Carl Bernstein: Bush More "Disastrous" Than Nixon

Carl Bernstein will always be known as the journalist who brought down a president whose disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law disqualified the errant executive from completing a second term in the White House. And Bernstein still gets a round of applause when mention is made of the role he played, as part of a Washington Post investigative team that also included Bob Woodward, in exposing the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president named Nixon.

But 33 years after Nixon resigned in order to avoid an inevitable impeachment -- on August 9, 1974 -- Bernstein is more concerned about a president named Bush.

When we appeared together recently at The Aspen Institute's first symposium on the political reporting of gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, Bernstein recalled the old stories of when he and Thompson were busy revealing the sordid details of Nixon's presidency.

But the Pulitzer Prize-winning author was under no illusions regarding the extent of Nixon's wrongdoing as compared with that of Bush and those around the current president.

Bernstein says that Bush's presidency has produced far more "disastrous consequences" for the country than did Nixon's.

Unlike the often crude and conniving but unquestionably intelligent and highly-engaged 37th president, Bernstein says of Bush: "He's lazy, arrogant and has little curiosity. He's a catastrophe..."

But that is not the worst part of the Bush era as compared to the Nixon era, explains Bernstein.

What has made this time dramatically more troubling, the 63-year-old journalist explains, is that "there is no oversight."

"The system worked in Watergate," Bernstein told the Denver Post.

Even after Nixon was reelected in a 49-state landslide in 1972, Bernstein said, the president was checked and balanced in the manner intended by the founders of the American experiment.

The news media investigated Nixon, and editorialized boldly when the president's lawless behaviors were exposed.

The Congress responded to those revelations with hearings and demands for White House tapes and documents. When the materials were not forthcoming, Congress went to court to force Nixon and his aides to meet those demands.

The courts responded by aggressively and consistently upholding the authority of Congress to call the president to account.

And when it became clear that Nixon was governing in contradiction to the Constitution, the U.S. House took appropriate action, with Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voting for three articles of impeachment. Congressional Republicans, led by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, then went to the White House to inform their party's president that he stood little chance of thwarting an impeachment vote by the full House or surviving a trial in the Senate.

Nixon resigned and so ended a constitutional crisis created by a president's disregard for the rule of law -- a crisis that was cured by an impeachment move by House members who respected their oaths of office.

Today, says Bernstein, the system that worked in the 1970s is failing as the country witnesses presidential and vice presidential misdeeds that former White House counsel John Dean has correctly characterized as "worse than Watergate."

Referring to the media, congressional and judicial oversight that is essential to maintaining a republic, Bernstein says, "That hasn't happened here."

That failure of oversight, as opposed to any wrongdoing by George Bush or Dick Cheney, is the great tragedy of our time. But, as I reminded the crowd at the symposium during a discussion of Hunter Thompson's enthusiasm for Nixon's impeachment, it is never too late for the people to lead. Approval ratings for the current president and vice president are now below those for Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal. And more and more members of Congress are taking up the call for accountability -- boldly sponsoring and cosponsoring the impeachment resolutions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had tried to keep "off the table.".

Bernstein is right. The system has not worked up to now. But with 18 months to go, it is certainly not too late for Americans to demand that the medicine that cured the Constitutional crisis of 33 years ago should again be applied.

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

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 (343)

1. Thanks again John, for keeping a sharp focus on what is almost undoubtedly the most critical agenda item of the moment --impeachment of the leading figures of this unprecedentedly disastrous presidency.

   It certainly would be a sight for sore eyes if a popular grassroots movement like the "pledge to impeach" movement --which calls for a nationwide popular strike-- were to take root.

   pledge to impeach [pledgetoimpeach.org]

   Based on the incredibly cowardly actions of the Democratic leadership so far --not to mention the far too many unprincipled Republicans--, it will likely take some kind of eye opening popular movement to get any action.

   I take heart in re-reading passages from Howard Zinn's classic, "A People's History of The United States", to find a some inspiration.

   Another place of solace is the Astronomy Picture of the Day sight and its archives.

   APOD [antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov]

   And then for some comic relief, there's always George Carlin.

   George Carlin [youtube.com]

   "They call it the American Dream 'cuz you hafta be asleep to believe it."

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/09/2007 @ 01:07am

2. Here's a fine passage from Howard Zinn's outstanding opus on the dirty details of America's past:

   Mark Twain was neither an anarchist nor a radical. By 1900, at sixty-five, he was a world-acclaimed writer of funny-serious-American-to-the-bone stories. He watched the United States and other Western countries go about the world and wrote in the New York Herald as the century began: "I bring you the stately matron named Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched, and dishonored from pirate raids in Kiao-Chou, Manchuria, South Africa, and the Phillippines, with her soul full of meanness, her pockets full of boodle, and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies."

   And this by Henry James --not prone to political statements-- after a tour of America in 1904:

   referring to the country as a.......

   "huge Rappacini garden, rank with each variety of the poison-plant of the money passion."

   This is not to downplay the unmatched perils of our own time, but you can see that the track record has been a long time in accumulation.......to the critical mass now threating to blow up in our --and the rest of the planet's-- face.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/09/2007 @ 03:05am

3. By the way, the "Rappacini garden" referenced by Henry James pertains to a Hawthorne story, "Rappacini's Daughter".

   click here [shsu.edu] if interested.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/09/2007 @ 03:17am

4. One more for the road.

   Here's former Reagan Treasury official, Paul Craig Roberts, stating the rather obvious --China's clutch of U.S. dollars has given them a significant grasp of the American huevos.

   Digging a hole to China [counterpunch.org]

   "How did a people as stupid as Americans get so full of hubris?

   Indeed.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/09/2007 @ 04:01am

5. Mr Nichols, all you said is true or likely true, but this....

   "...boldly sponsoring and cosponsoring the impeachment resolutions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had tried to keep "off the table."

   She hasn't "tried"....she's done it and as Speaker can continue to do so.

   How many co-sponsors has HR-333 from Kucinich gotten now...two dozen from 435?

   Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 07:16am

6. That the pubecrawler congress was duplicitous during the first 6 years of this disaster is self-evident; so far, the Pelosi led democrats haven't distinguished themselves from that pack of rabble.

   Where are all the Wo/Men of State?

   Posted by skeletonman at 08/09/2007 @ 07:40am

7. I am sure we will soon be hearing from Happy going on and on about how Nichols can't sell books so he keeps pushing the impeachment story here.

   I think the U.S. at present is similar to the Titanic. We're taking on water and our sinking is inevitable with our current Congress. Both sides of the isle know who really pull the strings in the U.S. government, and unfortunately, it's not "we the people" but rather "we the ultra-wealthy". And I would also add that not all of the ultra-wealthy pulling those strings are even U.S. citizens but rather powerful folks around the globe. That would explain a lot of the deals our government has been making counter to the good of it's own people. Why, for example, does the U.S. risk it's soldiers, risk it's political clout, and spends a fortune on Israel with a population less than that of some of our larger cities? Our government is more concerned about Israel's welfare than that of the citizens of New Orleans.

   Then look at the trade defecit with China. Congress will use the excuse that China own a lot of T bills which will cause a recession in the market to back out of making China raise the value of the yaun. We could slap an import tariff on Chinese goods that would take care of that problem pronto, but once again, international businessmen would lose large profits from that type of thing. I am sure the American economy would rebound better than China's would.

   I would like to use the conservatives rational against them on this one. We have a robust economy and can retrain our people to make the items that we have been purchasing from China. In short, why should the U.S. offshore jobs only to have to pay to retrain workers for possible future jobs? That's the biggest line of crap I've heard in quite a while, but economists just keep on pumping us full of this crappy logic that this is a necessary evil and it's good for us in the long wrong. No it isn't, it's good for investers investing in Chinese businesses. As far as how this is for the American worker, it sucks.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/09/2007 @ 08:08am

8. 22 posts from RESE? The old man is on a tear this morning.

   I'm guessing that a "former BATF agent" at "portland.indymedia.org" has "determined" that the "thermite charges" used on the Minneapolis bridge were the same type as the ones "used on Building 7", right?

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 08:55am

9. I find it amusing that Nixon's approval rating when he resigned was in the low 30's, percentage-wise. Bush has been that low recently, but no matter what he does, he (and Nixon) never went below 30%.

   Just goes to show you, no matter how bad, no matter how disastrous, a Republican is as president, the far-right fanatics will always support them.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2007 @ 09:07am

10. Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/09/2007 @ 08:08am

    If our national state is analogous to the Titanic, then we are doomed - from the moment the ship made it's fateful turn, rather than smashing head on into the berg, that it would sink was a done deal.

    I am not convinced that we are that far along. Yet.

    To borrow another maritime analogy, however, we are on a collision course and though not yet in extremis (the point at which a ship must maneuver or collide with another ship or hazard to navigation), we are fast approaching that point.

    The self serving asshats in Congress on either side of the aisle are either willfully ignoring this (in the case of the right wingers) or too blind to see (in the case of Pelosi, et al). In both cases, they condemn the rest of us to stand blindfolded on the edge of a precipice, not knowing wherein lies safety or disaster.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/09/2007 @ 09:12am

11. . People who live or have lived in openly authoritarian countries don't believe a word they hear from their media, but with few exceptions the STATE controls the media in all countries, and the United States is no exception. Our corporate/state owned and controlled media has spun a web of fiction, deceit and propaganda pleasing to American conceit that is more unreal than the Twilight Zone.

    No matter what crimes and horrors our government commits, the media always portrays us as a noble, benevolent, compassionate and democratic country. Millions of Americans are absolutely convinced we are the light of reason in the world, in spite of our wars of aggression, rigged elections, rampant inequality and never ending belligerence and exploitation of weak countries, all in the name of national interest and national defense.

    But that's alright because we're the freedom loving good guys.

    And never mind that our elected representatives don't represent us, at all. It's all good.

    .

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 08/09/2007 @ 09:12am

12. Posted by RABBLEROWZER 08/09/2007 @ 09:12am

    Curious, RABBLE, you think politicians should run on "America sucks"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 09:16am

13. Curious, RABBLE, you think politicians should run on "America sucks"?

    Posted by MASK 08/09/2007 @ 09:16am

    I don't know about that, but there was a great band from Ipswich, MA, in the late 1980's called The Fools who did a song called 'Life Sucks, Then You Die,' the lyrics to which went

    ...My sheep went crazy and killed my mule I cut off my dick with a power tool Fixin' the hole where the meteor hit the barn...

    This was way before Lorena Bobbett; as you can tell, it was kind of a sad lament.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/09/2007 @ 09:23am

14. they had Pravda, we have Fox. they had samisdat, we have the web.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 09:38am

15. "The strategy of being obstructionist," minority whip Trent Lott told Roll Call in April, "can either work or fail ... and so far, it's working for us."

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 09:51am

16. obstructionist repubs, spineless corporate dems.

    Bad combo, with no option for supersizing.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 09:59am

17. Samizdat (Russian: самиздат) was the clandestine copying and distribution of government-suppressed literature or other media in Soviet-bloc countries. Copies were made a few at a time, and those who received a copy would be expected to make more copies. This was often done by handwriting or typing.

    This grassroots practice to evade officially imposed censorship was fraught with danger as harsh punishments were meted out to people caught possessing or copying censored materials.

    Vladimir Bukovsky defined it as follows: "I myself create it, edit it, censor it, publish it, distribute it, and [may] get imprisoned for it."

    We have access to information. But the element of risk is greatly reduced. I wonder how much this compromises our political effectiveness.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 08/09/2007 @ 10:00am

18. Hocus Potus!

    poof, the worst potus ever goes up in a puff of uranium enriched smoke. (or at least an impeachment charge)

    Replaced by a competent, compassionate leader that knows how to lead without fear.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 10:02am

19. Posted by MYPARADIGM 08/09/2007 @ 10:00am

    wait, ChimpCo, backed by the neo-con sheep, will find a way to come after those that disagree in public. They tried to do it from Sept 12, 2001 to around 2005, but failed to keep the fear at a fever pitch.

    see McCarthyism watch at The Progressive.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 10:07am

20. BTW, I was wrong in by 7:16am post. I said there were two dozen (24) co-sponsors of HR-333, Kucinich's impeachment bill against Cheney introduced the end of April....

    it's 19 including Kucinich. 19...in nearly 4 months.

    Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 8/1/2007 Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 7/24/2007 Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 6/6/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 5/1/2007 Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 8/4/2007 Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 6/28/2007 Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 7/12/2007 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 7/12/2007 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 8/4/2007 Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 6/28/2007 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 6/7/2007 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 7/10/2007 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 7/10/2007 Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 8/1/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/1/2007 Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 6/12/2007 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 6/7/2007 Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 5/10/2007

    Always want to try to be accurate. (And yes, this IS HSUBFOOLS bait...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 10:09am

21. Well, it is still going on:

    Zakariya Muhammad Reed spent 20 years serving in the National Guard. For the last eleven years, he's been a firefighter in Toledo.

    But this hasn't kept him from being viewed with suspicion by his own government.

    Four times in the last six months, Reed has been detained coming over the border from Canada.

    He goes up there because his wife's family lives in Ontario.

    The Canadians don't bother him, he says. But the Americans do.

    His is just one of many such cases reported by Muslim Americans. The ACLU has a lawsuit pending against Homeland Security for its alleged religious and ethnic profiling.

    Reed's case is a particularly eye-opening one.

    The first time, Reed, his wife, and their two small children were coming back at about 11:00 p.m, so the kids would be asleep, he says.

    "We pulled up to the booth at the Windsor-Detroit crossing," he recalls. "They asked for my ID, I gave them my passport, they swiped it, and the there was a look of shock on the guard's face as he closed the window. Suddenly, there were five guys surrounding the car with their hands on their weapons. They told me to turn the car off and keep my hands on the wheel, and they opened my door and led me into the building."

    His wife and their two children had to come in and stay in a common area, he says, as border agents took him down the hall.

    "They put me up against the wall and frisked me and took everything in my pockets," he says. "Then they put me in a four by eight foot room with two armed guards."

    About a half hour later, he continues, "someone comes in with a legal size paper and asks me why I was in Canada and who I was seeing there. Then they noticed I'd changed my name."

    Reed's name at birth was Edward Eugene Reed Jr.

    "Why did you change your name?"

    "For personal reasons, based on faith."

    "What faith was that?"

    "Islam."

    Reed says he asked them, "Am I being arrested for something?" And they said no, you're being detained.

    "For what?"

    "We'll get back to you on that."

    After about an hour more of waiting and answering questions, Reed was getting impatient.

    "Can I go see my kids and talk to my wife?"

    "No, you need to stay here. Your kids are being taken care of."

    Not true, his wife told him.

    "They wouldn't even let her go to the car to get a diaper bag to change their dirty diapers," he says.

    He also says the guards engaged in some nasty banter.

    "You know, we're really too good to these detainees," one said, according to Reed. "We should treat them like we do in the desert. We should put a bag over their heads and zip tie their hands together."

    After about three hours, Reed says they took his photo and his fingerprints, and made him wait a half hour longer before giving him his passport back and telling he could go.

    "Our car was completely trashed," he says. "My son's portable DVD player was broken, and I have a decorative Koran on the dashboard that was thrown on the floor."

    But six weeks later, virtually the same thing happened all over again.

    "The first time, we thought it was a fluke," he says. "The second time was the most shocking because I realized something was really wrong."

    Reed says he told the guards: "Look, I just did this six weeks ago. Can't you look me up on your computer and see that it's me?"

    No such luck.

    They asked him about the Lebanese stamp in his passport.

    "My wife is originally from there," he told them. "We went there on our honeymoon."

    Meanwhile, his wife was talking with the guards, asking if they should expect trouble every time they try to cross.

    "I advise you not to take your hubby with you," the guard told her, according to Reed.

    Reed contacted Representative Marcy Kaptur's office and talked with aide Dan Foote.

    The trouble is "no doubt because you probably changed your name to a Muslim name," said Foote, who told him the Congresswoman would pursue it.

    On January 5, Representative Kaptur wrote to the Congressional liaison at the immigration service.

    She noted that Reed was an "honorably discharged veteran and U.S. born American citizen" who had "no criminal record nor has he exhibited probable cause to make law enforcement think he may be associated in any way with anti-American elements." She concluded: "I would request that your office act to prevent Mr. Reed from experiencing further delays and detentions and do what you can to update his record in the computer."

    A few weeks later, Foote told Reed by e-mail that it was not going to be so easy. "Your name is on every computer at every crossing point into the U.S.," Foote wrote on January 30. "We have to approach the problem at the Director level."

    But so far nothing has happened.

    "We're waiting for them to respond," Foote tells The Progressive. "The thing has to work its way up the food chain and then have someone in authority have somebody in the border patrol get back to us. Traditionally, we don't comment on individual cases. But we're trying to work within the system and fix the problem."

    On February 2, Reed sent a letter to the Interagency Border Inspection System.

    "Nobody will give me any information as to why I am being detained," he wrote. "I would like to know exactly what I am being accused of and why is it that I am having so much trouble reentering the home of my birth. . . . My entire life has revolved around the service of American citizens and suddenly I am being treated like a criminal because there ‘is a problem with my name,' to quote one of the border officers. . . . What do I have to do to get my name from this list? . . . I have been treated like a criminal and my wife and children have been mistreated and disrespected in the name of Homeland Security. All we want is to go on with our lives as before. I have never taken part in any subversive activity to cause harm to this land or its people. I have never done anything criminal in my life."

    On March 15, Patricia M. Duffy, acting executive director, National Targeting and Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, wrote Reed back.

    "Thank you for your recent letter, in which you expressed your concern regarding difficulties that you have experienced during U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processing," she wrote. "We have recently completed our review of this matter. Based on the information you provided and our research into the issues you raise, records have been modified where appropriate."

    Meanwhile, Reed keeps getting hassled.

    The third time was in mid-March.

    Basically, the same thing happened as before, Reed says, the same questions, the same fingerprinting.

    But this time there were two disturbing variations.

    First, a border agent takes his weapon out and puts it on the table during interrogation, Reed says. "He takes the clip out of his weapon, looks at the ammunition, puts the clip back in, and puts it back in his holster. I'm thinking, this is intimidation!"

    Second, another agent asks him about a letter to the editor Reed wrote to the Toledo Blade back on September 8, 2006. It was entitled, "The World Sees an Arrogant America," and it was critical of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and its occupation of Palestinian land, as well as Bush's invasion of Iraq. "These are but a few reasons that have put America on the ‘most hated' list," he wrote.

    "I see you like to write for the newspaper," the agent told Reed, he recalls. And the agent had downloaded a copy of the letter, which was on the table, Reed says.

    "Yeah, so?"

    "Nothing, I'm just curious. I googled your name and saw these things that were printed in the newspaper."

    This unsettled Reed.

    "I was terrified," he says. "This is a whole new ball of wax here. Now, not only am I being persecuted for my faith, but I'm being persecuted for a personal opinion. This is getting too Orwellian. Is this what it comes down to? Is this where I live? Is this the country I love?"

    He says when he got home, he felt like a zombie.

    On April 29, Reed says he was detained again.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 10:10am

22. Posted by SKELETONMAN 08/09/2007 @ 09:23am

    My point was that RABBLE's view of things...is political suicide.

    Going around in some Hard left rant talking about what a "warmongering and oppressive country America has ALWAYS been" (not just under Bush) is a recipe for electoral disaster.

    Even Dennis Kucinich doesn't say that, yet some radicals like RR apparently think unless they do, it's being less than honest about what a crap-hole country this is.

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 10:11am

23. Posted by CRABWALK 08/09/2007 @ 10:10

    I think that I might just go to Ontario and stay there were I this chap. We don't need this kind of shit in America; it will not do anything to advance our cause in the so called War on Terror, let alone win it.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/09/2007 @ 10:16am

24. Posted by MASK 08/09/2007 @ 10:11am

    There are bomb throwers from both directions, mask-ed one. We both know that.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/09/2007 @ 10:17am

25. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of right handed ones chucking them at the Constitution as we speak.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/09/2007 @ 10:18am

26. Posted by MASK 08/09/2007 @ 10:11am | ignore this person

    so you think we should ignore all the bad history of America and go by the chimpCo guide to "see no evil..."?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 10:20am

27. Posted by SKELETONMAN 08/09/2007 @ 10:17am

    Sure, plenty here from the RIO Right to the LIL Left.

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 10:23am

28. Posted by CRABWALK 08/09/2007 @ 10:20am

    No, CRAB, I think it'd be great to see Dennis Kucinich go out and tell the folks about his single-payer universal health care system and say "It'll lead to (gasp) rationing, which is what we need in some form. Paying out hundreds of thousands to keep Grandma alive for a few more weeks is not a sustainable system."

    and see how well he does in the primaries, much less a general election.

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 10:24am

29. Posted by MASK 08/09/2007 @ 10:24am

    so you would like to see Hillary go out and say "We cannot have affordable healthcare in this country. It is impossible. give it up. If you are poor or unemployed, suck it up and don't get sick or injured"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 10:43am

30. Posted by CRABWALK 08/09/2007 @ 10:43am

    Non sequiter, CRAB. I'm talking about being positive and talking about the greatness of this country and discussing how the problems we have can be solved (something almost all liberals USED to be good at, and all Democratic politicians still try to do)...and NOT running the country down with a laundry list of complaints and saying that "Unless we radically change everything and immediately, this country will continue to suck, which it has for its entire history!"

    BTW, since Dennis DOESN'T tell people that his health care plan will cause rationing (as you say is what we need)....is he a liar?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 10:52am

31. Non sequiter, CRAB

    I think you are reading into my posts things that are not there.

    Or something to that effect.

    I love irony.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 11:01am

32. My insurance company did not tell me they would ration my care either. But they do.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 11:03am

33. You mean Cheney?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 10:49am

    Yea, sure.

    Did you know iraq had thousands of litres of wmd's and drones capable of reaching America with nooks?

    and links to Al Qaeda.

    and the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2007 @ 11:13am

34. This sounds so radical to many people, but we truly are experiencing the height of oligarchical rule in the U.S. It's influence has been prepelled with the advent of the information age over the last 20 years. Democracy is in crisis.

    No one in congress will sign on for impeachment for the same reason everybody gave support for war-- they want to cover thier own asses and don't want to look bad come the next election. Everyone's a fucking centrist!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/09/2007 @ 11:56am

35. Yeah, hsuB wants more tax cuts for corporations as we the people, the middle class sinks, rich get richer and the hsuB/cHeney and their big corporate buds want more control, support new cons, service dic'tator philosophy. Always taking a little more of our freedoms/rights away, a little here and little there. We need to act before we have none:

    Portions Censored From Pearl Jam Webcast

    2007-08-08 18:12:42.287,

    Story by: Conor McKay

    According to Pearl Jam's website, portions of the band's Sunday night set at Lollapalooza were missing from the AT&T Blue Room live webcast. Fans alerted the band to the missing material after the show. Reportedly absent from the webcast were segments of the band's performance of "Daughter," including the sung lines "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush find yourself another home."

    After questioning AT&T about the incident, Lollapalooza was informed that material was indeed missing from the webcast, and that it was mistakenly cut by AT&T's content monitor. Tiffany Nels of AT&T told CMJ that they are working the matter out with the band. "We regret the mistake," she explains. "This was not intended and was an unfortunate mistake made by a webcast editor." She went on to explain that AT&T has a policy for any excessive language, and that it was set up because of its all-ages audience.

    http://tinyurl.com/2gqv4n

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 11:57am

36. "A jukebox that only plays one song: Left with nothing else to do, Bush wants more corporate tax cuts - The deficit is high, the debt is growing, the war's financial costs are exorbitant, and the nation is just coming to grips with the need for a sizable investment in the nation's bridges and infrastructure. Given this environment, the president has a plan: more tax cuts: "President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure." Bush has no policy agenda to speak of, and can't think of any new ideas. So, he's apparently come to the conclusion that he should seek corporate tax cuts, not because they're needed, but because he has nothing else to offer."

    http://blogreport.salon.com/default.aspx

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 11:58am

37. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 11:27am

    MBB, I wouldn't care if they were all "Zell Miller Blue Dogs"....the point is its NINETEEN. After 14 weeks, only 18 have joined Kucinich.

    Frankly, if I thought it would do any good, I'd like to see Bush and Cheney go, but all it would mean is "martyrizing" them, as it did Clinton, and the Dems would lose the PR battle going into an election year.

    And of course Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, Conyers, Feingold, Dean, even Al Gore know this too. Some though...do not and will not...right upto January 20, 2009. (no names needed)

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 12:07pm

38. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 12:19pm

    If the GOP nominated Ron Paul....I'll vote Republican in 2008.

    Otherwise, from Hillary to Kucinich even, I'm voting Dem. And I think a lot of other people will as well (except for the "pure progressives" like ZERO, Empty Spence, etc. who won't vote UNLESS it's Kucinich).

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 12:26pm

39. because his opposition has destroyed their own credibility with silly, frivolous accusations

    ah yes, those oh so frivolous accusations: "when we're talking about wiretapping, we're also talking about getting a court order, and that's what we're doing" (gwb, buffalo, december '05)

    reporter: "what did iraq have to do with 9/11"

    bush: "nothing!"

    we must be so silly, so frivolous, to ask the president to humbly step aside. gee, i guess we should just go back to shopping and watching football. silly us.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 12:44pm

40. and now we have the oh so serious FISA bill, which allows the president to spy on ANYBODY without ANY OVERSIGHT whatsoever.

    oh, we are so frivolous, so silly, to ask that there be oversight from someone OTHER than alberto gonzalez, who clearly knows how to tell the truth (and he's a lawyer).

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 12:46pm

41. Ireland's corporate tax rate is 12.5%. The Netherlands corporate tax rate can be as low as 5% for some businesses. France has just slashed it's corporate tax rate in order to remain competitive with other EU countries.

    how interesting that these countries, which all have single payer comprehensive health care, are held up as examples. none of these countries has given huge tax cuts to their rich.none of these countries have the huge deficits,in trade and budget, a ruinous war, and a demoralized worker population. I would be more cautious with comparisons, Mary.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 12:46pm

42. marybretbars is living in some sort of strange republican fantasy mind state, where no matter what the facts are, they never seem to get in the way of their indulging their strange, right wing fantasies.

    it's like that bush lawyer who debated greenwald yesterday. greenwald provided pages and pages of documents, .pdf files, transcripts, interviews, etc, to build up his case that the bush administration is spying on american citizens, and has been without warrants for 5 years, and the bush lawyer, in his retort, simply said, "none of what this man says is true." and that's it! no evidence. no facts, just words.

    and then (you won't believe this), he said that americans should feel comfortable, nay excited, about sacrificing some liberty for security. i'm not kidding.

    greenwald almost spilled coffee over his suit.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 12:50pm

43. anyone, and i mean ANYONE, who currently supports the bush administration is complicit in our downfall as a nation. period.

    we're the scourge of the earth because of bush, and his loyal authoritarian followers.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 12:52pm

44. Who is the man that would risk his neck for his brother man?

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/09/2007 @ 12:53pm

45. Shaft!

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/09/2007 @ 12:56pm

46. Theme from "Shaft"

    performed by ISAAC HAYES

    "Shaft

    Who's the black private dick

    that's a sex machine to all the chicks?

    (Shaft!)

    You're damn right

    Who is the man

    that would risk his neck for his brother man?

    (Shaft!)

    Can ya dig it?

    Who's the cat that won't cop out

    when there's danger all about

    (Shaft!)

    Right on

    You see this cat Shaft is a bad mother--

    (Shut your mouth)

    But I'm talkin' about Shaft

    (Then we can dig it)

    He's a complicated man

    but no one understands him but his woman

    (John Shaft)"

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/09/2007 @ 1:00pm

47. JOHN_SHAFT....

    Actually, always preferred Rudy Ray Moore, better known as...

    DOLEMITE!!!! [en.wikipedia.org]

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 1:06pm

48. let's re-examine this dichotomy of security/liberty:

    how threatening is al qaeda? these guys are so unpopular, so hated, in iraq and elsewhere that they have absolutely no political represenation whatsoever. they thrive only in areas of extreme isolation (paki/afghani border) or extreme chaos (baghdad).

    even if there were a handful of guys operating within the USA does not at all mean that our nation is in trouble. the last attack took an extraordinary amount of effort and discipline, and they only killed 3,000 people. 3,000 out of 300 million? what is that? .001%?

    sorry, republicans, but that's not a threat. cancer is a threat. floods are a threat. but not these shit bags.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 1:07pm

49. Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2007 @ 12:44pm

    Well, DARLA if you feel that way you should support impeachment....and criticize the Democrats who are stalling it...

    Now....what's that woman, big in the US House, who said "impeachment is off the table" and still does?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 1:09pm

50. it's time for some level headed foreign policy, not a bunch of insular, "scholarly", neo-con dirt bags and their ridiculous theories about how to handle terrorism. these guys have been so wrong, for so long, about so many different things, that we should simply ignore them.

    clinton, by comparison, seems a genius compared to these guys.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 1:09pm

51. i never supported pelosi's refusal to impeach, mask.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 1:10pm

52. music by Isaac Hayes, lyrics by Isaac Hayes, produced by Isaac Hayes and wasn't he wonderful at the academy awards wearing almost nothing but chains.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 1:11pm

53. Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2007 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person

    you are correct, Darl. the right is completely gaga over terrorism. the terrorists meanwhile have accomplished nothing aside from some commando attacks. they hold no territory, have not overthrown any gov'ts. our injury in this conflict have been self inflicted since 9/11, especially the futile war.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 1:14pm

54. thanks, M. classy of you, something not many on your side of the aisle would manage. you are one of the few, along with Maasch and others, who seem to actually be able to learn something from the discourse offered.

    I too am one of the learners, scurrying to the sources, in order to refute or not. the things I most disagree with nevertheless act as a stimulant to me to further my knowledge.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 1:19pm

55. Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2007 @ 1:10pm

    So, you support Cindy Sheehan's move to oust Pelosi next year???

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 1:19pm

56. "No one in congress will sign on for impeachment for the same reason everybody gave support for war-- they want to cover thier own asses and don't want to look bad come the next election. Everyone's a fucking centrist!

    Posted by MATTMAN 08/09/2007 @ 11:56am '

    No one will sign on because there is no impeachable offense..the whole thing is just PR fodder for the dems, with the support of the MSM, who need sales so badly, to create a story and interest in their cause...

    If there really was a vote it would lose, as the reps do not feel their constituents want impeachment..that is not the message they are getting from the folks back home...everyone knows the far left has been harping on this demand ever since Bush won the election...and it now sounds like everyones ex wife..a constant screech...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2007 @ 1:23pm

57. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2007 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person

    war? what war?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 1:25pm

58. o one will sign on because there is no impeachable offense.

    there is no such thing as an impeachable offense

    yet another neo-con ignorant of the constitution.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 1:37pm

59. ONE MO' REASON WHY CONSERVA-FREAKS NEED TO BE REDUCED TO THE STATUS OF DRUGGED COCKROACHES IN A VIAL, FAR FROM THE LEVERS OF POWER

    Why, as freedom vigilant Americans, do we normal people despise contemporary conservatism as the filth that it is?

    When they are not shooting up abortion clinics ("pro-life", you see), making paper airplanes out of the 6 August 2001 "OBL poised to strike inside USA" memo, reading about goats while the homeland is under massive attack in real time, openly urging terrorist methods of slaughter on presidential candidates, baldly denying climate change and evolution, insisting that the Surgeon General insert 3 hails to the CheerLeader into each page of his speeches, making Gov. Don Siegelman into a political prisoner, lying like hell in order to occupy Iraq at incalucable costs of misery and stupidity (and so on) ...

    ... They are looting their own companies while praising their own moral rectitude. I did not see any news of this at the time in THE NATION, so here it is: Remember ConservaFreak Conrad Black, a notoriously pompous metrosexual neo-Clown pansy, who has been for years braying for Iraqi/US/Brit blood in his extensive rightwing media empire? He is going to the Big House, a well desrved rendez-vous with his neo-Clown destiny.

    ConservaFreaks go apeshit if a starving person steals a piece of bread and demand the culprit's hand be sawed off with a rusty tool in public -- one can call it what it is, sick fuck sadism toward vulnerable people masquerading hideously as "morality". But what is the response of these self-appointed moral titans when the metrosexual neo-Clown pansy Black (who is, literally, royalty, "Lord Black of CrossHarbour") pilfered an estimated 6.5 million USDs???. Silence? Or apologetics and apeshit paroxysms to match their law-hating campaigns for that other metrosexual pansy, Scotter or Skippy or wahteverthefuckhisnamewas?

    Read on for some details of the Black case ...

    Black faces lengthy jail term

    Andrew Clark in Chicago Friday July 13, 2007 Guardian Unlimited

    The disgraced media mogul, Conrad Black, faces a lengthy stretch in an American jail after a court convicted him of looting millions of pounds from his Hollinger media empire through a fraudulent scheme to embezzle funds from shareholders. After more than 70 hours of deliberation, a Chicago jury delivered guilty verdicts on three counts of fraud and a single count of obstructing justice - although the former Telegraph owner was cleared of a further nine charges including tax evasion and racketeering.

    Prosecutors are pressing for a jail term of between 15 and 20 years, although American legal analysts suggested a more likely sentence would be closer to five years. Defence lawyers said Lord Black would appeal.

    Looking pale and drawn, Black stared stony-faced in front of him as judge Amy St Eve read the verdicts. The peer's three co-defendants - Jack Boultbee, Peter Atkinson and Mark Kipnis - were also found guilty of fraud.

    ...

    The US government immediately petitioned for Black to be sent straight to prison, describing him as a "flight risk" who could flee to Canada or Britain.

    ...

    The judge allowed Black to remain free pending a hearing on Thursday but she ordered him to remain in Chicago and the peer was forced to hand his British passport to the court clerk before hurrying away without a word.

    Delivered shortly after 11am local time, the outcome ended a four-month trial and marked a final fall from grace for the millionaire press baron who once counted Baroness Thatcher, Princess Michael of Kent and Henry Kissinger amongst his friends.

    Patrick Fitzgerald, the US attorney who brought the case, said it was indicative of a deeper issue of "grave concern" about integrity at the highest echelons of multinational corporations that had arisen at the time of the collapse of firms such as Enron and WorldCom.

    "The message is a very simple one," said Mr Fitzgerald, who also led the recent prosecution of top White House aide Scooter Libby. "If you're going to take liberties and break the law with other people's money, there are going to be consequences."

    He added that there was a serious public interest need to ensure that "insiders in public corporations dealing with shareholders' money do not engage in self-dealing".

    The case against Black revolved around a series of phony "non-compete" agreements attached to the sale of newspaper titles in America and Canada. According to the US government, the peer and his colleagues used these little-noticed clauses to skim as much as $60m (£30m) from Hollinger.

    But out of nine fraud counts, the peer was only convicted of three - which amounted to embezzlement of about $6.5m.

    ...

    Throughout the trial, Black has been holed up at Chicago's Ritz-Carlton hotel. He has protested his innocence and lambasted prosecutors in vitriolic language, recently declaring that he was "at war" with the US government and branding his assailants as "Nazis".

    A Chicago legal analyst specialising in white collar crime, Andrew Stoltmann, said Black's chances of a successful appeal appeared slim, given the leeway given to his defence team during the trial.

    "I think Conrad Black has virtually no grounds for appeal. Judge Amy St Eve bent over backwards to give him a fair trial and it's going to be very difficult for him to argue otherwise."

    ...

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/09/2007 @ 1:38pm

60. maasch, for your information:

    if the american public is tired of their leaders, they have every right to remove them.

    "impeachable offense" (that is the screech that sounds a lot like your ex-wife)

    it's like, take this scenario: how many more fuck-ups can bush commit before we let him go? are you actually saying that he could, theoretically, invade canada and mexico and ireland, and still not commit an "impeachable offense"?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 1:39pm

61. Until then, I think Pelosi's point is that given the current evidence (or lack thereof), impeachment is off the table.

    EVIDENCE IS NOT NECESSARY! doesn't anyone understand this? you can impeach the president for any reason whatsoever, it's not a court of law for chrissakes!

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 1:41pm

62. maasch, you run a company. what if you started making a flurry of mistakes (losing money, devaluing the stock, hiring incompetent people, spilling coffee all over the place)? how long would the board take before they said, "ok, you're outta here"?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 1:48pm

63. There is a lack of support in America

    the june CNN poll showed 52% of americans support impeachment.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 1:49pm

64. Now is the time for all good men to come to the defense of their country and IMPEACH THIS MOTHERFUCKER NOW.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/09/2007 @ 1:51pm

65. impeachment will come if and when the repubs refuse to go down with the Bush ship.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 1:57pm

66. clinton committed perjury, and was impeached.

    is perjury an "impeachable offense"?

    of course not, but the votes were there, and the media was full-force behind it.

    ergo......the media is not behind it, nor is the majority of right wingers in congress (and that includes democrats).

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 1:57pm

67. Darla, the constitution does not state for any reason whatsoever.

    that said, we were promised a congressional investigation into Bush's action before the war. the repubs reneged on that. were we to have that investigation, causes for impeachment might well be revealed, making impeachment imperative, even to repubs.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 2:18pm

68. Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2007 @ 1:49pm

    DD, could provide a link to that CNN poll from June?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 2:19pm

69. Bush is a case in point that corporate elite and other institutions are quite capable of manipulating electorate and the elections to install anyone as a figure head.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 08/09/2007 @ 3:00pm

70. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 3:31pm

    As "Dick" cheney said, all you need is 50% PLUS 1.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/09/2007 @ 3:34pm

71. And right now we have 52% ..... and climbing.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/09/2007 @ 3:35pm

72. The worm will turn, Mary, the worm will turn.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/09/2007 @ 3:35pm

73. True, but you have to have popular support, which you don't.

    no you don't have to have popular support. Clinton's impeachment went ahead without popular support. the polls were never below 60% against impeachment.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 3:43pm

74. maasch, you run a company...

    he does not. he works for a company.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 3:44pm

75. Posted by DR DECIBELS 08/09/2007 @ 3:35pm

    Okay, tried with DD, try with Doc....can YOU link me to that 52% poll?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 3:46pm

76. Darla, the constitution does not state for any reason whatsoever

    you're right. but i never said that. i said congress can impeach him for any reason whatsoever. the point being, congress doesn't need a reason, they only need votes.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 3:51pm

77. by "impeachable offense", i assume the ignorant mean "an act of illegality". well, the constitution does not require an 'act of illegality' for a president to be impeached.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 3:52pm

78. Not one of the numerous technicalities your side has dreamed up stirred any interest beyond this tiny little echo chamber

    sorry, but the "tiny little echo chamber" is, in fact, conventional beltway wisdom which is (honestly) dreamed up by a tiny minority of power players within the punditocracy, the congress and the media.

    52% of americans want impeachment. does this not register in your mind state?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 3:54pm

79. that congress won't do what americans want means one thing:

    congress does not speak for the american people.

    period. end of story.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 3:55pm

80. Not bad, Mr. Nichols, to pull out Bernstein's marquee name to help out on your (soon-to-be) Going-out-of-the-Impeachment-Promotion business! Got over 100 comments......not bad!

    How's the Book sale going? Guess Bernstein didn't endorse your book???!!! How does it feel to be a 3%-ers?

    Posted by Happy at 08/09/2007 @ 3:55pm

81. you're right. but i never said that. i said congress can impeach him for any reason whatsoever. the point being, congress doesn't need a reason, they only need votes. ----Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2007 @ 3:51pm

    So if Congress wants to impeach the President, they DON'T need a Constitutional reason?!?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 3:55pm

82. anyone who charts the evolution of the congress in this country, and does not mention the above stated fact......is in complete and utter denial, and embraces only the "wisdom" of the powerful few in washington.

    why do you think they hate the daily kos? obama? edwards? kucinich?

    because they crave power, and refuse to give it to us.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 3:56pm

83. So if Congress wants to impeach the President, they DON'T need a Constitutional reason?!?!?!?

    right. the constitution gives them the right to impeach, end of story. all they need are votes.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 3:57pm

84. remember, the president is a servant of the people through enforcement of the law, and the law gives congress the right to remove him if he.....for lack of a better word.....sucks.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 3:58pm

85. people, wake up and sip your coffee. the executive branch has hijacked reality, and has taken most of the congress with it. it has abused the military to unthinkable depths, and enriched the most despicable men walking this earth (arms dealers, slave labor, and drug dealers).

    and we continue to vote them back into office. why?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 4:01pm

86. i said congress can impeach him for any reason whatsoever.

    no, they can't. they have to follow the constitution.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 4:03pm

87. no, they can't. they have to follow the constitution

    which says that congress has the right to impeach, and doesn't need for the executive to have commited an act of illegality. horrendous performance is enough for the congress to remove him.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 4:05pm

88. that congress has the constitutional ability to impeach is sufficient protocol, and there is precedent.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 4:08pm

89. feingold's censure resolutions are a good start, but of course, given the absolutley moronic political discourse in DC and elsewhere (see marybretbart), it's very unlikely that they will gain traction.

    people are just clueless out there.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 4:09pm

90. Uh, DD, I hate to be forming an alliance with "Dr. Smith" (JR), but...THIS is what the Constitution says...

    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."

    "for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"....not "anything Congress wants to impeach them for".

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 4:17pm

91. and we continue to vote them back into office. why?

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2007 @ 4:01pm

    So again, are you voting for Cindy Sheehan over Pelosi in 2008?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 4:18pm

92. The self serving asshats in Congress on either side of the aisle are either willfully ignoring this (in the case of the right wingers) or too blind to see (in the case of Pelosi, et al). In both cases, they condemn the rest of us to stand blindfolded on the edge of a precipice, not knowing wherein lies safety or disaster.

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 08/09/2007 @ 09:12am

    Skeleton Man, I hope you are right about us not necessarily being guaranteed to sink, but we really do only appear to have a handful of folks in our government really concerned about the welfare of the country. Using your analogy again, we are on a ship being captained by either blind captains or complete idiots or both. The United States has become a one legged man in an ass kicking contest by choice.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/09/2007 @ 4:27pm

93. from wikipedia, and elsewhere on sites where the constitution is discussed:

    It is evident that in the absence of a clear legal definition, determining what rises to "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an inherently political process, which means that it is up to Congress and what it thinks constitutes an impeachable offense

    "up to congress"

    those are the key words, and they essentially mean that there is no standard legal procedure for removing a president from office. bush has demonstrated innumerable times that his interests betray the interests of vast majorities of people, even within his own party. ashcroft, for one, threated to resign, with many others, if bush pursued the TSP back in '04.

    that's a high crime, folks. if even ashcroft thinks so? come on.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 4:28pm

94. Seems to me that the 'crime' Clinton was impeached for doesn't fit the definition. So I guess Congress really can impeach for anything they want to

    and this was an example of a politically motivated impeachment, unlike the potential impeachment of bush. there are numerous americans, of both political stripes, who want this f*cker outta there. even military families want him out. don't even get me started with the working, urban poor (the majority of this country).

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 4:30pm

95. i've been all over the country the last 7 years, and let me tell you something: in '02, everyone outside of our great cities (san francisco, nyc, la) was pro-bush. now, nearly everyone, voices at least a modicum of criticism towards bush. and with a 60% majority, it's vehement criticism. even mockery.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 4:33pm

96. Posted by CRABWALK 08/09/2007 @ 10:10am

    After reading the post about that Reed fellow, it appears that we now have all of the Barney Fifes of America working for Homeland Security (only these guys have more than the one bullet).

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/09/2007 @ 4:42pm

97. that congress has the constitutional ability to impeach is sufficient protocol, and there is precedent.

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2007 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person

    you owe it to yourself to be better informed. you might look at the history of impeachment. numerous people have been impeached, mostly judges. and it was never for any reason at all. the word crimes is in there all the way, wether they be innocent or guilty. Clinton committed a crime, perjury. for which he was punished.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 4:48pm

98. Today, says Bernstein, the system that worked in the 1970s is failing as the country witnesses presidential and vice presidential misdeeds that former White House counsel John Dean has correctly characterized as "worse than Watergate."

    The simple fact that the president and vice president's actions ar worse than what occurred in Watergate does not mean Congress is more likely to impeach.

    The problem, is the character of the current misdeeds implicates Republicans and Democrats in Congress as well, and they are not inclined to have their actions in supporting these lies and deception exposed in an impeachment trial.

    Let's face it, nearly all Republicans, and AIPAC-oriented Democrats in Congress, WANTED this war in Iraq, and like the president and vice president, could care less about the truth of the claims that led us to war.

    Thus calling on this same Congress to impeach based on these lies is like asking the wife of a murderer of the rapist of their daughter to support charges against her husband. She wanted the rapist to die, so who cares how it happens, right?

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/09/2007 @ 4:49pm

99. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2007 @ 4:22pm

    Technically, Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice...which ARE "high crimes".

    Where DD is inaccurate is when she said that the Congress could impeach a President for "anything"....they can't. They must ATLEAST make it a "high crime or misdemeanor"

    IF she had said, "The Congress can impeach a President for outstanding parking tickets...or littering...or failing to pay child support"...she'd be right, because even the lesser of these is a "misdemeanor".

    But she didn't. And she left the impression that she thinks that Congress can impeach a President for..."being a bad guy"...or "wanting this f*cker outta there." They can't. They need a crime, clearly defined.

    And it IS a political process. The Senate threw out both Andrew Jackson's and Bill Clinton's impeachments and thereby determined that the CRIMES that they were charged with, were insufficient for removal from office. Clinton obviously told falsehoods to a grand jury...the Senate AND the people just didn't think it warrented removal.

    BTW, DARLA, still not answering my question...if you feel so strongly about impeachment and those in Congress blocking it...

    are you going to vote for Cindy Sheehan in 2008 over Pelosi...or not? If not, why not?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 4:52pm

100. Where DD is inaccurate is when she said that the Congress could impeach a President for "anything"....they can't. They must ATLEAST make it a "high crime or misdemeanor"

     yes, but there is simply no precise legal definition of "high crimes"

     darladoon is correct. and there is precedent, as frankgrits and myself pointed out.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 4:58pm

101. Your insurance company didn't ration your care because they don't provide care. Your physician rationed care when you told me you couldn't pay him to treat you. It's those greedy bastard doctors who expect to get paid to provide services that are rationing care.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 11:35am

     MBB, If it's those pesky doctors pulling down all the cash and those poor insurance companies are more than happy to dole out the cash for health insurance reasons, than please explain to me why the United States is having a hard time finding people to become physicians? A good portion of doctors where I live are from India, not the U.S. Most Americans know that the real money is in the corporate world, not in engineering, healthcare, or anything that actually might help someone out.

     No, the big paying jobs are in the insurance industry, international trade industries, shipping, and of course defense contracting. If you look at how much hospital administrators make in comparison with doctors, you'll see that most doctors don't make near what those paper pushing two bit business weenie heads make. Businessmen are way overvalued in our society. Most of them can't tie their friggin shoes without help, but pull down millions because they went to the Harvard School of Business and rubbed elbows with the right folks. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Doctors are not the problem with our healthcare system! Try looking at the insurance industry pay, then the pharmaceutical industries and then come back and tell us all how much the doctors make in comparison.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/09/2007 @ 4:59pm

102. fact #1: clinton was impeached for "high crimes"

     fact #2: there is simply no precise legal definition of "high crimes"

     fact#3: congress may determine the definition of "high crimes"

     fact #4: congress can impeach george bush

     fact #5: the above logic is simply irrefutable, mathematical.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 5:01pm

103. These countries have found that the reduction in corporate tax rate is more than made up for in the increase in economic activity and individual taxes so that overall, total tax receipts increase after a reduction in corporate tax rate. Obviously, this changes before you hit zero. Just because America has the largest economy does not mean we are immune for the laws of economics. America must remain competitive and hospitable to corporation because they drive economic activity.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 12:16pm

     MBB, You forget a few key details when comparing the U.S. tax structure with that of Ireland and the Netherlands. First, look at the difference in the sizes of the countries. 1)The U.S. has one hell of a lot more infrastructure to maintain. 2) Your tax cuts would kill the defense budget you conservative types like to push so damn much money into. You'd have the pentagon screaming bloody murder if they didn't get their cut right along with the contractors in bed with the pentagon. I think what you guys really mean when you wish for tax cuts is tax shift. Let's shift the tax burdern completely to the lower and middle classes and let the wealthy off the hook completely. If that isn't your wish, then you are not dealing with reality here.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/09/2007 @ 5:13pm

104. The damage of the hsuB/cHeney admin has gone well beyond 'doing-in' us US citizenry economicaly and our rights, but our fears of other countries and I'm sure, theirs of us:

     Allies and Enemies

     The Harris Poll. July 10-16, 2007. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide.

     "Do you feel that [see below] is a close ally of the U.S., is friendly but not a close ally, is not friendly but not an enemy, or is unfriendly and is an enemy of the U.S.?"

     Country___Close Ally/Friendly_____Not Friendly/Enemy/Unsure

     Britain_________91_________________________10

     Canada________88_________________________12

     Australia_______82_________________________18

     Israel_________68_________________________32

     Japan_________72_________________________28

     Italy__________75_________________________26

     S Korea_______54_________________________46

     Germany______67_________________________34

     Mexico________66_________________________35

     Norway _______65_________________________35

     Holland _______70_________________________31

     Spain_________73_________________________26

     Sweden_______72_________________________28

     Greece _______63_________________________37

     France________58_________________________42

     Taiwan________56 ________________________44

     India_________61_________________________38

     Brazil_________54 ________________________45

     Chile _________51 ________________________48

     S Africa_______52 ________________________48

     Argentina _____49 ________________________51

     Colombia______32 ________________________68

     Russia________39_________________________60

     China_________30_________________________69

     Pakistan_____25 _____________________74

     (The reason some of the countries have higher numbers in the Allies/Friendly but are lower in the column, is that they had a higher percent in the ally category but their total amount when added to friendly category was less than the previous country, which is very bizarre. Same can be said for the last three categories. Yet, not as bizarre as how Pakistan is viewed!?!?! Uuuuhhmmm. And Barack is getting shit for wanting to go in and get OBL, like the US public will think that's a bad idea...)

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

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 5:15pm

105. I find it amusing that Nixon's approval rating when he resigned was in the low 30's, percentage-wise. Bush has been that low recently, but no matter what he does, he (and Nixon) never went below 30%.

     Just goes to show you, no matter how bad, no matter how disastrous, a Republican is as president, the far-right fanatics will always support them.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/09/2007 @ 09:07am

     Actually both have had job approval poll numbers in the 20's, however, hsuB hasn't resigned to get to that point or been impeached-- yet.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 5:29pm

106. FRANKGRITS 08/09/2007 @ 4:14pm

     How could they tell?

     A fine chuckle at the end of a long day, thank you.

     Perhaps you should weigh in on DD's contention that military families want Bush out.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 08/09/2007 @ 5:35pm

107. if Clinton had not committed perjury, there would have been no impeachment. Darla et al you are in an echo chamber. read the list of impeachments by congress, and why they were impeached. I can tell you it was not for anything at all.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 5:37pm

108. EVIDENCE IS NOT NECESSARY! doesn't anyone understand this? you can impeach the president for any reason whatsoever, it's not a court of law for chrissakes!

     Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2007 @ 1:41pm \

     I have to side with Darla on this one.

     "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

     So, if we the people can abolish the government because it becomes destructive of these ends....then that would imply that we the people certainly have the power to remove a president if that president became destructive to those ends as well. By the way, I pulled that little tidbit about the constitution from a conservative web site.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/09/2007 @ 5:38pm

109. Darla et al you are in an echo chamber. read the list of impeachments by congress, and why they were impeached. I can tell you it was not for anything at all.

     this is not the logic i have employed. read my statements again.

     there is no precise legal definition of "high crimes," ergo the congress decides the definition.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 5:48pm

110. http://impeachbush.meetup.com/

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 5:50pm

111. If all you want is for Democrats to committ political suicide, then just advise them to embrace the lable of Liberal.

     more beltway insider "wisdom".

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 5:50pm

112. marybretbart pulls all of her/his phraseology from the mainstream punditocracy and insider beltway op-ed circles.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 5:51pm

113. Posted by MASK 08/09/2007 @ 4:17pm

     "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."

     I believe you are getting your terms mixed up. I read that as the president must be impeached and convicted to be removed. Impeachment itself, requires no pre-conviction. It is, in and of itself, a political process.

     So, while congress may not be able to remove the president without a conviction, impeachment itself, not only needs no actual facts, but the process itself would provide the necessary evidence to remove. (Suppossing such evidence exsisted, of course).

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 08/09/2007 @ 5:51pm

114. For those of us still operating in the realm of reality, impeachment is off the table without dramatic, shocking new evidence against the President

     if this is the new logic you wish to employ, then we have to debate the very definition of reality. because your definition is firmly ensconced in the beltway, in the punitocracy, in mainstream thought.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 5:53pm

115. Waxman Says He Will Keep an Open Mind on Impeachment Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-08-09 02:46. Impeachment By Marcy Winograd

     Congressman Waxman, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, told an impeachment delegation meeting with him in his Los Angeles office, Tues., Aug. 7, 2007, that he would mull over his constituents' articulate arguments, watch the Bill Moyers' interview on impeachment, and weigh whether there was sufficient evidence to, not just impeach, but convict Bush and Cheney.

     Waxman told the delegation it was not enough to believe Bush and Cheney were responsible for high crimes; his decision to support or co-sponsor an impeachment resolution must be predicated on the knowledge that there is overwhelming evidence for a conviction.

     Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, California's 41st Assembly District Delegates, the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center, and the LA Green Party participated in the office delegation, while a group of impeachment supporters rallied outside, holding Impeachment is Patriotic signs and a 14-foot banner that read "Impeachment is on Our Table."

     http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25571

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 5:57pm

116. And it cost Republicans control of Congress. If all you want is for Democrats to committ political suicide, then just advise them to embrace the lable of Liberal.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 5:39pm

     MBB, The label conservative or neocon is now the bad label these days, but you are wrong. Impeaching Clinton is what got that damned idiot Bush into the White House. Gore would have won that elections by a landslide had that not happened.

     And, the rethugs gained control of the house and senate soon, and we know what that led to. So your arguement of this hurting the dems is lame at best.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/09/2007 @ 5:57pm

117. Frito comes first:

     H.RES.589 Title: Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Sponsor: Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] (introduced 7/31/2007) Cosponsors (27) Latest Major Action: 7/31/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Rules. COSPONSORS(27), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

     Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 8/4/2007 Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 7/31/2007 Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 8/1/2007 Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 7/31/2007 Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 8/1/2007 Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 8/2/2007 Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 7/31/2007 Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 7/31/2007 Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 7/31/2007 Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 7/31/2007 Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 7/31/2007 Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 7/31/2007 Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 7/31/2007 Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 8/1/2007 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 8/1/2007 Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 8/3/2007 Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5] - 7/31/2007 Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 7/31/2007 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 8/2/2007 Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 7/31/2007 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 8/3/2007 Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 7/31/2007 Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 8/2/2007 Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 8/2/2007 Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 8/1/2007 Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 7/31/2007 Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 7/31/2007

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:04pm

118. Then cHeney:

     Help Us Choose the Winner of Our Dump Dick Day Video Contest! Submitted by jacobpark on Thu, 2007-08-09 17:50. Activism Happy Dump Dick Day!

     Today is the 33rd anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation in the face of impeachment. Of course, Tricky Dick was a rank amateur compared to Darth Cheney and The Decider.

     To commemorate Dump Dick Day we started a contest to see who could make the best video comparing Nixon and Cheney, and making the case for impeachment. The winner will receive a $1,000 cash prize.

     Today was the deadline and all the entries are in. Now we need your help choosing the finalist(s). You can rate the videos on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/groups_videos?name=dumpdick until noon EST tomorrow, August 10th. If there's no clear winner we'll then post the finalists on Democrats.com and ask people to vote one more time to choose a winner.

     Let's dump this Dick!

     http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25590

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:07pm

119. Impeachment Possible for Cheney and Gonzales Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-08-09 20:31. Activism | Impeachment Thanks to your help we've collected tens of thousands of signatures on our petition in support of impeaching Vice President Cheney: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cheney

     And 343,000 people have watched the video at http://www.impeachcheney.org

     Last week we delivered the petition signatures, along with hundreds of thousands from allied organizations, to Congressman Dennis Kucinich. He has agreed to enter into the Congressional Record (the official history of Congress) the names of people who support impeachment. To have your name included, simply sign this petition http://www.democrats.com/impeach-cheney-congressional-record

     And please forward this appeal to everyone you think might be interested.

     Thanks to your help, already 19 Congress Members are cosponsoring H. Res. 333, articles of impeachment against Cheney. And an additional bill, H. Res. 589 has been introduced proposing the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. That bill already has 28 cosponsors, and Congressman Steve Cohen, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, is working with Bruce Fein, Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, to draft articles of impeachment against Gonzales.

     http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25596

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:10pm

120. You do realize that I work in the insurance industry, at a company that is producing a sizable portion of new sales internationally. I hope you weren't expecting me to contradict this statement.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 6:03pm

     MBB, Then you see how much money your type of company makes, and what exactly is your product? You produce nothing. You invest money and clean up like bandits on the interest and then stonewall like the Bush administration when it comes time pay up on claims. So, then you admit that people in the insurance industry are making more than doctors? Doctors have to carry malpractice insurance. Have you ever thought that those policies might just drive up how much it costs to visit doctors? The malpractice suits aren't driving the cost of insurance up, insurance companies are just greedy as hell and that is what drives the cost up. What other professions are out there where you are mandated to purchase a product other than insurance? Driver in most states have to have a minimum of liability insurance. Most people, though the number is dwindling due to the high costs, carry medical insurance, but in reality, would probably be better off if they invested the amount of money they pay you fine people and used the interest off that to pay for future medical bills.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/09/2007 @ 6:16pm

121. PETITION TO IMPEACH

     PRESIDENT BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY

     We, the undersigned, believe George W. Bush and Richard Cheney should be impeached for the following high crimes and misdemeanors.

     The President and Vice President deceived citizens and Congress in the most serious act that a government can undertake: going to war. The principal reasons they gave were lies:

     Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD's that could threaten the U.S., and had an active nuclear weapons program. Both claims were lies.

     Saddam Hussein cooperated with al Qaeda terrorists and was involved in the attacks on September 11, 2001. This was also a lie.

     The secret "Downing Street Memos" prove President Bush decided to invade Iraq long before he sought authority from Congress in October 2002 - and knowingly promoted these lies to create a climate of fear to "sell" the war to Congress, the American people, and the world.

     President Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a "war of aggression" in direct violation of the United Nations Charter to which the U.S. subscribes by treaty, thus violating U.S. law. (1)

     President Bush violated U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution in July 2002 by taking $700 million from funds Congress appropriated for the war in Afghanistan, and secretly diverting this money to prepare for an unauthorized war in Iraq. This included the illegal bombing of Iraq, which was meant to provoke a counter-attack and thereby justify a U.S. invasion.

     President Bush violated the Congressional Resolution on the Use of Force Against Iraq on March 18, 2003 when he falsely claimed that continued U.N. inspections would endanger the national security of the U.S. and undermine enforcement of U.N. Resolutions, and when he falsely claimed Iraq planned or aided the attacks of September 11, 2001. These false claims to Congress violated the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. #371 and the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. #1001

     In both wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of civilians were killed and wounded in violation of the Geneva Convention requiring protection of civilians in combat areas. Prisoners of war were tortured and even murdered in violation of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, due to legal memos approved by the White House.

     President Bush violated the Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections of civil rights of American citizens and legal residents. Over twelve hundred individuals have been detained, in many cases incommunicado, without charge, and without benefit of a lawyer. President Bush has defied a 2004 Supreme Court ruling (Rasul v. Bush) that requires hearings for prisoners held in Guantanamo.

     President Bush obstructed justice by refusing to provide Congress and the American people with information and records necessary for oversight of executive functions, including the Downing Street Minutes, Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force and the attacks of September 11, 2001.

     (1) U.N. Resolution 1441, which sent U.N. inspectors back to Iraq in November 2002, in no way authorized an invasion by the U.S. It only authorized (in Section 12) a follow-up meeting of the U.N. Security Council if Iraq failed to cooperate fully with inspectors, which Iraq did. That follow-up meeting was never held because the U.S. could not line up a majority of the U.N. Security Council to authorize an invasion.

     http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=impeach

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:16pm

122. And it cost Republicans control of Congress. If all you want is for Democrats to committ political suicide, then just advise them to embrace the lable of Liberal.

     Mary,

     We will embrace 'liberal' when you embrace 'right-wing' or 'reactionary' as your labels.

     'Liberal', implies loose and careless, and thus our favoring of the word 'progressive' has little to do with conservative liberal-bashing, so you can stop stroking yourself!

     What we want is human progress in which human beings embrace their higher nature. This higher nature is a conscious one, conscious of each other's needs and aspirations, and conscious of the need to sustain the planet. Being progressive is about 'us', all of us, and not just 'I' or 'me' like you have with conservatives.

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/09/2007 @ 6:22pm

123. Date Poll Issue Question Support Oppose Net

     7/8/07 Democrats.com Begin impeachment hearings for Bush which could lead to removal 43% 50% -7%

     7/8/07 Democrats.com Begin impeachment hearings for Cheney which could lead to removal 45% 43% +2%

     7/8/07 USAToday/Gallup Begin impeachment hearings for Bush which could lead to removal 36% 62% -26%

     7/7/07 Rasmussen Impeach and Remove Bush 39% 49% -10%

     7/6/07 ARG Libby Impeachment proceedings against Bush 45% 46% -1%

     7/6/07 ARG Libby Impeachment proceedings against Cheney 54% 40% +14%

     5/8/07 InsiderAdvantage Impeach Bush and Cheney 39% 55% -16%

     1/25/07 Newsweek . Wish Bush Presidency Was "Over" 58% 37% +21%

     1/3/07 Harris Investigations 56% 34% +22%

     10/25/06 USA/Gallup Major investigations (by Democrats) 51% 47% +4%

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

     9/2/06 CNN Impeach and Remove 30% 69% -39%

     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/ABC 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 Bush 32% 56% -24%

     12/14/05 Rasmussen Impeach and remove Cheney 35% 53% -18%

     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%

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:25pm

124. My post about corporate tax rates is one of efficiency. The US currently collects about 33% from personal income taxes about 33% from FICA payroll taxes, about 20% from Corporate income taxes, and the remainder from excise, estate, etc. If we shifted 10% from Corporate to income and payroll, we'd have a stronger economy and collect the same amount of tax revenue in the first year and substantially more in ten years because of higher economic growth.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 6:14pm

     MBB, You are flying under the logic that the wealthy actually pay their taxes and that is where your logic is flawed. Most wealthy people hide their money to make it look as if they have no income at all. They hide there assets in offshore accounts,private businesses with difficult to read ledgers, launder their money outside the U.S. to hide profits and use pretty much every trick in the book to weasle out of paying one cent. I know enough wealthy people to know these to be a pretty constant tricks of the trade for them. Most middle and lower income folks don't have the resources or know how to pull this fraud off. The bulk of the IRS claims are against middle and lower class individuals, not corporations and wealthy people.

     I think you hit the nail on the head though. We have the masters and the servants, and the god damned masters are going to make sure they remain master for eternity.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/09/2007 @ 6:27pm

125. Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

     I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:

     1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

     2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

     3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

     4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

     5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

     6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

     7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

     8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

     9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

     10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

     http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:34pm

126. State____ Status

     Alaska State Democratic party passes impeachment resolution NR7.

     California

     San Francisco and Berkeley pass impeachment ballot measures in November 2006 election.

     Sebastopol passed 5/18/06. Impeachment forum held at Democratic Convention 4/29.

     Berkeley passes resolution 4/25/06. Fairfax 7/5/06. Koretz' AJR39 expired in 2006.

     Colorado State Democratic party adds impeachment to platform on 5/20/06.

     Connecticut Action in New London.

     Hawaii Senator Les Ihara Jr. has introduced impeachment resolution SCR83.

     Illinois Karen Yarbrough (D-Maywood) introduced HJR0125 in the state Assembly in 2006, Champaign/Urbana passed ballot initiative on Nov 7th

     Indiana Lake Station rejects impeachment on April 13th.

     Maine MaineImpeach.org is working on getting the state legislature to pass an impeachment resolution.

     Massachusetts Amherst passes resolution.

     Maryland Takoma Park passes resolution on 7/23/07

     Michigan National Lawyers Guild had a teach-in June 28th.

     Minnesota ImpeachForPeach.org promoting Do It Yourself Impeachment

     Missouri Jamilah Nasheed has introduced an impeachment resolution, HCR 46, on 3/29/07.

     Montana Montanans for Impeachment leading the charge.

     New Hampshire Hanover passes impeachment 111 to 42 on May 9th, 2006.

     New Jersey North Jersey Impeach Group making good progress on state legislation.

     New Mexico Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino has introduced an impeachment resolution on 1/23/06. It passed Rules on 2/16.

     New York Nyack votes unanimously for impeachment.

     North Carolina Meeting planned for April 27th at Durham Main Library

     Ohio Oberlin becomes first city in Ohio to pass resolution.

     Oklahoma Oklahoma becomes 15th state to pass impeachment resolution at their state Dems convention.

     Oregon Lots of activity in the Portland Area. State dems pass resolution in 2005.

     Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo launches impeachment petition campaign drive.

     Rhode Island US Senate candidate Carl Sheeler calls for state impeachment.

     Texas Representative Lon Burnam filed HCR 154 on 3/19/07

     Washington Senator Oemig introducing a state resolution SJM8016 on 2/14/07. Olympia considering passing a city resolution.

     Wisconsin 2005 Democratic Party Convention passed a resolution.

     Vermont Senate passes SR0016 calling for impeachment on 4/20/07! Dozens of cities and towns have also passed town measures.

     Virginia Campaign underway to fly impeachment banners from airplanes.

     http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/states.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:41pm

127. How the Congress Handles Impeachment

     There are several ways that impeachment can be initiated. Please start with the "Step by Step Process" section on this page.

     Whether the charges come from a Member of Congress, or from a city, county or state, they will eventually end up in the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives.

     Here are the steps that follow:

     The House Judiciary Committee considers the charges and adopts a resolution to conduct an inquiry.

     The resolution is sent from the Judiciary Committee to the House floor for a vote as a "question of privilege".

     House of Representatives votes and passes the resolution by a majority vote.

     The House Judiciary Committee conducts the inquiry or investigation into the crimes.

     The House Judiciary Committee approves Articles of Impeachment by a majority vote.

     The House of Representative debates each article and passes at least one with a 50.5% majority vote. Bush is now officially "impeached".

     The Senate conducts a trial and convicts with a 2/3 majority of those Senators present.

     The President, and hopefully also his VP and others, are removed from office.

     Privilege

     According to the Jefferson Manual LIII, Section 604, resolutions that call for impeachment, or call for an investigations that suggests impeachment may be an end, are considered "privileged" and must be addressed before other business.

     Our Job

     We need to pressure the House Judiciary Committee to get started. Here is a list of members. Please contact your representative and ask them to get the ball rolling. Once the impeachment process starts, it is important that we continue to support our representatives all the way through.

     List of Judiciary Committee Members with website and contact info.

     Here are some tips on how to email these Republican committee members.

     http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/process.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:47pm

128. http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles_impeach_tally.pdf

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:49pm

129. Tally of Impeachment Charges

     Impeachment Charges against GW Bush

     Tally from proposed Articles of Impeachment.

     Action_____________ Fieldman __ Bonifaz__ Clarke__ Boyle__ NLG__ Burk__ Tally

     war without consent, no declaration, violated War Powers Act 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

     false statement and propaganda about WMD 1 1 1 1 1 5

     Lied about rationale for Iraq war 1 1 1 1 1 5

     Bush lied about ties between Iraq al-Qaida 1 1 1 1 4

     War actions that would knowingly kill of civilians 1 1 1 1 1 5

     Iraq war violated UN, Nuremberg, treaties 1 1 1 3

     Misleading public to create support for Iraq war 1 1 1 3

     torturing prisoners of war against Geneva Convention 1 1 1 3

     authorization of wiretapping without FISA approval 1 1 2

     Lied about imminent threat to US from Iraq 1 1 2

     Lied about purchase of Uranium from Niger 1 1 2

     War that resulted in US and allied casualties 1 1 2

     appointing political cronies to critical government positions 1 1

     Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution 1 1

     blocking legislative oversight of executive functions (energy meetings?) 1 1

     bribing, intimidating, threatening other countries to support Iraq war 1 1

     Cost hundreds of billions of $ 1 1

     violated equal protection clause, minority and poor soldiers in Iraq 1 1

     hiding who was arrested, detained and imprisoned from Congressional inquiry 1 1

     illegal seizure of assets of "terrorists" 1 1

     impose police state and military dictatorship on US (Patriot Act?) 1 1

     Misuse of CIA 1 1

     Misuse of military 1 1

     monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications 1 1

     Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens 1 1

     overriding INS jurisdiction to wrongfully hold detainees 1 1

     proposing a new strategy involving first-use of nuclear weapons 1 1

     racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying 1 1

     retaliating against whistle-blowers such as Joseph Wilson 1 1

     secret arrests of persons in US 1 1

     Sought unlawful transfer of war-declaring power to President 1 1

     strip US citizens of their constitutional and human rights "enemy combatants" 1 1

     violent overthrow of sovereign states, kidnappings, murder and torture 1 1

     Withdrawal from treaties, ABM, Treaty of Rome (Int Criminal Court) 1 1

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 6:55pm

130. Posted by MALCONTENT 08/09/2007 @ 5:51pm

     Eric, so what you're arguing is that the Congress can IMPEACH Bush for ....getting Lyme Disease or anything...but as long as they don't "convict and remove from office" it's Constitutional?!?!?!?

     So what would be the point? To "embarass him"? The man's beyond that. To "get him to resign"? Yeah...right. To "put a black mark on his legacy"? Hello...Iraq? Deficit? Katrina?

     Want to impeach Bush...find a "treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanor" to convict and remove him from office on....otherwise it's an exercise in SELF-embarassment for the Dems.

     And this whole thing is an exercise in mental masturbation....as DARLA's representative has YET to recant...it's "off the table".

     Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 7:10pm

131. And this whole thing is an exercise in mental masturbation....as DARLA's representative has YET to recant...it's "off the table".

     Posted by MASK 08/09/2007 @ 7:10pm

     Speaking of which...somebody get HSUBFOOLS some Kleenex or a towel!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 7:11pm

132. Okay, the UN and the US Congress voted to allow the US to force Iraq to comply with the UN Security council resolutions.

     Are you saying it's an impeachable offense for Bush to use the military to invade Iraq because he didn't have Saddam's consent?

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 7:00pm

     Are you pretending or are you really an idiot?

     The resolution was based on the UN consent, the UN gave none. Don't you remember? hsuB got the Sec, at the time, Powell to get the UN to pass it, didn't have the vote in the security council. hsuB said for the inspectors to get out and sent in our troops to Iraq without UN backing--- thus without resolution. Said he was threatened by Iraq kinda-sorta imminently so.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 7:14pm

133. Frita, Frito first.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 7:18pm

134. Frita, are you saying that Pelosi didn't just say that Frito was a go if they had waste the time on impeachment, if hsuB didn't get him to resign?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 7:21pm

135. Frito goes, independent prosecutor comes...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/09/2007 @ 7:23pm

136. From Breitbart.com.........How odd & unsettling, I find myself.....in the `mainstream' on the views polled! Well, Bernstein and Nichols certainly contributed to the change underway!

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

     US public sees news media as biased, inaccurate, uncaring: poll

     Aug 9 06:28 PM US/Eastern

     More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

     And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

     More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.

     More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".............

     Posted by Happy at 08/09/2007 @ 7:27pm

137. Mary, Fools is correct. Bush did not get the UN resolution he was seeking. facts do matter, and you ain't gottem. you have asserted this numerous times. it's still not true.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 7:34pm

138. i love how mary sidestepped the question of whether the wealthy pay their fair share: does she realize that offshoring corporate HQs is de rigeur in the american business community? basically, the carribbean is fast becoming the corporate off-shore epicenter. everyone has an office there now....and it's not just for corporate vacations.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 7:37pm

139. I doubt you will actually be Progressives because the last politcal movement to embrace "Progressive" was the Progressives of the '30 and the word became synonomous with pro-stalinism.

     MBB,

     I don't think you conservatives will be successful in twisting 'progressive' into meaning pro-Stalinism, now that the wall has fallen. No one is afraid of communism any longer, and Swedish-style socialism with a different kind of capitalism, that embraces the entrepreneur rather than the multinational corporation, and employee ownership and profit sharing rather than golden parachutes for the privileged few, may be the ideal system that the US needs to emulate.

     The greatest good for the greatest number of people must be the organizing principle in a democratic society, otherwise democracy is a sham and an illusion to make people believe they have a voice in their own governance.

     And you are free to take the 'liberal' label back, as free-market liberal economics without regard to the human consequences is more suitable to your views.

     As I said before, progressives are concerned with human progress and embracing our higher nature, which is distinguished from our lower selfish animal nature. "Every man for himself" may be an ideal world for you right-wingers, but it results in a disconnected society in which people no longer even know their neighbors, let alone care about what is going on in their lives.

     It is shameful that most of the world lives in abject poverty while we fly around in private jets. Simply looking down from your perch and saying "I'm glad that is not me", is not a worthy economic or political philosophy, and this thinking simply divides and separates us rather than uniting us in a viable community.

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/09/2007 @ 7:47pm

140. Posted by MADLIB 08/09/2007 @ 7:12pm

     Too different ways to approach it, MAD. One, the old classic liberal way of "America is a great country, but has problems. We can fix those problems and make it an EVEN BETTER country!"

     The other, a post 60s paradigm of the radical Left (a la RABBLEROUSER)...."America sucks. It has always sucked, with just a few glimmers of goodness, but not much. Only by radical and immediate overthrow of the present system and all it entails will America be able to redeem itself"....fortunately is ignored by most Democrats and most sane leftists.

     Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 7:55pm

141. HSUB, three points...well four...

     1. You didn't predict Gonzales impeachment until the last 3 months and even then won't put down a solid date (since you know you can't without cancelling out your previous prediction of a Cheney/Bush impeachment at Halloween).

     2. Re-post the ENTIRE article by Pelosi. I want to point out the key line that you ignore to the rest of the class.

     3. Where does the name "Frito" for "Fredo" (Alberto Gonzales) come from? Could it be a reference to a Latino stereotype (from a snack food) that Latinos consider racist? Pleas explain in as little detail as you normally would.

     4.....

     ....2 3/4 months left....heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 7:59pm

142. Fuck the UN. He got the approval of the congress of these here United States.

     I believe it was 77 votes to "authorize force".

     Give it a rest people.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/09/2007 @ 8:19pm

143. If you have such a problem with the way our great republic operates - go away. Please...

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/09/2007 @ 8:22pm

144. If you have such a problem with the way our great republic operates - go away. Please...

     This is how you right-wingers solve problems - go away, or get lost if you don't agree with us.

     What kind of philosophy is that? And why do you assume that the majority of Americans want a republic as the ideal form of government? Where are your polls on that one?

     You are living in a fantasy if you believe that 1% of the population that benefits from your republic can continue to sucker the rest of us into slaving away for your benefit.

     Remember, the ideal is the greatest good for the 'greatest' number, not the greatest good for the fewest number of Americans.

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/09/2007 @ 8:30pm

145. The other, a post 60s paradigm of the radical Left (a la RABBLEROUSER)...."America sucks. It has always sucked, with just a few glimmers of goodness, but not much. Only by radical and immediate overthrow of the present system and all it entails will America be able to redeem itself"....fortunately is ignored by most Democrats and most sane leftists

     it's obviously getting late in the day for mask, as this comment perfectly illustrates.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 8:35pm

146. I try not to assume anything, nor did I imply that.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/09/2007 @ 8:37pm

147. The greatest good for the greatest number of people must be the organizing principle in a democratic society, otherwise democracy is a sham and an illusion to make people believe they have a voice in their own governance

     word.

     and i'll add a metaphor. san francisco, a truly enlightened place, has 3/4 million people in a 7x7 square mile peninsula. it has the second highest level of density of any city in the country, with the exception of NYC (the only other great city in this country). during the day, there are probably twice to three times our population with commuters, tourists, transients, etc. i.e. it's a fucking crowded place here. and you'd think the traffic would be horrendous.

     well, you're wrong. and i'll tell you why: we have mostly one-way streets, and discourage (or ban) left turns. and the traffic lights are timed so that traffic continuously moves forward at a manageable pace (25mph). traffic jams are unheard of (literally), unless you are approaching the bridges at rush hour. even then, it still moves.

     this metaphor is apt because this is how democracy should work. individuals (or cars) sacrifice their speed and self-importance for the greater good (all cars). it makes everyone equal more or less, and the entire system functions quite well.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 8:40pm

148. san francisco traffic is all about a nice, easy flow. everyone's in it together. rich or poor.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 8:42pm

149. oh, and it's almost always 60 degrees. summer/winter.

     everywhere else? either baking hot, or fucking freezing.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 8:43pm

150. here is the neo-con mentality: 'well, if he didn't commit a crime, then he's ok.' they've stooped to the lowest common denominator.

     just watch this clip, and you'll understand why. the psycho hanretty defends libby and gonzalez with that same logic:

     http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/09/the-hills-karen-hanretty-and-he r-awful-appearance-on-hardball/

     Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2007 @ 9:28pm

151. Longest thread I've ever experienced. Impeach Gonzo, Cheney and lastly Bush, please.

     Posted by lewwelge at 08/09/2007 @ 9:29pm

152. When did America become a country full of pussies?

     Posted by MADLIB 08/09/2007 @ 7:12pm

     The 'impeach bush' campaign is a democrat wet dream that will never come to pass. Not that it shouldn't, it simply won't.

     Perhaps its time to concentrate on actual solutions?

     Posted by MADLIB 08/09/2007 @ 7:13pm

     Mad,

     Agreed on the first point. We have apparently become a nation of "sucklings on the glass teat" i.e. television. Courage and engagement are in short supply at the moment.

     On the second point, impeachment, I heartily disagree. There can be no solutions until the root cause of the rash of symptoms e.g. the Iraq war, torture, illegal eavesdropping --and the list goes on-- are properly addressed.

     Impeachment would --among many positive outcomes-- symbolize the fact that the American people were able to coerce their dysfunctional gov't to honor their oath to protect the Constitution.

     Virtually everything we attempt to do without addressing the root cause of the situation is like remodelling the guest rooms on the Titanic --a futile waste of time.

     We must get a radical course correction ASAP, or it'll soon be time to play the violins.

     Impeachment would signify that Captain Queeg has been neutralized, the ship's course is being corrected, and the people have reasserted their role.

     You're right that it MAY be a waste of time, but that's the reality we'll be facing in any case if we don't reclaim our government.

     Obviously, the situation is a bit dire.

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/09/2007 @ 9:39pm

153. Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2007 @ 8:35pm

     You translate RABBLE then, DD....???

     Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 10:01pm

154. ."America sucks. It has always sucked, with just a few glimmers of goodness, but not much.

     a good case can be made for this. but there is also another america. an idealistic america, which tries to fix what it has wronged. I give the civil rights struggle as an example. the results have not been perfect, but we now have black leaders elected in southern towns. and we may have black pres. if not this time perhaps soon.

     this idealistic america can only exist when we stop pretending we are better than others, and when we look our faults squarely in the eye. this is not something that Pontz or Chip are capable of. but I am.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 10:12pm

155. Actually, I'm in favor of you guys being Progressives so that Conservative can have "Liberal" back. Liberal used to mean Classical Liberal, which was personal responsibilty, limited government, laws that reflect morality and ethics, personal liberty, etc. Jefferson was a Classical Liberal.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person

     !!!SNORT!!!

     HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

     This has to be one of the funniest things I've read here in quite a while. The notion that 'conservatives' have EVER laid claim to the ideals of 'liberal' is just...just...too stupid for words!!

     HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

     Hey MBB, your biggest problem was when 'conservatives' climbed into bed with 'neocons'...you know, the one's who brought upon you the complete ABSENCE of morality and ethics, a complete AVOIDANCE of personal responsibility, bigger, virtaully UN-limited goverment, the near-total flouting of the rule of law, and the severe and continual CURTAILING of personal liberty.

     You conservatives chose to 'lay down with the dogs'...and now you're complaining about 'waking up with fleas'?!?!

     HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

     !!!SNORT!!!!!

     Posted by Lillian at 08/09/2007 @ 10:24pm

156. HSUB, three points...well four...

     1. You didn't predict Gonzales impeachment until the last 3 months and even then won't put down a solid date (since you know you can't without cancelling out your previous prediction of a Cheney/Bush impeachment at Halloween).

     (I predicted impeachment of the hsuB/cHeney regime. That Frita has to let go of Frito 1st, is besides the point if it then allows hsuB/cHeney to be next. As in Nixon had to commit a massecre to get the full attention of congress, hsuB has to not fire his and your Frito. Symmetry in the hsuB world.)

     2. Re-post the ENTIRE article by Pelosi. I want to point out the key line that you ignore to the rest of the class.

     (Already did that several times and you're still wrong. The comment you cling on to wasn't from Pelosi it was an editorial comment from the writer. Again, Pelosi says she'll go along with impeachment if hsuB doesn't make his Frito resign. And that's straight from Pelosi's mouth. Get used to the idea, it's going to happen.)

     3. Where does the name "Frito" for "Fredo" (Alberto Gonzales) come from? Could it be a reference to a Latino stereotype (from a snack food) that Latinos consider racist? Pleas explain in as little detail as you normally would.

     (I already have several times and you've saved it. And you know I'm right. hsuB callls Gonzales Frito, not Fredo. And it's from the 'popular' rasist commercial during hsuB's early years, frat, by FritoLay-- the 'Frito Bandito': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frito_Bandito , http://www.godeke.org/News/PhiAlumnus_GeorgeWBush9.2.htm)

     4.....

     ....2 3/4 months left....heheh

     Posted by MASK 08/09/2007 @ 7:59pm

     You go girl.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 09:16am

157. If you have such a problem with the way our great republic operates - go away. Please...

     Posted by USAPRICK 08/09/2007 @ 8:22pm

     Actually, since this is a great republic, anyone who has a problem with how things operate has the right to stay and speak out and try to make changes. Or are you saying that free speech is a bad thing about our republic? If so, perhaps YOU should be the one to leave.

     Your principle of "if you don't like it, leave" is un-American.

     Posted by BlueSpark at 08/10/2007 @ 09:38am

158. HSUB....you're lying...point by point-

     1. (I predicted impeachment of the hsuB/cHeney regime. That Frita has to let go of Frito 1st, is besides the point if it then allows hsuB/cHeney to be next. As in Nixon had to commit a massecre to get the full attention of congress, hsuB has to not fire his and your Frito. Symmetry in the hsuB world.)

     -----No, not "the regime" and not "Frito 1st"....QUOTE-

     BLOG | Posted 01/05/2007 @ 12:36am Will a New Congress Check and Balance Bush? by John Nichols

     "Right upto Bush's Democratic successor swearing-in on January 20th, 2009???" -----Posted by MASK 01/05/2007 @ 2:22pm

     "Would it not be better on Oct. 30, 2007?"----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/05/2007 @ 2:36pm

     Not Gonzales' replacement...Bush's. Or how about THIS (same thread)?--

     "Calm down. I'm sure hsuB won't get impeached for another 2-3 months, at least."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/02/2007 @ 2:54pm

     2. (Already did that several times and you're still wrong. The comment you cling on to wasn't from Pelosi it was an editorial comment from the writer. Again, Pelosi says she'll go along with impeachment if hsuB doesn't make his Frito resign. And that's straight from Pelosi's mouth. Get used to the idea, it's going to happen.)

     ------So the author of the article was LYING when he said Pelosi still wasn't fully onboard with actually DOING IT....but was telling the truth when he quoted her? How come you only trust the author to tell the "truth" YOU want to believe? Re-post the entire article.

     3. (I already have several times and you've saved it. And you know I'm right. hsuB callls Gonzales Frito, not Fredo. And it's from the 'popular' rasist commercial during hsuB's early years, frat, by FritoLay-- the 'Frito Bandito': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frito_Bandito , http://www.godeke.org/News/PhiAlumnus_GeorgeWBush9.2.htm)

     -----Okay....so, you're just as racist as Bush. Fine.

     4. .... Let's go back to the other quote-

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/02/2007 @ 4:15pm |BLOG | Posted 01/02/2007 @ 02:22am Comments for "Ford, Cheney, Checks and Balances" by John Nichols

     "Okay...translated.....you're calling for Bills of Impeachment out of the House of Reps by late October 2007? yes?"----Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 4:18pm

     "Sounds about right. Or is that left to you?"--=--Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/02/2007 @ 4:20pm

     Or another favorite---

     "Maybe you won't go crazy when hsuB gets impeached... Really, I hope you don't go too crazy, simply as a humanitarian type that I am."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/02/2007 @ 12:58pm

     I think it's going to be the other way around! But I'm not as humanitarian towards you. I think you'll deserve it!

     Posted by Mask at 08/10/2007 @ 09:39am

159. Well, I can't argue with that, But he did get UN aproval also. He considered getting two approvals but decided against getting the seocond and saying the first was enough.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/10/2007 @ 07:53am

     And can you quote where it says in the 1st one that the US has just cause to invade and start war with Iraq?

     Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

     That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991. (And as we know there were no WMD and it was then impossible to prove they didn't have what they didn't have.)

     That this represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

     That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations".

     XXXxxXXXXxxxXXXxxxXXXXxxxxXXXxx

     On 8 November 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries, such as Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to honor it.

     In the Security Council meeting following the vote, the Syrian ambassador said on the record Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[2]

     According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[3][4][5]

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

     nternational lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

     President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

     But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

     The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

     http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

     http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justifindex.htm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 09:50am

160. HSUB....you're lying...point by point-

     Posted by MASK 08/10/2007 @ 09:39am

     So Frita, since you're into creating straw dildos rather than making a point, I take it you comply with what I'm saying as nothing you just posted in any way disputes what I said.

     You're just asking people to admire the straw dildo you just made up?

     Perhaps you need to stop using straw dildos altogether. It doesn't work for you.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 10:05am

161. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/10/2007 @ 10:05am

     HSUB, I refuted your little lie with a QUOTE...from YOU. Several in fact.

     See, I saw this little dodge coming (just not sure how you were going to play it)...now I do.

     You're going to claim that you MEANT the "first bills of impeachment against ANYBODY in the Administration" would come out at the end of October, when of course you DIDN'T since nobody saw the Gonzales thing coming down like this back in January when you made that prediction on "Ford, Cheney, Checks & Balances".

     So, now it's "Gonzales first, then Cheney, then Bush!!!!" and you try to buy yourself another few months (into next year), so that you won't be proven wrong (again).

     You MIGHT get Gonzales...Pelosi MAY (despite what was in that article you ignore, like you ignore so many things) let Conyers do an impeachment of Gonzales to try to take some of the heat off of her that she (and the other Dems) are no doubt getting while on vacation. And it'll go to the Senate...and probably stall out, without enough Repubs joining. And then WORSE, Gonzales will claim "Clinton vindication".

     But you aren't going to get Cheney and Bush....but NOW you'll claim that you didn't mean that (atleast in the sense of it happening in 2 3/4 months) and that you meant "It will START at the end of October"....

     and I'll merely post your QUOTES. And show that you're a liar...as well as a future candidate for daily Thorazine injections.

     Posted by Mask at 08/10/2007 @ 10:40am

162. Frita, again nothing you wrote refutes what I said. You're just stating what I didn't state but that which has anything to do with the outcome. Your Frito just happens to be first, then hsuB/cHeney. I said hsuB/cHeney and that'll happen too. Pelosi said she'd do it reluctuntly, but she'd do it. She didn't say she might do it. She'd prefer that hsuB did his duty and ask your Frito to resign. But hsuB knows what comes next-- him and cHeney. And aparently your paycheck...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 10:47am

163. If you have such a problem with the way our great republic operates - go away. Please...

     Posted by USAPRIDE 08/09/2007 @ 8:22pm

     You first.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/10/2007 @ 10:56am

164. Well, I can't argue with that, But he did get UN aproval also. He considered getting two approvals but decided against getting the seocond and saying the first was enough.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/10/2007 @ 07:53am | ignore this person

     c'mon now, he would not have asked for a resolution if he didn't need it. after he didn't get it, it's easy to say he didn't need it.

     what he didn't get is the support of our allies, or the respect and approval of the rest of the world. the diplomatic damage of this go it alone has been devastating to america's standing in the world.

     secret prisons and torture sanctioned by the highest level of gov't has done the rest. america is no longer trusted, as evidenced by the failure of any diplomatic efforts in the mid east.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 11:01am

165. At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security". Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 11:10am

166. from Wiki. the UN resolution did not greenlight a war. it said that the UN must convene to consider war. that is obviously not what you claim. do a little research, why don't you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 11:12am

167. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/10/2007 @ 10:47am

     HSUB,

     Superb refutation of the partyline mewling by the excreble MBB over Resolution 1441. Once again and as always, the committed conservaLoser has no grasp on the facts and vaguely waves his her or hands in the direction of the UN Resolutiuon with grade zero grasp of what had been agreed upon. It is a reflex that has been installed in the docile creature that is MBB and others like him by constant immersion in propaganda against which he marshalls no resistence since his mind is mere putty. You have taken MBB to school and administered a severe and thorough spanking, props to you.

     On the other hand, it hardly appears worth the effort with MASK. Indeed, MASK is in fact correct about things the proverbial 50% of the time. But -- and this is an important "but" -- it is never as a result of reasoned principle but a side-effect of sticking his finger into the wind to ascertain the direction in which it blows.

     My theory is that MASK's extraordinary, unrelenting repetitiveness stems from having attended a rave, circa 1990, and having been "imprinted" by the 200 beats-per-minute (MASK, go look up "imprinting" on the wikipedia if you need help here). The 200 bpms is the head-splitting level of redundancy that MASK is striving compulsively to "achieve": same talking points, over and over and over again like a techno beat gone berserk.

     There may be no other explanation.

     Posted by John_Shaft at 08/10/2007 @ 11:12am

168. I'd rather work to fix it then run like a Cheney from a draft board.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/10/2007 @ 11:16am

169. Here is an item from Scott Horton at HARPERS. He writes about some people, who are not among the usual suspects, and who have let rip with moist, steaming clumps of feces straight into George W. Loser's hat.

     The upshot is that since 2001, the beyond contempt neo-Clowns and conservaLosers have been operating a politicized PR campaign seeking partison points, and not a substantial confrontation with terror on behalf of the nation's security. The manipulation has kept the mindless rank-and-file conservaLosers angering on cue from the PR script that has been handed to them from their abusive daddy figures, George W. Loser and BigTime Cheney.

     The first of these hat-shitters is the well known Marx-Leninist buddy of Chavez and Fidel, Newt Gingrich. Here, Horton quotes from an Atlanta paper:

     House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush Administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001. A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

     "None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives. Gingrich, who led the so-called Republican Revolution that won the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 1994 midterm elections, said more must be done to marshal national resources to combat Islamic militants at home and abroad and to prepare the country for future attack. He was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

     "We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

     Next are some people not for attribution, but they echo much the same from an insiderly perspective:

     Reading these remarks brought two scenes into my mind. The first was from a recent conference I attended in Italy with a group of European and American counterterrorism experts. A large team of U.S. Department of Justice officials, drawn from its uppermost echelons, was there, including three of the principal architects of the legal policies for the war on terror. In not-for-attribution comments, one openly acknowledged that the war on terror was cast in the first instance as a political ploy and that it was a conceptual failure. It was now essential for the Americans to move on to something else, he argued. None of the others challenged that view; indeed, two of them said that they agreed with it. So even inside of the Bush Administration, the war on terror has been written off as a scam that served its limited political purpose and is finished. However, this intellectual refuse continues to be the policy of the U.S. government: people suffer in prison and are tortured and abused because of it. That's intellectual bankruptcy.

     Posted by John_Shaft at 08/10/2007 @ 11:26am

170. Wolf, that's the Declaration of Independence

     MBB, Thank you, I stand corrected. I was pretty tired yesterday when I made that post. Go ahead and say it....I'm tired every day! I deserve it after that mess up.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/10/2007 @ 11:28am

171. Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/10/2007 @ 11:12am | ignore this person

     good stuff. keep it coming

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 11:38am

172. I know people who own their own jets. How much of your experience of "Rich People's" tax returns comes from first hand knowledge and how much comes from bigotted fantasies you want to believe?

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/09/2007 @ 6:39pm

     Ah MBB, Why would calling a snake a snake be bigotted? I do know people who own their own private aircraft, small to mid size companies, and a few who pretty much own a few cities on the West Coast. But, I have listened to claims of how I actually pay more taxes than they do directly from them. So, MBB, you tell me, does it sound to you like they are paying that 30% of their total or should I say real income? I have told them how much I make and that's when they laugh and tell me I pay more in taxes than them. I also know of one family owning a medium sized business that is quite lucrative, but the family pays no federal taxes and their children actually receive federal assistance for education, and once again, they think this is amusing. Being from the middle class myself, I don't find this one bit amusing.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/10/2007 @ 11:41am

173. good stuff. keep it coming

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/10/2007 @ 11:38am

     Thanks, JOHANNES. And of course "keep it coming" is a perscription that JOHN_SHAFT can copiously fulfill, to the point of overflow. Remember the lyrics:

     Shaft

     Who's the black private dick

     that's a sex machine to all the chicks?

     (Shaft!)

     You're damn right

     Posted by John_Shaft at 08/10/2007 @ 11:55am

174. that was certainly an unintended double entendre.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 12:04pm

175. but why not.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 12:05pm

176. 1) I didn't sidestep. I said the top 1% make 17% of the income and pay 34% of the income taxes. They are paying their taxes.

     2) I'm an officer in a corporation in Bermuda. Last year I personally paid about $75,000 in taxes to the federal government. The corporation I serve is a US taxpayer and pays 35% of all taxible profits to the Federal Government.

     tax rates are markedly different than taxes paid. and so, by ignoring the wealth of corporations based outside of the united states (a growing number, btw) who avoid numerous types of state/federal taxes, you have effectively "side stepped" the question.

     second, whether you paid $75,000 in taxes for a bermuda-based company is irrelevant.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2007 @ 12:06pm

177. and then, what of the off-shoring of labor, production facilities, transportation, and corporate HQs?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2007 @ 12:08pm

178. This bullshit you guys make up and then pass around to each other like your experts on "the rich" is pretty comical.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/10/2007 @ 07:34am

     MBB, What is it that you do to where you deserve to make approximately $230K per year? Like I said, there are doctors making less money than you. Do you have the equivalent expertise as that of a doctor? Do you have a Phd in something? Why do you deserve to make $230K? Being an engineer and seeing people like you make $230 makes me want to wretch my guts out. I actually come up with ideas for products, design changes etc. What do you do besides sitting in meetings and moving other peoples' money around? P.S. I have a bulletin for you, you are well off, not rich unless you are making more than what you say. There is, of course, the possibility that you come from a rich family, but then you didn't earn a damn thing but just inherited money and a position.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/10/2007 @ 12:18pm

179. mary, read the resolution again.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 12:38pm

180. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/10/2007 @ 12:21pm

     The resolution was not a fucking Samuel Beckett play that you can "read into" largely what you want. It was a legal document and the reason that C-Powell was able to shepard it through the Security Council unanimously was because they all READ and UNDERSTOOD it to mean that it would put UNMOVIC on the ground AND NOT an invasion. An invasion would require ANOTHER resolution based on deliberations over what UNMOVIC reported. Robert Woodward's book makes all of this crystal clear, on the diplomatic side. All parties to the vote had this shared understanding and NOT your drippy-runny feelings about what (sniff, sniff) your feely-wheelies feeeeeel it meant.

     George W. Failure and Tony Bliar only abandoned pursuing the second resolution, shortly before the invasion, when it was clear that it would LOSE resoundingly in the security council despite bribes and arm-twisting.

     Look again at the hideous dogshit MBB has smeared on our screens (with a hanky over your nose as you do so). It is sickening postmodern dogshit -- and that is a symptom of what the contemporary rightwinger has to offer. They seek to behave as if reality does not exist and we are all walking around in an endless rendition of ROSHOMON where it is OK to feel there are WMDs in Iraq if you can get some crazed witch-doctor or Soviet-style FOX News party-liner to conjure the vision for you.

     Reality, asshole, that's where we dwell -- and it is what the rapid rightwinger must continually avoid with deepest SHAME.

     Posted by John_Shaft at 08/10/2007 @ 12:39pm

181. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/10/2007 @ 12:21pm

     What part of 1441 says the Security Council has--- as you state: ... "authorizing force" ?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 12:40pm

182. Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq Friday, November 8, 2002 Posted: 2:17 PM EST (1917 GMT)

     U.N. Security Council votes Friday to approve the Iraq resolution

     Story Tools

     SPECIAL REPORT

     Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

     Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

     Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

     Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

     Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

     Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

     Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

     Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

     Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

     Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

     Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

     Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

     Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

     Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

     Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

     Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

     Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

     Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

     1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

     2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

     3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

     4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

     5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

     6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

     7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

     -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

     -- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;

     -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

     -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

     -- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

     -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

     -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

     -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

     -- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

     8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

     9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

     10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

     11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

     12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

     13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

     14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 12:44pm

183. MBB, You seem like a reasonable person and I might add a fair person. If you pay your fair share of taxes, then my hat is off to you. But, why would the "rich" of this country not expect to pay more in taxes. They enjoy the lions share of what our country has to offer and those taxes support the very system that allows them to live in luxury. For example, the wealthy may very well be on a bridge with aging trusses etc. and meet their end just as easily as an average citizen. We all have one thing in common. We are all Americans and use the same infrastructure,police, fire and ambulance and depend upon the same national defense (to keep us safe, not some other damn country) and the list goes on. Why would anyone not wish to help out a system that is helping them out? Everyone acts like taxes are some kind of evil. I always thought it was a way everyone kicked in to build a better future for the nation which transfers to the well being of our children and grandchildren. I think all of us need to think more about the future of where this nation is heading and a little less about our personal wealth. Too much greed is what is tearing this nation apart.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/10/2007 @ 1:01pm

184. Everyone acts like taxes are some kind of evil. I always thought it was a way everyone kicked in to build a better future for the nation which transfers to the well being of our children and grandchildren. I think all of us need to think more about the future of where this nation is heading and a little less about our personal wealth. Too much greed is what is tearing this nation apart.

     Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/10/2007 @ 1:01pm

     Well put in a patriotic fashion seldom heard from the Other Side.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/10/2007 @ 1:05pm

185. MBB, Sorry about your dad.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/10/2007 @ 1:08pm

186. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/10/2007 @ 10:47am

     Ignoring for a moment your lie about Pelosi (re-post the article and show where she said EXACTLY WHAT YOU claim)....

     what did John Conyers tell Cindy Sheehan? Ever look into it?

     No, of course not. Actually I just heard on Air America an interview with a woman who went in with Cindy and Ray McGovern into Conyers' office and spoke with him. Know what she said Conyers said..."Not enough votes. Fox News would make fun of us. Our only recourse are elections!"

     Now of course that woman is lying, because...well....because you want her to be lying. Conyers is full square in support of impeachment, it's going to happen, and it's going to happen by Halloween.

     Why? Because if it doesn't, you're either going to go crazy (10% possibility)....start claiming you didn't predict it would happen by the end of October, when you did (90% possibility)...or admit that you were wrong and it isn't going to happen (0% possibility).

     And again, not because I wouldn't like to see Bush and Cheney gone, since I've said from the outset (as THEY do) that it would merely hurt the Democrats more....but because I just like seeing a jerk like you get his comeuppance. See, I merely held a different opinion on impeachment (one shared by David Corn, if you remember and one he has yet recanted) lo' these many months ago, but you turned it into some ad hominem attack because (like Bush) you believe "You're either for us or against us!"

     So as the Great Karmic Wheel turns, and you become either a delusional lunatic or a lying sack of shit, it does indicate that maybe there is SOME justice in the Universe...so maybe years from now, there will be for Dick and Dubya as well.....but not before January 20th 2009!

     Here endeth the lesson!

     Posted by Mask at 08/10/2007 @ 1:24pm

187. Mary, i am being redundant, but the rich and super rich have in the past paid far more in taxes. the top rate during WW2, the postwar years and during the Korean war was 90%. we are now in a crisis of those proportions and I favor bringing back the 90% top rate.

     if indeed you income is 200K plus, you taxes would remain unchanged. the top rate didn't kick in until after the first million, which would be 11 million today.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 1:26pm

188. In a change of government the poor change nothing beyond the name of their master.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/10/2007 @ 1:16pm

     Except for all the cuts in assistance thanks to their cruel new Repug masters who cannot stand the thought that government might actually HELP people.... especially if it costs THEM a couple of bucks.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/10/2007 @ 1:27pm

189. What I object to is the statement from Darla that the rich don't pay anything.

     this would be true if i actually said it

     but i didn't.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2007 @ 1:32pm

190. I read read Resolution 1441 as authorizing force and other reasonable people read resolution 1441 as authorizing force. The fact that not 100% of all humans agree, does not mean that Reasolution 1441 does not meet the requirements under international law for authorizing force.

     In a court of law you would lose.

     this sort of logical justfication for the invasion and occupation of iraq, and the removal of saddam hussein, is irrelevant when we consider the innumerable public statements our government, and its loyal followers in the media, made prior to march 2003.

     the most mainstream, and might i add authoritarian, wisdom buttressing the justification for our continued presence in the middle east, as well as the continued implementation of neoconservative foreign policy in general, is that critics (like myself and others on this site) have no legal argument for changing, or reversing, either of the above phenomena.

     in other words, the "wisdom" of the authoritarian (or "conservative") movement is thus: it's ok for america to do whatever it wants, so long as the judges (appointed for purely non-partisan reasons, ahem) say so.

     it's an incredibly cynical worldview, embraced by so many of our wise, wealthy people (like mary).

     Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2007 @ 1:41pm

191. It won't work. A 90% rate over $1 million won't increase tax revenues, all it will do is lead to investement capital leaving the USA

     it's leaving the USA anyway......

     Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2007 @ 1:42pm

192. Mary, your reading comprehension sucks. read it again.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 1:42pm

193. so I am supposed to believe that the super rich, when confronted with a high tax bill will just chuck it all and join an ashram? what nonsense.

     and do the goddamn research. the top rate was 91%.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 1:44pm

194. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/10/2007 @ 10:47am

     Ignoring for a moment your lie about Pelosi (re-post the article and show where she said EXACTLY WHAT YOU claim)....

     Posted by MASK 08/10/2007 @ 1:24pm

     As with your misleader, hsuB and your Frito, if there ever was a pathological liar here-- it's you Frita:

     August 01, 2007

     Pelosi gives nod to Gonzales impeachment inquiry

     House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) welcomed a resolution by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) to begin an impeachment inquiry of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

     "Of course it's merited," Pelosi said. "I've called for the resignation of the attorney general. But right now, we're focusing on health care for America's children, a strong energy bill for energy independence, lobby reform. ... If that's something he wants to introduce, I think there are certainly grounds."

     (Not said by Pelosi) But Pelosi fell short of committing to move the resolution through the House. (Kinda like saying but she didn't say she was going to hit your Frito over the head with her gavel-- what's up with that? Why didn't she say that!?!?! A very Frita thing to do.)

     "We'll see. I mean, I would hope that the president would see the light, accept the resignation of the attorney general so that we don't have to spend people's time on something that is so self-evident," she said.

     In any case, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said he did not expect any such resolution to be considered before the August recess. And he said he would like committee review of the resolution before taking a public position on it.

     In the meantime, he said, "Gonzales ought to think about stepping down for the good of the country."

     By Josephine Hearn 05:00 AM

     http://tinyurl.com/yoysfy

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 1:55pm

195. People who make $10 million a year can't consume it all. they eventually leave it to charity.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/10/2007 @ 1:40pm

     BWAH HA HA HA HA - oh, that's funny.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/10/2007 @ 1:57pm

196. People who make $10 million a year can't consume it all. they eventually leave it to charity

     yeah, that is pretty funny. to charity. they wouldn't think of leaving it to their kids. or spouse. or cousins. or nephews.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2007 @ 2:01pm

197. Does it really matter if it was 70% or 90% or 91%? It was a dumb idea. I don't need to know the exact number to know that.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/10/2007 @ 1:56pm | ignore this person

     and how do you know that? they did it numerous times. and yes, facts matter. if you don't want to discuss this intelligently just say so.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 2:02pm

198. People who make $10 million a year can't consume it all.

     the first $10 million would be taxed at the old rate. we're talking about the people who make far more.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 2:03pm

199. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/10/2007 @ 1:55pm

     Yeah, HSUB, Nancy's fully onboard isn't she. Of course, you have to assume a lot in what Josephine Hearn quoted Pelosi saying that was ambigious and "I understand how he feels"....and IGNORE what Josephine Hearn said that Pelosi also said, but didn't quote her on...

     But Pelosi fell short of committing to move the resolution through the House.

     Because if you don't do all those things (and consider Ms Hearn an alternating liar)....then you don't maintain your house of cards in a room full of fans call the Democratic Congressional leadership.

     BTW, why hasn't Conyers corrected that horrible lie that Cindy Sheehan and her friends are spreading about him?!?!?!? It's been WEEKS!!!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/10/2007 @ 2:06pm

200. Frita is always proving my point about her creating straw dildos rather than looking at the facts.

     She just has to protect her hsuB and Frito while waving her straw dildos around frantically as distractions.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 2:23pm

201. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/10/2007 @ 2:23pm

     You're right, HSUB...quotes, ALL of newspaper articles (not just the "assumed parts" and things left out by the reader), etc.....all straw men.

     We are only 2 3/4 months away from Bush and Cheney's impeachment bills out of the House...or...er....was that Gonzales, with Cheney and Bush coming "soon" or "a little later"

     (or "a few months later" or "sometime soon after the Democratic and Repub Conventions" or "as an October surprise to destroy the GOP and win it for Hillary" or "during the Transition in November '08" or "as a Christmas 2008 present for a relieved nation" or "just before Hillary's Inauguration" or "We can STILL do it, he's a civilian now and can go to prison" for the next 30 years?)

     Posted by Mask at 08/10/2007 @ 3:21pm

202. he's a civilian now and can go to prison" for the next 30 years?)

     Posted by MASK 08/10/2007

     Mask, I kind of like that one. Why not. Gonzo, Shrub and the ChenWarmeister are all U.S. citizens are they not? Then why can't they be tried for crimes comitted while they were in office. Is there some kind of statute of limitations barring prosecution of former office holders? Besides, then they couldn't use the executive privelege claim. Hilary could reverse all the crap they put in place to protect their asses before they leave. I think it would be grand to see our government make these guys own up to the war they instigated and the war crimes they made policy (wire tapping, torture, lying under oath, misleading the American public about how the war has been going...Cheney has been caught numerous times saying victory is just around the corner when he knew damn well that was not the case. Then there's always the Valerie Plame ordeal which so far only Scooter Libby almost answered for.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/10/2007 @ 4:06pm

203. Posted by MASK 08/10/2007 @ 3:21pm

     Hey, Frita-- I already said a long time ago that if hsuB/cHeney were impeached later than I said that I'd admit to being wrong about the timing.

     However, if I said that a ball rolled off the table and hit the floor. Then said that a fly landed on the ball while it was on the table. You can't then come back and honestly say that I am being misleading because I said what caused the ball to start sliding after I said what the ball did ultimately, first. Both are still true statements and neither contradicts the other. If you think so, then the flaw is with you and not in what I've said.

     Thus you are playing with too much straw dildos, Frita.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 4:16pm

204. Besides, Al Gore wins.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 4:50pm

205. Poll Numbers & Al Gore

     Written by Garart on Jul-22-07 5:12pm

     From: www.garart.org

     A look at public opinion polls for July confirms what we already know. Senator Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side the nomination is still up for grabs.

     The number not discussed by mainstream political analysts is the double-digit undecided voters on GOP side. New Jersey, South Carolina and Colorado are still up for grabs. On the Democratic side it looks like Clinton has all but Colorado locked-up. Clinton has a double-digit lead against Senator Obama in every field sample taken this month.

     Both Obama and Clinton have favorable ratings below fifty percent; however, Clinton's favorable and unfavorable are split 40%-40%. If this unfavorable number continues to grow, Democrats will have a difficult time in the General election. Obama, despite his successful fundraising efforts, hovers in the high twenties.

     Obama seems to be unable to generate the traction he needs to overtake the former-First Lady, although only 18-percent of those polled haven't heard of the Illinois senator. Senator Clinton's name recognition is 98-percent.

     An analysis of national and state polls indicated that Senator Clinton has captured the Democratic nomination despite any major stumble or scandal. A problem for Democrats could be her forty-percent unfavorable rating and 98-percent name recognition. If before the DNC these numbers hold the Democrats will be nominating a sure loser.

     Another roadblock to Senator Clinton's success is the decision of former-Senator Fred Thompson to enter the race. As I have already written, Thompson is the best choice for Republicans. His voting record in the Senate will garner strong support among Christian conservatives, while his down home manner, age and air of confidence may bring big trouble for Hillary. I would also look for Thompson to do well among Independent and swing votes and conservative Democrats creating what might be called "Thompson Democrats," a redux of the same phenomenon that led to former-President Ronald Reagan's margins of victory.

     The Democrats are working to develop strategies to make this campaign about public policy rather than social issues. With Fred Thompson as the nominee the GOP will stress anarchy, chaos and the terrorist threat. Safety trumps social change.

     With these factors in mind my analysis leads to one conclusion. Al Gore should be the Democratic nominee.

     Gore is the only Democrat who could give Fred Thompson a run for his money. Mr. Gore is no longer perceived as a politician. Over the last eight-years he has grown into the role of statesman. He best can carry the message that domestic security and social change are not mutual exclusive. With Gore as the nominee the experience issue will cut to the Democrats advantage. It will be easy to remind voters that if the 2000 election was determined by votes rather than politics there would not have been an invasion of Iraq. Rather than chase the terrorists around the world we would be hard at work ensuring our domestic security.

     We who support the Vice President understand his ambivalence about entering this race or to seek elective office again. Yet I know there is one attribute he possesses that should encourage him to run. The fact that Al Gore is a modern patriot. He is an intellectual and philosophical descendant of our founder fathers.

     I am convinced that the former-Vice President does not want to see the United States withstand another four or eight years with a right wing ideologue in control of our Federal government. He does not want to see the Unites States Supreme Court drift further to the right. He doesn't want to see more and more of our civil liberties trampled upon, nor does he want to see our government run to further the aims of special interests over public interest.

     Mr. Vice President your entrance into the 2008 presidential race may be a genuine sacrifice for you. But a decision not to run will be a disservice to the citizens of this country and will send a strong message--sacrifice and patriotism are values that America no longer hold dear.

     http://tinyurl.com/24dkvw

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 5:55pm

206. http://tinyurl.com/yovse4

     http://www.reversespeech.com/sou2007.htm

     http://tinyurl.com/ysdrmb

     http://www.reversespeech.com/bushiraq.htm

     http://tinyurl.com/23hu4e

     http://www.reversespeech.com/bush0707.htm

     http://tinyurl.com/2d7ykr

     http://www.reversespeech.com/bushireland.htm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/10/2007 @ 6:26pm

207. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/10/2007 @ 4:16pm

     Back-pedalling already beginning? Care to make a "They WILL impeach Bush by ****(date)****" prediction?

     As for Gore, read John Nichols much?

     BLOG | Posted 08/09/2007 @ 09:11am It's Beginning to Look a Lot Likes Caucuses by John Nichols

     "The schedule shift will also reduce the opening for a late-starting campaign by former Vice President Al Gore or Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold."

     Posted by Mask at 08/10/2007 @ 8:25pm

208. Carl Bernstein: Bush More "Disastrous" Than Nixon

     no shit

     Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 8:41pm

209. Hey lads you better get a move on with those impeachments (Bush and Cheney because Cheney as president may well nuke parts of the ME if Bush goes and just for good measure have some of your lot sent off to Gitmo) as W's poll numbers seem to be improving. I just hope, for your sakes the Dems are not beginning to defect. If they are you, should blame guns a blazin Obama who makes young George appear a model of sanity.

     BTW you fellas seem to have gone a little quiet on the surge. You better start worrying about that too. How does impeachment for military success in and around Baghdad sound to you? The lovely Nancy and old misery guts Harry might just buy that one over the high crimes and misdemeanours approach.

     This little site almost saves one reading the news from Iraq by acting as a first line indicator of success or otherwise. The surge? Which surge? Iraq? Where's that?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/10/2007 @ 9:20pm

210. Posted by QuagmireJONES4 08/10/2007 @ 9:20pm

     quagmire it gets old talking about the latest bit of progress in iraq that is making things worse.

     and 2009 draws closer

     Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 9:24pm

211. and 2009 draws closer"

     Posted by WILL C. 08/10/2007 @ 9:24pm

     Yes Willie but that well may be enough time for W to do a Baghdad lap of honour, the Repubs retake both houses and sink your little heart throb Hillary.

     Give my regards to mum.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/10/2007 @ 9:43pm

212. Posted by QuagmireJONES4 08/10/2007 @ 9:43pm

     wait quagmire.. is it... yes... i think i see it.... The light at the end of the tunnel

     yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haa!

     yippeeeeeee!

     Whooo hoooo!

     Clap Clap Clap Clap

     Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 9:46pm

213. no wait! That's just the chimp lighting farts gain

     Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 9:47pm

214. Posted by WILL C. 08/10/2007 @ 9:47pm

     Yeah, Yeah. Pull the other one. I can tell when you are whistling in the dark Willie. Otherwise what got you thinking about harbingers of a bowel motion? Dead give away.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/10/2007 @ 9:56pm

215. Otherwise what got you thinking about harbingers of a bowel motion?

     Posted by QuagmireJONES4 08/10/2007 @ 9:56pm

     See that intermittent light way down there at the end of the tunnel.

     (it's our president lighting his farts to confuse you)

     Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:00pm

216. Carl must weigh at least 320 now. He needs to investigate himself for getting so fat!

     Posted by woodyee at 08/10/2007 @ 10:08pm

217. he did. It was due to eating

     Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:10pm

218. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/10/2007 @ 10:31pm

     Hey RIO, could you please lay out in specific terms what it takes to go to the Heaven that YOU're going to ....so I can go "Elsewhere".

     Otherwise an eternity with people like you would be...well...you know.

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/10/2007 @ 10:36pm

219. Posted by MASK 08/10/2007 @ 10:36pm

     Hey KY addict, I'm really enjoying your whole slow, drawn out transition over to liberalism.

     by 2009 the new people blogging here might not even know you were a hamster

     Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:40pm

220. There has been no oversight from day one, and that will not change. The more distressing part of all this horror is that young people coming of age under this administration will not remember that we were once a democratic republic with a viable Constitution. Good read on this sad prospect:

     CLICK HERE [tvnewslies.org]

     Posted by Reg at 08/10/2007 @ 11:34pm

221. Posted by MASK 08/10/2007 @ 8:25pm

     Frita just enjoys playing with her straw dildos in public soooo much. I hear it does drive one crazy, Frita, you might want to slow down there.

     (Frita doesn't know if she's coming or going anymore... )

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 12:23am

222. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/10/2007 @ 1:40pm

     It won't work. A 90% rate over $1 million won't increase tax revenues, all it will do is lead to investement capital leaving the US and a reduction in taxes collected and a reduction in economic growth and a reduction in talented individuals moving to the US. Economics is the study of human motivation, not money. At a 90% tax rate (Actually, I beleive top federal was 70% and California had a top rate of 20%) people aren't motivated to do shit. If I'm a brain surgen making 2 million a year, I stop after june and lay off my staff for the rest of the year.

     I think you're missing the point here, MBB. The point is for losers like WOLFIE and JR to punish the rich people who make more money, are more successful, and benefit society more. This compensates them for being failures.

     To illustrate, let me tell you about one of my old coworkers who was as liberal as they come. One day we were discussing a news article about a road that ran near my house. Seems the police had set the limit at 35 mph, which was way too low, so everyone was speeding, average speed estimated by police somewhere in the 50's. The problem was all the speeding was making the road unsafe. Then someone at the PD or the roads dept got the idea that if they set the limit at a reasonable and safe rate, 45 mph, people would slow down to be legal AND the road would be safer. My friend the liberal had a big problem with THAT solution, however. He wanted to keep the speed at 35 mph; I presume it was so the police could 'teach everyone a lesson'.

     That's the mind of your typical liberal. It's not about what makes sense in the real world at all. It's about preconceived notions of what OUGHT TO WORK as opposed to WHAT DOES WORK. See the problem here?

     Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2007 @ 01:52am

223. it was the united states gov't that set the top tax rate at 90% during WW2, the postwar years and during the Korean war.

     they must all have been losers who were jealous of the super rich. thanks for pointing that out Pontz.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 08:29am

224. At a 90% tax rate (Actually, I beleive top federal was 70% and California had a top rate of 20%) people aren't motivated to do shit.

     well Mary, you don't know shit. what you believe is wrong. my source is the Encyclopedia Britannica. what's yours?

     that the super rich, the most successful among us measured by monetary standards, would stop striving because their nation needed their help, is a gross misunderstanding of human nature. the opposite is likely true. if I were to make $200 million and the gov't asks for much of it, I would try to make 300 million the next year, in order to get more for myself.

     it's really quite touching to see losers like Pontz and Mary speak up for the super rich, who evidently lack spokesmen for their class, despite all the lawyers and PR people they have on call.

     from what I have gathered the republic and the super rich, read Rockefellers et al, survived this time of high top tax brackets. I would venture to say that this would be no different today.

     a statistic to ponder. 80% of the economic gains of the last years have accrued to the top 1% of earners.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 08:38am

225. I always hear that the super rich will exploit tax loopholes and move their funds overseas if asked to pay more. the fact is that they do that already. trust me, all those tax lawyers exploit every avenue, else they would not have their jobs.

     ok all you losers, in chorus, " don't touch the superrich's bundles, falalla."

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 08:49am

226. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/11/2007 @ 08:38am

     from what I have gathered the republic and the super rich, read Rockefellers et al, survived this time of high top tax brackets. I would venture to say that this would be no different today.

     No shit, Sherlock. Here's a clue for you: you make a lot of money and pay your taxes, you get to keep it. That's the way this country works, and we find it's an excellent incentive for people to work hard, create businesses, and benefit society. It's called American capitalism, and it creates all or most all of the technological and business innovatiosn that make the world a better place for everyone, your sorry ungrateful lazy ass unfortunately included.

     Why do you think the Kennedy's, Pelosi's, Kerry's, Edwards, et al of this world are always pushing for higher tax rates and proclaiming all the time what wonderful champions of the poor they themselves are? They couldn't give a shit what the tax rates are, they've already got theirs, and in most cases, they didn't even earn it. The only people impacted are the people that MAKE a lot of money, ie, are good productive earners, which are the REAL backbone of society. But then again, you wouldn't know JACK about the people that REALLY make this country run.

     a statistic to ponder. 80% of the economic gains of the last years have accrued to the top 1% of earners.

     Wow, what a revelation. The people who make the most money get the most money. Most Americans want to be like them and have a hope that one day they can. The top 25% of earners also contribute 85 percent of the taxes, jackass.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2007 @ 08:55am

227. Pontz, I did not set the tax rate that I am advocating. the US gov't did. this was during a time of crisis in this country. I am arguing that we are in a time of crisis now, with an 8 trillion $ deficit, and an one trillion $ war that is not even in this figure.

     you really have no argument other than hurling insults.

     "Americans want to be like them and have a hope that one day they can."

     dream on, wannabe.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 09:10am

228. Who Pays Taxes?

     The short answer is this: you and I pay the taxes that rich and powerful people ought to pay, but don't.

     In the year 2000, at the height of the last economic boom and before the most recent round of tax cuts were enacted, IRS data shows that the richest 400 taxpayers paid 27% of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. On average, these 400 taxpayers each had taxable income of $151 million. All other taxpayers had average taxable income of only $34,600, and yet their tax burden was 40%.

     if those 400 superrich paid the top rate of 90%, the treasury would gain roughly $48 billion. every years.

     one more thing. taxes are paid to benefit the nation. the gov't just manages the money.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 09:51am

229. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/11/2007 @ 09:51am

     Some things to consider, JR. First of all, don't kid yourself; your urge to tax the rich comes from your psychological need to punish them for being successful, and your rationalizations that their money is needed to pay for things that benefit you and 'the poor' are just that. Secondly, as I have already pointed out to you, the biggest earners (not necessarily the richest people) already pay most of the taxes. Third, it is an established fact that lowering tax rates stimulates the economy, which benefits everyone a lot more than high income tax rates, which are counterporoductive.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2007 @ 09:58am

230. Pontz, you keep running away from the fact that I am merely the messenger. the US gov't set these tax rates in the 40s and 50s, so you can just forget about attacking me, in your pathetic way.

     income taxes refer only to tax on wages and salaries. it is well known that the superrich derive most of their income from other sources, namely investments.

     incidentally, I own my own business, modest as it may be.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 10:05am

231. since we're psychoanalyzing here, let's look at the fact that you are busy defending the privileges of a class of people you will never be a part of. your kids neither. looks pretty desperate to me.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 10:15am

232. Uuuuuhhhhmmmm:

     http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2157.html?theme=light

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 10:17am

233. fools, you have GOT to be kidding? UFOs? Blödsinn.(nonsense)

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 10:19am

234. in France the gov't mandates every worker get 35 days off a year. eat your heart out suckers. that and the best health care system in the world, what? that country is not in a state of collapse? there is no justice in this world.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 10:22am

235. fools, what they saw was not an UFO, but rather the mirage of social justice in this country.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 10:31am

236. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/11/2007 @ 10:22am

     in France the gov't mandates every worker get 35 days off a year. eat your heart out suckers. that and the best health care system in the world, what? that country is not in a state of collapse? there is no justice in this world.

     France is living beyond its means. The country is also in a demographic death spiral. If current population trends continue, in 50 years France will not exist as we know it today. Dead countries like France are hardly a testament to the efficacy of socialistic policies.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2007 @ 10:49am

237. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/11/2007 @ 10:15am

     since we're psychoanalyzing here, let's look at the fact that you are busy defending the privileges of a class of people you will never be a part of. your kids neither. looks pretty desperate to me.

     You have no way of knowing whether myself or my kids will ever be rich. With your mindset, I think this is more likely to be the case for you than for me. My next door neighbor started out poor and made $15 million dollars by inventing a computer program which diagnoses breast cancer from MRI scans. I know for a fact that poor people can become rich. Only in socialist countries is the good behavior of entrepreneurs punished, leading to societal decay as in France, Cuba, North Korea, and any number of other examples. You should go live in one of them to see this for yourself.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2007 @ 10:52am

238. JR,

     Yes a distraction to be sure, but I have seen that UFO's, like religion, are a solace to some people that are in need of escape where access to the other distraction of MSM/entertainment is spare and the need of a buffer to their reality, barring a solution/correction to it, is great. Perhaps excessive blogging is in the same realm? At some point we need to back up our outrage with actions that tell our leaders our words are not the empty tantrums of a few static couch potatoes, but rather warnings to be heeded from informed and capable people.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 10:56am

239. Dead countries like France are hardly a testament to the efficacy of socialistic policies.

     hahahahaha.sucker.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 10:58am

240. France is living beyond its means.

     France is living beyond its means? how about a country with an 8trillion $ deficit? are they living beyond their means?

     US GDP $13 trillion deficit? 8 trillion. more than half of GDP

     in europe countries have agreed that the deficit not exceed 3% of GDP. both germany and france have not been able to accomplish that, going to 3,5 %. who is living beyond their means again?

     you see Pontz facts are inconvenient to ideologues such as you, and also because I got 'em and you got nothing.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 11:03am

241. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 10:56am | ignore this person

     not bad. UFOs are like vampires, escapism, not a terrible thing in small doses.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 11:05am

242. Ponti-France is a dead country?I wonder if they know that?Are you,also,saying that there is no societal decay in capitalist countries?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/11/2007 @ 11:05am

243. France, a dead country. that's why so many rich people retire to the south of France. now that's something to be envious about.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 11:11am

244. (And might I add to the litany below-- polls about the direction of our nation, the need for investigations to impeachment,...)

     "Television, newspapers, blogs, and a litany of books are reminiscent in our collective conscience that America has been browbeaten into trading peace for war, liberties for security, sovereignty for safety, and blood for oil.

     VVVVvvvVVVvvvvVVVvvvvvVVvvvv

     Thirty plus years after Nixon's failed coup d'état, George W. Bush has taken the idea of a tyrannical, presidential despot, at the helm of the executive branch, to dizzying heights and abject lows in America in the 21st century. Bush has now fully entrenched himself -- in a twisted, extravagant, bravado-ridden version of Richard Nixon -- by stonewalling every action Congress takes, as a totalitarian ruler, more bellicose and bombastic than his previous six years of pompous swagger and reckless governing.

     The juxtaposition of these two loggerheads -- an ineffectual Congress and an imperial president -- leads to the will of the people being usurped, subjugated, and silenced. The people no longer have a voice in this government, for it is no longer our government as much as it is no longer a democracy. What America has become is an autocracy. It is now operated by lobbyists, mega-corporations, the military-industrial complex, and the prostitutes in Washington that these power brokers, in a very fascist way, have bought politicians' loyalty, acquiescence, and obedience. Contrary to the revisionist history so many of us are indoctrinated with, and unswervingly cling to without reason or true examination of the facts, our nation is run by an oligarchy.

     VVVvvvvVVVvvvvVVVVvvvVVVVvvvvv

     The only proper instrument for accountability and transformation -- when a president becomes despotic in his actions -- is impeachment, trial, and removal for failure to respect and honor the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of the land. Impeachment is a just and necessary remedy and we must immediately move away from the idea that it takes away from other work Congress should and can be doing. When you have a president who openly flouts and disobeys the law, intentionally attempts to erase the separation of powers of our tripartite government and assume dictatorial powers, no legitimate work, which will stand as the rule of law for all men, can be realized.

     Here is the straightforward reason why impeachment is a mandate to return to a working democracy: No matter what legislation Congress passes, Bush will veto it, ignore it, or add a dubious "signing statement," making unilateral claims he may disregard it or claim the bill is "unconstitutional," plainly bypassing the judicial process of the Supreme Court, as well. As many historians have appropriately point out, not even King George III of England had or assumed these kinds of authoritarian powers."

     http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2285.shtml

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 11:13am

245. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 10:56am | ignore this person

     not bad. UFOs are like vampires, escapism, not a terrible thing in small doses.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/11/2007 @ 11:05am

     That's how it's done: sometimes little by little in small doses or in one big swoop, and in the case of hsuB/cHeney admin-- both.

     "Our will as a nation is not being done for a very simple reason. We, as a nation, have been titrated -- the gradual increasing of dosages, pressure, and propaganda -- till the desired effect, an inured and complicit society, have willingly given away our autonomy of self-government. We have bestowed our birthright to despotic rulers who do not find fear in -- or seek shelter from -- the near unanimous disapproval of the people they suppress and subdue [2]. They seek not the consent of the people for they seek only allegiance and adherence to their own reprehensible, egocentric, and depraved pursuits for power, money, and authoritarian control. Never in America's past has an assault on the truth and freedom been waged so viciously nor have the American people been so reprehensibly divided and utterly deceived by men we never truly elected in the first place."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 11:23am

246. JR,

     Despite PONTI's excellent points, your (lack of) understanding of the how the economy & taxation works in our, the most Capitalistic, country in the world is breathtakingly off.....especially when you live in its heart, NYC! Same with how our stock market works!

     Here's a good, concise WaPo article for you, note that you and most lefties here are in the majority two-thirds whose ignorance allow me (& others like me) to mine the stock market for riches.....most of you react to Liberal/Left media headlines slanted to the glass-is-empty BS.....typical! (all bold mine)

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

     5 Myths About Jittery Markets

     By Adam Lashinsky

     Sunday, August 12, 2007; Page B03

     Confused by the latest news from the financial markets?....What does it all mean?.....

     Before you do that, it might be helpful to burst a few bubbles of our own and separate the many myths about the markets from some truths about what really goes on in them.

     1. The economy is crumbling before our eyes.

     According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, more than two-thirds of Americans believe that the economy is already in recession -- or will be soon. Sure, housing prices are weakening, mortgage lenders are cratering and credit is tightening. But those are just a few pieces of tile in the overall economic mosaic.

     For years, the United States was the primary engine of growth for the entire world. Voracious consumption and low savings rates at home juiced robust export markets in Asia and Europe. Today, the global economy is humming, more than making up for so-so performance in the United States. Brazil, Russia, India and China are particularly strong. The Chinese economy alone is the most important crutch propping up worldwide commodity prices, including oil. China is also a major buyer of U.S. securities of all flavors -- from U.S. Treasury bills to shares of the private-equity firm Blackstone Group.

     And it's not as though the U.S. economic engine is sputtering. Job creation is good, corporate profits are solid, and, at least in Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's opinion, inflation remains a concern -- a sign that the economy is growing, not contracting. This is why....the U.S. stock markets have been relatively resilient. Yes, they have been volatile,.....

     2. The Fed chairman is God.

     Blame this misperception on the long tenure of Alan Greenspan...... Greenspan was undeniably there when the U.S. economy needed him. After Sept. 11, 2001, and the bursting of the tech bubble, Greenspan engineered an ultra-low federal funds rat.....It worked: .....

     But Greenspan also created the permissive climate that led to no-documentation, no-money-down, no-common-sense home mortgages. He failed to slam on the brakes when giddy lenders and home builders were catering to house-flipping speculators and aspiring homeowners borrowing beyond their means. In fact, in 2004, he suggested that people would be better off with adjustable-rate mortgages -- just as interest rates were poised to rise.

     .......Tougher credit is a good thing now. It's helping the housing market get back into equilibrium.

     3. Market gurus learned their lessons in the dot-com bubble.

     Were it only so......As recently as a year ago, analysts maintained "buy" or "neutral" ratings on now-defunct mortgage lenders such as New Century Financial.....Bad advice will never be in short supply.

     4. Republican administrations are good for the stock market.

     This hoary tale feels like it should be right. Republicans cut taxes, and Democrats raise them, right? But the truth is that presidents only have so much control over how the stock market behaves. Bill Clinton presided over one of the greatest bull markets of all time. But the dirty little secret is that it was phenomenal gains in productivity -- led by technology advances -- that largely accounted for the economic expansion of the 1990s. Did Clinton's balancing of the federal budget help? Yes. Have George W. Bush's capital-gains and dividend-income tax cuts stimulated investments? You bet. But government policies are only part of the macro story of market behavior.

     5. Markets abhor uncertainty.

     Be wary of attempts to anthropomorphize the capital markets. Talking heads often blather on about what "Mr. Market" likes or dislikes, especially uncertainty. In fact, the market is a heartless collection of the best-guess expectations of investors. Certainty and risk are opposites. Good investors, in fact, love uncertainty. The whole notion of buying an undervalued stock stems from an investor's presumption of value that others are missing. If something is certain -- say, the rate on a six-month certificate of deposit -- there's no disagreement over its value and no upside on its price. I'm completely certain of this.

     Adam Lashinsky is a senior writer at Fortune magazine.

     Posted by Happy at 08/11/2007 @ 11:47am

247. Hap, when the deficit is more than half of GDP everything is and will come up roses. if I borrowed half of my yearly income, good times would also rule at our house. at least for a while.

     I did not see anyone here claim the economy is in shambles. and Pontz's excellent points? what were those. all I saw was personal insults. maybe you can read between the lines and get back to me.

     how's that liquidity? and what would likely happen had not the central banks all over the world not intervened.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 11:54am

248. at least in Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's opinion,

     yeah, the shill for the administration, that's a real independent assessment. hahahahaha.

     this kind of massive intervention by the central banks is a sign of big trouble.

     try to sell a house recently? hahahahaha.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 11:57am

249. I have noticed that no one is challenging my facts. in fact no one is even addressing them, showing the bankruptcy of my adversaries. all puns intended.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 12:01pm

250. hap, you keep mentioning that I live in NYC etc. that is true. NYC is the arts capital of the world, and it is in this arena I have been working for over 30 years. I have never had anything to do with the stock market.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 12:19pm

251. Aahhhh, the good old days...

     Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Al Gore is handling his job as vice president?"

     Date________Approve___Disapprove__No Opinion

     8/18-19/00 ____71 _________22 ________7

     7/25-26/00 ____61 _________29 _______10

     9/10-14/99 ____61 _________30 ________9

     3/12-14/99 ____62 _________27 _______11

     1/22-24/99 ____64 _________20 _______16

     1/24-25/98 ____65 _________19 _______16

     1/23-24/98 ____64 _________22 _______14

     3/24-26/97 ____59 _________27 _______14

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 12:23pm

252. Gore/Clinton in '08

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 12:25pm

253. I'll vote for that.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 12:29pm

254. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/11/2007 @ 11:57am

     at least in Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's opinion,

     yeah, the shill for the administration, that's a real independent assessment. hahahahaha.

     JR, that's a nice little bubble you live in. Everyone who agrees with you is spot-on. Everyone who disagrees belongs to the vast right wing conspiracy. Not that you'll care, but few people in the real world think Bernanke is a shill for the Bush Administration. You're one of the reasons why I like to tap on the glass here at the Nation, thanks.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2007 @ 12:33pm

255. I have noticed that no one is challenging my facts....

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/11/2007 @ 12:01pm

     Your `facts' of the sky is falling down is challenged everyday, in print and on the internet....if you read more widely!

     Even today's paper has an AP article explaining the `liquidity' issue fairly well and the Fed's role!

     Bottom line is that the number of subprime mortgages actually in default is still small, at something like 10~15%, or about $200 billion of ~$1.5 trillion outstanding. This does NOT mean the underlying assets (the houses) are worth ZERO...a simpler scenario hopefully will explain: your car is repossed cause you didn't keep paying that $20k note...it's probably worth less than $20k which explains why you didn't try to sell it and repay the note you could no longer afford...but the car is not worthless.....say still worth $15k...apply that to the houses in question!

     The actual losses suffered have been far more in the drop in stock market valuations of your Bear Sterns, Countrywide Financials, and the few that has filed bankrupcies, etc...PLUS all financial players for simply being `financial'. My stock, Citigroup, dumped off ~$5/share in valuation this past week or so, so, I bought some more!

     Many, many folks made combination bets by taking down `risky' loans, most of them will probably squeek by and manage to stay in their homes. Many lenders will workout new loan terms and take some losses in lieu of taking ownership of homes! Speaking of personal expereince buying numerous foreclosures, it is amazing how fast houses deteriorate when they are vacant and usually left in a messy and state of disrepair already. Now, what combination bets did these homebuyers make?

     1) House values will continue rising, a good bet until too much excess creep into the system (all foreseen and warnings abounded...but folks chose to ignore & bet anyway);

     2) Their own incomes will rise, another good bet unless one is in a declining part of the country which would be in conflict with 1);

     3) Interest will stay low or only rise modestly, this is a bet even the most sophisticated investors won't bet their all on.

     These subPrime loans are risky for everybody involved except the mortgage brokers. Investors in the collatorialized securities got above-market yields for the risks (but in hindsight, still not high enough) while the home buyers became homeowners with legitimate chances to build equity (plus shelter) but risked higher probability of defaults. Mortgage Brokers, they took the money and ran while being a key part of turning some low-credit score buyers into `more qualified' buyers with less-than-honest means!

     Posted by Happy at 08/11/2007 @ 1:04pm

256. HSUB apparently only reads SOME John Nichols articles....the one about early caucuses and the killing effect it would have on any 'late-comers' such as Mr Gore (who just 2 weeks ago had his daughter Kristen out there saying "no, no '08 run")...was missed.

     Gore announces any later than Halloween (another key day in the HSUBFOOLS religion by the way) and he'll cause a stir, but not siphon off enough support to beat Hillary who STILL beats Gore (as does Obama) in any "hypothetical" race poll. (a fact HSUB takes as "Oh, that means Gore will win it" despite the fact it doesn't)

     Posted by Mask at 08/11/2007 @ 1:07pm

257. AAaahhhh, the good old days...

     Gallup Poll. July 12-15, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?"

     Date_________Satisfied__Dissatisfied__Unsure

     10/6-9/00_______62_______36_________2

     8/18-19/00______63_______33_________4

     4/3-9/00 _______ 59_______37_________4

     1/7-10/00_______69_______28_________3

     8/24-26/99______62_______35_________3

     2/12-13/99______71_______26_________3

     1/15-17/99______70_______28_________2

     8/21-23/98______63_______34_________3

     5/8-10/98_______59_______36_________5

     1/30-2/1/98 _____63_______35_________2

     1/10-13/97______50_______47_________3

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 1:08pm

258. Posted by MASK 08/11/2007 @ 1:07bm

     Bbbwwahahahah, you're so full of shit. Here's some advice:

     Frita loves straw so much, that some day toooo soon, she wakes up in hell and finds she is surrounded by straw. But not just any straw, dildos of straw! And for fixated on the straw dildos she constantly created in life, her penance given to her in hell is provided by her hsuB himself. Frita is to pleasure herself with each and every straw dildo, as hsuB watches, until all are used. So after years of using the dildos almost until they're undone, all are used. Frita starts for the door thinking she's free, when her Frito enters with the same penance as hsuB had for her...

     Frita, consider this a visit by the spirit of Holloween's future.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 1:23pm

259. er, ...thinking she's free, when her Frito enters with the same penance 'for her, as hsuB had for her...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 1:32pm

260. What a differance:

     NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). July 27-30, 2007. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. RV = registered voters. LV = likely voters. Except where noted, results below are among all adults.

     "All in all, do you think things in the nation are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are off on the wrong track?"

     Date________Right Direction__Wrong Track__Mixed_Unsure

     7/27-30/07_______19____________67_______11____3

     6/8-11/07 _______ 19____________68_______11____2

     __________---------VS---------__________

     9/00 RV_________ 51____________29_______16____4

     1/25-26/00_______55____________28_______15____2

     3/4-7/99_________54____________33_______10____3

     10/24-27/98______55____________31_______12____2

     2/26 - 3/1/98 ____ 53____________32_______12____3

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 2:07pm

261. Ooops, here's the comparison to the previous poll. Similar difference:

     Gallup Poll. July 12-15, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?"

     Date_________ Satisfied___Dissatisfied___ Unsure

     7/12-15/07_______27 ________71 _________3

     6/11-14/07_______24 ________74 _________2

     5/10-13/07_______25 ________73 _________2

     ___________-------VS-------___________

     8/18-19/00 ______ 71 ________22 ________ 7

     1/22-24/99 ______ 64 ________20 _______ 16

     1/24-25/98 ______ 65 ________19 _______ 16

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 2:23pm

262. uh oh, did you fella's (and mask) know that if we tax the super rich it will end life as we know it

     AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 2:39pm

263. but what's really funny is that during the recession in the first term of the chimp administration, it was the consumer spending of everybody but the super rich that kept our economy going.

     and what's even funnier.. it was a law passed by a liberal congress after the crash of 1987 that keep our markets from crashing just this last week.

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 2:44pm

264. John, I heard you last night on Moyers and was very impressed with you and Bruce and Bill, who seemed to be playing devil's advocate. The 'tool kit' (you talked about) of presidential powers that gets passed down to the next in office and is rarely emptied of any of its power-enhancing goodies by the new guy/gal is in my mind perhaps the primary reason why Bush and Cheney have to go.

     Left in office for 18 more months and no 'tool kit' will be big enough to hold the presidential powers bequeathed by Bush/Cheney to the next person. Not to mention that most of the Constitution will have been put through the WH shredder.

     Posted by felicity at 08/11/2007 @ 2:45pm

265. do you think the super rich are as fucked up as the hamsters... because they're hamsters

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 2:45pm

266. Er, scrolled up way too far up and captured Al's poll by mistake....some dif, but not too much. Apologies. Here's the correction:

     Ooops, here's the comparison to the previous poll. Similar difference:

     Gallup Poll. July 12-15, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?"

     Date_________ Satisfied___Dissatisfied___ Unsure

     7/12-15/07_______27 ________71 _________3

     6/11-14/07_______24 ________74 _________2

     5/10-13/07_______25 ________73 _________2

     ___________-------VS-------___________

     8/18-19/00_______63________ 33__________4

     1/7-10/00________69________ 28__________3

     1/15-17/99_______70________ 28__________2

     1/30-2/1/98 ______63________ 35__________2

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 2:52pm

267. Will C, I guess the 20-30% that were dissatisfied during Clinton/Gore were mostly the hampsters that had to contribute to our nation back then and the same ones supporting hsuB per contributing a lot less to none now and don't want to go back to helping out with our infrastructure, military health concerns, deficit, education, health, stopping the war,...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 3:03pm

268. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 3:03pm

     you're not suggesting that conservative ideology is an ideology of amassing wealth during the collapse are you? ...nothing more then a little profiting off the pain of your neighbor.

     because I have to agree with you

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 3:09pm

269. and I think god calls that stealing... a big no no by the way

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 3:10pm

270. The point is for losers like WOLFIE and JR to punish the rich people who make more money, are more successful, and benefit society more. This compensates them for being failures.-PONTIFICUS

     People like Nicole Ritchie, Paris Hilton, Brad Pit, Conrad Black, Ken Lay, Jeffery Skilling, Dick Cheney...

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 3:24pm

271. george bush. let's not forget george bush

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 3:27pm

272. That's the mind of your typical liberal. It's not about what makes sense in the real world at all. It's about preconceived notions of what OUGHT TO WORK as opposed to WHAT DOES WORK. See the problem here?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/11/2007 @ 01:52am

     notions like spreading freedom in the ME with an army. Or stopping the spread of Islamic Jihadism with an Army of Caucasian Christians. Or palling up with the country that helped spread nookyular technology, or palling up to Saddam inthe eighties.

     Sure, PONTI, sing us some more songs. Maybe the 35 mph speed limit had something to do with the number of curb cuts/distance, or the number of children at play, or condition of the road. Why not let everyone set their own speed limit? And tax rate. I am sure it would all work out wonderfully.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 3:30pm

273. Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 07:19am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 07:31am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 07:32am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 07:32am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 07:34am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 07:39am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 07:53am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 07:57am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 08:02am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 08:06am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 08:10am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 08:59am Posted by RESE 08/09/2007 @ 09:01am

     RESE'S PIECES...

     Rese, can I just make one simple point. I know that some of the radical lefties I used to hang with (a LOT, as a matter of fact) seemed to think that the reason "middle America" wasn't "getting" their message was that they weren't shouting it loud enough or long enough. Obviously, the best tactic then was shout louder and longer, to go from ad nauseam to ad nauseam ad infinitum. Does this tactic ever really WORK? The basic assumption is that your audience is stupid and has to be hit over the head with your POV repeatedly. But on these "Nation" threads, you're not just "preaching to the choir" you're whacking the choir on the heads with their hymnals. PLEASE: 1) show a little common courtesy and don't try to monopolize threads, and 2) show a little respect for other readers' intelligence?

     22 posts from RESE? The old man is on a tear this morning.

     I'm guessing that a "former BATF agent" at "portland.indymedia.org" has "determined" that the "thermite charges" used on the Minneapolis bridge were the same type as the ones "used on Building 7", right?

     heheh

     Posted by MASK 08/09/2007 @ 08:55am

     MUST'VE MISSED A FEW...

     heheh (as you like to say).

     Posted by w_m_bear at 08/11/2007 @ 3:30pm

274. it's going to be interesting to see what happens to the chimp after the secret service drops him on the front lawn of the white house for the first and last time. Here's a man who is single handedly responsible for ending the American conservative movement, putting the democrats back in control of our government and eliminating the myth that republicans are competent at anything.

     do you think his dad is going to have to bus in paid actors to make the chimp feel like he still has friends

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 3:34pm

275. Yet, lets also not forget people like Buffet and his $37B! Or Pitt's wife #2... (which needs to eat more BTW IMHO) Those need to be shown as examples of what people with means can/should do.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 3:34pm

276. george bush. let's not forget george bush

     Posted by WILL C. 08/11/2007 @ 3:27pm

     that's right! He is a self made man, benefitting the country.

     Versus the great librool failures like Ralph Nader, Soros, Gluckstern, Newman...

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 3:36pm

277. Posted by WILL C. 08/11/2007 @ 3:34pm

     Not only is Chimpy benefitting from socialized medicine now, he will benefit from socialized personal bodyguards for the rest of his life.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 3:38pm

278. Posted by CRABWALK 08/11/2007 @ 3:38pm

     yeah but the chimp is the one former president that is really going to need those bodyguards. There is no end to the whoop ass that would opened up on that idiot if he woke up one morning and discovered the tooth fairy left a set of balls under his pillow

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 3:42pm

279. but on the bright side like you sad, the chimp will have a life time of socialized medicine to patch him back up

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 3:43pm

280. I still think the neo-cons succeeded in bringing a utopian libertarian philosophy to a country. A place where guvt stays out of the way, where people set their own speed limits, where unions are verboten.

     It's called Iraq.

     It's working great, but the neo-cons won't go.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 3:51pm

281. New con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy want to bring it here sooo passionately:

     Fox News Defends Columnist Who Yearns For New 9/11

     You Tube Friday, August 10, 2007

     Two Neo-Cons on the Fox & Friends show repugnantly try to defend columnist Stu Bykofsky, who wrote of his desire for a new 9/11. One of them even appears to outright agree with the sick premise.

     http://tinyurl.com/3yqphu

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 4:07pm

282. http://tinyurl.com/3yqphu

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 4:07pm

     It's really a shame that the hamsters need an enemy to know who their friends are. Friendship defined by fear.

     In short, hamsters need terror to get someone to like them

     Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 4:15pm

283. http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809_Stu_Byk ofsky___To_save_America__we_need_another_9_11.html

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 4:30pm

284. Bizarre video. I wish someone had asked the man on the right, why we are shooting at anybody, if we don't know who our enemy is.

     Posted by Malcontent at 08/11/2007 @ 4:56pm

285. Psst! Hey look ye here! Some more potential impeachees for ewes.

     DEMOCRATS SAY LEAVING IRAQ MAY TAKE YEARS

     By JEFF ZELENY And MARC SANTORA

     Published: August 12, 2007

     DES MOINES, Aug. 11 -- Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

     John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

     "We've got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq," Mr. Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago this week. "And we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi'a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities."

     So you blokes really are the loonies and your political class ain't. Or maybe I got you wrong, it was 2009 not 2090? NYT.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/11/2007 @ 5:21pm

286. Posted by LRJONES4 08/11/2007 @ 5:21pm

     LRJ, a good piece from down under today......learn something about the Aussie opposition....wish our Dem opposition could be as patriotic and aware of what's at stake as yours!!! I assume you've access to it! For other readers, the "war without end" refers more so to the war on radical Islamists rather than just the Iraq War!

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

     Frustration at war without end

     Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor | August 11, 2007

     The Australian

     JOHN Howard's tough-minded letter last week to his Iraqi counterpart, Nouri al-Maliki, revealed for the first time in The Weekend Australian today, bespeaks a level of real frustration at the Iraqi's inability to move the political process forward inside Iraq.....

     Posted by Happy at 08/11/2007 @ 5:31pm

287. It's a long way till Nov. 2008.......

     But for some intending to vote Dem mostly on its "Out-of-Iraq" hopes by 2009, will very likely be disappointed, YET AGAIN....just like after the Nov. 2006 elections!

     Candidates, like all members of Congress, can `treat' themselves the luxury of populist positions that a POTUS simply won't have! The Left.....bless their hearts for being so good at setting themselves up, time and again!

     Posted by Happy at 08/11/2007 @ 5:39pm

288. What's the party line on this one lads. Perhaps the ACLU was repeating porkie pies?

     Any chance of getting Bill (or Hillary) retrospectively charged with initiating this sort of impeachable crime? We know Bill agitated for the removal of Saddam and consequently the Iraq war but is this the first bit of hard impeachable evidence against him?

     Fact Sheet: EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION (12/6/2005) ACLU

     "Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition." The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton."

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/11/2007 @ 5:48pm

289. Wow, LR-Jo and HA have enlisted to go fight in Iraq to prove their points about how right it is to be there. I was wrong about these new cons that blog here. I always figured them for a bunch of greedy liars, hypocrits of the first order. Hope what happened to Pat Tillman doesn't happen to them when they figure it out.

     Be brave and true to your confictions, don't shit in your pants when you get there.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 6:04pm

290. Oh duh LR-Jo left out a couple of other opinions expressed and why theiy're dems, have a variety of solutions:

     "Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: "I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!"

     On the other side of the spectrum is Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who has proposed setting up separate regions for the three major ethnic and religious groups in Iraq until a stable central government is established before removing most American troops.

     Most of the Democratic candidates mention the significant military and logistical difficulties in bringing out American troops, which even optimistic experts say would take at least a year. The candidates are not only trying to retain flexibility for themselves in the event they become president, aides said, but are also hoping to tamp down any expectation that the war would abruptly end if they were elected. Most have not proposed specific troop levels or particular rules of engagement for a continued presence in Iraq, saying the conditions more than a year from now remain too uncertain.

     The leading Republican candidates have largely chosen not to wrestle publicly with Iraq policy questions, instead deferring to President Bush and waiting until Gen. David H. Petraeus delivers a progress report next month on the troop buildup this year.

     While the Democrats talk exhaustively about Iraq, a review of the remarks they have made during campaign stops over the last six months leaves little ambiguity in their message: If the president refuses to end the war, they will.

     To accomplish that goal, they all discuss a mix of vigorous diplomacy in the region, intensified pressure on the Iraqi government and a phased withdrawal of troops to begin as soon as possible. But their statements in campaign settings are often silent on the problems of how to disengage and what tradeoffs might be necessary.

     "It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe," Mr. Obama said to a throng of supporters, cheering wildly despite the pouring rain, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month.

     Mrs. Clinton has been equally vocal in making "bringing the troops home" a central theme. In February, she said her message to the Iraqi government would be simple: "I would say ‘I'm sorry, it's over. We are not going to baby-sit a civil war.' "

     Both candidates, in interviews or debates, have said that they would not support intervening in a genocidal war should the majority Shiites slaughter Sunnis -- and Sunnis retaliate -- on a much greater scale than now takes place.

     Mr. Edwards, who has suggested that he would intervene in a genocide, has tried to position himself as the more forceful antiwar candidate by criticizing both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama for not pushing hard enough in the Senate to bring the troops home.

     Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has called for the United States military to "begin redeploying immediately." In a debate this week in Chicago, he said: "We can do so with two and a half divisions coming out each month, done safely and reasonably well."

     "We are in a good position when leaders are debating the best way to bring our troops home," said Moira Mack, a group spokeswoman, "rather than whether or not to bring them home."

     http://tinyurl.com/3dw2tn

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 6:26pm

291. Be brave and true to your confictions, don't shit in your pants when you get there.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 6:04pm

     How's business Fools, your lovely polls don't seem to be doing too much for your cause, do they?

     It wasn't so much our confictions or was that confections but rather the conFICTIONS of those thought to hold the same "truths" you profess. Rats deserting a sinking ship comes to mind. Not your mob, the Dem candidates.

     You may have missed the headline, if you vote for the Dems you will be signing on for a new long term Iraq war manager. In that case you could wear a diaper.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/11/2007 @ 6:45pm

292. "We are in a good position when leaders are debating the best way to bring our troops home," said Moira Mack, a group spokeswoman,

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 6:26p

     Well not quite Moira, the candidates, that have any chance, were mulling over such things as protecting Sunni Iraqis, giving al-Qaeda in Iraq a hard time and training Iraq's military. But you needn't worry Moira the Fools will always swallow your interpretations before the ink is dry. (I do sympathise with you though Moira, because this lot is about as slippery a bunch of politicians as one could get).

     BTW Moira which decade (in this century) did they have in mind?

     ps. Moira, may we come straight to you next time to get the good oil on what the real chance Dem candidates mean. Sort of the esoteric meaning; wink,wink ,nudge, nudge.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/11/2007 @ 7:13pm

293. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 1:23pm

     HSUB, just so we can judge how far your insanity has progressed...in your learned view...

     what's the LATEST date by which Al Gore can enter the race and win the Dem nomination? (ballpark to 1-2 months if needed)

     Posted by Mask at 08/11/2007 @ 7:33pm

294. LRJONES4

     What you've got to understand about HSUB is...he has this bizarre "stalker pathology" thing going with most of the Dems.

     He loves them (from John Conyers to Russ Feingold to Al Gore)...but like the stalker who refuses to believe his victim doesn't really love him back....he believes they lie to the American people for a "greater good" to wit...

     They say they oppose impeachment, but really don't, and must fool us for the time being until "the time is right"...or that Gore AND his family say he isn't running, but he IS and can join the race almost upto the Democratic Convention and win the nomination.

     The Dems WILL do the right thing....they must...they just must...they CANNOT betray HSUB...or....else!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/11/2007 @ 7:40pm

295. Oh great, LR-Jo and Frita are making straw dildos together!!!

     Naturally they would find each other, new cons always do. But nothing wrong with that if you're into that sort of thing. Frita will have company in hell with LR-Jo using all those straw dildos together for eternity.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 7:47pm

296. NYC is the arts capital of the world

     ha, this is a laugh. arts capital of the world, eh? and just how many artists can buy their way into that god awful mess that is the manhattan arts world? just how many artists can afford $1800/month for a lower east side closet?

     los angeles, my friend, is now the arts capital. it's cheap, warm, open-minded, egalitarian, flexible, etc, etc. new york is still stuck in the 20th century. it's killing its artists off by pushing them out.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/11/2007 @ 8:05pm

297. and where do they go from nyc?

     los angeles, the other great city (besides san francisco)

     Posted by darladoon at 08/11/2007 @ 8:06pm

298. let's take any scene: music (sorry, LA is destroying NYC right now), painting (like i said, who can afford a studio in NYC?), media (hello, hollywood?), film (duh), writing (this is a close one, actually)....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/11/2007 @ 8:07pm

299. Posted by HAPPY 08/11/2007 @ 5:31pm

     Hadn't read that article Hap but saw the news item. The opposition leader Kevin Rudd was elevated to the Labor Party leadership because he is essentially a pro-American conservative like Howard (who has won four elections in succession) and very much unlike the core of his party which would make many of the "lefties" here look like conservatives.

     His party policy is for for immediate withdrawal from Iraq but like your real world Dem candidates he is positioning himself to hang around a bit longer in Iraq should he win office later this year. This seems likely on the present polling.

     Incidently both are trying to out do each other with their Christian credentials. Both are Anglicans (Epicopalians in your neck of the woods) with Rudd being a Roman Catholic defector. Interesting that our parliament opens each session with the "Lord's Prayer" which I suppose is a little strange for a country that is generally much more secular than yours appears to be but noticed a media poll the other day where about 50% said it was OK for religion to intrude into politics. We must be getting corrupted by observing all your religious nutters over there.

     Unlike Bush, Howard, who has paid off "Labor's" debt of 90 billion during his 11 years in office, runs high surplus budgets out of which he funds massive middle class welfare through tax cuts and various welfare lurks and perks which gets the real economic rationalists calling him a socialist.

     I notice you dabble in the stock market a bit. Here's an interesting article with a funny cartoon and a good associated site (probably one of yours-John Mauldin?) that has some useful info:

     http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/article.asp?id=mwo081007

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/11/2007 @ 8:12pm

300. LR-Jo, I'm not worried poll-wise, hsuB and you new con fascists are going down-- going down on all those straw dildos you create per not having any facts to argue.

     ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 18-21, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS. RV = registered voters

     "Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq: Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Options rotated

     DATE_________Bush__Democrats In Congress__Both__Neither__Unsure

     7/18-21/07_____32 ___________55 ___________1_____11_______1

     5/29 - 6/1/07___35 ___________51 ___________2_____10_______3

     "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

     Date_______Worth Fighting__Not Worth Fighting__Unsure

     7/18-21/07________36 __________63 ___________1

     5/29 - 6/1/07______37 __________61 ___________2

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 8:20pm

301. Posted by MASK 08/11/2007 @ 7:40pm

     Very worrying Mask. Can the poor fella get government funded assistance for his problem?

     Keep your chin up Fools.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/11/2007 @ 8:35pm

302. LR-Jo,

     For upside down land down under where it is understandable here that you can't read polls rightside up... Reality, a liberal conspiracy:

     CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Aug. 6-8, 2007. N=1,029 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

     "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

     Date_______Favor___Oppose__Unsure

     8/6-8/07______33 ____64 ______3

     "Do you think the United States is winning or not winning the war in Iraq?"

     Date________Winning __Not Winning__Unsure

     8/6-8/07_______32 ________63 ________5

     3/9-11/07______29 ________61 ________9

     11/17-19/06____34 ________61 ________5

     "Do you think the war with Iraq has made the U.S. safer or less safe from terrorism?"

     Date_______Safer __Less Safe __No Change__Unsure

     8/6-8/07_____42 _____49 ________6 __________2

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 8:38pm

303. It's more than obvious that most people here in the US want out of the Iraq occupation and ain't falling any new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy. Another dose of liberal reality for yous two, Frita and LR-Jo, straw dildo makers:

     CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 20-22, 2007. N=889 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

     Date_________Approve __Disapprove __Unsure

     7/20-22/07 _____25 ________69 ________6

     "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

     Date______Right Thing ___Stayed Out ___Unsure

     7/20-22/07 ____42 _________51 __________7

     "How would you say things are going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq? Would you say things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly?"

     Date_____Very Well__Somewhat Well__Somewhat Badly__Very Badly__Unsure

     7/20-22/07 ___3 _________29____________31___________35_________2

     From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

     Date________Increase__Same__Decrease__Remove All__Unsure

     7/20-22/07 ____12 _____15 ______30 ________36_________7

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling the situation with Iraq?"

     Date_________Approve __Disapprove __Unsure

     7/20-22/07 _____30 _______59 ________11

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are handling the situation with Iraq?"

     Date________Approve __Disapprove __Unsure

     7/20-22/07 ____22 ________65 _______13

     "As you may know, the U.S. has sent more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. From what you have heard or read, would you say this troop increase is making the situation in Iraq better, making it worse, or is it having no impact on the situation in Iraq so far?"

     Date_________Better __Worse __No Impact __Unsure

     7/20-22/07 ____19 _____ 20 _______53 _______8

     "Right now, is the U.S. involvement in Iraq creating more terrorists who are planning to attack the U.S., eliminating terrorists who were planning to attack the U.S., or is the U.S. involvement in Iraq not affecting the number of terrorists planning to attack the U.S.?"

     Date________Creating __Eliminating ___Not Affecting ___Unsure

     7/20-22/07 _____44 _______18 __________27 __________11

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 9:00pm

304. LA is destroying NYC right now), painting (like i said, who can afford a studio in NYC?), media (hello, hollywood?), film (duh), writing (this is a close one, actually)....

     Posted by DARLADOON 08/11/2007 @ 8:07pm

     Darla,

     Then there's Austin Texas, Music Capital of the ...state, nation, or world, one of those... Anyway, it is affordable for artist and the movie scene is improving as well. San Antonio, Dallas and Houston are a hop skip jump away. Jet Blue to NY BOS or LA is about $250 for important shows or if you have an opening there, but then what you save in rent and fine living here, one can afford it. Well it works for me anyway. I like Boston and NY too. Last time I was in LA was when I went on a cross country tour with my brother when he came back from his 2nd or 3rd tour in Vietnam. I got a strange vibe from LA back then. Hope it's changed since, '76, 80'. Loved SanFrancisco though, was there for 9 months at the Art Istitute on Nob Hill. Have great memories and artwork from there. It's no where as laid back as Austin though.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 9:58pm

305. Posted by LRJONES4 08/11/2007 @ 8:35pm

     Not likely. Takes a lot for forced institutionalization from a County or State Mental Health Board.

     Plus, HSUB is more of a dishonest nut than an honest one. An honest one would start screaming at Pelosi and Al Gore at some rally or conference about July next year "You bitch you ARE going to impeach them or else!" or "No, Al, you're LYING. YOU ARE GOING TO RUN! Say it, say it NOW!"

     HSUB will merely keep the impeachment thing going until Jan. 2009...then start claiming that "Dr. Perry Mason, a Constitutional scholar at UCLA, has shown that there CAN be a 'post-Presidential' impeachment of Bush and Cheney" well past the point where President Hillary has dropped her H-bomb of "No, we're ending the investigation into ***** and 'moving on'" in 2009, 2010.

     Gore, slightly different story. By the Dem Convention, HSUB will be claiming that Gore will announce and "in an unprecedented move of historic import" all of Hillary's delegates will drop their committments to her and vote Gore in on the "first ballot".....a week later, HSUB will declare that Gore is "still young enough to challenge Hillary if she fails to live up to her promises in 2012".

     And we're in for ANOTHER 4 years of his delusions!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/11/2007 @ 10:06pm

306. Posted by DARLADOON 08/11/2007 @ 8:06pm

     Boy, if you ever needed proof that Californians have egos the size of the Mojave Desert....heheh!

     Posted by Mask at 08/11/2007 @ 10:08pm

307. For upside down land down under where it is understandable here that you can't read polls rightside up..."

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 8:38pm

     Easy Fools. I read your polls while standing on my head.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/11/2007 @ 10:15pm

308. Cute. Now the neo's are joyful the dems, and the troops, will be bogged down for years in Iraq.

     sigh, I miss the good 'ol days when the Iraqis were going to have 285,000 police and military trained up and ready to fight together. The good times when different Iraqi ministries militias didn't fight over who was going to control a bridge. When the election of clan vs clan vs sect with purple thumbs was going to lead to a free Iraq.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 10:25pm

309. Darla you don't know what you're talking about. I recently showed my art work to a gallery. the owner told me that there are over 300 galleries within a ten block radius.I am also speaking of the performing arts, in which NT is unsurpassed.L>A> is a company town for the film industry. it does nit have much theatre and less dance, Opera? Museums?

     next time you come to NY, let me know. seeing is believing.

     L.A> is a company town

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 10:27pm

310. Yes. What we need is more arms and more religion. That should quell the armed religious jihad.

     Way to go Chimpy!!

     Bring on that Rapture!

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 10:29pm

311. LA is a company town for the movie industry, that is all.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 10:32pm

312. So, who is going to run in the general election on Chimpies legacy?

     Mitt?

     Hillary?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 10:36pm

313. http://www.michigan.org/travel/shopping/?city=G3526&m=5;8

     not bad for small midwestern villages.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 10:43pm

314. Posted by MASK 08/11/2007 @ 10:06pm

     Bwahahah. That's one pretty straw dildo you made there Frita. What's that #362781? Its's going to hurt you, you put rhinestones on this one, you dummy.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 10:55pm

315. Easy Fools. I read your polls while standing on my head.

     Posted by LRJONES4 08/11/2007 @ 10:15pm

     Freaky. LR-Jo has little legs sticking out of the top of his head... That's what happens to them warmongering chickenhacks-- mutation. Most probably the DU wannabees get it delivered to them underground.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 11:00pm

316. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 10:55pm

     ....2 3/4 months left.

     Posted by Mask at 08/11/2007 @ 11:00pm

317. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 10:55pm

     ....2 3/4 months left.

     Posted by MASK 08/11/2007 @ 11:00pm

     You go girl.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 11:05pm

318. Do you think the next repube congress will name a huge military hospital after Chimpy?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 11:06pm

319. Easy Fools. I read your polls while standing on my head.

     Posted by LRJONES4 08/11/2007 @ 10:15pm

     Think maybe he means he doesn't have a mid-section? Just a head with legs sticking out. Yeah ok, makes sense-- no guts.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 11:07pm

320. Chimpy McFlightsuit Memorial Hospital and Occupational Therapy Center, Crawford Texas.

     Room for thousands. Built by Bechtel at only 6 times the original cost estimates.

     (PS. Don't fish in the rivers in Crawford. Go to private ponds, they havefish that are safe to eat)

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 11:09pm

321. Unholy Frita straw dildos Batboy:

     Embattled AG Gonzales Visits Baghdad

     August 11, 2007 11:10 AM EST |

     WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, under fire at home with calls for his resignation, is spending some time in Iraq.

     The Justice Department said that Gonzales arrived in Baghdad on Saturday for his third trip to Iraq to meet with department officials who have been there to help fashion the country's legal system.

     (All together now----- BBbbbwwaahahahahhahahahah...)

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 11:16pm

322. buuuwwwaahhhhaaahhhaaa

     cluck, cluck.

     teaching a graduate course in how to rule by fiat. in a country with no government.

     hocus potus.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 11:31pm

323. George Herbert Walker 'King' Chicken

     HA!

     I never knew his full name. Too cute.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckman

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2007 @ 11:35pm

324. He should've pulled out a long time ago....

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/11/2007 @ 11:39pm

325. Think maybe he means he doesn't have a mid-section? Just a head with legs sticking out. Yeah ok, makes sense-- no guts.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 11:07pm

     Fools how often do you see these strange little creatures? Do you also see them when you wake? Have you tried using decaffeinated coffee? Have you been conscious of them "being there" only since you saw those UFOs? If not, it's probably later than you think but don't give up my friend there is always the prospect of new therapies.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/11/2007 @ 11:43pm

326. Posted by CRABWALK 08/11/2007 @ 11:35pm

     Looks like you've got time on your hands too Crabs but I've exhausted my wit on Fools. Anyway the footy (Aussie Rules) starts at 2pm (which is about two minutes away) on the Lord's Day (not the great Assize before which we all shall no doubt soon appear but the weekly one). It's the Bombers V the Dockers so I'm off to make myself comfortable and recharge my batteries.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/12/2007 @ 12:01am

327. Fools how often do you see these strange little creatures?

     Posted by LRJONES4 08/11/2007 @ 11:43pm

     LR-Jo is confirming that he's a freak, calling himself strange and a 'little creature'. Now I know why he's helping Frita make straw dildos. Poor little guy.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2007 @ 12:37am

328. http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/article.asp?id=mwo081007

     Posted by LRJONES4 08/11/2007 @ 8:12pm

     An excellent read....from deep in the bowels of high-finance! I agree w/the hocus-pocus of the Chinese threat to dump dollar holdings and I also appreciated reading the comparisons with the 1998 LTCM blow-up!

     All in all, high-finance types have a tendency, quite regular it seems, to outsmart themselves by relying on `doctored' (Ph.D) models. I just don't believe the financial system is static and any model based on past behaviors can predict ALL future behaviors.

     Damn, it feels good to beat most of those hedge/quant funds, again! 80 to 1 leverage is insane and the guys/gals who invented those models with which to talk bankers into those type of loans are Gods! Or, the bankers came out The Nation U. for Lefites w/out Cranium Matters....heheheh

     Hope your "footy" team won! Later!

     Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 01:21am

329. Posted by HAPPY 08/12/2007 @ 01:21am

     Is that 35 billion in welfare for the incestor class working for you Happy? And, seeing as we don't have 35 billion, it was borrowed from somebody, so your stocks won't go through the floor.

     Poor incestor class. Can't make it without evil BIG guvt handouts.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2007 @ 08:48am

330. Yep, LR-Jo is no GI Joe when our troops need him most since he wants them to stay and continue the fight with no end:

     Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq

     Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq as they battle with a new type of warfare. Some even rely on Red Bull to get through the day. As desertions and absences increase, the military is struggling to cope with the crisis

     Peter Beaumont in Baghdad, Sunday August 12, 2007, The Observer

     The Americans he commands, like the other men at Sullivan - a combat outpost in Zafraniya, south east Baghdad - hit their cots when they get in from operations. But even when they wake up there is something tired and groggy about them. They are on duty for five days at a time and off for two days. When they get back to the forward operating base, they do their laundry and sleep and count the days until they will get home. It is an exhaustion that accumulates over the patrols and the rotations, over the multiple deployments, until it all joins up, wiping out any memory of leave or time at home. Until life is nothing but Iraq.

     Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

     Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.

     They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'

     http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2007 @ 12:40pm

331. Our troops fight, are exhausted, getting wounded and dying while Iraq is getting with Iran anyway:

     "If a picture speaks a thousand words, then the pictures and film footage of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki holding hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak volumes. "The two leaders walked in to an ornate meeting room holding hands," noted one of several reports. This picture, only the latest evidence of an extremely close relationship between the U.S.-supported Iraqi government and the Iranian regime, appeared on the U.S. evening news broadcasts on Wednesday night.

     When I raise the matter of Iran's role in Iraq to staffers on Capitol Hill, they have no real explanation for why the U.S. lets Iran get away with it."

     http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5671_0_3_0_C/

     The hsuB/cHeney admin is truly more disasterous than Nixon ever was on all counts.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2007 @ 12:55pm

332. "This week the Russian and Chinese militaries are conducting a joint military exercise involving large numbers of troops and combat vehicles. The former Soviet Republics of Tajikistan, Kyrgkyzstan, and Kazakstan are participating. Other countries appear ready to join the military alliance.

     This new potent military alliance is a real world response to neoconservative delusions about US hegemony. Neocons believe that the US is supreme in the world and can dictate its course. The neoconservative idiots have actually written papers, read by Russians and Chinese, about why the US must use its military superiority to assert hegemony over Russia and China.

     Cynics believe that the neocons are just shills, like Bush and Cheney, for the military-security complex and are paid to restart the cold war for the sake of the profits of the armaments industry. But the fact is that the neocons actually believe their delusions about American hegemony.

     Russia and China have now witnessed enough of the Bush administration's unprovoked aggression in the world to take neocon intentions seriously. As the US has proven that it cannot occupy the Iraqi city of Baghdad despite five years of efforts, it most certainly cannot occupy Russia or China. That means the conflict toward which the neocons are driving will be a nuclear conflict.

     In an attempt to gain the advantage in a nuclear conflict, the neocons are positioning US anti-ballistic missiles on Soviet borders in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is an idiotic provocation as the Russians can eliminate anti-ballistic missiles with cruise missiles. Neocons are people who desire war, but know nothing about it. Thus, the US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

     Reagan and Gorbachev ended the cold war. However, US administrations after Reagan's have broken the agreements and understandings. The US gratuitously brought NATO and anti-ballistic missiles to Russia's borders. The Bush regime has initiated a propaganda war against the Russian government of V. Putin.

     These are gratuitous acts of aggression. Both the Russian and Chinese governments are trying to devote resources to their economic development, not to their militaries. Yet, both are being forced by America's aggressive posture to revamp their militaries.

     Americans need to understand what the neocon Bush regime cannot: a nuclear exchange between the US, Russia, and China would establish the hegemony of the cockroach."

     http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2287.shtml

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2007 @ 1:22pm

333. For Frita's enjoyment:

     http://www.algore.org/blog/black_cell/gore_vs_hillary

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2007 @ 1:46pm

334. "The point is that questions about a candidate shouldn't be whether he or she is "authentic." They should be about motives: whose interests would the candidate serve if elected? And think how much better shape the nation would be in if enough people had asked that question seven years ago."

     http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/11/1798/

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2007 @ 2:09pm

335. Posted by CRABWALK 08/12/2007 @ 08:48am

     Most of you Libs know so little of substance!

     The Feds' `injections' is strictly for liquidity reasons but you probably don't understand that and was too lazy to read the many news articles explaining this!

     OK, it's Sunday and it's overly warm outside...95 in the shade! My lesson for you today....another analogy:

     You got to unload your car to pay off your neighborhood loan sharks. Just like you in your subPrime barrio, everybody else is in hock to the same sharks and need to sell their cars.

     All of a sudden, not only is there hardly any buyers for all of your cars, the one or two offers you do get, is just $5 or $6k. What to do? Well, Uncle HAPPY had helped you out before and I say, "OK, Crabby, I'll `buy' your car for now for $10k, but when the dust settles down, you will `buy' it back PLUS pay me the amount of interest on that $10k"!

     Not much different than somebody hocking their wedding ring and redeems it when cash flow permits!

     Hope this helps! Not a bailout (yet)!

     Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 4:34pm

336. The Feds' `injections' is strictly for liquidity reasons but you probably don't understand that and was too lazy to read the many news articles explaining this!

     Posted by HAPPY 08/12/2007 @ 4:34pm

     poor happy, don't you understand that big nanny government had to come to the rescue of the investment class yet again.

     once the markets lose liquidity... they crash

     Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 5:05pm

337. it's good to see that even the invisible hand of the market needs a big government hand out from time to time

     Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 5:06pm

338. That is a shame although it's understandable. How could you say this is one of the richest countries in the world. We toil to death to get taxed also to death: trillions and trillions spent on Afgan, Iraq and all those bombers and tanks and submarines. How could you live long with that? Read this. --------

     US Slipping in Life Expectancy Rankings Aug 12, 7:03 AM (ET) By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

     WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries.

     For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles.

     Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.

     "Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

     Posted by Helen DAO at 08/12/2007 @ 10:25pm

339. Posted by HELEN DAO 08/12/2007 @ 10:25pm

     I will take the Larry Summer (ex-Harvard President) approach....but first:

     - No country has as many races in large numbers as we do and

     - No country has as large a group of poor illegal immigrants as we do

     Now, if compared on a racially grouped basis, does anyone seriously think the US white population only ranks 41st among `white' countries? or that US Blacks rank low compared with `black' countries? or US Hispanics rank low vs. Latin countries? or US Asians rank low vs. Asian countries?

     Come on! The relatively low national ranking's causes are obvious, but Politically Incorrect to point out....just ask Mr. Summers!

     Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 11:30pm

340. HA,

     Canada population is 65% white/Eur, the rest mixed races-- US is 75% white/Euro, and the rest mixed races. Yet Canada has a higher life span and lower infant mortality rate than the US and doesn't Canada have a 'socialized' universal health care system...

     http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 02:17am

341. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/11/2007 @ 8:20pm

     Fools I don't know if it's those little critters you are seeing or not but has it never occurred to you, as it has to most of us that none of those polls and their constant re-publication, seem to have had the slightest effect on the policies of the POTUS, ever, or of the Democrats, post election.

     What I wanted to do was congratulate you for demonstrating that marvellous Christian virtue of perseverance, which has its reward not on this earth but in the life to come, which quite obviously must also be your motivation.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2007 @ 05:56am

342. LR-Jo,

     Good luck in your current life ignoring the obvious and the liberal conspiracy called reality-- in this current life and in your afterlife. It'll be handy for you to be playing with all your and Frita's straw dildos while you ignore the place you end up, along with your other little misguided creatures. But then you are following a mis leader.

     You can ignore all the congressional investigations and oversight since dems took over, with all the subpaenas, your hsuB looking as old as his poppy, Frito's impending impeachment/resignation, like r0ve's leaving, will expose the rest of the hsuB/cHeney admin to an independent prosecuter. And like Nixon, hsuB/cHeney will be forced out.

     Yet even as this is happening you'll still be talking about my polls being meaningless, and downunder, you're probably right, but then you're downunder. Here, in reality, they're tallies of the reason hsuB/cHeney are going down-- and I don't mean on your straw dildos, the ones you supporters of new cons, servicers of dic'tator philosophy little creatures make for your own intertainment, but most probably in spite of their ever lessening distraction.

     Yeah, good luck with that....

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 08:09am

343. Frito's impending impeachment/resignation----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 08:09am

     And, uh, WHEN is that exactly going to happen, HSUB?

     Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 09:39am