The Beat

Calling the Question -- In the House -- on Impeaching Cheney

posted by John Nichols on 11/02/2007 @ 2:30pm

Broadcast media's gate-keeping "stars" have done just about everything in their power to keep the matter of presidential accountability off the radar of the American people. That was evident during the most recent Democratic presidential debate, when NBC anchors Brian Williams and Tim Russert meticulously avoided following up on Congressman Dennis Kucinich's three references to impeachment but somehow found time to grill the contenders on UFOs and what costume Barack Obama would be wearing on Halloween.

Pollsters are almost as bad. Rarely are questions about impeachment included in statewide or national surveys.

Despite the lack of media coverage, however, when citizens are asked what they think about holding members of the Bush administration to account, they respond with an enthusiasm far greater than that displayed for impeaching Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal. It is this reality -- as opposed to the state of denial fostered by so much of the media and the political class -- that Congressman Dennis Kucinich will act upon next week, when he offers a privileged resolution on the House floor to bring articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich will face an uphill fight in a chamber led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who continues to say that impeachment is "off the table."

The Ohio congressman and long-shot presidential contender may not be following the rules of engagement as dictated by major media and his party leaders. But when Kucinich raises the issue of impeachment, he will be speaking for a great mass of Americans who agree with his argument that, "Congress must hold the Vice President accountable."

How great?

A fresh poll conducted for Vermont's WCAX television station finds that citizens of that state enthusiastically believe that Congress beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Sixty-one percent of the Vermonters surveyed favor taking steps to impeach the president, while just 33% oppose doing so.

The numbers are even higher for impeaching Cheney. Sixty-four percent of Vermonters favor beginning the process of holding the vice president to account, where only 31 percent are opposed.

The greater level of support for impeaching Cheney parallels the few nationwide figures that have been ascertained. When the American Research Group conducted a national survey in early July of this year, it found that 54 percent of American adults wanted the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Cheney -- with 76 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of independents and a striking 17 percent of Republicans favoring the step.

Forty-six percent of Americans surveyed backed impeachment proceedings against Bush -- with support for impeachment at 69 percent among Democrats, 50 percent among independents and 13 percent among Republicans.

What is notable is that, when Time magazine surveyed Americans in the late spring of 1974, after the Watergate scandal had evolved into a full-scale crisis of confidence in Nixon's presidency, only 43 percent favored impeachment.

A media that actually had a sense of history, not to mention reality, would focus on the fact that Americans are more supportive of a congressional intervention to thwart Bush and Cheney's wrongdoing than they were of moves to hold Nixon to account just months before the former president resigned in disgrace.

Now, it falls to Kucinich to speak the reality that, "The momentum is building for impeachment. Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President's abuse of power."

Says the congressman, "Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutional conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the executive branch is supreme... The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences."

Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney several months ago, and his H. Res. 333 has attracted almost two dozen co-sponsors. All Democrats, they are Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD).

Frustrated by the refusal of Democratic leaders to set up a process for holding hearings on his proposal, Kucinich will use an arcane House rule allowing for the prodding of the process with privileged resolutions to try and force consideration. Once introduced, a privileged resolution must be addressed within two legislative days.

Kucinich is expected to offer his privileged resolution on Tuesday. He expects to continue pushing it until the House acts. That action is likely to be a successful move by Democratic leaders to table the measure. Such a vote could be instructive, however, in that it would provide a rare measure of the willingness of at least some House members to respond to the popular will -- which is that Dick Cheney be held to account.

Comments (259)

  1. Like clockwork, NICHOLS' monthly plug for his book!

    Posted by Happy at 11/02/2007 @ 11:52am

  2. Really, JOHN, not again!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/02/2007 @ 11:56am

  3. Just read something interesting. The committee, Dems, appointed to 'look into' the impeachment process and Nixon did not actually want Nixon impeached. They wanted him to twist in the wind for the remainder of his term, figuring that by that time the American people would be so disgusted they'd sweep the Repubs out of DC and sweep the Dems in. Does that explain Pelosi etal?

    The same committee put in place what has become a precedent. The president, or vice I guess, is now shielded from impeachment for acts committed by subordinates. Nixon, had he not 'impeached' himself, would have been unimpeachable under this precedent - which continues in place today. Just try to prove Bush or Cheney ordered anything if there's no paper trail and no recorded conversations.

    Posted by felicity at 11/02/2007 @ 12:13pm

  4. Mr Nichols.....geez louise!

    Didn't we go through "Kucinich will offer **** on the floor of the House" and "Vermonters voted for impeachment in Newfane and Burlington"....

    SIX MONTHS AGO!?!?!?!

    And what happened? Nothing. Kucinich got 30-35 co-sponsors.

    Meanwhile John Conyers kicked Cindy Sheehan to the curb (and called the cops on her) after telling her it wasn't happening! (that's John Conyers head of the Judiciary Committee, where bills of impeachment get started, for those who don't know)

    Then RUSS FEINGOLD (remember him, Mr Nichols?) said it wasn't going to happen on Daily Kos, then threw out a "censure" bone to try to make up for it.

    Then BARACK OBAMA came out against it....Howard Dean and finally...

    AL GORE!

    Holy moley, Mr Nichols....don't you realize what you're going to do to what remains of poor ol' HSUBFOOLS' brain?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 12:20pm

  5. so far, we have four posts, and not a single one weighs the evidence for impeachment. instead, we have criticisms directed at nichols.....

    yawn

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 12:37pm

  6. Posted by DARLADOON 11/02/2007 @ 12:37pm

    DD, there was evidence months ago....but the sane among us (which John Nichols seems to be leaving for HSUB-land), Left, Right, and Middle knew it wasn't going to happen ever since your gal Nancy put it "off the table"....ALMOST A YEAR AGO!

    So why keep bringing up something that obviously isn't going to happen?

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 1:02pm

  7. .there is no evidence to impeach anyone and the loons on the left keep harping on this dead horse.

    yup, none at all.

    is this evidence enough? (this is a felony you know)

    "when we're talking about wiretapping, we're talking about getting a court order, which is what we're doing" (buffalo, december 2005)

    well, they weren't getting a court order (FISA), and therefore broke the law. and breaking the law is a felony.

    also, someone in CHENEY'S OFFICE ousted a clandestine CIA operative----which is a crime, and a very serious one.

    shall we go on? is secret rendition a crime? is torture against the geneva conventions? is breaking the geneva conventions a crime? man.....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 1:04pm

  8. So why keep bringing up something that obviously isn't going to happen?

    the very reason it's never going to happen is because people refuse to do something about it. hence, the very thesis of mr. nichols's article.....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 1:05pm

  9. it would indeed have been wonderful to have impeached both iron dick and his dummy, chimpy mcmushmouth, or at least to have seen a significant number of democrats show the glimmer of a spine to actually seriously push for it...

    but alas...with the exception of a few brave constitution toting wierdos like the rabid boy scout from cleveland...the vast majority of the dems proved themselves as skeered and spineless despite the electoral mandate they got, as they have been for well over a decade.

    so it sucks, but its done. i'm just hoping for the neocon monsters to go ahead and get us into war with iran...chimpy is feeling invigorated and ready to damn the torpedoes (lame duck dont give a shit powers activate!), so it may not be so far fetched after all...

    oh please chimpy and iron dick...please attack iran! please do something horribly evil, stupid and expensive again! one more kick should bring down the whole stupid, evil house of cards...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/02/2007 @ 1:20pm

  10. Posted by DARLADOON 11/02/2007 @ 1:05pm |

    Nooooooo....his thesis is that THIS attempt by Kucinich, a lone Congressman, to over-ride the House Leadership (remember, your "cat-herder" Nancy) will work.

    It won't. Pelosi doesn't want impeachment, and though she's not good at getting what she wants...she's pretty good at STOPPING what she doesn't want.

    Another bit of the puzzle? Harry Reid was on the "Ed Schultz Show" on Air America a week or so ago. After Reid hung-up, Schultz came back and told his audience (all pro-impeachers) that Reid's people had told him he COULDN'T bring up impeachment to Reid, if he wanted the interview.

    Now, believe it or not (and some seem not to) if the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the US Senate don't want somebody impeached....it ain't happening!

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 1:38pm

  11. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZget a life, Nicholszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Posted by davebarlett at 11/02/2007 @ 2:03pm

  12. Others framed this thread correctly; this is more about Nichol's book sales than the constitution.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/02/2007 @ 1:48pm

    oh of course...its always about the money...nichols writes this stuff for no other reason...he is really a right wing conservative but this is his job and since he is so good at writing like a lefty progressive...thats what he does!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/02/2007 @ 2:04pm

  13. Now, believe it or not (and some seem not to) if the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the US Senate don't want somebody impeached....it ain't happening!

    mask, thanks for proving my point, which was:

    the very reason it's never going to happen is because people refuse to do something about it

    those "people" are: reid, pelosi, and many many more.

    again, mask = wrong, darla = right

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 2:07pm

  14. The majority of Congress, including some of the socialist progressive caucus realize the truth that the far left cannot come to grips with...there are no impeachable offenses to bring against Cheney or Bush. With the caveat that impeachment is a political not criminal trial.

    Most Dems in Congress realize that fact and understand that despite Vermont and San Francisco, and other far left bastions, most Americans don't even think about the subject. It is a losing issue and that more than anything else is why the Dem leadership doesn't pursue it. If they felt they could make political gain by impeaching the President and VP, they would do it today.

    an utterly baffling analysis! so, let me get your logic straight here. despite your inability to address at least three impeachable offenses (which i listed above), you are not concerned anyway, because, in your mind, "outside of vermont and san francisco, nobody thinks about it." amazing how liberty knows what everyone in the country is thinking about. is he a mind reader?

    just because reid and pelosi, and others, won't pursue impeachment does not mean that the administration hasn't broken the law. are there any laws in the neoconservative imagination?

    i mean, let's be serious here: is the united states beholden to the geneva conventions? if not, then what was the point of signing onto them?

    is the united states beholden to FISA? if not, then what was the point of passing FISA?

    is it legal to out a CIA spy? if so, then why did libby go to trial?

    was it legal to invade and occupy iraq, despite iraq's non-imminent threat capacity?

    just what are the point of laws, if nobody follows them?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 2:13pm

  15. basically, to the masks, libertys, maasch's and bravos:

    since americans don't think, or care to think, about anything their government does, including when it blatantly violates all manner of constitutional laws and international treaties, the administration is therefore innocent of any crimes.

    why? because nobody cares.

    pretty much sums up the country's ethos at this point: who cares?

    thanks for proving, with each passing day, why america SUCKS, guys.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 2:15pm

  16. the american public wanted impeachment long ago...but the politicians decided we were wrong.

    now its basically too late. which sux, but here we are.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/02/2007 @ 2:26pm

  17. oh please chimpy and iron dick...please attack iran! please do something horribly evil, stupid and expensive again! one more kick should bring down the whole stupid, evil house of cards...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/02/2007 @ 1:20pm

    Sadly, this is the most likely scenario (doing something horribly evil, stupid and expensive) at the moment by a significant margin probability-wise.

    The question then becomes how much damage can we sustain and still manage to right the ship? An even more ominous question is have we already past the critical point beyond which salvage is simply not possible?

    The plot thickens while we continue to fiddle.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/02/2007 @ 2:29pm

  18. Posted by DARLADOON 11/02/2007 @ 2:07pm

    DD, again, the MOST pessimistic thing Mr Nichols is saying is "Kucinich will face an uphill fight in a chamber led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who continues to say that impeachment is "off the table."

    So in fact, his "thesis" isn't so much about "people refusing to do it"...but that Kucinich "might, just might, it's possible, it COULD happen" pull off an impeachment vote with a privelege move.

    So YOUR idea of what "Mr Nichols meant" isn't correct. He's merely pumping up a pipe-dream that somehow after nearly a year of Democratic control (and nearly as long "off the table" by Pelosi)....that "there's still hope".

    Sorry, there isn't. As Gandalf said, "only a fool's hope".

    NOW, before you (as HSUB did so often) lump me in with MAASCH, LVLIB, or RIO...let me tell you something...

    I don't oppose impeachment. At a certain point it moved from a waste of time (as DAVID CORN as well once said) to a needed move to maybe help stop the war in Iraq. But it was a dream from the outset, even with Democratic control of the House and Senate....and I refused to delude myself (as HSUB, again, did).

    And it was probably mostly dead (with no help from a Miracle Max...to ref another movie) when Pelosi said "off the table"....but it was well and truly dead (to paraphrase the Munchkin Coroner) when JOHN CONYERS (Chair of Judiciary, told Cindy Sheehan no...after promising it BEFORE the 2006 election)...as well as when Mr Nichols' idol RUSS FEINGOLD said it wasn't happening either.

    If THOSE "people" had said "Yes, we want it and we'll fight for it"....the other "people" (Pelosi, Reid) would be under a LOT more pressure to do it. But since it's JUST Kucinich and maybe 30 from the Progressive Caucus....it has been dead for months now.

    John Nichols SHOULD know that. If he doesn't, he's naive and continueing to be naive at THIS point in time. If he does, he's merely blowing smoke for his audience who have been in the "impeachment is imminent" crowd of fantasists.

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 2:32pm

  19. And speaking of HSUB....this post (the first time) has been up for HOURS...where is my ol' buddy?

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 2:35pm

  20. sorry, mask, you are wrong again. and as usual, you bury yourself even further.

    the reason why impeachment won't occur is not because of some abstract entity preventing it (which is what you are claiming), but because real actors in the real world are preventing it. those actors are reid, pelosi, etc.

    again, you twist and spin, and fail.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 2:37pm

  21. if real actors in the real world don't evolve (they do), then we would be able to make mask-ian predictions. but since real actors in the real world do, indeed, evolve, we cannot, for certain, predict what they will say or do over time.

    we can have a pretty good idea of what someone will say or do in a given situation, but as for the law of averages: anything that can happen, will happen. the phrase isn't: because a situation seems hopeless, we should just forget about it.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 2:39pm

  22. I wouldn't care if JN called for impeachment everyday, regardless of his book (you idiots who think there's tons of $$$ in writing books with limited runs and audience-get a clue!). Those who think there are no impeachable offenses are way too full of yourselves. Where the fk have you been the last few years?

    And impeachment is not about a political one-ups-manship. Frankly, it is the only way now for the american public to redeem itself to show the world that we as a people cannot be reduced to the actions of our cynical rulers.

    Even if Kuchinich fails, it would be interesting to see who votes how and why.

    Posted by steve foster at 11/02/2007 @ 2:42pm

  23. Yeah, Frita mentioned this a while back, but since unlike her nuerotic need to save posts for bizarre pscho reasons, I can only use my recall to note that she mentioned the possibility that the dems had made a deal with hsuB/cHeney not to attack Iran and they in turn would not impeach them. My argument was that the opposite is true-- unless they're impeached, they will attack Iran.

    Why bring this up?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 2:42pm

  24. I'm reposting a comment from the other day because I think it contains some worthwhile food for discussion --concisely, when do we begin to apply concerted and sustained pressure on our so-called mainstream media to hold them to account for the decades of incalculably damaging cover-up of basic truths about American government conduct?

    How many of us have awoken to the fact that Bush/Cheney is ultimately a symptom and not a cause?

    Here's my previous post:

    Regarding the current state of US mainstream media, I would like to point out to readers a powerful recent speech by John Pilger --entitled "Freedom Next Time" after his recent book--that was printed in the latest issue of International Socialist Review. Right-wingers here should not freak out by the word "socialist". The message of the speech is one that ALL Americans need to hear.

    I strongly encourage that the speech be read in full here [isreview.org]

    An excerpt:

    The current most dangerous silence is over nuclear weapons and the return of the Cold War. The Russians understand clearly that the so-called American defense shield in Eastern Europe is designed to subjugate and humiliate them. Yet the front pages here talk about Putin starting a new Cold War, and there is silence about the development of an entirely new American nuclear system called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), which is designed to blur the distinction between conventional war and nuclear war--a long-held ambition.

    In the meantime, Iran is being softened up, with the liberal media playing almost the same role it played before the Iraq invasion. And as for the Democrats, look at how Barack Obama has become the voice of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the propaganda organs of the old liberal Washington establishment. Obama writes that while he wants the troops home, "We must not rule out military force against long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria." Listen to this from the liberal Obama: "At moments of great peril in the past century our leaders ensured that America, by deed and by example, led and lifted the world, that we stood and fought for the freedom sought by billions of people beyond their borders."

    That is the nub of the propaganda, the brainwashing if you like, that seeps into the lives of every American, and many of us who are not Americans. From right to left, secular to God-fearing, what so few people know is that in the last half century, United States administrations have overthrown fifty governments--many of them democracies. In the process, thirty countries have been attacked and bombed, with the loss of countless lives. Bush bashing is all very well--and is justified--but the moment we begin to accept the siren call of the Democrats' drivel about standing up and fighting for freedom sought by billions, the battle for history is lost, and we ourselves are silenced.

    So what should we do? That question often asked in meetings I have addressed, even meetings as informed as those in this conference, is itself interesting. It's my experience that people in the so-called Third World rarely ask the question, because they know what to do. And some have paid with their freedom and their lives, but they knew what to do. It's a question that many on the democratic Left--small "d"--have yet to answer.

    Real information, subversive information, remains the most potent power of all--and I believe that we must not fall into the trap of believing that the media speaks for the public. That wasn't true in Stalinist Czechoslovakia and it isn't true in the United States.

    There can be little doubt that we are in the midst of an absolutely critical juncture of the evolution of human society on our irreplaceable planet Earth.

    I suggest a few steps we should take now:

    1) Get informed. An outstanding first read is John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" because it is a gripping book. Another good start is Naomi Klein's new bombshell book, "The Shock Doctrine".

    2) As much as possible downsize your lifestyle and reduce your consumption of resources --drive less, shop less, live in a smaller residence etc.

    3) Spread the word by writting letters to your local paper and/or speak to others in any way you can.

    P.S. I also believe it is high time for intelligent publications of all stripes to band together to pound home the message that the status quo of our consumerist, corporatocratic, media-gagged society is no longer an option if we are to survive as a species.

    This must be a central, concerted and sustained message.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/02/2007 @ 2:44pm

  25. http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Nnph3zkHNw

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 2:46pm

  26. http://tigana.zaadz.com/blog/2007/11/draft_gore_-_the_video

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 2:51pm

  27. Minor correction:

    Pilger's quote ends with this paragraph:

    "Real information, subversive information, remains the most potent power of all--and I believe that we must not fall into the trap of believing that the media speaks for the public. That wasn't true in Stalinist Czechoslovakia and it isn't true in the United States."

    The remaining was my own commentary.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/02/2007 @ 2:51pm

  28. http://www.democrats.com/impeachment-reasons

    Al Gore's Warning

    January 29, 2006

    Speaking on Martin Luther King's birthday, at a program sponsored by groups ranging from a liberal civil liberties attorneys group to a conservative libertarian group, former vice president (and the guy from whom Bush stole the 2000 election) Al Gore issued some very sobering warnings about where this country is headed.

    Those warnings were met with smug arrogance by the regime, and silence by the Democrats, even while Gore's speech set off a stir broadly in society, with blogs and break-rooms buzzing over what Gore let out of the bag.

    Bush claims that he's only spying on people who have gotten phone calls from al-Qaida. Gore - who knows what he's talking about - said that the government "is eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens." And that the executive branch (the White House) "has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses."

    And Gore referred to the fact that "for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped-one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during this period. The FBI privately called King the 'most dangerous and effective negro (sic) leader in the country' and vowed to 'take him off his pedestal'. The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and blackmail him into committing suicide. This campaign continued until Dr. King's murder.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 3:32pm

  29. ...

    "The President claims that he can imprison American citizens indefinitely for the rest of their lives without an arrest warrant, without notifying them about what charges have been filed against them, and without informing their families that they have been imprisoned.

    "At the same time, the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world.

    "Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated. In the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were innocent of any charges."

    And,

    "The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes in nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture."

    After discussing events in US history like the detention of Japanese Americans in World War II, and repression against the movement against the War in Vietnam, Gore said that, "[I]n each of these cases, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, the country recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret. There are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing and that the cycle may not repeat itself."

    Gore pointed to "The slow and steady accumulation of presidential power," combined with the fact that "we are told by the Administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to 'last for the rest of our lives.' " And , "[T]he advances in eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and to mine it for intelligence."

    Gore poses a fourth reason to believe that the self-correcting mechanisms he believes normally operate may not be operating now: "This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended."

    We should listen carefully to Gore's warning: "If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?"

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 3:33pm

  30. ...

    "The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.

    "Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.

    ...

    Despite all that, the news is that speaking from within the ruling class, Gore's speech just taken on its own indicts the Bush regime for: systematic torture ("the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture ") and murder ("Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators"), of innocent people ("more than 90 percent of the victims were innocent of any charges."). For spying on "huge numbers" of people in this country - spying reminiscent of the FBI's operation against Martin Luther King. And that there is good reason to think the direction things are heading is worse, and is not going to get corrected by normal workings of the system.

    Gore's speech should serve as a wake up call to all about just how extreme things have gotten, and how dangerous a direction things are heading."

    http://revcom.us/a/032/al-gores-warning.htm

    "In The Assault on Reason, Gore correctly laments that we cannot have intelligent, informed national debates. Yet the sad fact remains there are Beltway press players who devote much of their time and energy to ensuring that those debates cannot take place. Hopefully Gore will write a book about them some day."

    http://mediamatters.org/columns/200706120005

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 3:33pm

  31. And speaking of HSUB....this post (the first time) has been up for HOURS...where is my ol' buddy?

    Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 2:35pm

    Er, Frita, some of us do not get paid to be here on The Nation blogging 24/7.

    I must make my time pay, for the most part... while I can donate, I do so freely only when I can.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 3:40pm

  32. but because real actors in the real world are preventing it. those actors are reid, pelosi, etc. ---Posted by DARLADOON 11/02/2007 @ 2:37pm |

    Who is "etc.", DARLA? I'll tell you....again. It's guys like John Conyers, once a full-throated supporter of impeachment (even held mock hearings on it) who betrayed the "groundswell" after he had gotten them to vote in Democrats in Nov. 2006 and "discovered" that "he didn't have the votes and never would".

    Or guys like Russ Feingold....proponent of censure after censure of Bush and Cheney and idolized by the likes of John Nichols of "The Nation"...when he went on Daily Kos and said ..

    "I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses. But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country. The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.

    While some have pointed to Republicans' decision to impeach President Clinton, I am also concerned about the over-use of impeachment."

    That's RUSS FEINGOLD...not some "Blue Dog" Dem from Arkansas or Virginia.

    Or how about these guys?--

    Barack Obama----""I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

    Howard Dean----"Americans don't want impeachment, they want healing."

    Al Gore----Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful." (This last one drives HSUB crazy...uh, -ier.....heheh)

    That's more than "Reid and Pelosi", DARLA. That's EVERY top Democrat.

    Plus we've yet had a full-scale (Gallup, Rasmussen, Harris, Quinnipiac) survey of how much of the American people want to go through an impeachment.

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 3:52pm

  33. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007 @ 3:40pm

    BTW, anybody notice that? One small post on impeachment here by HSUB (once, one of his favorite topics)...and then several on Gore.

    Could it be that even HSUB has finally given up on it?

    (At that rate, he'll finally give up on the "Gore in '08" fantasy by the time the primaries end....heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 3:54pm

  34. Frita has a very limited (nuerotic) memory, especially if she only cuts out what she agrees with and leaves out the rest of the context and qualifiers...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 3:58pm

  35. Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 3:54pm

    Oh and she can't read over-lapping contextual ideas as in 'Gore' speaking on 'impeachable' condititions.

    One switch-- either black or white, no gray, no color, not even 256 resolution, only two.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 4:02pm

  36. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007 @ 4:02pm

    So, should we pop popcorn for Gore's Presidential announcment next Thursday on Leno?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:12pm

  37. Off-topic (but does it matter on THIS topic?)---

    LVLIBERTY, You got any problems, given the descent of Rudy's star, in voting for a....Morman?!??!?

    Or have we found a disqualifier that even you can't stomach?

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:13pm

  38. LL supports pedophiles, strumpet-mongers, gamblers, homosexuals and wide-stance, bathroom-horeseplaying Tories, so a Mormon is no problem. Actually, I think LL is a closet homosexual himself.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 4:17pm

  39. But LL has no problem with his religion taking over the governments of other countries, hence his "missionary work" in the Phillipines where he compelled the natives to worship him the way the Ewoks worshipped C3PO.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 4:20pm

  40. First the Poll Frita likes so much:

    Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 567645 responses Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 89%

    No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 4.2%

    No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 5.1%

    I don't know. 1.9%

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

    And here is the link to all the other impeachment polls:

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

    And true, before the Watergate inquiry, Nixon's were higher, not to mention Clinton's.

    Major reason why there isn't currently on-going impeachment proceedings-- may be the answer to-- how many sessions were the opposing party in control of congress before pushing for impeachment?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 4:20pm

  41. LL,

    The rumor is you are a cuckold and te puso los cuernos la mujer. I've been a way for a while so I can't be sure. However, you are still obviously as bent on twisting Holy Writ to fit your own meshugah worldview. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? Do you like gladiator movies? Ever seen a grown man naked?

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 4:32pm

  42. First, the easy one...

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007 @ 4:20pm

    So, HSUB....89% of Americans want Bush impeached?!?!?! (according to an ONLINE poll)

    Wow....that's amazing.

    The man has a 29-31% approval rating...so by my math, 100-29=71, meaning you'd need another EIGHTEEN points to reach 89 (18+71=89).

    Which means....18% of those who support Bush...want him impeached!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:33pm

  43. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/02/2007 @ 4:18pm

    Thanks, LL....that makes it so much easier.

    Okay, gang...anybody in "cross-party line primaries" (i.e. where anybody can vote in any primary)....."Go, Mitt, Go!"

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:35pm

  44. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/02/2007 @ 4:32pm

    Odd how CHIMI takes umbrage at folks guessing about HIS lifestyle (or choice of citizenship/escape route)...but has no problem doing it himself!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:37pm

  45. MASK,

    Why would you care about my enthusiasms or reasons for taking flight? I've expounded on both many times. You must have been re-reading that Cuba post from December 2006 that you post ever other day here. Is anyone else tired of this little catch-poll pretending to be a gendarme on this blog? I'll answer any question hurled my way. I always have.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 4:43pm

  46. Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 4:33pm

    Frita, I can't tell if that's straw in between your teeth now or little hairs...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 4:44pm

  47. LVLIB....noooooooo....

    I'm saying I want the Democratic candidate to win, and if getting YOU (and many like you) in your religious paranoia, to NOT show up at the polls for fear or loathing of voting for a "heretic whose sworn an oath to his false church", helps to assure that...

    great!

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:45pm

  48. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person

    Threads pulled loose from his real-life blow-up doll.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 4:45pm

  49. LL,

    Don't you think your genius and divine work could be put to better use in El Salvador than the western United States?

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 4:48pm

  50. What's worse is that goop on his chin.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 4:48pm

  51. Okay CHIMI...one simple question...

    Why do you still retain your citizenship to a country you say is full of idiots and culturally corrupt....if not to have a "way out" when the novelty of being a expatriate in Colombia wears thin?

    BTW, you might want to re-read this--

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/02/2007 @ 01:38am, over at the "Hillary-Grover Cleveland" thread, and tell me why it's okay for you against LVLIB, but objectionable to SRJENKINS if I do it to you (without the homophobic fantasies of prison rape, of course)

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:48pm

  52. While I can understand the logic in the statements made that impeachment proceedings would take up too much of Congress' time when they could be working on other issues, it just doesn't wash with me. Especially considering they will bicker over statements by Rush Limbaugh and ads by MoveOn.org.

    Personally, I think nothing should ever be "off the table" as Pelosi has stated. Ever. That's too much of a confined response. Box thinking. That's like the question in the debate the other night where the candidates were asked if they could guarantee Iran wouldn't develop a nuclear weapon under their watch. Of course they can't say Iran wouldn't. They aren't there. Every option should be open.

    The main problem with impeachment, as I see it, is similar to any other legislation the Democrats try to push through. Votes. They can get some issues through the House and sometimes through the Senate but don't have the votes to overcome a veto. Even if Pelosi and company hadn't closed the door on impeachment, would they still have the votes on the floor for it to go anywhere? I think not. I hear in the news of congress men and women who talk alot but I rarely see any walking to back it up.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 11/02/2007 @ 4:49pm

  53. HSUB, you're digging a hole again.

    First WILL, now the homophobic slurs of MachoCHENGA?

    Your list of allies isn't very impressive.

    BTW, where will Gore be opening his campaign HQ? Will he tell Jay next Thursday?

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:50pm

  54. You were talking about the doll with Frita?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 4:50pm

  55. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/02/2007 @ 4:49pm

    LVLIB, I'm happy to use your own prejudices against you...nothing personal (unlike some here).

    If it takes Romney on the ticket and fear of them "heath'ern Joseph Smithers"....okey-doke.

    But the good news is, maybe HSUB's insanity has some possibility of happening and Gore will run and split the Left between him and Hillary and Mitt wins a 33% "mandate"!

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:52pm

  56. BTW, where will Gore be opening his campaign HQ? Will he tell Jay next Thursday?

    Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 4:50pm

    Where did you open the box with the doll in it? What is that stuff between your teeth?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 4:53pm

  57. MASK,

    I have family in the US and would prefer to have easy access to them, especially as some grow old and feeble. Have you any idea how a Colombian national is treated upon entrance to the US? I've had my stomach x-rayed in certain cities here simply for being American, as the soldiers like to make me sweat every now and then. The same thing - and worse - often befalls Colombians before being granted admission to roam your streets.

    And who says living here is wearing thin? I regularly travel and change my scenery. It's very salubrious. I am a stranger to monotony.

    Not sure about the prison rape thing, but just reading it makes me laugh - I'll have to re-read my post...

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 4:53pm

  58. LIES ?!?!?!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 4:54pm

  59. Oh, back on topic...and for CHIMICHENGA (as well as his new buddy HSUB)....I had this one left over--

    BLOG | Posted 03/27/2007 @ 05:05am Comments for "Getting Serious About the "I" Word" by John Nichols

    "Enough with the talk of impeachment. Though fueled by genuine outrage over blatant corruption and abuse of power, this nebbishy crusade is so obviously spawned more than anything by a vindictive desire to do to Bush what Kenneth Star and gang did to Clinton.----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/28/2007 @ 1:00pm

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:54pm

  60. FLIES ?!?!?!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 4:55pm

  61. LL,

    Please tell me it's a business that actually does some good for others than yourself and your family.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 4:55pm

  62. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/02/2007 @ 4:53pm

    Sorry, CHIMI, doesn't wash. No accent and white boy looks wouldn't garner you any extra body cavity searches from our "top-of-the-line" TSA guys and gals, even if the passport was Colombian.

    As for what happens to you IN Colombia...odd you continue to stay, given the roentgens you're enduring in their cities. Stomach cancer a small price to pay for living away from the "paranoid and oppressive USA"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 4:58pm

  63. Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person

    And? Politics is a dirty game, and both sides spend plenty of time hitting their adversaries below the belt. Do you let them get away with it or do you return the favor? Not that impeachment is going to happen (though serious crimes have been committed), because at the end of the day both parties are working for the same employer - the men behind the curtain. The Dems want the White House more than Bush or Cheney's head.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 4:59pm

  64. Not that impeachment is going to happen (though serious crimes have been committed), because at the end of the day both parties are working for the same employer - the men behind the curtain. The Dems want the White House more than Bush or Cheney's head.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/02/2007 @ 4:59pm

    Sad, but oh so true I'm afraid.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/02/2007 @ 5:02pm

  65. Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person

    Are you kidding? Shows how little you know about living and traveling abroad. You know they're putting RFIDs in US passports now? National ID cards are on the way, GPS in cellphones and cars... But foreigners - especially those from regions where anti-Americanism is well-fueled (though you all believe its endemic the world over) are subject to serious harassment in your airports. Why do you think Americans are now photographed and fingerprinted in Brasil? They want you to feel the way they do upon entering your country - like criminals.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 5:04pm

  66. October 31, 2007: Vermonters: 64% say impeach Cheney, 61% say impeach Bush

    September 19, 2007: Pew's Putrid Excuse for Refusing to Poll on Impeachment

    September 6, 2007: Zogby claims 32% for impeachment of Bush or Cheney or both.

    July 16, 2007: Members of Northeast Democratic Club of Los Angeles 78% for impeaching Bush and Cheney.

    July 10, 2007: USA Today/ Gallup claims 36% for impeaching Bush.

    July 9, 2007: Democrats.com Poll Finds Libby Commutation Boosted Support for Impeachment.

    July 6 2007: American Research Group wouldn't take our money a month ago and now did a poll on their own dime and found that 54% of Americans want Cheney impeached, while 40% do not. THIS IS THE ONLY POLL EVER DONE ON IMPEACHING CHENEY.

    July 6, 2007: Rightwing pollster again claims 39% for impeaching Bush.

    June 2007: Harris does online poll on impeachment but does not publish results.

    June 14, 2007: CNN's polling director comments on impeaching Cheney, but has done no poll.

    June 4, 2007: American Research Group refuses to poll, even for money.

    May 30, 2007: Harris refuses to poll on impeachment, even for money.

    May 29, 2007: Ipsos refuses to poll on impeachment, even for money.

    May 8, 2007: Rightwing pollster finds 39 percent want both Bush and Cheney impeached. Here's an analysis.

    Jan. 25, 2007: Newsweek finds 58 percent of Americans wish Bush's presidency were over.

    Oct. 24, 2006: Newsweek finds majority favors impeachment.

    Sept. 9, 2006: CNN Plays With Lies and Statistics.

    July 23, 2006: A blog summarizes our polling.

    June 1, 2006: Bush considered worst president.

    May 23, 2006: Zogby poll finds Impeachment #1 cure for distrust of government.

    May 22, 2006: Fox News poll.

    May 11, 2006: New Poll Results from Zogby.

    April 11, 2006: Washington Post FINALLY Polls on Censure and Impeachment.

    March 18, 2006: Newsweek does poll without us having to pay for it: Results.

    March 17, 2006: Finally somebody did a poll without us paying for it: American Research Group Poll.

    Jan. 31, 2006: MyDD Posts Results.

    Jan. 27, 2006: OpEd News Releases Results.

    Jan. 26, 2006: OpEd News does polling inspired by our efforts.

    Jan. 16, 2006: We've purchased our fourth poll! READ THE RESULTS.

    Jan. 5, 2006: MyDD launches effort inspired by ours to raise money for polls.

    Dec. 22, 2005: Newsweek acknowledges demand for impeachment polling.

    Dec. 20, 2005: The Washington Post's polling editor is furious that people want impeachment polling.

    Dec. 14, 2005: We've purchased our third poll! READ THE RESULTS.

    Dec. 10, 2005: Media Continues to Ignore Impeachment Polling

    Nov. 11, 2005: What Investors Business Daily thinks of our polls.

    Nov. 4, 2005: We've purchased our second poll! READ THE RESULTS.

    Oct. 11, 2005: We've purchased our first poll! READ THE RESULTS.

    Oct. 12, 2005: You've given more than the goal we set of $10,000. You've given $10,466.19. We will spend every penny of it on polling. We've already spent some.

    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 5:05pm

  67. I'm outta here like Vladimir. MASK, go easy on the blow-up doll. LL, don't abuse the goofballs. RIO, wherever you are, please remember your lithium. PONTI, please try some plutonium on your pasta one of these days - the Russians swear by it...

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/02/2007 @ 5:11pm

  68. EVEN HSUB AGREES THAT CONGRESS SHOULD IMPEACH HIM:

    Bush: Dems Like Those Who Ignored Hitler

    WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2007

    President Bush speaks at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

    (AP) President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday with people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today."

    http://tinyurl.com/2px6pf

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 5:33pm

  69. Exactly that is why he needs to be impeached!

    Plus I am interested in seeing how everybody votes. It'll just prove what a bunch of tools they all are. Maybe we can get some better tools. Get rid of the incumbents or something.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/02/2007 @ 5:40pm

  70. That's an interesting twist, eh? Don't ignore the rise of Hitler! Impeach his equivalent here, now!

    Posted by Waltz at 11/02/2007 @ 5:41pm

  71. Therefore, any rational being would come to the conclusion that they don't believe it to be a winning political issue

    so, bush hasn't broken the law? interesting.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 5:57pm

  72. 1. I have said that Guiliani is not my first choice, but that I could vote for him if nominated because of his stand on terrorism. That issue trumps all other issues, even if they are very important to me.

    this statement perfectly encapsulates the authoritarian worldview: this "war" are fighting with this omnipresent, abstract "enemy" we are fighting (nevermind all of the overlapping, and non-overlapping, ethnic and religious and political groups which cover the muslim world) is the Greatest Threat we have ever faced in our lives, and we must therefore implement the most Radical and Dictatorial policies, many of which are antithetical to that quaint little document called The Constitution.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2007 @ 6:01pm

  73. LL supports pedophiles, strumpet-mongers, gamblers, homosexuals and wide-stance, bathroom-horeseplaying Tories, so a Mormon is no problem. Actually, I think LL is a closet homosexual himself.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/02/2007 @ 4:17pm

    Self-hating closeted gay.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/02/2007 @ 6:29pm

  74. Let's talk about what these unending calls from the left for impeachment really are: payback for the Gray Davis California recall election--plus some lingering sour grapes over the 2000 election (geez, get on with your lives already). It's a backdoor way for the left to win the presidency when they can't do it by conventional means. Viva President Pelosi!

    Unfortunately, it's also completely transparent--give it up.

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 11/02/2007 @ 6:50pm

  75. @ skippy: the honest libs feel it is not a political thing. We need to impeach Bush so that we can start undoing the damage he has done and will continue to otherwise do. More and more crimes will continue to be committed until he and Cheney are removed. They will continue to fatten their pockets and those of their friends at the peoples' expense.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/02/2007 @ 6:59pm

  76. Self-hating closeted gay.

    Posted by DR DECIBELS

    Dr. Dumbass, it takes one to know one......And I'll point out once again that you probably didn't get that round mouth from eating square meals...Punk

    Posted by davebarlett at 11/02/2007 @ 7:02pm

  77. anyone who wants to know the truth

    http://www.tomdispatch.com

    educate yourself in U.S. history ...mom I really want this video game because it had excellent graphics and it's only $20 US. GWB - People I really want this war because we'll be spreading freedom and they're building bombs.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/02/2007 @ 7:30pm

  78. Hey there, LOSER SCUM, it's been a while since i wasted my time chatting with low-life liberal traitors like yourselves! Hey, how come we're not hearing or seeing a whole lot out of Iraq recently? Maybe it's because things are looking up for the U.S. and we're actually making progress. Notice how, before the surge occurred, we would constantly hear how it wasn't going to work, and now that it has worked, it.... disappears from the MSM completely ( although FOX tries to keep it real )!When bin laden makes a new video, we see it for a week unless he makes one ( the most recent video) that shows him and Al Qaeda weakened and in disarray in Iraq, it automatically becomes a non-story and disappears! Anyone know why? I'm sure most of you do but don't have the honesty to admit it! So i say this to all our seditious, liberal, oxygen-thieving losers: Things are improving for the U.S. in Iraq, which is a bad thing for you! You are American citizens and yet, you all know, deep inside your hearts, that when you hear that we are even possibly winning in Iraq, that it makes you UNHAPPY! That's just plain sick! Now move to France, SCUM!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2007 @ 7:31pm

  79. Romney for Pres.!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2007 @ 7:32pm

  80. Romney?

    Posted by Waltz at 11/02/2007 @ 7:34pm

  81. So then it comes down to power alliences. If there were 'no' constitutional alliance in congress during the 12 years of a reptilian majority, thus making easy for a uni-exec to gain control, but prior to dem take over less than a year ago.

    How long will it take for congress to form a constitutional majority again in order to move on impeachment? I'm not talking a supermajority in one party, but rather a supermajority that believes in our constitution. You know, the one where they each swore an oath to but that only some weren't crossing their fingers behind their backs during. (hsuB/cHeney don't count as their very brains are reptilian 'cross' wired.)

    Hasn't every impeachment had an opposition party majority in congress? And how long had they been together as a majority to form that alliance? This may very well be the reason our congress 'hasn't' moved on impeachment.

    Notice though I did not say 'won't'.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 7:34pm

  82. Why don't you move to Iraq then if it's so wonderful Barry? You're scum.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/02/2007 @ 7:35pm

  83. Posted by BARRY25 11/02/2007 @ 7:32pm

    Damn skippy, BARRY....Go, Mitt, Go!

    Now....

    mention that to LVLIB...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 7:41pm

  84. Hey, HSUB

    Did you figure out from (Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007 @ 4:20pm) how...

    18% of the Bush SUPPORTERS...want to impeach him?

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 7:42pm

  85. Hey there, LOSER SCUM, it's been a while since i wasted my time chatting with low-life liberal traitors like yourselves!

    Posted by BARRY25

    Damn skippy, BARRY

    Posted by MASK

    Mask is a Republican. Hiding behind a MASK apparently.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/02/2007 @ 7:44pm

  86. I would prefer to impeachment a bill of attainder for both Bush and Cheney. Yes it is unconstitutional but so is the whole Bush regime. A Jeffersonian revolution could send people into the white house with pitchforks to take those two rascals out.

    Posted by torquemada at 11/02/2007 @ 7:47pm

  87. Yo Moron, why don't you take a "waltz" down to your local bathhouseand do your thing, maybe you'll run into Barney "hey, there was a male prostitution ring being run out of my apartment and i knew nothing about it" Frank or Laryy Craig for that matter. Furthermore, DIMWIT, I don't recall ever stating that Iraq was a "wonderful" place to live, nor would i ever attach that moniker to France of all places! But, it's understandable that you took what i said, like a good little dishonest liberal twerp would, and distorted/mis-represented my words in order to try to engage in a debate you can't win. Kinda like what you losers tried to do to Rush! Either way son, things have improved in Iraq and you traitors aren't happy about it! Now, if you have any pride, then answer this simple question (you won't, coward ): do you want us to succeed in creating peace and democracy, even if you think/hope that it's impossible? Time for some soul-searching ( if you have one ) you little TWERP ( don't be offended, i apply that term to ALL liberal scum)!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2007 @ 7:58pm

  88. If Mitt doesn't get the nod, the GOP won't see my vote on any ballots! Rudy and McCain are both liberals that have lost any chance with me. These sellout's would have us all speaking spanish if it meant a profit for corporate America. illegal Immigration has destroyed my hometown and the state of Ca. regardless of what those East-coast limosine liberals say from afar!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2007 @ 8:02pm

  89. The more I think about it, the more I feel that impeachment isn't the answer. Would be nice but too far fetched. No, I think what needs to happen is for folks to take a closer look at what they are voting on. HRC's vote on the Iran affair is a prime example. Bush has to have backing to do any more damage (hopefully - *hopefully has to have backing rather than hopefully he'll do more damage*) and if these things aren't thought through, then he'll have carte blanc power to do what he wants. Once again the Iran vote is a prime example.

    I think more scrutiny needs to be done on what passes and what the possible ramifications are before a vote is cast.

    Any vote really, on Capitol Hill or elsewhere (especially the primaries and general election)!

    Posted by FritztheCat at 11/02/2007 @ 8:06pm

  90. Folks, we may have a Battle Royle on the Right...in this corner---

    LVLIB--

    "Hope that makes it clear that for me, unless Romney disavows his "sacred" oath in the Temple, I cannot vote for Romney. I would do the same for any American whose faith has such a vow."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/02/2007 @ 4:18pm

    and in this corner....BARRY---

    "If Mitt doesn't get the nod, the GOP won't see my vote on any ballots! Rudy and McCain are both liberals that have lost any chance with me. These sellout's would have us all speaking spanish if it meant a profit for corporate America. illegal Immigration has destroyed my hometown and the state of Ca. regardless of what those East-coast limosine liberals say from afar!"----Posted by BARRY25 11/02/2007 @ 8:02pm

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 8:07pm

  91. I don't discriminate based on any religion other than the radicals in the "religion of peace' that vow "to kill all infidels"!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2007 @ 8:10pm

  92. Posted by WALTZ 11/02/2007 @ 7:44pm

    WALTZ....you apparently have some difficulty paying attention...or reading.

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 8:12pm

  93. Now, if you have any pride, then answer this simple question (you won't, coward ): do you want us to succeed in creating peace and democracy, even if you think/hope that it's impossible? Time for some soul-searching ( if you have one ) you little TWERP ( don't be offended, i apply that term to ALL liberal scum)!

    Posted by BARRY25 11/02/2007 @ 7:58pm

    I like you man! Do I want us to succeed in creating peace and democracy in Iraq? I do! I just don't want the U.S. to profit from it! I don't want all the oil executives to make a huge profit and all of the Iraqi people to make a pittance.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/02/2007 @ 8:28pm

  94. So I don't want us to. I want the Iraqi people to do it on their own or with the help of the world but not the U.S. specifically.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/02/2007 @ 8:41pm

  95. do you want us to succeed in creating peace and democracy, even if you think/hope that it's impossible?

    Posted by BARRY25 11/02/2007 @ 7:58pm

    Is that why we are there? If that's the case, I think we should also be in about 10-15 other locations around the globe.

    Sorry bud, that's not why we went, why we are still there and what we're supposed to have accomplished.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 11/02/2007 @ 8:42pm

  96. Oh those utopian liberals! Did they stop maturing after per-school or what? Has there EVER, EVER, EVER been a war in the history of mankind, that has not generated a profit in one way or another. There's profit in criminal justice, education, healthcare, gov't, social services, racism ( see Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton etc.), global warming ( Al Gore is profitting on this already, MORON), Ambulance chasing/junk science ( see John Edwards ) etc. Please, it's like debating a 12 year old ( unless that 12 year old is raised by a conservative ). Liberals: We want war with no profit! We want free health care with no profit! We want non-profit insurance, health-care etc. We want everything to be created and given to us by someone else, but that someone else cannot make a profit!!! We hate profits!!!!!!!! Why do you think our pharmacuetical companies create , by far, the most/best medicines in the world? They do because of PROFIT, moron! How many new medicines and technologies have come out of those utopian socialist systems compared to our evil capitalist system? You know the answer and that answer makes you look even more stupid! So, as a Marxist/socialist/or liberal ( pretty much all the same nowadays ) why don't you move to a country that symbolizes those values? Think about it, if all you socialist nutjobs moved to France, you could strengthen France, and in turn Socialism, thus creating a model for us EVIL Americans to emulate once you prove us wrong. As for now, Socialism has failed time and time again ( spare me the sweden argument pleeeaaaasee) and we're doing just fine here in the evil ol' USA!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2007 @ 8:56pm

  97. Fritzthemoron, that's part of the reason we went there, but I'll admit, it's a very small part of it! But now that we're there, DUMBSHIT, we need to make it right, regardless of whether the Dem's and R's were wrong in voting to give the Pres. authority to do it! It's my belief that you lefty scum, want us out regardless of how harmful it would be to innocent Iraqi's as long as it means defeat for our military and the evil GW Bush! You, son, are suffering from BDS ( bush-DERANGEMENT-syndrome)!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2007 @ 9:00pm

  98. That was never a "part of the reason we went there." I will agree with you that we need to make it right. BDS, heheh, that's ironically funny. :)

    Posted by FritztheCat at 11/02/2007 @ 9:12pm

  99. Why would you care about my enthusiasms or reasons for taking flight?

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/02/2007 @ 4:43pm

    So, you are on the lam?

    Posted by davebarlett at 11/02/2007 @ 9:23pm

  100. I'll answer any question hurled my way. I always have.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/02/2007 @ 4:43

    So, are you on the lam, or not?

    Posted by davebarlett at 11/02/2007 @ 9:23pm

  101. Did you figure out how...

    18% of the Bush SUPPORTERS...want to impeach him?

    Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 7:42pm

    Er, Frita ever figure out what that was betwix your teeth-- straw or hairs?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 9:25pm

  102. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/02/2007 @ 1:48pm

    There is only one socialist in Congress LVL.

    Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 4:37pm

    Actually, it was I that took umbrage. You could take it as a compliment that I pay more attetion to your posts than some others.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/02/2007 @ 9:35pm

  103. Posted by SRJENKINS 11/02/2007 @ 9:35pm

    So, SRJ....will we see a similar chastisement by you for CHIMI's attack on LVLIB and use of homophobic "prison rape" allusions?

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 9:45pm

  104. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007 @ 9:25pm

    HSUB, don't you get tired of it?

    You post an ONLINE poll "showing" 89% of Americans want Bush impeached...but then YOU YOURSELF post legitimate polls showing he has a 29% approval rating.

    So how...if there is a shred of logic and reason left in that addled warped-by-no impeachment and no Gore '08 mind of yours...

    do EIGHTEEN (100-71=29...100-89=11) percent of Bush supporters.....support impeaching him?

    Or are you ready to admit that one or the other of your polls is wrong....or do you need "a few days" extra to figure it out?

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2007 @ 9:47pm

  105. Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 9:47pm

    It's Friday and Frita has her blond wig on... (Yes dumb, but don't ask her to smile.)

    Apparently some of the 24-9% did not take the on-line poll. I'd say approximately 5-18% did not take it-- or being reptilian, most probably pay no mind to eating their own, or they're filled with self hate and want to take it out on hsuB/cHeney.

    Sometimes there just aren't enough bathroom stalls... (and then tapping shoes do wear out eventually... reptiles are hard on shoes I hear.)

    It's a sad day for reptiles since they haven't discovered the joy of blond wigs.

    Just ask Frita about it-- for a good time.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/02/2007 @ 10:13pm

  106. Is anyone else experiencing chimp burn out?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/02/2007 @ 10:52pm

  107. we might be able to impeach them if it wouldn't require looking at them.

    Or hearing the sound of their voice

    Posted by Will C. at 11/02/2007 @ 10:53pm

  108. I know. I almost want to respond to Barry. There has been a drop off in news stories about Iraq and some saying it's going better but is it really? Here's one from a couple of days ago.

    October 30, 2007 MYT 3:15:33 AM

    Bike-riding suicide bomber kills 30 Iraqi police By Ross Colvin

    BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber on a bicycle killed 30 Iraqi policemen doing their morning exercises at a base north of Baghdad on Monday, in one of the deadliest strikes on security forces in months.

    The attack was a reminder that despite a U.S.-led crackdown that has killed hundreds of Shi'ite and Sunni Arab militants and sharply reduced levels of violence in Iraq, groups such as al Qaeda are determined to carry on fighting.

    Like Jon Stewart says something like this would be huge in the U.S. This would be a devastating news story and talked about for months and years.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/03/2007 @ 12:53am

  109. 3/8/2003

    Halliburton is awarded a $7 billion reconstruction contract over the objections of Army Corps of Engineers procurement officer Bunnatine Greenhouse. Testifying before Congress, she later calls the contract "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed." She is demoted in short order.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/03/2007 @ 01:48am

  110. 3/9/2003

    On CBS's Face the Nation, Condoleezza Rice says, "We know from a detainee that - the head of training for al-Qaeda - that they sought help in developing chemical and biological weapons because they weren't doing very well on their own. They sought it in Iraq. They received the help." Al-Libi, the detainee in question, has been doubted by American intelligence since February 2002. All of his intel was obtained under torture, and in 2004 the CIA will recall all intelligence assessments based on his testimony.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/03/2007 @ 01:49am

  111. 3/31/2003

    An Iraqi doctor has Pfc. Jessica Lynch driven by ambulance to a U.S. checkpoint, in an attempt to hand her over. GIs fire on the ambulance, which turns back to the hospital.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/03/2007 @ 02:05am

  112. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/02/2007 @ 10:13pm

    See, I KNEW there was a logical explanation!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2007 @ 07:25am

  113. Posted by MASK 11/02/2007 @ 9:45pm

    So, SRJ....will we see a similar chastisement by you for CHIMI's attack on LVLIB and use of homophobic "prison rape" allusions?

    Do you honestly think it will do any good? No one should be subjected to those kind of comments - not LVL, not you. Most people understand this fact.

    It's when the people that understand better start using the same tactics as those that don't that turn this discussion into a cesspool. I hope that you can understand why I apply a bit of a double standard here - even though it isn't fair.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/03/2007 @ 08:46am

  114. Posted by BARRY25 11/02/2007 @ 8:02pm

    Rudy and McCain are both liberals that have lost any chance with me. These sellout's would have us all speaking spanish if it meant a profit for corporate America.

    So long as we assume Barry25 is using "liberal" as a generic curse word like I would use "asshat", then we agree on this point.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/03/2007 @ 08:53am

  115. Posted by BARRY25 11/02/2007 @ 7:58pm

    One month doesn't a trend make.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/03/2007 @ 09:01am

  116. Those who think that there is no evidence to impeach Bush and Cheney must have been sleeping the last almost 7 years.

    Unfortunately, the majority of Democratic Party refuses to bring articles of impeachment against these criminals because it suits their purpose of not only winning the next election but also because it leaves the power of the Imperial Presidency which their candidate can use to Lord over America.

    Make no mistake this is a cold calculating move by the political class to rule over us with their war on terrorism and its various Unconstitutional ‘laws.'

    The sad part is that of those Americans who bother to study the issues and vote, a vast majority is still locked into the two-party system - a system which will only bring us less liberty.

    Posted by Tom Paine Jr at 11/03/2007 @ 09:16am

  117. Posted by WALTZ 11/03/2007 @ 12:53am

    no, no ,no, WALTZ. don't you see that that is a sign of progress? PONTI told me yesterday that the war is won. And you know he NEVER makes things up.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 09:27am

  118. Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 3, 2007; Page A02

    The Department of Homeland Security yesterday eased rules requiring tens of thousands of U.S. chemical plants to protect their stockpiles from terrorists, pleasing chemical industry lobbyists but disappointing environmentalists and some Democratic lawmakers, who said they will beef up requirements next year.

    ...For instance, DHS increased the reporting trigger for stored chlorine from 1,875 pounds to 2,500 pounds, exempting a standard one-ton shipping cylinder used by industry. Insurgents in Iraq have used bombs to disperse liquid chlorine into toxic gas clouds.

    DHS also increased the disclosure threshold for ammonium nitrate from 7,500 pounds to 10,000 pounds. That substance was a component in fertilizer-based bombs used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

    HEY! here is an idea, lets go to war to stop the use of wmd's in Iraq (that don't exist), place a million soldiers in harms way, spend billions of taxpayer dollars, out CIA agents, call peole traitors if they don;t jump on the bandwagon, jail people of Arab descent, kidnap foreigners etc etc etc...

    But, lets make chemicals in the US easier targets for terrorists!!

    YEA BABY!! GOOD PLAN!!!

    brought to us by the same people that say "We have not been attacked in 6 years", while we lose 4000 Americans and our embassies are shelled daily.

    delusional.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 09:33am

  119. The same people that wanted Clinton impeached over travel papers, but not chimpy for breaking laws left and right. Even when he admits in public that he broke those laws.

    Same people that wanted Clintons head for losing one helicopter in Somalia, but back Chimpy till the bitter end in a fools errand in Messopotamia.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 09:35am

  120. See, I KNEW there was a logical explanation!

    Posted by MASK 11/03/2007 @ 07:25a

    All 'you' have to do is take off that blond wig. I hope...

    Er, Toothpicks.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 10:22am

  121. Look at poor BARRY. He wants freedom for free. No tax hikes ('course minimum wagers don't pay that much anyway) , no joining the army for him!.

    surf's up! Let some one else fight those bad guys. Let some one else pay for it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 10:25am

  122. One month doesn't a trend make.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 11/03/2007 @ 09:01AM

    Yes I posted the re-occurrances of low Iraq casualty numbers before and it doesn't last long before the numbers shoot back up.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 10:26am

  123. Not looking at 2003, every year from 2004-06, we've had two low death months. That 2007 will end up as the worst year for numbers of our US troops dead only proves that the MSM aren't telling us enough bad news...

    Year___Jan__Feb__Mar__Apr__May__Jun__Jul__Aug__Sep__Oct__Nov__Dec

    2003 ___0____0___65___74___37___30__ 48__ 35___31___44___82___40

    2004__ 47__ 20___52__135___80__ 42__ 54__ 66___80___64__137___72

    2005_ 107___58__ 35___52___80___78__ 54__ 85__ 49___96___84___68

    2006 __62___55__ 31___76___69___61__43__ 65___72__106___70__112

    2007 __83___81___81__104__126__101__78__ 84___65__ 38

    And doesn't appear weird to anyone that each year-- 2004-2005-2006-2007, we've had almost the same number of US troops killed? I fear I either see a quota trying to be filled or a line that they've planned not to cross-- which is it? That didn't happen in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I doubt if a statistician were run the probability of the same number of our troops being killed each year it would be beyond chance and would point to a planned casualty quota. Why? Running the war like a BUSSINESS?

    Year ____US Deaths __US Wounded

    2003 _____486 ________2,411

    2004 ____ 849 ________8,003

    2005 ____ 846 ________5,948

    2006 ____ 822 ________6,398

    2007 ____ 845 ________5,411

    Total ____3848 _______28,171

    http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

    Talk about reasons for impeachment...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 11:18am

  124. I hope that you can understand why I apply a bit of a double standard here - even though it isn't fair.----Posted by SRJENKINS 11/03/2007 @ 08:46am

    Oh, I understand perfectly, SRJ. It's simple.

    CHIMI is more in your political camp than I. If I mock his faux "Che from Marin County" ex-pat leftist who critiques the "corrupt American culture"....you feel you have to defend him.

    If he attacks LVLIB in an even worse manner...you feel you have to defend him. (especially since it's Religious Rightie LVLIB)

    If I call you on that hypocrisy and ask why you don't go after CHIMI for doing worse than I....suddenly it's "Do you honestly think it will do any good?"

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2007 @ 11:24am

  125. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 10:22am

    Let's see....hmm?

    5 days and counting until Gore's announcment on Leno.

    BTW, do you have an updated time for when impeachment will happen, HSUB?

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2007 @ 11:25am

  126. Let's see....hmm?

    Posted by MASK 11/03/2007 @ 11:25am

    Bwahahahah.

    Just like a psycho chick. Remember I stopped 'dating' psycho chicks.

    Tell us Frita-- how much straw does it take, for a baiter such as yourself, to stuff up her ass until it comes out her mouth...to ask an assbackward question?

    UUHhhmmmm?

    Waiting.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 11:47am

  127. Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/03/2007 @ 12:32am

    All the Wilsons have to do is win their case.

    Wow, FRANK, your understanding of the legal system exceeds that of CRABBIE by light-years. According to him, the case has already been decided..out of court! He has no need for such legal niceties as a trial, he has several people who agree with him!

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 11:52am

  128. Posted by BARRY25 11/02/2007 @ 8:56pm

    Oh those utopian liberals! Did they stop maturing after per-school or what? Has there EVER, EVER, EVER been a war in the history of mankind, that has not generated a profit in one way or another.

    Good question. Ask most liberals if they work for free (if they work at all) - if they don't, then they're busy little profit-makers themselves! But oh, they say, we mean EXCESSIVE profits. Excessive, defined in the same sense as 'suburban sprawl' means 'the house built after yours', as in 'excessive profits are earned by those who make much more than you do.' Pretty much the root of the matter, that.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 11:55am

  129. Posted by WALTZ 11/03/2007 @ 01:48am

    Halliburton is awarded a $7 billion reconstruction contract over the objections of Army Corps of Engineers procurement officer Bunnatine Greenhouse. Testifying before Congress, she later calls the contract "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed." She is demoted in short order.

    You must be taking lessons from CRABBIE. You found one person in the entire Army who agrees with your thesis, and that proves it for you. Forget due process! Bunny agrees with me! Forward to impeachment!

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 11:59am

  130. Posted by MASK 11/03/2007 @ 07:25am

    Hey MASK, probably the best way to test the reasonability of different views of the world is to assess their relative predictive power. I fearlessly predict at this point that the Plame lawsuit that FRANK has got such a hard-on for is bound to go absolutely no-where, just like so many other 'issues' parroted on this forum and the pages of the Nation.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 12:08pm

  131. In the early 1990s, Brinkley reported, Allawi's exile organization was, under the CIA's direction, planting car bombs and explosive devices in Baghdad (including in a movie theater) in a fruitless attempt to destabilize Saddam Hussein's regime. Of course, that was back when car bombs weren't considered the property of brutes like Sunni extremists, al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Taliban. (Just as, inconveniently enough, back in the 1980s the CIA bankrolled and encouraged the training of Afghan "freedom fighters" in mounting car-bomb and even camel-bomb attacks in a terror campaign against Soviet officers and soldiers in Russian-occupied Afghan cities (techniques personally "endorsed," according to Steve Coll in his superb book Ghost Wars, by then-CIA Director William Casey).

    But that was back in the day--just as, to randomly cite one more inconvenient piece of history also off the front page of the New York Times (Patrick Tyler, "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," August 18, 2002), years before we went into Iraq to take out Saddam's by then nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, we helped him use them. The Reagan Pentagon had a program in which 60 officers from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency "were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments" to Saddam's forces, so that he could, among other things, wield his chemical weapons against them more effectively. ("The Pentagon 'wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas,' said one veteran of the program. 'It was just another way of killing people--whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference.'")

    From Motherjones - Why did we invade Iraq anyway?

    Posted by Waltz at 11/03/2007 @ 12:14pm

  132. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 11:18am

    Is there no one else that finds it weird that just as we approached the number that will not be mentioned in the MSM, the '850' Annual Number of US Troops Allowed Dead in Iraq-- that line drawn in the sand somewhere in a CEO/Pres playbook-- that our casualty numbers dropped off a lot?

    So what happens when we do cross that '850' line? Is it a tipping point of some sort? Is it a level that is viewed intolerable to the US public-- a statistical PR/MIC poll measurement of manipulation tolerance?

    Is Iran just a distraction from what they've done in Iraq? Iraq a distraction from Afghanistan/AQ? AQ a distraction from 9/11 negligence?

    And the MSM is always distracted looking for any straw stuffed up a celebrities' ass...

    Frita can relate.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 12:23pm

  133. the dems probably don't want to impeach because they knew it was all a bunch of lies at the time and they went along with it so how can they blame anyone else

    Posted by Waltz at 11/03/2007 @ 12:29pm

  134. Still curious PONTI, where do you get the idea that courts set the status of CIA agents?

    And assuming a court does set the status of each and every person working for the CIA, NSA, FBI,( somehow, after the act of service) why wouldn't exhibits accepted by that court , and never disputed in that court, not meet your (somewhat dubious) standards of the court determining the status?

    "one person in the Army that agrees with him"... That person is the one in charge of procurements, so I would think that carries some weight. Kind of like when the head of the CIA, appointed by Chimpy, issues a statement on the status of those that work for him. As opposed to some one that has not served in the guvt since say... 1988, making a pronouncement to be used by PONIT types.

    Ponti types believe Chimpy and Darth Cheney when they say "nukes... dirty bombs, we caught a terrorist from Canada..." but don't believe the same admin when they submit court documents showing the status of CIA agents that head the search for wmd's. Agents that are not drunk ex-pats, or convicted felons, or using decades old information.

    I guess if Fitz had been a drunk felon, the neo-cons would be slobbering all over him.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 12:31pm

  135. PONTIs knowledge of our legal system tells him that when some one is proven guilty of perjury, and has his sentence commuted by the president, that person actually "misspoke" multiple times in grand jury testimony.

    Plame is on "Wait, wait".

    cool.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 12:33pm

  136. From Motherjones - Why did we invade Iraq anyway?

    Posted by WALTZ 11/03/2007 @ 12:14pm

    Because Saddam tried to kill Chimpies daddy.

    And to reduce Islamic terrorism. (not done)

    And to rid Saddam of nookyular plants (not done)

    And to rid Saddam of his tens of thousands of liters of anthrax (not done)

    And to establish a functioning liberal democracy in Iraq (not done)

    And to set the stage for more Arab nations to establish functioning liberal democracies (not done)

    And to keep Iraqi terrorists from attacking Americans (really, really not done)

    And to stop Palestinians from blowing up Israelis (not done)

    And to slow down the rise of Iran as a regional power (not done)

    But, PONTI say we won. It's not over yet, but we won. Again. For the 5th time.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 12:38pm

  137. Posted by MASK 11/03/2007 @ 11:24am

    Perhaps. I generally don't read CHIMICHENGA. I don't think I've ever commented on his posts. I pay more attention when I disagree with someone - which is why you see me respond to folks like Happy, LVL, yourself...even Ponti who I think is much like Chimichenga.

    I've never called Will C. out for his comments to you. Dr. Decibels, Glenn Lemon and others engage in personal attacks on a regular basis. But then again, so do Barry25, Ponti, Rio and et al.

    Frankly, I don't want to be a moderator. But I do want a certain level of dialogue that avoids personal attacks - particularly with those whose posts I read and react to. Yours qualify and I reacted to your post.

    Is it even-handed? Now, that you mention it - probably not. But then again, I don't feel obligated to seek out and react to every asshole comment that is made in this forum - or engage in some kind of sanctimonious calculus based on my perception of people's political positions.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/03/2007 @ 12:39pm

  138. Posted by WALTZ 11/03/2007 @ 12:29pm

    Most likely one of the strongest reasons.

    But think, it would rid us of Hillary also!! Everybody would be happy. One Bush in jail, one Clinton in jail. One Cheney in jail : )

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 12:41pm

  139. oooh, plame could not answer the questions correctly.

    Kind of like Scooter.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 12:43pm

  140. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 11:18am

    Follow along hsuB. When the number of soldiers killed goes up, that means the surge is working. When the number of soldiers goes down for a one month period, that is a sign that the surge is working.

    When the number of Islamic terrorist attacks goes up worldwide, that is a sign that the Iraq war is working.

    when the Iranians help us track Islamic fundy terrorists, we call them part of the "the axis of evil" in public.

    If we have a budget shortfall, we need to lower taxes. When we have a surplus, we need to lower taxes.

    When we go to war, we need to lower taxes.

    We need to listen to the troops, unless the troop in question is the procurement officer for the Armed services, or retired generals that have served in Iraq.

    Competition is good, but consolidation is better.

    Are you following the "logic".

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 12:52pm

  141. Oh, I forgot some

    a democratic witch hunt need not involve any democrats. It can be made up of all republicans and republican appointees, yet still function as a democratic witch hunt.

    Activist judges are out of control, but they get to determine the status of CIA operatives.

    Reporters that expose graft and corruption are traitors.

    Reporters that expose covert agents are heroes.

    People that lie to congress in order to hide the missiles supplied to Iran are heroes.

    Torture is acceptable behavior for Christian nations.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/03/2007 @ 12:59pm

  142. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 11:47am

    HSUB, I almost think at this point that you will be predicting Al Gore announcing for President upto November 6th, 2008 and Bush and Cheney's impeachment upto January 19th, 2009.

    You're that crazy.

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2007 @ 1:01pm

  143. Frita coughing up straw balls...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 1:02pm

  144. Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/03/2007 @ 12:08pm

    Only slightly less crazy....PONTI, you think that Iraq will be only slightly less dangerous than Detroit by November 2008....but will have no positive or negative effect on the election?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2007 @ 1:03pm

  145. Is it even-handed? Now, that you mention it - probably not. But then again, I don't feel obligated to seek out and react to every asshole comment that is made in this forum....Posted by SRJENKINS 11/03/2007 @ 12:39pm

    But only AFTER going after me for daring to guess that CHIMI is a Hemingway poser...right?

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2007 @ 1:04pm

  146. Frita wearing a straw hat?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 1:05pm

  147. Posted by CRABWALK 11/03/2007 @ 12:52pm

    Reptilian logic.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 1:09pm

  148. It's politics that the democrats won't impeach, not that there's no case for it. They didn't stop the war before it started so they can't retroactively act now. (Just to further elaborate on my previous post.)

    Posted by Waltz at 11/03/2007 @ 1:33pm

  149. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 11:47am

    HSUB, I almost think at this point that you will be predicting Al Gore announcing for President upto November 6th, 2008 and Bush and Cheney's impeachment upto January 19th, 2009.

    You're that crazy.

    Posted by MASK 11/03/2007 @ 1:01pm

    No. He just has morals and ideals. There are still some of us left.

    Posted by Waltz at 11/03/2007 @ 1:45pm

  150. Posted by WALTZ 11/03/2007 @ 1:33pm

    As much as I'd like Gore to run and win as apposed to Clinton, I actually think she got it right as to her reason for voting for supporting UN sanctions on Iraq and how hsuB took it beyond what the congressional resolution stated. That she didn't learn from it and voted for Lie berman/Kyle Iran supporting terrorism, was a gigantic mistake.

    Having stated that, I think there are several other areas hsuB/cHeney can be investigated to impeachment as well. US Attorney's Office - obstuction of justice, for one is a biggy. Knowingly outing a CIA agent, another. No bid contracts, torture, vote manipulation, ...

    It just takes one, but cumulative accessive crimes are better. And I think and would like to believe, just as Pelosi turned around to consider impeachment of Frita's AG Frito, Pelosi can just as well turn around on hsuB/cHeney.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 2:02pm

  151. er, Kyl-Lie berman

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 2:08pm

  152. But only AFTER going after me for daring to guess that CHIMI is a Hemingway poser...right?

    Posted by MASK 11/03/2007 @ 1:04pm

    I'm laughing pretty hard....

    I `watched' your back-n-forth w/SRJ and thought he ENDED it really well but then your MASKed bubble head just HAD to pop up for the last say.....the image I conjure is the Whack-a-Mole game at arcades and the MASK (ie Jim Carey) pops again after the game is OVER!

    There is just enough child-like petulance in you to make me think you are younger than vote-ready for The Gipper!

    Posted by Happy at 11/03/2007 @ 2:18pm

  153. I find it interesting that the Nichols article compared people's opinions about impeachment with those about Richard Nixon, who was NOT IMPEACHED, but the entire article did not mention another recent president, Bill Clinton, who WAS IMPEACHED!! Clinton was, in fact, impeached on two counts!! Hmmm. I wonder.

    Posted by hanover51 at 11/03/2007 @ 2:28pm

  154. Posted by CRABWALK 11/03/2007 @ 12:31pm

    Still curious PONTI, where do you get the idea that courts set the status of CIA agents?

    And assuming a court does set the status of each and every person working for the CIA, NSA, FBI,( somehow, after the act of service) why wouldn't exhibits accepted by that court , and never disputed in that court, not meet your (somewhat dubious) standards of the court determining the status?

    Your sophistry and willful ignorance are getting boring, CRABBIE, but I'll answer you one more time. Of course a court has no business, in general, making a determination of the 'covert' or any other status of every single CIA agent, which is a straw man typical of your mode of argumentation. Such a determination only is necessary when it comes to assessing whether the specific law in question has been broken, and whether Plame fits the definition of 'covert' under that one, specific law. As I have explained to you ad nauseum, such a determination has never been made, because Fitzgerald never even saw fit to charge anyone with a crime under that law. Still, you persist in claiming not only that a legally meaningful determination has been made, but that the crime has been proven. Simply put, you are delusional and I see no point in arguing with you about it further if you persist in your delusions.

    "one person in the Army that agrees with him"... That person is the one in charge of procurements, so I would think that carries some weight. Kind of like when the head of the CIA, appointed by Chimpy, issues a statement on the status of those that work for him. As opposed to some one that has not served in the guvt since say... 1988, making a pronouncement to be used by PONIT types.

    Certainly the person's opinion has SOME weight, but it is surely not definitive. In her case, she has been overruled by her superiors and her opinions have no signficant concurrence within the oversight functions of the Army which make such determinations. True to form, you, however, take her word as gospel because she happens to agree with you. You inflate her status such that she is now 'THE' one person in charge of ALL Army procurements? I doubt it. She is one of many, and pretty junior at that. It would be pretty surprising to find one person who did NOT have a problem with any given contract to Halliburton, given the general hysteria participated in by people like yourself. To represent such people as the final word on the subject is self-serving and misleading. I have seen you in the past simply dismiss and wave away entire GAO investigations because they did not arrive at your pre-determined conclusion of widespread criminality in the Bush Administration, preferring instead to listen only to those who agree with you. Utter nonsense.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 3:06pm

  155. Posted by HAPPY 11/03/2007 @ 2:18pm

    HAPP, coming from someone who attacked my wife's appearance...

    I'll take that criticism for what it's worth.

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2007 @ 3:12pm

  156. As much as I'd like Gore to run and win as apposed to Clinton....----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 2:02pm

    Wait a minute, HSUB...are you saying he ISN'T and WON'T?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2007 @ 3:14pm

  157. if everyone in the US who was in favor of impeaching Cheney would write his/her congressman and senator demanding that articles be considered, it would certainly help. cheney would be a great place to start, because there'd be less validity in the criticism that we'd be trying to undermine the safety of the troops by distracting the president. if GWB wanted to argue that an attach on Cheney is really an attack on GWB, then he'd have to come clean that it's really President Cheney and Vice President Bush we have rather than the reverse.

    Posted by marksfaulkn at 11/03/2007 @ 3:53pm

  158. So why keep bringing up something that obviously isn't going to happen?

    the very reason it's never going to happen is because people refuse to do something about it. hence, the very thesis of mr. nichols's article.....

    Posted by DARLADOON 11/02/2007 @ 1:05pm

    NOW THAT'S A DEAD HORSE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR...

    My own argument for impeaching both Bush AND Cheney (Cheney first, then Bush), is not only for crimes they have already and obviously committed against the Constitution and American people. Given what has just happened in Pakistan with Musharraf declaring a state of emergency and arrogating absolute power to himself, and given Bush's response to this action (he stated that he thought Musharraf was "qualified" to be dictator), we may well take pause on the issue of impeachment....

    Dismiss this notion as "conspiracy theory paranoia" or whatever you will, but I would give it better than even odds that Bush/Cheney are plotting a takeover of this nature, based on some kind of engineered "terrorist act" that allows them to declare a state of national emergency before the Democrats can take over the reigns of government in 2009. Even just given a 50-50 chance of this happening, I would argue for "pre-emptive impeachment." It would not be pre-emptive in the sense that Bush/Cheney don't already deserve it for their "high crimes and misdemeanors" (mostly the former). It would, however, be pre-emptive in the sense of actively removing them from the possibility of assuming absolute, dictatorial power, and it is precisely from THIS perspective that it actually makes the most sense to proceed with impeachment....

    Posted by w_m_bear at 11/03/2007 @ 4:01pm

  159. Posted by MARKSFAULKN 11/03/2007 @ 3:53p

    And you forgot to mention that Nixon had articles of impeachment voted forward via congressional committee, the first step to trial which prompted Nixon's resignation.

    And which leads us to reasons to prompt hsuB/cHeney to do likewise.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 4:31pm

  160. preferring instead to listen only to those who agree with you. Utter nonsense

    an individual within the vice president's office commited a very serious crime, and his sentence was commuted. did i miss something here?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2007 @ 4:53pm

  161. Folks, the reason the press and the public tend to ignore the Impeach Bush campaign is because the charges against Bush are simply ridiculous, even childish. You should be grateful the media doesn't feature this fact. Consider the old Left mantra "Bush lied; thousands died!" The public hears this chanted over and over like a broken cuckoo clock. But where is your evidence that Bush lied? "Are you nuts? Everyone knows no WMD's were found ...!" What's that got to do with anything? All that says is that Bush, and the rest of the West, were mistaken. Don't you guys even know basic English? In order for Bush to have lied, he must have known in advance that Saddam had no WMD's. None of you, including Kucinich, as offered any proof of this. Yet you go on and on and on ... What Bush did by invading Iraq is establish that the world is safe by determining that WMD's were absent. Every school boy knows that after 9-11, America simply could not afford the RISK of Saddam have nukes. We had to be sure even if there was the ghost of a smell of a possibiloity that he did. The safety we all enjoy because of Bush's search proves that his MISSION WAS INDEED ACCOMPLISHED. If you must impeach Bush, at least come up with accusations that stand up to common sense. On the other hand, you could clear the air by confessing that you simply hate George Bush and offering a reward for someone to change his channel. Maybe its the Democrat's hot air that's actually threatening the ozone layer.

    Posted by marcusmonroe at 11/03/2007 @ 5:03pm

  162. I am praying that this wonderful action by Dennis Kucinich is a great success. I want Cheney and Bush impeached any which way it can be accomplished. I do not want any Dems or Repubs to play games and sabotage this effort for political gain.

    Our nation is sinking rapidly into fascism. The time for dishonest political game is over. We must act now to save this nation. We must try to do this wonderful and right and just thing of impeachment. We must stop another unjust war on Iran. We must bring our troops home now.

    There is no difference between NAZI Germany and Hitler compared to the present USA and G. W. Bush.

    Americans, wake up. Do not overlook the similarity between Hitler and Bush's religious rhetoric nor the fact that the current President's grandfather was called "Hitler's Angel" by the New York Tribune for his financing of the Furher's rise to power.

    Posted by Dachsie at 11/03/2007 @ 5:25pm

  163. I would like to know if the figures offered by Mr. Nichols are accurate (54% of the public supporting the impeachment). I would guess that as for today it should be like almost 2/3 of Americans supporting this!

    I don't know if this will ever come into a serious attempt with real probabilities of success. All I know is if the process' recollection of Cheney actions serves to remind that other 46% of the population of all what Mr. Cheney has done with total impunity, I would be satisfied. Papers and TV channels will not be able to evade talking about this and that would also help the Dem presidential campaign.

    As for the final judgement of history on this administration, the impeachment proceedings will be helpful(even if the impeachment is not finally succesful) as a document on how Reps in Congress did reach extreme limits to support politically immoral, illegal and authoritarian stands of this veep.

    Posted by Frank42 at 11/03/2007 @ 5:48pm

  164. ...after 9-11, America simply could not afford the RISK of Saddam have nukes.

    Posted by MARCUSMONROE 11/03/2007 @ 5:03pm

    Talk about lying piece of chicken poop. There are countries with nukes already that aren't our friends-- not like Iraq that could not have any for possibly 10-20 years. hsuB/cHeney admin lied about the intel they had for going into Iraq because Iraq was weak and they scared the US public with a bunch of BS, Impeachment is only the nicest thing we can do to them. I'd prefer waterboarding the whole hsuB/cHeney bunch-- bet we'd get all the lies out of them most probably before we even started. hsuB/cHeney admin are nothing but a bunch of lying scared reptiles, new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy. And so are the remaining 29% that believe their own idiot fear trumpts our constitution.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 5:58pm

  165. Gore: Resist Bush's 'excessive power grab'

    Former vice president calls for probe into warrantless wiretaps

    Monday, January 16, 2006; Posted: 7:57 p.m. EST (00:57 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vice President Al Gore called on Congress and the public to resist what he called "a gross and excessive power grab" by the Bush administration amid the war on terrorism, declaring that "our Constitution is at risk."

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/16/gore.constitution/index.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 7:09pm

  166. GORE: As John Adams said, "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

    An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free.

    (APPLAUSE)

    In the words of James Madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet on "Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that, in his phrase, "the law is king."

    Vigilant adherence to the rule of law actually strengthens our democracy, of course, and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint under the rule of law.

    (APPLAUSE)

    And make no mistake: The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the normal processes of government that are designed to improve policy and avoid error.

    GORE: And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents overreaching and checks the accretion to power.

    A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability helps our country avoid many serious mistakes that we would otherwise make.

    Recently, for example, we learned from just-declassified documents after almost 40 years that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which authorized the tragic Vietnam War was actually based on false information.

    And we now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq war 38 years later was also based on false information.

    (APPLAUSE)

    http://tinyurl.com/e2wcf

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 7:10pm

  167. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 5:58pm

    Talk about lying piece of chicken poop. There are countries with nukes already that aren't our friends-- not like Iraq that could not have any for possibly 10-20 years.

    Are liberals all as stupid as you, HSUB?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 7:29pm

  168. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 5:58pm

    I mean, here's a guy, (Saddam) who has started two major wars killing 500,000 in the first, 23,000 in the second requiring many tens of billions and a world coalition to come together to stop, murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, used poison gas on the Iranians (some would say a redeeming virtue) as well as his own people - filled the countryside with mass graves, made an institution of torture and rape in his country, vows at every turn to obtain a nuclear weapon, has UN weapons inspectors kicked out, leads them on wild goose chases all over the country, violates the terms of the peace treaty, corrupts the UN Oil-for-graft program, impoverishes his own country with sanctions (which the liberals demanded as an alternative to taking him out the first time)...and by taking him out, you, you fucking self-loathing moron..come to the conclusion that WE, THE USA!...are the villain!. Is there a more flagrant piece of evidence regarding self-loathing nature of liberalism ever revealed anywhere?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 8:16pm

  169. Posted by PO CUS FIT IN 11/03/2007 @ 7:29bm

    'HOCUS'

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 8:27pm

  170. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 8:27pm

    Really, HSUB...this is not some mere policy disagreement. This is pathological - requiring the attention of professionals trained to deal with this sort of thing.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 8:37pm

  171. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 8:39pm

    I cannot wait til you, and your friends are so old and enfeebled that you won't be able to shit all over things like a democratic process, or any of those other things that make America nice.

    Jesus christ, talk about drinking the kool-aid. Barf.

    It's funny, you know, to me, it is you and liberal folks like you that seem like the kool-aid drinkers. Can we both be right?

    God forbid we hold our leaders accountable for their actions. In your world, is that only reserved for democrats?

    I believe Bush was democratically elected, and any accouting to be done has been done. Are you endorsing the current state of affairs? Or, like CRABBIE, are you mistaking your own opinions for democracy? How's the impeachment going?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 8:45pm

  172. Posted by PONTUFICIS 11/03/2007 @ 8:16bm

    Pun,

    You left out all the stuff about Raygun, hsuB I, Dumsfield, cHeney, ... giving SoDumb Insane, their buddy, all this help, equipment and funding to do the killing. Dumdass.

    And you left out the part where Clinton blew up all the WMD in the 90's and there wasn't any left. Dumbass.

    Oh and the part about no Al Qeada in Iraq before our troops went there is a good one to leave out too. Dumbass.

    Oh and the part about hsuB kicking the inspectors out so he could have another 4000 more of our people killed because he was sitting on his ass and did nothing when he was told Al Qeada was about to attack us pre-9/11. Dumbass.

    Oh and you left out the part where hsuB took a dump in front of kids no less and couldn't move for 7-10 minutes after he was told that we were under attack. Dumbass.

    You new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, are all cowardly reptiles. You blog here because you don't even believe your own BS and won't go fight in Iraq-- cowardly dumbass.

    You fear Pun and won't fight for our Constitution because you want to bounce on the lap of a dic'tator daddy whenever you hear him tapping in the stall. Tap tap tap-- go Pun, bounce or he'll tell you scary stories...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 8:49pm

  173. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 8:49pm

    What in the fuck are you talking about???

    So you're saying that once somebody is elected that that's it? No questions asked?

    Uh...sort of! Once elected, the Pres gets to make the decisions... except the President has to get authorization to go to war...which he did...so now your argument is not only with him, but with Congress too. Or is it?

    lol, jeez at least you're honest about being a piece of shit.You're a marginalized, scared, little man in a changing world.

    I think this is actually a little more applicable to yourself, but go on...

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 8:58pm

  174. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 8:49pm

    Have you ever stopped to see the common element in your analysis of world events, HSUB? I have. Somehow, the US is always at fault. Interesting.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 8:59pm

  175. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 8:57pm

    Still wondering, MADLIB. In your apparently limited understanding of the events that have brought us to this pass, who are you blaming for the 'quagmire'...Bush, who made the decision to go to war, or the Congress that authorized it? And if you blame either one or both, aren't you blaming the country that elected him/them?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:04pm

  176. Posted by PUNTIFICIS 11/03/2007 @ 8:59bm

    Pun, coward that you are, why not defend yourself?

    It's true then that you admit to being a coward and won't go fight in Iraq?

    Knew it.

    You can't see or you don't want to see, either way you're an accomplice to a crime and you'll burn with the rest of your reptiles in hell.

    But first go bounce some more on your dic'tator daddy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 9:05pm

  177. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 9:05pm

    But first go bounce some more on your dic'tator daddy.

    You are stupid in a really outstanding way, HSUB. This kind of stupidity takes years of dedication and training by professionals. I'm guessing it's futile to tell you that dictators aren't popularly elected and then leave office as scheduled (unlike, say, Chavez, who I'm guessing you support).

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:12pm

  178. MADLIB

    Yeah people like Pun are the 24-29% that will follow hsuB/cHeney over the cliff. Dumbassess.

    Unfortunately they'd rather we go over the cliff while they hide, shaking and boncing, but being nice little consummers and making money off the death and misery of others.

    Yeah, I get the sicking part. That's what happens when one encounters those without souls. Disturbing yes.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 9:13pm

  179. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:08pm

    Uhhhh...where have you been? When did I NOT say that I blame the fatass religious zealots who elected this murderer?

    So, you admit that you hate the majority of American voters?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:13pm

  180. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:14pm

    I seem to remember a certain US president losing the popular vote...

    What happened in 2004 then?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:15pm

  181. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:14pm

    Unfortunately, MADLIB, you're not educated enough to be as stupid as HSUB. You're just ignorant. But keep encouraging each other, ignorance is a great bulwark and reinforcement to stupidity.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:18pm

  182. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:17pm

    I'm still waiting to hear, by the way, whether you consider Congress to be, collectively, murderers too, since they voted to authorize the war. I'm sure you have some convoluted rationalization around that question too. Love to hear it.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:20pm

  183. are you blaming for the 'quagmire'...Bush, who made the decision to go to war, or the Congress that authorized it?

    Posted by PUNTIFICIS 11/03/2007 @ 9:04bm

    Pun, dumbass, the congress never authorized the Iraq war, they authorize support of the UN sanctions. hsuB was supposed to get security counsel appoval, tried and didn't-- read up before you make youself more foolish looking, dumbass.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 9:21pm

  184. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:19pm

    So you admit that he wasn't popularly elected the first go around then, correct?

    Hardly an admission of any sort. We don't elect Presidents strictly by popular vote, it's done state by state. Sometimes the two don't exactly match. So what? Lots of Presidents have been elected without a majority vote...Clinton, for example. Your point, exactly?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:22pm

  185. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 9:21pm

    That's an old refuge for you folks; retreat into semantics. Sorry, I don't play that game.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:24pm

  186. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:23pm

    So, I'm guessing you consider every Congressperson who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war is a murderer, too? What was that vote, pretty overwhelming in favor, no? So even if you discount Bush's election, aren't you still indicting the majority of the American population, since surely they are well represented by Congress, even if not by the President (by your reckoning)? So, like I said, your gripe is with America as a whole, is it not?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:27pm

  187. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:27pm

    So then Bush AND Clinton, by your logic can be defined as dictators since they didn't garner the popular vote? Is that what you're saying?

    Of course not, who ever said anything about dictators, other than our deranged friend HSUB? I said it's completely possible for a person to be legitimately elected as President under our system of government without a majority of the popular vote.

    Dude, you're just too thick. You've got to pick it up or you're going to become too boring.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:31pm

  188. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 9:21pm

    That's an old refuge for you folks; retreat into semantics. Sorry, I don't play that game.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/03/2007 @ 9:24pm

    Bwahahahahaha, semantics/rhetoric, why else are our laws written using language, the English language, using rhetoric and a consensual understanding of it-- semantics.

    You either know how to read or you don't. Apparently you don't. Dumbass.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 9:35pm

  189. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:28pm

    LOL semantics?

    You mean the actual definition of words as they were meant to be?

    No, I mean making arguments of the type 'it depends on what your definition of the word is, is'. Or arguing that giving Bush the authority to go to war wasn't really that. Those types of arguments.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:35pm

  190. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:34pm

    As if I have a problem saying that this country is polluted with fat ass, lazy, stupid, ignorant idiots.

    It certainly illuminates where you're coming from, I would say. Some of the folks on your side have a problem admitting that they hate the majority of Americans. You don't, apparently. More power to ya.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:37pm

  191. Pun won't admit to being a coward even though fear makes him do everything he does, limits his thinking ability, clearly he has blind spots-- as in too cowardly to go fight in Iraq-- his own war.

    Pun's reading blanked at .."as in too _________ to go _____ __ Iraq..."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 9:44pm

  192. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 9:44pm

    I guess it does no good to tell you that if your logical premise is that only people who volunteered to fight the war in Iraq have the right to comment on it, then you have ruled out your own right to comment?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:52pm

  193. Pun, you're not commenting-- your advocating.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 9:53pm

  194. Why won't you jion the army if as you say it's a just war?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 9:54pm

  195. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:44pm

    Your argument is null so long as I'm not singing the praises of the Dems. That must really really suck for you.

    Not really, Kind of boring, really. Lots of people reject the lables that belong to them, fancying themselves some kind of independent thinkers when really they're just a particularly unaware sheep. MASK, for example, calls himself a libertarian, yet at the same time he will vote for a woman who wants to nationalize health care. Later.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:55pm

  196. I just want to hear about your conviction or lack thereof.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 9:55pm

  197. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 9:53pm

    ?Pun, you're not commenting-- your advocating.

    Yeah, and you're advocating against it. Therefore, when you sign up for jihad and/or a martyrdom operation, then I'll listen to your comments against the American Army in Iraq again.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:57pm

  198. Pun, now don't bounce too high on that lapp- tap tap tap.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 9:57pm

  199. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:56pm

    The fact that you're not fighting makes your sending other people to do the fighting for you, insanely cowardly and disgusting.

    Helloooooo...we don't have a draft anymore, we have a volunteer military, remember? I'm not sending anyone who is not willing to go. Anyway, how do you know I'm NOT in the military? If I'm not in the military, how do you know I'm even eligible for service? As if that is relevant, which it is not.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 9:59pm

  200. Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/03/2007 @ 9:57pm

    Your logic is tragic. I also advocated against linching blacks, therefore I must kill whites?

    You're a coward and a moron, dumbass.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 10:00pm

  201. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 9:59pm

    Jeez, I am way out in left field here!

    Actually, yes you are. Who says Bush or Cheney is making a buck? I've asked dozens of people here to substantiate that, and none of them can. I'm sure you can't either, so you've just made it clear that your thinking is based on false premises.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 10:01pm

  202. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 10:00pm

    You're a coward and a moron, dumbass.

    Ha ha. Great argument, but I see that's all you've got left. Let me know when you've signed up to be a terrorist, then I'll listen to your arguments against the war on terror, you self-loathing America-hating liberal prick.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 10:04pm

  203. Pun went blank again on-- ...Your logic is _____. I also advocated against ________ blacks, therefore I must ____ whites?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 10:06pm

  204. Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 10:04pm

    You're really saying that Bush and friends aren't business partners with Saudis, or the mercenary companies, etc., etc., til my eyes are ready to bleed.

    Are you really going to sit here and tell me that their actions aren't influenced by their own checkbooks, and the checkbooks of their business associates? Because that would be hilarious to hear

    That's exactly what I'm saying, and you haven't got a shred of evidence to back up your bullshit claims other than your own paranoia.

    Just curious - do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 10:08pm

  205. It's been fun tormenting you retards, but I gotta go. See ya.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 10:10pm

  206. I think Pun is like 13. Or has a pilonidal cyst on his anus or brain like his fellow ditto head Limpaw.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 10:11pm

  207. Oh, and please feel free to answer my question about whether you think 9/11 was an inside job. Love to hear it. If you're in the let-it-happen-on-purpose group, that qualifies too.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2007 @ 10:12pm

  208. Pun, tap tap tap-- one more time-- don't 'bounce' too high on your dic'tator daddy lap.

    Oh shit it was too late for that guy a long time ago.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2007 @ 10:16pm

  209. MASK, for example, calls himself a libertarian, yet at the same time he will vote for a woman who wants to nationalize health care. Later. ----Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/03/2007 @ 9:55pm

    Sorry, PONTI, caught in a dilemma. If Hillary's health care plan doesn't KILL 3800+ Americans and spend over HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS (off the books, un-paid for no less)....

    and every Repub (ex Ron Paul) promises "more of the same"....

    I've got to go with the "lesser of two weevils" (to quote "Master & Commander").

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2007 @ 10:21pm

  210. the reason people think its never going to happen is becaues we have no faith in it happening. we think cheany will come off scott free some how. When in true cheany fashion he will. but getting him to testify alone is a victory in it self and would most likely let to purgery lol. if we all stood up and said enogh is enogh it would happen. this isnt a dead horse only a dying one!!!

    Posted by tragedy at 11/04/2007 @ 03:56am

  211. Posted by MASK 11/03/2007 @ 10:21pm

    Sorry, PONTI, caught in a dilemma. If Hillary's health care plan doesn't KILL 3800+ Americans and spend over HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS (off the books, un-paid for no less)....

    Hey MASK. Please pick the best answer to the following question: I believe the government should be in charge of my health care, because they have done such a good job running a) the Post Office b) the IRS c) the MVA d) Congressional budgeting, particulary with regard to 'pork' projects or e) damn it there's got to be something, and I don't care if there isn't, I just want free health care.

    and every Repub (ex Ron Paul) promises "more of the same"....

    And what if the most unimaginably worst fears of the Democratic Party are realized, and the current peaceful trend in Iraq continues from here on out, making Iraq a non-issue in the next election? Better be prepared for that...

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2007 @ 04:45am

  212. Posted by MASK 11/03/2007 @ 10:21pm

    Sorry, PONTI, caught in a dilemma. If Hillary's health care plan doesn't KILL 3800+ Americans and spend over HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS (off the books, un-paid for no less)....

    Oh, and by the way MASK. Incompetent, rationed, government-run health care could easily exceed both of these criteria.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2007 @ 04:46am

  213. just what are the point of laws, if nobody follows them?

    Posted by DARLADOON 11/02/2007 @ 2:13pm

    The simple answer to Ms D's naivety is that the Law does not conform to the principles of logic. The law depends on interpretation or we could feed the data into a "Judge and Jury" computer situated in the Congress and get the correct answer.

    But those who write laws are generally lawyers who by instinct protect the livelihood of their fellow lawyers by making the law somewhat more malleable than Ms D imagines it to be. Thus for every qualified legal mind that would say there is a case against Bush and Cheney, as charged by Ms D, there is an equally qualified legal mind that says there is not.

    The reasonable conclusion is that the majority of legal minds within Congress or the professional experts to whom its members may refer do not believe there is any evidence that warrants impeachment.

    When one observes the sort of wild eyed, *Robespierre like, pro-impeachment fanatics that post here one can only be thankful that lawyer self interest has given us such a system of law viz. the British adversarial sort.

    * "This is no trial; Louis is not a prisoner at the bar; you are not judges; you are -- you cannot but be -- statesmen, and the representatives of the nation. You have not to pass sentence for or against a single man, but you have to take a resolution on a question of the public safety, and to decide a question of national foresight. It is with regret that I pronounce, the fatal truth: Louis ought to perish rather than a hundred thousand virtuous citizens; Louis must die, so that the country may live."

    Robespierre argued that the king, having betrayed the people when he tried to flee the country--and indeed, as Robespierre said, in having been a King in the first place--was a danger to the state as a unifying symbol for the enemies of the Republic." wikipedia

    Perhaps that helps us to see more clearly that it is that same lawless spirit that motivates the New World Republicans here. It's uncanny, but notice how our modern Republicans think about Bush and Cheney, and their solution for them. It is almost identical to the way that fanatic of the French Revolution thought about Louis XVI and how he should be (and was) dealt with.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/04/2007 @ 06:27am

  214. Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/04/2007 @ 04:46am

    Well, PONTI, if Hillary keeps claiming that "victory over bad health care is within our grasp" and "things in the American health care system are improving, deaths are down from 150 a month to ONLY 85 a month"....for FOUR YEARS...

    you'd have to support it!

    Or show that you care more about the political party involved than....results.

    Posted by Mask at 11/04/2007 @ 06:38am

  215. Rmember, PONTI believes:

    there was a democratic witch hunt over Plame, involving zero democrats

    Plame was not covert, even though the admin he loves to defend says she was

    Saddam had wmd's

    Saddam had ties to al qaida

    Saddam was a threat to him

    the war in Iraq has been won

    I am sure he believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, look at how he continues to conflate the 2 unconnected things

    so, after listing some of his errors in logic, we should always listen to PONTI. He doesn't need facts, he makes them up, or connects things that are not connected and says they are connected.

    He has secret proof, but cannot share it.

    Truly one of the dumbest people I have ever have the pleasure of communicating with. That is how Chimpy got elected twice, by scaring the stupid.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:05am

  216. Why just the other day PONTI declared that Iraq was as safe as S. Africa. When was the last time a guvt minister or their aides were gunned down in S. Africa? How many cops get killed in Detroit every month? How many mortar attacks occur in the open air markets of Indiana every month?

    Delusional fantasies based on failed theories.

    By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago

    BAGHDAD - Two carloads of gunman ambushed a top aide to Iraq's Finance Ministry on Sunday in Baghdad, killing him and his driver, police said. The two were among 12 people killed or found dead in Iraq.

    The Finance Ministry had no immediate comment about the attack on Qutaiba Badir al-Din Mohammed, a Sunni adviser to Iraq's finance minister.

    All the other Iraqis killed were in Diyala, the troubled province northeast of Baghdad. Police said the victims included an Iraqi soldier, a policeman and an 8-year-old child, all killed separately.

    The soldier died when gunmen attacked his patrol in Khalis, a mostly Shiite town 50 miles north of the capital, police said. Three other soldiers were wounded in the attack, they said.

    The child died after seven mortar rounds landed on a residential area in the same town at sunrise, police said. A woman was also wounded by the barrage. And the policeman was killed in a drive-by shooting in nearby Muqdadiyah, 60 miles north of Baghdad, police said.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:13am

  217. PONTI, please feel free to answer my questions:

    Who were the democrats involved in the witch hunt you wrote about for a year.

    Where do you get the idea that only a court can determine the status of federal agents?

    Why are you such a tool?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:15am

  218. ahh, I see PONTI made a vain attempt at his very own sophistic gymnastics back on page 4.

    Still haven't seen anything to refute his guvts documents submitted into court that says Plame was covert. No, just more squiggly thinking to make sure he arrives at his already determined conclusion.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:22am

  219. Posted by MARCUSMONROE 11/03/2007 @ 5:03pm

    start by googling "Bush lies". One site you will come across is this one by a former CIA agent (another source who confirms Plames status BTW, putting him in cahoots with the head of the CIA, the justice dept, the courts of the united States, and sworncongessional testimony

    by Larry C Johnson

    Part II (The findings on terrorism can be found at my initial post.) Consider for a moment that a Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee released the reports today that are so damning to the lies Bush and Cheney repeated ad nauseum for the last three and a half years. What the hell is in the three additional reports that they don't want to release until after the November elections? It is difficult to imagine the truths still to be told.

    These reports make clear that the case for war in Iraq was manufactured by ignoring the intelligence. However, this is not only an indictment of Republicans; it is an indictment of every Democrat who voted for going to war. Can't these people read? If the National Intelligence Estimate reflected a clear, unanimous opinion, then the Democrats could argue, "we were mislead by the intelligence". Hell bells, folks, the NIE consistently had dissenting opinions. That means there was NO AGREEMENT among intelligence analysts. Shame on every Republican and Democrat who were too goddamn lazy to read the NIE!

    The first report, Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments destroys every lie advanced by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to advance their case for starting a war in Iraq. These findings also show how bankrupt are the claims of Laurie Mylroie (who argued vociferously that Mohamad Atta met Iraqi agents in Prague), Stephen Hayes (who insists that Al Qa'ida and Saddam were in cahoots), and Christoper Hitchens. They are wrong.

    The first section deals with the WMD issues. Here are the conclusions from the report:

    Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Information obtained after the war supports the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's (INR) assessment in the NIE that the Intelligence Community lacked persuasive evidence that Baghdad had launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

    Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq's acquisiton of high-strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program. The findings do spport the assessments in the NIE of the Department of energy's Office of Intelligence and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that the aluminum tubes were likely intended for a conventional rocket program.

    Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are "highly dubious".

    Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that "Iraq has biological weapons" and that "all key aspects of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War."

    Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq possessed, or ever developed, mobile facilites for producing biological warfare (BW) agents. ( "We found the wmd's. We found biological trailers"- AKA a LIE)

    Concerns existed within the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations (DO) prior to the war about the credibility of the mobile biological weapons program source code-named CURVE BALL. . . .

    Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessments that Iraq "has chemical weapons" or "is expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons (CW) production." Postwar findings support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq had missiles which exceeded United Nations (UN) range limits. The findings do not support the assessment that Iraq likely retained a covert force of SCUD variant short range ballistic missiles (SRBMS).

    Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessments that Iraq had a developmental program for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) "probably intended to deliver biological agents: or that an effort to procure U.S. mapping software "strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." Postwar findings support the view of the Air Force, joined by DIA and the Army, in an NIE published in January 2003, that Iraq's UAVs were primarily intended for reconnaissance.

    It is important that the average American understand the meaning of intelligence judgments in an NIE. If the community agrees on an issue it is very important. If there is no agreement, then other agencies dissent and present their views. If you are a policymaker or legislator the presence of dissent is the ultimate FLASHING YELLOW LIGHT.

    Now we know that on almost all critical judgments concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction there were key dissents. The CIA drafters at the National Intelligence Council almost always were wrong. The failure at the CIA was confined primarily to the National Intelligence Council. However, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was always right. Any policymaker or politician who tries to argue that they were acting on the intelligence is either a liar or a lazy incompetent. Despite the view of the CIA, there were sufficient dissenting views in the NIE to give any member of Congress reason to question the case for going to war. The dissents expressed by INR, the DIA, and the Department of Energy were sufficient warnings of potential problems to anyone interested in probing what the intelligence actually said.

    Now, if one wants to say that Valerie Plame , being a part of the CIA wmd program was wrong, I might buy that.

    and Chimpy is still lying, he cannot stop now:

    ""The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America ... Oct, 2007

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:40am

  220. From a republican:

    "Good morning. Im Larry Johnson, an American, a registered Republican, a former intelligence official at the CIA, and a friend of Valerie Plame.

    I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 with Valerie. We were members of the Career Trainee Program. Senator Orin Hatch wrote the letter of recommendation for me which I believe that helped open the doors to me at the CIA.

    From the first day we walked into the building, all members of my training class were undercover, including Valerie. In other words, we had to lie to our family and friends about where we worked. We could only tell those who had an absolute need to know where we worked. In my case, I told my wife.

    I knew the wife of Ambassador Wilson, Valerie, as Valerie P. Even though all of us in the training class held Top Secret Clearances, we were asked to limit our knowledge of our other classmates to the first initial of their last name.

    So, Larry J. knew Val P. rather than Valerie Plame. I really didnt realize what her last name was until her cover was betrayed by the Government officials who gave columnist Robert Novak her true name.

    I am stunned that government officials at the highest level have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of this nation.

    Robert Novaks compromise of Valerie led to scrutiny of CIA officers that worked with her. This not only compromised her cover company but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her.

    We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department.

    Val only told those with a need to know about her status in order to safeguard her cover, not compromise it. She was content with being known as an energy consultant married to Ambassador Joe Wilson and the mother of twins.

    I voted for George Bush in November of 2000 because I was promised a President who would bring a new tone and a new ethical standard to Washington.

    So where are we? The President has flip-flopped on his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. We now know from press reports that at least Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are implicated in these leaks and may have lied during the investigation.

    Instead of a President concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a President who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson.

    This is wrong and this is shameful.

    We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot focus its efforts on attacking other American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth.

    I am Larry Johnson.

    Thank you for listening.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:46am

  221. Larry is part of the democratic witch hunt that includes:

    The republican Attorney General

    the special prosecutor appointed by the republican Attorney General, the prosecutor that had just convicted a democratic regime in Chicago.

    The republican head of the CIA

    the republican appointed judge

    two former republicans, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame

    I guess this is in line with retired American General surrender monkeys.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:49am

  222. From another republican, a former member of Saint Rayguns legal team:

    Published in the Sun on Sept. 17, 2007

    Bruce Fein was a Justice Department attorney in the Nixon administration. In June 1998 he helped write the articles of impeachment against President Clinton. He recently came to the conclusion that President Bush has committed criminal acts worthy of impeachment. At the Sun's request, Fein drafted the following potential articles of impeachment against Bush.

    Resolved, that George W. Bush, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

    ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

    Article I

    In his conduct of the office of president of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has crippled the Constitution's checks and balances, protections against government abuses, and the rule of law, in that:

    1. He has spied on American citizens on American soil on his say-so alone in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and, the Fourth Amendment;

    2. He has concealed from Congress and the American people spying programs to make them unaccountable to law or to supervision by a co-equal branch of government;

    3. He has conducted secret government shielded from congressional oversight or public scrutiny to detect and to deter lawlessness or mal-administration by refusing to permit current or former government officials from testifying or answering questions on such matters as the firing of U.S. attorneys or unchecked spying on American citizens by the National Security Agency, all of this in violation of the constitutional principle that the people must know what their government is doing so their actions and political loyalties can be adjusted accordingly;

    4. He has directed or permitted partisan politics to skew the evenhanded execution of the laws by the Department of Justice to the great prejudice of public confidence in the administration of justice;

    5. He has issued executive orders that authorize a financial death penalty on any person the president believes creates a risk of undermining his foreign policy goals in Iraq or Lebanon without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment;

    6. He has detained and claims authority to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants indefinitely on his say-so alone based on secret evidence and for actions wholly unrelated to battlefield conflict;

    7. He has signed laws while declaring his intent to refuse to enforce provisions he asserts are unconstitutional, for example, a congressional ban on torture;

    8. He has made Americans less safe by kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing people abroad who he thinks are criminals or terrorists on his say-so alone, a practice that has deterred foreign countries from cooperating with the United States in opposing international terrorism and has created international law precedents that would justify the kidnapping, imprisonment and torture of Americans by foreign governments that suspect they sympathize with their domestic political opponents;

    9. He has claimed authority to break and enter homes, open mail or torture American citizens to gather foreign intelligence; and,

    10. He has declared every square inch of the United States an active battlefield where military force and military law can supersede civilian law enforcement at any time by presidential decree.

    In all of this, George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:52am

  223. Posted by CRABWALK 11/04/2007 @ 09:13am

    Why just the other day PONTI declared that Iraq was as safe as S. Africa. When was the last time a guvt minister or their aides were gunned down in S. Africa? How many cops get killed in Detroit every month? How many mortar attacks occur in the open air markets of Indiana every month? Delusional fantasies based on failed theories.

    Oh, I see CRABBIE. You have moved the goal posts yet again; now Iraq is a 'failed...delusional fantasy' because it is no safer than Indiana. Soon, I suppose, you'll be calling it the next Vietnam because of the lack of Costco retail centers.

    And yes, your team, the terrorists, do still manage to score a goal, but expect these to become fewer and fewer as time goes on. Then, we can dispatch Iraq, too, to the same liberal memory hole where impeachment, Karl Rove's indictment, and the rest of your paranoid conspiracy fantasies reside.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2007 @ 09:58am

  224. Another "democrat surrender monkey for AL Qaida":

    Pat Buchanon

    "Some courageous Republican, to get the attention of this White House, should drop into the hopper a bill of impeachment," he added, "charging Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against 'invasion.'"

    "Not only have [Democratic governors] Richardson and Napolitano awakened -- they are on the front lines -- so, too, has Hillary Clinton, who has spoken out against illegal immigration with a forthrightness that makes Bush sound like a talking head for La Raza."

    "What are these Bush Republicans afraid of?" he continues. "Dirty looks from the help at the country club?"

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:58am

  225. Good morning, PONTIFICUS. What color is the sky today? It's not purple, so it must be Thursday.

    How did I move the goal posts?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 09:59am

  226. not my words, PONTI, your "sides":

    Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) told reporters that Shorja -- where a suicide bomber killed 88 people in January -- is now "like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime." On his blog, he wrote:

    And so it went, up and down the street, in between tents and tables, squeezing past pedestrians to inspect the offerings in one booth after another, we milled around this marketplace in downtown Baghdad for more than an hour. I told reporters afterward that it was just like any open-air market in Indiana in the summertime. I didn't mean that Baghdad was as safe as the Bargersville Flea Market; I just meant that that was what it looked and felt like…lots of people, lots of booths and a friendly relaxed atmosphere.

    But Indianans find any similarities between Bargersville and Baghdad ludicrous:

    "There've been no shootings or car bombings" at that market since it opened a few years ago, said Robin Gibson, assistant metro editor of the Star Press in Muncie. … "Maybe some overeager dogs jumping at people," she ventured.

    Avon Waters, a former features editor and writer for the Herald Bulletin in Anderson, the other relatively big town in Pence's largely rural congressional district, said he never wore a flak jacket and "never felt afraid" when he spent a couple of recent years covering farmers markets in Madison County.

    A side-by-side comparison of the Shorja and Bargersville markets:

    Iraqis also disagreed with Pence's assessment of the Shorja market's "friendly relaxed atmosphere." Karim Abdullah, a textile merchant at Shorja, said that the lawmakers "were laughing and talking to people as if there was nothing going on in this country or at least they were pretending that they were tourists. … To achieve this, they sealed off the area, put themselves in flak jackets and walked in the middle of tens of armed American soldiers."

    A day after the congressional delegation's visit, the "crack of shots fired by unseen snipers echoed" throughout the Shorja market.

    UPDATE: "The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress."

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 10:03am

  227. Got news for you, cowardly moron, the terrorists are not "my team". I am in favor of reducing terrorism, not continuing policies that have increased it.

    Only someone who is not in control of their argument could make the claim that I am i favor of Bin Laden the Still Free.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 10:06am

  228. Posted by CRABWALK 11/04/2007 @ 10:03am

    You do seem to take an odd solace in snipers, car bombings and massacres in Iraq, CRABBIE. What are you going to do when all of those are gone? Back to health care, is it? Febrile imaginings about the fortunes that Bush and Cheney are making, that we don't know about? Sheh.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2007 @ 10:07am

  229. And yes, your team, the terrorists,

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/04/2007 @ 09:58am

    yep. crabwalk, chief terrorist.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2007 @ 10:08am

  230. I do have to run, gotta get back to work (being a lazy liberal I am coming up on the 60 hrs for the week).

    I will leave you to argue with the "looney left" comprised of Bruce Fein, Larry Johnson, Pat Buchanon, Ray McGovern, and other republicans and former republicans like George H.W. Bush's ambassador, Joseph Wilson, General Odom etc.

    And Bin Laden, whose dream was to have the US bogged down in the ME for decades. Mission accomplished.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 10:13am

  231. Posted by CRABWALK 11/04/2007 @ 09:52am

    So, CRABBIE, I see you have two new conservative friends, Bruce Fein and Buchanan, whose views on pretty much any other subject I'm sure you would call 'fascist' or some such. Don't you find it odd that you only find quotable or, I guess, listenable ideas from people who agree with you? Seems like these are the only kind of people whose opinions matter in your world. Pretty constrained, insulated world, don't you think?

    By the way, what's your best guess on when Mr. Fein's articles of impeachment will be taken up by the House?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2007 @ 10:16am

  232. Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/04/2007 @ 10:07am

    Yep, that is why I want or troops out of harms way, and you want to keep them their indefinitely. Recognizing that bombs go off every day in Iraq does not equal solace, unless one is delusional. Unlike you, I am horrified daily by the carnage in Iraq, Pakistan, Shri Lanka, Spain, London and elsewhere. I want policies in place that help bring an end to these attacks, not the current policies that feed it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 10:17am

  233. Posted by CRABWALK 11/04/2007 @ 10:13am

    I do have to run, gotta get back to work (being a lazy liberal I am coming up on the 60 hrs for the week).

    Well, I find it encouraging that you do in fact have a job. You may yet make yourself useful to society instead of spouting fevered nonsense about the world.

    And if I come by while you're working, please substitute a fruit cup for my fries, I'm cutting back on carbs.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2007 @ 10:20am

  234. Oh, sorry PONTI, I thought it was you that claimed it is only the far out left that agreed with me.

    You are a bizarre individual. You take Toesnings opinions as fact, then cry about other people using one persons opinions. You claim no court has determined status, when a court has accepted documents showing her status.

    gotta run, enjoy your purple thursday.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 10:20am

  235. in closing, I agree with Obama on this one:

    " "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    "Even a successful war against Iraq," Obama warned, "will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Among other accurate things, he said it also would "strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida."

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 10:21am

  236. I do have to run, gotta get back to work (being a lazy liberal I am coming up on the 60 hrs for the week).

    Well, I find it encouraging that you do in fact have a job. You may yet make yourself useful to society instead of spouting fevered nonsense about the world.

    And if I come by while you're working, please substitute a fruit cup for my fries, I'm cutting back on carbs.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2007 @ 10:21am

  237. Posted by CRABWALK 11/04/2007 @ 10:20am

    You are a bizarre individual. You take Toesnings opinions as fact, then cry about other people using one persons opinions.

    I quote Toensing to show you that there is authoritative disagreement about whether Plame was covert. I don't confuse her opinions as fact, as you do your own.

    You claim no court has determined status, when a court has accepted documents showing her status.

    That court was not charged with determining Plame's status, and did not do so. No court has made that determination, because no-one has even been charged with the crime.

    gotta run, enjoy your purple thursday.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2007 @ 11:13am

  238. Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/03/2007 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person

    Pontificus,

    More of the same from Pontificus, primeval-minded pimp, prostitute and proselytizer of panegyric prose promulgating putrescent, purulent propaganda pursuant to the policies pursued by parasitic, plutocratic profiteers pillaging both the proletariat and planet for privatized profit. Or, in terms more crass or crude, you, Pontificus, are little more than the disposable prophylactic used by your corporate conquistadors to inoculate themselves from public retribution as they rape humanity, the environment and whatever else can be alchemized into personalized bank accounts--all in the name of democracy and the people. To these autocratic-sociopaths, the public are a possible venereal disease with the potential to disrupt their ability to ‘have their way' with everything and everybody, but you and your idiot pals constitute just enough democratic latex, which enables them to carry on their rapacious behavior. Since, you appear more literate than your fellow lackeys, your behavior is all the more shameful.

    Defending a company that literally shits on the American troops as they fight and die for neo-conservative fantasies and abstractions is scraping the lower lining of the sewer (privatizing doesn't look or smell so attractive these days, does it?). Yes, internal documents and testimony by medical professionals have shown that a Halliburton subsidiary was providing the troops with sewage water for showering. If that sounds petty a complaint, here's some other niceties in the Halliburton portfolio (from Democratic members of Congress addressing the president over Halliburton's status as contractor receiving government contracts/sources are provided) And by the way, as usual, you're wrong concerning the status of Ms. Green as "junior" procurement officer, she's senior and that is how the press has reported it, though you probably don't get that information in your filtrated Limbaugh Letter:

    * Bribery: Halliburton has admitted that its KBR subsidiary "may" have bribed the government of Nigeria for the purpose of winning a multibillion dollar construction contract. 4 Investigators say the bribes were paid between 1995 and 2002 and totaled up to $180 million. 5 * Bid-rigging on foreign projects: The Justice Department has initiated a criminal inquiry into Halliburton for bid-rigging in connection with the company's work on foreign construction projects. 6 * Dealing with nations that sponsor terrorism. The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is investigating the legality of Halliburton's business dealings in Iran, a nation believed to sponsor terrorism. 7 It is illegal for U.S. companies to directly conduct business with nations the president believes are involved in sponsoring terror. 8 The OFAC referred the case to the Department of Justice, which is conducting a criminal investigation. 9 * Indictment for fraud: An employee with Halliburton's KBR subsidiary was indicted by the Justice Department last March over a $3.5 million fraud scheme involving the military. 10 Former KBR employee Jeff Mazon and Ali Hijazi, a managing partner at LaNouvelle General Trading and Contracting Co., are charged with rigging bids in 2003 to favor LaNouvelle over other subcontractors and then overcharging the U.S. military for fuel transport services at a Kuwait airport. 11 * Ongoing Fraud Investigations: The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) has issued numerous audits since 2003 showing Halliburton had repeatedly violated the FAR via "significant" and "systemic" deficiencies in how it estimates and validates cost. 12 As a result, the Defense Department Inspector General and the Justice Department opened a criminal fraud investigation. 13 * An Epidemic of Waste in Iraq: - The inspector general for the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) found Halliburton charged the government $2.85 million for hotel costs in Kuwait even though cheaper housing arrangements were available. 14 - A former logistician with Halliburton in Kuwait reported that the company and its subcontractor had been charging U.S. taxpayers $100 per 15-pound bag of laundry and $45 per one-pack of soda. 15 - The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) found Halliburton had overcharged on the fuel supply contract by $212.3 million. 16 - The DCAA has also reported that Halliburton billed the government for 36 percent more meals than was actually served to the troops in Iraq while an internal Halliburton - report said it had overcharged by 19 percent. 17 DoD is currently withholding $213 million in suspicious food expenses until Halliburton provides a sufficient explanation for them. 18

    4 Dana Milbank, "Halliburton, the Second-Term Curse?" Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2004; see also "Halliburton admits bribes ‘may have been paid' in Nigeria," Agence France Press, Nov. 8, 2004. 5 The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission have been investigating the suspected crime for over a year (Associated Press, Dec. 3, 2004.) The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating a second bribery case involving Nigeria. Halliburton admitted that its employees paid a $2.4 million bribe to a government official of Nigeria for the purpose of receiving favorable tax treatment. See Halliburton 2003 SEC Form 10-K. 6 Halliburton 2004 SEC Form 10-K. The company admitted that former KBR chairman, Jack Stanley, and other former employees "may" have criminally rigged bids on foreign contracts and that the illegal behavior "may" have been ongoing since the mid-1980s. See Halliburton SEC Form 10-Q, June 30, 2005. 7 Halliburton SEC Form S-4/A, July 19, 2004. 8 International Security and Development Cooperation Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2349aa-9, § 505; International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1501; 31 C.F.R. § 560; Executive Orders 12613, 12957, 12959, and 10359. 9 Halliburton SEC Form S-4/A, July 19, 2004. 10 "Halliburton exec on fraud charges," BBC News, March 17, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4359765.stm 11 In exchange for this markup, Mr. Mazon allegedly received a $1 million kickback from Mr. Hijazi. See "Halliburton Asked to Explain Discrepancies Between Testimony and Indictment," Committee on Government Reform Minority Staff, May 2, 2005. http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=839 12 Memorandum from Defense Contract Audit Agency to U.S. Army Field Support Command, Aug. 16, 2004 (DCAA "strongly encourages" the Army to withhold 15% of Halliburton's payments because of "significant unsupported costs" and "numerous, systemic issues" with Halliburton's cost proposals); see also "Status of Brown & Root Services (BRS) Estimating System Internal Controls," Defense Contract Audit Agency, Jan. 13, 2004 (Halliburton's systemic deficiencies "bring into question [Halliburton's] ability to consistently produce well-supported proposals that are acceptable as a basis for negotiation of fair and reasonable prices."); see also Rep. Henry Waxman's memorandum to Democratic Members of the House Government Reform Committee, March 10, 2004. 13 Letter from Joseph E. Schmitz, Defense Department Inspector General, to Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Feb. 20, 2004; see also "Pentagon Opens Criminal Inquiry of Halliburton Pricing," New York Times, Feb. 24, 2004; "Halliburton Faces Criminal Investigation: Pentagon Probing Alleged Overcharges for Iraq Fuel," Houston Chronicle, Feb. 24, 2004. 14 Stuart Bowen, "Audit Report of the Inspector General," U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority, June 25, 2004. http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/fdc_hilton.pdf 15 Testimony of Marie E. deYoung, former KBR employee, House Government Reform Committee Hearing, July 22, 2004. 16 "DOD Audits: Halliburton Overcharges Top $212 Million," House Committee on Government Reform Minority Staff, April 11, 2005. http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=823 17 Testimony of William H. Reed, Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency, House Committee on Government Reform, June 9, 2004. 18 Halliburton SEC Form 10-Q, June 30, 2005. 19 Government Accountability Office, Contingency Operations: Opportunities to Improve the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, Feb. 11, 1997. 20 "Favoritism for Cheney's ex firm?" Associated Press/CBS News.com, April 8, 2003.

    Posted by Oustbush at 11/04/2007 @ 11:14am

  239. Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/04/2007 @ 11:13am

    Got POL POT, Khmer Rouge boy?

    So, once again, to take up CRABWALK's points: POL POT PONTI is charged to explain why the CIA not only lied about Plame's covert status after it was revealed in a newspaper column, but in fact instructed the Ashcroft-led DoJ to initiate an investigation led by a special prosecutor to determine the origin of the wrong doing. Year Zero boy is charged to delineate, in detail, how this chain of events comprises a (gufff-awww) congressional conspiratorial witch hunt.

    Yes, we shall get some laughs out of witnessing the hapless unwashed dittohead retard POL POT PONTI chasing his tail on this one, perhaps to the point of nearly losing sphincter control in the resultant hysteric convulsions of seeing the unparallaled stupidity of POL POT PONTI on raw display.

    But, of course, it really is no laughing matter. The abject stupidity of the dittohead likes of POL POT PONTI is an enabler of terrorism. Notice how lovingly he discusses car bombings, etc, thrilling at the no-end-in-sight, ongoing maiming and murder of civilians and our government employees on whose duty he attempts to spit. Shameless.

    Our streets and our communities are less safe with the likes of POL POT PONTI, avowed enthusiast of Cambodia's Year Zero, loose and at liberty. We have to face facts: POL POT PONTI is in need of a political cleansing, a thorough de-programming and de-licing.

    Posted by John_Shaft at 11/04/2007 @ 12:25pm

  240. Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/03/2007 @ 9:55pm

    Hilarious. Talk some more about logic Ponti. Nothing is more amusing that watching you talk about things you know nothing about - such as logic or war.

    Posted by MADLIB 11/03/2007 @ 10:15pm

    Ponti thinks it is better if other people die or become handicapped for his freedom. Ponti, can you tell us again how one month, half of which was during the month of Ramadan, counts as a trend?

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/04/2007 @ 1:06pm

  241. Posted by OUSTBUSH 11/04/2007 @ 11:14am

    There is little point in arguing with Pontificus. When you break it down and get to the point where he has to acknowledge that some part of his argument is fundamentally flawed, he suddenly shuts up and disappears. In the meantime, you can count on ignorant comments about how all liberals are stupid, don't work (and those that do apparantly can only serve fries) or some other asinine comment.

    It can be an amusing diversion every now and again - but not one that is a particularly good use of time.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/04/2007 @ 1:11pm

  242. Once again POnti has theories backed by theories:

    a: I have worked exactly 2 days in the food service industry, two days that I cooked for a Bistro. I did this because my roommate asked me to come learn how to do it. No fries were served. That was 17 years ago.

    b: I am not working as a "job" today. I am working for my company, me. This is in addition to my regular job.

    Moron

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 1:25pm

  243. Remember when PONTI claimed that political firings in the JD were ok? That only looney lefties thought otherwise?

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, pledged today to block political meddling at the Justice Department

    ***Are you really going to sit here and tell me that their actions aren't influenced by their own checkbooks, and the checkbooks of their business associates? Because that would be hilarious to hear

    That's exactly what I'm saying, and you haven't got a shred of evidence to back up your bullshit claims other than your own paranoia.-PONTIFLOGIC

    Neil Mallon Bush the younger brother of the President, infamous for his involvement in the Silverado S and L scandal, has been hired by Crest Investment Company as a consultant for $60,000 per year to assist with their efforts to serve as a middleman to advise other companies that seek taxpayer-financed business in Iraq.

    William H.T. ("Bucky") Bush, an uncle of George W. Bush, joined the board of directors of the St. Louis based company Engineered Support Systems in March 2000. (See: http://www.engineeredsupport.com/) Engineered Support Systems has three areas: light military support equipment, heavy military support equipment, and electronics/automation systems. Since 2000, following the presidential election and the 9-11 attacks, the company's federal contracts, revenues and its stock value have all gone up. Engineered Support Systems has been in the top 100 contractors with the DoD since 2001. It's contracts with the U.S. military have totaled over $1 billion.

    William H.T. Bush is also a trustee for the investment firm Lord Abbott, one of Halliburton's top 10 shareholders and also a top-ten mutual fund holder in Halliburton, which has obtained prime contracts in Iraq. Vice President Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, still has between $18 million and $87 million invested through Vanguard, another top-ten holder in Halliburton stock.

    Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of George W. Bush, shares an interest in federal contracts held by companies in his firm's portfolio. Marvin Bush is also an adviser at HCC Insurance, formerly called the Houston Casualty Company, one of the biggest insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. Bush was a director at HCC, which has benefited financially from the 9-11 insurance bailout legislation passed by Congress at the instigation of the White House. The departure of Marvin from the HCC board was announced the same day, November 22, 2002, as the passage of the bill.

    Marvin Bush is co-founder and partner in Winston Partners, a private investment firm which is part of a larger firm called the Chatterjee Group. (See http://www.winstonpartners.com/. ) According to SEC filings, the Chatterjee Group consists of Winston Partners, LP; Chatterjee Fund Management, LP; Winston Partners II LDC, a Cayman Islands-based company; Winston Partners II LLC; Chatterjee Advisors LLC; Chatterjee Management Company; Mr. Chatterjee himself; and Furxedown Trading Limited, a company organized under the laws of the Isle of Man. The address for Winston Partners II LDC is in the Netherlands Antilles. The other subsidiaries were organized in Delaware. Governor Jeb Bush is also an investor in the Winston Capital Fund, which happens to be managed by Marvin's firm.

    According to the Sept 30, 2003, issue of Mother Jones, an $80 million Iraq contract was awarded to Nour, a company which began in 2003 with ties to Winston Partners. Nour is an "international investment and development company" with more than 100 employees based in Iraq, and claims expertise in telecommunications, agribusiness, internet development, recruitment, construction materials, oil and power services, pharmaceuticals and fashion apparel."

    In January, 2004, Nour was awarded a $327 million contract to equip the Iraqi armed forces and Civil Defense Corps. However, not long after it was awarded, Nour came under heavy scrutiny because of questions involving the company's president and Ahmed Chalabi, of the US appointed Iraqi Governing Council. Newsday reported, Chalabi received a $2 million "fee" for helping to arrange a $80 million contract, that was actually awarded to a firm called Erinys International "within days" of being granted the contract, Erinys became a joint venture operation with Nour.

    http://tinyurl.com/ys3oqn

    PONTI, don't let those pesky facts get in your way

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 1:41pm

  244. Got news for you, cowardly moron, the terrorists are not "my team". I am in favor of reducing terrorism, not continuing policies that have increased it.

    Only someone who is not in control of their argument could make the claim that I am i favor of Bin Laden the Still Free.

    Posted by CRABWALK 11/04/2007 @ 10:06am

    We know you are not Crabs. But perhaps your view of life is the result of mulling too much over your morbid out of date files as well as you being an eternal pessimist. We know that you wish with all your pure little heart that things will improve for those Iraqis trapped in a tragic civil war.

    Anyway here's a little bit of stuff, that we could well call a harbinger of more good things to come, courtesy of CBS News, from a place where the war is being won, to cheer you up.

    What should tickle you pink is that some of your hard earned is going directly into the pockets of Iraqi bourgeoisie capitalists. A sort of double whammy to get a smile on your dial if you please.

    AS VIOLENCE DROPS,BAGHDAD FAMILIES RETURN

    WASHINGTON,

    Nov. 3, 2007

    (AP) In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped, the government said.

    Saad al-Azawi, his wife and four children are among them. They fled to Syria six months ago, leaving behind what had become one of the capital's more dangerous districts - west Baghdad's largely Sunni Khadra region.

    The family had been living inside a vicious and bloody turf battle between al Qaeda in Iraq and Mahdi Army militiamen. But Azawi said things began changing, becoming more peaceful, in August when radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army fighters to stand down nationwide.

    About the same time, the Khadra neighborhood Awakening Council rose up against brutal al Qaeda control - the imposition of its austere interpretation of Islam, along with the murder and torture of those who would not comply.

    The uprising originated in Iraq's west and flowed into the capital. Earlier this year, the Sunni tribes and clans in the vast Anbar province began their own revolt and have successfully rid the largely desert region of al Qaeda control.

    At one point the terrorist group virtually controlled Anbar, often with the complicity of the vast Sunni majority who welcomed the outsiders in their fight against American forces.

    The 40-year-old al-Azawi, who has gone back to work managing a car service, said relatives and friends persuaded him to bring his family home.

    "Six months ago, I wouldn't dare be outside, not even to stand near the garden gate by the street. Killings had become routine. I stopped going to work, I was so afraid," he said, chatting with friends on a street in the neighborhood.

    When he and his family joined the flood of Iraqi refugees to Syria the streets were empty by early afternoon, when all shops were tightly shuttered. Now the stores stay open until 10 p.m. and the U.S. military working with the neighborhood council is handing out US$2,000 (euro1,400) grants to shop owners who had closed their business. The money goes to those who agree to reopen or first-time businessmen.

    Al-Azawi said he's trying to get one of the grants to open a poultry and egg shop that his brother would run.

    "In Khadra, about 15 families have returned from Syria. I've called friends and family still there and told them it's safe to come home," he said.

    Sattar Nawrous, a spokesman for the Ministry of Displacement and Migration, said Saturday that the al-Azawi family was among 3,100 that have returned to their homes in Baghdad in the past 90 days."

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/04/2007 @ 1:41pm

  245. That's exactly what I'm saying, and you haven't got a shred of evidence to back up your bullshit claims other than your own paranoia.-PONTIFLOGIC

    Prince, who founded Blackwater in 1996 but reportedly took a behind-the-scenes role in the company until after 9/11, has connections to the Republican Party in his blood. His late father, auto-parts magnate Edgar Prince, was instrumental in the creation of the Family Research Council, one of the right-wing Christian groups most influential with the George W. Bush administration. At his funeral in 1995, he was eulogized by two stalwarts of the Christian conservative movement, James Dobson and Gary Bauer. Edgar Prince's widow, Elsa, who remarried after her husband's death, has served on the boards of the FRC and another influential Christian-right organization, Dobson's Focus on the Family. She currently runs the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, where, according to IRS filings, her son Erik is a vice president. The foundation has given lavishly to some of the marquee names of the Christian right. Between July 2003 and July 2006, the foundation gave at least $670,000 to the FRC and $531,000 to Focus on the Family.

    Both Edgar and Elsa have been affiliated with the Council for National Policy, the secretive Christian conservative organization whose meetings have been attended by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer, and whose membership is rumored to include Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Dobson. The Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation gave the CNP $80,000 between July 2003 and July 2006.

    The former Betsy Prince -- Edgar and Elsa's daughter, Erik's sister -- married into the DeVos family, one of the country's biggest donors to Republican and conservative causes. ("I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party," Betsy DeVos wrote in a 1997 Op-Ed in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.) She chaired the Michigan Republican Party from 1996 to 2000 and again from 2003 to 2005, and her husband, Dick, ran as the Republican candidate for Michigan governor in 2006.

    Erik Prince himself is no slouch when it comes to giving to Republicans and cultivating relationships with important conservatives. He and his first and second wives have donated roughly $300,000 to Republican candidates and political action committees. Through his Freiheit Foundation, he also gave $500,000 to Prison Fellowship Ministries, run by former Nixon official Charles Colson, in 2000. In the same year, he contributed $30,000 to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. During college, he interned in George H.W. Bush's White House, and also interned for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Rohrabacher and fellow California Republican Rep. John Doolittle have visited Blackwater's Moyock, N.C., compound, on a trip arranged by the Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm founded by former aides of then House Majority Leader Tom Delay. ASG partner Paul Behrends is a longtime associate of Prince's.

    --Joseph Schmitz, chief operating officer and general counsel: In 2002, President Bush nominated Schmitz to oversee and police the Pentagon's military contracts as the Defense Department's inspector general

    Schmitz has many ties to the Republican Party establishment. His father, John G. Schmitz, was a two-term Republican congressman, and his brother, Patrick Schmitz, served as George H.W. Bush's deputy counsel from 1985 to 1993. Joseph himself worked as a special assistant to Reagan-era Attorney General Edwin Meese.

    Rob Richer, vice president for intelligence: Richer was head of the CIA's Near East division -- and the agency's liaison with King Abdullah of Jordan -- from 1999 to 2004. In 2003, he briefed President Bush on the nascent Iraqi insurgency. In late 2004, he became the associate deputy director in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, making him the second-ranking official for clandestine operations. He left the agency for Blackwater in the fall of 2005, effectively taking the agency's relationship with Abdullah with him. The CIA had invested millions of dollars in training Jordan's intelligence services. There was an obvious quid pro quo: In exchange for the training, Jordan would share information. Jordan has now hired Blackwater's intelligence division -- headed by Richer -- to do its spy training instead. The CIA isn't happy, writes Silverstein: "People [at the agency] are pissed off," said Silverstein's source. "Abdullah still speaks with Richer regularly and he thinks that's the same thing as talking to us. He thinks Richer is still the man."

    Fred Fielding, former outside counsel

    Fielding has had a long career as a lawyer to prominent Republicans. From 1970 to 1972, he was an associate White House counsel in the Nixon administration; from 1972 to 1974, he was present for the denouement of that administration as deputy White House counsel. Under President Reagan, he served as White House counsel from 1981 to 1986, where he was the boss of a young assistant counsel named John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States. After the 2000 election, he served the current administration as transition counsel, and he also held a spot on the 9/11 Commission. In January 2007, Bush chose him as White House counsel.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 1:54pm

  246. OK LR, 3,000 families have returned, out of 2,000,000 that have fled. Reason cited, Mugtatd called a cease fire, not due to the "surge" or military activity of the Americans

    But Azawi said things began changing, becoming more peaceful, in August when radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army fighters to stand down nationwide.

    Lets talk to these people in 6 more months, shall we. I do recall that the Sheik that met with Chimpy a few months ago is not of this earth any longer. I bet he thought it was safe to meet with Chimpy.

    Lets take a look at reports from Iraq two years ago for comparison.

    BY JOE LIEBERMAN Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

    I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

    Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

    There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

    But, 2 years later, 130,000 American soldiers remain in peaceful Iraq.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 2:02pm

  247. Deaths of Iraq Civilians - 2005-2007

    Estimate Based Upon News Reports

    No government agency is keeping official records of the number of Iraq citizens killed in war-time violence. These data are estimates based upon news reports; as such, they understate the carnage.

    The year 2007 shows 16,780 Iraqis killed from January - August. This is more than the sum of the same period for 2005 and 2006 (15,462). It's twice as many as were reported killed in 2005; it's 90 percent of the total reported killed in 2006, although the period represents only two-thirds of the year.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/04/2007 @ 2:06pm

  248. What's strange is...

    as "safe" as Baghdad is getting....that diplomats at OUR State Department don't want to go there because (in the words of one)...it's a "death sentence"?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 11/04/2007 @ 2:33pm

  249. Posted by CRABWALK 11/04/2007 @ 2:02pm

    Crabs if you like to check the CBS report you will find I edited out the nice things said about your fighting boys and girls over there and how they were in on the let's kick al Qaeda butt in concert with their Sunni brothers and sisters in arms. I took this approach because I notice you seem to get a little confused as to the import of the articles you post. Properly read they don't always support the point you imagine they are making. I thought you would be more impressed with the Iraqis responses (and graciousness in accepting your folding stuff) but there you go.

    3000 (mum, dad, granny, uncle Abdul and the kids?) families Crabs. Very naughty of you to mix categories or was it 2 million families of say 6 per which is about 12 million (getting to about 1/2 the total population) in case you have no batteries in the old calculator.

    I thought, harbinger, (first buds of spring etc) would have been part of the lingo over there. OK then 3000 as say a deposit on the 2 million/the average number of members in each family seems to me to be a pretty good earnest (oh there I go again- what did you actually learn at school?) of the the final return.

    I guess one way of thinking of all those wins from "mission accomplished" onwards could be summarised like this:

    Wtotal = (w1 + w2 + w3 + .............wn).

    Think for example of Saddam's very sudden and public departure from this earthly scene as wx. How much did that contribute to his fans in the Sunni push saying, "ah shit, the boss won't be back, these al Qaeda fanatics are raping our women, so we may as well join the Yanks? What do think ?

    jones' footnotes (i just stood on them) from 21st April 2006 Radio Free Europe

    "On March 22, the number of the displaced was 3,400 families, with each family made up of SEVEN to ELEVEN people on average," Sa'id Isma'il Haqqi "

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/04/2007 @ 9:36pm

  250. Final word on this thread from me---

    "The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make"

    By Michael Tomasky---Washington Post Sunday, August 5, 2007; Page B02

    ....The political case, though, is another question entirely. Impeachment is not merely a bad idea, but the single worst course of action that Democrats could possibly undertake -- the only thing they could do that might, in one stroke, convert Bush from the figure of contempt and mockery he is now into one of vague sympathy. Just as bad, it's the one move that would definitively alienate nonideological voters and, therefore, harm the Democrats' otherwise excellent chances for winning congressional seats and the White House in 2008. And that's just what impeachment would do to the Democrats. Even worse is what it would do to liberalism and to the country.

    Posted by Mask at 11/04/2007 @ 9:41pm

  251. I'll take that criticism for what it's worth.

    Posted by MASK 11/03/2007 @ 3:12pm

    Good grief, Charlie MASK!

    Posted by Happy at 11/04/2007 @ 10:27pm

  252. Think for example of Saddam's very sudden and public departure from this earthly scene as wx. How much did that contribute to his fans in the Sunni push saying, "ah shit, the boss won't be back, these al Qaeda fanatics are raping our women, so we may as well join the Yanks? What do think ?

    Well, as I am numbers challenged (ie, I don't think 3000 families is an equivalent to 2,000,000 people, or even a good start. 3000*6=18,000= .9% of 2,000,000. Maybe that is a good % in neo=con land?) maybe you could explain the continuing war after Saddam was killed, a year ago? The number of IRaqis killed went up, the number of US soldiers killed in 06 (jan-nov) was 640, vs the number of killed in 07 (dec 06-oct 07) was 953, after Saddam's death lead to the crushing of the insurgency.

    So, a less than 1% return of citizens is a whopping great sign, more death and destruction is also a great sign of progress!!!

    You go neo-cons!!

    No wonder the Army won't take you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/05/2007 @ 07:35am

  253. The day of Sadddam's departure as reported by the bbc:

    There were jubilant scenes in the Baghdad Shia stronghold of Sadr City, with people dancing in the streets and sounding their car horns, and in the southern city of Basra.

    But in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, where a curfew was imposed, the news sparked protests from supporters.

    Protests were also reported in Samarra and Ramadi.

    A curfew was imposed to keep those that were joining the US in line so the recruitment would go smoothly?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/05/2007 @ 07:38am

  254. Well, as I am numbers challenged (ie, I don't think 3000 families is an equivalent to 2,000,000 people, or even a good start. 3000*6=18,000= .9% of 2,000,000. Maybe that is a good % in neo=con land?) So, a less than 1% return of citizens is a whopping great sign, more death and destruction is also a great sign of progress!!!

    Posted by CRABWALK 11/05/2007 @ 07:35am

    Class is in Crabs. Let's think about the numbers. There are about 2 million refugees outside Iraq most of whom fled Iraq from 2003 up until a few months ago and there are perhaps about 1.6 - 1.8 million persons internally displaced. All of those of course had not fled from Baghdad but since the Shiite mosque was bombed in Feb 2006 about 140,000 families have been displaced from Baghdad accounting for a little over 1 million people (A bit hard to get accurate figures on which city or province they came from but this seems to be about the best estimate for Baghdad).

    Most of these were Sunnis hounded out of their homes, generally under threat of deat, from Shia militias. As well there were elements of al Qaeda and other Sunni insurgents targeting Shia and uncooperative Sunnis. It was those roughly 140,000 families that were driven out, mainly by those two forces. A small proportion of that displacement was the work of criminal gangs

    The following is a part I deleted from that Nov 3 report but given a qualification about its accuracy, it is a devastating stat, for your mob when one considers the implication:

    "In the past three months, the ministry did not register any forced displacement in the whole of Iraq," said Nawrous, who is a Kurd."

    That is a phenomenal claim and may need to be read as a bit of Iraqi "hyperbole" but when it is considered that some sources have claimed up to 80,000 per month were being displaced, because of sectarian, ideological violence and criminal activity earlier this year and if his figure is not substantially refuted by NGOs then this statistic is an even more positive indication, than the 3000 families returning, of a big turn around in security not only in Baghdad but in places like Mosul which was running second in violence to Baghdad and in fact right across Iraq.

    Well I did use the word harbinger, which may amount to one cherry blossom bud announcing that spring is approaching. So with 3000 families and when one realises that the only reason they could have come back is because the area had been secured. What is different from the past and more likely to make these permanent gains?

    (i) al Qaeda in Iraq by all reports, I have not seen one recent contra opinion, is very much a spent force.

    (ii) Muqtada Sadr has ordered his militias to stop fighting. He also seems to be more or less sidelined.

    (iii) The US/Iraqi forces are going after the rogue Shiite militias and non-aligned criminals and have inflicted heavy losses on them.

    (iv) The Sunni Sheiks joining and supporting the US/Iraq Government and in that alliance seriously degrading AQM or AQI.

    (V) A few mutual admiration sessions between the Sunni and Shiite local leaders (Sheiks). Aimed at breaking down sectarianism.

    (vi) Ordinary civilians acting as informants for the US and Iraqi forces. This is a good indication of mutual trust and shared goals viz. a safe and secure Iraq.

    All of this, possibly including al Sadr's disengagement, would not have happened without the, now seen to be successful, new military counter insurgency strategy and the extra troops needed to clear out and secure areas like that to which the 3000 families recently returned.

    "more death and destruction is also a great sign of progress!!!" Good point Crabs. But of course it depends who's providing it ands who's receiving it.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/05/2007 @ 12:05pm

  255. I cannot believe some of the posts here. The logic goes: we wanted them to impeach, they said no, now we'll just go back to posting sarcastic comments and waiting for 2009. No wonder the government treats us as if we don't exist. You remind me of my relatives in the former East Germany: making jokes about the regime was all they had left to vent their frustration. Well, we're not quite there yet. You can still pick up the phone and call your senators and reps every bloody day if you actually have the will to do something. But that's the real issue, isn't it. You read this paper so you're NOT one of those whom the media is keeping in the dark. You're just one of those who give up when Pelosi or Cheney say "shoo." Great way to live in a failing democracy.

    Get off your computers, buy a cheap phone card, and start calling. Demand that they tell you WHY impeachment is not being pursued. Force them to give us some answers. Demand that they oppose FISA and retroactive immunity. Tell them to oppose Mukasey's nomination. If you don't, you've got to stop fooling yourselves that you'll ever be part of a solution.

    Posted by Maxzj05 at 11/05/2007 @ 2:35pm

  256. "The number of IRaqis killed went up, the number of US soldiers killed in 06 (jan-nov) was 640, vs the number of killed in 07 (dec 06-oct 07) was 953, after Saddam's death lead to the crushing of the insurgency." There were jubilant scenes in the Baghdad Shia stronghold of Sadr City, with people dancing in the streets and sounding their car horns, and in the southern city of Basra. But in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, where a curfew was imposed, the news sparked protests from supporters. Protests were also reported in Samarra and Ramadi. A curfew was imposed to keep those that were joining the US in line so the recruitment would go smoothly? Posted by CRABWALK 11/05/2007 @ 07:38am

    Well I can see you don't like my "theory" of the ultimate victory (Wtotal) being the sum of many small (but strategic) wins.

    Let's have another look at wx, which was in my scheme of things one of the more significant small wins.

    There is little doubt that the Sunni tribes who supported al Qaeda, under the category of "Sunni insurgents" up until recently were revolted and turned off by al Qaeda's gratuitous violence (I read one report where it was claimed that the severed heads of a Sunni Sheik's young children were sent to him in steel drums, as a measure to quell any incipient challenge to al Qaeda's authority) and its interference with tribal marriage relationships. There seems little doubt that that was the final catalyst that caused the Sunni tribes to defect to the US/Iraqi cause.

    However and what you mentioned above about the protests by Sunnis at the publicised execution of Saddam is confirmation of my claim that the defection of the Sunnis was made even more likely by not only the death of Saddam but by its decisive finality. That event swept away the dreams of many of them that the "Lion of Babylon" or his own arrogated title "Saddam Hussein, son of Nebuchadnezzar", by the grace of God would again lead them against the hated American invaders. That I suggest was part of the powerful sustaining symbolism that came to a sudden, shocking and no doubt demoralising end when Saddam that day dropped from the gallows.

    That the Sunnis fought on against the Americans for some time after his death means those other factors had not reached breaking point.

    Your observation that the number of American troops killed spiked when their numbers were increased and they got out of the relatively safer bases and took the enemy on, is hardly a profound insight.

    What should be noted is the all around drop in casualties over recent months and weeks and what happens in those stats, military and civilian, in the coming months.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/05/2007 @ 3:30pm

  257. One more time:

    Not looking at 2003, every year from 2004-06, we've had two low death months. That 2007 will end up as the worst year for numbers of our US troops dead only proves that the MSM aren't telling us enough bad news...

    Year___Jan__Feb__Mar__Apr__May__Jun__Jul__Aug__Sep__Oct__Nov__Dec

    2003 ___0____0___65___74___37___30__ 48__ 35___31___44___82___40

    2004__ 47__ 20___52__135___80__ 42__ 54__ 66___80___64__137___72

    2005_ 107___58__ 35___52___80___78__ 54__ 85__ 49___96___84___68

    2006 __62___55__ 31___76___69___61__43__ 65___72__106___70__112

    2007 __83___81___81__104__126__101__78__ 84___65__ 38

    And doesn't appear weird to anyone that each year-- 2004-2005-2006-2007, we've had almost the same number of US troops killed? I fear I either see a quota trying to be filled or a line that they've planned not to cross-- which is it? That didn't happen in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I doubt if a statistician were run the probability of the same number of our troops being killed each year it would be beyond chance and would point to a planned casualty quota. Why? Running the war like a BUSSINESS?

    Year ____US Deaths __US Wounded

    2003 _____486 ________2,411

    2004 ____ 849 ________8,003

    2005 ____ 846 ________5,948

    2006 ____ 822 ________6,398

    2007 ____ 845 ________5,411

    Total ____3848 _______28,171

    http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

    Talk about reasons for impeachment...

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 11:18am | ignore this person

    Is there no one else that finds it weird that just as we approached the number that will not be mentioned in the MSM, the '850' Annual Number of US Troops Allowed Dead in Iraq-- that line drawn in the sand somewhere in a CEO/Pres playbook-- that our casualty numbers dropped off a lot?

    So what happens when we do cross that '850' line? Is it a tipping point of some sort? Is it a level that is viewed intolerable to the US public-- a statistical PR/MIC poll measurement of manipulation tolerance?

    Is Iran just a distraction from what they've done in Iraq? Iraq a distraction from Afghanistan/AQ? AQ a distraction from 9/11 negligence?

    And the MSM is always distracted looking for any straw stuffed up a celebrities' ass...

    Frita can relate.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/03/2007 @ 12:23pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/05/2007 @ 9:01pm

  258. I initially read this same article on commondreams.org and was heartened by the more than 300 replies supporting the attempt to impeach Cheney, whether or not it is successful, because at the very least the someone needs to make the gesture, to put on the record for posterity, that the some House members made the attempt to point out the criminal actions of the executive branch and preserve the integrity of the Constitution. If no attempt is made, all of Bush and Cheney's action will be considered de fact legal, for posterity.

    Anyway, I guess I am just writing to say that I am sad that many Nation readers seem to not understand the importance of this gesture. These posts are largely off-topic and uncomprehending of the constitutional/legal necessity of impeachment.

    Posted by sadAmerican at 11/06/2007 @ 04:22am

  259. so far, we have four posts, and not a single one weighs the evidence for impeachment. instead, we have criticisms directed at nichols.....

    yawn

    Posted by DARLADOON 11/02/2007 @ 12:37pm

    Darla,

    I would venture to say that at least three of the four posts were from right wing smear artists. These people don't wish to discuss anything but rather inject their extremely slanted views in a liberal blog. They can blather on and on with each other with their right wing doctrine dictated to them by their masters, but can't think of a damn thing for themselves.

    Kucinich is on the right track, unfortunately our system is so corrupt and bought off that he won't get anywhere. America isn't the land of the free and the brave anymore, it has become the land of the bought off, stupid, fat and lazy.

    I don't hate America, but evidently most Americans won't look at what is really happening until it's too late and we become an nation like a third world country. Take a look at what happened to the old Soviet Union. When the dust settled, the rich folks used strong arm methods to take control of everything and the rest of the people were left with nothing. We're heading down the same path.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/06/2007 @ 07:29am

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin | The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL." But 60 senators decided to follow the real leader.
John Nichols
5 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
128 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
79 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
207 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
65 Comments