Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach -- UPDATED

A single Vermont community's call for the impeachment of President Bush turned into a chorus Tuesday night, with town meetings across southern Vermont echoing the demand that Congress act to remove the president.

Voters in the town of Newfane, where the movement began, endorsed impeachment by a resounding margin. The paper ballot vote was 121-29 for a slightly amended version of the resolution that had been submitted by Dan DeWalt, an elected member of the town's select board. DeWalt's initial resolution declared:

Whereas George W. Bush has:

Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office.

The key amendment involved the addition of a call for the Vermont House and Senate to take up the issue. Though it is a little-known and even less-used power, state legislatures can officially forward impeachment resolutions to Congress.

The Newfane vote was expected. The surprise on Tuesday night came from neighboring communities where, inspired by Newfane's example, citizens demanded that their town meetings address the issue. At least four other Vermont towns -- Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney – voted for impeachment resolutions Tuesday night. Most of the additional resolutions passed by voice votes, but in Marlboro a show of hands produced a 60-10 vote for impeachment.

DeWalt, the Newfane official who started the process when he drafted an impeachment article and placed it on the official agenda for the annual town meeting, celebrated the grassroots revolt against George Bush and his administration as a healthy sign that democracy is still alive – at least in Vermont.

"In the U.S. presently there are only a few places where citizens can act in this fashion and have a say in our nation,'' explained DeWalt.

U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who has been a fierce critic of the Bush administration, responded to the call from the towns with an acknowledgement that Bush "has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well not have been legal." Yet, despite the fact that more than two dozen House members have cosponsored a resolution calling for the establishment of a select committee that would make recommendations regarding impeachment, Sanders said that Republican control of the House and Senate makes it "impractical to talk about impeachment" at this point.

Vermont Republicans and conservative commentators were dismissive, suggesting that town meetings ought to focus on local issues rather than attempts to check and balance executive excess.

But Newfane's DeWalt said impeachment was an appropriate item for town meeting consideration. While he noted that the resolution cited a number of issues, the select board member used the example of the continuing occupation of Iraq. "The war affects us here in Newfane," he said. "It affects us when our mothers and fathers and sons and daughters are sent off to war, and it affects us in our tax dollars to pay for that war."

Comments (273)

1. am i really nuts, or is something funny going on here?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 11:28pm

2. wow - har har - NEW POST...similar topic

   NICHOLS - dont do this to me, man....har har

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 11:30pm

3. I don't know if this is the second shot fired from a small town in New England that was heard around the world, but, hey, it's fun to think about. If it starts cascading around the US, great; if not, let's enjoy the moment.

   Posted by seattlescribe at 03/08/2006 @ 12:44am

4. Maybe I'll show my support for the good people of Newfane by spending some tourist dollars there this summer.

   Posted by seattlescribe at 03/08/2006 @ 12:46am

5. I've changed my mind....Impeach Bush.

   Seriously, it just may be THE best way to quiet the liberal base of the DNC and make the Party more libertarian and centrist once and for all, when it blows up in their faces....and the Party bosses turn around and look at the sheepish faces of people like the folks in San Fran, Newfane, and Mr Nichols when 2008, which could HAVE BEEN watershed, turns into a disaster!

   Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 06:36am

6. again, anything that can derail these evil incompetants - huzzah! encouraging impeachment is the patriotic duty of every american citizen.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/08/2006 @ 08:22am

7. The panel convened by John Conyers Jr ( in the basement as usual ) but carried by C-SPAN the other day complained bitterly about the lack of media coverage of the burgeoning impeachment movement which is one of the reasons why it has, so far, been successfully marginalized. As long as the story is "below the fold" in the media the movement will remain in the basement.

   So...maybe this sort of thing is just the "hook" the mainstream media needs in order to begin to get a handle on this story i.e. SMALL GROUPS OF AMERICAN PATRIOTS RALLY TO PROTEST THE TYRANNY OF GEORGE THE SECOND !

   On the other hand nothing much could come of a movement like that could it ?

   Posted by Merle Blanc at 03/08/2006 @ 08:58am

8. George Bush's impeachment is long overdue. Democrats in Congress are apparently too afraid of the political consequences in publicly denouncing an Administration that controls all three branches of government and which recognizes no moral boundaries in conducting political warfare. Unfortunately for this country, we have all suffered incredible damage to our economy by this ignorant, spendthrift Administration which rails religiously against "tax and spend" policies -- while instead enacting "spend and spend" policies. Singlehandely, in six short years, this reckless government has destroyed not only our economy, but America's reputation for truth, justice and fairness. It fails to demonstrate the most basic competence in running government, leaving thousands to die in the streets of New Orleans, Iraq, and Afganistan. It spies on, locks up and tortures people without even formally telling them what they are accused of. It fails to provide even the most rudimentary protections (such as the right to a hearing or lawyer) to ensure that the uncharged persons who are indefinitely incarcerated and tortured can challenge the "non-basis" of such incarceration and torture. Many of us even doubt our own ability to use the political process to correct these outrages (i.e. by going to the ballot box) after the Supreme Court chooses the President in a split decision, using novel theories that contradict existing decisions. Even the writers of the Court decision declare such decision has no precedential value. Why you might ask? Because the decision was not based upon relevant law; it was fabricated to obtain the desired result: Bush's election. Yesterday's election results in Texas with 62% of Repubs favoring an indicted Republican who has demonstrated the most heavy-handed, deceitful politics only confirm that the Republicans are either hopelessly corrupt or able to manipulate the data in voting machines (machined are owned by partisan Repubs who promise the elections to favored candidates) or both. Citizens who longs for days of old when fairness, justice and the rule of law were values recognized by this country's government are left to vote in these minor non-binding community resolutions. I say let's hope such grass roots action jump starts the remaining thinking persons in this country to action -- even if Karl Rove's paid cronies write nonesense on blogs such as this supporting Bush to try to discredit the validity of such citizen action. This country seems headed for a very dark, dark future if we do not impeach Bush and friends now. If a person who directs an airplane on a single day into a building killing thousands of people deserves the death penalty, what does a person -- this illegitimate leader -- deserve for spending six long years destroying the entire fabric, treasure and life of an entire proud nation? I say: a very long stay in a dark prison cell. We cannot wait to act. Impeachment now.

   Posted by KLG at 03/08/2006 @ 09:26am

9. George Bush's impeachment is long overdue. Democrats in Congress are apparently too afraid of the political consequences in publicly denouncing an Administration that controls all three branches of government and which recognizes no moral boundaries in conducting political warfare.

   Unfortunately for this country, we have all suffered incredible damage to our economy by this ignorant, spendthrift Administration which rails religiously against "tax and spend" policies -- while instead enacting "spend and spend" policies. Singlehandely, in six short years, this reckless government has destroyed not only our economy, but America's reputation for truth, justice and fairness.

   It fails to demonstrate the most basic competence in running government, leaving thousands to die in the streets of New Orleans, Iraq, and Afganistan. It spies on, locks up and tortures people without even formally telling them what they are accused of. It fails to provide even the most rudimentary protections (such as the right to a hearing or lawyer) to ensure that the uncharged persons who are indefinitely incarcerated and tortured can challenge the "non-basis" of such incarceration and torture.

   Many of us even doubt our own ability to use the political process to correct these outrages (i.e. by going to the ballot box) after the Supreme Court chooses the President in a split decision, using novel theories that contradict existing decisions. Even the writers of the Court decision declare such decision has no precedential value. Why you might ask? Because the decision was not based upon relevant law; it was fabricated to obtain the desired result: Bush's election.

   Yesterday's election results in Texas with 62% of Repubs favoring an indicted Republican who has demonstrated the most heavy-handed, deceitful politics only confirm that the Republicans are either hopelessly corrupt or able to manipulate the data in voting machines (machined are owned by partisan Repubs who promise the elections to favored candidates) or both.

   Citizens who longs for days of old when fairness, justice and the rule of law were values recognized by this country's government are left to vote in these minor non-binding community resolutions. I say let's hope such grass roots action jump starts the remaining thinking persons in this country to action -- even if Karl Rove's paid cronies write nonesense on blogs such as this supporting Bush to try to discredit the validity of such citizen action.

   This country seems headed for a very dark, dark future if we do not impeach Bush and friends now. If a person who directs an airplane on a single day into a building killing thousands of people deserves the death penalty, what does a person -- this illegitimate leader -- deserve for spending six long years destroying the entire fabric, treasure and life of an entire proud nation?

   I say: a very long stay in a dark prison cell. We cannot wait to act. Impeachment now.

   I am reposting to show how a little paragraphing can improve legibility and comprehension

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2006 @ 09:49am

10. Jr,

    You should be teaching in a school somewhere..Herr Lehrer?

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 10:36am

11. KLG,

    Where to start....

    Impeachment is long over due...You treat impeachment as if it were a parking ticket..you run this montra into the dirt. The truth is he has done nothing "impeachable". Just because you hate him, his policies and beliefs, does not make him the liar you are convicted that he is. Many are angry at him (myself included) but only the far left (kooks to talk radio jocs) demand this impeqachment ad naueseum.

    Dems have had control of all 3 branches for 30 years and no one demanded "fairness", impeachment, or the dangers of one party victories. Voters, when tired of this will change it. As they had in the 90's.

    Incredible damage to our economy....yes, by 9/11, Katrina and other natural forces along with an early recession BEFORE Bush entered the WH. The truth is the economy in in great shape considering the beating it has taken by events and we are still doing very well. In fact, better than every where else.

    I agree on the spend and spend problem. I would have cut spending along with taxes. Taking less from any tax payer is good as the tax payer earned it and should be allow to decide for him/herself as to who is better at utilizing it...especially when government takes 50% of the income generated. $2.6 trillion in taxes is enough.

    America is still the place for justice, truth and fairness as well as a better economic life than anywhere else...any place else have waiting lines to get in? Leaving thousands to die in NO....after 3 days of warning to get out? Better managed, sure, but there was no precident and it will get better...too many regulations so far as I can see in many areas that are hurting recovery and too many local politicians are imcompetent...still needs work.

    Iraq and Afgan are problems that are going to be with us for a long time. We have been at war with this part of the world for over 10 years. You are stuck on Iraq...Iran is next as the problem is going to get worse before it gets better...Torture and "non-basis" incarceration..do you mean beheadings and kidnappings? You speak as if this is all the US is doing....If you are terroist, my bet is no one cares about your incarceration...nor should they IMO

    Supreme Court picks president...enough already.

    62% favoring indicted candidate? Maybe they do not believe he was fairly indicted and feel the proscecuter is a bigger problem..That seems to be an issue down there as this guy has had charges of getting his political enemies with his office leveled at him by both partys before.

    The point I am making with my long worn out list is that we have all read your worn out list and have it has become a drum beat that is ignored by everyone to the right of you, which is the majority of America by any measure....the reason Bush does not face impeachment is that he has not commited anything to impeach him, as even the Democrats do not believe.

    You are simply frustrated that your views are not main stream..and you cling to polls as evidence you are correct and are somehow being cheated. Bush will leave office and another GOP will enter, and then you will have to start your impeachment pleas all over again. When GOP holds Congress again, can you impeach the whole place?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/08/2006 @ 10:19am | ignore this person

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 10:38am

12. JR, "reposting to show how a little paragraphing can improve legibility and comprehension "

    Try this with my post...and don't say you can't because of my positions!

    :)

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 10:39am

13. No, no MAASCH.....like I said, I'm in favor of impeachment now.

    Seriously, I think that after deficits, corruption, domestic policy problems, foreign policy problems, etc., that the Democrats in their ONE SHOT at showing how they can govern....should foreswear even TRYING to accomplish anything on health care, education, taxes, the environment....and "go after" a lame-duck President as the GOP did in 1998-1999...and with the same subsequent legislative "success".

    And then when 2008 rolls around, and they have shown that all they cared about was appeasing their fringe, whose personal loathing of one (or two, if you throw in Cheney) man....than working on the problems of the other 90% of America.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 11:06am

14. Maasch:

    B.S. If Clinton had done what many think Bush has, Republicans would have been screaming for impeachment ...

    no wait a minute ... Reps did do that, based on land deals, a sexual harrassment lawsuit, and alleged perjury in that suit. But of course that was about the rule of law, not that conservatives hated Clinton or anything. Your side set the table, Maasch.

    But, you personally thought the Clinton impeachment was wrong, right? Funny how so many conservatives make that claim NOW.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2006 @ 11:15am

15. Actually, I thought the impeachment was pointless and a waste of time, as he was lame duck. I also believed Clinton would have sunk himself if left to his own devices or vices...and his wife would have done the same...My fear the impeachment rule will be invoked everytime one side losses election and grandstands in the media...

    a weakened president by domestic politics is more dangerous than a slightly incorrigable president dealing with forgien problems of today.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 11:19am

16. Clinton lied on tape and sealed his own fate,,,should have folowed Nixons failed advise and burn the tapes. or take a Hillary..."I don't recall". Every man would have given him a pass...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 11:20am

17. At least four other Vermont towns, spurred by publicity about Newfane's resolution, endorsed similar resolutions during Tuesday's meetings: Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney.

    http://tinyurl.com/fxegr

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/08/2006 @ 11:32am

18. Mask

    You must have a monomaniastic mind, lets throw a what if into your reasoning what if the Dems start stirring the pot on all of the issues impeachment, taxes, election jurymandering, Iraq, Halliburton, education, etc, what you get is the light of day on all of these failures of this administration and the GOP.

    If you can visulize the after affects the public outrage at the last 5yrs of Repubs manipulations will in fact create the leverage for the Dems that the 2006 and the 2008 elections will be very interesting is a given.

    The calls for impeachment are just the start as the abuses of those in power, as they are put under the light reality takes over.

    Posted by dycel8r at 03/08/2006 @ 11:35am

19. Ok, so I am confused. You can have a judge that lets a rapist off with only a three month sentence after destroying a little girl's life, but the one person that has been working his ass of to keep our country from being attacked again is the one you want to impeach. I think I am very glad I do not live in Vermont.

    Posted by Lacee at 03/08/2006 @ 11:41am

20. Seriously, I think that after deficits, corruption, domestic policy problems, foreign policy problems, etc., that the Democrats in their ONE SHOT at showing how they can govern....should foreswear even TRYING to accomplish anything on health care, education, taxes, the environment....and "go after" a lame-duck President as the GOP did in 1998-1999...and with the same subsequent legislative "success".

    And then when 2008 rolls around, and they have shown that all they cared about was appeasing their fringe, whose personal loathing of one (or two, if you throw in Cheney) man....than working on the problems of the other 90% of America.

    Posted by MASK 03/08/2006 @ 11:06am

    First, your assertion that the Democrats are ignoring "health care, education, taxes, the environment" to "go after a lame-duck President" is inaccurate.

    Also, comparing the public's attitude to Clinton with it's attitude to Bush is a little disingenuous when Clinton's approval ratings were as high as 68-70% and Bush's are down in the 30% area. The only people Bush still has on his side are the "conservatives" who would turn out to be nazis if you scratch their skin.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/08/2006 @ 11:42am

21. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/08/2006 @ 11:19am

    See, it's AMAZING how many conservatives now say the same thing.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2006 @ 11:47am

22. Ok, so I am confused. You can have a judge that lets a rapist off with only a three month sentence after destroying a little girl's life, but the one person that has been working his ass of to keep our country from being attacked again is the one you want to impeach. I think I am very glad I do not live in Vermont.

    Posted by LACEE 03/08/2006 @ 11:41am

    Is that a thought process at work or what? What does a particular criminal case in a particular court have to do with the townhall resolutions of five Vermont towns? Are all the resolutions of every public forum invalidated by the criminal activity in that forum's associated state borders?

    Jeezus. Talk about wasting a brain. There are probably a hell of a lot of people who are glad you don't live in Vermont.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/08/2006 @ 11:49am

23. MASK, there are many more people upset over Bush's multi-year murder rampage than were upset over Clinton's extramarital behavior.

    Just a message from earth.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/08/2006 @ 11:55am

24. Posted by fromredbird at 03/08/2006 @ 11:55am

25. LACEE:

    You sound like you are reguritating some lame talking point from another post you saw somewhere else. DO you think Vermoters were HAPPY with the judge in that case? Well they were not. The judge took a lot of heat. He then reinstituted a stiffer sentence.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2006 @ 11:58am

26. "You should be teaching in a school somewhere..Herr Lehrer?"

    which is more than can be said about you.

    any place else have waiting lines to get in?

    this is just not true. they are swimming across the moroccan straight to get into Europe.

    we are doing better on credit. the kind of goosing they have done with HUGE deficit spending, the economy should be doing a lot better. I'm surprised anyone is still paying attention to you, with your tired refrain "everything is just peachy" I know you need that soft lullaby to sleep at night. you too will wake up. I'm not sure what it will take.

    and tell me more about the people that died like rats in nursing home because they chose not to evacuate, which they were incapable of. talk about blaming the victim.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2006 @ 12:07pm

27. Posted by DYCEL8R 03/08/2006 @ 11:35am | ignore this person

    EXACTLY, DYCEL....shouldn't take more than 10-12 hearings and 12-15 months to expose all those crimes.

    And...as they wrap up in Spring 2008, and the Democrats have shown what scumbags the Bush Administration is....and the guy, working two jobs to meet ends, who has no health care, and whose kids are in a crumbling school, will say "WOW!...That Bush sure was a creep and a criminal....and he's gone in 5 months....now, what ELSE have you guys (the Dems) been doing for the last 18 months?"

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 12:12pm

28. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 03/08/2006 @ 11:55am | ignore this person

    and the "proof" of that is......one loaded Zogby poll and a trip around the Blogosphere.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 12:14pm

29. JR,

    "and tell me more about the people that died like rats in nursing home because they chose not to evacuate, which they were incapable of. talk about blaming the victim.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/08/2006 @ 12:07am | ignore this person "

    They were abandoned by the people they had relied on and paid to care for them..the ncare givers where they lived. I lay the blame at the feet of the nursing home owners/mamagers.

    NOT THE GOVERNMENT. This is not Bush fault. The local officials and their evacd plan(?) should have been first line of defence. A picture of flooded school buses comes to mind a few miles away.

    I have no time to teach and am unqualified as I am sure you will agree.I also forgot about the Morroco situation into Europe.

    Do you think if another hurricane bears down on the same area in the same manner that we will see 25 year mothers with 4 kids sitting on roof tops or do you think they will exercise their God given instincts of survival and walk, maybe 3 miles to the high ground this time? I am just saying I am tired of all the excuse making that goes on here,.. for once examine self preservation instincts and take Some , not much, but some personal responsibility for ones own life.

    As far as econom y and credit, I agree and hate all the spending. I would cut spending like an accountant, but the libs would be screaming draconian cuts and make demands......it would go nowhere and you know it, or we can continue spending and tax the shit out of everyone working until they break, say %80 tax rates and will we be in better shape?

    Will you sit in NY if you are warned 3 days in advance that your block will not hold in the face of the comming storms? Or will you get out in any way you can...? And if you are unable, would you demand help from the city of NY? or sit there...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 12:28pm

30. they thought the federales were going to come and rescue them, as they had done in previous disasters. see Florida. you're blaming the victim, and Bush is as pure as the driven snow.

    as for spending, the military budget has doubled under Bush. that's your money too, but your ideological blinders prevent you from seeing

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2006 @ 12:32pm

31. when they give tax breaks on investment income, the working people have to make up the difference, that's you sweetie.you talk the talk but you do not walk the walk

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2006 @ 12:33pm

32. Cut spending, as you and I would in our own budgets...accross the board.

    And Florida still has not recoverd, I was there last week....it takes time and local efforts, not just US dropping in with a boat full of dollars.. " they thought the federales were going to come and rescue them,

    "

    This makes my point...they can't and won't come..they can only send cards and dollars...

    Thats us, sweetie...

    Investment is one tool in building wealth...building wealth is the key, not spending it..that helps all...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 12:39pm

33. Everyone has got to remember there's a lot of push back on BC BS regime not just from the left, but also from the 'intelligent' right, as he's neither a conservative nor a liberal. What is that other thing? I know it has something to do with having a dictatorial style..., and liking other countries that don't have a democratic form of government, especially with something to do with importing our safety, while fighting for others liberty and democracy while losing ours at home-- have right on the tip of my tongue, what is that called again?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR200603 0701403_pf.html

    At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic

    By Dana Milbank Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A02

    If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.

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

    Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 12:44pm

34. Bushfools,

    I read this earlier and it makes the point that most of us on the right do not consider Bush a conservative and we are not Bush worshippers like we are accused here..at the same time we are no where near the position most here are, that the answer is to the left...if anything we want furthewr right in economics and military and a little to the left socially...and no blank checks, no borrowing and no credit cards..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 12:52pm

35. Who is this person working his ass off to prevent our country from attack? Is this the same person who hires cronies to do the jobs that qualified people should be doing? Or is this the same person who approves outsiders to work at our ports for a measly 1 million dollars? And to top it all off, the outsiders are from the same country that some of the 9/11 terrorists hail from. The rest hail from Saudi Arabia. But we don't care they are our good friends. Boy, I wish I had a million dollars to contribute to a library fund, maybe bush will appoint me Secretary of Education. Ah, one can only dream.....

    Posted by k330k at 03/08/2006 @ 12:55pm

36. WHY can't we start doing this across the country? If the dems are spineless and the GOP is placating BushCo, why can't we organize similar town meetings all over the country to draft these resolutions? Even if there isn't any authority behind it, the weight of hundreds of these calls for impeachment would have its own momentum. What would it take? We can have the power if we take the power and not abdicate to politicians.

    Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 1:00pm

37. I posted this below a few days ago, but if Florida isn't 100% at 3.3% unemployment and having a higher wage than most other states, are we saying Florida should be at 2.0% unemployment (if that's even possible) and have an even higher hourly wage? And why are all the other states so messed up in comparision to Florida?

    "So if both Florida and Ohio are repub controlled, but Ohio has no minimum wage, unemployment at 5.9 and Florida has a higher minimum wage than the fed's, but has an unemployment rate at 3.3-- what is it that Florida is doing that Ohio isn't and should be; just short of cloning Jeb of course?

    Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/04/2006 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 1:01pm

38. my bad, the rest of the 9/11 terrorists did not all hail from Saudi Arabia ( remember Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia as well), 1 was from Yemen and 1 was from Turkey( I think).Any way, while think impeachment isn't a bad thing, it will serve noone any good. He is a lame-duck president (in every sense of the word). What good will it do?

    Posted by k330k at 03/08/2006 @ 1:02pm

39. Fin, you wait and see, it starts as a trickle, but ends as a flood. I believe here in NYC the city council is considering a similar move.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2006 @ 1:04pm

40. Basically, the issue is that the corporate controlled media are not interested in impeachment.....if they were there would be a couple more polls done on the subject. So we've got these almost silly localized things going on to try to convince somebody in the media to do a poll about how much the country wants this criminal president to pay for his crimes.

    I go abroad all the time and a lot of people ask....."why hasn't that Bush been impeached yet?" It's a topic of conversation in other countries because they get real news and we get "sanitized for our own health" news. You might have seen about 300 of my posts railing on the pathetic USA media in the past!

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/08/2006 @ 1:15pm

41. Whenever arguments focusing on Bush being a lame duck justifying no point to impeaching him--I see no logical sense to them. If you have a cancer and wait for it to metastasize, your goose is cooked, get a fork. Our nation is not completely destroyed – yet. What if we had gotten Bush out 6 months ago, we at least have an opportunity to start fixing everything. The longer the W (witless) is in office-- the longer we're out of competent leadership--and the harder it will be to recover---what's so hard to understand? Impeach ASAP.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 1:25pm

42. What if we had gotten Bush out 6 months ago, we at least have an opportunity to start fixing everything.

    Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/08/2006 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person

    Uh BF....if the President is removed from office, the Vice-President takes over his duties and then appoints a new Veep, confirmed by the US House.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 1:51pm

43. Maasch:

    Yeah, all of those old ladies down in NO should have somehow wheeled themselves out of town ... or called one the 67 members of the NO police force who decided to show up for work that day ... it was stupid for them to even think that an organization like FEMA or the Dept. of Homeland Security actually has a role in something like assistance during a natural disaster - I mean they all saw the news footage of how FEMA did NOTHING during the 2004 hurricanes in Fla. or in disasters during the 90's, and it was to each his own, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2006 @ 2:09pm

44. Hman,

    No...the owners of the nursing homes are responsible and must be held accountable, as they had 3-4 dyas warning...

    Don't over react to what I am saying and miss the point entirely. The Fema and Gov agencys needs to help, but locals must do what they can and so should those that are able...in this cae everyone sat around and wait to be served as if in some sort of restaurant..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 2:13pm

45. I could be off, but I thought 90% of NO evacuated.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2006 @ 2:15pm

46. I will ask my friends who live there.. I will be there next week. Should be interesting.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 2:21pm

47. Uh BF....if the President is removed from office, the Vice-President takes over his duties and then appoints a new Veep, confirmed by the US House.

    Posted by MASK 03/08/2006 @ 1:51pm

    My bad, I should've included the vp. I have to go back and look at a couple of proposals for impeachment, but I do believe that they're directed at impeaching both the pres and vp. And again I know that the congress is still repub ruled and some other repub would succeed, but perhaps enough a stink would come out with an empeachment that a make-up period would issue. Perhaps I'm being tooo optomistic about the results of getting the BC BS regime out, but I think it's better than leaving the lumps of cancerous mass alone, I think we definitely need tp cut it out.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 2:26pm

48. ensue, not issue...

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 2:30pm

49. Here's the Harper's Mag Panel on the case for Bush Impeachment link:

    http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&Basi cQueryText=Impeachment&image1.x=30&image1.y=7&image1=Submit

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 2:47pm

50. KLG----I sure wish Karl would hurry up and send me my check for posting on this site. I need to pay my country club dues and the mortgage on my vacation home in Palm Springs.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 03/08/2006 @ 2:54pm

51. Len,

    Since you still blindly vote and support criminals and morally bankrupt con artists, and therefore not too quick on the uptake I'm sure you'll believe me when I tell you that "the check is in the mail"

    Love, Karl Rove

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/08/2006 @ 3:11pm

52. RE: Impeaching Bush

    Yeah, I hear the argument about him being a lame duck, BUT, he might still be appointing another Justice, which doesn't make him so lame. And although impeaching him would deliver Darth Vader Cheney to the post, the message from the people would be that the executive CAN ACTUALLY GO TOO FAR. That's a critical message to these guys that think they can get away with whatever they want. It would be a clear and sober message to them and the world about our ability to control our so-called leadership. And it would also yank any remaining ideas that the administration might be entertaining about doing anything else before '08. Might even force the congressional GOP to work with the dems a bit.

    Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 3:20pm

53. Bravo Newfane!!!! I wish he would be impeached for lying to the country about Iraq! Look at how many of our sons have been killed because of Bush!!! We didn't need to go to war!! That alone should be enough to impeach him! He's a Murderer!! He needs to put in jail and charged with Murder!

    Posted by Madison at 03/08/2006 @ 3:26pm

54. Madison,

    "Bravo Newfane!!!! I wish he would be impeached for lying to the country about Iraq! Look at how many of our sons have been killed because of Bush!!! We didn't need to go to war!! That alone should be enough to impeach him! He's a Murderer!! He needs to put in jail and charged with Murder!"

    blah...blah...blah...blah...blah...

    As I'm reading your post, I'm envisioning the sound that the teacher makes on the Charlie Brown cartoons.

    So many far left whacko's like yourself all sound the same, and say the same crap.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/08/2006 @ 3:31pm

55. Freedom, re: your comment on the media and polls. True, "major media" is no longer up to carrying the 4th estate banner. Corporate media follows the dollar. However, once corp. media sees enough Americans involved with these town meetings to impeach, they'll jump on the story because that's where the viewship and the dollars will be. We can't afford to wait for them to report news--we have to MAKE the news. It's all about us. But politicians are banking, literally, on our lack of organization and attention span to get away with this crap.

    Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 3:34pm

56. Finnaddict, you've got a point about judicial appointments. So, we kick out the minion(Bush) so his master(Cheney) can take over. And if Cheney goes too(I pray), who fills his spot, Hastert? I'd like to see impeachment proceedings just to watch the fallout. Atleast it would be better than impeaching someone for lying about getting a little head. Men and women do that every day. Fortunately for them they don't have to testify before a grand jury about it. I don't know, which is more important, lying about oral sex...lying about reasons for war, lying about oral sex...lying about reasons for war. Hmmm, decisions, decisions.

    Posted by k330k at 03/08/2006 @ 3:42pm

57. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/08/2006 @ 2:47pm | ignore this person

    Uh, is that the same Harper's that "The Nation" writer just noted had published a piece by a noted AIDS/HIV Denier?

    On topic---the other thing you're being too "ooptimistic" about is....that the "simultaneous" impeachment of the President and Vice-President...would raise CONSTITIONAL questions.

    First and foremost, IS it Constitutional, since it would violate the Presidential Succession Act's "intent" to allow for "orderly succession of power in the Presidency".

    So...who would decide that?.......Ding! If you guessed the JOHN ROBERTS, SAM ALITO, SCALIA, THOMAS, likely Souter & Kennedy, maybe even Breyer and Ginsberg Supreme Court. Now, guess how they'd rule?

    So....again...you get rid of Bush. Cheney becomes Veep. The "trial" (because Bush CERTAINLY isn't going to resign, no matter HOW low his polls numbers get....Why show loyalty to the GOP a la Nixon, if you have the Clinton impeachment as a "guide") would take all of 2007 AND into 2008...

    and then, you'd have US Senators deciding on whether it would be politically advantageous for them to perform the FIRST impeachment of a President in 150 years....six months before they run for re-election.

    "Would help them?"....Who?...the Republicans?...nope. The Democrats?....not likely either, as now they've shown that they could NOT defeat Bush in 2004 on the issues, so they used "legalities".

    The Dem Presidential nominees?....nope. Hillary has to "walk back" all her claims about Bill's impeachment as "political", to howls of laughter at such hypocrisy, as do many other Democrats. Gore or Kerry?....and show that the ONLY way they could win was by impeachment, not on the issues or their personality? Russ Feingold?....and have to explain why he supported John Roberts, the "judge" of the Senate trial, who will likely call to question it's validity?

    All that being said.....go for it!....seriously.

    Either two things happen....1. It happens, and will prove DISASTEROUS for Democrats as they get swept up in the same ridiculous "President-hatred" that the Republicans did in 1998-1999....but without the "cushion" of a 15 seat margin in the House.

    or 2. It doesn't happen....and it shows that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest are a LOT smarter than they seem, and realize that this is a "base issue", not a "national" one. And that, as usual, they can SAFELY ignore the base, try to govern, even WORK with Bush on compromises, and come off smelling like roses.....

    instead of the stuff you use to fertilize roses.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 3:43pm

58. K330K--Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw that said, "Will somebody give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?" Too true; too sad.

    These online petitions that MoveOn etc etc do are good grass-roots to a point, but they've run their course for the most part. Essentially, "town meetings" to draft a resolution to impeach is the next step in the evolution of this grass-roots process (or the intelligent design of the process for those leaning that way ;-)

    Seriously, what would prevent people around the country from doing this? I could see a backlash from the righties having their own type of meetings to support the president or to attack our impeachment meetings, but so what??? All noise is good noise in this fight. The more talk we generate the sooner it gets national attention and becomes a real talking point. People like me who've thought it impossible to impeach this joker will suddenly see the wagon rolling and jump on.

    I'd be interested in anyone's input on how this could be organized...all ideas open for discussion!

    Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 3:52pm

59. HMAN

    well done - we have established a beachhead

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/08/2006 @ 3:55pm

60. Mask,

    I told you yesterday we'd take this argument for several more rounds. You're right about it all only so long as the public view it in the way that the public viewed the Clinton thing.

    But if the corporate controlled media would do something radical.....like run a poll asking what people think about impeaching......we just might find that it would be political suicide to NOT do the public's bidding.

    And if someone in our bullshit sanitized Administration ass kissing media actually does their job and runs a poll and finds that it's not only a winner, but a MUST (with the NATIONAL ELECTORATE), then I'll have to say that we should take their word for it not yours!

    Try to remember, we are talking about high crimes and misdemeanors this time not some cum stained dress. I think the American electorate knows the difference even if you don't!

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/08/2006 @ 3:55pm

61. First and foremost, IS it Constitutional, since it would violate the Presidential Succession Act's "intent" to allow for "orderly succession of power in the Presidency".

    Posted by MASK 03/08/2006 @ 3:43pm

    Duh, like what if both were to die in a plane wreck or their rapture to hell? We all suck on our thumbs at either end with thought bubbles thinking--- BUT THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THIS CAN"T BE HAPPENING! Suck, suck, suck...

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 3:58pm

62. Mask,

    When will you stop bullshitting and realize that a potential bush impeachment, would have nothing in common with a clinton impeachment, except in name alone.

    If the American public is too stupid to tell the difference, then we are screwed anyway. What good are the dems. if they cannot even stand up to tyranny?

    I no longer believe anything you say, about being a social liberal. You think politics is only a game, principle is meaningless. In the past few months of reading your posts, you have NEVER had an opinion that the left should do ANYTHING about bushco. You are entirely disingenous in your preaching restraint to the left.

    When would it officially be bad enough for you to stand up for America? Thank god you are not in charge. Not because of your ideas, but because of your lack of positive ideas. "Just sit there and take it, cause you might look bad if you don't."... ignoring the fact that the left IS meaningless in it's current, flat on it's back, position.

    How about a temporary refrain from posting, until you come up with 'advice' to the left, that doesn't sound like appeasment. The right likes to invoke images of a submissive europe before WWII. What will history say about the left, right now?

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/08/2006 @ 3:58pm

63. Mask--Sometimes people can be pragmatic to a fault. First of all, we'd be impeaching Bush for "legalities," yes--that's the point. Knowingly skirting Constitutional law is a legal issue and is the highest crime an executive can commit. (Forget the double impeachment stuff--you only need to get one of them and he's the one responsible.)

    Second, it's only a "base" issue until it's not. You know as well as I that if you get momentum and critical mass on your side, suddenly it crosses boundries and voila, national issue. The dem politicians are playing it cool bacause they don't see the momentum. Show them Big M, and suddenly you'll see them talking differently--they know where their bread's buttered. Even if they didn't take up the fight, putting them in the position of calling for calm and cooperation gives them the high ground they need. They can come off as the "cooler heads" who are holding back their consitituency. All of this gives them the leverage to work on issues, as you say you want them to do.

    "Nothing will ever be attained if all possible objections must first be overcome." --John Mason

    Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 4:06pm

64. K330K--Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw that said, "Will somebody give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?" Too true; too sad.

    Posted by THE FINADDICT 03/08/2006 @ 3:52pm

    Ok, but what if it's not a smoking dress but a smoking suit ala Brokeback! Don't suppose there's any way to get a dem laundry person in there with a lab kit?

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 4:18pm

65. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/08/2006 @ 3:55pm

    I am glad you suggested it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2006 @ 4:23pm

66. All this talk about the POLITICAL ramifications is beside the point. Shouldn't we put the president to a standard of conduct so that all that follow would realize that their feet may get held to the fire? What is so wrong with that? Most of what I hear from some is, "it's too disruptive, nothing will get done, he won't be impeached and Dems will look bad."

    I am not talking about impeachment because you don't like economic positions on taxes or social spending. People have died as a result of this shameful war and it is altering the course of our entire nation for generations to come.

    Impeachment could obviously act as a deterrent. If Bush had known this in advance, maybe he would have said to the public, "You know there are varying conclusions from the intelligence community regarding the threat Iraq poses, and obviously we cannot know for sure what Hussein has, or what he intends, but here is why I think the U.S. needs to invade." Then an informed public consensus and Congress could have either been for it or against it. Instead we were flooded with a bunch of exaggerations and outright falsehoods, and then cover-ups and manipulations of the reasons we are there.

    If the serious nature of these allegations do not even warrant an inquiry, then I am not sure what would qualify in some people's minds.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2006 @ 4:35pm

67. My God!!!! IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!!! NOW!!!! NOW!!!!

    Cannot the rest of the country SEE what is happening!!!!

    Tyranney and lawlessness reign supreme!! There is no rule of LAW!!

    None whatsoever, and to those who cannot not see this abomination of an adminstration for what it is, then you are truly blind and thusly have NO RIGHT to be counted!!! For if you believe in this head in the sand manner then you are just as dangerous as the outlaw Bush regime!!!!! Hamsters!!, Kool-Aid drinkers!!, Red State simpletons!!!, and Evil minded facists REPUBLICANS!!!

    You have betrayed the FOUNDERS INTENT!!! The first duty of a citizen is to SHOUT out with the all sinew of your strength, to alert the rest of the country who are obviously in a state of mass delsuion, unable to speak out, so we MUST do it. It is our solemn DUTY!!!!

    George W. Bush has LIED us into a WAR for the SOLE purpose of enrich his oil buddies!!! If you do not agree, then you are a stupid apologist.

    George W. Bush has personally authorized the torture of innocent people for the SOLE purpose of humiliating Muslims, obviously a result of his ultra-Christianity.

    George W. Bush has egregiously violated the law for the sole purpose of Imperial Presidential Hubrius. The Scoundrel!!! We must not let this stand.

    George W. Bush is personally responsible for the deaths of 2600 American servicemen. And the deaths of at least 100,000 civilians!!

    Bush didnt make his money as a NOBLE artists, who strive to push the envelope so that we may obliterate all distinctions and categories of labels and traditions, but rather as a suit, the man, he made his money in OIL, which RAPES our own planet!!!!!!!!

    How can anyone defend such a man. IMPEACH NOW!! for the sake of the people, change the system of govt so that the poor and disillusioned are NOT forgotten and have a TRUE voice!!!

    We must establish Dictatorship of the Poor classes to ensure their RIGHTS are preminent.

    PS Just Kidding, you see how irrational you guys sound. God Bless Bush.

    Leadership sometimes means pissing people off!!!

    Posted by CPT at 03/08/2006 @ 4:36pm

68. MALCONTENT

    Appeasement to the left is not advice, it is policy!

    Posted by CPT at 03/08/2006 @ 4:38pm

69. PS Just Kidding, you see how irrational you guys sound. God Bless Bush.

    Leadership sometimes means pissing people off!!!

    Posted by CPT 03/08/2006 @ 4:36pm

    Well Cpt, since they were your words and not ours

    Thanks for the window into your mind

    Posted by Will C. at 03/08/2006 @ 4:43pm

70. "You know there are varying conclusions from the intelligence community regarding the threat Iraq poses, and obviously we cannot know for sure what Hussein has, or what he intends, but here is why I think the U.S. needs to invade."

    that's funny, really. you and I know that there was no need to do much of anything about Iraq and Saddam. Bush saw his opportunity post nineleven, and he took it. he has admitted as much himself

    I don't know about impeachment, but I know we have a rhetorical winner here, so we need to shout from the rooftops:" impeach the mofu"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2006 @ 4:45pm

71. Anyone have any experience organizing local meetings? I've been to a few local dems meetings but really no clue how this could be done.

    Also, here's an impeachment poll for ya: http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

    And I just found this (pardon my ignorance if you're already all over this): http://impeachpac.org/?q=wsj-impeachpac Feels to me like this is a movement waiting to happen. Needs a little catalyst of some sort.

    "Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people." --George B. Shaw

    (I read "progress" as "change")

    --The King of Unreason

    Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 4:46pm

72. Again, guys.....go for it.

    I'm tired too....tired of trying to talk sense to people who want blood and want it now and damn the consequences.

    So, impeach the bum....hold "Speaker" Nancy Pelosi's feet to the fire starting Thanksgiving and don't let up until she appoints 4-5 hearings in House Judiciary....put the "purest of the pure" progressive in charge of it (obviously John Conyers)....pull every witness you need, from Cindy Sheehan to numerous human rights/environmentalist/trans-gender activists to Ray Nagin's barber....and demand a vote on bills of impeachment by Spring 2007.

    And Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. will sit quietly in a corner and let you do it, with no fuss, maybe not cheering the Democrats, but CERTAINLY not painting them as "out of the mainstream extremists looking to over-turn an election they couldn't win on the issues".....and the public will turn against Bush, demand his resignation in every poll from Rasmussen to Gallup....and Bush, in a moment of honor and dignity will step down, telling Cheney to do the same; both get frog-marched to Leavenworth to serve out their life sentences; and Speaker Nancy becomes the first female President of the United States.

    and a 1000 year rule of progressivism begins.

    There....everybody FEEL better now?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 4:47pm

73. I'm tired too....tired of trying to talk sense to people who want blood and want it now and damn the consequences.

    Posted by MASK 03/08/2006 @ 4:47pm

    Did you just sum up the liberal position prior the the Iraq invasion or what?

    And it was nice knowing you Mask. Unless your frustration and fatigue doesn't somehow translate into leaving.

    Posted by Will C. at 03/08/2006 @ 4:54pm

74. just think of all the pain we could have prevented to half the country had their wits about them way back then

    Posted by Will C. at 03/08/2006 @ 4:55pm

75. correction... if half the country

    Posted by Will C. at 03/08/2006 @ 4:55pm

76. Tired Mask--I'm new to this gig but by judging your comments you're right: don't forget you sunscreen and water wings, amigo.

    I'm looking to this site for constructive comment and action.

    Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 5:08pm

77. Since this topic keeps coming up, I thought I would re-post this from several days ago.

    We have recovered several tapes containing hundreds of hours of conversations between Saddam and his top advisors between 1990-2000. Of those, only 12 hours have been translated to date. Findings were presented by Bill Tierney, former UNSCOM employee. One tape made in 2000 reveals two scientists briefing Hussein on their progress in enriching uranium using plasma separation. (This process also got a brief mention in the 2004 final report of CIA arms inspector Duefler, but only as a program supposedly abandoned in the 1980s)

    One exchange in 1995 between Hussein Kamil al-Majid (Saddam's son-in-law) and Saddam discussed concealing weapons from inspectors. He stated "We did not reveal all that we have. They didn't know the extent of our work on missiles." When discussing the info turned over to the UN, al-Majid states "Not the types of weapons, not the volume of materials we imported, not the volume of production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They didn't know any of this."

    (What happened to them, you may be asking. Well,)

    Both Israeli and US intelligence observed large truck convoys leaving Iraq and entering Syria in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    John Shaw, former deputy of undersecretary of defense for International technology security, stated that former Russian intelligence boss Yevgeny Primakov went to Iraq in December 2002 to supervise the WMD transfers into Syria.

    Georges Sada (Saddam's No. 2 Air Force Officer) tells of two Boeing jets converted to cargo planes and moved WMDs to Syria during 56 flights six weeks before the war. The flights were disguised as part of a relief effort after a Syrian dam collapse in 2002.

    Sada's claim is confirmed by Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, former commander of Fedayeen militia, at Worldthreats.com who says this was all part of Saddam's plan. "What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying,'we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMDs.' This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted."

    In fact, according to the Duefler Report, inspectors did find WMDs (53 to be exact). The report concluded that "we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions are lifted."

    David Kay's report agrees: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN during inspections that began in late 2002."

    Posted by USC1 02/25/2006 @ 2:25pm

    In addition...

    Posted by usc1 at 03/08/2006 @ 5:17pm

78. Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs

    Former chief U.S. inspector faults intelligence agencies

    Monday, January 26, 2004 Posted: 10:55 AM EST (1555 GMT)

    (CNN) -- Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 5:28pm

79. Another reason to impeach-- almost a year and a half ago:

    100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study

    Sarah Boseley, health editor Friday October 29, 2004 The Guardian

    About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 5:32pm

80. I am for impeaching him. He thinks he can just disregard our laws without ever having to answer to the people.

    Posted by punkyjo at 03/08/2006 @ 5:44pm

81. On Jan 25, 2004, Nizar Nayouf, a Syrian journalist who has since defected to France, told the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that chemical and biological weapons were smuggled into Syria when US invasion became imminent. He listed three sites where they were kept. One was a tunnel under the town of al-Baida which was originally built for producing a Syrian version of the Scud missile. The others were Tal Snan, a town adjacent to an air base, and in Sjinsjar (on the Syria-Lebanon border).

    The claims of movement were in effect confirmed when Air Force LT. Gen. james Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, briefed reporters on Oct. 20, 2003. He said that satellite imagery show a heavy flow of traffic into Syria just before the invasion.

    Charles Duelfer tetstified at a Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct 6,2004 that "a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria."

    David Kay also noted that he uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He told The Telegraph "Precisely what went to Syria, and what happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

    One possible destination... In April 2004, the country of Jordan foiled a plot that involved 5 vehicles carrying 20 tons of chemical weapons laced with conventional explosives. The vehicles were 75 miles inside the border and were coming from Syria.

    Regarding the "aid" of Russian...

    Russian special forces (Spetsnaz) aided the moves. According to David Dastych of Canada Free Press, the operation was overseen by 2 ex-Soviet generals, Vladislav Achalov and Igor Maltsev, who were operating under the guise of "civilian consultants." Satellite photos taken in early 2003 show these two men receiving "awards" from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Akhmed.

    According to former Romanian spy chief, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the Soviet Union had at one time an operating procedure for hiding WMDs in Soviet client states. This plan was originally designed for Libya, but implemented in Iraq.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/08/2006 @ 5:45pm

82. Casualties in Iraq

    The Human Cost of Occupation

    Edited by Michael Ewens :: Contact

    American Military Casualties in Iraq

    _________________Date _____________________________Total______In Combat

    American Deaths

    Since war began (3/19/03):___________________________2302__________1846

    Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)___________2165__________1747

    Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):___________________1835__________1540

    Since Handover (6/29/04):____________________________1436__________1212

    Since Election (1/31/05):_______________________________866___________734

    American Wounded_________________________________Official________Estimated

    Total Wounded:____________________________________16742_____15000 - 48100

    Latest Fatality March 5th, 2006

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 5:46pm

83. Posted by USC1 03/08/2006 @ 5:45pm

    You know, most of the posters that want to talk conspiracy back up what they are saying by sourcing websites. You can say whatever you want but if you can't back it up...

    (seven years of post grad work should have taught you about sourcing)

    Posted by Will C. at 03/08/2006 @ 5:55pm

84. Who's Counting: Flu Deaths, Iraqi Dead Numbers Skewed

    John Allen Paulos

    January 1, 2006

    These last 15 months have considerably raised the American death toll, the IBC numbers, and any update that may be in the works for the Lancet's staggering 100,000 figure. In fact, if the Lancet estimates rose at a rate proportional to the IBC's numbers since October 2004 -- from about 17,000 then to about 30,000 -- the updated figure would be approximately 175,000 Iraqis dead since the war began.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 5:58pm

85. Sorry, website addresses for the last two posts:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=1432589

    http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 6:02pm

86. See, it's all coming together. Now be good boys and girls and enjoy your hallucinations.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2006 @ 6:03pm

    Downloads porn, does acid...

    Liberty, why did you hide this side of you for so long?

    Posted by Will C. at 03/08/2006 @ 6:07pm

87. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2006 @ 6:03pm

    Hey, hallucinate this..... Did you see it? Ha.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 6:10pm

88. The Wheels are coming off the Democratic Party.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2006 @ 6:16pm

    Good... they needed some new tires

    Posted by Will C. at 03/08/2006 @ 6:18pm

89. USC--I saw this article on a rightie fringe site, didn't I (World Net Daily or some freaky thing like that)? Are you its author? I would think that the apologists and Bushdividians would be barking all over the place about these "facts" to counter the PR mess they're in. Whereas the facts of BushCo's manipulation of intelligence and cherry picking has been established, these facts re: Syria have not. I'd think that BushCo would be waving this as proof (even though it wouldn't contradict Downing St., etc., it wouuld only prove that BushCo was right and they didn't even know it when they lied to the public). I also wonder why, if we know about these locations, we haven't exposed them. Seems it would take back some of that "political cap'tal" that BushCo so dearly needs. Surely the mighty brains behind the invasion could figure out a way to shine a light on these hidden WMDs.

    At any rate, this article right now is speculation that flies in the face of more substantial evidence to the contrary. Although, a lot of "lefty" assertions started this way and I'm willing to see if this leads anywhere.

    Of course, none of this has any bearing on BushCo circumventing Constitutional law.

    Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 6:29pm

90. Bill Press

    03.08.2006

    What Do You Mean Democrats Have No Ideas

    I am sick and tired of reading about Democrats in disarray.

    There it was again, in the Washington Post yesterday, the headline: "Amid GOP troubles, Democrats have no unified message."

    Looking at mid-term elections of 2006, political reporters are incapable of writing about all the monumental screw-ups of George Bush and Republicans, without immediately adding: Yeah, but Democrats are worse.

    What a bunch of lazy idiots. They could not be more wrong.

    What's this b.s. about Republicans being so united? Bill Frist and Denny Hastert are leading the fight against George Bush's Arab ports deal. Chuck Hagel's the biggest critic of the war in Iraq. Tom Tancredo accuses Bush of doing nothing about illegal immigration. And Republicans shot down Harriet Miers.

    Compared to Republicans, Democrats look like Brokeback buddies.

    And what do they mean Democrats have no ideas?

    Granted, Democrats have published no 50-point plan. After all, they're Democrats.

    But, talk to any Democrat running for re-election today. And you'll get the same set of goals:

    *Iraq - set a timetable for bringing the troops home.

    *Tax cuts - replace Bush's tax cuts for the rich - with tax cuts for the middle class.

    *Social Security - make it secure and protect it.

    *Health Insurance - provide it for 45 million Americans who don't have any.

    * National security - give first responders the tools they were promised by George Bush, but never received.

    And that's just for starters.

    But, to tell the truth, Democrats don't need a lot of ideas.

    In 2006, they've got something even more important going for them.

    In 2006, the one big, winning ticket for Democrats is very simple: They're not George Bush! That's all they need to win.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 6:29pm

91. USC1

    "The report concluded that "we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions are lifted."

    This has been gone over ad nauseum but let's review the choices anyway;

    1 ) Defy international law and cobble together a phony coalition, piss off the entire world, raid the treasury of 300 or 400 billion dollars, forfeit the lives of 2300 servicemen and counting plus 16 ?, 17 ? thousand wounded and god only knows how many Iraqis, screw up the American military in terms of wasted equipment, loweing of recruitment standards and depleted resources, start a civil war in Iraq that may yet engulf the whole region, turn Iraq into a training ground for terrorists, create a fundamentalist Shiite controled government, declare victory and reduce troop levels before the 2006 elections and really leave a mess behind or....

    2 ) Don't lift the sanctions !

    So are you saying you agree with the first option based on the Dufus report or what ever the hell source you're quoting from ? And who is this Dufus guy ? Hmm... somebody from Fox news. Oh well it must be fair and accurate then !

    Posted by Merle Blanc at 03/08/2006 @ 6:37pm

92. Bushfools -

    Bill Press fills in for Ronn Owens when he's on vacation on KGO (which is on my work radio all day long).

    Love him, and John Rothmann, too!

    Thanks for that post.

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/08/2006 @ 6:44pm

93. USC -

    That's a remarkable talent for posting useless info you have there, USC.

    Teach me, sensei!

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/08/2006 @ 6:45pm

94. Trying selling your "vote" in Washington. With all due respect, why Vermont constituents undertook such a vote is pointless.

    Posted by The Prize at 03/08/2006 @ 7:29pm

95. It's way past time they got out of the way. They demonstrate repeatedly that they're not interested in representing their constituencies, and the democrats who do are the exceptions who prove the rule. But there's a lot of hard work to do first.

    Posted by Legba at 03/08/2006 @ 8:23pm

96. Posted by HMAN23 03/08/2006 @ 4:23pm

    well, as we both know, SOME people will NEVER be convinced of anything unflattering about the pres, but thats life. IF there is a re-alignment in november, THEN a crescendo of calls for impeachment MAY push just such a thing...at least the crescendo will be something the msm cant totally sweep under the carpet. and i hate to say it, because it will mean more death and waste, but these guys are not too competent...they are arrogant and lame duck...they will screw something else up, thinking it nothing. its amazing how truly machialvellian they are (rove, et al, not the hillbilly dilettante), but i swear they have lost touch with reality, they are slipping...

    thanks for the help, by the way - i was getting a bit weary, its shaping up to be a long week. well done!!! wonder who else from here we could get in on this? swamp them eventually. infowars...best to stay low key, though, never know if rove or his boy toy may be watching. pulling pipe...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/08/2006 @ 8:32pm

97. i saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, "i have a dream." next to this was a picture of georgie's face behind bars.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/08/2006 @ 9:46pm

98. Memories----haven't we been down this road before. Some of the names have changed (some have not) but it's the same old crap. Check it out.

    March 16, 1983: Washington Post: "Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) told the crowd that President Reagan should be impeached…for failing to deal with joblessness. 'Why don't we impeach Reagan for incompetence,' Conyers said, drawing loud applause from the crowd. Conyers said later that if enough people demand Reagan's impeachment, he would lead the effort in Congress." Conyers was irrelevent then and he is irrelevent now.

    August 14, 1983: Washington Post: "Enough of these 'cream-puff' constraints on presidential war-making decisions, cries Rep. Don Edwards [D-Calif]. Impeachment is the only way to stop Ronald Reagan's 'illegal war' against Nicaragua."

    October 28, 1983: New York Rep. Ted Weiss "argued that the invasion [of Grenada] was illegal. After the committee session he suggested that Reagan could be impeached for unilaterally starting a war." The New York Times noted that also among the seven calling for impeachment: Julian Dixon and...John Conyers.

    April 13, 1984: "Jesse Jackson called on Congress to consider holding hearings on impeaching President Reagan for the mining [of Nicaraguan harbors]. 'If an act of war is taking place without the consent of Congress, clearly it is surely an impeachable offense.'

    October 10, 1986: On the downing of a U.S. plane in Nicaragua, Jesse Jackson "compared what he called the Reagan administration's 'disinformation campaign' about the incident to a 'Watergate' that could be grounds for an impeachment."

    March 6, 1987: "Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who asked the House to impeach President Reagan after the Grenada invasion in 1983, today introduced new articles of impeachment against Reagan regarding the Iran arms affair."

    June 22, 1987: New York Times: "The chief substantive issue taken up at the [ACLU] conference was a proposed call for the impeachment of President Reagan for abuse of power in the Iran arms scandal."

    July 9, 1987: New York Times: National Organization for Women head Eleanor Smeal "called on Congress to begin investigating the possibility of impeachment proceedings against President Reagan, saying she disagreed with the notion that Mr. Reagan should be allowed to quietly finish out his term."

    And after all that Zogby International polls say that in 2006 63% of the American people rank Ronald Reagan's Presidency as great or near great while only 12% (I'm sure many on this board) rank his Presidency as a failure.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 03/08/2006 @ 9:47pm

99. Zero-ed in. Congress really has shown its inability and/or unwillingness to take substantive action. And why should the dems shake the tree TOO much? They don't want to threaten their power and standing. Looking toward the dems for too much help is a dead end if we want real change. I'm fine riding that donkey if it carries us to impeachment hearings, or stops rediculous privitazation scams by BushCo, but ultimately they're not our salvation either.

    That's why grass-roots efforts are the answer. Just look at the Ports issue--I don't want to get into a right/wrong discussion here, but they sensed that the public was overwhelmingly united and look what's happening. They're dancing on a string. We need to lead them, move them to action on our behalf. We're so lazy and brainwashed about abdicating power to our representatives. The only real re/evolution we're ever going to see is if we take the matter into our hands. Those politicians will follow us like pigs to a trough if we demonstrate unity and commitment.

    Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 9:58pm

100. Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/08/2006 @ 9:47pm | ignore this person

     LEN, that shows better than all the logic and political realism I could EVER muster....how ridiculous this "Impeachment Fever" really is.

     The idea of John Conyers being AT THIS for over TWENTY-THREE years....is funnier than any "Little Rascals" "hearing" he could hold!

     Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 10:25pm

101. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/08/2006 @ 9:46pm

     welcome back...what happened, life or somethig - ha ha ha

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/08/2006 @ 10:47pm

102. thanks ibble. ya, just life, had to work extra lately.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/08/2006 @ 10:49pm

103. Mask--back from your vacation so soon? That's an interesting moniker you got. You aren't masking the fact that you're a closet republican, are you? You think you're tossing cold water on this stuff?

     So I guess you and "Len" don't think BushCo broke the law by circumventing FISA? Let's hear it. Tell me how that was legal. Because his lap dog Gonzales said so? Open wide, buddy. All your relatavism shtick about hey, REAGAN did it or someone else did it is so TIRED. And torturing was legal too, because, hey, Gonzales wrote a paper defending it. Gee whiz.

     All your talk about working with BushCo is a joke. It's way past that time. He talked big about extended the olive branch when in 2000 and what did he do with that branch?

     Did he break the law or not when he circumvented FISA?

     Posted by The Finaddict at 03/08/2006 @ 10:51pm

104. Posted by THE FINADDICT 03/08/2006 @ 10:51pm

     mask is mask. libertarian nay sayer, but closet liberal...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/08/2006 @ 11:37pm

105. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/08/2006 @ 8:32pm

     Hey - no problem! It's always fun to mix it up on the "other side." Have you ever checked out redstate.org? Pretty interesting, not too many lefties post there. However, given how SOME here try to posit that the left is SO divided (which is certainly true to an extent) you should the bickering THERE between the righties on Bush - certainly a different picture than the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd you see here.

     LL:

     Re: your poll numbers on incumbents -

     I actually view those numbers as showing that Democratic voters see the problems with this country and care less whether a Democrat is part of the problem or not. On the flip side, conservatives' allegiance is to the party before the country. Given that 62% of GOP voters still pulled the lever for DeLay, what other conslusion is there?

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2006 @ 11:37pm

106. Posted by HMAN23 03/08/2006 @ 11:37pm |

     will check it out...love a good brawl when i have the energy

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/08/2006 @ 11:41pm

107. RIO:

     I am pretty sure they realize the resolution holds no legal sway. If you read closely, it calls on their only rep to demand articles of impeachment be brought. What is your case the resolution is illegal cousnelor? Furthermore, what is more American than voicing dissent? Sadly, you have forgotten what it actually means to be part of the USA. Do you realize that we do not live in North Korea?

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2006 @ 11:43pm

108. Posted by HMAN23 03/08/2006 @ 11:37pm

     its SUCH a different mentality with them - hard to understand...so obsessed with winning, even to extent that truth not important...many seem very insecure...defensive about intellect...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/08/2006 @ 11:45pm

109. many tend to obsess with minor details, like easy answers...well nite all...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/08/2006 @ 11:46pm

110. Vermont I love you! I may move up there to egg you on!

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/08/2006 @ 11:57pm

111. Malcontent said it the other night: be positive, think positive, and create reality. If we don't even TRY, it definitely will NOT happen. Who knows? This could spread like wild fire!

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/08/2006 @ 11:59pm

112. WE THE PEOPLE are making a statement.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/09/2006 @ 12:00am

113. This is democracy in ACTION.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/09/2006 @ 12:00am

114. Damn right Frank.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 12:01am

115. Vermont is like a rash...ignore it and it will eventually go away.

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 12:19am

116. Wow just came across this while looking for something else. Aah, the good old days, before W was running for office and the price of oil was $11 a barrel, +/- $.50 a gallon. Did anyone even make the connection back then between Bush and the Saudi's? And whatever happened to that mythical plan to seperate us from that middle east oil tit and become self sufficient? Oh just impeach all of BC BS regime. And to think, we could've had a Gore!

     Geotimes November 2000

     High Prices at the Pump? Time to Talk Energy Policy

     By David Applegate

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

     Fast forward to the summer of 2000. Oil prices that had bottomed out at $11 per barrel in March 1999 soared in the first months of the new year, reaching $34 per barrel by March. Gasoline prices had doubled. A half dozen committees in both the House and Senate were holding hearings. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) was spearheading an effort to pass his National Energy Security Act of 2000 (S. 2557).

     Out on the stump, any politician caught without an energy strategy -- tailored, of course, to the particular needs and wants of their constituents -- might as well start polishing their concession speech. In June, Vice President Al Gore unveiled his 10-year, $125 billion energy plan. Texas Governor George W. Bush unveiled his 23-point "Comprehensive Energy Policy" at a campaign stop in Saginaw, Mich., in September.

     The Gore plan focuses on reducing energy consumption by encouraging "green technologies," using tax incentives for low-emission vehicles, energy-efficient homes, and renewable energy. The Bush plan, which closely tracks Lott's S. 2557, places a high priority on decreasing U.S. reliance on imported oil by increasing domestic production.

     http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov00/scene.html

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/09/2006 @ 12:25am

117. Posted by THE FINADDICT 03/08/2006 @ 10:51pm | ignore this person

     Fin,

     If the U.S. military, via taxpayer dollars- would have created the internet back in the early 70s- you would have observed Mask and crew writing the same absurdities to apologize and defend the indefensible. It's like watching the old film footage of Nixon's cronies lying with absolute confidence just prior to their convictions (attacking the Washington Post for doing its job). Arrogant, self-righteous liars to the end.

     Len posts the polling results for a former president who only managed to remain in office due to his claiming complete ignorance of the fact that members of his administration were selling illegal arms to the stated enemy (Iran), and then disobeying Congress to use the illegally obtained money to fund terrorists (the contras) attempting to overthrow a democratically elected government (which Reagan failed to recognize); who happened to have made the mistake of overthrowing the corrupt dictator imposed on that country for decades by the U.S. government. Let's not forget that the senile old bastard, who claimed ignorance of such events, described the band of murderers known as the contras: as the moral equivalent of our founding fathers, and also declared Nicaragua a national security threat (only 2 days drive to Texas, for them). As for his resurrected popularity following his death, yeah, Stalin is also enjoying such new found fame in Russia. This often occurs after people forget the unpleasant details. It doesn't change the murderous policies for either leader. OK, it's probably not fair, as Stalin was the murderer of many millions, and Reagan only presided over a couple hundred thousand in Central America during the 80s (U.S. trained military juntas, with U.S. weapons and aid to El Salvador, Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaraguan rebels, etc.). I won't even start with Reagan's policies throughout the rest of the world.

     Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 12:31am

118. Vermont is like a rash...ignore it and it will eventually go away.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/09/2006 @ 12:19am

     That's what we said about conservatives once.

     (so what ever you do John.... pleeeeeeeease ignore New Hampshire)

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 12:37am

119. Liberals don't dissent, they just throw Temper Tantrums when they aren't cursing vehemently!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/09/2006 @ 12:06am

     If you can't support that assertion with a few bible quotes Rio...

     then I don't think it's true.

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 12:39am

120. I'm tired too....tired of trying to talk sense to people who want blood and want it now and damn the consequences.

     Posted by MASK 03/08/2006 @ 4:47pm

     Are you always the first poster, because you don't have a life?

     Are you that guy, who brags that he's never been turned down by a woman? While neglecting the fact that he never asks?

     Never lost a race. 'Cause you never ran one.

     Never lost an argument? Because you don't have one?

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 03/09/2006 @ 03:52am

121. DEATH TO THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM

     Vote Independent.

     If we ever do have another opportunity to vote, the time may be right for a grass roots "throw the bums out" movement to cleanse the corruption from our government once and for all.

     Whatever back door was built into the Diebold Machines to rig elections is dependent on "vote flipping" to succeed. This means that the assumption is built into the software that only two parties are relevant, and that if a Democrat is leading and likely to win, the votes attributable to his/her name could be "flipped" to the Republican assuring his victory.

     What if the entire nation got so goddamn pissed off that in every race, all across the country, they simply went into the voting booth and voted for any candidate other than the Republican or Democrat listed?

     All of this talk about the need for campaign finance reform assumes that the American people can ONLY vote for the candidate that spends the most money.

     Money is the problem, not the solution.

     By voting for anyone other than a Republican or a Democrat, WE THE PEOPLE can effectively pass our own campaign finance reform.

     The two party system is not the solution.

     The two party system is the problem.

     The time is ripe for a grass roots movement to "Throw The Bums Out" and start over. Dump all of them at the ballot box.

     HIT RESET.

     Find out which candidate on the ballot in your district raised the least amount of money - and vote for them!

     What do you have to lose?

     Voting - what a Revolutionary concept!

     Posted by plunger at 03/09/2006 @ 06:47am

122. OUSTBUSH----I guess we can put you down as in the 12% crowd. Comparing Reagan to Stalin--now there is plan to win friends and influence people---keep at it, I am sure it's a winner.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 03/09/2006 @ 07:19am

123. Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/09/2006 @ 03:52am | ignore this person

     Eric, doesn't it say MORE about you, that your final "argument" against me on this impeachment nonsense is.....a personal attack?

     Did I EVER make one against you and your life or love life?

     BTW, I'm married, with a 2 year old son.

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 07:23am

124. Remember this?

     http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml

     In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

     The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

     - Ron Suskind "Without a Doubt"

     All that cash leads to that kind of arrogance. Frankly, I'd rather fix the problem now than study it later.

     DEPORT AIPAC and win back your Democracy.

     Hedrick Smith noted in his book Power Game that AIPAC had become a "superlobby ... [It] gained so much political muscle that by 1985 AIPAC and its allies could force President Reagan to renege on an arms deal he had promised to [Jordan's] King Hussein. By 1986, the pro-Israel lobby could stop Reagan from making another jet fighter deal with Saudi Arabia; and Secretary of State George Shultz had to sit down with AIPAC's executive director -- not Congressional leaders -- to find out what level of arms sales to the Saudis AIPAC would tolerate."

     "You are the most effective general interest group…across the entire planet." Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

     "Aipac has a lot of influence on foreign policy," says JJ Goldberg, editor of the Jewish newspaper The Forward. "They work hard to ensure that America endorses pretty much Israel's view of the world and the Middle East."

     "A great asset to our country". Condoleezza Rice describing AIPAC in March, 2003.

     "Fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israeli security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics." -- Prominent conservative lawyer and political commentator, Benjamin Ginsberg.

     "I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. "You see this napkin?" he said. "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin." Jeffrey Goldberg (The New Yorker).

     "AIPAC's Israel lobby has the power to pump up to a million dollars into the campaign coffers of any friendly member of Congress, or into the campaign of the opponents of an unfriendly member." -- Richard Curtiss, executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

     "A lobby is a night flower, it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." -- AIPAC research director Steve Rosen, 2001.

     "The friendship between Israel and the United States is a great asset to our country. And AIPAC is a great advocate for this vital relationship." White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

     "Congress is 'terrorized' by AIPAC... In practice, the lobby groups function as an informal extension of the Israeli government." -- "They Dare to Speak Out," -- Congressman (1961-1982) Paul Findley.

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

     Posted by plunger at 03/09/2006 @ 08:04am

125. Great post above, Rese.

     Highly recommend everyone take the time to read it carefully.

     Posted by plunger at 03/09/2006 @ 08:11am

126. Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/09/2006 @ 12:06am

     oh yeah - u guys ALWAYS keep the level of discussion at such a high level!!! if only we were more like you!!!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 08:17am

127. Ibble:

     I failed to mention it, but your writing is awesome.

     A couple days ago I thought you might be channeling Hunter S.

     Thanks for your efforts.

     Posted by plunger at 03/09/2006 @ 08:43am

128. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/09/2006 @ 12:25am

     Forgot to mention, perhaps this is why Florida enjoys 3.3 unemployment and higher minimum wage apart from nepotism, there's that little election-deciding factor... Kind of like the Reagan/Iran connection wearing down Carter. But then who would've thought it would take 500% increase in oil to get us so distracted with the economy that our focus is ever more divided between an occupation or fictional war, an attack, and then finally loosing our rights? I guess the only alternative is to join the new SS en mass and take over--is that a plan or what? Rather Matrixy.

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/09/2006 @ 09:57am

129. Vermont is like a rash...ignore it and it will eventually go away.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/09/2006 @ 12:19am

     It would be nice if that would work with the reflexively, Pavlovian, right-wing "contributors" here.

     Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 10:20am

130. If Rosa Parks had been taking advice from MASK there would still be black seating in the backs of buses in America.

     Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 10:23am

131. Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/09/2006 @ 12:06am

     To quote Dick Cheney: "Go fuck yourself!"

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 11:04am

132. Hmna,

     Didn't Cheney say that to a Vermonter...Leahy?

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 11:06am

133. Folks--you can continue to try to convince contrarians like Mask that the sun sets in the west or Reagan breaking the law is not excuse for Bush to break the law, but you know it'll get nowhere.

     The way to shut them up (or at least get them subverting someone else's issue!) is to DO SOMETHING. Make this happen and they all skitter back into the shadows or start haunting Green blogs. They've added nothing meaningful or productive, and if you let them control the conversation then they accomplish their mission of keeping us off point.

     Rese--thanks for that info. If they keep harrassing us individually, then they can get away with it. But if we can bring some light to these things then (eventually) the public will understand.

     Find out how you can organize a group to draft a call for impeachment. This isn't wasting time--it's giving voice to what the political machinery is not allowing us to. Perfectly legal (Rio!), and in fact the essence of being American.

     I'm still open to any and all ideas on organizing this.

     Posted by The Finaddict at 03/09/2006 @ 11:12am

134. I think you are right Maasch. How ironic - He's probably a hero to you (and RIO).

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 11:24am

135. PLUNGER

     thanks - i'll inignore rese and check his stuff out. i find your cut and paste, interspersed with editorial comment, kept to reasonably polite length, kool also. check this site out...moohaha... http://www.intellectualconservative.com/ keep it on the sly, though...guerilla posting...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 11:28am

136. Last thing re: impeachment. If the dems get control of the House in midterms, this has a legs. I'm not a dem, but if you want to start the ball rolling the easiest thing to do is to make sure you and your friends vote them in.

     Posted by The Finaddict at 03/09/2006 @ 11:43am

137. Hman,

     "He's probably a hero to you (and RIO)."

     Who? Leahy? :)

     I have always thought Cheney was smarter than Bush.

     You should know that I never have been a Bush fan, 41 or 43. I am more of a conservative than either of these two guys, fiscally at least. I don't care about abortion, or gays, or many of the social issues that irritate a number of conservatives but I do hackle at fiscal spending sprees and taxes. I am pro military and believe if you are going to use it(the military), then they should have the best we can supply and hammer the living shit out of whom ever we go up against. I mean total terrible complete destruction, so that when we threaten any one with our military power, that there will be no doubt as to what will be coming at them..none of this 12 years in Viet Nam shit. If Flalugah causes problems..flatten it totally. This way, I believe, we only will have to use our military once or twice a century. If we go we either go to win completely and fully or we never go at all.

     Sounds harsh, but I think it would save us from alot of blunders...and cost less in human lives.

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 12:00pm

138. Yeah, you know, indiscriminate massacre has always worked so well in the past. My personal feeling is that if you don't even know how to spell Falluja, we're probably better off not listening to guys like you. Besides, John, it's their country. You're the invader. I don't like the idea of our kids getting killed over there, but I never supported sending them over there to begin with. And if they're doing your gangster dirty work, well then, they're going to get killed by other gangsters. That's how gang warfare works. And the government you support is nothing more than a bunch of warlords. Fuck them. Death to the empire.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 03/09/2006 @ 12:11pm

139. Sweet,

     We see things differently. so be it.Indiscriminate massacre is not what any one is advocating. It would never occur if you read my post.

     As far as spelling, who cares, I am a product of public education. I will endevor to live up to your standards...

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 12:17pm

140. Maasch, welcome to the grr, kill, kill club, I hope you will be evry happy with Todt, the death guy and the rest of the thanatos worshippers

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/09/2006 @ 12:21pm

141. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 03/09/2006 @ 10:23am | ignore this person

     Actually FROM....if Ms Parks was listening to the modern Democratic Party, she'd STILL be sitting at the back of the bus....but be told that if she "just votes Democratic one more time" for the 50th time, that "Rep. Claghorn will get her moved to the NEXT to the last row of the bush"...

     BUT....if she doesn't and that "evil Republican wins" that they will "throw her off the bus, run her over with it, and use it to chauffeur around their fat cat buddies".

     and she'd STILL be sitting at the back of the bus, post-Election Day.

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 12:26pm

142. Posted by THE FINADDICT 03/09/2006 @ 11:12am | ignore this person

     Actually, THE FIN....you're right.

     If something was DONE...that proved what I contend will happen is wrong....I'd be properly chastised.

     But so far, what's been DONE is this...

     1. Less than 15% of the DEMOCRATS in the US House have signed onto John Conyers' impeachment resolution.

     2. THE most liberal city in America (San Francisco) passed a resolultion for impeachment....that THEIR Democratic representative, who just happens to be the Minority Leader, Ms Pelosi, rejected out-of-hand.

     and 3. A few towns in a state that elected the only SOCIALIST House member have passed some as well.

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 12:30pm

143. Man, you can talk some shit about stuff you know nothing about, Mask.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 03/09/2006 @ 12:34pm

144. JR,

     Not so..reread the post..we would never have to use the military if the threat is large enough. That is my only point.

     No more wars of attrition(sp, for sweetdaddy).

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 12:35pm

145. Posted by SWEETDADDY 03/09/2006 @ 12:34am | ignore this person

     Just so I know, SWEET....can you give me a specific?

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 12:43pm

146. Maasch:

     Boy, reading the first few sentences of your post made me think I was talking to many Democrats I know. Fiscal concerns? Obviously, then you were a bigger fan of Clinton's than Bush's in this regard. And I take it by not caring about abortion, gay rights and other social issues - it's "to each his own." I like it. I like it.

     I thought maybe there was hope for you until I got to the whole "Blitzkrieg" portion.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 12:51pm

147. Hman,

     I liked Clinton after the congress held his feet to the fire. If you remember the morning after he lost congress Clinton looked like a boy who had his toys taken away and could not have them back until he behaved. Cingress made him a better president.

     Live and let live...yes.

     Blitzkreig,nein...my only ,ONLY, point is that if we decide to use the military, then using it to overwhelming force,ala, Powell...make it bad enough that no one wants to be at the receiving end of the US military. And when threatened with the US, the opposing force must cinsider what that means and maybe things will calm down..Thats all...total destruction threat(less nukes). No one wants total destruction, especially despots.

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 12:57pm

148. Well, if the last five years are any indication, I think you have it backwards. How many bills has Bush vetoed? What happened to the Congress that "held Clinton's feet to the fire?" Where did THEY go?

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 1:10pm

149. Where did THEY go?

     Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2006 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person

     MAN....that's what I'd like to know. Back when they had a "liberal" Democrat President to oppose and starve for funding, they acted like REPUBLICANS and kept the reins in on things.

     If we could get a good (here it comes...brace yourselves) DLC-centrist Democrat, like Bill, back in the WH, with a less egotistical GOP Congress....we'd be back to the Glory Days again!

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 1:18pm

150. My glasses are getting bad and I probably missed it but has anyone posted or is any one here familiar with all the impeach Bush websites, or is there a clearing house site? I saw on the news or was it the daily show, a map of the USA with dots popping up everywhere that impeachment meetings were happening. Mostly around the coasts and Great Lakes areas. Funny how new things happen around water. But ran across this site (or maybe unconsciously picked it up as I scanned blogs between work), interesting stuff:

     http://www.democrats.com/wsj-impeachpac

     Submitted by Bob Fertik on March 5, 2006 - 11:50pm.Impeachment

     Today the Wall Street Journal broke the Corporate Media taboo on ImpeachPAC. The article is generally fair, but ignores the main distinction between the impeachments of Clinton and Bush - only a rightwing minority of 26% wanted to impeach Clinton, while a mainstream majority of 52%-53% wants to impeach Bush. And the polls on Bush's impeachment were taken before the Dubai deal and the Katrina tapes, which have pushed Bush's disapproval ratings up to 60%.

     http://www.democrats.com/node/7914

     Total Recall: End the War, Impeach Bush & Cheney

     Events in Charlottesville, Virginia

     Town Hall Forum on the War in Iraq

     Monday, March 13, 7 - 10 p.m. McLeod Auditorium, University of Virginia, school of nursing.

     FEATURING: Two mothers who have lost children in the war, one American, one Iraqi;

     Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, retired from Office of the Secretary of Defense on Near East South Asia Policy,outspoken critic of the Pentagon's pre-war propaganda development.

     Ray McGovern, veteran Army officer and retired 27-year CIA analyst, Co-Founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, witness at Congressional hearings on Downing Street Minutes.

     Gael Murphy, Cofounder of CODE PINK Women for Peace, member of the Board of Directors of the International Occupation Watch Center, steering committee of United for Peace and Justice.

     David Swanson, Cofounder of After Downing Street, Board member of Progressive Democrats of America, Washington Director of Democrats.com and Impeach PAC.

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/09/2006 @ 1:24pm

151. A town in reliably-Democratic state that voted against Bush in '04 and '00 has called for his impeachment? This is not news. In fact, it's just embarassing. I'm going to hide my voter-registration card (which says. . . shudder. . . 'Democrat') in shame.

     Someone wake me up when the Republicans start calling for impeachment. When it's just San Francisco and Vermont, it's not exactly the nation waking up to the president's misconduct; it's just a few liberals getting frustrated and acting loopy. Because God knows loopy behavior will endear us to the wider American public. Argh.

     Posted by phargle at 03/09/2006 @ 1:28pm

152. San Francisco voting for impeachment---shocking. After all they only voted 82% for Kerry. Yep, as San Francisco goes, so goes the nation, a sure bell weather city if there ever was one.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 03/09/2006 @ 1:28pm

153. Hman,

     I wonder what happened to them also,..mamy of them imposed self term limits and maybe they are gone.

     Clinton was only centrist when forced. The advarange the congress had was that Bill wanted a legacy above everything else. He wanted to be liked. He was not a leader but responded to polls. He always reminded me of the man who jumps out in front of the parade aftter it passes by and thinks he is leading it. We need a leader.

     Bush started out as a leader but now if you look at the ports deal and the fall out that will come after veto over ride...I don't know...

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 1:31pm

154. If you give me maybe a Dem. House, I would take that MASK.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 1:31pm

155. Charlottesville, Virginia---a tiny blue dot, surrounded by an ocean of red.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 03/09/2006 @ 1:32pm

156. Bushfoold,

     Forget the impeachmnent hysteria..it is not even close..let it go, you look fanatical.

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 1:32pm

157. LV,

     "It seems to me that the past 30 years have evidenced a serious and continuing degeneration of this knowledge due to the take over of the public education system by the far left.

     And this too is coming unraveled..as evidenced in Colorado last week where a ultra left kook mascarading as a teacher with anti American and Bush rants..only to be called out by the students... not some right wing nut..the student, so the ship continues to turn(to wards the right).

     Did you hear the tape on this guy? Amazing..

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 1:40pm

158. I disagree. Clinton was a centerist all the way - part of the "New Democrats" I thought. Sure there were always going to be some Republicans who HATED him no matter what and branded him a "liberal" in a knee-jerk fashion (on the flip-side, some left-wingers couldn't stand him for being too centrist). But, I often wonder whether some republicans who jumped on the hater-of-liberal-Clinton-bandwagon, aren't reflecting a bit and thinking he wasn't the anti-Christ afterall. I know my conservative father has made that comment to me on several occassions.

     I also actually think he was a better leader than Bush. Whether you agreed with his policies or not - Clinton worked his ass off (18 hour days). He didn't go to bed at 11:00 like Bush and take two or three months of vacation a year. You bet your ass he would have been in the trenches during Katrina too.

     Apart from my obvious disagreements with Bush policy, (to use a lame sports analogy) he strikes me as a batter who is not too comfortable in the box and forgets the count or how many outs there are. He has made several miscalculations and always seems to be a few days or weeks behind the reality.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 1:48pm

159. Clinton was not as bad as many made him out to be nor is he as good..having said that, I beleive he was every bit as good as Reagan at communications...and that can make or break a politician. Bush has to be the worst communicater, and worse than his father. I think this really hurts him in every way.

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 1:52pm

160. Jeez, LLL, I thought liberals were the ones who always threw their superior intellect about.

     Huh ... All along, we are the ones who just "don't understand" things. But:

     1. We went into to Vietnam to impose our form of government on a sovereign nation against a home-grown insurgency opposing our presence, based upon dubious reasoning that a Communist Vietnam posed a threat to the U.S. That was a disaster, SO, let's drum up dubious reasoning that Iraq poses a threat to the U.S. and try to establish our own chosen form of government in a sovereign nation against a home-grown insurgency opposing our presence.

     2. Congress passes the FISA law. Congress passes the Patriot Act, after explicit White House requests, refuses to amend FISA to allow for warrantless spying in circumvention of FISA. Bush willingly violates FISA and admits he did.

     3. Not sure what you mean here, but if it is that the left advocates for the U.S. to comply with international treaties and other international norms like capital punishment and providing health care to its citizens - guilty as charged.

     4. Of course, that doesn't apply to the Bush v. Gore decision now does it?

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 2:03pm

161. Maasch:

     Did YOU hear the tape of the WHOLE class or just the portion on Rush? How about the part where he told the class that he was just offerring his opinion and not advocating the students had to agree? Or the part where the student in question (who DOES admittedly hold conervative view, even if he cannot vote, by the way) pestered him with questions about Bush's recent State of the Union speech, even though that was not the topic for the class, in an effort to evoke a response he could tape.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 2:07pm

162. We see things differently. so be it.Indiscriminate massacre is not what any one is advocating. It would never occur if you read my post.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/09/2006 @ 12:17am

     I read your post. I noticed the part about flattening an entire town. Your mind must be so bicameral that "flattening a town" and "indiscriminate slaughter" reside in opposite spheres and don't communicate with one another.

     And, for what reason should we flatten that town- because many of the residents don't like the US. They have very good reasons for disliking the US. Face reality, Maasch- the US is the rogue terrorist.

     Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 2:09pm

163. Conservative: "Oh, that teacher thinks Bush is JUST like Hitler."

     And LL attacks liberals for being simpletons.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 2:12pm

164. Actually FROM....if Ms Parks was listening to the modern Democratic Party, she'd STILL be sitting at the back of the bus....but be told that if she "just votes Democratic one more time" for the 50th time, that "Rep. Claghorn will get her moved to the NEXT to the last row of the bush"...

     BUT....if she doesn't and that "evil Republican wins" that they will "throw her off the bus, run her over with it, and use it to chauffeur around their fat cat buddies".

     and she'd STILL be sitting at the back of the bus, post-Election Day.

     Posted by MASK 03/09/2006 @ 12:26am

     Pure fantasy, MASK. I've noticed that your thought processes are deteriorating lately.

     Feeling rumbles from deep earth? Starting to think that continual throwing of cold water on the democratic impulse is going to be wholly inadequate to stem the tide?

     Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 2:14pm

165. Yes, I heard the whole tape....didn't even know Rush had it on his site. My point still stands..this would have never happened a few years back. The education system is starting to break open perhaps, as it it mostly run by liberals and is toally unionized from top to bottom ...no room for dissent.

     Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2006 @ 2:15pm

166. Actually, THE FIN....you're right.

     If something was DONE...that proved what I contend will happen is wrong....I'd be properly chastised.

     But so far, what's been DONE is this...

     1. Less than 15% of the DEMOCRATS in the US House have signed onto John Conyers' impeachment resolution.

     2. THE most liberal city in America (San Francisco) passed a resolultion for impeachment....that THEIR Democratic representative, who just happens to be the Minority Leader, Ms Pelosi, rejected out-of-hand.

     and 3. A few towns in a state that elected the only SOCIALIST House member have passed some as well.

     Posted by MASK 03/09/2006 @ 12:30am

     This really made me think, MASK. I was just pouring a cup of coffee while reading this and suddenly realized:

     1. Only 15% had been poured which apparently makes it impossible to ever have a full cup of coffee.

     2. Lyndon Johnson wanted to finish the job in Vietnam so why the f--- did we withdraw? Doesn't make sense.

     3. A few town meetings condemned the Vietnam War, then more town meetings condemned the Vietnam War, then we withdrew. What's the connection? The world is crazy, isn't it?

     Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 2:21pm

167. Not so..reread the post..we would never have to use the military if the threat is large enough. That is my only point.

     No more wars of attrition(sp, for sweetdaddy).

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/09/2006 @ 12:35am

     How true. That's why Hitler never had to use his military after invading France. Is that when you decided to learn German?

     Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 2:24pm

168. FROMRED

     It's not just little ol' me throwing the cold water....

     Not one prominent Democrat (i.e. one that's a House or Senate Minority Leader, Whip, ranking committee member or (especially) potential 2008 Presidential nominee (even Russ Feingold)....is backing Conyers, the 25 guys from the B or P Caucuses, San Francisco, or Maple Hollar, VT....in this purely blog-driven sillyness.

     And they (the real power brokers) don't have much reason to....after all, all they have to do is throw up the spectre of "You voted for Nader...and got Bush in 2000...wanna try that again, you 'purists'?" and they'll still get you to the polls this November.

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 2:25pm

169. Would anyone ever still vote Republican again?

     I mean if security is your thing.....you're not voting Republican because Bush got $1M for a library and then gave port control to to a Dubai Government entity.

     If the military is your thing then you wouldn't vote Republican since this President has made a mockery of our military by making them targets to suicidal zealots that can't lose especially if they die.

     If fiscal responsbility is your thing then you definitely wouldn't vote reDRUNKlican.

     I guess if abortion was your thing you still might vote Republican.....but wouldn't it be easier just to not get an abortion if you don't like them than to accept the screw up of our finances, alliances, military and security, in order to have the government tell you that you CAN'T get an abortion?

     Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2006 @ 2:27pm

170. It seems to me that the past 30 years have evidenced a serious and continuing degeneration of this knowledge due to the take over of the public education system by the far left.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/09/2006 @ 1:34pm

     Is that your explanation for why you criticize articles without reading them, as in Katrina's "Russia" thread??

     Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 2:29pm

171. Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2006 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person

     Actually HMAN....Clinton RAN as a "centrist/New Dem" in 1992....then tried old traditional liberalism in 1993 (from Lani Guinier to the 1993 tax hike to gays in the military to Hillary-care)....then got slapped down for it....and he RETURNED to his "Third Way" in 1994 with "the era of Big Govt is over!" SOTU.

     And when faced with either "starving the poor" (as many, including "The Nation", claimed welfare reform would do)....he veto'ed it twice....right upto when he knew he wouldn't be challenged in the primaries...and then signed it to win re-election. (Also promising, at the Dem Con, to "fix it"...which he "never got around to").

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 2:29pm

172. It's not just little ol' me throwing the cold water....

     Not one prominent Democrat (i.e. one that's a House or Senate Minority Leader, Whip, ranking committee member or (especially) potential 2008 Presidential nominee (even Russ Feingold)....is backing Conyers, the 25 guys from the B or P Caucuses, San Francisco, or Maple Hollar, VT....in this purely blog-driven sillyness.

     And they (the real power brokers) don't have much reason to....after all, all they have to do is throw up the spectre of "You voted for Nader...and got Bush in 2000...wanna try that again, you 'purists'?" and they'll still get you to the polls this November.

     Posted by MASK 03/09/2006 @ 2:25pm

     Oh, poo! It's just so hopeless I'm going to go home and die.

     You're starting to convince me, though. Maybe I will vote for Hillary. Hee, hee.

     Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 2:34pm

173. Maasch:

     How far back do you want to go, the 50's?

     Listen, the teacher painted with a broad brush, even had some facts wrong, but said, importantly, "And I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. I don't even know if I'm necessarily taking a position. But what I'm trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in-depth, you know, and not just take things from the surface."

     To me that is kind of the key - wanting people to think openly. Where was he squelching dissent? Seems to me that is what the poeple trying to can him are doing.

     I think that whole story is a lot of bullshit over nothing. Don't even try to use it as some jumping-off point for a discussion of liberal biased teachers. It's weak.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 2:37pm

174. Mask,

     You rightly point out that the impeachmnet of GWB is not on the mainstream of the Democratic party's agenda.

     But of course, you know NOTHING is on the Democratic Party's agenda!

     One would imagine that at some point prior to November 2006 they will decide to stand for SOMETHING. Who knows, it might be healthcare, poverty eradication, deficit reduction, withdrawal from Iraq, or wait for it, it might be to reestablish the legimacy of the Constitution.

     The only thing that I think will influence that agenda is polls......and given that it appears the country seems to like the Constitution being upheld there is a VERY good chance that the Democrats will run in 2006 on the platform of IMPEACHING.....and if they do and they get the mandate and they impeach it will be a very POPULAR thing, and not as you paint it as some petty political vendetta.

     Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2006 @ 2:48pm

175. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/09/2006 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person

     Liberty,

     Your limitation is confined to your narrow, WASP-written version of American history and the glorification of militarism. The founders along with constitutional scholars have been arguing over the role of government throughout our entire history, so please spare us the "liberals just don't understand" nonsense. We are actually very well informed regarding American history. I would say exceedingly more so than most of the conservatives who mimic simple talk radio jargon here (you and some others excluded). Fact-based arguments focused on the negative and horrible effects of American militarism are met with vacuous accusations of Anti-Americanism (witness the current results of gunbarrel democracy in Iraq). The existence of constitutional republicanism does not prohibit the adoption of socially responsible policies in the areas of technoligical development for energy that does not continue to impose terrible consequences on the ecosystems, or health that is not based soley on private profit incentives (European and Japanese models being relevent, as you mentioned earlier). We are merely attempting to create a society where the government is forced to attend to the concerns of the majority, not those few pulling the purse strings. I would suggest that your attempts to compartmentalize liberal ideas as being "uniformed" as some form of compensation covering for your own inferiority complex (though unfounded, as none here accuse you of not being informed or lacking intellect, quite the contrary).

     Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 2:52pm

176. Maybe I will vote for Hillary. Hee, hee.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 03/09/2006 @ 2:34pm | ignore this person

     Actually....you'll have no choice....unless you're a "McCainiac Dem"!

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 3:28pm

177. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/09/2006 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person

     This is true.....IF the Democrats run on a "We'll impeach Bush" platform...and WIN, then it will be a mandate to do so.

     Now....How would such an "agenda" play out? Let's see...

     "I'm Ed Eddie, Democrat for Congress....our (insert state here) schools are in trouble, our people are losing higher wage jobs to lower wage ones overseas, and our lakes and rivers are being polluted by industries with no regulation on them....

     "But I'm not running on those things primarily....Primarily, I want to join with future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and future Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid....in ousting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney simultaneously....

     "True, this will take up nearly the whole Congressional session....and not leave much time for things like health care, education, jobs, the environment....but those things are surely secondary to you and your family....to getting rid of that moron fascist cowboy and his evil friend-shooting Vice-President and restoring the Constitution which they have destroyed with their so-called attempts to keep us safe from terrorists....

     "So...I'm asking for your vote on November 8th....to help me, Move On.org, 'The Nation' magazine, the San Francisco City Council, and half the state of Vermont....in making Nancy Pelosi President via simultaneous impeachment of the Smirking Chimp and his Oil Business Neo-Nazi friend.....and...uh....we'll get to that other stuff later....Promise!...

     "Paid for by the suicidal Ed Eddie Campaign for Congress and the DCCC"

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 3:34pm

178. "Paid for by the suicidal Ed Eddie Campaign for Congress and the DCCC"

     Posted by MASK 03/09/2006 @ 3:34pm

     You really don't get out much. Because you have obviously missed the average republican campaign for office in the last half dozen election cycles.

     getting people all fired up against the oppostion while not talking about the issues get you control of the country.

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 3:39pm

179. Mask,

     You're actually going in the right direction, but you're not much of a salesperson.....not surprising since you don't believe in the product that you're selling.

     Ed Eddie and his cohorts will simply push all the usual bullshit "feelgood" buttons that winning politician's always do.

     "You love America?" Crowd of John Deere hat wearing farmer / truckers yells back "Yeah". "You love the proud traditions that this country was built on and has prospered on for the last 220 years?" "yeah" "You know there are some folk in Washington trying to take those Constitution rights away from you" "Yeah". "When you put me into Washington I'm going to do everything I can to restore the honor and integrity this country has stood by for 220 years" "yeah".

     It's all bullshit red meat, but if it polls well it'll be the TBone of choice.

     Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2006 @ 3:47pm

180. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/09/2006 @ 12:21am

     nice

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 4:11pm

181. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/09/2006 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person

     Little bit of a problem there, FREE.....when those "farmers/truckers" ask Ed Eddie..."Well, Ed, what about your Democrats who want to take away our Constitutional right to bear arms?"

     And Ed says....A. "Well, that's different...cuz you guys are too stupid to know that the 2nd Amendment doesn't count anymore...we're talking about the NSA listening to your cell phone!"

     or B. "I'm going to fight my Party, if they try to take away your guns"....and then he's either lying or he just got himself an interview on "Hardball" where he's going to have to say that the Democratic Party is "out of touch" on the gun control issue....and the DCCC pulls a "Paul Hackett" on him and suddenly Tim Timmons is the new Democratic candidate for Yanapatawaha County.

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 4:23pm

182. Mask,

     If you actually see a Democratic Party position on "taking away arms" you will send us the link right?

     Moving on......

     Now that DP World is giving up on the port thing.....do you think GWB will be giving back the million bucks he got for his library?

     Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2006 @ 4:27pm

183. Cmon guys...let mask remain shriveled up in his defeated, middle-life-conservative, burned out, sold-out, sardonic cocoon. He has no hope for the future. Such dark and gloomy souls are not needed.

     Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 4:43pm

184. Speaking of well-worn political manifestoes, how about the one unraveling yet again before our eyes: Iran, the newest threat to the security of the most powerful nation to have ever existed. Just because these clowns were so incompetent regarding the phony threat posed by Iraq, doesn't mean they will not return to their true and tried: fear-factor politics. They are rolling out the latest version of "dire and decisive action needed to save America from evil." Are they anticipating this to be a diversion from all their self-created domestic nightmares?

     Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 5:01pm

185. It's like deja-vu all over again.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2006 @ 5:20pm

186. Bushfoold, Forget the impeachmnent hysteria..it is not even close..let it go, you look fanatical.

     Posted by JOHN MUUSCH 03/09/2006 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person

     John,

     Bless all the radicals that made the USA into what it can be. Bless those in the herd too for without them we wouldn't know why we need so much to be different.

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/09/2006 @ 5:38pm

187. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 1,170,000 for towns to impeach Bush.

     Looks like lots of organizations are getting into it too! Lot more than a trickle...

     February 1, 2006

     Impeach President Bush War of Aggression Indictment

     TCR joins with others calling for impeachment

     When an illegal war is launched every person killed and injured, every piece of property destroyed, and all environmental damage, is a war crime.

     A war without borders or limits is a perpetual war.

     President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be impeached for the following reasons and on the following counts.

     http://tcrnews2.com/impeacheditorial.html

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/09/2006 @ 5:57pm

188. liberty, thanks for posting the molly ivins article. that was great.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 6:06pm

189. Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/09/2006 @ 5:48pm |

     what?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 6:10pm

190. WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made clear Wednesday that the White House is not seeking congressional action to inscribe the National Security Agency's monitoring into U.S. law, even as members of Congress negotiate with the Bush administration about legislation. Gonzales maintained the program is legal the way it is.

     "There's a general consensus -- quite frankly -- that this is a needed program" designed to listen to al-Qaida's communications, Gonzales told the National Association of Attorneys General Wednesday.

     http://tinyurl.com/fgtgs

     All vee need is the vill of our lieter and the nazi street! Seig heil!

     Only a very small minority are too stupid to see the similarity of thinking shared by the Republican core and the 1930's German nazis.

     Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 6:11pm

191. bush is listening, use big words.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 6:13pm

192. I'd have to argue that kids today are being programmed to 'not' value their own experiences much less think for themselves and it has very little to do with the rich overpaid left owning the schools. Kids are being marketed to 24/7 at a time they're most vulnerable to manipulation. One big example of what's happening to them is pre-distressed jeans. Jeans are valued if they look as though they've had an extreme experience that's not that of the buyer. It's emblematic of where we're heading to-- being told what our experiences are, being told what to think because our history isn't important. That's not taught in school. Now we can't even get a poll stating how many want the BC BS regime out. Some here are very willing to buy those jeans.

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/09/2006 @ 6:25pm

193. seattlescribe had a good point. we should all use our tourist dollars carefully. go to places like vermont and e-mail or call them and tell them why. we should spend our everyday dollars wisely too, avoiding walmart, exxon, dominoes, walgreens etc. there's a website--boycottrepublicans.com. i'm sure there's more sites out there.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 6:27pm

194. Thanks LOVELOKI

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/09/2006 @ 6:35pm

195. Did I EVER make one against you and your life or love life?

     BTW, I'm married, with a 2 year old son.

     Posted by MASK 03/09/2006 @ 07:23am

     No, you did not.

     But, neither did I.

     Reread my post...a simple list of parables to your logic.

     If attacking your reasoning skills offends. Get over it.

     If you took that as a personal attack, then I sorry. But it wasn't, so get over it.

     Glad you're happy with your life. I hope your depression is not genetic.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 03/09/2006 @ 6:44pm

196. no, thank you, bushfools. u usually post the news 2-3 days before it hits the msm, if it ever gets to the msm.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 6:47pm

197. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/09/2006 @ 6:47pm

     You're welcome. I'm ok as long as I do not become the news...

     Off to the other job. Back later.

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/09/2006 @ 6:50pm

198. ilicit guerrilla commando posting fun at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/

     time to take the offensive

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 7:02pm

199. 2. THE most liberal city in America (San Francisco) passed a resolultion for impeachment....that THEIR Democratic representative, who just happens to be the Minority Leader, Ms Pelosi, rejected out-of-hand. Posted by MASK 03/09/2006 @ 12:30am | ignore this person

     Aw shucks, Mask. I'm really feeling hurt because you don't read my posts. If you had, (Kate Michelman thread) you would know that SF is NOT the most liberal city in America – Detroit is. See my earlier post here [thenation.com].

     Posted by seattlescribe at 03/09/2006 @ 7:21pm

200. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/09/2006 @ 7:02pm

     they are not really good at arguing...easily brain stapled...fish in barrel...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 7:28pm

201. thanks, ibble, i'll try it. but i must wait for another day when i have the energy to deal with them.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 7:30pm

202. bushfools, i know what ya mean about becoming the news. sometimes i force myself to watch stupid tv like south park or colbert or stupid movies or brain candy books like terry pratchett...instead of watching c-span or reading news sites on the net.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 7:33pm

203. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/09/2006 @ 7:30pm |

     its exhilirating, loki...and not as energy consuming as you might think...they are honestly kind of dim - hate to say it, sounding like one of them kind of, but perhaps there is a bit of projecting invloved in libzsuck's mentality. the guys who post here are actually among the upper crust, intellectually, of them. most have so outsourced their ability to critically analyze to their talking point gurus, they just start blabbering furiously and then get all confused when one eviscerates them logically and sarcastically. hit them below the belt, knock the wind out of them where they are weakest - their very intellect and watch them squirm frothing at the mouths. deconstruct and destroy.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 7:40pm

204. it is time for all thinking, decent, concerned, citizenry to turn up the heat. online, in coffeeshops, anywhere you wont get physically assaulted or fired. and we dont need intellectual gurus to tell us what and how to say...we dont need anyone other than each other, to tell us how to research a topic, and logically explode irrational, prepackaged bullshit...

     what i really wonder, is when this obverse democratic machine does explode, how many of these intellectual sheep will come baahing into our presence, pretending they were always on the "winning side" (which is all they seem to care about anyway)? well, such is the downside of political victory - i can deal with it, though...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 7:47pm

205. ok, ibble, i'm there.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 7:54pm

206. when i was in the military, the taught me many valuable lessons. one was how to deal with an ambush. if you stand around just shooting back, yo will die, since they have planned it all out and have your range predetemined, booby traps layed...if you run you will die, since they will pick you off as you present your backs as targets...if you charge into the ambush, you may ver well survive and kill all of them...our opponants have laid one trap after another over the years and we have time and again wandered in and been mowed down staring like deer in headlights or running like mice...no more

     how do you hunt bear in winter? you crawl down into where they sleep and kill them there. a coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man only once.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 7:54pm

207. or woman - ;)

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 7:55pm

208. i've been in many physical confrontation situations ibble and one, about 22 years ago was an ambush. and the military thing worked for me, luckily. i haven't died any cowardly deaths yet and hopefully never will. and i would never, ever kill a bear.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 8:00pm

209. what i really wonder, is when this obverse democratic machine does explode, how many of these intellectual sheep will come baahing into our presence, pretending they were always on the "winning side" (which is all they seem to care about anyway)? well, such is the downside of political victory - i can deal with it, though...

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/09/2006 @ 7:47pm | ignore this person

     Post Bush/Cheney impeachment, do think Mask will be the first to post; saying he was the inspiration and genius behind the drive to force the politicians to actually behave as if they were working in a real and functional democracy? What an era if the legislation written and passed was designed to benefit the majority rather than the 1% of plundering leaches who control our puppet politicians currently.

     Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 8:01pm

210. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/09/2006 @ 8:00pm

     hee hee - ever see 13th warrior? nordic manly man testosterone elevating fun flick with antonio banderas. one of the best movies that did not try to be great i have ever seen...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 8:02pm

211. no, i'll have to check it out next time i plan for a movie.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 8:03pm

212. just so you know, i caused most of those physical confrontations myself. for about 10 years i drank tequila, which makes me really mean. i haven't had any since 1992.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 8:09pm

213. Posted by OUSTBUSH 03/09/2006 @ 8:01pm

     mask wants so badly to join, but just cant get that high school fratboy wannabe seen with the cool "winner" crowd crap out of his head. but the nerds shall inherit the earth because the nerds are smarter than the cool crowd...this is a war...we must not allow our decency, our sense of fairness, our compassion to obstruct us from intellectually obliterating them and making them look like the intellectually insecure, square minds they are. shame them with their ignorance, extend enough rope to hang themselves with, and only show glimmerings of compassion when you bring them down to such a low point that any decent soul would feel pity...then when they feel selfsure enough to think they can compete again...beat them down all over again...repeat the process of bad cop/sympathetic cop over and over and over...

     i dont know what the ultimate result will be, but i am sick of being made the fool of by my intellectual inferiors...time for all worms to turn and attack...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 8:13pm

214. intellectually as well as in real life, you get more with a smile and a gun than with just a smile (al capone). people who do not respect kindness, decency, logic, compassion, patience will only ridicule and bully when one confronts them with the same...you must be prepared to intelligently hurt and insult...sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind (silly/wise 70's pop song)

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 8:17pm

215. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/09/2006 @ 8:09pm

     stay away from the tequilla then (it only made me puke my worm filled guts up), but channel a little of that meanness...

     combined with an occasional compliment, a nice word or two, it is deadly. thats another key, after you have destroyed your enemy, show a tiny bit of kindness...u will appear the saint u must suppress when engaged in the slaughter...traumatize then give a little loving pat on the back...repeat proccess as long as needed...brain staple the critical thinking lobotomized...it is your holy duty...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 8:23pm

216. Ibble,

     I checked out that site twice now. All I see are old forums and new a new article, with no comments. What am I missing?

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 03/09/2006 @ 8:26pm

217. nevermind

     Posted by malcontent3 at 03/09/2006 @ 8:33pm

218. Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/09/2006 @ 8:26pm

     exactly - not the forums - check out the home page - articles by real live talking point conservative think tank gurus with space to post and mix it up. SOMETIMES THE AUTHOR(S) ACTUALLY RESPOND TOO...cough cough...hman posted another site on "what then, from newfane?" - i have not checked it out yet, engrossed as i am in life and the site i reccommended...

     but main thing to remember is have some wicked, impish, fun...get their goat not with dirty wordy frothing, but with clever, manipulative (but true) argument, reason, sarcasm...etc. subtlely push buttons - make them look stupid...support a fellow commando on a roll with some legwork sourcing or engage in enemy footnote shredding if you dont feel particularly witty at the moment. run in, fling a grenade or two, slip back into the countryside if pressed for time...point out other potential infiltration targets when you find one...eventually they will wise up and ban us, i suppose, unless from time to time we say we're sorry and agree with something enough to assuage them...again - their weakness is that of which they are most proud...their self styled supposed cleverness...and their arrogance

     even if eventually we all get banned forever from all their websites, we can a) change names and return b) actually subscribe to a few selct and become the indestructable scary trolls beneath the bridge c) so isolate them in their itellectual cocoons they choke on each other's stupidity, and d) regardless of anything else, meet back here to plot, laugh, and throw back a few tequila shots...hee hee ha ha

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 8:47pm

219. although an ocasional cuss grenade at the right time and moment is devestatingly effective - occasional being the important term here

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 8:52pm

220. i dont know what the ultimate result will be, but i am sick of being made the fool of by my intellectual inferiors...time for all worms to turn and attack...

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/09/2006 @ 8:13pm | ignore this person

     Yeah, Ibbleblibble, any old sack of shit can compensate for physical or intellectual deficiences by utilizing their wealth, but that doesn't make it right. So, yes its time to put these sick bastards in their place. Someone earlier reposted the quote from Ron Suskind New Yorker article), where he was told by the Bush official that they don't operate from fact-based reality; instead creating their own reality by action, whereas everyone else will merely react to the new reality of neocon fantasy. These people are deranged and we cannot let this continue.

     Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 8:54pm

221. just so you know, i caused most of those physical confrontations myself. for about 10 years i drank tequila, which makes me really mean. i haven't had any since 1992.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 03/09/2006 @ 8:09pm |

     Loveloki,

     I believe that you have at some point said you're from Montana. I lived in the northwestern corner, for a couple a years, in a small town called Noxon. I cherished every single day as heaven on earth. Montana is my favorite place in the country. I love to flyfish, and there is no better place. I will eventually move back. Have you read anything from Rick Bass, who lives up in the Yak?

     Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 9:14pm

222. Posted by OUSTBUSH 03/09/2006 @ 8:54pm

     exactly - despite or perhaps because of teir comfy wealth and position, they have degenerated intellectually (which is saying a lot), and are weak in this aspect. they control the msm, so fuck the msm (cuss grenade). many of their most rabid are actually pathetic lifestyles of the rich an famous wannabes - no better off economically tan you or i...but they do not listen unless you slap them around (some, of course are hopeless - but they serve a purpose too - conserative barny fifesque/colmeslike pnching bag buffoons). laugh in their faces at their pathetic attempts to fight back and ridicule their stupidity and ignorance, then when they whine loudest, remind them (perhaps condescendingly) its all in good sport, we're all big boys and girls, right?, make a friendly comment about something inane and safe, even compliment them (they soooo love to hear what they want to hear about themselves, like the silly, insecure children they are - you can rewad them intermittantly from tme to time wit a little treat in classic skinnerian fashion). remember - you are their intellectual, moral, ethical masters, they are your childish underlings...this is the mindset you must cultivate without becoming too arrogant yourself, without forgetting what is really important...

     and let me say that this is not an all encompassing end all manual - be yourself also...keep an eye out for what works with others and incorporate it into your style without parroting the way they do...this is our strength...we are not lock stepping, talking point spewing, neocon aping, cult of mediocrity and stupidity following robots. where they spew dizzying and confusing volumes of lies, we vomit forth dizzying and confusing volumes of truth aimed ultimately at enlightening, not lobotomizing...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 9:17pm

223. by the way - our interlopers are coming out of the woodwork over on kvh's notion bloggette...even nacl is over there, havent seen that troll crawl out of his cave in a while...maybe we just figured out something. fear them not.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 9:26pm

224. yes oustbush, i live in montana. i love it too. it is beautiful. everyday there is a new breathtaking view and i appreciate it very much. i once spent three months in lincoln nebraska. it was good to see how other people live but i missed montana so much i became literally physically homesick. i was begging people to show me a hill...just a hill. i like noxon. it's a nice little town. i'm a little familiar with bass but i need to read more. i like him too.

     ibble, u r too funny. the puppetmaster.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 9:32pm

225. i saw that our precious little mr. salty was back too.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 9:33pm

226. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/09/2006 @ 9:33pm |

     oh - and keep an eye peeled for the weak links - not the "stupid" weak links, but those possessed of glimmerings of hope - do not beat upon them as much - leave open possibility of alliance/conversion. find the smarter ones with a shred of decency and subtlely draw their attention to the stupidity of their fellows....

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 9:42pm

227. an additional note oustbush, jane comfort recently wrote and choreographed a dance, mainly about butte and mining but also about the range of mountains from butte to helena, the boulder batholith and about the native americans. i saw it performed the other day by the headwaters dance company. jane gave a little talk during intermission when she mentioned that she had fallen in love with montana but mainly with butte.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 9:45pm

228. yes, ibble, i have seen this possibility that u mention.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 9:46pm

229. i hope u r not saying there's any hope for mr. salty though. i'd have to argue with u on that one.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 9:48pm

230. lets not talk anymore here....i have an idea...patience all....now go aout and sow discord...talk about this no more for now...

     we're all just a bunch of stupid, lazy liberals, after all...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 9:53pm

231. an additional note oustbush, jane comfort recently wrote and choreographed a dance, mainly about butte and mining but also about the range of mountains from butte to helena, the boulder batholith and about the native americans. i saw it performed the other day by the headwaters dance company. jane gave a little talk during intermission when she mentioned that she had fallen in love with montana but mainly with butte.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 03/09/2006 @ 9:45pm | ignore this person

     I was driving along the 1-90, through Butte several years ago, and I swear that I saw what appeared to be a wolf standing along the road, in broad daylight. I'm not sure if it was a wolf or perhaps a large husky, but I do believe it was the former. I used to love attending Shakespeare in the park, in the summers. The troope from Missoula used to perform. Such a beautiful forum to observe such theater.

     Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 9:56pm

232. that may have been my wolf you saw.

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 10:01pm

233. did it have a collar?

     Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2006 @ 10:02pm

234. did it have a collar?

     Posted by LOVELOKI 03/09/2006 @ 10:02pm |

     Did not get the best view of the thing, but I believe that it did not.

     Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 10:11pm

235. we're all just a bunch of stupid, lazy liberals, after all...

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/09/2006 @ 9:53pm

     Ibble

     You're not suggesting we go out and satchel charge conservative blogs are you?

     (something fun to do on a slow day here at the nation?)

     We could be bad boys… (Ha Ha Ha Ha)

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 10:25pm

236. just think if we used the nations blog to coordinate our efforts

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 10:25pm

237. BLOG Wars... coming to a theater near you.

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 10:28pm

238. will - shhhhh..... patience - trust me - lets shut up for now...wait

     ;)

     i gots an idear...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 10:33pm

239. zip

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 10:33pm

240. :)

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 10:34pm

241. I finally figured it out this evening....

     Arguing about the non-reality and illogic of the Dems running on impeachment, with the average "to-the-Left" "Nation" blogger...

     IS IDENTICAL to an argument I had on a religious blog, with some fundamentalists about "the Anti-Christ" and free will.

     I asked them "Does Satan/AC have free will?"..."yes"..."Is he intelligent?"..."oh yes, diabolically so".

     "Then why will he follow, to the letter, the 'prophecies' of St John as laid out in 'Revelations' and those idiotic Tim Lahaye 'Left Behind' books....why not NOT do the 'Mark of the Beast', invasion of Israel, persecution of the End Times Christians....and prove God's prophet...WRONG?"

     Then their 16K RAM chip minds lock up...and the name calling begins.....THERE it is "atheist mocker"....HERE it is "right wing dolt"!

     But same argument with same type of people!

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2006 @ 10:38pm

242. But same argument with same type of people!

     Posted by MASK 03/09/2006 @ 10:38pm

     So that's all you're left with huh Mask.

     (It must be terrible for you)

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 10:40pm

243. Posted by MASK 03/09/2006 @ 10:38pm

     i always figured that if as a christian your supposted to love your enemy, should you not love old scratch as well, then? sometimes fighting too hard against something just makes it more powerful...sometimes one's enemies can become one's friends through dippy knee jerk decency. sometimes one must crush one's enemies, though, for their own and other's good...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/09/2006 @ 10:50pm

244. Maasch, What a cheesy, stupid shill you are. A mere pus-pocket in the bigger scheme.

     But, I still offer you a bit of love.

     See you around clown,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 03/09/2006 @ 11:25pm

245. Bloppy!

     You're alive

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 03/09/2006 @ 11:31pm

246. Hi Will, Of course I'm alive. You didn't expect me to miss the collapse of the frat-boy fascist, wannabe empire, did you? It's all too much fun! Best,

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 03/10/2006 @ 12:12am

247. Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

     * 222536 responses

     Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.

     86%

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

     4%

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

     8%

     I don't know.

     2%

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

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 01:14am

248. Tons of info concerning impeachment of W regime. A student told me recently that the W is a symbol for fangs, as in snake, vampire.... Even young adults are starting to get it.

     Google Results 21 - 30 of about 4,380,000 for Bush impeachment polls.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

     Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Political views and actions 2.1 Representative Conyers 2.2 Senator Boxer 2.3 Representative Lewis 2.4 Representative Nadler 3 White House reaction 4 Public opinion 4.1 Polling results 4.1.1 Media response to polls 4.2 Public demonstrations 4.2.1 Rallies and marches 4.3 Response to groups formed to support impeachment 5 Endorsements of impeachment 5.1 Politicians and government officials 5.2 Viewpoints of some legal and academic professionals 5.3 Authors 5.4 Organizations 5.5 Media Editorials and Opinion Pieces 6 Reasons for impeachment 6.1 Wiretapping inside the United States 6.2 Invasion of Iraq 6.3 Refuting the Geneva Conventions 6.4 Extraordinary rendition 6.5 Abuse of detainees 6.6 Hurricane Katrina 6.7 Leaking classified information 6.8 Abuse of power 7 See also 8 Further reading 9 External links

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 02:00am

249. Ah! It seems to be growing, this drumbeat about impeachment. People are so cynical and jaded they have trouble recognizing a democracy waking from slumber. Yes, small steps but it is becoming more acceptable, more possible. Take heart all you true progressives! Yes, the corporations control the world but lets make it a little tougher for them -

     Posted by jammin at 03/10/2006 @ 05:07am

250. March 8, 1992: Raw US World Dominance Plan Is Leaked to the Media The Defense Planning Guidance, "a blueprint for the department's spending priorities in the aftermath of the first Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union," is leaked to the New York Times. [New York Times, 3/8/92; Newsday, 3/16/03] The document causes controversy, because it hadn't yet been "scrubbed" to replace candid language with euphemisms. [New York Times, 3/11/92; Observer, 4/7/02; New York Times, 3/10/92] The document argues that the US dominates the world as sole superpower, and to maintain that role, it "must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." [New York Times, 3/8/92 (B); New York Times, 3/8/92] As the Observer summarizes it, "America's friends are potential enemies. They must be in a state of dependence and seek solutions to their problems in Washington." [Observer, 4/7/02]

     The document is mainly written by Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who hold relatively low posts at the time, but become deputy defense secretary and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, respectively, under George W. Bush. [Newsday, 3/16/03] The authors conspicuously avoid mention of collective security arrangements through the United Nations, instead suggesting the US "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted." [New York Times, 3/8/92]

     They call for "punishing" or "threatening punishment" against regional aggressors before they act. Interests to be defended preemptively include "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, [and] threats to US citizens from terrorism." [Harper's, 10/02] Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) later says, "It is my opinion that [George W. Bush's] plan for preemptive strikes was formed back at the end of the first Bush administration with that 1992 report." [Newsday, 3/16/03] In response to the controversy, US releases an updated version of the document in May 1992, which stresses that the US will work with the United Nations and its allies. [Washington Post, 5/24/92; Harper's, 10/02]

     People and organizations involved: Lincoln Chafee, United States, Soviet Union, Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, Paul Wolfowitz

     January 1993: Cheney Releases New Global Domination Strategy While still serving as Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney releases a documented titled "Defense Strategy for the 1990s," in which he reasserts the plans for US global domination outlined in the Defense Policy Guide leaked to the press in March 1992 (see March 8, 1992). [Harper's, 10/02] Clinton's inauguration as president later in the month precludes Cheney from actually implementing his plans. People and organizations involved: Richard ("Dick") Cheney

     http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_ti meline&geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia

     July 7, 1996: A Clean Break Outlines New Middle East Strategy for Israel

     Richard Perle. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/6/03] Lead author Richard Perle will later become chairman of President Bush's influential Defense Policy Board. Several other co-authors will hold key positions in Washington after Bush's election.

     In the paper, Perle and his co-authors advise the new, right wing Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism. ..." The first step is to be the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, allowing governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and other countries to be replaced. "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them," the paper concludes [Guardian, 9/3/02] , citing the original paper at [The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 7/8/96] .

     Perle will be instrumental is moving Bush's US policy toward war with Iraq after the 9/11 attacks.

     People and organizations involved: Syria, Saddam Hussein, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, Richard Perle

     Ted Koppel's take: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2003/abcnews030503b.html

     Posted by plunger at 03/10/2006 @ 05:18am

251. Justin Webb, the BBC's Washington correspondent, said it was unclear whether the deal would result in DPW forfeiting ownership of the ports in question, but if that was the case, the issue would be settled.

     DPW's statement added that the decision was "based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss".

     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4791512.stm

     UNDERSTAND THIS…

     The DPW acquisition of the US port operations has ALREADY OCCURRED. THE DEAL HAPPENED. GET IT?

     All of this dog and pony show is just a charade. The Congress was supposed to conduct a 45 day investigation BEFORE allowing the deal to close. IT ALREADY CLOSED.

     THIS IS ALL JUST BULLSHIT ROVIAN SPIN.

     THE DEAL IS DONE.

     John Snow made his millions and a lot of other Bush Administration representatives received their bribes and Carlyle made their money and the transaction broker made their money…IT'S A DONE DEAL.

     They broke the law and got away with it…AGAIN.

     Posted by plunger at 03/10/2006 @ 05:18am

252. Posted by WILL C. 03/09/2006 @ 10:40pm | ignore this person

     It's enough, WILL. Enough to convince me that what I'm dealing with isn't politics...it's RELIGION.

     And you cannot use logic, facts, or plain ol' common sense to tell a man that his religion is wrong.

     Just like the fundy who KNOWS that the Rapture will happen and the Anti-Christ will obey God's prophecies (despite ALSO having free will)...it is now the OTHER kind of "fundamentalist" who KNOWS that A. the Dems will win the House...B. Pelosi will begin impeachment hearings on Day One....C. they will be "fruitful" and either embaress Bush into resigning or force the Senate to hold a trial that he'll be convicted in....and D. (for the REAL zealots) that it will happen simultaneous with a Cheney impeachment.

     And all of it "started" by the SF City Council, a fringe Congressman who's been trying to impeach Republican Presidents for 20 years, and a resolution from Syrup Corners, VT.

     Posted by Mask at 03/10/2006 @ 06:27am

253. Posted by MASK 03/10/2006 @ 06:27am

     Mask,

     It works both ways. You're masking the truth with avoidance, denial, shutting your eyes/ears/nose, but not your mouth, head in the sand, praying this is all a dream and you'll wake up in conservative land 2001. But your bud Bush and his merry pack of profiteers have broken the law, big time, know it, accept it. And then you wake up and you're here. In the last days, the last days before your ruler is forced to acknowledge he's messed up big time and to plead that we please not fire him, he's never been fired before! Well this will just have to be a learning experience for him; he's had so few. And then what, you get electric shock treatment? Why have eyes, ears, and a nose? Remember you loose them if you don't use them. Don't worry; being one of us isn't a bad thing. Sure it's hard when you start to feel pain and suffering but you'll find it's a great motivator to do something about it, especially when you learn to empathize...

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 09:03am

254. ...this isn't the time for whining or going on vacation.

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 09:50am

255. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/10/2006 @ 01:14am | ignore this person

     An online poll.....well, that cinches it then, doesn't it?

     I mean if an online poll and Zogby say so....the majority of Americans want Bush driven from office, Cheney too...and Nancy Pelosi installed as President by June 2007.

     I guess I better wake up from my little "dream-land" and see the reality.....Apologies, BF. I guess I was just blinded by my love and devotion for George W. Bush and his evil minions, when I was discussing political reality and such silliness.

     Posted by Mask at 03/10/2006 @ 10:00am

256. And you cannot use logic, facts, or plain ol' common sense to tell a man that his religion is wrong.

     Posted by MASK 03/10/2006 @ 06:27am

     Which works out quite nicely for you...

     you don't have any logic, facts or plain ol' common sense.

     (but my guess is you can spin those hamster boys into a really tight circle)

     Posted by Will C. at 03/10/2006 @ 10:33am

257. I'd venture to say-- since Pres Clinton's job approval ratings were closely aligned with the polls to impeach him by a factor 2 - 3 % against per being a popular president before and after his impeachment, inversely the current pres being unpopular with a consistently low job approval rating, taking the 2 - 3 % factor into account, I'd say pres Bush currently has an estimated pro-impeachment poll rating (at most conservative low) of 60 + %. Could be as high as 70%. Considering Pres Clinton had only 27% of the US thinking impeaching him was a good idea and they did it anyway, when 60-70% of the US probably think it's a good idea to start an investigation into impeachment of pres Bush, what makes anyone doubt it isn't about to happen seeing the current investigation into the ports?

     President George W. Bush - Job Approval Ratings

     Poll_______________________Date_______Approve_____Disapprove_____Spread

     RCP Average______________2/28 - 3/8_____39.6%________57.4%_______-17.8%

     AP-Ipsos__________________3/6 - 3/8______37%_________60%_________-23%

     Rasmussen________________3/6 - 3/8______43%_________55%_________-12%

     ABC News/Wash Post________3/2 - 3/5______41%_________58%_________-17%

     CNN/USA Today/Gallup______2/28 - 3/1_____38%__________60%________-22%

     FOX News_________________2/28 - 3/1_____39%__________54%________-15%

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

     NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R) .

     "In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job Bill Clinton is doing as president?"

     Date_________________Approve______Disapprove______Not Sure

     10/24-27/98____________68____________29_____________3

     9/10-13/98_____________66____________31_____________3

     8/20/98 _______________69____________27_____________4

     8/15-16/98 ____________70____________24_____________6

     7/29/98 _______________68____________27_____________5

     7/25-27/98_____________64____________30_____________6

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 10:57am

258. I was discussing political reality and such silliness.

     Posted by MASK 03/10/2006 @ 10:00am

     You are silly. Take off the Elton John sunglasses. The show is about to begin. You're going to miss the whole thing living in your own reality.

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 11:07am

259. Mask,

     Ready for another round?

     Think of the 2007 impeachment of GWB more like the Gray Davis recall than the Clinton impeachment. Both political. One had public support the other didn't. And althouth things have become a little sour recently for the Terminator it has nothing to do with the recall process. Only the apologists are going to cry a river when ol' GW gets his ass fired, but the apologists are a tint minority (like Californian Gray Davis fans).

     Posted by freedomplease at 03/10/2006 @ 11:13am

260. Late to the thread, but not dead...

     Attention, dumbasses who still support this guy (with all due respect to those who support the guy but aren't dumbasses - hah!)

     And to think we've been trying to tell you rightward folks that Bush was bad news since before he got elected... Guess some folks are just slow on the uptake, so eat this, and then apologize for him some more (cuz you amuse the hell out of the rest of us when you do):

     Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low

     By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer 6 minutes ago

     WASHINGTON - More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

     Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq -- the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

     "I'm not happy with how things are going," said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote Republican. "I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina."

     Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues -- port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

     The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

     "You're in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway. In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate.

     "People have seen and heard (Bush's) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking. People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,'" he said.

     The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

     Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

     On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

     Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

     By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

     The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

     "Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent," said Rep. Tom Cole (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla.

     By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

     While the gap worries Republicans, Cole and others said it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

     In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

     "While I don't dispute the fact that we have challenges in the current environment politically, I also believe 2006 as a choice election offers Republicans an opportunity if we make sure the election is framed in a way that will keep our majorities in the House and the Senate," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

     Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him -- and them -- politically.

     "When issue like the internal Republican debate over the ports dominates the news it puts us another day away from all of us figuring out what policies we need to win," said Terry Nelson, a Republican consultant and political director for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004.

     Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports. Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

     All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.

     "We've gotten so carried away I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent," he said. "People vote for change and hope for the best."

     I LOVE it

     Let the papologists (not a typo) begin screaming and whining and picking at Dems and liberals. Criticizing us ain't changing you!

     Posted by New Dawn at 03/10/2006 @ 11:40am

261. Another reason to impeach:

     Breaking: Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP, DeLay, Cornyn, and warns of the "beginnings" of dictatorship

     http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002903.html

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 11:41am

262. "He has no political capital," said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster. "Slowly but surely it's been unraveling. There's been a direct correlation between the trajectory of his approval numbers and the -- I don't want to call it disloyalty -- the independence on the part of the Republicans in Congress." --"Ports Deal News Tracker," WSJ Online. 3/10/06.

     "He has no political capital." That from a Bush friendly type.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 03/10/2006 @ 11:43am

263. You can listen here:

     http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 11:45am

264. Impeachment is hardly a far-fetched idea. You think Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush now? Wait until August! A Republican Senator called this the "winter of our discontent". Well it could be followed by a long, hot summer. A little more pain for America compliments of George W. and both sides will be talking about impeachment to their benefit.

     Here's what everyone has realized. Those who voted for George W. elected a PERSONAE. PERSONAES aren't Presidents. There was a well-publicized group of college students who watched the last Bush/Kerry debate WITHOUT SOUND and concluded that the Bush was more appealing to people. Next time we'll all listen to the sound...and pay less attention to faux-southern, cowboy PERSONAES.

     Posted by kfine at 03/10/2006 @ 11:53am

265. One waits to learn the details of the "US entity" that will acquire the operating rights to the six ports in the Dubai divestiture. Which Bush crony will be enriched by the deal?

     Posted by seattlescribe at 03/10/2006 @ 12:02pm

266. Final question....

     What does Nancy Pelosi answer, in, say, July of this year, when some "smarmy Fox News" reporter asks her...."Ms Pelosi, will impeachment of President Bush be a priority if Dems win the House and you become Speaker?"

     "yes" or "no"?

     Posted by Mask at 03/10/2006 @ 12:18pm

267. Mask,

     I've never known any politician to give a straight answer and I'm sure Pelosi is as evasive as them all. But, Pelosi will have done polls to test whether the impeachmnet is going to play out like the Recall in California or whether it will play out like the Clinton impeachment. When you get asked in the poll you'll respond that it's a bad idea. When I get asked I'll respond that it's a good idea. You seem to think you know what the outcome of that poll will be. I'm not so arrogant as to think I know what America thinks. So if the poll says it's a good idea.....Pelosi will stradle the fence a bit and then say "yes". If the poll says it's a bad idea she'll straddle the fence and then say "no".

     Posted by freedomplease at 03/10/2006 @ 12:34pm

268. "yes" or "no"?

     Posted by MASK 03/10/2006 @ 12:18am

     Hell Mask, I can do a better job. Damn it, this is the first time I ever thought I'd rather be running the US and it would be better off than what we currently have. DUH. And Pelosi is better qualified than me! Face it; we have shit for brains currently running our country into the ground. PELOSI HOWEVER NOT THE BEST CANDITATE-- WOULD BE A VAST, ENORMASLY VAST IMPROVEMENT, THAN WHAT'S IN THE OFFICE NOW. And I think there would be a lot more qualified people around her, and yes even some repubs.

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 12:50pm

269. Ok, Pelosi will probably say something like: " The priority of the dems is what it has been and will always continue to be, to make this nation the best it can be. This is a nation of laws, a democracy and one in which civil rights are protected. If there is any reason to suspect that anyone has violated the law, we must as a fair leg, investigate." Or something to that effect.

     Posted by Bushfools at 03/10/2006 @ 1:04pm

270. So I'm really late to this particular thread...

     Couple posts earlier compared the effort to impeach Bush to the recall of Davis here in California a few years back. Not sure this is a fair comparison.

     Davis did things that hit people at home... the rolling blackouts out here a few years back made national news. I can tell you that my horrible commute to and from work did not get any better when the traffic lights went out, and our home was much less fun without air conditioning.

     The crowning achievement was his decision to make up the budget deficit by increasing vehicle license fees by 300%, which hit Californians (liberal or conservative) square in the pocketbook.

     All those things contributed to bi-partisan hatred of this guy, which is why the recall succeeded.

     Not sure there's enough "right here in my kitchen" stuff for conservatives to hate about Bush to marshall that sort of support for impeachment...

     Posted by tkacg at 03/10/2006 @ 4:20pm

271. Thought this was well-said (references to wiretapping, ports, and Iraq excepted)

     >-------------------- >What to do when the emperor has no clothes >-------------------- > >Garrison Keillor, Tribune Media Services > >March 1, 2006 > >These are troubling times for all of us who love this country, as surely we all do, even the satirists. You may poke fun at your mother, but if she is belittled by others it burns your bacon. A blowhard French journalist writes a book about America that is full of arrogant stupidity, and you want to let the air out of him and mail him home flat. And then you read the paper and realize the country is led by a man who isn't paying attention, and you hope that somebody will poke him. Or put a sign on his desk that says, "Try much harder." > >Do we need to impeach him to bring some focus to this man's life? The Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker carries an article by Jane Mayer about a loyal conservative Republican and U.S. Navy lawyer, Albert Mora, and his resistance to the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. From within the Pentagon bureaucracy, he did battle against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and John Yoo, who then was at the Justice Department, and shadowy figures taking orders from Vice President Dick "Gunner" Cheney, arguing America had ratified the Geneva Convention that forbids cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners, and so it has the force of law. They seemed to be arguing that President Bush has the right to order prisoners to be tortured. > >One such prisoner, Mohamed al-Qahtani, was held naked in isolation under bright lights for months, threatened by dogs, subjected to unbearable noise volumes and otherwise abused, so that he begged to be allowed to kill himself. When the Senate approved the Torture Convention in 1994, it defined torture as an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." > >Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast? > >Wiretap surveillance of Americans without a warrant? Great. Go for it. How about turning over American ports to a country more closely tied to Sept. 11, 2001, than Saddam Hussein was? Fine by me. No problem. And what about the war in Iraq? Hey, you're doing a heck of a job. No need to tweak a thing. And your blue button-down shirt--it's you. > >But torture is something else. Most people agree with this, and in a democracy that puts the torturers in a delicate position. They must make sure to destroy their e-mails and have subordinates who will take the fall. Because it is impossible to keep torture secret. It goes against the American grain and it eats at the conscience of even the most disciplined, and in the end the truth will come out. It is coming out now. > >Our adventure in Iraq, at a cost of billions, has brought that country to the verge of civil war while earning us more enemies than ever before. And tax money earmarked for security is being dumped into pork-barrel projects anywhere somebody wants their own SWAT team. Detonation of a nuclear bomb within our borders--pick any big city--is a real possibility, as much so now as five years ago. Meanwhile, many Democrats have conceded the very subject of security and positioned themselves as Guardians of Our Forests and Benefactors of Waifs and Owls, neglecting the most basic job of government, which is to defend this country. The peaceful lagoon that is the White House is designed for the comfort of a vulnerable man. Perfectly understandable, but not what is needed now. The U.S. Constitution provides a simple, ultimate way to hold him to account for war crimes and the failure to attend to the country's defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the evidence. > > > >Copyright (c) 2006, Chicago Tribune

     Elect the dems to the House and let's get it on! If we don't impeach for skirting Constitutional law, Mask, just WHAT would you impeach for (besides blow jobs)???? Straight up, why don't you, Len, and whoever tell us what's an impeachable offense. Is there such a thing?

     Put up or shut up.

     Posted by The Finaddict at 03/10/2006 @ 6:24pm

272. ooh, ow......sorry for the poor formatting above! Should have previewed!!

     MASK MASK MASK See bold above....

     Posted by The Finaddict at 03/10/2006 @ 6:27pm

273. "Ah think we can agree that the past is behind us." I guess that's the philosophy of Mask and his great leader, Mr. Bush.

     Hey, what's done is done, let's move forward! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...hey, sure, my client murdered that person, but that's water under the bridge. Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who (sorry, lapsed into Python but that's just how ludicrous this defense of the president is). That's a reasonable approach from cool, logical heads.

     Posted by The Finaddict at 03/10/2006 @ 6:36pm