Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney

posted by John Nichols on 03/07/2007 @ 07:36am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (87)

Subscribe Now

When Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican with reasonably close ties to President Bush, asked if there was any additional business to be considered at the town meeting he was running in Middlebury, Ellen McKay popped up and proposed the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The governor was not amused. As moderator of the annual meeting, he tried to suggest that the proposal to impeach -- along with another proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- could not be voted on.

But McKay, a program coordinator at Middlebury College, pressed her case. And it soon became evident that the crowd at the annual meeting shared her desire to hold the president to account.

So Douglas backed down.

"It became clear that no one was going home until they had the chance to discuss the resolutions and vote on them," explained David Rosenberg, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "And being a good politician, he allowed the vote to happen."

By an overwhelming voice vote, Middlebury called for impeachment.

So it has gone this week at town meetings across Vermont, most of which were held Tuesday.

Late Tuesday night, there were confirmed reports that 36 towns had backed impeachment resolutions, and the number was expected to rise.

In one town, Putney, the vote for impeachment was unanimous.

In addition to Governor Douglas's Middlebury, the town of Hartland, which is home to Congressman Peter Welch, backed impeachment. So, too, did Jericho, the home of Gaye Symington, the speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives.

Organizers of the grassroots drive to get town meetings to back impeachment resolutions hope that the overwhelming support the initiative has received will convince Welch to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. That's something the Democratic congressman is resisting, even though his predecessor, Bernie Sanders, signed on last year to a proposal by Michigan Congressman John Conyers to set up a House committee to look into impeachment.

Vermont activists also want their legislature to approve articles of impeachment and forward them to Congress. But Symington, also a Democrat, has discouraged the initiative, despite the fact that more than 20 representatives have cosponsored an impeachment resolution.

"It's going to be hard for Peter Welch and Gaye Symington to say there's no sentiment for impeachment, now that their own towns have voted for it," says Dan DeWalt, a Newfane, Vermont, town selectman who started the impeachment initiative last year in his town, and who now plans to launch a campaign to pressure Welch and Symington to respect and reflect the will of the people.

It is going to be even harder for Governor Douglas, who just this month spent two nights at the Bush White House, to face his president.

After all, Douglas now lives in a town that is on record in support of Bush's impeachment and trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.

For the record, Middlebury says:

We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.

The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.

The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:

1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.

When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.

George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office.

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

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (87)

Zero,

Surely you understand that Washington is a place where reality is grotesquely distorted like a black hole distorts the fabric of spacetime. Even The Nation's own David Corn has apparently seconded Nancy Pelosi's garish notion that "impeachment is off the table".

We'll see.

History has demonstrated, on too many occasions, that the unexpected has a way of bursting onto the scene like an apparition. The current situation seems more the opposite. Impeachment is overwhelmingly the appropriate denouement.

After all that's occurred in the last 6 years, hope for even a mild correction is pretty good news. I, for one, am deeply grateful for the efforts of everyone who's stood up for the principles of democracy and urge them all to keep pushing.

The momentum is bound to swing back in a positive direction.

Here's a bumper sticker slogan for the moment:

"How do we even begin to undo the damage done? The answer is only one.......Impeach the son."

Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/07/2007 @ 01:29am
And the below poll was before the conviction of senior hsuB/heney chief of staff Libby and all the hundreds of news articles about how hsuB/heney lied about the war intel and lied about not knowing about the leak--- when it was themselves doing the leaking for shear political cover for their lying their asses over the public good and our troops' safety. hsuB/heney lie and lie and lie and 'we the people' demand congress do their job and investigate all the hsuB/heney crimes, do oversight and impeach the lying criminal hsuB/heney scum before they kill, maim, steal, lie-- again.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 22-25, 2007. N=1,082 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Overall, do you feel that you can or cannot trust the Bush Administration to honestly and accurately report intelligence about possible threats from other countries?"

Date___________Can____Cannot___Unsure

2/22-25/07______35_______63_______2

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 01:39am
I salute the good people of Vermont. With a strong clear voice and with conviction in their hearts they did the right thing, they took the correct course, they acted as Americans should. The want their country back. Americans across the country should pay heed. You are not alone.

They are accountable. We won't let them get away with it.

Impeach Cheney First!

ITMFA

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone." James Madison

Posted by COProgressive at 03/07/2007 @ 02:18am
More polls have already shown that 'we the people' are ready to oust hsuB/heney. How much more ready will we be when the evidence starts to flow onto the media frenzy about how hsuB/heney cooked up lies that tricked us into believing that the war was necessary. All our dead and maimed soldiers, lives 'wasted', families destroyed, constitution trampled... all so hsuB/heney filthy rich base could turn a profit. They lost the whole world, as well as their own souls... Sad day that these men (?) disgrace the office they swore to not only constitutionally uphold but to improve upon-- lies and more lies. It is a great day when 'we the people' decide to 'fix' what is broken. It may appear to those broke it, that the fix and mending is excruciatingly painful-- it is very necessary and right. I say let justice march onward, step by step, inch by inch, slowly but suely.

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Jan. 24-25, 2007. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In general, do you think George W. Bush will have enough support over the next two years to make a difference in getting things done in Washington, or not?"

Date_________Will____Will Not___Unsure

1/24-25/07____21_______71_______8

"Do you think President Bush's decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by the facts or more by his personal beliefs, regardless of the facts?"

Date___________Facts____Personal Beliefs____Unsure

1/24-25/07_______22__________67___________11

"At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?"

Date________Wish It Was Over___Don't Feel This Way___Unsure

1/24-25/07_________58________________37____________5

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 02:21am
yay - if congress wont wield the big stick, let the schmuks wave it around some.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2007 @ 06:59am
I'm rooting for the blood clot! Rink

Posted by rrink at 03/07/2007 @ 07:04am
Even The Nation's own David Corn has apparently seconded Nancy Pelosi's garish notion that "impeachment is off the table".

Posted by B_KOOL_66 03/07/2007 @ 01:29am

Hmmm....where have I heard that before?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 07:17am
Now this is cool:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/docs/libby/?p=1

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 09:25am
Hmmm....where have I heard that before?!?!?

Posted by MASK 03/07/2007 @ 07:17am

The Corn 'plug' again!

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 09:25am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/07/2007 @ 09:25am

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/08/impeachment_at_our_peril.php

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 09:48am
Even The Nation's own David Corn has apparently seconded Nancy Pelosi's garish notion that "impeachment is off the table". Posted by MASK

The Nation isn't Pravada, the American Spectator, the Volkischer Beobachter...

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 10:02am
Uh, MTSPENCE.....B KOOL 66 posted that specific statement, not me.

Although it's interesting that Mr Corn, one of the editors here, has graciously refused to post any articles HERE on why he doesn't favor impeachment...likely to not embaress his colleague John Nichols who makes it his mainstay.

And to not set up an even BIGGER uproar than he did at tompaine.com or on his own site www.davidcorn.com.

And of course Mr Nichols has never commented DIRECTLY on his friend David Corn's opposition to impeachment.

So maybe they ARE trying to "walk in lock step like those robotic conservatives"....by just not bringing it up here!

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 10:37am
BTW, noticed RESE asked what "spam" was (since he gets accused of doing it so often and he's not up on the young folks and their wacky slang)

"spam" (plural spams)

(uncountable noun) A collection of unsolicited bulk electronic messages. I get far too much spam.

(countable noun) An unsolicited electronic message sent in bulk, e.g. by email or newsgroups.

I received 58 spams yesterday.

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 10:38am
That most politicians are gutless wonders who only care about being re elected is hardly new information.They count on elections being a lesser of two evils choice and figure that if they don't do anything drastic that they'll get re elected and,quite often,they're correct.Bush and the GOP have never had a plan to win in Iraq because they were afraid that such a plan would cost them the next election.It's why the GOP never does anything about the abortion issue and it's why the Democrats will do next to nothing.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 10:42am
Uh, MTSPENCE.....B KOOL 66 posted that specific statement, not me.

I wasn't paying close attention. But have you not remarked more than once in the past that these people need to read what the others are writing?

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 10:44am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 10:44am

Yes, and I elaborated on that further in my response to you here (Posted by MASK 03/07/2007 @ 10:37am)...postulating that perhaps out of "politeness" Mr Corn does NOT post his opposition here at "The Nation" so as to not get into an internecine fight with John Nichols.

SO...is that "marching in lock-step" or just being gracious to a colleague? (No doubt that depends on which side of the political spectrum you fall towards).

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 11:27am
Posted by MASK 03/07/2007 @ 11:27am

who made david corn the sole arbiter of what we can and can't discuss? is he some kind of superhero? an old testament prophet?

Posted by katamantulo at 03/07/2007 @ 1:07pm
who made david corn the sole arbiter of what we can and can't discuss?

Posted by KATAMANTULO 03/07/2007 @ 1:07pm

Who said that?

All that is noted is that one of THE top editors of "The Nation" magazine has spoken and written in OPPOSITION to an impeachment move against Bush and Cheney....

and the coincidental fact that he did so OUTSIDE of his forum on "The Nation"...but has on other websites and on Air America Radio....

and the coincidental fact that his colleague John Nichols has made a point of consistantly bringing up and supporting the subject of impeachment....

and how it's not "marching in lock-step" like those robotic conservative magazines and media if....you're merely "omitting" certain things you believe in order to not disagree with a colleague publicly. After all, "progressives" LOVE the free exchange of ideas and differing views...as long as it's not actually done in a way that's visible, might embaress each other, or let the Other Side know you're fighting amongst yourselves.

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 2:14pm
Unfortunately, it may take the threat of recall elections to convince members of Congress to initiate the impeachment process. Today's Democrats, for the most part, are cowards who are more concerned with the politics of playing it safe.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/07/2007 @ 2:42pm
MASK, you keep harping about David Corn as if his opinion is somehow the only one that matters at The Nation. The fact is that more Americans than not support and demand impeachment of Bush and Cheney. To continue using Corn's misguided position against impeachment as a crutch for your arguement is foolish. Democrats now have real power, and the only way they can exercise it is to impeach the Shrub and gargoyle. Why not just admit that you think the dictators of thid country are above the law, MASK? At least you'd be more honest than you're being now.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/07/2007 @ 2:53pm
Why not just admit that you think the dictators of thid country are above the law, MASK? Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/07/2007 @ 2:53pm

if you've read his other posts, you know he's opposed to continuing the war in iraq, opposed to the military commissions act, and he's voted for the democratic candidates in the previous two presidential elections. so the above characterization of his views is neither accurate nor fair.

a lot of times his posts make a lot of sense, even if he's the wrong messenger with the right message.

this david corn thing seems a tempest in a teapot, however. i think it's more interesting to talk about how the town meetings in vermont re impeachment might mean our democracy isn't on life support after all. but that's me.

Posted by katamantulo at 03/07/2007 @ 3:12pm
well it is about time someone has the balls to start talking about impeaching Bush and Cheney

Posted by clay1106 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:13pm
Posted by CLAY1106 03/07/2007 @ 3:13pm

with the prez's approval ratings at 30%, i would think the national dems would smell blood in the water.

Posted by katamantulo at 03/07/2007 @ 3:16pm
I suggest Cheney should go first as he is the brains of the outfit.......people often do not understand the simplicity of this....please read the following 20 questions:

1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office by impeachment?

A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50% plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to convict.

2. Q: Why is it so simple?

A: Because ejecting a person from high office is political, not judicial. The only punishment to be meted out is removal from office.

3. Q: What is an impeachable offense?

A: An impeachable offense can be as nebulous as "He practices cronyism." We can call this a misdemeanor. According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 4, "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." President Gerald Ford was correct when he said in 1970 that, "An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in its history."

4. Q: Is there any good argument against impeaching a vice president based on the notion that the person of greater authority – the president - should take responsibility for whatever happens in his administration?

A: No, none whatsoever.

5. Q: Would the Senate have to provide such things as reasonable time for the defense to prepare its case, and a close scrutinizing of evidence? A: No. The Senate is procedurally bound only by the rules it makes for itself. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 5 (2), says, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings."

6. Q: Doesn't the accused have rights? Where are the wheels of justice here?

A: Justice does not come into it. Think of it this way: If a congresswoman has done a fabulous job for two years, but fails to win reelection, does she have any redress? Of course not. She holds office at the pleasure of the voters, and they indicate their pleasure every two years. A president takes office at the pleasure of the voters, but he holds onto office at the pleasure of Congress. At any time in our history, Congress could have ejected a president or a vice president.

7. Q: Has this ever happened?

A: Congress has never impeached a vice president, but it impeached two presidents – Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. In both cases, the Senate subsequently failed to convict. Many people mistakenly believe that Richard Nixon, too, was impeached. The House Judiciary Committee had voted three Articles of Impeachment against him, but the matter was never put to the full House for a vote because Mr. Nixon promptly resigned.

8. Q: What does an impeachment trial look like? A: It is held in the Senate Chamber and looks like a normal Senate session, except that all Senators are sworn in as jurors. Article I, Section 3 (6) of the Constitution says, "When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation." The man of the hour may attend or send someone to represent him. He can plead guilty or refute the charges. Each Senator must stand at her place and pronounce her judgment as ‘guilty' or ‘not guilty.' The Constitution requires that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court come over to the Senate Chamber to preside when a president is being impeached. In 1986, the Senate extended this to cover vice presidents.

9. Q: Is it easy to eject a vice president with whom the people are dissatisfied?

A: Yes, it's a snap. It takes only one House member to propose impeachment. Then, 219 out of the 435 members must agree, if all are present and voting (fewer, if some are absent from the House or abstain from voting). So your question boils down to: Are there 219 House members willing to vote to impeach? The answer is "Yes, if they feel that it is in their interest" - whatever way they may calculate that interest. Part of their calculation may be to look ahead and see if 67 Senators would be willing to convict the vice president.

10. Q: The number sixty-seven seems very high. Would it ever be possible to get that many votes?

A: It is possible to get the full 100 Senate votes if all you are asking about is ‘possibility'. In reality, during President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial in 1867, only a single vote in the Senate spared him from conviction (since there were fewer states then, the two-thirds majority was smaller than 67). At Clinton's trial, the vote on one of his two Articles of Impeachment was 55-45. On the second one, it was 50-50.

11. Q: Regarding the current vice president, Richard Cheney, are we precluded from impeaching during the time that his former assistant, Mr. Lewis Libby, is facing prosecution for alleged crimes? A: No. There is no reason to hold back - the Libby case may take years. However, persons wishing to take care not to prejudice Mr. Libby's trial may wisely urge that any impeachable offense brought forward against the vice president be of a type pertaining specifically to him.

12. Q: Could the president offer a pardon to thwart the process of impeachment?

A: No. The Constitution puts only one restriction on the president's power to pardon, namely it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.

13. Q: Does this mean that if by any chance Mr. Cheney has committed a crime he can never enjoy a pardon?

A: No, it does not mean that. President Bush, or a later president, could pardon Mr. Cheney. The president is prevented only from interfering in the process of impeachment.

14. Q: Could Mr. Cheney seek a presidential pardon right now?

A: Yes. Indeed, for all we know, the current president may be holding a batch of signed (and witnessed) pardons in his desk at this very moment.

15. Q: Is is possible that President Bush could pardon a person's crime in advance of the person being convicted of any crime?

A: Yes. The elder President Bush (president from 1989 to 1993) issued a pardon a few weeks before he left office, for Caspar Weinberger, who at that point had not been convicted of anything. Quite possibly his motive was to avoid being subpoenaed as a witness at Weinberger's trial. As a witness, Bush could be cross-examined and his own dealings in the Iran-Contra affair could have been revealed.

16. Q: Did the president dishonor the Constitution by doing that?

A: No. He played the Constitution for all it is worth. That is what the Constitution is for. It is not an idealistic statement; it is a scheme for allocating power and controlling power by checks and balances. The Founding Fathers put many restraints on the president but gave him his head when it came to pardons. They probably wanted the president to have bargaining chips that he could use in difficult or dangerous circumstances.

17. Q: Strategically, from the viewpoint of the current vice-president, what would be the best move to make if rumors of impeachment start to swirl? A: Presuming that Mr. Cheney would hate to lose the position of immense power that he now occupies, his options would be a) to hasten to correct any offending behaviors, or b) to try to get the president ejected from office, in which case he himself would immediately become president.

18. Q: When a vice president leaves office before his term is up, how is he replaced?

A: If a vice president dies, resigns, or is impeached, the president can nominate any American-born citizen, age 35 or older. That nomination must then be confirmed by a majority in both Houses of Congress before the person can be sworn in as the new vice president.

19. Q: How can a citizen start impeachment activity?

A: By ‘talking it up,' by seeking publicity for the idea, and by persuading a Congressperson to propose it. To support the State of Vermont and encourage other States to take up action. NOW! Since 2001 when President George W. Bush took office, there have been numerous public calls for his impeachment and some of these extend their proposal to include the impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. One proposal that names all of those persons is sponsored by Ramsey Clark, who was Attorney General in the 1960s. So far, 607,000 citizens have signed his petition. Number 16 in Clark's list of complaints sounds particularly relevant to the vice president, namely "refusal to provide information and records [needed for] legislative oversight of executive functions."

20. Q: Is Mr. Cheney currently threatened with any prosecutions?

A: The case of Rodriguez v. Bush, names Bush, Cheney, and several others as defendants in a RICO suit. This is not a criminal prosecution, but is a civil suit that asks for criminal penalties, if appropriate. ‘RICO' stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. A judge recently transferred this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York because it accuses the government of crimes related to September 11th and the U.S. Attorney has decided to coordinate numerous September 11th cases at that court. The mainstream media never mentions the Rodriguez v. Bush case, but it is available on the Internet.

Posted by eurojer at 03/07/2007 @ 3:27pm
who becomes president if both the prez and the vice prez are impeached and removed from office?

Posted by katamantulo at 03/07/2007 @ 3:33pm
"The fact is that more Americans than not support and demand impeachment of Bush and Cheney."

---OH, show me the poll that says THAT...specifically?

"Why not just admit that you think the dictators of thid country are above the law, MASK? At least you'd be more honest than you're being now."

---If I said EXACTLY what David Corn was saying, would you apply that standard to him? Or is it that you know I'm not a liberal, ergo you get to jump to the ad hominem attack?

You're the dishonest one. Corn says impeachment is a bad idea...well, he's a progressive, so he's "just wrong". I SAY impeachment is a bad idea and I support dictators.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/07/2007 @ 2:53pm

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/07/2007 @ 2:53pm

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 3:55pm
Posted by KATAMANTULO 03/07/2007 @ 3:33pm

Speaker Nancy....theoretically. But unlikely in practice.

Any of the following could trigger a trip to the JOHN ROBERTS US Supreme Court under the 25th Amendment and 1947 Line of Succession Act....

1. The House issuing simultaneous bills of impeachment against Bush and Cheney.

2. The Senate TRYING simultaneously Bush and Cheney and/or removing both from office simultaneously.

3. Failure to allow Bush to name a successor if Cheney was impeached....or failure to allow "President Cheney" to name a successor if Bush was impeached first.

Any of the three get over-rulled by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and ONE other Justice....Bush or Cheney get to name a Veep and that Veep becomes President...

and gets to issue pardons of whoever he OR SHE wishes.

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 4:03pm
Far be it from me to correct a few deadbeat losers from Vermont, but do you really think anyone in the rest ot the nation gives two flying donut holes what all 38 of you think. LMAO.

Posted by dwitt at 03/07/2007 @ 4:55pm
Posted by MASK (TM) 03/07/2007 @ 09:48am

"They should investigate the Bush administration on many fronts, including how Bush misrepresented the prewar intelligence and how he bungled the war, as well as Bush's expansive claims of executive power and how he has put such imperial thinking into practice (wiretaps, detentions, etc.). Perhaps such investigations will produce information or a showdown (say, the White House refusing to turn over information to Congress) that would strengthen the legal and political cases for impeachment. But in order to create a lasting and positive relationship with the electorate, Democrats must deliver legislatively and produce significant bills that connect with the concerns of Americans. That's job No. 1." Corn

See, I said that a while back-- but without the 'but'. I said a dem congress can and will do both. The defining mark will be defining markS. Good leg and oversight= impeachment. Plus putting good leg before oversight and thus impeachment does not negate nor oppose impeachment simply prioritizes in which order. Now that some leg has been put forward witness the battle for doc's and supeanas. Steps, one right after the other.

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 6:42pm
"At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?"

Date________Wish It Was Over___Don't Feel This Way___Unsure

1/24-25/07_________58________________37____________5

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 6:44pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/07/2007 @ 6:44pm

Where's the "We want him impeached" poll?...stated just like that???

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 7:05pm
Mask (tm),

Remember these are pre-supeanas:

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 7:09pm
Where's the "We want him impeached" poll?...stated just like that???

Posted by MASK (TM) 03/07/2007 @ 7:05pm

However if you want them stated just like that-- 'you' need to pay a poll to set it up 'that way'. However they may argue with you about putting a question mark at the end of the poll title.

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 7:15pm
Impeachment of Bush will remain limited to the hardcore leftist extremists who visit sites like this one or live in weird places like Vermont.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/07/2007 @ 7:09pm

LYLiberty at the expence of others#1,

It's a majority of the population in some polls that want hsuB/heney out/gone/impeached, and it'll be a majority in most polls once the supeanas publish the facts showing hsuB/heney lied to all of us US citizens about mostly everything. He might not want to wait to be impeached or fired...

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 7:21pm
67 dummies in one place...

Posted by jay701 at 03/07/2007 @ 8:12pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/07/2007 @ 7:15pm

HSUB....if you had it, you'd cut and paste it TWELVE TIMES A DAY....put RESE to shame.

But you don't. For all your "impeachment talk", why not ONE specific, clarified "The people want Bush/Cheney impeached" poll?

And its non-existance and therefore the reason it's not sitting in front of Pelosi's desk right now...

is the reason it's not going to happen.

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 9:00pm
or live in weird places like Vermont.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/07/2007 @ 7:09pm

But . . . Nebraska banned gay marriage, right?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 9:44pm
who becomes president if both the prez and the vice prez are impeached and removed from office?

Posted by KATAMANTULO 03/07/2007 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person

did you just fall off the pumpkin truck? Pelosi

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/07/2007 @ 10:22pm
I just did a Search of the archives here at "The Nation" and a question pops up....

something like NINETY PERCENT of the stories about impeaching Bush and Cheney come from.....John Nichols.

a smatter of Elizabeth Holtzmann, but not much (in fact COUNTERED by Sanford Levinson against...as well as David Corn, but not here).

So....given the "ground-swell" for it...

Where's Katrina vanden Heuvel on the issue?

Where's Ari Berman?....Peter Rothberg?...Liza Featherstone?...William Grieder?....Max Blumenthal?...Richard Kim?....Helena Cobban?

Why is THE primary (almost exclusive) person at "The Nation" promoting this "gaining popularity" move to oust Bush and Cheney....

the ONLY guy who...just happens...to have a book about it?!?!?!!??!

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 10:32pm
there is one fact that remains unimpeachable

scoota... is gonna take it in the poopa

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:48pm
but it won't save scoota

(who's gonna take it in the poopa)

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 11:02pm
I think its obvious that Vermonts state motto needs to be changed to "First to surrender" who knew the French population was so large in Vermont.

Posted by BIGIRON at 03/08/2007 @ 12:03am
HSUB....if you had it, you'd cut and paste it TWELVE TIMES A DAY....put RESE to shame.

Posted by MASK (TM) 03/07/2007 @ 9:00pm

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

You asked, I provided, then you go blind ? So unless there's a poll that says 'by' Mask (tm), it's no good... Oops, I forgot your condomness is just a natural tendency....

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/08/2007 @ 01:15am
THROW THE BUMS OUT!

Posted by feijiefu at 03/08/2007 @ 02:26am
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/08/2007 @ 01:15am

Here I was looking for...Gallup....Harris....Quinnipiac...Pew Center...Rasmussen...

while the whole time, the un-biased and accurate poll was taken by...

www.democrats.com!

(slaps head) Gosh!

Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 07:08am
Only in Ver-vomit would Cindy Shenanigans and Mr. Shiney Nichols find love and adoration with their wacko agendas among the tinfoil hatters. There is such a thing as being to close to Canada!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/07/2007 @ 9:43pm | ignore this person

Have you ever met someone who wore a tinfoil hat, Arby?

I have.

She was far better grounded in reality than you are, ace.

Posted by skeletonman at 03/08/2007 @ 07:29am
if you've read his other posts, you know he's opposed to continuing the war in iraq, opposed to the military commissions act, and he's voted for the democratic candidates in the previous two presidential elections. so the above characterization of his views is neither accurate nor fair.

And yet he seems awfully quick to denounce anyone who thinks impeachment is a good idea, despite -- or perhaps in spite of -- his supposed opposition to the war in Iraq and the MCA (which itself appears to be dubious).

"The fact is that more Americans than not support and demand impeachment of Bush and Cheney."

---OH, show me the poll that says THAT...specifically?

"Why not just admit that you think the dictators of thid country are above the law, MASK? At least you'd be more honest than you're being now."

---If I said EXACTLY what David Corn was saying, would you apply that standard to him? Or is it that you know I'm not a liberal, ergo you get to jump to the ad hominem attack?

You're the dishonest one. Corn says impeachment is a bad idea...well, he's a progressive, so he's "just wrong". I SAY impeachment is a bad idea and I support dictators.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/07/2007 @ 2:53pm

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/07/2007 @ 2:53pm

Posted by MASK 03/07/2007 @ 3:55pm

You want to know which polls show the majority of Americans support impeachment? Do a Google search, like I did. Interesting results:

Link 1 [democrats.com]

Link 2 [democrats.com]

From the second link:

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

And from the first link:

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

And that's not all. According to the first page linked to, "Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans."

So try doing some actual research, MASK. You might learn something. As for David Corn, he is a man with an honest opinion -- albeit a misguided one. Your opinion is dishonest. You keep using Corn's opposition as the basis for your opposition to holding criminals to account for their crimes. But you completely fail to go into why you agree with Corn's argument, or even state what it is. Not everyone has the time or inclination to go hunting for his piece, but if you want to present your opinion honestly, try stating clearly why you think impeachment is a bad idea. Not why David Corn thinks it's a bad idea, why YOU, MASK, think it's a bad idea. You keep using Corn's opinion as a crutch, a way of saying that if he thinks impeachment is a bad idea everyone should. That is dishonest. Nichols and others have made very good arguments for why NOT impeaching Bush and Cheney is a bad idea. And I myself have gone into detail for why the excuses given for not impeaching these two don't hold water.

All your arguments, MASK, lead a reasonable person to conclude that you think the dictators now occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are above the law. If you don't like that, then perhaps you ought to consider why a reasonable person might draw that conclusion.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/08/2007 @ 07:53am
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/08/2007 @ 07:53am | ignore this person

getting Mask to take an unequivocal principled stand is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2007 @ 08:12am
(slaps head) Gosh!

Posted by MASK 03/08/2007 @ 07:08am

Today's headlines: Mask Bitch Slaps Self

Earlier this week: Scoota... Is Gonna Take It In The Poopa

(this week is shaping up quite nicely)

Posted by Will C. at 03/08/2007 @ 08:35am
and tomorrow is friday

Posted by Will C. at 03/08/2007 @ 08:35am
Posted by MASK (TM) 03/08/2007 @ 07:08am

You make a very thinly veiled cover with lots of holes your condomness. As Will states it, you can't help Scooter even...

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/08/2007 @ 08:36am
And as I stated before, Corn argues the priority not the absolute negation of impeachment as does Mask (tm):

Posted by MASK (TM) 03/07/2007 @ 09:48am

"They should investigate the Bush administration on many fronts, including how Bush misrepresented the prewar intelligence and how he bungled the war, as well as Bush's expansive claims of executive power and how he has put such imperial thinking into practice (wiretaps, detentions, etc.). Perhaps such investigations will produce information or a showdown (say, the White House refusing to turn over information to Congress) that would strengthen the legal and political cases for impeachment. But in order to create a lasting and positive relationship with the electorate, Democrats must deliver legislatively and produce significant bills that connect with the concerns of Americans. That's job No. 1." Corn

See, I said that a while back-- but without the 'but'. I said a dem congress can and will do both. The defining mark will be defining markS. Good leg and oversight= impeachment. Plus putting good leg before oversight and thus impeachment does not negate nor oppose impeachment simply prioritizes in which order. Now that some leg has been put forward witness the battle for doc's and supeanas. Steps, one right after the other.

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/07/2007 @ 6:42pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/08/2007 @ 08:47am
amazing, how Tories are willing to slime an entire state. they slime their way onto the ignore list. my tolerance for fools is at an all time low, I'll put every goddamn poster on the ignore list if I have to.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2007 @ 08:54am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/08/2007 @ 08:54am

Johannes, it's enough to make a rational person want to laugh - or cry! That's why I have to take a break from this site every couple of months - the moronic statements of people like Rio, or the holier-than-thou statements of people like LVLIBERTY, or the ignorant statements of people like Pontificus, or the psychotic statements by people like...all of the above!

That there are still people who have any respect, much less adoration, for people like the Lemming-in-Chief, or Darth Cheney, is simply horrifying. Especially when the same people claim to be patriotic, America-loving pillars of society. Hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe their illness.

And what really burns my butt is the lack of cojones on the part of the Democrats (so far). It is well beyond the time that they needed to take their place as an equal part of government and follow the will of the people.

Posted by Turk33 at 03/08/2007 @ 09:17am
Turk, right you are. ever since the Tories lost the last elections they have become more shrill and insufferable. look for more of the same as their bankrupt ideology is repudiated by the electorate.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2007 @ 09:22am
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/08/2007 @ 07:53am

1st...like HSUB....www.democrats.com is NOT an unbiased or even accurate polling company. Find me the Gallup, Harris, Pew Center, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac numbers that show what YOU claimed?

2nd...My agreement with Mr Corn is exactly for the reasons he outlined. Impeachment would be a WASTE of time and would prevent the Democrats from doing things (things I agree with, some I don't) ...namely ending the war in Iraq, working on the budget deficit.

"They can do BOTH!" ....no....they can't. The ENTIRE Congressional agenda would be put on hold for any discussion of bills of impeachment. Dems couldn't go on "Meet The Press" or Stephanopolous and talk about "minimum wage" or "alternative energy funding" or whatever....the discussion would HAVE to be on impeachment and rousing any public support of those other issues would get swamped.

Then there's the basic fact, that Pelosi knows more than anybody, BECAUSE SHE CAN COUNT...once those bills get out of the House....the Senate trial will exonerate Bush and Cheney as it did Clinton.

Why? Because the Republicans aren't any more suicidal than the Democrats were in 1999. And with Lieberman a likely "no" vote....the Dems would need SEVENTEEN Republicans to "flip" on Bush and/or Cheney.

SEVENTEEN...just to repeat...that's ONE THIRD of them. Take Hagel, Snowe, Collins, maybe (but not likely) a Specter....and that still leaves THIRTEEN Republicans who would have to vote for ouster.

"The public will demand it!" Yeah, heard that from Rush in 1998-1999.

Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 09:26am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/08/2007 @ 08:36am

YOur allies will be your un-doing, HSUB.

Young WILLIAM's prison rape "joke" (which he thinks is so HI-larious, he even posted it on Liza Featherstone's thread about the International Woman's Day conferenece?!?!?!) hardly equates to a reasonable endorsement of a "poll" from www.democrats.com being "un-biased" or "accurate".

Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 09:29am
1st...like HSUB....www.democrats.com is NOT an unbiased or even accurate polling company. Find me the Gallup, Harris, Pew Center, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac numbers that show what YOU claimed?

2nd...My agreement with Mr Corn is exactly for the reasons he outlined. Impeachment would be a WASTE of time and would prevent the Democrats from doing things (things I agree with, some I don't) ...namely ending the war in Iraq, working on the budget deficit.

"They can do BOTH!" ....no....they can't. The ENTIRE Congressional agenda would be put on hold for any discussion of bills of impeachment. Dems couldn't go on "Meet The Press" or Stephanopolous and talk about "minimum wage" or "alternative energy funding" or whatever....the discussion would HAVE to be on impeachment and rousing any public support of those other issues would get swamped.

Then there's the basic fact, that Pelosi knows more than anybody, BECAUSE SHE CAN COUNT...once those bills get out of the House....the Senate trial will exonerate Bush and Cheney as it did Clinton.

Why? Because the Republicans aren't any more suicidal than the Democrats were in 1999. And with Lieberman a likely "no" vote....the Dems would need SEVENTEEN Republicans to "flip" on Bush and/or Cheney.

SEVENTEEN...just to repeat...that's ONE THIRD of them. Take Hagel, Snowe, Collins, maybe (but not likely) a Specter....and that still leaves THIRTEEN Republicans who would have to vote for ouster.

"The public will demand it!" Yeah, heard that from Rush in 1998-1999.

Posted by MASK 03/08/2007 @ 09:26am

Never mind that the Democrats.com website only linked to Zogby and Newsweek, both of which cited reputable nonpartisan polling companies, because the links provided contain the word 'Democrat' you're dismissing them as valid sources. Nice showing your own dishonest bias.

The entire Congressional agenda is already on hold, due to Bush's veto power and Senate Republicans' filibustering. Democrats have nothing but time to which an investigative process followed by impeachment may be devoted. They can also finesse the few sane GOPers into going along with their agenda by promising (and fulfilling) a deal in which their legislation will at least get a fair debate -- IF they support impeachment and Democratic legislation. And while such diplomacy might be viewed as partisan, it is far less so than the total exclusion of Democrats from the legislative process under Republican rule.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/08/2007 @ 10:58am
I'll try to put this as simply as possible. Our representatives in Congress are ignoring the will of the people. If impeachment of Cheney and Bush were put on a ballot for the entire country to vote on tomorrow, they would be impeached!

Posted by Hernova at 03/08/2007 @ 12:13pm
sorry the calendar is full, no time to hold the white house criminals responsible, no time for justice, it's so ...inconvenient. besides we have a corrupt country to run, tax breaks to the billionaires to give, the constitution to consign to the scrap heap.

just you wait, Nancy Pelosi, the clamor will build to a roar, and you too will find it difficult to ignore the cry: impeach the bastards.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2007 @ 12:14pm
amazing, how Tories are willing to slime an entire state. they slime their way onto the ignore list. my tolerance for fools is at an all time low, I'll put every goddamn poster on the ignore list if I have to.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/08/2007 @ 08:54am

JR has become the East coast version of Zero.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2007 @ 11:45am

Why don't you get lost? You're the biggest running joke on this board. Why do you keep coming back over and over again to be told that you're a pitiful loser?

Posted by fromredbird at 03/08/2007 @ 12:19pm
We can trust a Republican administration (or any administration) to not use unchecked spying powers for personal political gain, can't we?

It was just three weeks before election day 2006, and Rep. Heather A. Wilson was on the ropes. Opinion polls showed the New Mexico Republican trailing her Democratic opponent in a tough campaign.

Even with the support of Wilson's influential mentor, Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), many Republicans feared she would lose her seat and cost the party control of the House.

One person in a good position to help Wilson was U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias, who was investigating Democratic corruption in her home state. A late-breaking indictment of Democratic officials could help Wilson distance herself from sex and lobbying scandals plaguing the GOP in Washington.

That's why eyebrows raised when it was recently disclosed that, in the heat of her fight for political survival, Wilson called Iglesias to ask about possible indictments. So did Domenici.

Both lawmakers have denied that they called Iglesias for political purposes or pressured him. But questions about their actions have turned what might have been a narrow investigation of the Justice Department's late-2006 decision to fire Iglesias and seven other U.S. attorneys into a broader controversy about the ethical limits of lawmakers' influence on prosecutors.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-newmex8mar08,0,1684 804.story?page=1&coll=la-home-nation

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

http://tinyurl.com/2xg6p7

Posted by fromredbird at 03/08/2007 @ 12:23pm
Presidential Impeachment might as well be scrubbed from the Constitution.

If it's NOT EVEN ON THE TABLE when we have a deeply criminal, unbelievably unpopular President who has mired us in an intractable, ill advised war, broken numerous laws. AND at the same time Congress is held by the so called "opposition" party.

Us minions of the Democratic "leadership" are force fed the horseshit that it would be too lengthy or too politically difficult or too....something.

If that is the case IN THIS INSTANCE then I don't want it to remain in the Constitution because if it does future voters will be taught in their civics class that impeachment is an OPTION when dealing with unpopular, tyranical, criminal Presidents.....WHEN CLEARLY IT IS NOT AN OPTION. NOT NOW NOT EVER!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/08/2007 @ 12:37pm
perhaps we can amend the constitution to allow impeachment only in cases of inconsequential lies about a consensual sexual relationship between two adults. those kind of high crimes and misdemeanors.

incidentally the "high" crimes does not refer to possible intoxication but rather to the fact that the pres and the vicepres occupy high office.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2007 @ 12:43pm
JR,

But that's just it isn't it? The rabid Republicans totally ABUSED the Constitutional privelege of impeachment. It is because they misused the power of impeachment that it can now never be used (even in situations where it is screamingly obvious).

I'm not even saying "Impeach thae bastard" all I'm saying is.....how can it be off the table? Who is Nancy Pelosi to remove a CONSTITUTIONAL right? Alright, I'm aware that she's the one that has to direct Conyers to draw up the articles of impeachment....but her power is supposed to come from the voters.

Some days I don't know whether I'm kneeling to King George or kneeling to Queen Nancy.....but I'm damn sure as hell I'm not living in a constitutional republic anymore!!!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/08/2007 @ 1:03pm
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/08/2007 @ 10:58am

Then cite the Zogby and Newsweek poll data, ARCH.

In fact...I'll HELP you...Zogby almost TWO YEARS ago came up with 53% would support impeachment.

Since then....NOBODY has been able to repeat the data...even Zogby.

Now....isn't it odd, that major polling companies....Gallup, Harris, Rasmussen...which ask ALL KINDS of questions ALL of the time...

have never been able to repeat one of THE most monumental political polls and polling data in years?!?!?!?!

But it's on www.democrats.com....a site that MIGHT have a wee bit of a bias problem!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 1:12pm
1st...like HSUB....www.democrats.com is NOT an unbiased or even accurate polling company. Find me the Gallup, Harris, Pew Center, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac numbers that show what YOU claimed?

2nd...My agreement with Mr Corn is exactly for the reasons he outlined. Impeachment would be a WASTE of time and would prevent the Democrats from doing things (things I agree with, some I don't) ...namely ending the war in Iraq, working on the budget deficit.

"The public will demand it!" Yeah, heard that from Rush in 1998-1999.

Posted by MASK (TM) 03/08/2007 @ 09:26am

!st Mask (tm), your condomness, you didn't even look at all the polls they cited as it was a compendium of all of them on the subject even the ones that showed a majority not wanting impeachment from months/years ago. So either you're perposefully ignorant or the Mask (tm) isn't on right and the holes aren't aligned with your eyes. Straighten up boy.

@nd Mask (tm), remove the Corn as it's causing you to be constipated. Corn also states that impeachment via natural oversight may win support after legislation supporting the public needs. Thus it will not be a waste of time just a secondary priority and natural progression. So as many times as you repeat it is a waste you're only repeating your desire that it be so when it isn't a natural outcome. Holding back a natural outcome could be your income but may be cause severe damage to your brain as the toxins have aparently gotten up there.

And the proof is using Rush to support your arguments-- not very smart of you as he's a known liar. But then, now so are you! So ok it makes perfect sense!

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/08/2007 @ 1:33pm
Then cite the Zogby and Newsweek poll data, ARCH.

In fact...I'll HELP you...Zogby almost TWO YEARS ago came up with 53% would support impeachment.

Since then....NOBODY has been able to repeat the data...even Zogby.

Now....isn't it odd, that major polling companies....Gallup, Harris, Rasmussen...which ask ALL KINDS of questions ALL of the time...

have never been able to repeat one of THE most monumental political polls and polling data in years?!?!?!?!

But it's on www.democrats.com....a site that MIGHT have a wee bit of a bias problem!?!?!?

Posted by MASK 03/08/2007 @ 1:12pm

I did, and you know it. Or rather, you would have known had you bothered to click the links I offered, both of which contained links to the websites in question. The reason I chose to link to the Democrats.com website is because this site's comment feature does not allow for longer URLs to be posted. I figured you'd be open enough to at least click the links I provided, but apparently you don't bother since you automatically dismiss anything you perceive to be biased. In which case, it is no longer worth the effort to debate you, since you insist on being intellectually dishonest and closed-minded. Congratulations, MASK, you just made it onto my ignore list.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/08/2007 @ 1:40pm
LVL,

Can you guide me to a predominantly right wing site where I may be free to excercise free speech?

I've tried Little Green Footballs and Redstate and neither is interested in free speech.

Serious request.

Posted by freedomplease at 03/08/2007 @ 2:04pm
And the proof is using Rush to support your arguments-- not very smart of you as he's a known liar. But then, now so are you! So ok it makes perfect sense!

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/08/2007 @ 1:33pm

LOL!....I used Limbaugh as an example of what YOU sound like!

Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 2:23pm
In which case, it is no longer worth the effort to debate you, since you insist on being intellectually dishonest and closed-minded. Congratulations, MASK, you just made it onto my ignore list.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/08/2007 @ 1:40pm

Now, why did I see THAT coming? Oh right, it's the last response of somebody who's run out of things to say and "facts" to back them up. ZERO, FRB, and sporadically JOHANNES. Great company for you ARCH.

Congrats, HSUB....atleast you don't take the coward's way out.

Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 2:24pm
And just to be fair to ARCH and HSUB....let's look at those polls-(I'm not afraid to post them)

Support...Oppose....Unsure

10/21/06 Newsweek Impeach (by Democrats) 51% 44% +7%

5/22/06 FOX (RV) Iraq WMD Impeach (by Democrats) 30% 62% -32%

4/24/06 Democracy Corps (LV) Iraq Censure 46% 45% +1%

4/12/06 LA Times Wire Impeachable offense 36% 56% -20%

4/12/06 LA Times Wire Censure 46% 45% +1%

4/10/06 WashPost Impeach and remove 33% 66% -33%

4/10/06 WashPost Wire Censure 45% 53% -8%

3/27/06 Democracy Corps (LV) Wire Censure 44% 51% -7%

3/27/06 Democracy Corps (LV) Iraq Censure 41% 56% -15%

3/18/06 Newsweek Impeach and remove 26% 69% -43%

3/18/06 Newsweek Censure 42% 50% -8%

3/15/06 ARG (LV) Impeach 43% 50% -7%

3/15/06 ARG (LV) Censure 48% 43% +5%

2/1/06 MyDD (RV) Hold accountable through impeachment and removal 50% 39% +11%

1/16/06 Zogby Hold accountable through impeachment 52% 43% +9%

12/14/05 Rasmussen Impeach and remove 35% 55% -20%

11/4/05 Zogby Consider impeaching 53% 42% +11%

10/11/05 Ipsos Consider impeaching 50% 44% +6%

6/30/05 Zogby (LV) Hold accountable through impeachment 42% 50% -8%

Zogby....and ONE Newsweek. Throw out the "MyDD" (here's why [en.wikipedia.org]. You'd get the same results polling..."The Nation") ) Throw out "Democracy Corps" too (that's Shrum/Carville/Greenberg)...and of course throw out "Fox News" to be fair as well)

And that's it. Lots of nice "censures" and there were plenty of "investigations" (got no problem with that, as I noted).

On the "Newsweek"....a TWENTY-FIVE percent jump from March 2006 to October 2006? Bush's popularity didn't change that much in the same time...he dropped like 7-8% but picked up 25% who want him impeached?!?!?! Again, why no other news outlet able to repeat those results???

Ipsos?...a market company based in France and whose polling company is primarily in the UK!?!?!? And why do they show 10-15% approvals for impeachment almost A FULL YEAR before Newsweek gets that data?!?!?

And in the interests of honesty, a MISTAKE on my part. That most recent Zogby wasn't "two years ago", but a year and two months. Again, where's the follow up by Gallup, Harris, Rasmussen, etc?

And why no NEW Zogby in over a year?!?!?

Pelosi is reading these same numbers....so is JOHN CONYERS (used to be quite popular here once?!??!)...so is Reid. "Investigate"?...absolutely. "Censure"?...maybe. "Impeach"?....not on two Zogbys and a dubious Newsweek, and SURE AS HELL not on what left-wing BLOGS or partisan groups say (MyDD, Democracy corps)!

And again....one question I still haven't gotten an answer to...

Why is JOHN NICHOLS apparently the ONLY guy on "The Nation" whose pushing impeachment....and could it have ANYTHING to do with the fact...he's selling a book on the subject?

And now...back to the insane asylum.

Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 2:49pm
I applaud the Vermonters for doing what they believe is the right thing. As citizens we have the right to push forward the removal of our employee,the president(in principal of course). If more citizens woke up and realized that politicians are here to serve and not the other way around, we wouldn't be so easy to be misled and misguided. Unfortunately, blindly giving loyalty has created a monster and the inmates run the asylum. Of course it's been like this since the founding of the country.

Posted by k330k at 03/08/2007 @ 3:05pm
I have a SLIGHTLY less strong expectation of the Dems impeaching Bush....

than them pushing a RAPID or effective timeline for getting out of Iraq!

BLOG | Posted 03/08/2007 @ 2:48pm Dems Aren't Urgent Enought About Withdrawal By John Nichols

Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 4:17pm
Impeach,Investigate GW.Bush.Cheney,Rice,Gonzalis and everybody else that can be charged with TREASON.

Posted by reiver at 03/09/2007 @ 06:12am
And the proof is using Rush to support your arguments-- not very smart of you as he's a known liar. But then, now so are you! So ok it makes perfect sense!

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/08/2007 @ 1:33pm

LOL!....I used Limbaugh as an example of what YOU sound like!

Posted by MASK 03/08/2007 @ 2:23pm

Nope you were using Rush to support your argument that impeachment is crazy as is Rush. Everyone knows he's a liar and whatever he says is just a joke, thus you are using him as your support against impeachment. I didn't bring him-- up you did. Your logic, as always, is disceptive.

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/09/2007 @ 08:30am
Our most important immediate task is to continue to tear up the Al Qaeda network, and since it is present in many countries, it will be an operation, which requires new forms of sustained cooperation with other governments.

Al Gore before the Council on Foreign Relations February 12, 2002

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2007 @ 11:33pm

And since AQ and Saddam were enemies... hsuB/heney attack Saddam! That's pretty as assbackwards.

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/09/2007 @ 08:33am
with Tories like liverty it's always what Saddam might have done, instead of what Osama did do, and that exposes the phony arguments right there. Osama still has his job, and will likely continue to do so, after Bush leaves his.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2007 @ 10:01am
livery, you have got to be kidding. you are and were willing to smash an entire country to get the guy who didn't attack us, but the guy who did attack us, well he's a toothless tiger, we won't bother. a mass murderer goes free. all your whining about discussions cannot hide the bankruptcy of your position. but you don't matter at all , except for some diversion you provide in these pages.

what matters is the american people, who have had it with Bush and his war. and that you cannot change. the war is lost, Bush is finished, he's reduced to go around the world begging to be liked. the conservative nightmare is over, the country has had a bellyful of the gay prostie lovin' moralizing creeps.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2007 @ 5:47pm
" It appears that intelligence is doubtful now or at least suspect."

it appears? hahahaha

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2007 @ 5:48pm
" It appears that intelligence is doubtful now or at least suspect."

but in your not so secret heart of hearts you still hope and believe that somehow those WMDs will magically appear, along with the non existent nuke program. whatta joke. stick to fleecing the rubes with your tent show revivalism and your nasty christoid religion jazz.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2007 @ 6:20pm
liverty, I was just going to ask you to strike that last sentence of mine, as it was an ad hominem, note the e, that did not belong in this discussion. not that I disavow this sentiment, I just think it belongs to an earlier discussion.

as to my view of christianity, I adore it. I was raised a protestant, converted to catholicism in my teens and spent five years going to church perhaps more often than you did at my age.

I believe christianity in its pure form is a great force for good in this world. I just don't think you are a christian, based on what you have posted here, which is after all I have to go on. I have my doubts about the last few popes as well, the last one that I found admirable is John XXIII.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2007 @ 7:25pm
one more religious point, or is it biographical? I am working my way backwards in terms of religions. I am now most sympathetic to the jewish faith, although I don't care for the dietary rules, which largely date from the rabbinical period.Pork and shellfish are definitely on my menu. the pork prohibition dates from a nomadic period, pigs are not nomadic, they require sedentary lifestyles.

I like both Sharpton and Jesse as politicians and orators. yes, I am definitely against evangelicals, mostly because they do not respect the world's religions and try to convert people. I am a follower of anthropology and Rudolf Steiner. I am also an avid consumer of religious music, mostly of the 17th and 18th century.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2007 @ 7:33pm
I am a follower of anthropology and Rudolf Steiner

this should of course read anthroposophy. I have also been a diligent student of the I Ching and have recently come across some beautiful passages in the Kaballah.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2007 @ 8:10pm
attention, Rese like length, from Huffington Post

Martin Varsavsky

03.09.2007 What Happens When a Country Gives Up Religion: as Spain Shows, Nothing Much (3 comments ) READ MORE: Spain, Catholic Church During Franco´s dictatorship Spain was a very Catholic country. After three decades of democracy, as the Catholic Church likes to say, Spain is not a Catholic country anymore. Loss of religion first became apparent with the legalization of divorce, contraceptives, and the promotion of sex ed all opposed by the Church. This was followed by the decriminalization of abortion, the acceptance of drug possession for personal consumption (drug users are not criminals in Spain, but treated instead as medical patients) and a general acceptance of premarital sex in society.

Later more controversial activities were legalized like gambling in public places, prostitution and recently gay marriage. Presently other than euthanasia there´s nothing left for the Catholic Church to oppose. All battles were lost including the one for the hearts and minds of the Spanish people. While 95% of the Spanish youth declared in the 60's that religion played some role in their life now only a third do. And that is only "some" role. Religion in Spain is mostly becoming tradition. People marry in churches because they are beautiful and full of history, not because they actually practice. Sunday church attendance is in the single digits. In this country, they still teach religion in most schools, but to most it is as if they were teaching Spanish history, the history of a country that used to be religious but it is not anymore. Paradoxically, the only religious group in Spain now are Muslim immigrants, whose views on society are similar to those of the Franco. Nudity for example was a big no no at that time and it continues to be so for Spanish Muslims. For others nudity is accepted. Spain´s leading newspapers and magazines frequently show nudity in a way that would not be acceptable in US publications. Nudist beaches and regular beaches are mostly mixed, and most people don´t mind.

In the meantime, Spain´s abandonment of religion has been accompanied by decades of tremendous economic and social development. Spain is now 10 times richer per capita than it was 3 decades ago. Cultural production is thriving and science which was mostly non existence after centuries of a tough ban on scientific research by the Catholic Church is now beginning to develop with the number of papers written and patents filed growing every year. During the last decade Spain has been the growth engine of the large countries in Europe. Indeed the economy grew so fast that Spain accepted 6% of its population in the form of immigrants in the last 5 years in order to cope with the labor shortages.

If anything, Spain proves that societies do not fall apart when they give up religion and almost everything that was illegal for religious reasons, becomes legal. Moreover I believe that if Spain had not given up on religion it would not have been the success that it is now, as the Catholic Church in Spain was deeply involved in most state activities and acted as a deterrent for progress. For those, mostly in America, who believe that religion somehow makes countries more ethical Spain proves just the opposite. With a good secular and free Kindergarten to University education system Spain has less violent crime, less people in jail and less policemen per inhabitant than mostly religious USA. The key distinction between USA and Spain, or Europe in general, is that while most people in Europe dislike the same activities that people in America dislike but in Europe we don´t ask that what we don´t like be illegal. Moreover in Europe more people behave ethically than in America not because they fear God. Most people behave ethically because they personally believe in doing what is right.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2007 @ 8:23pm
Biblical inerrancy Salvation comes only through faith in Jesus and not good works. (in particular the belief in atonement [2] for sins at the cross and the resurrection [3] of Christ) Individuals (above an age of accountability) must personally trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. All Christians are commissioned to evangelize and should be publicly baptized [4] as a confession of faith.

yup, I'm against all of these. I don't wish you ill, I just don't like what you stand for. I imagine you feel the same way.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2007 @ 11:13pm
Look I know you are a very bright and caring man, but your hatred at times masks your ability to see objectively.

this could be said about you as well.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/10/2007 @ 12:11am