also a given. What did the Vice President know, and when did he know it?

    Everytime the Vice President knowingly lied to the American People to advance the cause of war, he committed a crime against the United States which both directly harmed other US citizens and directly enriched himself.

    Indict Dick Cheney for Fraud.

    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030711-7.html

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-4.html

    The outing of Valarie Plame falls into precisely the same category, as it was specifically designed to ensure that the lead up to war continued apace...

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html

    Consummate diplomats like Wilson typically do not speak of "lies." So outraged was Wilson, though, that this bogus story had been used to "justify" an unprovoked war, that he made a point to note that the already proven dishonesty begs the question regarding "what else they are lying about."

    It was a double whammy. And, as is now well known, the White House moved swiftly-if clumsily (and apparently illegally)-to retaliate.

    It was clear from the start that Vice President Dick Cheney and Kemosabe (Amer. Indian for "Scotter") Libby, as well as Karl Rove, were taking the lead in this operation to make an object lesson of Wilson and his wife.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10202005.html

    But there is abundant evidence that senior White House officials were aware of the CIA's doubts regarding the Niger story long before the State of the Union. Nearly a year earlier, in February 2002, the CIA had dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim about uranium purchases. When the CIA debriefed him in March, his findings were emphatic: As Wilson explained in a New York Times op-ed on July 6, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." CIA Director George Tenet claimed on July 11 that Wilson was sent to Niger by junior nonproliferation experts at the CIA acting "on their own initiative" and that senior administration officials were unaware of his mission. But this is not true. Wilson was told by CIA officials that the mission had been specifically requested by the office of the vice president. Indeed, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told Time magazine that Cheney had "asked a question about the implication of the [uranium] report." And, as Wilson tells The New Republic, "When an executive agency is tasked to find something out and it gets an answer, it goes back to the person who requested it." For the White House to suggest that Cheney's office was unaware of the results of Wilson's inquiry strains credulity.

    Moreover, there is strong evidence that the CIA clearly conveyed its doubts about the Niger allegation to the White House on more than one occasion prior to the State of the Union. When Bush wanted to include the claim in an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Tenet personally intervened, imploring Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council (NSC) deputy, Stephen Hadley, to cut the allegation from the speech, which he did. The idea that no one involved with the State of the Union was aware of this earlier, emphatic intervention is implausible. And when the latter speech was being written, the CIA again raised questions about the Niger assertion. According to The New York Times, when NSC proliferation staffer Robert G. Joseph called his CIA counterpart, Alan Foley, to ask about including the allegation in the State of the Union, Foley told Joseph the CIA was not confident about the information.

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030728&s=editorial072803

    Indict Vice President Cheney. Put him under oath.

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:09am

21. Reynolds: "Come Out of the White House with Your Hands Up!"

    Madison, WI Saturday, May 6, 2006

    Dr. Morgan Reynolds is Professor Emeritus at Texas A & M University. He served as Chief Economist in the Department of Labor under George W. Bush during the Cheney regime's first illegitimate term. He is the former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and appeared on innumerable political discussion shows in the mainstream media – back when we used to have a mainstream media rather than a Ministry of Propaganda.

    Reynolds to Cheney: "You're BUSTED!"

    Reynolds indicted Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Meyers, confessed WTC demolisher and insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, and others for mass murder, conspiracy, and other charges including high treason. The enthusiastic response from the overflow crowd was a de facto vote for conviction on all counts.

    The former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, showed that the defendants conspired to create a false cover story of suicide hijackings in order to "blow the World Trade Center to kingdom come" with explosives--a shock-and-awe psy-op designed to coerce the American people into supporting a pre-planned "long war" in the Middle East, massive increases in military spending, and the rollback of Constitutional civil liberties.

    Reynolds stated that everyone in the worldwide intelligence community knew that 9/11 was an inside job as soon as it happened, with the obvious stand-down of US air defenses, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and non-protection of the President in Florida being the biggest tip-offs. The head of the Russian equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former head of the German intelligence service Andreas Von Bulow, former National Security Agency official Wayne Madsen, and former MI-6 agent David Schayler have all openly called 9/11 an inside job, while former CIA official Ray McGovern has confirmed this directly in private, and indirectly in public by way of his ringing endorsement of David Ray Griffin's work on 9/11.

    Reynolds, who served as George W. Bush's Labor Department Chief Economist in 2001-2002, believes that a 9/11 truth victory is looming on the near-term horizon. He predicted that one or more of the 9/11 insiders will soon "give it up" and come forward with what they know, saying "Remember, you heard it here first." He said that most of those complicit in the attacks did not realize how over-the-top the plot was, due to the need-to-know compartmentalization of such covert operations, and that some semi-complicit individuals will probably be coming forward. Reynolds said that most of his email acquaintances are now worried that the 9/11 truth movement is going to win, triggering the greatest Constitutional crisis in U.S. history. For Reynolds, this is less a cause for worry than for rejoicing: "We need a Constitutional crisis!"

    Reynolds argued that 9/11 truth is a matter of extreme urgency, since the perpetrators seem to be preparing another 9/11-style terror hoax as a pretext for attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. He said that exposing the 9/11 fraud is the best way to stop Cheney's plan to stage an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran, and the military draft and Pinochet-style prison camps and death squads for dissenters that might accompany it.

    http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/205461.shtml

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:10am

22. .

    FALSE FLAG NUCLEAR WAR:

    history...REPEATED?

    Are we about to witness "USS LIBERTY II" and "9/11 - PART DEUX" all in the same attack?

    Take 1 Israeli Submarine.

    Place it off the coast of Iran.

    Now position the USS Enterprise just outside the perimeter established by the Israeli sub.

    The sub launches a nuclear tipped cruise missile at the Aircraft Carrier, vaporizing it in an instant - killing all 5,000 sailors on board ("worse than 9/11" - that's the key).

    The Fleet Commander notifies the President that Iran has (apparently) just nuked the USS Enterprise.

    The President declares a (FALSE FLAG) strike against our carrier to be no different that an attack against our soil, and clears the Israeli sub to launch what will appear to be a retaliatory strike against Iran, with a dozen nuclear missiles (all of which are pre-targeted using the targeting codes stolen by Israeli Spy Ariel Weinmann).

    THINK IT CAN'T HAPPEN?

    If the definition of "terrorism" includes threatening to cause harm to the population - to achieve political gain, Karl Rove is the number one terrorist on earth. Put Susan Ralston under oath and ask her how many terror alerts have been intentional false alarms designed to change the subject or "bury the lead."

    When the recent London False Alarm caused every television in the US to feature the headline "TERROR IN THE SKIES," it was done with the specific intent to bury two other stories that broke hours later...that just happened to be about Israel: The AIPAC (Franklin) spy trial was NOT thrown out of court & US sailor, Ariel Weinmann, was arrested for transferring submarine secrets to Israel.

    Considering Israel's nuclear-capable sub is about to unload on Iran, radio silence was required. No one heard these two stories, because the media was screaming about a nonexistent threat.Have you seen this?

    Updated Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:04 PM EDT IRAN WAR PLAN EXPOSED! PREPARE FOR THE SINKING OF A U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER – The USS Enterprise - CVN-65! The existence of a hideous plan to sacrifice a U.S. Aircraft Carrier as a pretext for war with Iran is presently being uncovered!

    The Hal Turner Show has been told that within the next five (5) weeks, the United States will "suffer" a missile attack upon the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, presently on patrol near the Persian Gulf. This attack will appear to be from numerous "Silkworm" and/or "Sunburn" missiles which will sink the vessel and kill most of the 5,000 crew onboard.

    The "attack" will be blamed on Iran and thus provide the Bush Administration with an excuse to go to war with that nation. The Hal Turner Show has learned that the missiles used to attack the USS Enterprise will not be fired from or by Iran, but rather will be a "false flag operation" made to LOOK as though Iran carried out the attack! The USS Enterprise is the worlds first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. It was Commissioned in 1961 and is due to be decommissioned in 2014 or 2015. The ship was selected to be the "victim" of this "attack" due to its age.

    THOSE PLANNING THE ATTACK ARE INSIDE THE U.S. AND ISRAELI GOVERNMENTS and view the loss of the Enterprise crew as a necessary sacrifice to induce Americans to support war against Iran. Put bluntly, the ship and crew are to be cannon fodder. I am being fed more information and expect to be able to name names as to who is behind this plan. Check back often. http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/104451

    Here is the DRESS REHEARSAL for the sinking of the USS Enterprise: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-17-ship-reef_x.htm

    Aircraft carrier sunk in Gulf of Mexico to create artificial reef Updated 5/17/2006 4:38 PM ETIN THE GULF OF MEXICO (AP) -- As hundreds of veterans looked on solemnly, Navy divers blew holes in a retired aircraft carrier and sent the 888-foot USS Oriskany to the bottom of the sea Wednesday, forming the world's largest deliberately created artificial reef. Clouds of brown and gray smoke rose in the sky after more than 500 pounds of plastic explosives went off. The rusted hulk took about 45 minutes to slip beneath the waves, about four hours faster than predicted.

    VIDEO: Navy ship sunk to create reef: Korean and Vietnam War veterans aboard charter boats watched from beyond a one-mile safety perimeter as the "Mighty O" went down in 212 feet of water, about 24 miles off Pensacola Beach. Lloyd Quiter of North Collins, N.Y., who served four tours on the ship in Vietnam, wept. "I'm a little stunned. It's a little hard to take," he said.

    AND WHY DID THEY FEEL THE NEED FOR THE DRESS REHEARSAL? BECAUSE WHEN THEY TRIED IT A YEAR EARLIER, IT TOOK 25 DAYS TO SINK THE USS AMERICA WITH HIGH EXPLOSIVES! http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050522a.html USS America 1048-ft aircraft carrier sunk off North Carolina powered by CYBER DIVER News Network. NORTH CAROLINA (22 May 2005) -- The retired aircraft carrier USS America is on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, sunk by the Navy in a series of explosive tests that upset some veterans.

    The 84,000-ton, 1,048-foot warship that served the Navy for 32 years rests about 60 miles off the coast and more than 6,000 feet down, according to Pat Dolan, a spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command.

    She did not give a location, but the Navy previously said the explosions would take place off North Carolina. With the country (intentionally?) distracted by a sex scandal, and Rove's REAL October Surprise imminent, it's time to shift the focus back to Iran. The ONLY thing that would justify the cancellation of elections and the declaration of Martial Law would be a "Nuclear Crisis." The only thing that will prevent Bush's entire cabinet from going to prison is the cancellation of elections.

    A FALSE FLAG attack on a US Naval vessel would be declared the equivalent of an attack on US soil. This would "justify" Israel attacking Iran with Sub-launched nukes. Keep in mind, both the sinking of the US vessel and the purported retaliatory strike could all come from one Israeli sub. As described above, it's tough to sink an aircraft carrier. Apparently the only way to ensure that there are no witnesses (see USS Liberty incident) is to vaporize it with a mini-nuke. Did we send any to Israel in the recent delivery?

    The "terrorists" are in the White House - and run the Propaganda machinery. What did Ralston and Abramoff know about false terror alerts, and when did they know it? How many other Republicans know that the terror threats are MANUFACTURED? How many others know that 9/11 was an inside job that Cheney ran through NORAD? How many know that GHW Bush is the ACTUAL President, and everything we are being put through is specifically designed to cover the trail of his own criminality?

    Assume that nearly every Congressman and Senator is being blackmailed. Once you see the ability of Israel (Comverse) to wiretap every phone, and realize that only men of low moral character are allowed to enter the political arena (through the AIPAC filter), it becomes crystal clear how the US Congress was effectively neutered.

    The truth is the only cure for blackmail. Expose it all...URGENTLY.

    It's time for the US Navy to step forward, and neutralize the Israeli sub and stop this madness.

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:11am

23. Polling Data

    When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? .

    NY TIMES POLL INDICATES THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL "19 MUSLIMS" STORY OF 9/11:

    FULLY 81% of Americans polled stated that they either belive the government is HIDING SOMETHING or is MOSTLY LYING.

    81% of us!

    81% of your friends, family and neighbors believe their own government has deceived them about the most important event of our time. Talk to them about it.

    That leaves only 19% of Americans who believe the official story, or are "not Sure."

    Are you a "19 percenter?" If so, it's time to GET EDUCATED.

    Send them to this link which most certainly proves that the FBI is lying about the "19 Muslims," which is the basis for the entire story:

    http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

    POLL Source: The New York Times / CBS News Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

    http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/134 69

    .

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2006 @ 10:14am

24. liberty you are attacking a strawman of your own construction. these referenda are an expression of the people's will, no more. they do not represent a threat to the constitution. think of the referenda as a sort of people's lobbying.nothing changes in law, but the people's servants, the politicians will do well to heed the people's call.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2006 @ 10:17am

25. Liberty:

    You obviously missed a few things. The only advocacy here is for "the redress of grievances that the Constitution does not merely protect but in fact encourages."

    Nichols notes, "Only the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach a member of the executive branch, and only the Senate can convict the targeted official and remove him from office. But the founders always intended for citizens to have a voice in the process."

    So, these referendums alone will overturn nothing. But, they are "raising the call for impeachment"; "urging members of the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney", with wording like, "The U.S. House of Representatives should start an impeachment investigation against President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney now." If approved, "a call to act will be dispatched to the state's congressional delegation"

    Seems perfectly constitutional to me.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2006 @ 10:24am

26. LVLIBERTY1 (10/18/2006 @ 12:20am) rises from his knees after implimenting orders from his masters to pray for the death of SCOTUS justices in order to pompously bray in a register of ersatz irony:

    No longer will we tolerate those in office we disagree with until their term of office is complete or up for re-election.

    Got Darrell Issa?

    Do elaborate: Did you sign a petition to recall Gray Davis or vote in the recall election? If this is not a form of referendum -- what is? And how is it constitutionally suspect?

    Because it is an attempt to change from a constitutional republic form of national government to a parliamentary form wherein the national leader is subject to removal any time there is discontent at a national level.

    And you thusly advised Tom DeLay, Henry Hyde, and their legion of ghoulish compatriots of this finding when they did you know what to you know who? Whispered it in their ears from your commanding position as a (cough, ahem giggle) "aero-space executive" (kite salesman?) during the 1990s? Wrote a series of letters denouncing the Pedophile Party's shabby and shambolic attempt at a procedural coup to the local newspaper (that nonetheless harrassed the "national leader" -- your words -- and probably cost Gore crucial votes in '00)? Care to indicate where and when those letters were published?

    Or were you applying the magic of (aaaahhh yes) RELATAVISM to support the removal of the "national leader" in 1999, given the daggers pointed at the heart of the nation in the form of ... sweaty & grunting fellatio ... the Vince Foster "execution" ... Hilary's hair ... the "clear and present danger" of military garb manufactured in PRC ... among other heinous and laughable garbage that was conjured in the swampy imaginings of rightwing creeps and their low-life supporters?

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/18/2006 @ 10:29am

27. JR, "when they know they can never win at the ballot box.

    you'll eat these words, Liberty, and I will be happy to supply the gloating."

    Impeachment by small towns means nothing.

    Some of the people will want impeachment, not the majority. A majority may not want to investigate the whole Iraq deal. I don't as I don't and never did care about WMD and believe the war on terror has a part to play in Iraq.

    If the dems take congress, and I am not convinced they will, the leaders in the dem party are far more left than the base. If they head to impeachment and hearing after hearing with the face of Conyers and Pelosi leading the MSM charge, then I believe the dems are doomed for a long time. This is not what the country wants, they want a solution that may not involve runnning away from Iraq and impeachment...and if dems take congress and an attack occurs here is the US, the left is finished and will be lucky to get out alive.

    The opinions on this post are far, far left from the mainstream, despite what you belive here....the Wills and the Zeros, Redbirds and surely the Darlas are considered kooks and off the page..

    Liberty is right about one thing, the left NEVER runs left if they want to get elected, as there are not enough of the far left to win,...if they do they lose big every time, which is why most will tack right during the final campaign...to fool em again...make no mistake..if the left wins, taxes will rise, we will abandon Iraq and Bush will be impeadched....and the dems will be doomed. As they should be...

    JR, I arrive NYC on Sat afternoon the 28 Oct.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2006 @ 10:36am

28. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 12:20am

    Yes folks you have read correctly, Nichols and the Nation advocate the abandonment of our constitutional republic for government by referendum. No longer will we tolerate those in office we disagree with until their term of office is complete or up for re-election. No, under the scenario painted by Nichols and his ilk, simply disregard our constitution and rule by referendum .

    Lvliberty, you obviously haven't been reading either the Constitution or the long established procedures for impeachment or you'd never write such drivel. First, it has already been pointed out to you that referendum is one of those power reserved to the states and the people by the 10th Amendment. Your objection that this it does not govern presidential elections is utterly beside the point. Demanding that one's representative (also covered by the 1st Amendment's provision for petitioning the government for redress of grievences) begin a Constitutinal process on behalf of their constituents has nothing whatsoever to do with election, but with removal. It does not change the grounds for the impeachment process (i.e., the Constitutional standards explicitly laid out would have to be followed, since none of these resolutions actually claims to be impeaching Bush or Cheney directly) and was envisioned for exactly the reasons being laid out in these referendums (i.e., the suspicion of the commission of "high crimes and misdomenors".)

    Second, you overlook another relevant idea that has been established since the rules of the first Congress were laid down, and never changed in the 217 years since. This is the document know popularly as "Jeffeson's Manual", the procedureal rules written for the first Congress and included in the Rules of the House of Representatives (which also includes the Constitution as well) ever since and passed as their operating basis by every Congress including the current one. The procedures laid down in this document make this referendum process unquestionably Constitutional, since one of the methods by which impeachment may be initiated in the House is by a memorial from a citizen or group of citizens (a common process in the early House, there were memorials submitted by citizens and groups on many topics.) Memorials were often initiated by a process of local politics, not unlike our current referendum procedures. The relevant part of the Rules of the House of Representatives (Section 603) reads as follows (emphasis mine):

    "In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 552); or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (April 15, 1970, p. 11941-2); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444)."

    So your entire contention that this is trying to overthrow an election by unconstitutional means is demonstrable false. It is a recognized and long established way of setting in motion the normal impeachment process. Each one of these referendums is, essentially, a memorial to the House asking it to take action and giving the reasons that that action is requested. This is a prime example of the Constitutional process in our system, utterly in keeping with the Founders' principles. The process is intact and still requires that the House find grounds for Articles of Impeachment and that the Senate vote to remove the named official(s) based on those Articles. You really should study history and Constitutional law before you go making statements like this Lvliberty, or you'll end up looking even more foolish next time than this one has made you look.

    It usually doesn't take too long for Nichols, Katrina and their merry band of kool-aid leftist bloggers to join in a cheery chorus of "the hell with the constitution, we hate Bush and conservatives".

    Besides, why mess with an electoral process when they know they can never win at the ballot box.

    Oh Lvliberty, it is not us who says "to hell with the Constitution", we leave that to BushCo (and apparently, to you.) And if you're betting that these referendums will lose, don't count on it. The majority of Americans have now realized the unlawful nature of many of BushCo's actions and want to see them held to account. This has never been about trying to overturn election, it is and has always been about the illegal actions of a set of our public servents and the necessity of bringing them to heel in order to preserve the Constitution.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/18/2006 @ 10:37am

29. BTW, is there any reason why I can't respond to Lizas clowning fixation on unioned coffee shops? Or am I ignored out of her posting by her..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2006 @ 10:37am

30. Wow, what next Liberty mim's hsuB's 'unacceptable' and wishes the hsuB repubs to act to change the constitution so 'states' un-right the citizenry's thought? Pun intended.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 10:39am

31. JR, I arrive NYC on Sat afternoon the 28 Oct.

    I'll have them roll out the red carpet for you. my schedule for that weekend is still pretty open, so pick your time and I will pick the place.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2006 @ 10:47am

32. Oh Lvliberty, it is not us who says "to hell with the Constitution", we leave that to BushCo (and apparently, to you.) And if you're betting that these referendums will lose, don't count on it. The majority of Americans have now realized the unlawful nature of many of BushCo's actions and want to see them held to account. This has never been about trying to overturn election, it is and has always been about the illegal actions of a set of our public servents and the necessity of bringing them to heel in order to preserve the Constitution.

    Posted by STWRILEY 10/18/2006 @ 10:37am |

    STW,

    It is also pertinent to point out that when I asked LVLIBERTY1, very directly, whether the US would be better governed by some form of "Biblical Law", he furnished no answer.

    Hada, zippo, zilch. Speechless ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/18/2006 @ 10:48am

33. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/18/2006 @ 10:37am

    Unlike some others here, I have no axe to grind with Ms. Featherstone; indeed I agree with a lot of what she has to say, particularly in the area of corporate responsibility.

    But I will ignore her blogs if I am precluded from responding.

    Posted by drhammer at 10/18/2006 @ 11:05am

34. Posted by HMAN23 10/18/2006 @ 10:24am

    Posted by STWRILEY 10/18/2006 @ 10:37am

    Bravo.....well said to both.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 12:20am

    In much simpler logic, if the highest members of the administration disregard the law (thru either of blatant and public disreagrd, or via "signing statements" which say "this law doesn't aply to me) and/or re-write law at whim and/or diregard long-standing international treaties (Geneva Conventions) it is not only the peoples right, but it is the people's duty to ensure that the leaders of the Republic do not forget they are not above reproach - be that by legal means (censure or impeachment), or in fact by insurrection.

    If you delve into the history of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution you will find its origin was to allow the people to rise up against the gov't with arms if neccesary. (and, per Wikipedia, "The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws..." All three of which, GWB has done...)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/18/2006 @ 11:05am

35. Because it is an attempt to change from a constitutional republic form of national government to a parliamentary form wherein the national leader is subject to removal any time there is discontent at a national level.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 09:58am

    You fail to understand the issue. The referendum is not whether GWB and Darth are unpopular, or even whether they have the confidence of the people.

    The issue is whether a majority of the electorate believes that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed by said dastards.

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/18/2006 @ 12:12pm

36. Secondly, my constitution specifically denotes that all accused in this country are assumed to be innocent until otherwise proven guilty. If we extend such presumptions of innocence to the accused, how much more should it be extended to those who have had no formal accusations of criminality by our justice system?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 12:34am

    If you are inferring that to be impeached for 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' Dubya and Darth must be charged with a crime, you are dead wrong.

    This has been said multiple times on this space beforehand, but apparently it is not getting through to some: IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL PROCESS, not a legal one.

    Chimpy, et al do not have to be charged with/convicted of a crime in order to be impeached.

    Google 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and read up.

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/18/2006 @ 12:41pm

37. LL

    this nation is only going to become more godless and immoral, not more Christian and moral.

    So then the presumption is that only Christians are moral?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/18/2006 @ 12:49pm

38. If the Dems in Congress actually believe that the Bush Administration is guilty of illegal actions, where is the Dem leadership? Why aren't they parading before the media daily with their charges and demanding justice? Why are they not likewise out holding public meetings?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 12:34am

    Jeez. Kind of the whole point of the refendums now, isn't it? There would be no need to "urge action," or "call to act" or resolve that the House "should start" an impeachment investigation . . . if members of Congress were doing so.

    And the "agenda" is a "desire the elimination of our current constitutional republic?" I can only speak for myself, but if I call my rep and request him to take action consistent with what is in the various referendums, I assure you that my agenda is not what you claim. It's actually the converse.

    I wager a great many people who support impeachment feel the same. A referendum is simply a way of letting your rep in on the collective voice of his/her constituents - as opposed to writing or calling your rep.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2006 @ 12:56pm

39. LVLIBERTY1 makes an idiot's comment and everyone types out a response. What is time and energy worth? There is an ignore feature.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/18/2006 @ 12:56pm

40. this nation is only going to become more godless and immoral, not more Christian and moral. To think otherwise is to call Jesus a liar.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 12:06am

    Rhetorically speaking (since all of the above is Christian rhetoric), I always get such a kick out of this argument...

    This assumes that the decline of the world is a foregone conclusion, preordained and predetermined, which completely destroys the notion of free will. If we all exercised our free will the "right" way, we'd make the world a better place and make God a liar - so much for all that "Revelations" business, hm?

    Please, Liberty, put all of the effort you might have put into responding to me or Glenn into this:

    STWRILEY 10/18/2006 @ 10:37am

    Yet again, your constant, holier-than-thou attempts to "educate" us on these boards have exposed only your own ignorance about our Constitution.

    Riley -

    You are my Nation hero. Thanks yet again for the food for thought and the edumacation. ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 12:59pm

41. Impeacheachment is a good start but more important are war crimes trials for the Bush administration and the setting up of some sort of program of reparations paid by the US to Iraq.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/18/2006 @ 1:00pm

42. Impeacheachment?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/18/2006 @ 1:02pm

43. That said, it is certainly the truth that someone who actually lives out their Christian faith, empowered by God, will be a moral person.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 1:01pm

    When you meet such a person, let me know, O Diogenes of the heartland.

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/18/2006 @ 1:25pm

44. No, I stopped responding to you some time ago because you are brainless bigot. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 12:06am

    Bullshit.

    Prejudice is your essence, it's your DNA.

    I would hire someome regardless of their sexual orientation, confessional preference, race, gender, ethnicity, HIV status, party affiliation and all other such characteristics that I can think of. Whether the person is the fit and qualified is the alpha and omega of the decision calculus.

    We'll witness Rapture before LVLIBERYT1 can say the same thing and mean it.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/18/2006 @ 1:27pm

45. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 12:34am

    Either you are extremely naive or deliberately being dishonest about the agenda and objectives of Nichols, other Nation magazine writers, and a good many of the bloggers who post here. These I have cited indeed desire the elimination of our current constitutional republic and it's replacement with a Socialist Democracy similar to much of Europe.

    Wow, what a net of red herrings we have here! You managed to make me laugh even harder than Rio usually does! What on earth does any of this have to do with what I wrote about? It would not matter what any of us thought about the Constitutional system in the terms you use, since my argument is entirely based on that very Constitutional system. Besides which, your contention of our motives (and you have attributed these to me before here as well) comes strictly out of your own head. Arguing over the relative merits of how social benefit and wealth are distributed is something perfectly within our Constitutional system, expected by the Founders (indeed, if you had any understanding of our government's history, these very kinds of debates have been ongoing since the founding of our republic and are inherent in it.) These debates are also completely beside the point to the current question of the constitutionality of referendums calling for impeachment. If you want to counter my arguments, you'll have to come up with something better than non-sequiturs.

    Secondly, my constitution specifically denotes that all accused in this country are assumed to be innocent until otherwise proven guilty. If we extend such presumptions of innocence to the accused, how much more should it be extended to those who have had no formal accusations of criminality by our justice system?

    Your statements as are those of many leftists indicate guilt before even a formal charge. Hardly befitting someone who claims to support our constitution.

    And we have red herring number two. No call for impeachment, from whatever source, constitutes any abrogation of the idea of the presumption of innocence. Those calling for impeachment always believe that "high crimes and misdomenors" have been committed (since there is no other reason to call for an impeachment) and ask that the process be carried out to determine first whether there are grounds to proceed based on the facts and then weigh guilt or innocence. This is no different from a district attorney seeking an indictment from a grand jury. They believe that a crime has been committed and ask the grand jury to bring down an indictment (the direct common law equivalent of articles of impeachment) based on the grand jury's investigations into the charges (which is exactly what the process of impeachment in the House provides for and what these referendums seek to set in motion in the same way as the district attorney would seek to set an indictment in motion.) This is hardly some process by which guilt is pre-determined, but is in fact the exact opposite, a perfect example of our system working properly to use Constitutional procedure when there is a suspicion of "high crimes and misdomenors". You have once again shown that your fingers have left your brain behind in writing the forgoing passage.

    If your response is that you need an election to actually make that next step, I would still proffer that the Dems than are being guilty of political pandering and not serious about supposed illegalities.

    If the Dems in Congress actually believe that the Bush Administration is guilty of illegal actions, where is the Dem leadership? Why aren't they parading before the media daily with their charges and demanding justice? Why are they not likewise out holding public meetings? Could it be because they know that there is nothing of substance behind the accusations made by leftists?

    And some of the rest of you, please note I said Dem leadership. I did not include the far left kooks like Conyers, Lee, Waters, Woolsey, and the like. Yet, even Kucinich who is about as wacky as they get doesn't support impeachment.

    And on to red herring number three. The Democrats may be guilty of political pandering and yet still be on perfectly Constitutional grounds if the charges can be substantiated to the level of impeachment and then proven at trial in the Senate. Were the Republicans who impeached Clinton not guilty of political pandering in exactly the way that you charge? Yet I'll lay odds you still supported Clinton's impeachment even after the Senate found no grounds for removal from office (i.e., the indictment failed at trial.) Political pandering and Constitutional impeachment are not opposites in any meaningful sencse. One does not preclude the other. As for the Democratic leadership, what of them? That is simply not germain to the Constitutional question we are arguing. The process is not made less Constitutional just because some politicians are reluctant to use it for whatever reason. I don't really care to speculate what may be going through the minds of any of the Democratic leadership in this regard, since it makes no difference to the question at hand.

    Lastly, I'm certainly not betting that the referendums lose nor did I even suggest it. I just don't care about them and feel they have no place in national politics. Or are you and others suggesting that we now change our system and have the politicians respond on every issue by referendum? I had thought that is why we hold elections. To select the representatives that reflect our local and state values, issues, and needs. Isn't that the intended referendum process for our national government as prescribed by the constitution?

    And red herring number four. I'll accept you statement on the success or failure of the referendums at face value (though your previous posts seemed to indicate a rather different attitude, but no matter.) The red herring here is that this is somehow trying to change our political system. Did you not read my earlier post? This is a process laid down from the beginning of the Republic, as old as any idea under our Constitutional system. It is not about making law by referendum (which is what you're implying by the "have the politicians respond on every issue by referendum" line) but about directing them to take actions desired by the people between the periods of election. If they thwart the peoples will (as expressed in a referendum, for example, or by any other action that loses them the peoples' support) they most certainly will be voted out at the next election. Once again your contention is totally beside the point and misses the nature of our system from its founding. The Founders clearly intended that citizens should be petitioning their representative by a variety of means in order to inform them of the wishes of their constituents. This is just another example of that process. What you want to make an unconstitutional innovation is in fact an inherent part of our Constitutional system. Once again, Lvliberty, you have shown a singular lack of understanding of the Constitution or our system of government under it. Try a little study and reseach before you go parroting right-wing talking points again. Then maybe you'll be able to make an argument that actually has some relevance to the point in question.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/18/2006 @ 1:31pm

46. ND,

    Here is where you and others create a Hobson choice when a religious question is posed to me. I could ignore it as I initially did when Glenn posed it or answer it as I did later. By not answering initially, Glenn then accused me of avoiding an answer due to a lack of courage and/or conviction. By answering I then trigger the usual charge as you made that I was attempting to interject religion into the dialogue.

    Very disingenuous and typical on this site by many leftists.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 1:16pm

    The inherent lack of logic in your dogma cannot be defended, anyway, Liberty - but that isn't news.

    There was nothing disingenuous about anything discussed except for your seemingly-informed (not!) notions about Constitutional intentions and practice.

    And I made no "charge" about your interjecting religion into the discussion. You just did it of your own (nudge-nudge) free will.

    I notice you also disregarded that I urged you to ignore what I had to say about free will and answer Riley's demolishing of your lack of understanding of the Constitution and the referendums.

    You have yet to do so.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 1:33pm

47. Impeacheachment?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/18/2006 @ 1:02pm

    Buy you a cup of strong coffee?

    Or maybe I need one - it's still early here - and I didn't even notice it until you mentioned it. :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 1:36pm

48. Was society really any more "moral" when Jesus was alive?

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2006 @ 1:37pm

49. Well, George Bush, with his signing of the Torture Bill yesterday, has finally done what no other President has ever done:

    He's made us no better than anyone else in the world.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/18/2006 @ 1:43pm

50. Love Liberty - the very fact that you say different states haven't come up with specific charges should tell you right there that the election-day questions to be voted on are not a threat to the Constitution, or as you say, "government by referendum." The House and Senate are the players when it comes to impeachment. If some people in some states want to gain the House's and the Senate's attention by having them see what they think on this issue, so what? That's a time honored tradition in this country. Hell, the last Presidential election saw many states hold referendums on gay marriage. Why should that be allowed when we're voting for President? The realists among us know those referendums were a get-out-the-vote ploy by people who don't respect gay people's rights. I'd personally like to see Presidential elections held on their own day, with no national, state, or local decided that day, and no referendums or other questions held that day. Simply vote for President only. It would be very interesting to see if the voting patterns remain the same. But alas, I know that won't occur. And you shouldn't try to keep the people's voices down LL. That's as anti-democratic as one can possibly get.

    Also: referring to impeachment - you're right that impeachment parallels an indictment in criminal law, however, it's not the same. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 - "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law." And your concern about "government by referendum" is also misplaced. Impeachment is not the same as recall elections. It doesn't matter if 100% of the voters in the country this November voted that they believed Bush should be impeached - only Congress can impeach, convict, then remove the President from office. Again - don't be scared of the people's voices - or their votes (unless you're the Supreme Court in 2000, hehe).

    Interstingly enough, one of the articles of impeachment that didn't take against Bill Clinton in 1998 was for "abuse of power." I think there is a clear and convincing case of "abuse of power" with this administration - although Congress would never bring those articles of impeachment because it would be an admission of complicity in delegating a lot of their powers (read: responsibilities) to the President.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 1:44pm

51. No, Hman 23, the world was not more moral when Jesus was here. That, I presume, is why God sent him down here. It remains to be seen how well the plan worked.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/18/2006 @ 1:45pm

52. liberty, it is by no means certain that Jesus was a historical person. therefore he cannot be accused of being a liar or anything else. you? that's a different story. I do wish you'd refrain from dragging your gutter religion into every goddamn discussion on this blog.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2006 @ 1:46pm

53. LL wrote - "this nation is only going to become more godless and immoral, not more Christian and moral."

    LOC responded - "So then the presumption is that only Christians are moral?"

    LOC - I think what LL is admitting is that he, and his fellow Christians, are not really as powerful as they claim to be.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 1:46pm

54. October 18, 2006

    Quote of the Day

    "The capacity for hope is the most significant fact of life. It provides human beings with a sense of destination and the energy to get started."

    – Norman Cousins

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 1:46pm

55. New Dawn wrote:

    "Rhetorically speaking (since all of the above is Christian rhetoric), I always get such a kick out of this argument...

    This assumes that the decline of the world is a foregone conclusion, preordained and predetermined, which completely destroys the notion of free will. If we all exercised our free will the "right" way, we'd make the world a better place and make God a liar - so much for all that "Revelations" business, hm?"

    That was brilliant. LL would never admit as such - because he prefers the dichotomy of good/evil (with he, of course, being on the side of good).

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 1:49pm

56. Hman -

    Sacrifices, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, subjugation, slavery, empires...

    I vote no.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 1:49pm

57. Sorry for last post mis-attribution: "Stwriley" wrote what I'm applauding. Bravo.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 1:50pm

58. Urmygyro -

    Actually, I am the one who wrote:

    "Rhetorically speaking (since all of the above is Christian rhetoric), I always get such a kick out of this argument...

    This assumes that the decline of the world is a foregone conclusion, preordained and predetermined, which completely destroys the notion of free will. If we all exercised our free will the "right" way, we'd make the world a better place and make God a liar - so much for all that "Revelations" business, hm?"

    Riley wrote all of the wonderful and enlightening words about the Constitution and referendums.

    I applaud him, too.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 1:54pm

59. "They believe that a crime has been committed and ask the grand jury to bring down an indictment (the direct common law equivalent of articles of impeachment) based on the grand jury's investigations into the charges (which is exactly what the process of impeachment in the House provides for and what these referendums seek to set in motion in the same way as the district attorney would seek to set an indictment in motion."

    That is absolutely true Stwriley. The only difference of opinion I have is that any DA can get any grand jury to indict "insert locally grown vegestable here." This Congress doesn't want the responsibility.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 1:59pm

60. LVLIBERTY1 could not say so much as "good morning" without making slurs against someone or conjuring up weird covert projects and conspiracies that would even jar Joe McCarthy's most vertiginous hangovers. Witness:

    Either you are extremely naive or deliberately being dishonest about the agenda and objectives of Nichols, other Nation magazine writers, and a good many of the bloggers who post here. These I have cited indeed desire the elimination of our current constitutional republic and it's replacement with a Socialist Democracy similar to much of Europe.

    William F. Buckley, notorious neo-Marxist, once referred to Europe as "the nerve center of civilization".

    But no matter. There is no need to dissect LVLIBERY1's continued minting of howlingly absurd non-sequiters, transparently stupid straw man nonsense, and high fidelity xerox-work on the long discredited Party Line "Blame Clinton!" hymmbook. Let's procede to getting some insight into the paranoia and the generalized hostility that shape every contour of the wild projections that comprise his "politics".

    LVLIBERTY1, here is a comfy couch. See the comfy couch? Yes, I know, you are tired fighting all the commies in your village who want to force you to eat with chopsticks against your will, do sit down, do tell me...

    What I really want to know now is: Is there anyone whom do you do not hold in suspicion? Is there anyone whom you take as acting on good faith toward you? Conversely, is there anyone who (in your troubled mind) is not trying to kill or nuke or behead you? Is there anything tangibly good that you see present in this world -- or is your vision totally yoked to seeing a sad cesspool of escaluating "imorality" that a sadistic avenging god will eventually cancel with a violent eruption (sparing a very narrow slice of humanity, in your deeply disturbed fantasies)?

    Is there more to what you have made of yourself than that? Or, is life really that grim for you?

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/18/2006 @ 2:01pm

61. He's made us no better than anyone else in the world.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 10/18/2006 @ 1:43pm

    CHIP, you're right.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/18/2006 @ 2:02pm

62. I was going to mention earlier...

    If anything, the wacko right's insistence that this isn't a matter for "the people" to address by referendum only highlights the inefficiency and cowardice of the current Congress in holding this administration's feet to the fire on ANYTHING...

    Shouldn't Congress have stepped up to the plate by now?

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 2:02pm

63. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 1:01pm

    I am a bit confused by your self-contradictory statements.

    "...being a more moral person is not something that is limited to a specific religious belief." Which would seem to indicate that you are saying that there are moral Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Pagans, etc...which makes sense in my book.

    But then you say "Christianity says that all mankind has a moral heart problem that is only cured by faith in Christ as far as our relationship with God is concerned." Which seems to say that if I have a moral problem, that only Christianity can make my morals "better"?

    Seems to present a bit of a dichotomy......I can be a "good Buddhist" (morally speaking), but if I am a "broken Buddhist", then I must seek a Christian solution to make me "better?" Why couldn't I seek a Buddhist, or Muslim, or even Pagan solution to my moral dilemma?

    I understand that your absolute faith in the "truth" of your faith is what drives such a perspective. However, I must respectfully disagree with such massive presumption that assumes 2/3 of the population of the world are morally "inferior" or spiritually wrong or somehow compromised. Counting the Faithful

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/18/2006 @ 2:10pm

64. Lefty, nicely put.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2006 @ 2:12pm

65. Hear, hear.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 2:13pm

66. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 10/18/2006 @ 2:10pm

    LOC - excellent post. Since Christians have more adherents than any other individual religion, perhaps LL is basing his opinion of Christian superiority on a referedum! Whoever has the most wins!

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 2:17pm

67. LL - take solace. Today wasn't your day. You'll be back I'm sure. Just try to get owned next time.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 2:22pm

68. Did everyone just hear that?

    The Constitution is a Democratic talking point.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 2:32pm

69. And anyone here who believes for one second that Liberty "delete[s] without viewing any talking points sent by the Republicans or conservative organizations" is monstrously naive.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 2:36pm

70. One more time, just because it's always amusing to mention it:

    Main Entry: lib·er·ty Pronunciation: 'li-b&r-tE Function: noun

    1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 2:37pm

71. Think the dems can impeach and stop the occupation at the same time?:

    10 U.S. troops die in Iraq

    Insurgent attacks killed 10 U.S. service members in a single day in Iraq, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

    Four coalition soldiers died Tuesday in a roadside bomb attack west of Baghdad about 6:50 a.m.

    Less than three hours later, another coalition soldier died when gunmen shot at his patrol in northern Baghdad.

    A sixth soldier was killed about 1:10 p.m. when his vehicle was hit by a homemade bomb, also north of the capital.

    In Diyala province, northeast of the Iraqi capital, three soldiers assigned to 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, were killed as the "result of enemy action" during military operations, officials said.

    In Anbar province, west of Baghdad, one Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 7 died Tuesday of wounds "due to enemy action."

    As of Wednesday, 67 U.S. service members have been killed in October, and the total for the year so far stands at 602 deaths. Since the start of the war, the U.S. military has lost 2,782 people in Iraq. Seven American civilian contractors of the military also have died in the conflict.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/18/iraq.main/index.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 2:48pm

72. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 3:11pm

    Again, as advertised - LL makes it a good/evil dichotomy - with he being on the side of righteousness. Surprise, surprise.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 3:24pm

73. Johannesrolf, I'm a little surprised at the venom in your last comment. Gutter Religion? Also, it is a matter of historical record that Jesus Christ did live in the Jerusalem-Nazareth-Bethlehem region of the Middle East for the first 3 1/2 decades of the beginning of the last milennia. The crucifixion is also a matter of record. Whether or not you believe him to be the Son of God or not (which I will not discuss with you as I consider you a blogfriend) is something you must decide for yourself, but the man did live.

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/18/2006 @ 3:34pm

74. CT - you "know" the man lived because you believe the record. You weren't personally there - so please stop acting like you "know."

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 3:54pm

75. The "historical records" in question are also widely open to debate...

    Wiki has some fascinating articles on this. And try "Historical Proof of Jesus" as a Google search.

    Fascinating.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 4:00pm

76. People, (ie Urmygyro & ND) as a student of history I can, unfortunately, rely only on "the record" especially when discussing ancient facts. I wasn't "there" at Eisenhower's Inauguraton either, but I know from the record that it did, in fact, occur. I didn't make up my claims, and to satisfy you secularists, I didn't get it just from the Bible, either.

    Why don't you guys check out sources that do a little more than just verify what you already believe to be already true?

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/18/2006 @ 4:10pm

77. So you're willing to admit evolution is a fact and that the Earth is much older than the Bible says it is - even though I wasn't there, it's part of the record (just read scientific books - they are everywhere).

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 4:18pm

78. URMYGYRO,

    Yes, in fact I do believe that the earth is very much older than the Bible claims. I've never had a problem merging the religious and the secular and don't belive that one cancels the other out. I have seen Dinosaur bones both in the Smithsonian in Washington and in the Gobi Desert in Mongolia: I know they were all over the earth at one time. The people who wrote the Bible were writing in the context of their times, and could not have known about Dinosaurs. Their inability to add them to the Biblical historical record doesn't make them any less enlightened then those who discovered them.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/18/2006 @ 4:29pm

79. "A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side of any question. They largely cancel each other."

    That quote is from Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case).

    His quote sums up rather nicely how I feel about this Jesus and God debate. The believer will believe. The non-believers won't. There is ample ammunition for each side to say they are the right side.

    However LL - I think what bothers people most about you is your sense of moral superiority when, if you really are a true Christian, you should feel a kinship and equality to other people. Instead, you use your religious belief to elevate yourself (mostly in your own mind) above all who you deem are not of your breed.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 4:31pm

80. People, (ie Urmygyro & ND) as a student of history I can, unfortunately, rely only on "the record" especially when discussing ancient facts. I wasn't "there" at Eisenhower's Inauguraton either, but I know from the record that it did, in fact, occur. I didn't make up my claims, and to satisfy you secularists, I didn't get it just from the Bible, either.

    Why don't you guys check out sources that do a little more than just verify what you already believe to be already true?

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 10/18/2006 @ 4:10pm

    Well, Chip, instead of blanketing me with the "you guys" comment, why don't you try reading what I actually write?

    Then, please explain to me how I am wrong when I say that "the "historical records" in question are also widely open to debate"?

    After that, please explain to me how my suggesting searching Google for "Historical proof of Jesus" does "little more than just verify what [I] already believe to be already true?"

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 4:34pm

81. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 3:11pm

    I too respect our right to agree to disagree. Just can't reconcile with the whole "my God's right so yours is wrong" persepctive.... but to each his/her own.

    Being at a large university, the crowd is quite diverse. Have friends who are Buddhists, Hindu, even Pagans....have little doubt of their morals though.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/18/2006 @ 4:34pm

82. "According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."

    Allow me to cry horseshit here.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of proof. Show me one citation ANYWHERE besides a religious document that "proves" in any way, shape, or form, that anyone on earth was ever resurrected from the dead.

    (And no, we're not talking "I died for three minutes on the operating table")

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 4:37pm

83. Gyro

    Thanks

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/18/2006 @ 4:37pm

84. LOC - agreeing to disagree is one thing - LL's extreme belief that his religion is the only true way toward "salvation" - above atheists, agnostics, and other religions - is scary. And it's exactly the premise President Bush gives for why we're in Iraq - and why many Americans (many of them Christians of LL's variety) support the war - it's because they hate Islam.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 4:38pm

85. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 4:19pm

    I'll be stopping by the local Barnes and Nobles to curl up with a cup of coffee and a couple of your selections, Liberty.

    In all sincerity, thank you for the recommended reading.

    For you, I suggest Karen Armstrong's "A History of God".

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 4:38pm

86. New Dawn - I believe LL has expanded his death to as much as 45 minutes on one post last year.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 4:40pm

87. Was that a joke?

    I'm laughing...

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 4:42pm

88. I'm serious. I recall a long debate with LL in the summer of '05 in which he claimed to be dead for about 45 minutes, and even the docotrs had given up on him and brought his body to the hospital morgue. He claims he just woke up on the slab.

    I wish I was joking - but I'm not.

    LL claims that event is what caused his religious awakening.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 4:45pm

89. If you're still here LL - please confirm or disconfirm my 4:45pm post.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 4:45pm

90. Funny we never saw that one in the newspapers or any medical journals or on Dr. Dean Edell...

    Are you fucking serious about this, Gyro? You're not just yanking my chain?

    He claimed he woke up on the slab in the morgue?

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 4:46pm

91. Posted by URMYGYRO 10/18/2006 @ 4:38pm

    Agreed...indeed!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/18/2006 @ 4:46pm

92. New Dawn, I did not say you were wrong to claim the historical records are open to debate. You did give me the impression, though, that you "look" for things to support an arguement against someone you automatically took for a "right wing religious fanatic". For example, if you read URMYGYRO and my latest posts, you'll see that he figured that because I "know" Jesus Christ did exist, I must also be one of those "anti evolution" types, which is incorrect. Anyway, regarding yourself, if my assumption proved to be false, then I apologize.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/18/2006 @ 4:48pm

93. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/18/2006 @ 4:46pm

    Yes. And if LL doesn't confirm it I'll ask Peter to let me into the archives so I can dig it up. I'm not imagining or concocting this story. In '05 LvLiberty1 was calling himself LoveLiberty. I'm not sure why he changed his moniker - although it clearly wasn't much of a change.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 4:51pm

94. There also used to be a guy who called himself NACL who was as vitriolic as they come. Before last month I had been off this site for about 10 months - so I'm not sure what happened to that nut job.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 4:52pm

95. Chip -

    You implied that I was one of those guys that turns a blind eye to sources that conflict with my beliefs.

    That was indeed a bad assumption on your part, was false, and I accept your apology.

    I look at all sides, then choose the one that makes the most sense, but I don't decide by automatically dismissing contrasting information to my beliefs.

    And Liberty is absolutely a "right-wing religious fanatic".

    I don't speak for Gyro, nor he for me.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 4:53pm

96. CT - if you take the Bible as allegory - then I applaud you. I can assure you your compadre LL does not take the Bible as allegory and he denies evolution.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 4:53pm

97. Posted by URMYGYRO 10/18/2006 @ 4:51pm

    I believe that he changed it because he was repeatedly ignored under the other name and no one would listen to him.

    As for NACL? Old Salty? Maybe he got repetitive motion injuries from all the work he put into center-formatting his posts to appear unique and interesting... Can't say I miss him.

    And I was just looking at near-death experiences on the web, and it appears that 45 minutes and waking up on the slab should have merited a story somewhere... No local newspaper blurb, even? I smell bullshit...

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 4:56pm

98. No, Hman 23, the world was not more moral when Jesus was here. That, I presume, is why God sent him down here. It remains to be seen how well the plan worked.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 10/18/2006 @ 1:45pm

    Ok. How about 1000 years ago? 500? 100?

    If we are on such a downward fall (and if it was only recent and not a trend that has been happening for centuries, I wonder when Liberty thinks we reached our "moral peak" – the 1950's?

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2006 @ 4:58pm

99. HMan -

    I think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 5:00pm

100. ND - I don't know LL's exact age - but he's no younger than late 50s, probably anywhere in the range of 60s. I believe he said it happened in the late 60's or early 70's. He lived in California when he told that story - not sure if he lived there then. I asked him his name so I could look it up and he never responded.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 5:02pm

101. There also used to be a guy who called himself NACL who was as vitriolic as they come. Before last month I had been off this site for about 10 months - so I'm not sure what happened to that nut job.

     Posted by URMYGYRO 10/18/2006 @ 4:52pm

     Mr. Salty was around earlier in the year, mostly June and July. Maybe he's pulling some OT at the pretzel factory, haven't seen much of his 'prose' recently.

     Posted by skeletonman at 10/18/2006 @ 5:03pm

102. Ironically, it was one of the greater teachers around during the Age of Faith (St Thomas Aquinas) who advanced the notion that a merging of secular reasoning and religious faith was possible. I don't know that I regard the Bible as allegory or 'just a good story". Those people had something to say just as we do. I certainly don't hold with creative design ( A sunglassed brontosaurus sunning himself on the deck of Noah's Ark just doesn't cut it with me) but I do consider that there are some things out there that can't be explained, and just because we havn't figured them out yet doesn't mean they can't exist.

     Gotta roll Gentlemen (you are gentlemen I presume) Dinner awaits!

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/18/2006 @ 5:04pm

103. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 2:28pm

     You went to extended lengths to not directly answer me so I will assume this will only lead to more obfuscation. It is not necessary for you to issue further responses on our argument

     Not necessary for you perhaps, but it certainly is for me. Once again, you've wandered off into non-sequitur. I refuted your points quite convincingly, by showing them to be irrelevant to the matter in hand. I also showed them to be largely composed of incorrect ideas or logical flaws. But I can hardly expect you to concede any point in a debate Lvliberty, no matter how thoroughly your points are disproved, because that would require you to actually exercise some intellectual honesty, which you apparently do not possess.

     And I do not use talking points from anyone. My opinons are my own. I delete without viewing any talking points sent by the Republicans or conservative organizations. As is the case with most thinking individuals, one accumulates a range of views and opinions with life experience and the passage of time. If there is anyone on this site who appears to use talking points, it would appear to be you. Most of your arguments seem to near verbatim from the DNC or MoveOn.

     Come come, Lvliberty, you know better than to write this in every way. I have seen you specifically use talking points from conservative organizations directly to me; for instance using material from David Horowitz in debate with me over academic integrity and the "liberal" faculty bias at universities. So you'll forgive me if I say that your denial lacks a certain credibility. As far as my ideas, I use no ones talking points but my own. If I use a source other than my own brain I clearly cite it so that the source's ideas may be evaluated on their own merits. It is the way I work as an historian and an empiricist. Nor are my arguments ever verbatum from anyone, as a review of my posts hee makes quite clear. I write my own words and let them stand or fall on their own merits.

     I find it also curious that someone would specialize in "Strategic History" who has no military background. That leaves you with only textbook hypotheticals and no real world experience to both round out your views and test them in real situations.

     Now you're just being rude. I have already dealt with this before, to Rio (and I know you were following that thread because you were posting on it.) I have the experience that anyone can get of past strategy, through the historical records of it. There is no other way to access such ideas. As for current strategy, I do what all strategic thinkers do, I listen to a wide variety of sources, especially military, and evaluate thier ideas and experiences through the lens of history. This is what all strategic thinkers do, Lvliberty, whether they are military or not. Most never see their ideas "tested" because they are not meant to be, they are assessments of past strategy that has already been tested in the real world and thus needs to be evaluated. As for my strategic projections, I base them (again like all strategic thinkers) on the best available data and work from there. Am I always 100% right? Of course not, no strategist is nor will ever be. But that doesn't give you the grounds to question my qualifications. Have I ever wondered what makes you qualified to be an "aerospace executive"? No. I accept that that is you field of expertise, and if the question came down to how to build a fighter aircraft I would gladly defer to your knowledge. Yet you have the audacity to suggest that somehow you have the qualifications to judge my understanding of strategy and strategic history? Given your demonstrable lack of any real historical understanding (and you're little excursion into the historical environment surrounding Jesus of Nazareth above pretty much proves how slim this is, but I'll return to that later when I have time for so extensive a refutation as that one will require) and failure to grasp virtually every historical point I have ever made on this forum, pretty much means that you have no standing whatsoever to question my qualifications as an historian.

     Try coming back when you actually have a real argument to make rather than bothering with these petty and useless insults that still don't distract from the fact that you have never dealt with my original arguments about the consitutionality of referendums for initiating impeachment. You lack even the basic decency to admit that you've lost the argument and all you have left is this ridiculous excursion into insult and baseless speculation on a subject you know nothing about.

     Posted by Stwriley at 10/18/2006 @ 5:04pm

104. Maybe he is in Iraq . . .

     not.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2006 @ 5:05pm

105. Peace, Chip.

     Have a nice din-din.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 5:06pm

106. Agnostic:

     "I do consider that there are some things out there that can't be explained, and just because we havn't figured them out yet doesn't mean they can't exist."

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 5:07pm

107. So CT is Christian with a twist of agnosticism. Don't let LL read that CT - he'll say you're not a "real chrisitan"

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 5:09pm

108. Where's LL? Must be he actually took my advice and decided to stop being "owned" on this thread.

     Maybe he's dead (temporarily, of course).

     Just remember folks - LL believes he was resurrected just like Christ - that's all you need to know.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 5:11pm

109. So CT is Christian with a twist of agnosticism. Don't let LL read that CT - he'll say you're not a "real chrisitan"

     Posted by URMYGYRO 10/18/2006 @ 5:09pm

     And as such, a poor deluded soul destined for fiery and everlasting torture in hell.

     Remember, only the "real Christians" have a monopoly on Heaven.

     Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Christian Scientists, Spiritualists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Eastern Mysticists, etc. - all doomed to hell unless they give up their religions and follow Christ.

     I just can't buy that any God is sentient to begin with (which would make us God's fishbowl/hamster cage) and even less that if "he" was sentient, that he would claim such exclusivity, sifting through his own creations and only deeming some worthy of paradise.

     What are all of us not-Christians? Defective chocolates on the assembly line? That would make God a pretty poor chocolate maker...

     So....

     How about them Mets...

     Or the price of tea in China...

     Or "Iraq reality check: The cost in lives lost"

     http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/17/ iraq.reality.check.1/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 5:19pm

110. Who-ee see a lot of anally retentive rationalizations from the Great AntiChrist lvl.

     Too bad his opinion is not based on reality but the rants of the GOP mouthpieces which refuse to accept the fact that OUR Constitution grants to We The People the right to question our leaders and when WE feel that their acts be of a treasonous nature we can ask for investigations and Impeachment.

     In all probability in the near future the many investigations which have been swept under the rug will see the light of day and the final resolution will be the call of treason for those in office who facilitated the current abuses as our "leaders".

     Don't hold your breath for the results from those electronic voting machines which were manipulate in the last election to provide the advantage of those in power, this time we will question and document and demand the investigations into any and all irregularities at the polls.

     Then the grand inquisition will begin and heads will roll!

     The current election ads tally of BS is still 90% lies and distortions by the GOP and 10% truth streaching by the Dems.

     http://factcheck.org/archive.html

     lvl at least my web addresses go to a web site not a hole in the web.

     Posted by dycel8r at 10/18/2006 @ 5:23pm

111. Impeachment is only for high crimes and blowjobs.

     Posted by LiberalPride at 10/18/2006 @ 5:34pm

112. I meant to say only for blowjobs.

     Posted by LiberalPride at 10/18/2006 @ 5:35pm

113. Between FactCheck and Media Matters, a picture begins to emerge...

     I see Republican corruption.... Oooohhhhmmmmm....

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 5:36pm

114. I have a feeling LL is not returning to this thread. He's meeting with Jesus right now and they're coming up with a game plan to ensure Democrats don't gain power in Congress.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 5:39pm

115. .."I would hire someome regardless of their sexual orientation, confessional preference, race, gender, ethnicity, HIV status, party affiliation and all other such characteristics that I can think of. Whether the person is the fit and qualified is the alpha and omega of the decision calculus..."

     So would I...and we, in our group already have, we have hired the best we could find and many in our group fit your list...

     so what does that make me?? Glenn Boy.....

     Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2006 @ 6:02pm

116. Gyro

     Sadly, in the US, more people believe in the "presto" theory of humanity than do evolution...but data suggests the skew is predominantly based on education. Meaning the more educated people were, the more likely they were to disbelieve literal creationism (aka: the "Presto" Theory) and give more credence to evolution.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/18/2006 @ 6:10pm

117. What's really terrifying is that there are enough Americans like lvliberty(aslong as you're Christian and American)1 still afflicted with Eric Clapton/Steve Winwood disease (Blind Faith, for you who are not music fans) to make the November elections scary.

     Posted by Turk33 at 10/18/2006 @ 6:11pm

118. NACL was fun to read..I wonder what happened to him, too...he had a way with words...he probably became bored here.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2006 @ 6:16pm

119. Hardly - More likely, he got tired of having his arguments demolished.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 6:18pm

120. Why are you still here, John?

     No one in your real life to run around calling "kooks"?

     God knows you haven't contributed much of a thought here in weeks beyond that...

     :)

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 6:19pm

121. (and yes, I am just tweaking your tits, John - not really trying to make you angry or be mean - not in the mood today)

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 6:20pm

122. "I meant to say only for blowjobs."

     What you should be meaning and saying is..

     "Lying to a grand jury, on tape even, about blow jobs or anything else..." ...

     although I really don't believe for one minute it was because of a BJ....rather Clinton shot him self in the foot...he should have used a condom and spun it as a safe sex example...the MSM, hell, even Hillary would have bought that line as would all here.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2006 @ 6:25pm

123. ND,

     Tell me, what is with the tits reference...I see it happening a number of times and I am at a loss as to why it is "blamed" on me..or pushed at my expense...

     as far as the kooks...I have been workng hard lately and haven't had much time and what I have been reading here lately seems to be supporting the kook theory ....I find it interesting...so many of the arguements cycle back to the same thing....you know..

     Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2006 @ 6:30pm

124. I also avoid religious arguements...I actually have a similar believe system as Chip Thornton...for me evolution and the Bible dove tail more than they split...I think I am able discern between knowledge and belief....even if I am unable to spell....or type.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2006 @ 6:33pm

125. Had to mention that Bill Ratigan is an independent candidate for Alaska's at large seat in the U.S. House against Don Young. His party designation is: Impeachment Now!

     http://impeachnow.blogstream.com/

     Posted by mr_h at 10/18/2006 @ 6:34pm

126. John -

     The fact that I know you once admitted that you are overweight and have man-boobs didn't even figure into it when I wrote it, but I now see how you took it that way. I know many relentlessly torment you about that, and I'm even a little sorry for you about that. But that wasn't what I was going for.

     Maybe people ridicule you on it because it implies that you are lazy and unmotivated, while you always claim to be such a dedicated, motivated hard worker... I don't know. Ask them.

     When we were kids, my friends and I used to give each other "titty-twisters". That's why I mentioned "tweaking your tits", not because you actually have them.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 6:35pm

127. John -

     Do you think that what I have written here classifies me as a "kook"?

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 6:37pm

128. "Bribery, perjury, and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category..."

     The remainder of that post is Rio Bullshit.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 6:43pm

129. Bush =

     Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/18/2006 @ 6:43pm

130. Do you think that what I have written here classifies me as a "kook"?

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     No. You are not a kook.

     ...And I am over weight a little, as are many Americans..but I never thought so much would be written about man tits and used as a personal weapon,...it does give credence to those who claim the left , when challenged fall into emotional and personal attacks(the kooks by my note)..

     Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2006 @ 7:17pm

131. John: Great article but I really doubt that get along, go along Nancy Pelosi will ever let this happen. Seriously - we had to shame her into joining the progressive caucus with Congresswomen Lee and Woolsey. Nancy Pelosi is just too nice and that is a problem if we ever want true justice for all that the Bush Crime Family has done to our country.

     Posted by SFBetty at 10/18/2006 @ 8:28pm

132. Keep the faith:

     CONGRESS – Job Rating

     NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Oct. 13-16, 2006. N=approx. 500 registered voters nationwide.

     Date___________Approve___Disapprove__Unsure__minus

     10/13-16/06_______16________75_________9_____-59

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 8:39pm

133. Impeachment proceedings would be a distraction from the task of acting immediately to repeal/override the dictatorial powers of the president.

     Posted by ksteiger at 10/18/2006 @ 8:42pm

134. NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Oct. 13-16, 2006. N=1,006 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

     "What is your preference for the outcome of this year's congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?"

     Controlled_____by Republicans____by Democrats___Unsure

     10/13-16/06_________37_________52___________11

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 8:44pm

135. This election is not about impeaching Bush. By saying that, you are playing into the Karl Rove's right-wing Republican election plan.

     This election is about restoring constitutional 'Checks and Balances' to our government.

     Jeez, you Nation guys are all screwed-up. That's a liberal for you.

     Posted by ingram1ja at 10/18/2006 @ 8:54pm

136. Impeachment will distract congress from much more important matters and cause further division and confusion in our country. Absolutely nothing will get done over the next two years if impeachment proceedings are to commence.

     Posted by mr1026 at 10/18/2006 @ 9:14pm

137. Pelosi's right: impeachment is a non-starter and a fool's errand. It's a short-sighted "solution" that backfired on the GOP in 1998 and will backfire on Dems in 2006 if we're foolish enough to go that way. I say this as one who despises Bush's assaults on the Constitution, but also as one who suspects that the damage can best be contained and reversed by less pointedly vindictive legislation -- and by a full-scale commitment to maintaining our razor-thin sympathetic majorities within the judicial branch. The latter pretty much requires that we take back the Senate, and that's going to be considerably harder to do if the GOP faithful conclude that our primary mission for the next two years is to seek vengeance for our 12 years in the wilderness.

     Posted by abfdrumz at 10/18/2006 @ 9:54pm

138. one bit of clarification.

     luvvy was dead for 6 hours, 6 minutes and 6 seconds...

     and he never made it into Guinness

     Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 10:16pm

139. and that might explain the brain damage

     Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 10:17pm

140. the historical record on jesus is most spotty. maybe there were people alive then named Jesus, but the "creation" of Jesus is an amalgam of greek ideas, the hebrew bible etc. for the faithful this is enough. for me? no way. I agree that the slur gutter religion was a bit extreme, but it was directed at the people who think that they alone and their imaginary friend are the truth etc. that is so lousy that I can't say enough bad things about it. intolerance is evil, especially in the name of god.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2006 @ 10:17pm

141. and his taste for human flesh

     Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 10:17pm

142. and the stiff lumbering gait

     Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 10:18pm

143. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/18/2006 @ 10:17pm

     all paths lead to God

     Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 10:27pm

144. Will I find it hilarious that the great AntiChrist can in one hand claim to be a deciple and quote the will of God with the misrepresentations created by man (started w/ Constitine) and his support of the crimes against humanity which are in direct conflict with the word of Christ, if this isn't hypocracy at it's finest what is.

     Posted by dycel8r at 10/18/2006 @ 10:32pm

145. Posted by ABFDRUMZ 10/18/2006 @ 9:54pm

     I think a better impeachment model to go by rather the failed one of Clinto n, would definately be the one that's more closely resemble the various elements of corruption, war and constitutional crisis-- and that would be the one of Nixon's. And remember Carter won the next election. So there is hope beyond the successful impeachment of a criminal and his gang, better known as the hsuB admin.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 10:33pm

146. It's always best to put it in context, notice that the numbers had not moved hardly at all for about 4-5 months and now BAM, a 6 point spread up to 15 in less than 2 weeks. If this continues even in a little way-- it smells like nothing less than a slaughter. Best repubs start now acting all nice to their dem congressional colleagues like maybe uh, yesterday.

     NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Oct. 13-16, 2006. N=1,006 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

     "What is your preference for the outcome of this year's congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?"

     Controlled_____by Republicans____by Democrats___Unsure

     10/13-16/06_________37___________52___________11

     9/30 - 10/2/06_______39___________48___________13

     9/8-11/06___________39___________48___________13

     7/21-24/06__________38___________48___________14

     6/9-12/06___________38___________49___________13

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 10:47pm

147. "A year later in what I believe was a second attempt by the devil to kill me"

     OH, MY, GOD. LL - you really think the devil was trying to kill you! hahahahahahaaha.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/18/2006 @ 10:54pm

148. Is reality seeping in?

     Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison

     By ED O'KEEFE

     WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2006 -- President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate.

     Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.

     "He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."

     "George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here's how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw."

     Bush said he could not imagine any circumstances under which all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq before the end of his presidency.

     ******************

     Maybe not...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 10:54pm

149. FROMREDBIRD writes:

     LVLIBERTY1 makes an idiot's comment and everyone types out a response. What is time and energy worth? There is an ignore feature.

     Yes, but should that feature not be reserved for those aren't vastly outnumbered, or whose comments are abusive, or who simply can't think?

     If you believe that any of these litmus tests applies to LVLIBERTY1, then why not either address his arguments or follow your own advice?

     Posted by abfdrumz at 10/18/2006 @ 10:56pm

150. Impeach Bush and get Cheney. No thank you.

     Intrepid Liberal Journal

     Posted by trebor007 at 10/18/2006 @ 11:53pm

151. Got re-elected by 60% and won all but one state and diid all this:

     "Nixon responded to the crisis with policies tailored to a large extent toward the left-wing elite, but rhetorically geared toward the right-wing electorate, such as the Vietnamization policy of gradually reducing the number of troops and American involvement in the war. Though trying to establish a Republican majority in Congress, Nixon moved significantly left on a number of public policy issues, creating the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, instituting racial quotas and preferences through the Labor Department's "Philadelphia Plan," and supporting the National Endowment for the Arts. He also developed a policy toward Native Americans that is still in place today, proposed a Family Assistance Program to provide a guaranteed income to welfare recipients, and, after the 1972 election, implemented wage and price controls. Finally, Nixon cut a deal with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills to increase Social Security payments and index them to inflation, which Barone called a "tremendous piece of public policy" that lifted elderly people out of poverty...."

     (prepared by Nixon Center Intern Jean E. Siskovic and Paul Saunders)

     And he was still about to be impeached, per Watergate, before he resigned... And then Carter won in the next election.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 11:57pm

152. Recent polling data, in regards to the upcoming November elections, are said to contain major errors in process

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/18/2006 @ 11:32pm

     Are said by who? Have a link?

     As well then were the previous polls weighed repub heavy per they voted more? That's the 'RV' or 'LV' initials I'd assume. But few polls have those initials.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2006 @ 12:05am

153. Yes, begin impeachment. So that way when we get invaded from the South by Hezbollah and drug cartels, Canada closes off its borders and we go into martial law...gwb&co will not be able to retain its dictatorship on the grounds that a presidential election can not be carried out once martial law has been declared. Buy a Winnebago.

     Posted by hellonearth at 10/19/2006 @ 12:45am

154. "Buy a Winnebago."

     Do they make hybrid Winnebagos?

     Posted by abfdrumz at 10/19/2006 @ 01:13am

155. real Christianity is quite a minority status in the US. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person

     Real christianity is quite a minority status within Christianity.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/19/2006 @ 01:25am

156. No. You are not a kook.

     ...And I am over weight a little, as are many Americans..but I never thought so much would be written about man tits and used as a personal weapon,...it does give credence to those who claim the left , when challenged fall into emotional and personal attacks(the kooks by my note)..

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/18/2006 @ 7:17pm

     Thanks, John.

     I'm totally cool with you despising my personal opinions on anything, but I am not that. I even know (quite) a few of them myself out in the real world, but very, very few here that I'd classify as "kook", not even you.

     More along the lines of the Liberty's (sorry, pal), Rio's, Aludra's, Barry's, Todd's... people who completely depart from logic and facts in favor of their beliefs (and I wasn't implying religion there).

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 02:44am

157. I got this message from a friend on Tuesday; "the Town of New Paltz passed a resolution to impeach Bush and Cheney. I had to sign the Petition and send it to Hastert. The Village passed the resolution about 2 weeks ago. Now you have to get them going in Holmdel." And in your town too!

     Posted by samellison at 10/19/2006 @ 03:09am

158. .

     Here is the evidence of a pending war against IRAN - to be launched under false pretense in the next two weeks - the result of which will be martial law and cancelled elections in the United States:

     http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061 001&articleId=3361

     .

     Israel is going to commit a false flag attack against a US Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iran in order to "justify" a retaliatory nuclear strike against Iran (both attacks will be made using Israel's Submarine)...and it's coming in the next two weeks if we don't publicize the possibility of it.

     Learn about the "USS Liberty" incident - then read this:

     http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/104451

     Here is the DRESS REHEARSAL for the sinking of the USS Enterprise:

     http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-17-ship-reef_x.htm

     Your country urgently requires that this be revealed to the American Public by the Mainstream Media.

     Elections?

     How quaint.

     As quaint as the Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus - both relics thanks to Bush and Gonzales - and a Blackmailed Congress full of immoral characters.

     Use your Freedom Of Speech during its last few remaining days.

     .

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2006 @ 06:49am

159. Same ol' crap....period.

     Bush does NOT get impeached by a Dem House that wants to prove it can GOVERN...for 2008!

     Posted by Mask at 10/19/2006 @ 08:48am

160. New Dawn,

     Back from dinner. Not the best thing I ever ate (heh heh) but not bad. I had a question which really is off topic, so don't answer or save for another time, maybe. Who is your favorite president? Not the top three or top five: If you really had to pick ONE, who is it? Call it historians curiosity.

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/19/2006 @ 08:57am

161. M ask,

     It would be best that hsuB is impeached otherwise the presidency will be so emasculated that anyone seeking the office will automatically be viewed as simply a figurehead. What do you remember of Gerald Ford and his many accomplishments? Either the office is held in high regard and the office holder is up to it or removed for not being-- and if not, the office is diminished to fit the nitwit requiring the overcompensation, be denied. I vote remove the cancer save the office. Restore it to a co-equal branch. A strong exec governs per their intellect not by diminishing our rights to make up for his or her inadequacies. We can only restore our government by voting dem, doing some house-cleaning, no white wash, if hsuB can't take it-- he's out along with his admin. He best start looking for another VP that's squeaky clean- if he cares at all about the GOP.

     Bet if dems win the congress-- Cheney is out of there.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2006 @ 09:18am

162. Posted by PLUNGER 10/19/2006 @ 06:49am

     Dang it, PLUNGER, I TOLD you that the "secret Israeli sub" is NOT going to sink the "Enteprise."

     Spock will get onboard it and distract the female Israeli sub captain by making love to her...while Kirk, believed dead from a Vulcan death-grip, will disguise himself as an Israeli Naval officer and steal their cloaking device.

     (BTW, they can do it too, because both Kirk and Spock are Jewish!!!)

     Posted by Mask at 10/19/2006 @ 09:18am

163. LVLIBERTY1 10/18/2006 @ 6:26pm

     One of the most fascinating posts I have read on these pages.

     Caution to skeptics: note that it is entirely self-reported - that is, entirely subjective. So those wanting to point out the obvious medical impossibilities are in for a rough ride. I'd skip it if I were you.

     Because there is a religious synonym for "medically impossible". The synonym is "miracle".

     Posted by MyParadigm at 10/19/2006 @ 09:43am

164. Because there is a religious synonym for "medically impossible". The synonym is "miracle".

     Posted by MYPARADIGM 10/19/2006 @ 09:43am

     I the the horror classic "The Night of the Living Dead" you could say it was a miracle that all those dead bodies got up and started walking around.

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2006 @ 09:51am

165. and that was just the movies. We've got a real live zommie blogging with us here at the Nation.

     and he loves liberty... because it sure beats flopping around for all eternity in a casket

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2006 @ 09:52am

166. correction... zombie

     this is some funny shit

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2006 @ 09:52am

167. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 10/19/2006 @ 08:57am

     Not that this question was directed at me, but any post is fair game for a response IMO.

     I don't know if I can narrow it to just one, but I would narrow my choices for favorite president down to Jefferson, Lincoln or Truman. I know Truman is my favorite to read about, Jefferson was the smartest president, and Lincoln saved the nation at its darkest hour to date.

     I could give you my least favorite (and, IMO, worst of all time), but I bet you can guess that one.

     Posted by Turk33 at 10/19/2006 @ 09:56am

168. Impeachment? Are we fantasizing again? Oh wait, the real liberal fantasy is available for all to see on the big screen (Bush being shot).

     The Left continues to terrify me. I would consider those who support impeachment traitors to our country. In any case, it's not an argument I'd be interested in settling with words alone.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/19/2006 @ 09:56am

169. The Left continues to terrify me.

     Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006 @ 09:56am

     how do you feal about the zombie you hamsters have blogging.

     (and undead hamster... think of the possibilities)

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2006 @ 09:59am

170. hook up a generator to the wheel and we've could send luvvy over to iraq to generate power for his beloved liberation.

     and no IED could kill him. He's already dead

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2006 @ 10:00am

171. but I never thought so much would be written about man tits and used as a personal weapon,...it does give credence to those who claim the left , when challenged fall into emotional and personal attacks(the kooks by my note).. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/18/2006 @ 7:17pm

     JOHN MAASCH,

     Let me be very clear: I don't give a shit that you "never thought so much would be written about man tits and used as a personal weapon". Does not matter one iota to me.

     But so you know, I have had a few unwelcome surprises over the years as well. The incomplete list would include ...

     ... A lawfully elected president being subject to a blatantly procedural coup over trivialities ...

     ... An election decided by Pedophilia Party-appointed judges who claim that it is unconstitional to count election ballots (Scalia-"There is No Right to Vote") ...

     ... A massive, unnecessary, brutally inhumane invasion/occupation based on howling lies. And this one continues to be blindly defended by the drooling likes of yourself even as the government's own security agencies (y'know, "K O O K S") have clearly stated it has obviously and disasterously undermined its stated objective of enhancing security ...

     Furthermore, devoid of any logic and without citing any kind of evidence but your latest lazy musings, you have baldly and repeatedly accused red-blooded patriots of aid and comfort to enemies for stating the bare truth about Bush and the neo-cons' Inside Job on America.

     And you have the audacity to weepily boo-hoo about ... comments about tits? Fucking laughable. Are you really that self-pitying and easy to upset (never mind, I know the naswer to that one).

     And it also goes to show that conservaLosers are "dish-it-out-but-cannot-take-it" pussies. Oh yes, they are all for indignantly-waged "Culture Wars" and assailing their own (invariably far more accomplished) nieghbors. That is, until they aborb a taste of pissed off, superior people dealing out some doses of their own forcefully perscribed medicine -- with the important difference that our medicine is informed by TRUTH, not Bushian puppyshit.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/19/2006 @ 10:07am

172. To TURK 33

     Took me a long time and a lot of reading about him to decide this, but Theodore Roosevelt is my favorite, although next in line would be the three you mentioned, and for much the same reasons.

     Roosevelt exhibited what I consider to be the greatest character of all the Presidents, in addition to being effective. When I look for potential candidates for 2008, I swear I can't think of anyone on either side that even comes close overall.

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/19/2006 @ 10:11am

173. " I would consider those who support impeachment traitors to our country."

     did you feel the same way about the Clinton impeachment?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 10:28am

174. In any case, it's not an argument I'd be interested in settling with words alone. Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006 @ 09:56am

     Out of curiousity, BEAU, what do you have in mind beyond "words alone"?

     Bows and Arrows?

     Arm wrestling?

     Poetry Slam?

     Light saber duels?

     Slingshots?

     Bazookas?

     Declarations on Scrolls?

     Smart Bombs?

     Muscle Cars?

     Tug-of-War?

     Farting Contest?

     Bobbing for Apples?

     Lawsuits?

     Paper-Rock-Scissors?

     Broken bottles?

     What?

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/19/2006 @ 10:38am

175. Beau, In any case, it's not an argument I'd be interested in settling with words alone.

     what the hell does that mean? a call for fisticuffs? from a coward who hides behind a nom the plume on a blog? you are exposing yourself for ridicule.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 10:40am

176. Hmmmm.

     I'd settle for a farting contest, but I'd hate to lose to Katrina.

     did you feel the same way about the Clinton impeachment?

     I didn't support that impeachment, though it's clear that Clinton broke the law and disgraced the office of the presidency. Impeachment was nonetheless a distraction that drained public attention from the rise of Mulsim extremism and a looming economic crash.

     At that time the U.S. hadn't committed thousands of troops to a ground war against Islamic fascists. As we continue to fight them and defend our country from jihadists, the troops and their commander in chief deserve our support.

     The alternative is surrender, which is the only course the Democrats can offer.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/19/2006 @ 10:48am

177. Would you morons please go to the middle east and preach your messages enmasse', golly gee whiz, I'm sure the terrorists will comply and hopefully chop your 'effin heads off!

     Posted by DEMSAREMORONS at 10/19/2006 @ 11:06am

178. the constitution, when it describes impeachment makes no exception for war time or any other time, and does not suggest treason in following this course of action.

     historical note. Andrew Jackson was censured by the senate for his conduct, and he complained that they didn't impeach him.

     as far as Clinton's conduct is concerned, while it is true he perjured himself, his carrying on an affair in his workplace was well within the conduct by other presidents, and members of congress as well.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 11:08am

179. Mr. Moron, thank you for your invaluable contribution to this discussion. it has been duly noted.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 11:10am

180. I'd settle for a farting contest,

     this describes your mentality well, Beau

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 11:11am

181. Beau, accordingly I will henceforth call you fartboy.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 11:17am

182. People may be unaware of an impeachment petition based on Congress' "Jefferson Manual" that allows for a popular impeachment petition. This is run by Impeach for Peace.org (http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html)which I support but am not a member of. Here's the information (in part) from their webpage:

     Impeach for Peace, a Minnesota-based impeachment group, has researched a method for impeaching the president using a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson's Manual"). This document actually empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment process themselves.

     "Jefferson's Manual" is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House. Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

     After learning this information, Minnesotan and Impeach for Peace member (Jodin Morey) found precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck. Impeach for Peace then used this as a template for their "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." Now any citizen can download the DIY Impeachment Memorial and submit it, making it possible for Americans to do what our representatives have been unwilling to do. The idea is for so many people to submit the Memorial that it cannot be ignored.

     Feel free to download it, print out TWO copies, fill in your relevant information in the blanks (name, State, notary is optional), and send in two letters today (One to the head of the Judiciary, and the other to John Conyers lead Democrat in the House Judiciary). There's also extra credit for sending a DIY Impeachment to your own representative.

     Posted by rnidess at 10/19/2006 @ 11:18am

183. this describes your mentality well, Beau

     What does this mean, exactly? You need to hang out with more native English speakers before venturing into the world of put-downs.

     This doesn't change the fact that you're naive about the threat posed by terrorists and wrong about our commander in chief.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/19/2006 @ 11:24am

184. rnidess, excellent contribution, thanks. Peck was impeached through the efforts of Buchanan and was found not guilty by a vote of 22 to 21. It is believed he had the silent support of president Andrew Jackson.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 11:27am

185. This doesn't change the fact that you're naive about the threat posed by terrorists and wrong about our commander in chief.

     whatever, fartboy

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 11:28am

186. Pffffffffffthbfffffffububububffffaaaaaaah. Can you smell it, kid?Learn to love my smell...

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/19/2006 @ 11:30am

187. JR, in further reply to the question you posed to the effect of "what are our soldiers actually doing in Iraq" ... on cnn.com today there is a sniper's eye view of what they are going through.

     I took some grief months ago for portraying our troops as being in a shooting gallery. What was rhetorical then has become reality now.

     It's simply disgusting that news of the shockingly escalated death and injury rate is being obscured by petty election-related squabbles.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 10/19/2006 @ 11:41am

188. "But so you know, I have had a few unwelcome surprises over the years as well"

     We all have, I just don't have anything in common with you and thats fine..I disagree on the things you feel Bush lied about and is a criminal...I don't care about WMDs and my entire life does not center around Bush...I am, still waiting for him to be a conservative. Forget man tits,...

     Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2006 @ 11:55am

189. New Dawn,

     Back from dinner. Not the best thing I ever ate (heh heh) but not bad. I had a question which really is off topic, so don't answer or save for another time, maybe. Who is your favorite president? Not the top three or top five: If you really had to pick ONE, who is it? Call it historians curiosity.

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON 10/19/2006 @ 08:57am

     Well, Chip, I have a soft spot for Reagan because he was the first celebrity I ever met, when I was a small boy and received an achievement award... But he's not my favorite...

     JFK held a lot of hope and promise, and his obvious faults aside, I think it's a shame he didn't get to live long enough to redeem his own faults and failures and do some greater good. But not my favorite...

     As I'm 36 and have only given a political shit about 20 years, I would have to take Clinton. I'm well aware of his faults, but he's the best we've had in my lifetime.

     Let the ridiculing and vilifying begin... I can take it.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 12:03pm

190. Impeachment? Are we fantasizing again? Oh wait, the real liberal fantasy is available for all to see on the big screen (Bush being shot).

     The Left continues to terrify me. I would consider those who support impeachment traitors to our country. In any case, it's not an argument I'd be interested in settling with words alone.

     Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006 @ 09:56am

     Jesus, as a real man who has kicked, punched, elbowed, kneed, and thrown around (and been kicked, punched, elbowed, kneed, and thrown around by) a couple hundred grown men in my last decade of martial arts, I happen to actually support physical violence for the right reasons...

     but Beau, as an anonymous poster on an internet blog board, your broad (Fox, Rush, Hannity, Coulter) generalization that anyone who supports impeachment is an unAmerican traitor, let alone one whose mind you would change with violence, is just ludicrous.

     OOooooo. You're scary, Beau. Really, now, tell the board about the last time you settled something with more than words. Or just give the board a break and take that shit elsewhere.

     And while you're elsewhere, look up impeachment as it relates to the Constitution.

     Moron.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 12:16pm

191. The alternative is surrender, which is the only course the Democrats can offer.

     Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006 @ 10:48am

     What you just wrote is a blatant lie.

     Please cite one example anywhere of any Democrat saying they advocate "surrender".

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 12:22pm

192. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/19/2006 @ 11:17am

     Fartboy and Moron (see 11:06am above)

     Gee...sounds like a GOP superhero pair to me!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/19/2006 @ 12:24pm

193. JR, in further reply to the question you posed to the effect of "what are our soldiers actually doing in Iraq" ... on cnn.com today there is a sniper's eye view of what they are going through.

     I took some grief months ago for portraying our troops as being in a shooting gallery. What was rhetorical then has become reality now.

     It's simply disgusting that news of the shockingly escalated death and injury rate is being obscured by petty election-related squabbles.

     Posted by MYPARADIGM 10/19/2006 @ 11:41am

     My -

     I've been seeing videos like that on some of the darker websites for years, and they make me f'ing ill. Snipers are inescapable and dangerously effective, and those shot rarely know what hit them - terrible situation for our troops, especially when they should not be on the streets of Iraq and never should have been in the first place...

     And people dare say to me that I sympathize with terrorists.

     Fuck them.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 12:26pm

194. The Left continues to terrify me.

     Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006 @ 09:56am

     how do you feal about the zombie you hamsters have blogging.

     (and undead hamster... think of the possibilities)

     Posted by WILL C. 10/19/2006 @ 09:59am

     ROTFLMAO

     Funniest post in weeks! Thank you Will.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2006 @ 12:28pm

195. Hman -

     Totally off-topic...

     Have you seen my "KKKLowns" on Youtube?

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 12:31pm

196. Just did, New Dawn.

     Good stuff.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2006 @ 12:52pm

197. :)

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 12:57pm

198. New Dawn,

     Nawwww Man, I mean a REAL President.

     Mr or Mrs.?

     Clinton who?

     The guy with the Dry Cleaning business?

     Ich bi ein gross titten man!

     What is "is"?

     (Sorry, old boy, thought I'd thrown them all out there and get it over with :). Seriously, you did say you thought him the best IN YOUR LIFETIME. That does make it a little easier to agree.

     Turk33 said Jefferson/Lincoln/Truman. Mine was TR.

     Ct

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/19/2006 @ 1:06pm

199. Liberty????? Hellava tag for the likes of you. We've watched most of our liberties go down the drain by your bunch of criminals. We've watched them steal every cent they could possibly get their sticky fingers on, catering to big business, outsourcing our jobs overseas for cheap labor, denying affordable health care; you name it, man, they've done it. Now their crimes of war are massive. Not only should they be impeached, they should face war crimes and crimes against humanity. They should also face the crime for brainwashing Americans!! If you had your way, the planet would be blown to bits by these wonderful guys you support!

     Posted by uglyduckling at 10/19/2006 @ 1:08pm

200. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 10/19/2006 @ 1:06pm

     Historically speaking, before my lifetime, Chip, I'll be the first to admit that I'd have to do a lot of reading, sifting, and evaluating to make a decision.

     Thanks for being fair.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 1:19pm

201. I think the best recent pres was Carter. he brought dignity and honor to the office, something not seen immediately before and after. let's see Kennedy, no. Johnson no, Nixon most definitely no, Reagan, absolutely no, Bush one, no, Clinton, no. Bush NOOOOO. I await the storm.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 1:22pm

202. Are you guys as nutty as you sound or are you just a parody of yourself? Normal people like us who disagree with Bush realize that elections are held to make a change, not some crackpot, impeach the president scheme everytime we disagree with whomever is in office. If that were the case, I think there would have been a lot of presidents whom were impeached. Sure, we don't like the results, but wallowing in it, doesn't do a dern thing.

     Posted by RichieRich68 at 10/19/2006 @ 1:37pm

203. Richie -

     I respectfully suggest that you read the Constitution. Then Google "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "abuse of power", then come back and explain exactly why talk of impeachment is "nutty", "parody", "crackpot", or a "scheme".

     While you're at it, could you explain exactly what a "parody of one's self" is?

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 1:39pm

204. I think the best recent pres was Carter

     Wow. Ok, now you've entered the realm of mental illness. The economy under Carter was a disaster, his foreign policy made us the laughing stock of the Arab world, and his mismanagement of the energy crisis was practically a horror show.

     Please cite one example anywhere of any Democrat saying they advocate "surrender".

     When Democrats advocate troop withdrawl (see Howard Dean et al), they are, in fact, using a euphemism for "surrender". The crucial point here is that withdrawl will not only embolden the death squads & terrorists in Iraq, but will also be perceived by them as surrender. So it's not a "blatant lie" as you suggest, but rather, completely accurate.

     Moron??

     Look, I'm glad you're a martial arts expert...or rather, an expert in martial arts games on Nintendo, or whatever. If you're frustrated at being incorrect -- well, sticks & stones...

     In the meantime, pfffffffffffffffffffffffftaaaaah. Smell that one?

     Beaufart

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/19/2006 @ 1:53pm

205. Is this what is meant by repub micro-target campaigning:

     AG: Voter warning linked to GOP campaign

     18 minutes ago

     SANTA ANA, Calif. - State investigators have linked a Republican campaign to letters sent to thousands of Orange County Hispanics warning them they could go to jail or be deported if they vote next month, a spokesman for the attorney general said.

     "We have identified where we believe the mailing list was obtained," said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

     He declined to identify the specific campaign, citing the ongoing investigation. The Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register both reported Thursday that the investigation appeared to be focused on the campaign of Tan D. Nguyen, a Republican who immigrated to the U.S. from Vietnam as a child and is now challenging Democratic U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (news, bio, voting record). Nguyen's Web site says he opposes illegal immigration.

     The letter, written in Spanish, tells recipients: "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."

     In fact, immigrants who are naturalized U.S. citizens can legally vote.

     It is illegal to threaten or intimidate voters, though, and the complaints about the letters that began surfacing this week prompted state and federal investigations.

     Barankin said investigators had been questioning people in Orange County.

     The two newspapers reported state investigators had found the location where the letters were printed and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. The Los Angeles Times, citing an unnamed source, said authorities had interviewed Nguyen at his office.

     Nguyen did not return messages left by The Associated Press or either newspaper.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2006 @ 1:54pm

206. All members of congress that voted for the Miltary Commissions act should be impeached. They can no longer call themselves Americans.

     Posted by dsavereide at 10/19/2006 @ 2:08pm

207. Please cite one example anywhere of any Democrat saying they advocate "surrender".

     "When Democrats advocate troop withdrawl (see Howard Dean et al), they are, in fact, using a euphemism for "surrender". The crucial point here is that withdrawl will not only embolden the death squads & terrorists in Iraq, but will also be perceived by them as surrender. So it's not a "blatant lie" as you suggest, but rather, completely accurate."

     Oh, now it's euphemisms. Yeah, okay.

     "Look, I'm glad you're a martial arts expert...or rather, an expert in martial arts games on Nintendo, or whatever. If you're frustrated at being incorrect -- well, sticks & stones..."

     Nintendo? Hardly. Try around fifteen years of the real thing. Expert? Hardly. I am, and always will be, a lifelong student.

     And if I recall right, you are the anonymous internet pussy who used an electronic device (your computer keyboard) to throw out a threat of violence because you couldn't handle debate. Something about the debate not stopping at words, if I recall right? Refresh my memory, tough guy.

     And incorrect? How am I incorrect?

     "In the meantime, pfffffffffffffffffffffffftaaaaah. Smell that one?"

     Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006 @ 1:53pm

     Adolescent humor. Imagine my surprise. You're quite the intellectual juggernaut.

     As I advised Richie above, I suggest that you also read the Constitution, then Google "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "abuse of power", then come back and explain exactly why talk of impeachment is traitorous.

     Moron.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 2:19pm

208. Here's a simple question for the Pro-Impeachment guys....

     Would you bet the house on it happening? Or the kids' college tuition?

     If "no", then there's no point in going on with this fantasy.

     if "yes"....well....Vegas will have a book on it after November 8th. Lay your money down or quit blowing smoke!

     (BTW, I bet Mr Nichols won't!)

     Posted by Mask at 10/19/2006 @ 2:27pm

209. Yet again, this was riveting last night... Everyone catch it?

     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

     • Special Comment: Beginning of the end Oct. 18: Keith Olbermann addresses the signing of the Military Commission Act into law in a special comment.

     The president of the United States -- unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality -- has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: the Democrats.

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

     We have lived as if in a trance.

     We have lived as people in fear.

     And now--our rights and our freedoms in peril--we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.

     Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.

     For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

     A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

     We have been here before--and we have been here before, led here--by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush...

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

     The rest is, as always, good stuff... "Enjoy".

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 2:29pm

210. Talk of impeachment is most certainly not traitorous... it is just ridiculous. I doubt the Dems could scrounge up the votes to impeach, let alone convict in the Senate.

     Best President... Reagan - my lifetime .... overall - Lincoln

     Worst President... Carter - my lifetime.... overall (tie) Jackson/Nixon

     Posted by John B at 10/19/2006 @ 2:54pm

211. moron, internet pussy

     Ah, the list of great putdowns continues. You must have a green belt in schoolyard insults. As for chest huffing about karate, I offer the following:

     Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world.

     As to your objections to my points on surrender, you haven't made your case. And as to your charges that we, as conservatives, have not read the Constitution, it may be helpful for you take a primer course in con law. A case against our president for "high crimes" is not a strict liability offense -- none of the requirements for a strong case are even close to being satisfied. In any case, you should leave false criminal charges to the Nation's resident expert, David Corn.

     Lastly, if I were a terrorist, I would take comfort and solace in reading your postings.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/19/2006 @ 2:55pm

212. some crackpot (what crackpots thought up impeachment - oh, yeah, THE FOUNDING FATHERS!), impeach the president scheme everytime we disagree with whomever is in office (there's a little document called the Constitution - written by the aforementioned crackpots - that actually thought that elected officials who were guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be held accountable whether it was an election year or not). If that were the case, I think there would have been a lot of presidents whom were impeached. (Exactly, which is why IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!)

     Posted by RICHIERICH68 10/19/2006 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person

     Why people post when they have not a freakin' clue about anything is beyond me.

     Posted by Turk33 at 10/19/2006 @ 2:58pm

213. ND... what is the obsession of so many on the site with an idiot like Olberman. He is a hack at best. Which is why his ratings suck so bad.

     Posted by John B at 10/19/2006 @ 3:01pm

214. oops... did not mean Jackson, meant Johnson above.

     Posted by John B at 10/19/2006 @ 3:02pm

215. B, reading Schlesinger's The Age of Jackson" and now just finishing "Jacksonian Democracy" by W MacDonald, volume 15 of a 27 volume set called "The American Nation, a History" I would submit that Jackson is an even more complex character than Nixon, but one who was never publicly disgraced, and one who struck many blows for democracy. both volumes are highly recommended, though the latter will be somewhat more difficult to locate. not if you use ABE, of course.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 3:04pm

216. I keep hearing about impeachment, but yet, has anyone illustrated any "high crimes or misdemeanors". Lets not forget, clinton was impeached because as chief law enforcement officer in the land, he deliberately lied to the executive branch of government....exactly what Martha Stewart went to jail for.

     As for impeaching Bush, I hopy they try. Nothing more I would love to hear that Bush saying, "if you decide to impeach me for doing everything possible to protect the american people, so be it".

     Just another example of how liberals are not willing to do everything possible to keep our children safe. Remember, nanci pelosi does not even this we are in a war against terror.

     Posted by lilvinnyb at 10/19/2006 @ 3:12pm

217. Bush saying, "if you decide to impeach me for doing everything illegal and unconstitutional possible to protect the american people, so be it".

     amen.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 3:14pm

218. Ever notice that liberals, who feel that most americans support their policies, have stopped calling themselves "liberal".....interesting that they hide from the label.

     Posted by lilvinnyb at 10/19/2006 @ 3:15pm

219. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/19/2006

     Thanks, I will check them out.

     Posted by John B at 10/19/2006 @ 3:15pm

220. Vinny, that is not true, quite the opposite. and the repubs are running away from Bush as much as possible.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 3:22pm

221. B, here is a quote from the second book I mentioned:

     "he was still the great champion of the masses against the classes, the great exponent of popular government."

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 3:24pm

222. Vinny, that is not true, quite the opposite. and the repubs are running away from Bush as much as possible.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/19/2006

     It would be so nice if ALL the politicians in DC would simply run away and forget to come back.

     Posted by John B at 10/19/2006 @ 3:37pm

223. The crucial point here is that withdrawl will not only embolden the death squads & terrorists in Iraq, but will also be perceived by them as surrender.

     Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006 @ 1:53pm

     Oh - this silly and simplistic argument again. Coming from someone who seems to support an administration that bases its foreign policy on who is "good" or "evil," I am not too shocked.

     So then . . . when Osama bin Laden orders attacks against the U.S. and cites as a principle reason our bases in Saudi Arabia . . . and the U.S. withdrew our troops from there in 2002 . . . did al Qaeda perceive THAT as surrender?

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2006 @ 4:01pm

224. oops... did not mean Jackson, meant Johnson above.

     now I see that.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 4:13pm

225. when Osama bin Laden orders attacks against the U.S. and cites as a principle reason our bases in Saudi Arabia . . . and the U.S. withdrew our troops from there in 2002 . . . did al Qaeda perceive THAT as surrender?

     They likely did view this action as a victory since U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia was one the items on their seemingly endless list of grievances.

     I think that our withdrawl from Saudi Arabia was motivated the U.S.'s need to be more selective about our allies. As we all know, Saudis were well-represented among the 9-11 hijackers.

     Who can say for sure? I am, however, nearly 100% certain that in the event of a withdrawl from Iraq or Afghanistan, you would see mobs of Islamic radicals cheering in the streets (witness the Palestinians on 9-11).

     Pffffffffft. Ahhhh.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/19/2006 @ 4:23pm

226. I think that our withdrawl from Saudi Arabia was motivated the U.S.'s need to be more selective about our allies.

     just the opposite actually. Saudi has a large radical islamic population. the withdrawal was to help Saudi by removing a bone of contention.

     hot air is all that comes from the above poster.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 4:27pm

227. moron, internet pussy

     Ah, the list of great putdowns continues. You must have a green belt in schoolyard insults. As for chest huffing about karate, I offer the following:

     Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world.

     As to your objections to my points on surrender, you haven't made your case. And as to your charges that we, as conservatives, have not read the Constitution, it may be helpful for you take a primer course in con law. A case against our president for "high crimes" is not a strict liability offense -- none of the requirements for a strong case are even close to being satisfied. In any case, you should leave false criminal charges to the Nation's resident expert, David Corn.

     Lastly, if I were a terrorist, I would take comfort and solace in reading your postings.

     Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006 @ 2:55pm

     Never taken "karate" in my life.

     I do find it amusing though, that guys like you come on here and puff up with physical threats when they haven't seen a fistfight since grade school, then downplay that they were the ones who brought up physical confrontations in the first place.

     Internet pussy.

     And I don't chest-huff. I take pride in something I have dedicated years of my life to. What have you dedicated fifteen years to in your life?

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

     I didn't "charge that [conservatives], have not read the Constitution", I charged that you haven't read or understood it.

     I didn't have a case to make - you did - you charged that Democrats advocate "surrender", then were unable to offer a single example of same.

     And if I recall correctly, I have never advocated anything regarding impeachment beyond that it is neither treasonous nor traitorous to discuss it.

     Lastly, if you were a terrorist, I wouldn't give a flying fuck what you took solace and comfort in.

     Moron.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 4:43pm

228. ND... what is the obsession of so many on the site with an idiot like Olberman. He is a hack at best. Which is why his ratings suck so bad.

     Posted by JOHN B 10/19/2006 @ 3:01pm

     Welcome back, John. Missed you, believe it or not.

     Personally, I listened to the special comments last night and saw the wisdom in them. Come to think of it, I have yet to hear Olbermann offer a special comments segment that wasn't dead-on.

     You're laying the contempt on pretty heavily. Tell me, what is it that he has said that makes him such a hack, and specifically, what in his special comments gives you that impression?

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 4:45pm

229. Ever notice that liberals, who feel that most americans support their policies, have stopped calling themselves "liberal".....interesting that they hide from the label.

     Posted by LILVINNYB 10/19/2006 @ 3:15pm

     I am an admitted, and proud, social liberal.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 4:46pm

230. Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006 @ 4:23pm

     Given that almost 80% of the Iraqis want us out of their country, there probably will be some cheers and glasses raised. But, apart from the "cheering" that would upset you, what is it exactly that the "Islamic radicals" are going to do then?

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2006 @ 4:56pm

231. KING GEORGE, HUMBLED, IMPEACHED AND IN JAIL WRITTEN BY ROSA S. SUAREZ!!!! THAT IS THE ONLY COMMENT AND SHOULD BECOME A BATTLE CRY! WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO SHOUT IT, SO MAYBE THE "BOUGHT" MEDIA MAY REPORT IT!!

     Posted by rosamsuarez at 10/19/2006 @ 5:02pm

232. Johannes, if you're out there...

     Sorry about the name-calling, pal, I know you hate that...

     But when one of my fellow Americans comes around calling his fellow Americans "treasonous" just for even talking about articles of impeachment, and implying that he would do something physical to change the minds of his fellow Americans because they had the unmitigated gall to dissent, well, I just see him as beneath my respect and worthy only of contempt.

     Hope you understand. ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 5:02pm

233. Friends: I truly believe that these folks have not only earned impeachment, but conviction, as well. But consider this, according to the presidential succession, if we got rid of George AND Dick, the next President would be Dennis Hastert. Let's wait 'til after the elections and see if we take control of the legislative branch. Let's make sure we have a decent replacement in the wings before we think about starting proceedings . . . but what the heck, i'm just gassin' here.

     Posted by libtom at 10/19/2006 @ 5:14pm

234. Red Dawn,

     Calm down. Everything will be ok. Your self-righteous ramblings are certain to get the nod from the cut `n run crowd. Just promise not to go all kung fu on us if the elections don't work out for you, ok? Save your anger for those stacks of boards and cinder blocks.

     Pfffffffft ah. That one was small, but smelly.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/19/2006 @ 5:14pm

235. Beau -

     "Calm down."

     Grow up.

     "Everything will be ok."

     As soon as you and your kind are out of the White House.

     "Your self-righteous ramblings are certain to get the nod from the cut `n run crowd."

     Don't know any "cut-and-run" crowd, though I do know that folks like you and yours clearly have trouble with concepts longer than a bumper sticker aphorism.

     "Just promise not to go all kung fu on us if the elections don't work out for you, ok?"

     Ridicule my dedication to an art all you like. You aren't hurting me anymore now than you did when you implied you were going to do a damned thing to anyone besides talk.

     "Save your anger for those stacks of boards and cinder blocks."

     Boards and cinder blocks are for building things. I don't take out my anger on boards or cinder blocks. But keep trying to find an insult in there somewhere.

     "Pfffffffft ah. That one was small, but smelly."

     Considering the source, I'd have expected nothing more than just that from you.

     Oh, and hey, sorry for exposing your bravado as bluster, your claims of "treason" as Constitutional ignorance, and your juvenile sense of humor as, well, juvenile.

     Moron.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 5:25pm

236. Internet pussy. And I don't chest-huff. I take pride in something I have dedicated years of my life to. What have you dedicated fifteen years to in your life?

     Um...internet pussy. I've dedicated the last 15 years to downloading internet pussy.

     By the way, yo mama needs to trim hers...

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/19/2006 @ 5:32pm

237. "yo mama"??

     Jesus Christ, dude, what are you, twelve? What is the point of arguing adult political thought with someone like you? That'll be enough of that for me.

     Some free advice for you, Beau:

     Come back when you grow up.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 5:37pm

238. And so it begins. Looks like Cheney is being set up to be replaced if the dems win that way if hsuB gets impeached they have a squeaky clean VP to take over:

     Judge orders Cheney visitor logs opened

     By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 19, 12:53 PM ET

     WASHINGTON - A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to release information about who visited Vice President Dick Cheney's office and personal residence, an order that could spark a late election season debate over lobbyists' White House access.

     The Washington Post asked for two years of White House visitor logs in June but the Secret Service refused to process the request. Government attorneys called it "a fishing expedition into the most sensitive details of the vice presidency."

     U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina ruled Wednesday that, by the end of next week, the Secret Service must produce the records or at least identity them and justify why they are being withheld.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2006 @ 5:38pm

239. Writes LIBTOM: "Friends: I truly believe that these folks have not only earned impeachment, but conviction, as well. But consider this, according to the presidential succession, if we got rid of George AND Dick, the next President would be Dennis Hastert. Let's wait 'til after the elections ..."

     I wear a button produced for Nichols earlier book, a biography of Cheney, that says "Impeach Cheney First." But there's no good or constitutional reason for beginning with any government official---except Congress members, who are constitutionally exempt for good reason. In my 1983 book, The End of Kings, I recommended regular impeachments of executive officers in hopes of reducing the tumor of the present presidency to manageable size. In these times, I'd recommend a few baby steps first. Start by impeaching Elliott Abrams (already convicted of lying to Congress) and Richard Addington. Proceed next to Rice and Gonzalez. Outflank Rumsfeld by depriving him of lackeys and former lackeys like Stephen Cambone and Douglas Feith. They are all unelected, and all impeachable. They don't go to jail on conviction; they suffer only the preeminently satisfactory penalty NEVER TO SERVE IN ANY OFFICE OF TRUST OR PROFIT UNDER THE UNITED STATES AGAIN. -W Everdell

     Posted by weverdell at 10/19/2006 @ 5:39pm

240. New Dawn -

     Don't waste your time with that guy. He pulls his foreign policy analysis from the same place he seems to be leaking air.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2006 @ 5:50pm

241. Hman -

     ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 6:04pm

242. ignore the dumb mofu, and presto, that nasty smell is gone.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 6:05pm

243. It's probably best wait on impeachment until after the election and hammer the GOP/repubs where it hurts most frist:

     Iraq and the GOP Meltdown

     . . . Democrats now lead the named-congressional horserace by 13 points, a surge in support that takes the Democrats up to 54 percent of the vote and doubles their lead from two weeks ago. . . . Iraq is the main driver of the meltdown for the Republicans, underscoring Tom Friedman's commentary yesterday that we may be witnessing "the jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive." The electoral crash has been accompanied by a surge in anger over Iraq, reaching epic proportions: only a quarter of likely voters now have positive feelings about the war.

     http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/ analyses/Democracy_Corps_October_19_2006_Memo.pdf

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2006 @ 6:51pm

244. Do you have any idea what kind of backlash you'll be facing as liberals, if the House turns Democratic, votes to impeach Bush AND Cheney and then tries to install Nancy Pelosi as President of the United States?

     Do you have any conception of the amount of shit Fox News and talk radio and the alternative media would dump on top of you, if that happened? It would make Clinton's impeachment proceedings in the House and subsequent Senate trial look like a dress rehearsal.

     Do you have any idea how Wall Street would react to this? More Americans own stocks now (for the long term, in their 401Ks) than at in any other time in our history. I have a friend who owns a small construction company in Cleveland, and his sales are down thirty percent over last year. He's laying off like crazy, selling off trucks and praying that Wall Street, Congress or the voters don't do anything stupid in November. They're pretty nervous at the car lots and real estate offices, too.

     Finally, you shouldn't forget there's gonna be another census in 2010. At that time, it will become more important for any presidential candidate to carry North Carolina (one of the reddest of the red) than New Jersey (one of the bluest of the blue) in order to get those magical 270 Electoral votes. Texas and Florida will gain at least three Electoral votes each, taking them from various states in the Northeast where the professional population has been dwindling. Neither one of those states has gone blue in quite some time.

     This is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory, but I suppose a victory is better than none at all.

     Posted by datavg at 10/19/2006 @ 8:17pm

245. Posted by DATAVG 10/19/2006 @ 8:17pm

     so if you're friend is laying off like crazy under a hamster conservative administration, what makes you think he or anybody else is going to give a shit if chimpy is impeached...

     or what fox news has to say about it?

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2006 @ 9:03pm

246. Texas and Florida will gain at least three Electoral votes each, taking them from various states in the Northeast where the professional population has been dwindling. Neither one of those states has gone blue in quite some time.

     This is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory, but I suppose a victory is better than none at all.

     Posted by DATAVG 10/19/2006 @ 8:17pm

     Actually, the fact is that Florida went blue in 2000, but thanks to the Supreme Court GW got the electoral votes anyway.

     Not that I am crying over spilt milk - I just want you to get the facts straight...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2006 @ 9:59pm

247. DATAVG: Besides, who wants Pelosi as president? No one I know wants that. Your statement amounts to nothing more than a summation of far left speculation, not anything remotely plausible. Even if George W is impeached he won't be convicted in the Senate - so the worst case for him is nothing different than what happened to Clinton. He would be a lame duck anyway if we are presuming a Dem win of the Congress in November. And who cares, really, about removing a lame duck from office? Everyone will just wait around for '08 to see what the new direction of the country will be without the "divine guidance" from Bush's enchiladas....

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2006 @ 10:05pm

248. For the record, I think that the talk of imminent impeachment is just silly.

     For the record, I think that the idea of eventual impeachment is possible.

     For the record, I think that the idea of twenty ten-ton truckloads of Bush administration lies coming to light if there are ever real investigations into accountability or straight answers or transparent governance is an inevitability.

     The only question is "when"?

     Does anyone have any idea what kind of backlash the Bush misadministration players will face if Democrats/Republicans/Independents, set their sights on, oh, say, exposure of what Bush was up to in office, the same way that Chimpy's cabal enabled Chimpy to set his sights on, oh, say invading Iraq?

     Consider long and hard a long, slow drip towards exposure.

     Me, I don't even need an impeachment. I'm perfectly content to wait for history to definitively define Bush for the failure he has always been and that he is now, and that he will likely be to the grave. I'll tell my grandkids that I lived through (God willing) the worst President in American history and beyond.

     I'll wait as long as the Democrats/Republicans/Independents (almost a 70% Bush disapproval rating these days, kids) take to put Bush where he can no longer sign into law retroactive excuses for his misdeeds. I'll wait until he can no longer hide from investigations and hearings and exposure.

     I'll wait while another fifteen or twenty corrupt Republicans are exposed (and with luck, incarcerated). I actually think it's a piece of justice if they get nabbed in the private sector like any other average American. Just think, future Democratic administrations that find Bushies guilty (of anything they want) can snatch them, detain them, and waterboard the truth about their misdeeds out of them thanks to the laws this President would prefer to rule us by...

     But I digress (with almost feverish glee)... I beg your pardon.

     Data, in all seriousness, I've heard far more cohesive arguments for considering and (dare I say it) discussing Chimpy's eventual impeachment for abuse of power than I have ever heard for the invasion of Iraq (incidentally, another example of Bush's gross abuse of power).

     Dig it:

     The Democrats/Republicans/Independents can come into office promising this and that and the other thing, shamelessly playing to their base, shafting the disillusioned who are hoping they are the deliverers when they're really not...

     There's a distinct possibility that Nancy Pelosi can start with the legislative agenda that she and the Democrats have been touting as immediate goals should they take the House - maybe you've heard about it - "... to raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures (as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and yet to be fully implemented by the Bush administration), and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls".

     Maybe after that dust begins to settle (surely in months or even years, not weeks - unlike how long Bush thought it would take to subdue and absorb Iraq as just another Middle Eastern U.S. bitch)...

     Maybe after some legislative victories are obtained, and some relatively minor commissions and investigations have begun...

     The snowball may realistically begin rolling.

     At the risk of running with an already odd metaphor...

     I don't see talk of impeachment/exposure as a huge ball of snow waiting at the top of the hill to suddenly roll screaming down the mountain. That's improbable.

     I do see it as the inevitable progression of the tiny ball of fluff that started at the top of the hill five years ago and began slowly rolling when GDub was put into play as a serious player (he isn't, and never has been, worthy of his position - I wouldn't even hire him to manage my company, and you can bet the house on that).

     Seems to me that there's still plenty of snow for him and his to pick up yet before they crash to a stop at the bottom. I can wait.

     And if the Democrats do take the House (and possibly the Senate, though the conventional wisdom I've been reading seems to doubt it), I really don't think it signals an earth-shattering shift in American politics, or imminent impeachment hearings. But they'd be worth the wait, you betcha.

     I find the argument that the Democrats might be so focused on fighting the outgoing Chimp that they will forget the incoming (and infinitely nebulous) terrorists simply ludicrous. Every government ever has multitasked. No administration spends every bureacratic dollar and minute on any one issue. To argue that Democrats cannot pursue Bush misdeeds and terrorism and responsible foreign policy and their other stated goals just doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. Sorry.

     And I believe a change in the House (and the Senate, God willing -wink, wink), a rinsing out of corruption and avarice and lust for personal power on all sides of the aisle is a fine start on a better snowball.

     Five years I've watched this show. And there's very little arguing with me that GWB is the worst president of the last 36 years (my lifetime), bar none, and possibly the worst in history.

     And get this: this swaggering, spoiled fratboy bully isn't even done pissing his name in the snow yet.

     Posted by New Dawn at 10/19/2006 @ 10:15pm

249. I find the argument that the Democrats might be so focused on fighting the outgoing Chimp that they will forget the incoming (and infinitely nebulous) terrorists simply ludicrous. Every government ever has multitasked. No administration spends every bureacratic dollar and minute on any one issue. To argue that Democrats cannot pursue Bush misdeeds and terrorism and responsible foreign policy and their other stated goals just doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. Sorry.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 10/19/2006 @ 10:15pm

     You have to remember where the charge is coming from... the hamsters. It seems they were incapable of defending the country (9-11 terrorists infiltrated our country) and supporting the military (two divisions reported not ready for duty sir) while they were witch hunting my favorite president, because it was all Monika, all the time.

     And because the hamsters are incapable of understanding any concept outside of their own limited abilities, they feel compelled to project their own mindless minutia onto the rest of us.

     Liberals are more than capable of providing oversight and demanding accountability while professionally and competently managing the country.

     Apparently the people have forgotten this. Perhaps this November will provide us two years to demonstrate these things once again.

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2006 @ 11:02pm

250. hsuB would stump for Foley at the drop of a hat too if he could:

     Bush Stumps For Candidates In Peril

     Campaigns For Republican Candidates Once Thought Safe

     LA PLUME, Pa., Oct. 19, 2006

     (AP) President Bush campaigned Thursday for a congressman who has confessed to adultery and a senator accused of racial insensitivity, seeking to boost incumbent Republicans once safe for re-election but now in peril.

     Bush's appearances for Rep. Don Sherwood here and for Sen. George Allen in Richmond, Va., found the White House on the defensive over the decision to try to help candidates in such straits as the GOP struggles to keep control of Congress.

     "I think the president understands that it's important to set high standards," said spokesman Tony Snow.

     XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

     The guy needs to be impeached, he just can't stop himself from promoting evil and all that is unholy. He needs an intervention bad. Come this November everyone needs to help hsuB out by disenabling him away from his weaknesses and criminal tendencies. After all-- it's for it's for the best. I'm so tired of the worst.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2006 @ 11:56pm

251. Posted by WILL C. 10/19/2006 @ 11:02pm

     Jay Leno just summed up the November elections nicely..."it's not an election so much as an intervention..."

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/20/2006 @ 12:00am

252. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/19/2006 @ 11:56pm

     But would he bend over backwards for him?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/20/2006 @ 12:01am

253. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 10/20/2006 @ 12:01am

     Ya never know, hsuB has been know to give a rather ackward massage; the sauna is optional...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2006 @ 12:55am

254. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 10/20/2006 @ 12:00am

     So Leno is stole my line again! It takes me months to come up with something halfway desent and poof, gone in just a couple of minutes...bah humbug.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2006 @ 12:58am

255. JPOLSTON : YOU ARE SO RIGHT ON TARGET AND I AM BEHIND EVERY WORD YOU SAID :NOT ONLY THAT ,I AM 72 ,A VETERAN 1952-1956 USNAVY ,BUT I THOUGHT WHEN WE GOT RID OF NIXON,REAGAN ./BUSH/ AND BUSH AGAIN ,WE WOULD BE LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD;BUT PEOPLE (A_HOLES) LIKE KUDLOW ,SCREAMING CREAMER AND ALL OF CNBC ,CAVUTO AND ALL HIS BACKWARD CHUMPS ON FOX ,AND ALL THE FINANCE WORLD TODAY ARE ACTING LIKE HERBERT HOOVERS GANG IN 1929 (DEPRESSED YET) WHEN THE BROKERAGE HOUSES TRIPLED ,AS HE TRIED TO SELL JOE Q. PUBLIC THAT STOCKS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO RICHES AND 2 CARS IN EVERY GARAGE ,WELL BY 1941 SOME SENSE OF DECENCY CAME BACK TO AMRICANS BUT THAY SEEM TO HAVE LOST THEIR WAYS AGAIN WITH CRIMINALLY INSANE gwb ... JOE BELL 2 ELLIS ST WOBURN MA 01801 781-932-1640 BELLJP@RCN.COM

     Posted by abell at 10/20/2006 @ 07:15am

256. BEAU rouses himself from a 5 year coma -- hence, he does not realize that The Establishment itself is in the process of decisively turning against Bush's abysmal VanityWarFailure -- and he quickly goes into "'round the campfire with a full tank of baked beans" mode:

     Your self-righteous ramblings are certain to get the nod from the cut `n run crowd.

     What are the Moonies going to say when Bushite James Baker's full report perscribes some form of ... "cutting and running"?

     Well, just recall how the brainwashed responded to policy changes in 1984.

     Expect to hear the Moonies rant and rave that this exit plan was, umm, part of the NeoCon design all along and that (tetter tetter) Bush had always wanted to exit Iraq but the (giggle ... chortle (can't keep a straight face here)) but the mean and all-powerful congressional Dem minority + K.Olberman wouldn't let (TWACK TWACK TWACK ((sound of knee percusively slapped)) they (TWACK) wouldn't por wittle CharlieBrownGeorgiePoohPoohInHisPantiesBush leave his sandbox quagmire (guufff FFFFFFAWWW).

     Pfffffffft ah. That one was small, but smelly. Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/19/2006

     However unwittingly (like 1984's Parsons mumbling in his sleep) here is one anally expulsive NeoConClown who knows from where his "political" "views" emanate, with a whiff of commentary to stress their fecal qualities ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/20/2006 @ 08:22am

257. Posted by GLENN LEMON 10/20/2006 @ 08:22am

     re: Beausoiled himself I suppose when one is an ass, the default reaction leans towards their native proclivities!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/20/2006 @ 10:12am

258. Pfffft aw yeah. That one's for you, little Glen. It left a skid mark too.

     If the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere need a morale booster, they can always read your postings.

     Kid, I've seen those arguments before. You just keep cheerleading for those terrorists. I'm sure our troops really appreciate it.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/20/2006 @ 10:31am

259. Hey there Beusoiled himself

     How's that Iraq thing going there Fartboy? and where's your sidekick Moron? I guess this feed of the AP wire says it all though:

     Shiite Militia Seizes Control of Iraq City

     Friday, October 20th, 2006 at 3:55am

     The Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized total control of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by one of the country's powerful, unofficial armies, witnesses and police said...

     The Mahdi Army fighters stormed three main police stations Friday morning, planting explosives that flattened the buildings, residents said.

     About 800 black-clad militiamen with Kalashnikov rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers were patrolling city streets in commandeered police vehicles, eyewitnesses said. Other fighters had set up roadblocks on routes into the city and sound trucks circulated telling residents to stay indoors.

     "major combat operations have ended" GWB on the deck of the USS Abe Lincoln in 2003

     Better go get some of them old red beans & rice. You might need to show your "super powers" again soon.

     Me...I'm gonna stand upwind while you squeeze cheese and simmer in your own reek with the rest of the corrupt and/or blissfully ignorant Neocon cheerleading squad. I hear Foly's looking for a few good men (well, boys anyway) just in case you need to change positions and 11/7.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/20/2006 @ 10:38am

260. Hey Lefty,

     Why all the homophobia? And the phobia of people with bladder issues? Besides, my farts smell sweeter than yo grandmama's queefs after I sugar-popped her.

     Sure, bud. You just keep cheering for those Shiite militias and lending moral support to Islamists who murder civilians and oppose democracy.

     You're a traitor to this nation.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 10/20/2006 @ 10:50am

261. BEAUSOILED's fingers move over the keyboard as programmed by the chip in his head:

     If the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere need a morale booster, they can always read your postings.

     It would be much easier to look out the windows at the occupying force, unhappily trapped in Bush's VanityWarFailure, for reasons that are too obvious to be explained (even for the like of FART GUY).

     My postings on the topic? They matter very little in the great scale pan. Unfortunetedly. But your efforts to "read" what someone in Iraq who is not reading this would think about if he was reading it says more about you than the non-existent reader whom you are psuedo mind-reading.

     Didn't follow that? Just pepper the air with another gasser and inhale the resultant haze ...

     Kid, I've seen those arguments before. You just keep cheerleading for those terrorists. I'm sure our troops really appreciate it.

     I don't pretend to speak for "the troops", nor is it my job, and they are perfectly capable of doing so themselves when the opportunity arises.

     But people who do work in the military and security industries have arrived at these conclusions which is where I saw them developed. But, since between bouts of spraying flatulent aromas, you claim to somehow know better than they do, I advise you to approach them. You tell Richard Dannett or the score of US agencies that have concluded that the invasion of Iraq has failed where US interests are concerned (to say nothing of the civilians of Iraq's interests; remmber them, The Liberated?). Or, when Baker's drippy report is fully released tell him how wrong her and his colleagues are -- TELL THEM! -- andthat you have all the proof that they missed. Anything stopping you, besides a needed series of diaper changes?

     The US will pull out of Iraq, by one schedule or another, because Bush's whole policy has failed in all of its ostensible goals. The Elites are already cashing it in. Your own corner is fleeing on this one. It's like you're still fighting the, umm (what is that quaint phrase), "War between the States".

     And, after the November elections when Bush climbs down on it, in which direction will you be loosing musty gas then? At the cutter/runner himself, perhaps?

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/20/2006 @ 11:13am

262. Posted by BEAUSOILED 10/20/2006 @ 10:50am

     1) Where do you find Homophobia in my post? Just pointing out some job options. Perhaps your rush to assumption says something repressed in YOUR character though?

     2) Who's cheering/supporting anyone....just relaying the news? I take it you CAN read right? The fact that you and your clueless leader can't wrap brain cells around a mistake is kinda pathetic for you, but approaching criminal for him. But that's OK....November's right around the corner and we're gonna sweep out the trash soon enough.

     3) If you are digging up long-dead grandmothers to screw, you are even worse than MOST Neocons. Of course, from one who glories in flatulence, I would expect no better. Too long in the bayou there do-do?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/20/2006 @ 11:44am

263. Are our dead trying to tell us something? It must not be only a national symbol of the repub GOP/MIC hsuB admin closeted skeletons coming back to haunt. Why are we fighting them there when we have such unfinished business at home per the incompetent and corrupt hsuB admin that allowed 9/11 to occur in the first place and then lied us into a war in Iraq and now occupation with yet another equivalent or greater unnecessary US death tol. How can anyone call themselves a repub with any dignaty again without being disengenuousl:

     Last Updated: Friday, 20 October 2006, 14:03 GMT 15:03 UK

     Anger as new 9/11 remains found

     Human remains - some as large as arm or leg bones - have been found at the site of the 11 September attacks in New York, AP news agency has reported.

     The remains were found in rubble excavated from a manhole near the site of the World Trade Center.

     VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

     The discovery comes just weeks after the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

     Earlier this year, construction workers in New York discovered 74 bone fragments from 9/11 victims. The remains were found mixed in with roofing material at the condemned Deutsche Bank building, which stands next to Ground Zero.

     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6070206.stm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2006 @ 11:52am

264. Impeach Rumsfeld first--for practice. Timid about that? Try Cambone or Gonzalez. Or Addington.

     Posted by weverdell at 10/20/2006 @ 5:51pm

265. While at the zoo not long ago, we were watching some fascinating social interaction among the gorillas. The big alpha silver back kept tormenting a young male...wouldn't let him near any of the females and kept driving him to the farthest reaches of the enclosure. Finally, isolated in a corner and virtually ignored, the young male began to repeatedly stick his fingers in his rear end, then pull them out and smell them. His way of reassuring himself of his own importance, I suppose.

     Reading the posts from Beausoiled reminded me anew of that sad, pathetic, ostracized young gorilla.

     Posted by Lillian at 10/21/2006 @ 03:02am

266. most amusing, Lillian

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2006 @ 10:02am

267. If its not too late in the thread, howazabout a little Neil Young's "Let's Impeach the President":

     Let's impeach the president for lying................................................................... .......... And leading our country into war..................................................................... .............. Abusing all the power that we gave him............................................................ ............. And shipping all our money out the door............................................................ ............

     He's the man who hired all the criminals............................................................... ......... The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors................................. ................. And bend the facts to fit with their new stories.................................................... ................ Of why we have to send our men to war............................................................. ............

     Let's impeach the president for spying.................................................................. . .......... On citizens inside their own homes................................................................... ..... .......... Breaking every law in the country................................................................. .......... .......... By tapping our computers and telephones.............................................................. ....

     What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees.................................................................. . .......... Would New Orleans have been safer that way........................................................ .......... Sheltered by our government's protection............................................................. .......... Or was someone just not home that day?............................................................. ..........

     Let's impeach the president............................................................... .... ........................ For hijacking our religion and using it to get elected.......................................... .. .......... Dividing our country into colors............................................................ ......................... And still leaving black people neglected....................................................... .... ...........

     Thank god he's cracking down on steroids................................................................ ... Since he sold his old baseball team............................................................... .......... There's lot of people looking at big trouble........................................................ .. .......... But of course the president is clean................................................................... ..........

     Thank God

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/22/2006 @ 7:40pm

268. THE ONLY LIARS ARE THE DEMOCRATS

     Many of the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam used by Democrats are illogical. Our brave soldiers are volunteers, and not largely draftees as in the Vietnam War. In his decision to invade Iraq, President Bush's only mistake (along with many well-known Democrats) was to trust incorrect intelligence reports that came from the Clinton administration. For example:

     "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton to Joint Chiefs of Staff, Feb. 17, 1998.

     "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 (Vice-President under Clinton - ran for President in the year 2000)

     "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (Massachusetts), Sept. 27, 2002.

     "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senator John F. Kerry (Massachusetts), Oct. 9, 2002.

     "He (Saddam Hussein) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members....Left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Senator Hillary Clinton (New York), Oct 10, 2002

     As you can see from the above, many Democrats have very short memories when it comes to the judgments of leaders in their own political party. President Clinton, rather than speaking out and telling the general public that misinformation on WMD came from his administration, chose to remain silent. His actions to date on this important issue are not only dishonorable, but cowardly.

     Vincent Bemowski - Writer (U.S. Politics & World Affairs & Veteran, U.S. Army)

     Menasha, WI

     Website: Catholic Messages USA [catholicmessagesusa.com]

     Posted by servant675 at 10/22/2006 @ 8:12pm

269. the fact that the dems were a cheering section does not hide the fact that Bush and Bush alone is responsible for the ACTIONS taken vis a vis Iraq. the rest is just bullshit.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/24/2006 @ 10:25am