[Robert J McElwain]

I just typed in "Bush Impeachment" into Google and did a search. I got over 1300 news hits and over 700,000 web hits. Most of them had to do with "The Downing Street Memo" which deals with Bush manufacturing the reasons for invading Iraq.

Is this a real issue or just a lot of smoke?

Bob

[richyoung]

...probably rolle dout of the same printer as the "Nat'l Guard" memos...

[dasmi]

If he is going to be impeached, and I'm not saying he should be, it ought to be over the illegal alien invasion that he refuses to put a stop to.

[P95Carry]

I think this is probably more fitting in L&P. Moving over.

Incidentally there was IIRC a long thread on this recently - maybe search THR and see if you can find it. :)

[geekWithA.45]

because that's all they got.

nuff said.

[StopTheGrays]

Most of those hits came from sites like DemocraticUnderground and DailyKos. Ignore it for the moonbatism it is.

[MrTuffPaws]

The memos come form sources over the pond. As far as I know, there has been no evidence that shows them to be fake.

[Robert J McElwain]

The actual memo can be read by doing a Google news search under "Downing Street Memo".

Bob

[R.H. Lee]

If he is going to be impeached, and I'm not saying he should be, it ought to be over the illegal alien invasion that he refuses to put a stop to.


Agreed.

The so-called 'Downing Street Memo' represents more shrill hysteria from the left who are desperately grasping for any shred of wrongdoing they can find, and is more evidence of the meltdown of the 'Democratic' (sic) party.

Honestly, I wish they'd get their act together, expel the radical Marxist/Leninist foaming-at-the-mouth America haters in their midst, and provide some real opposition to prevent the Bush administration from running roughshod over this country and its people more than it already has.

[shermacman]

William Jefferson Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" which called for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein also...
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

[Waitone]

Its real. Abu Graib is the excuse. Treatment of prisoners is the cause. The current press orgasm over GITMO is merely the next phase. The movement has to be underway by the time the next election cycle starts for 2006. He will have to be discredited by the time he makes his first supreme court nomination.

All this is politics and payback. Democrats are looking at a black abyss as far of their political fortunes. Their only lever of power left is the courts and if they don't stop him, their future is bleak. Impeachment will divert attention from their fortunes to inflicting damage on all republicans.

Now is impeachment justified? Not for AbuGraibGitmoetc. Now lets sit back and see if we lose a city due to a terror hit staged from across the Mexican border. If it happens I will actively and vocally support his impeachment. Anything less than that is politics. :scrutiny:

[DonP]

The hard core lefties still can't let go of the last two presidential elections and there is a serious; "you attacked Bill, now we're gonna get yours" factor at work here.

The old political saying holds true here. Conservatives think liberals are people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are just bad people.

Bottom line, IMHO, it's all about money.

Every time Baraba Boxer, Conyers, Kennedy et. al. makes an attack speech, it's always followed by e-mailed appeals to the faithful lefties, to fund her ongoing battle with the evil Bush cabal.

A proposed "Impeachment" will shake more money out of the pockets of the Dems more surely than any other appeal.

Of course it will go nowhere and they will then blame that on the Bush control of the House, that has to write the bill of impeachment. (In essence any representative has the ability to introduce any kind of bill and I think a bill of impeachment is the same thing.)

Conyers, Schakowsky (or some other pinhead) will introduce the bill and it will go nowhere. Then the Dems can applaud their "courage" and they instantly sends out fundraising letters to the hardcore Michael Moore types.

Then they can ask for even more money to help defeat the Republican "stranglehold" on the house.

[rick_reno]

I hope they don't impeach him - he's been the best thing to happen to this Nation in a long time.

[boofus]

The Down's Syndrome Memos didn't take down Blair and they won't take down Bush. Besides the whining, moaning and shrieking from the DUmmies will only INCREASE if Bush is impeached and President 'Halliburton' Cheney becomes commander-in-chief.

[HankB]

I've actually heard GOP Congressmen mention a possible scenario for a Bush impeachment - but this had nothing to do with the so called Downing Street Memo.

It went something along the lines of "Suppose a terrorist WMD goes off in NYC - a big dirty bomb, a chemical or bioweapon, or an actual nuke. And suppose it turns out this was smuggled in over the Mexican border. If this is the case, Bush's longstanding refusal to do anything about border security may actually be regarded as sufficient dereliction of duty to produce an impeachment."

[dev_null]

Wishful thinking, it ain't gonna happen.

And if it came anywhere near to fruition, he and Cheney would just pull a Nixon/Ford act:

"You can't fire me, I quit."
"Ego te absolvo. Now, where's that 'football'?"

[rick_reno]

Regarding border security, I heard President Bush when he was interviewed on Cavuto say "I can assure the America people that we're following every lead, that we're doing everything we can to keep us protected." Surely, if the our President is doing "everything we can to keep us protected" we have nothing to worry about.
Transcript for the interview is here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158960,00.html)

[dasmi]

I hope they don't impeach him - he's been the best thing to happen to this Nation in a long time.
Surely you must be joking.

[thorn726]

oh but of course- illegal detentions (or quasi legal)

take Americans out of America and figure out how t oavoid having to abide by US rules, take us to war over false pretenses (why we didnt jsut say we are going to remove Saddma. period, i dunno).

taking a huge budget surplus and turning it into the biggest debt EVER-

none of these are reasons for impeachment.
BUT= cheating on your wife and lying about it -
NOW thERE is something worth spending millions to impeach over!!!

[Lobotomy Boy]

I agree that the talk of impeachment is just agitation on the part of the left, but the reason it resonates is because the Bush administration is in serious trouble, on a variety of fronts. The biggest problem is that the war doesn't appear to be going very well. It seems to be going from bad to worse.

I think the most dangerous thing that could happen from a pro-Second Amendment point of view would be if Bush supporters kept their heads in the sand regarding the very serious trouble the president is in. The Dems did this during the last election with Kerry. The general consensus on their part was that no rational person would take the Swift Boat ads seriously, and that regardless of how disliked their candidate was, he would certainly beat half-wit chimp boy. They may have been correct had the election been held in July, the week of the convention, but between July and November Rove and company beat on Kerry like a cheap rug. The Dems didn't come up with a proper response in part because they underestimated the trouble their boy was in. They thought that his big giant brain would be so obviously superior to the dingbat from Texas that they'd have a lock on the election.

Turned out they were wrong. Kerry was wounded far more greviously by the attack ads than anyone thought, Kerry's brain wasn't the omnipotent tool the Dems assumed it was, and Bush really wasn't retarded. More importantly, his staff was anything but intellectually slow. Karl Rove probably has more on the ball than Bush and Kerry combined.

Now we shouldn't make the same mistake the Democrats made last year. Bush is in serious trouble. He won't be impeached, I'm sure, but the Republican party could pay a price in 2006 and 2008. Even though I believe most people don't support Draconian gun laws once they understand those laws, I'm afraid congress could be stuffed full of extremist antis in 2006 and in 2008 some whacko like Diane Feinstein could end up as president. Not her, exactly--she's too polarizing--but a more reasonable person who shares her views. I think we should be making a damage control plan right now.

[JohnBT]

:confused:

Impeached is not the same as convicted. Nevermind, I forget how smart everyone else is. ;)

JT

[thorn726]

Impeached is not the same as convicted

i think ever since nixon quit rather than be impeached, people take it to mean the same thing, but correct, impeachment is a trial

[Waitone]

The other point I wanted to make was democrat wish list is to simply impeach Bush but not remove him from office. Bush is far too valuable to the democrat cause wounded and bleeding but still in office.

[DonP]

FWIW, Lieing to your wife about fooling around isn't a crime but lieing to a federal grand jury about anything, including sex, as sworn testimony or as a deposition is. Heck, even lawyers that still have a license to practice and former lawyers like Clinton, know that.

That's why they all try and stay far, far away from any witness chair or deposition.

In general I think the whole impeachment thing was pretty much a waste of time. But Clinton left himself wide open for it through his own ego and stupidity and threw his opponents a big fat, slow, floater right over the plate.

Nixon left office to avoid impeachment proceedings because he and his immediate advisors got caught lieing and executing a cover-up. The "second rate burglary" didn't do him in, the cover up and lies about it did.

I'm not even close to happy with some of what Bush has done, or not done in regard to the borders. But nothing we know about to date is even close to justifying impeachment proceedings and is probably not much more than a fund raising stunt.

As far as illegal detentions go, even with Gitno and all the other detentions, Bush has a long way to go to even come close to matching the record holder for that "crime against humanity". Dig up the body of FDR and have him impeached, villified and denounced for creating true concentration camps for US Citizens in the desert - strictly because of the color of people's skin and ethnic origins. Manzanar held a large number of 3rd and 4th generation Japanese-Americans. I'm not aware of many American citizens, outside of Jose Padiila, being "illegally detained" or being moved offshore for illegal interogation. I think he's being held in the US and now has a lawyer according to the SC decisions.

Of course we could be talking about all the "secret" prisons that Amnesty International keeps referencing in every other sound byte. If they are secret, how come Amnesty doesn't just publish a list of their locations? My favorite was when they hinted that we were using Syria to detain combatants. Yeah, Syria is going to cooperate with us.

To consider impeachment there has to be some real, hard and provable evidence of wrongdoing. Not an up or down economy. (Which, by the way, is really more of an issue for congress that sets the budget and thereby impacts the deficit, not the executive branch.) Not the cries and wailing of the local ACLU chapter. Not just a bunch of DU and MoveOn Kool Aid types yelling foul.

We have a better system to remove a failing or faltering President, it's called an election and we just had one.

[Brett Bellmore]

The whole Clinton impeachment effort was just theater, never intended to succeed. When Starr dropped that report on Congress' front step, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place: Don't impeach, and their base removes them from office at the next election; Do impeach, and every scrap of dirt Clinton had collected on them hits the headlines. (Livingston got a taste of that, but just a taste.) And then the base removes them from office anyway, but their reps are ruined, too.

So they went for a dive, brought the least charges they could under the circumstances, and then the Senate, (Which being dirtier than the House, could less afford to rile Clinton.) called the whole show off before the trial had even taken place.

It was pretty obvious it was a sham, when they held that big, flashy vote to investigate everything, and take as long as necessary to get to the bottom of it, and then a few hours later Hyde announces that they're only going to bring three charges, and plan on wrapping the whole thing up in a couple of weeks at the latest.

[johnr]

Downingstreetmemo- Smoke, but where's the Fire?
various FR links & stories | 06-07-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417955/posts

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Hey Thorn, impeachment is an indictment, not a trial.... The house impeaches, the Senate tries.

The leftards will try to get Bush forever. They LOVE the government and when they are out of power they are like fish laying on the bank flopping around, looking for air, and not realizing that they AREN'T Swimming.

The lefties will try anything. BTW, I have to laugh out loud that Kerry had a grade point LOWER THAN BUSH'S AT YALE.

But he can 'Nuance'. What a crock of crap. Will SOMEONE find out why he was talking to the North Vietnamese in Paris when he was being paid as a Naval Reserve Officer. Can you spell "aid and comfort". See Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 1. :cuss:

[Waitone]

Brett hit it square on the head.

Pick up a copy of "Sellout" by David Shippers. Shippers is a democrat district attorney who was hired by the House Managers to make the case to the senate to remove Clinton from office. He was the fly on the wall when the senate luminaries were deciding to dive or not. It is a great read. But beware. It should not be read on a full stomach. I thought I was going to puke the whole time was reading the book. "Honorable" senators come out looking like sniveling cowards. No one receives honorable mention in Shippers' view.

Great and disgusting at the same time.

[Lone_Gunman]

Signing McCain-Feingold, after first saying it was probably un-Constitutional, deserved impeachment, if anything ever has.

Follow with me:

Bush is sworn to defend and protect the Constitution.

He says McCain-Feingold is probably un-Constitutional.

He then signs it anyway, basically as political payback for McCain's support.

Now, how is this anything less than dereliction of duty? As president, he should not sign laws against the Constitution, if he really believes that in his heart.

[Biker]

Bush has done more for the average Mexican than he has for the average American. For that he should be impeached.
Biker

[2nd Amendment]

Couldn't care less if Shrub is impeached and removed. He's served his purpose: He stopped Gore and Kerry. If he goes now we get Cheney with Rice as VP(yes, my assumption, which I will guarandamntee you would be correct) and then, probably, Rice as president(again, my assumption, but Hellery can't beat her...). Just a slight modification on the idea of Cheney stepping down and Shrubby appointing Rice VP to provide her needed "gravitas". Neither Shrub nor Dickey are worth working up a sweat to defend...and the Dems lack the balls anyway.

[cracked butt]

Wahh!
[whiney voice]
Bush is against clean air- he should be impeached.
Bush has poor pronunciation of words- he should be impeached
Bush was president when airplanes were flown into 3 different building- he should be impeached
Cheney is a successful businessman- Bush should be impeached
Gas costs $2.25 a gallon and everyone drives a SUV and we all know Bush's ties to the oil industry- he should be impeached
Bush comes from Texas but not really- he should be impeached
[/whiney voice]

waaaaaaahhhhh


:neener:

[DRZinn]

I hadn't really thought much about it, but I agree with you. Good points.

[Lone_Gunman]

The fact that Bush supporters stick their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that Bush has violated his oath of office by signing un-Constitutional legislation is amazing to me, and a reflection of how badly partisan our politics have become.

Republicans only want to impeach Democrats, and vice versa, and it is not for the right reasons. The real reason Clinton was impeached was not because of terrible things he had done to our country, it was simply an attempt by Republicans to grab power and hurt the Democratic Party.

[Rebar]

The fact that Bush supporters stick their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that Bush has violated his oath of office by signing un-Constitutional legislation is amazing to me, and a reflection of how badly partisan our politics have become.
The Supreme Court said it's constitutional, be tough to impeach Bush over it after that you must agree.
The real reason Clinton was impeached was not because of terrible things he had done to our country, it was simply an attempt by Republicans to grab power and hurt the Democratic Party.
The man lied, in front of a grand jury, on videotape. He got impeached because he thought he was above the law, and he could weasel out of anything. He was only half right.

[Lone_Gunman]

Rebar, do you think McCain-Feingold is constitutional?

The fact the the SC says it is constitutional does not change the fact that Bush thought it was NOT and signed it anyway. If he believes it is un-constitutional, then how could he justify signing it, and still honor his oath of office?

As far as Clinton is concerned, do you think the Republicans would have gone after him for lying about sex if he had been a member of their party?

[mmike87]

If he is going to be impeached, and I'm not saying he should be, it ought to be over the illegal alien invasion that he refuses to put a stop to.

I am not sure about illegal, but it was probably not the best expenditure of people and dollars. It seems silly to me to invade another country when we can't even secure our own borders. :confused:

So, now we have two (three with Afghanistan) countries with borders we cannot control.

[mmike87]

Let's outsource the entire government to India.

[mmike87]

FWIW, Lieing to your wife about fooling around isn't a crime but lieing to a federal grand jury about anything, including sex, as sworn testimony or as a deposition is. Heck, even lawyers that still have a license to practice and former lawyers like Clinton, know that.

If Bill had just admitted it and said "Yeah, I did it. Look who I am married to."

Not a single warm blodded man in America would have faulted him for that considering Hillary Clinton.

[Lobotomy Boy]

How about we just outsource the Iraq war to India? They've got a problem with an overabundance of cannon fodder anyway.

Clinton certainly screwed up when he lied, and I've never been a fan of the man, but in my book people who butt their noses into the sex lives of consenting adults are the creepiest perverts out there. Why were they asking a grown man about getting his helmet polished in the first place? I would be nervous if Bill Clinton was dating my 20-year-old daughter, but not nearly as nervous as I would be if I saw Ken Star hanging around my five-year-old son's playground.

[Rebar]

Rebar, do you think McCain-Feingold is constitutional?
In my opinion, no. But my opinion, and for that matter Bush's opinion, doesn't matter. If the Supreme Court says it's consititutional, it is, until if/when they change their minds.
The fact the the SC says it is constitutional does not change the fact that Bush thought it was NOT and signed it anyway. If he believes it is un-constitutional, then how could he justify signing it, and still honor his oath of office?
The fact is, it had to first pass the house and senate before he got to sign it, which means everyone who voted for it would have to be impeached too. Considering that most of those are still in office, and they are the same exact ones who would have to hold the impeachment trial, it's an idea that has zero chance of working.
Why were they asking a grown man about getting his helmet polished in the first place?
Because his "activity" took place in the people's office, he was on the job supposedly doing the people's business. If, on my lunch break I took a secretary into the broom closet and engaged in "activity", and got caught, wouldn't you fully expect me to get fired? Of course.

The oval office is my office, the peoples office, not a place for one mans private pervertions. Clinton, despite what he thought, wasn't a king or a dictator, he worked for us. Then he had the gall to lie in front of a grand jury, he got better than what he deserved.
but not nearly as nervous as I would be if I saw Ken Star hanging around my five-year-old son's playground.
A rediculous statement. Starr wasn't "hanging around" Clinton looking for sexual misbehavior, he was given the job of investigating him by congress. The man was just doing his job to the best of his abilities, dispite massive stonewalling and personal attacks by the administration.

[Lone_Gunman]

The fact is, it had to first pass the house and senate before he got to sign it, which means everyone who voted for it would have to be impeached too.

No, everyone would not have to be impeached. I don't think you understand my point.

Laws have previously been passed that were struck down by the Supreme Court as un-Constitutional. The legislators and/or president were not impeached. Presumably, the they believed these laws were Constitutional, only to be corrected by the SC. There was no willful, intentional, and public attempt to violate the Constitution.

Bush's situation is different. He said up front he thought McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional. Based on that and that alone he should not have signed something he thought violated the Constitution. I mean, would you sign un-Constitutional legislation if you were president? I suspect you would not do so knowingly, which is what Bush has done.

The fact that he admitted to signing a law that he thought was un-Constitutional is dereliction of duty. Even if he thought it, I can't imagine he would be dumb enough to say that out loud.

So, the legislators do not deserve impeachment, if they believed it was a constitutional law, as they did not violate their oaths of office. By saying that this was un-Constitutional, and then signing it anyway, I think Bush basically said he didnt give a damn about the Constitution, but would sign anything, if it was politically popular.

[Lobotomy Boy]

You want a "rediculous" statement? How about:his "activity" took place in the people's office

That's childish. If you believe it's "the people's office," try wandering in and setting up shop. It's the office of a public employee. You quote Freud in your tagline. What would Freud say about your infantile preoccupation with the physical location of where Clinton got his knob washed?

[2nd Amendment]

It's politics in a decaying Republic. Clinton provided a way for rational people to remove his pathetic self. The "way" provided wasn't important, just that it existed. Those we tasked with doing the job(they are good for little else) proved themselves too incompetent to do even that, and his supporters mustered up to save his ass.

Meanwhile Bush may have provided the means for the JackAss Party to remove him. It remains to be seen if they are competent enough to do it and/or if Shrub's supporters are strong enough to keep him safe. As I said above, I don't care, he's served his purpose. There are a lot of other conservatives who feel similarly, so maybe he will lack enough defenders? If so the replacement can't be much worse(so long as it isn't a Leftist Democrat in '08).

It's all about partisanship to achieve specific short-term goals, since the long-term looks unremittingly bleak no matter what is done. If you doubt that go take a look at the C-Span thread, or C-Span itself...

[johnster999]

2008 will come soon enough for those unhappy with Bush. Impeachement talk is just more of the same angry noise.

999

[R.H. Lee]

That's childish. If you believe it's "the people's office," try wandering in and setting up shop. It's the office of a public employee That attitude is emblematic of the problem. Clinton, a self-centered narcisstic megalomaniac, had no respect for the office he held.

It is said Reagan, OTOH, cognizant of the trust he held, never entered the Oval Office without a coat and tie.

[seansean]

United States Code, Title 18:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.
U.S. Constitution:
Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

War Crimes(from the U.N.)
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(iii) Taking of hostages;

(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

(d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.

(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

(viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

(f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

3. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.



Lying to congress to start a war is a felony and an impeachable offense. Killing thousands of innocent people in the commission of such an offense is a war crime. BTW, The conyers hearing on the downing street memo is on C-Span2 tonight, here's the link.
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

[Rebar]

Bush's situation is different. He said up front he thought McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional.
So what? I'm sure most, if not all, of the congress and senate knew that also, they just didn't say so, or if they did it wasn't recorded. The fact is it was ruled to be consitutional, if it wasn't then you might have a case, as is there's nothing.
It's the office of a public employee.
That's right, it is the office of a public employee, not a king, not a ruler. It's for the people's business. Sorry if you don't understand that. For anyone else, getting caught doing something like that, be it a public or private job, would get you immediately fired. Anyone else caught bald-faced lieing to a grand jury, would be put in prison for contempt and perjury. He got off way too light.
You quote Freud in your tagline. What would Freud say about your infantile preoccupation with the physical location of where Clinton got his knob washed?
Don't get personal with me buddy, it's a can of worms you don't want to open.

[P95Carry]

Steady guys - steady!!

[Ransom]

If youre going to talk about supporting unconstitutional ideas there is an American born citizen in a naval brig. He's been there for three years and has never even been charged with a crime. For the majority of that time he has been denyed access to anyone, even a lawyer.

According to this administration and the DoJ your constitutional rights are wiped out when they suspect you've done something bad and can be categorized as an "enemy combatant".

[Waitone]

Campaign Finance Control is no different than a plethora of fed.gov actions over the last, oh say 50 years. What chapped me is
--there was no public demand for the legislation.
--It was an inside baseball issue.
--Bush made a big deal of what he wanted to sign the legislation that no one wanted.
--Congress gave him nothing of what he wanted to sign the legislation that no one wanted.
--He refused to act as a leader by telling congress to back off or give him what he wanted.
--Then when presented with bad legislation rather than vetoing it he signed it
--And prior to signing it he commented that it was probably unconstitutional.
--He capped off this sterling performance by hoping the supreme court would rule it unconstitutional and do what he failed to do or had the courage to do.

CFC is a startlingly clear example of what is wrong with congress, democrats, spinelessrepublicans, Bush and the courts. In short CFC is the most unnecessary, in-your-face, unconstitutional legislation passed in recent years. The fact that scotus said it was constitutional is irrelevant. Congress can still make it go away if it wanted to.

[R.H. Lee]

OK seansean, you've got the case laid out, now get your buddies in congress to do something about it. Remember, it ain't a crime until there's a conviction.

[seansean]

alas, us bleeding heart hollywood liberals have no juice in washington these days. :) But, we the people have all the juice in the world if we would all come together, stop fighting each other, focus on them and make them stop it.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Investigating what two consenting adults do in the confines of an office is infantile and more than a little perverted. You can hate Clinton for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that only a pervert would be interested in his sex life.

[2nd Amendment]

You missed the point. Nobody in any position to do anything did care about his sex life. It was a means to an end. Nothing more.

[Lone_Gunman]

Its really pointless to even talk about impeaching Bush. His party has majority control of both the House and Senate.

If democrats had controlled the House and Senate, Clinton would have never been impeached, either.

[Lone_Gunman]

Its really pointless to even talk about impeaching Bush. His party has majority control of both the House and Senate.

If democrats had controlled the House and Senate, Clinton would have never been impeached, either.

I voted for Bush happily in 2000, and grudgingly in 2004. I just can't wait til he leaves office and we get something else for a while.

[san408]

[Quote/]Investigating what two consenting adults do in the confines of an office is infantile and more than a little perverted. You can hate Clinton for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that only a pervert would be interested in his sex life.[QUOTE]

Most of you guys seem to know it all, so I would assume you realize that the Clinton investigation was about him tampering with witnesses (feeding them testimony), and possible sexual harassment/assault. It led to Monica Lewinsky. They were trying to show a pattern of sexual deviance.

They didn't just show up and decide to ask him about the blue dress with the stain on it, and how he liked his cigars. ;)

[hifi]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/06/10/downing_street_memo/index_np.html

"The last laugh
History will hold Bush and Blair accountable for their lies in the run-up to the Iraq war, even if the D.C. press corps just finds them funny.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

June 10, 2005 | On Tuesday, more than a month after the "Downing Street memo" first appeared on Britain's front pages, a Reuters correspondent asked George W. Bush and Tony Blair to explain the secret document that says the Bush administration had decided by July 2002 to invade Iraq -- and that the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's arsenal was then being "fixed" to bolster an otherwise exceedingly "thin" justification for war.

While the president and the prime minister airily attempted to dismiss the explosive memo -- just as many mainstream and conservative journalists in the United States did at first -- they have a lot more explaining to do. History will hold them accountable even if the press does not. For unlike previous indications of Bush's duplicity in promoting the war, this document provides historical evidence of a kind that usually remains hidden in a vault for years or even decades.

The Downing Street memo meets a higher standard of proof than gossip from one of Bob Woodward's unnamed sources or the memoirs of a disgruntled former official like Paul O'Neill. It is the official classified record of a crucial meeting of the British government's security cabinet on July 23, 2002 -- including the prime minister, the attorney general, the foreign secretary, the defense secretary and the chief of MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service. It details their worried discussion of their American ally's premature and absolute determination to wage a war that the president publicly claimed he hoped to avoid, and of the difficulty they would have in justifying that war.

Stodgy and fearful, the Washington press corps seemed unable to process this revelatory document, concocting various excuses to ignore it or relegate it to the back pages. Until Tuesday, it seemed likely to fade into the archives, despite the best efforts of dissident politicians and bloggers.

So the president may have been surprised when Steve Holland of Reuters asked this question: "On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being 'fixed around' the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?"

Like the eager poodle that will be his permanent caricature, Blair leaped to answer first. His response is worth parsing carefully, especially because neither he nor Bush took any follow-up questions on the subject.

"Well, I can respond to that very easily," Blair said. "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."

He didn't deny the authenticity of the memo, nor did he try to claim that the obvious meaning of the phrase "fixed around" is different in London than in Washington. He also didn't try to explain why the memo so clearly quoted Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, making comments precisely to that effect. And he didn't explain why, if the memo was wrong, neither he nor anyone on his staff corrected its contents when it was circulated to all those present after the meeting.

Did Blair mean to suggest that Dearlove -- identified in the memo only by his traditional codename "C" -- had reported inaccurately on what he had learned from his CIA counterparts in Washington? If so, how would Blair know that? Or did Blair mean to imply that Matthew Rycroft -- his foreign policy aide who took the meeting notes and later wrote the memo -- misquoted Dearlove?

Blair moved on swiftly without further clarification, as if he and his government bore no responsibility for the memo's contents -- and he was lucky that nobody asked what he thought he was talking about.

"And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations," he continued blithely. "Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is, we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action."

The credibility of Blair's remarks can be judged only in context of the Downing Street memo and other documents leaked in Britain, all of which show that "going to the U.N." was merely a pretext for military action -- which he had committed his country to support months earlier.

Yes, the Downing Street memo was written before the United States and the United Kingdom brought Iraq before the U.N. Security Council. But as Blair well knows, the decision to return to the United Nations had nothing to do with Bush's ultimate goal. The question debated among his advisors and with the British was what route they would take to get to Baghdad -- and how to manage world opinion along the way.

On May 1, the Sunday Times of London also published another classified British government document, titled "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" and dated July 19, 2002 -- four days before the Blair security cabinet met at Downing Street. Circulated to the officials at that meeting, the memo emphasized the commitment Blair had already made when he visited Texas several months earlier:

"When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford [Texas] in April, he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change." The memo noted that the United States should meet "certain conditions" and that both governments would have to "shape public opinion" to make war politically feasible.

At the time, like his friend Bush, Blair was telling his public and elected officials that he had made no decision to invade Iraq. But still another memo shows that his denials were misleading. In a classified report, Sir David Manning, the prime minister's foreign policy advisor, informed Blair about his March 14, 2002, meeting with then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. "I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change, but you had to manage a press, a parliament, and a public opinion."

Or as Christopher Meyer, then the British ambassador to the United States, put it in still another leaked memo, dated March 18, 2003, about a conversation with Rice: "We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option."

In other words, as the Downing Street memo also indicates, the United Nations was nothing more than the stage set for a "clever" plan to manage public opinion. At the July 23 meeting, Foreign Minister Jack Straw admitted that the case against Iraq "was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran." Straw's solution was to "work up an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

According to the memo, Blair hoped that Saddam would cooperate -- by refusing to cooperate with the U.N. "The prime minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors ... Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD ... If the political context were right, people would support regime change."

There was no discussion at the July 23 meeting, or in any of the leaked documents, about how to avoid war -- although Blair continues to insist that was his fondest wish.

Both Blair and Bush have frequently asserted, as the prime minister again repeated at the White House this week, that in fact Saddam didn't comply with the U.N. resolutions. Indeed, Blair rather strangely behaves as if the world hadn't seen the inspectors return to Iraq during the weeks before the invasion; as if the world hadn't watched the destruction of illegal missile parts found by the inspectors; as if the world hadn't learned, after exhaustive post-invasion searching, that there were simply no weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq.

Blair apparently thinks that everyone should simply believe him -- regardless of the Downing Street memo and other inconvenient realities -- because nobody knows what went on between him and Bush "more intimately ... than me." As Groucho Marx would have said, should we believe Tony or our own lying eyes?

As for Bush, he too tried to wave off the memo by asserting his own version of what happened three years ago -- and by insinuating that the American press somehow deserved blame for a story that it had scarcely dared to report.

"Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of [Blair's] race," he said. "I'm not sure who 'they dropped it out' is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there." At that the reporters in the White House press room laughed along with Bush. That was some funny joke, especially coming from a president whose administration has so successfully intimidated the national media.

"And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth," he continued. "My conversation with the prime minister was, how could we do this peacefully? what could we do?"

Nobody asked Bush to explain why the memo quotes Foreign Secretary Straw telling Blair and his other colleagues that according to his contacts in Washington, "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." And incidentally, nowhere in the memo does Blair contradict any of his ministers' damning assertions about his friend Bush.

There remain many more questions to be asked and answered, now that the forbidden issue has been broached in our own press. Will the American media rectify its original error and pursue the story of the Downing Street documents? Or will it again drop the subject, even though both the president and the prime minister have implicitly confirmed the memo's authenticity?

Past performance on this and other stories displeasing to the White House suggests that their unconvincing and incomplete answers will be allowed to stand, even though the president's popularity and public support for the war have reached new lows.

For anyone who recalls the blazing indignation of the Washington press corps and the nation's talking heads after Bill Clinton lied about his sad philandering, the passive media response to this president's fatal dishonesty is astonishing.

He brandishes the "smoking memo" in their faces and laughs -- and they laugh with him."

[Rebar]

Joe Conason is the very definition of a moonbat.

It's been show many, MANY times here on this board and elsewhere, that most world leaders, and almost all democratic leaders, also thought Saddam had current stockpiles of weapons. How can they impeach Bush for thinking the same way Bill and Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, and the rest of them did?

[dpesec]

Hey, I'd like to see the southern border a bit tighter. But let's be realistic, it isn't going to happen. It's not Bush's fault. The only way to stop it is either punishing the companies that hire undocumented workers, or to place an Boarder Patrol agent every 50 feet. That's possible, but do we want to pay the taxes for that?

Put the military there. There's two problems, first let a soldier shoot somebody while defending himself or herself. The press will have a field day. Secomd, look at the problems with retention, the military has been issuing Stop Loss orders for over a year. What's that caused, a fall off in recruitment. When soldiers sign-up for 2 years and they expect to be released, and it doesn't happen what do you expect?

I'm open to suggestions, but they have to be politically feasible.

[hifi]

Joe Conason is the very definition of a moonbat.

Karl Rove Rules of Engagement: Rule #1. When the bleak facts are being exposed, immediately attack the source. Make sure to use denigrating terms like, "wacko", "moonbat", or "looney".

I've recently noticed this being used more and more as a defense mechanism by the Bushborg. Rather than, "No you're wrong.", It's, "No, you're a wacko."

[hifi]

dpesec,

They built a fence in Israel and that seems to work quite well. Border Patrol agents would not have to be spread every 50 feet. And all judges would have to do is actually jail illegals or have them deported.

The Minutemen did a wonderful job. No more excuses just because Bush is in office.

[dpesec]

I forgot about that, but it'll still cost a fortune in initial costs and up keep.
Minutemen, that's not a government project, but I'd love to see more citizens getting involved in "doing the right thing."

Oh, yes another thing to consider, no matter who's president whatever he or she proposes, it still has to pass congress with either the enabling legislation or funding. We all know how much backbone those folks have for taking a stand.

[Lone_Gunman]

I saw an estimate that said that building a high-tech fence between the US and Mexico would cost about 10% of only one year's defense budget. Now I am sure a government project of that magnitude will run over budget, but even if it ends up being 20 or 30% of one year's defense budget to build, I think its worth it.

Money is the only reason Bush doesn't close the border, plain and simple. Bush is putting our nation at risk by not closing the border. If the next 9-11 style attack can be traced back to terrorists who entered through the southern border, then Bush's legacy will be totally destroyed, and he will go down in history as a total bufoon. Its getting harder and harder for the Bush lap dogs to hide this fact.

[AhmuqGB]

Now I am sure a government project of that magnitude will run over budget, but even if it ends up being 20 or 30% of one year's defense budget to build, I think its worth it.

So what about Canada? If it's the terrorist threat we are worried about we have an even bigger threat to the north. Then what happens when the military is no longer able to take the fight to the terrorists because of a 30% shortfall in defense funding? If that 30% isn't from the defense budget where from then? and what happens then to all the southern California and Texas farmers etc that rely on the illegal migratory work force that is now cut off (an ugly truth but truth no less). Easiest solution is pass the defense burden onto Mexico, deduct $ from the support funding we send to Mexico to aid border control and add taxes to NAFTA (if it's still functional) per illegal immigrant we detain and ohh by the way also deduct all expenses associated with repatriating said illegals. Bet you would get the entire Mexican army along the border preventing illegal crossing after that. Nothing like hitting them in the wallet to provoke action. just my opinion, probably full of holes, I agree something needs to be done, but not sure making taxpayers or the defense budget assume the burden is the right answer.

[auschip]

They built a fence in Israel and that seems to work quite well. Border Patrol agents would not have to be spread every 50 feet. And all judges would have to do is actually jail illegals or have them deported.


So how does our .gov go about fencing land they don't own?

[Lone_Gunman]

The construction costs are 10% of ONE year's defense budget; maintenance would be considerably less.

As far as the farmers in TX or CA are concerned, they are in violation of the law, and they know it. They are making money at the expense of the rest of the country. Cheap squash just isn't worth the price we are paying in illegals.

So how does our .gov go about fencing land they don't own?

Imminent domain.

[Firethorn]

You don't necessarily need to fence the entire border in one year. Make it a five year plan. Each year, you build 1/5 of the wall, conveniently over the highest illegal traffic zones. I'd build it tough and cheap to repair. Better than chainlink, probably lots of concrete.

Heck, landmines might be cheap enough. :D

Fence, landmines, Fence. It'd work, wouldn't it?

Oh, and use all the cheap labor available from the new, easily available, legal immigration.

[Waitone]

A continuous fence is not necessary. It may be advisable to have one in certain high traffic locations but by and large a fence is not necessary.

What is necessary, but not sufficient, is workplace enforcement with a series of high profile employer busts followed with public perpwalks and trials. A wide variety of prosecutions of business types including a range of businesses will go a long way toward cutting down on the attractiveness of criminal immigration. I would go further and insist on bust of certain government officials that refuse to enforce law. Don't like the law? Get it changed but don't think it is acceptable to just ignore it. After all, little people like me may just get it in my tiny mind to just not obey the law, like oh say tax law. If government can ignore law it finds inconvenient then I can ignore law that I find inconvenient. :D

I will guarantee you goobermint does not want the little people getting it in their minds that they can simply ignore laws they find unacceptable. :scrutiny:

[2nd Amendment]

Imminent domain.

Yay. Let's attempt to solve one problem by stealing even more land from western land owners. :rolleyes:

[Brett Bellmore]

Waitone,

He capped off this sterling performance by hoping the supreme court would rule it unconstitutional and do what he failed to do or had the courage to do

No, what really impressed me came even later, when he expressed disappointment that the legislation didn't regulate the 527 organizations, as he'd thought it would when he signed it. Turns out he was just scaming everybody when he claimed to be opposed to it.

[Waitone]

Brett,

<doffs his hat> <bows at the waist> <holding hat in hand apologizes for being so incorrect>

Yep! That was the topper and I forgot it. That little episode showed the entire CFC episode was political theatre. Both parties wanted it. I would love to return to the days of tar pots and feather pillows.

[davec]

13 June 2002

PRESIDENT BUSH:

Yes, I told the Prime Minister there are no war plans on my desk. I haven't changed my opinion about Saddam Hussein, however. He is -- this is a person who gassed his own people, and possesses weapons of mass destruction. And so as I told the American people, and I told John, we'll use all tools at our disposal to deal with him. And, of course, before there is any action -- military action, I would closely consult with our close friend. There are no plans on my desk right now.

http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2002/interview1704.htm




See, Bush didn't have any war plans. So the British memos that were released are simply innacurate when they say things like :

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html


The President was clear. He did not have any war plans in June of 2002. So for the British to assume that he did in July of 2002 is irresponsible and fraudulent.

I for one prefer to believe a straight talkn' Texan over any limp wristed tea totalers from England.

[Omni04]

how about we just dig little hole and put sharpened sticks on the bottom! Then we can all blame trappers! :D



I for one prefer to believe a straight talkn' Texan over any limp wristed tea totalers from England.

hahaha! Thats one made me laugh! Not very PC though ;)

[Beren]

Yes, I told the Prime Minister there are no war plans on my desk.

Of course not. They were in his filing cabinet.

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Yay. Let's attempt to solve one problem by stealing even more land from western land owners.

the feds already have right of ways secured all over this great land of ours. 75' on either side of a power line. I am quite sure that most border land owners would be grateful to give the government Right of Way easements of 150' into their property in exchange for fewer folks trampling their vegetable gardens. They already have to cede enforcement access at all hours of the day and night. This would make those enforcement incursiouns even fewer after the initial headache of building the fence(s).

Just a few thoughts.

[2nd Amendment]

Power line right of way isn't federal. Likewise Eminent Domain is NOT "right of way", nor does it have anything to do with a land owner willingly giving access to his property; it is a taking against the land owner's will. Something that is happening all too frequently out west(and all across the country under various guises). The poster specifically said Eminent Domain and that was specifically what I was replying to.

[Lone_Gunman]

2nd Amendment,

I do not believe the amount of land they would need to take would be very wide, and land owners may actually appreciate a wall to keep out illegals.

The government takes land when it needs it. My grandfather lost an orange orchard in Cape Canaveral when NASA needed a space center. The state of Georgia just forced me to sell land to them to allow for a new bridge right of way that runs through my property. It happens. I am not happy with it either, but I think it would be justified in this case.

[bjbarron]

Interesting thread.

Reading the discussion, I can't help thinking that neither Clinton or Bush would have been considered members of their prospective parties when I started to vote nearly 40 years ago.

Clinton's avoiding of the draft would have killed him off, and Bush as a conservative is a joke...he would have been a left-leaning moderate democrat back then. In order to be to the left of Bush, the moonbats need to move faaaaarrrrrr left.

Clinton's presidency is a result of the times...post, post Vietnam, boom, and easy times call for an easy president. The pendulum swings back and we get Bush because just barely enough Americans just got tired of the lifestyles that the liberals said they should tolerate and don't trust the moonbats during a time of war.

You would think that sitting in the middle of the swinging pendulum are guys like McCain...(and he skeeves me out more then the other two). The reality is that the 'middle' has been skewed left over the past few decades. McCain v. Hillary...where is the choice there folks? Conservatives would stay home in droves or vote for a third party like we did for Perot.

But then again, as a people we get the kind of government we want, don't we. Examine this graphic which quantifies a study (http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc) by the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. The average score of fifty is where the average American voter is by voting record.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bjbarron/blogfiles/mediarating.jpg

[Rebar]

Karl Rove Rules of Engagement: Rule #1. When the bleak facts are being exposed, immediately attack the source. Make sure to use denigrating terms like, "wacko", "moonbat", or "looney".

I've recently noticed this being used more and more as a defense mechanism by the Bushborg. Rather than, "No you're wrong.", It's, "No, you're a wacko."
LOL!

I can't decide if this is ironic, hypocritical, or both.

[Lone_Gunman]

Rebar, I am curious, what do you take "Bushborg" to mean?

[Rebar]

Rebar, I am curious, what do you take "Bushborg" to mean?
Are you joking? The meaning is quite clear. It's one of those "denigrating terms" stereotyping people who defend Bush from the left-wing fanatical Bush-haters.

Speaking of fanatical Bush-haters, seems like there are more than usual here lately. Did the moveon or DU boards go down recently?

[Lone_Gunman]

Rebar, I voted for Bush twice... so I can't really be characterized as a Bush hater. I am less and less pleased with him as time goes on, and I don't hesitate to question some of the bad choices he has made, nor do I hesitate to pass my feelings on to the RNC. I'll bet I gave more money to his 2000 election than you did.

Blindly following someone who is doing damage just because they are a member of "your party" is a crying shame.

[hifi]

LOL!

I can't decide if this is ironic, hypocritical, or both.

It's both whenever I lower myself to the Bushbot level. ;)

I'm one of those "fanatical left-wing Bush hating" Constitution Party voters.. :banghead:

[Lobotomy Boy]

Speaking of fanatical Bush-haters, seems like there are more than usual here lately. Did the moveon or DU boards go down recently?


Nope. It's just a sign that Bush is in serious trouble, losing support among his base. The ultra conservative folks think he's too liberal, moderate Republicans think he's a religious extremist, and anyone even slightly left of center thinks he's a war criminal.

If the Republican political machine, including grass roots party members, don't start taking this into account when planning strategy for the '06 mid-term elections and the '08 presidential elections, we're likely to see anti-2A Democrats make huge gains in congress and some seriously dangerous lefty in the Oval Office come January 2009. If you all think fighting amongst ourselves and name calling and blind defense of a severely wounded lame duck president is productive, you might as well start campaigning for the Hilary/Feinstein '08 ticket.

[Waitone]

Bush has until the end of this year before his political capital turns into monopoly money. People ain't buyin' his social security pitch. He has refused to deal at all with the one issue where he can pick up votes in all political camps. He's let the battle over nominees go on for too long with no evident resolution in sight. His hand picked senate leaders looks for all the world like he was rolled. He and his cat's paws moan and groan about "wevil demowats" holding up his nominations yet his base knows he could end the fun and games with one phone call but he fails to do so.

I've maintained that absent the war on islamofascist terrormongers, Bush would be the weakest president in my political life. He is doing a splendid job of living down to my expectations.

[Rebar]

Blindly following someone who is doing damage just because they are a member of "your party" is a crying shame.
There's a big gap between being critical of some of Bush's policies, and calling for his impeachment over thought-crimes and the old "Bush lied children died" nonsense.

This is why we're always playing defense to the left's offense. We're too willing to throw our leaders under the bus at the least provocation. The leftists stick with their leaders, thick or thin, you got to give them credit for that. Some here forget we could of had President Gore or President Kerry, and we just might have a President Hillary if we keep tearing ourselves up.

[hifi]

This is why we're always playing defense to the left's offense.

The fact that people accept the false left/right political paradigm is the reason we have somebody like Bush in the fight place.

Who do you want? Al Franken: More government?...or Rush: More government?

Answer to one of the false choices like a good tool now..... :rolleyes:

Like any thinking person would care which puppet of either corporate party makes it into office....

Cousins to the bone. Skull & Bones in 04' all the way baby.

Sorry if I scalped my tickets to the WWF event.

[Lone_Gunman]

We're too willing to throw our leaders under the bus at the least provocation.

I think the right is at least as willing to defend its bad leaders as the left. Can you give an example of what you mean?

Also, the right is much better at discrediting the leaders on the left, than the left is at discrediting leaders on the right. Clinton's impeachment, and Kerry's Swift Boat debacle are examples.

[dev_null]

Let me get this straight:

"Moonbat" is insulting. "Bushbot" is not.

So that's what passes for logic these days? I'm not even a fan of Shrubya. Er, I mean...

:p

[Waitone]

I like the following definition of "Moonbat";
Someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be.
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/glossary_archives/001981.html

As long as the concept is used universally, I find it useful to describe a number of political variants. No sense in wasting the term on one end of the political spectrum.

[longeyes]

If Bush were to be impeached it would be for the wrong reasons and would have precisely the wrong impact. Bush is bad but he's "our bad" and right now, with the country in peril and being yanked apart, we simply can't afford to send that signal, either to the Islamofascists or to the rabid America-hating Left. What matters now is getting the right Justices on SCOTUS, getting the border under control, and finding someone other than a faceless suit to run against Hillary in '08.

[Lobotomy Boy]

One thing I think we all agree on is that it is highly unlikely that Bush will be impeached. I'm more worried about the next two elections.

[MikeB]

What short memories some people have. Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about sex. He was impeached for lying under oath, a lie that caused a lawsuit against him to be prematurely dismissed. If he hadn't lied it is unlikely that lawsuit would have been dismissed. The Judge in the case has stated as much herself. There was an actual direct provable victim of his lie.

As for Bush lying. The only "lies" the left can point to are the so called "lies" about WMD. By definition someone has to know they are uttering a false statement for it to be a lie. Considering that EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMD it's kinda hard to call it lying and be intellectually honest. Just look at statements by Kerry, Clinton, et. al. who also claimed Saddam had these weapons.

As for the Downing street memo. It's a very disjointed collection of statements that often don't even seem to relate to one another; and are often statements of what one person thinks another person thinks. Not very good for real evidence of anything here. I would question whether the proper context is being given to any statement taken from it. Also if you read the original "fixed" statement it says this "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." To me at least that reads more as concentrating on a certain policy rather than "fixing" facts as the quote is often potrayed as saying. Fixed and fixing have different and varying definitions. As an example "They fixed on WMD rather than human rights violations." That was probably a smart move at the time as we know the UN hasn't ever done diddly about genocide or brutal dictators.

[Art Eatman]

Based solely on my reading books by English authors, I suggest that the use of "fixed" is similar to the American use of "focussed". "A fixed stare at his opponent..." for instance.

Art

[Lone_Gunman]

As I have said, I think there is no chance of a Bush impeachment, the Republicans hold both the House and Senate and will look after their own.

However, I find it hard to believe that most Republicans support Bush on most issues. If they do, then the party has really changed from where it was in 1980. Bush has increased size of government, increased social welfare, and signed laws that limit constitutional rights. These are things that the Democrats have traditionally done.

This has created a problem inside the Republican party. Most Republicans are blindly supporting Bush, and not questioning his policies, despite the fact that he has pushed the party away from its traditional base. Republicans are afraid that if they say anything, they will lose power. The problem is that by not pushing Bush back to where he should be, the party as a whole is drifting to the left.

Republicans who disagree with Bush need to speak out, or else real conservatism in this country will die.

[shermacman]

Good points Lone Gunman, but riddle me this: what are we supposed to do? I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 (I was one of six people here in Massachusetts to do so...!) I support him about half of the time. The rest of time he drives me insane with his Left Liberal, anti-Constitutional proposals. I don't support him blindly. I wish for better.

Yet when one of the DU lurkers on this board slams him with their idiocy or when one of my own gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal Conservatives spouts off with "Vote Libertarian" I wonder just who they really want in the Office of the President of the United States.

Bush may be alienating his base, but where else is the base going to go? I don't feel like voting for Herself in 2008 just to teach this country a lesson...

[Rebar]

Can you give an example of what you mean?
Sure.

Trent Lott had to step down as majority leader for one comment while being kind to a very old man.

Richard Durbin, minority whip, gave the most outragous speech I've heard in a long time (and I'm suprised it's not a topic here), comparing America and our soldiers to the Nazis, Stalin's gulag, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. His party is defending him.

If you march in lockstep to the party line, the democrats will not turn on you no matter what. The republicans will throw anyone, including respected and powerful leaders, under the bus for the least misstep.

[RealGun]

What matters now is getting the right Justices on SCOTUS, getting the border under control, and finding someone other than a faceless suit to run against Hillary in '08. - longeyes

Agreed, but it seems we are doing extremely poorly at all three. Maybe that's what you meant.

On another issue, if the GOP looks and feels more like liberals or GW passes laws that feel more like from a Democrat administration. that could well be from the Karl Rove playbook. If the GOP gives you enough of what you want, serving a bit of all interests, what does one need with a Democrat? If the GOP is more moderate, so what? There are no stone tablets that say what it means to be a Republican, are there?

[Lone_Gunman]

Rebar, the Republicans were already looking for a reason to get rid of Trent Lott. I agree they trashed him over a minor comment, but it wasn't "sacrificing" him for any reason other than the Republican machine wanted him out of power. That was just a convenient excuse.

Trent Lott was not in favor with the party leaders, thats why he got the boot.

Shermacman, in response to your question, "what are we supposed to do?", I would suggest you write the RNC and tell them how you feel. Then when primary season comes around, we need to support a candidate who will put the Republican party back where it was in 1980.

When Bush ran for the primary in 2000 it was clear he was at best a moderate, if not a liberal. He was talking about "compassionate conservatives", which we all now know is a code word for moderate liberalism. He advocated expansion of federal powers and government size. He advocated enlarging social welfare programs like medicare. He supported the AWB.

Then when he came into power, the conservatives in the party were all shocked to find out that he actually intended to push for these agendas. For example, many gun owners, including people who frequent this forum and are probably fairly well informed on gun issues, claimed that Bush was a traitor on the AWB issue, when he said he supported it all along. He didn't change his mind, he made his position clear from the beginning.

Plain and simple, we got what we voted for in 2000. Bush hasn't changed, conservatives just blindly voted for him. Unless we reverse this trend, things are going to continue moving left.

[RealGun]

Rebar, the Republicans were already looking for a reason to get rid of Trent Lott. I agree they trashed him over a minor comment, but it wasn't "sacrificing" him for any reason other than the Republican machine wanted him out of power. That was just a convenient excuse.

I don't think that's what happened. Lott was dumped for making a racial remark when the GOP was doing quite a lot to offer opportunities to qualified blacks. He was just too high up the chain to represent that kind of thinking openly. It was unacceptable.

When Bush ran for the primary in 2000 it was clear he was at best a moderate, if not a liberal.

Based on what? I believe his Texas record was pretty good. He was obviously interested in what was good for the economy, business in general, and had some points for RKBA in Texas.

He supported the AWB.

Not exactly. He disarmed the Dems by saying he would sign it but did not promote it and hasn't since. He made it a non-issue, unless one is in the camp that sees everything he does and says in a negative light.

He advocated expansion of federal powers and government size.

Well, actually what he did is respond to 9/11, as everyone was expecting. Characteristically, government responds with a new bureaucracy (Homeland Security), throwing money at the problem.

Then when he came into power, the conservatives in the party were all shocked to find out that he actually intended to push for these agendas.


Hmm. All I have concluded while watching pretty closely is that some of the GOP is not comfortable with his exercises of power and single mindedness. Frankly I think all they are concerned about is a lack of decorum in Congress, when their business is not about compromise. Bipartisanship is a lie anyway.

For example, many gun owners, including people who frequent this forum and are probably fairly well informed on gun issues, claimed that Bush was a traitor on the AWB issue, when he said he supported it all along. He didn't change his mind, he made his position clear from the beginning.

Well to be objective, he did say in 1999 while campaigning that he would sign the AWB if on his desk. Many on this forum and elsewhere were able to acknowledge that he took no initiative whatsoever. In fact, he demanded that the gun manufacturer's lawsuit protection bill come to his desk as a clean bill. Best we not forget that. You have to be able to read the tea leaves.

conservatives just blindly voted for him

Actually, isn't it clear that many voted AGAINST two notorious anti-gun opponents (Gore and Kerry)?

It seems clear to me that the GOP will be increasingly moderate, hoping to draw more independent and undecided votes. All that while holding the line on religion-based issues like abortion, gay marriage, and God in government, one God and his son in particular. I am not happy at all about the last part but am in fact a centrist, open minded about many things except what words mean in the Constitution and whether the Constitution supports whatever is proposed.

I think it's too early to do much hand wringing about the next election, although I am at a loss to pick a viable gun-friendly candidate. If this Congress does anything with guns, it will be later, probably the end of this year or early next. The DC Gun Ban Repeal and Gun Manufacturer's Lawsuit Protection bills are in the pipe. Feinstein and Schumer will pounce on either one with an AWB, including .50 cal.

We won't see much until all this judge business is caught up, most likely drained by approving a new Chief Justice, shelving the rest until later.

It looks to me like one of the former Governors will emerge as the GOP candidate. I don't see Bill Frist as well respected but he hasn't had the last word yet about a nuclear option, which would firmly cement his support from the religious right. They would see that as a triumph in stacking the courts to set up an overturn of Roe v Wade, not to mention favoring other issues of faith, Christian in particular.

Face it, the real dividing line between Democrats and Republicans is redistribution of wealth and separation of Church and State. If either party plays it close to the middle on either it won't mean it has lost its identity. Elections need to be won. The differences will just be a matter of degree. Neither party can afford to be adamantly this or that, openly alienating anyone.

We have to read between the lines, but I think you make the picture sound like it is much more clear than it really is. You also stated some things that are more opinion than fact. What I have stated here is intended entirely as opinion, hopefully well informed.

[Lone_Gunman]

I agree a lot of what I said is based on my opinion as I see things. I remember what Republicans were like 30 yrs ago, and I see what they are like today, and things have changed.

You can dispute what I say if you want, but the following facts remain:

1. Size of government has increased
2. Government intrusiveness has increased.
3. Government spending has increased.
4. Social welfare has been expanded.
5. Constitutional rights have been curtailed.

None of these have been the traditional goals of the Republican Party. It is only going to get worse unless the conservative base makes it clear it is not happy with the course Bush has taken.

[RealGun]

You can dispute what I say if you want, but the following facts remain: - Lone_Gunman

Those are certainly the big bullets, aren't they? I don't think Bush invented any of them. It is evolution, all a symptom of eroding States rights, if there are any left.

I blame it on career Senators, who find power with the Fed, not the States, aside from some gratuitous pork sent home here and there. Term limits in the Senate would change the face of Washington.

[Lone_Gunman]

RealGun, I agree the Senate shares responsibility... but as Harry Truman said, the buck stops in the Oval Office.

All Bush has to do is use the VETO, a power of which he is apparently unaware. One stroke of his pen can save the Constitution, and our Republic, from all manner of damage from Congress.

Republican supporters keep passing the buck, shifting blame to others, and making excuses for Bush. Until this trend changes, the Republicans will continue to produce poor presidents.

[RealGun]

I agree but I think he is saving his powder for his own agenda. If he is going to have poor relations with Congress, it is going to be over his own main issues. Therefore, no vetoes so far. He gets most of what he wants because his party is in the majority. If they divide and the majority doesn't vote his way, you could well see some vetoes, making both Democrats and GOP rogues the bad guys.

Vetoes are nice in principle but they bring progress to a standstill. They are also disrespectful, if Congress has carefully considered a budget bill, for example, and ends up a modest percentage over what was requested. An administration budget is not really tablets sent down from the Mount. If the President had a line item veto, I think he would use it.

[Lone_Gunman]

RealGun, when the Congress decides to wipe its collective butt on the Constitution, bringing everything to a "standstill" is what the veto was intended for!

Vetos are disrespectful? Hell yea, they are disrespectful. If Congress passes an un-constitutional law, they need to be disrespected.

People act like co-operation between the branches of government in the name of "progress" is a good thing; in reality, lack of action on the part of government is usually better. Political stalemates are almost always a Constitutional victory.

What agenda do you think Bush is saving is power for?

[RealGun]

Lone_Gunman, to be fair, you should specify what exactly you think should have been vetoed. I could be talking about an appropriations bill and you could be talking about the Patriot Act or something raising issues of civil rights. Referring to something being unconstituional doesn't mean I am supposed to know to what you are referring. We are hardly talking about vetoing, if Bush is signing something he proposed in the first place, unless it was altered beyond recognition.

[Lone_Gunman]

McCain-Feingold (campaign finance reform), and the medicare reform bill (prescription drugs) would have been two nice ones to veto.

[RealGun]

I have read criticism of it enough to assume you mean Mc-F should have been regarded as unconstitutional. Drug benefits on the other hand I don't know as a constitutional issue, certainly not without a whole lot of recent precedent. Are you mixing constitutional arguments with political philosophy disagreements? How could Bush possibly be impeached for signing a prescription drug benefit?

What if cooperating on a drug benefit was stealing the Democrats' thunder? What if that benefit kicks in right at the beginning of an election cycle (2006)?

A President is not a constitutional lawyer or experienced judge. If signing Mc-F with some acknowledged doubts about constitutional issues, deferring to the Supreme Court, even inviting them take up the issue, is appropriate in my opinion. If Congress and the Executive would be at odds via a veto over whether something was constitutional, it would seem proper for the Supreme Court to make the call. That works a lot better if there is no arrogant veto.

As stated elsewhere, the veto would work a lot better if it was a line item veto. I see a number of things being waved through rather than throw the baby out with the bath water. It is bad enough that some issues are added with little or no debate, sometimes in the middle of the night. A line item veto would take some of the gaming out of the process. Pork items would be in real peril too, if there was a line item veto to apply to appropriations bills coming in over budget.

[davec]

Article. II. Section. 1. Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html


How does signing legislation the president HIMSELF says may be unconstitutional work to preserve, protect, and defend it?


President Signs Campaign Finance Reform Act
Statement by the President

Today I have signed into law H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002." I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns.

...

However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html


We live in an age where the President casually ignores his oath of office. If congress delivers unconstitutional legislation to the desk of the president then it is his DUTY to VETO it.

It his not his duty to abdicate the responsibility of his office to the courts so he can avoid taking a stand on an issue for political necessity.

[Lone_Gunman]

RealGun, yes I am mixing points here, so let me clear.

Bush should have vetoed McCain-Feingold because he thought it was un-Constitutional. By signing something he thought was un-Constitutional, he has violated his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. The fact that it was later incorrectly ruled to be constitutional by the Supreme Court does not change the fact that Bush acted with malice disregard to the Constitution when he signed it, based on his interpretation of the law.

As for Medicare Reform/Prescription Drug Bill, he should have vetoed it because it is just bad welfare expansion and will cost a lot of money, further increase the size of government, and eventually be passed on to the working class as a tax increase. Although I believe it to be bad for the country, I think it probably could be construed as constitutional. He doesn't need to be impeached for signing this, just voted out of office.

I realize Bush is not a constitutional lawyer. Neither am I. But I know McCain-Feingold limits free speech. It doesn't take a lawyer to read the bill and know that. Even Bush acknowledged this. I am sure if he had questions, there are more than a few constitutional lawyers working in the DC area he could have asked, don't ya think?

Deferring to the SC was not appropriate. He said himself he had constitutional concerns about McCain-Feingold. He didn't need to defer to the SC. It is the duty of the president to kill legislation that he thinks violates the Constitution, not just rubber stamp it and hope someone else with have the spine to do his job for him.

[RealGun]

may be unconstitutional - davec

The Supreme Court does not comment on vetoes to my knowledge. I believe it takes a case to resolve any questions. If both the President and Congress would like to have new powers, it would be up to the Supreme Court to stop them from pushing the envelope of constitutional constraints.

You ignore the difference between having concerns about constitutional issues and being firmly advised and convinced that some provision is indeed unconstitutional. But that's okay. We all know GW and staff can't do anything right. Only Democrats or Libertarians can do that.

Personally, I am concerned about the research and legal evaluation, not to mention hubris, before proposing these things, and then the Supreme Court's judgment if they hear a case challenging any provisions of new laws. The Executive and Congress will push the envelope on federal power. The SCOTUS should provide a check rather than be part of the problem. My most severe criticism of honoring an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is pointed at the Supreme Court. If our last line of defense lacks integrity, even common sense and an ability to read plain enough language, what is any of it worth?

[Lone_Gunman]

We all know GW and staff can't do anything right.

Sigh...

This is why conservatism in the Republican Party is doomed. The party will continue to field more and more liberal candidates. It fails to chastise its own when they push bad ideas that are not traditionally part of the Republican platform. Principle is sacrificed for power.

The party faithful just make excuses, and call everyone who disagrees with them liberal.

Well, I am no liberal, and thats exactly why I disagree with Bush on things like McCain-Feingold and Medicare Reform. I have been voting Republican since 1980.

But, RealGun, people who think like you are in control of the party, as unfortunate as that may be.

[davec]

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=46660&pageno=26

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty. [Writings of James Madison, 8:132-133; The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:176-177]

Stupid James Madison. Who was he to question weather a bill is unconsitutial or not. Thats a job for the courts! He's just suposed to rubber stamp!

[RealGun]

Bush should have vetoed McCain-Feingold because he thought it was un-Constitutional. - Lone_Gunman

To make your point, you have to continually ignore that the concern was that Mc-F "may be" unconstitutional. You portray it as a clear conviction that it was indeed unconstitutional. Having doubts and deferring to the SCOTUS is legitimate in my opinion. Avoiding conflicts with Congress is useful politics that would likely be used by any President of any party persuasion. It is not a conspiracy if openly acknowledging that there is a question and that the Courts can properly entertain any issue in doubt.

I will attempt to evaluate these things objectively with pride. When something clearly stinks, I will be among the first to say so. If I disagree with how things went, you won't find me being an apologist. However, you will find me giving the current administration a break against negative thinking, because I respect the institution, voted for them, and don't have enough information to pretend to be smarter. I pay attention and do the homework, trust me.

As a centrist, if my view differs sharply from yours, it doesn't mean I am stupid and need to be insulted. Nothing "High Road" there.

If you want to talk about impeachment, you should seriously focus on real grounds, leaving out peripheral gripes on policy and political philosophy.

[Lone_Gunman]

RealGun,

So if you were president, you would be willing to sign laws that you were not sure violated the Constitution?

[seansean]

downing street memo in stars and stripes...
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=28991&archive=true

[Rebar]

This is why conservatism in the Republican Party is doomed.

Maybe, maybe not.

One must remember, however, that before the "neocon" movement, the republicans were the minority party for 40 years. Some folks are "all-or-nothing" types, and that's fine. However, if faced with the choice of nothing and something, even if it's 50% of what I want, I'll usually choose the 50%.

All you have to do is look at the election results to see that a hard-line conservative cannot win in today's America, more's the pity, but that's the reality. Bush got elected by the skin of his teeth the first time, and not by that big of a margin the second. A more conservative candidate would have lost. Then you'd have something to really complain about.

[RealGun]

RealGun,

So if you were president, you would be willing to sign laws that you were not sure violated the Constitution? - Lone_Gun

The key words are "not sure". Let's assume the law in question was well intended and strongly supported by Congress. Would you be inclined to think it was an impeachable offense?

Being offended by it is one thing, but honestly believing it is impeachable is another matter.

[Lone_Gunman]

I am not asking about whether you think it is an impeachable offense.

I am simply asking if you were not sure a law was Constitutional, would you sign it?

[RealGun]

I decline to play, as you did. I am participating in this thread on the basis of the topic being impeachment.

[Lone_Gunman]

Come on Real Gun, are you really unable to say that you would veto something you thought was probably un-Constitutional?


If so, you need to give Karl Rove a call and see if he will run you in 2008. ;)

[RealGun]

Would you be inclined to think it was an impeachable offense?

To repeat.

[2nd Amendment]

All you have to do is look at the election results to see that a hard-line conservative cannot win in today's America,

A myth. We haven't had a conservative option since Reagan(who stomped ass if you'll remember). Bush squeeked by because conservatives knew perfectly well he was no conservative, while leftists knew they had something to vote for: Real Lefties. Bush won only because conservatives came out to vote against the lefties, not for Bush. Meanwhile, while conservatives still stayed home in droves, every lefty who could vote, did...twice.

We've seen the leftist capability. They've pulled out all the stops for thoroughly leftist candidates...and lost to a fence-sitting Globalist Middle-of-the-Roader. Now bring on a real conservative who is willing to speak out about taxes, government size, immigration, abortion and the 2A and you'll see what a drubbing can look like as the Dems are vaporized.

Yeah, I know, that disagrees with what the media and the party propaganda says. OK, whatever. i was never big on being brainwashed and wish others would try it, too.

[Lone_Gunman]

RealGun,

For sake of discussion we will say you do not think it is impeachable for the president to sign an un-constitutional law...

The question I am asking is would you sign a bill you thought might be un-constitutional if you knew you would not be impeached for it, if it would be politically advantageous for you to sign it?

[RealGun]

For sake of discussion we will say you do not think it is impeachable for the president to sign an un-constitutional law...

Give it a rest. That is not my context at all. You are ignoring what I already wrote, so don't expect more from me.

[Lone_Gunman]

Ok we can drop it if you don't want to answer... I guess you didnt make it clear to me what context you were talking about.

Personally, I think it would wrong for a president to sign bills he think might violate the Constitution, and therefore violate his Oath of Office, but I see some people consider that a gray-zone issue.

[ceetee]

Getting back to the idea of Bush getting impeached...

People keep making comments about the fact that other "world leaders", and "even Kerry" believed there were WMD in Iraq. Of course they did. I'd believe it, too, if my President came to me and said, "Hey... I have evidence that there are WMD in Iraq. I can't actually show you the evidence (national security, you understand), but I have it."

At least I would've believed it back in 2001, or maybe even in 2002. Seeing as how Bush did exactly that, it's no wonder that everybody thought Saddam still had WMD.

Fact is, the Downing Street memos show that the current administration was going to attack Iraq, no matter what... no ifs, ands, or buts. They just needed a rationale so they wouldn't look too terribly much like baby killers.

Another fact is that the world now has tens of thousands more terrorists in it that it had in September, 2001. And they've all dedicated their lives to harming the United States. People here have taken the position that if we do see another attack, and it can be traced back across our unguarded border, then Bush should definitely be impeached, and somebody more competant brought in to do the job. (Condi, maybe?) Why wait? This President's policies have already killed more Americans than any other single cause since we left Viet Nam to "Peace with Honor".

We need that competant person to take over the helm NOW... before the next attack comes!

[Nehemiah Scudder]

And that competant person is Dick Cheney?

Let's get real. Bush is the kind of CEO who believes that to suceed, all you need is the right people and the vision. As we're seeing now, that kind of management style can lead to problems.

He's surrounded himself with "true-believers" in his policies. Cheney's knee-deep in the operations and policy formation. Impeaching Bush would change nothing.

And, there's no way in hell he could be impeached. He's got the Republicans too tightly under control. Sure, that control is slightly slipping lately, but he's got the majority. And that's what matters.

[Lobotomy Boy]

I don't see why the memo is even seen as news. Richard Clark has been saying the exact same thing since before the election. He's never been discredited, and his allegations have never been disproven, or even credibly challenged. The Bush Administration tossed out a few half-hearted ad hominem attacks, and that was it. At that point any sane person knew that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq since the day he came into office. If that had been important to most people Bush would not have been re-elected. Why would they impeach the man now for what they knew before the election? Sure the war is going badly, but we also knew that the hubris with which Rumsfeldt conducted the war would lead to a bad outcome. That's what a lot of his top generals were saying in 2002. again, if people are so butt stupid that they didn't know this prior to the 2004 election, then they really are too stupid to be allowed to vote, or reproduce for that matter.

But I can't believe people are really that butt stupid. I have to believe that they made an informed decision that Bush generally supported policies they believed in and that Kerry didn't.

Me, I unapologetically voted Libertarian. I know this fact puts some of you into a frothy-mouthed rage, but if I wanted to live in a country where some jackass could tell me how I must vote, I wouldn't be living in the United States. Last I checked, except for a few hundred folks in Gitmo, most of us still live in a country where we're free to vote however we believe is right.

[DRZinn]

about the fact that other "world leaders", and "even Kerry" believed there were WMD in Iraq. Of course they did. I'd believe it, too, if my President came to me and said, "Hey... I have evidence that there are WMD in Iraq. I can't actually show you the evidence (national security, you understand), but I have it."Most of them had reached that conclusion long before Bush began making his case.

At that point any sane person knew that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq since the day he came into office.Look, here's what is not disputed about Saddam Hussein:

1. He had WMD in the past.
2. He used them.
3. He was actively trying to develop them again.
4. He tried to have a US president assassinated.
5. He sponsored suicides bombers in Israel by paying their families twenty-five thousand dollars.
and last but not least (and this one alone would be enough),
6. Weekly, his military forces fired on American planes enforcing the (UN-mandated, BTW) no-fly zones. An act of war.

Hell, I don't care if Bush decided even before he took office that Saddam had to go. The justifications were there all along; the rest was just politics.

[davec]

The "no fly zones" were totally outside the UN mandate and they were NEVER related to anything the UN did.

There were arbitrarily imposed on Iraq at the whim of the US/UK/France after the Gulf War.

The "UN justification" is resolution 688. Except for the small detail that there is never mentioned anything called a "no-fly zone" or says absolutely anything about Iraq being prevented from using their airspace.
RESOLUTION 688 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991

The Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),

Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,

Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;

5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/24/IMG/NR059624.pdf?OpenElement

[MarkDido]

You're considering the Downing Street Memos credible??

June 19, 2005
Did Lucy Ramirez Find The Downing Street Memos?

The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.

Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):

The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

What kind of idiot destroys the originals and expects anyone to believe that a copy is legitimate? Oh wait, that would be the same type of idiot that faked the Bush documents.

[davec]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050607-2.html#

Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action.

If they're fakes then the British Prime Minister is in on it.

The British government has had over a month to dispute the authenticity of the documents, the Prime Minister has been asked direct questions about their contents and not ONCE has he denied their contents or suggested that they were fabricated or inauthentic in any way.

Tony Blair was at the meeting described in the DSM. If no such meeting took place, or the issues discussed at the meeting were different then the ones that are referenced in the DSM, then I'm sure the eloquent and unbashful Prime Minister would of had no trouble educating the British (and American) public of such facts since the DSM became public on May 1, 2005.

[shermacman]

CeeTee, your time line is off by a decade and your glee to impugn President Bush is wrong:

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal” - Bill Clinton, Meet the Press, February 17, 1998 ."

Mr. Clinton went on to sign the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which specifically called for the military removal of Saddam.

[RealGun]

People here have taken the position that if we do see another attack, and it can be traced back across our unguarded border, then Bush should definitely be impeached, - CeeTee

So you want to make it about unprotected borders? To me, a more genuine proposal would simply be "because I can't stand the guy...how dare he win the election". All the rest is rationalizing. There is no impeachment opportunity here. Move along.

Bush is actually a pretty competent President, some policies with which I strongly disagree. As a gun owner, he has caused me no problems whatsoever. The war in Iraq is not the problem some would like to make it. I have always supported it and still do.

Like you, controlling immigration is a high priority for me. I don't appreciate that GW is not spending the appropriation for that purpose. I blame Congress for not inquiring about it.

[DRZinn]

The "no fly zones" were totally outside the UN mandate and they were NEVER related to anything the UN did.OK, ya got me on that one; I'd assumed it was a UN thing. Nonetheless, the suthern no-fly zone was put in place to prevent any further military aggression against Kuwait, and the northern no-fly, no-drive zone was to prevent Hussein from engaging in any further "ethnic cleansing" against his own people, the Kurds.

What about my other points?

[Rebar]

+1 for what Realgun just said.

The "Bush lied Children died" line is getting pretty old. The liberal/left chanted it when the war stated, they chanted it during the election, they're still chanting it. Rediculous.

As for this memo, I consider it on the same order as the CBS documents. The left so hates Bush, they'll certainly lie, forge, or do anything to smear the man.

They're going to have to put a 24 guard over Bush's grave, the Bush-hate is so strong with these nutcases, they'll dig him up and hang his corpse out of pure spite.

As for the border, if it was once secure, and Bush made it less so, then there would be a case. But the border has never been secure. And would Kerry have done something? No. Badnarick? He'd remove all control. Let it be a big issue for the next election cycle, by all means, but to make impeachment noises is just dumb.

[Lone_Gunman]

I agree impeachment over the border issue is ridiculous, but Bush's legacy will go to hell in a handbasket if the next terror attack is traced back to the border.

[ceetee]

Most of them had reached that conclusion long before Bush began making his case.

Really? According to whom? I can't claim to speak for "most of them", but I vividly recall numerous press conferences held by Blair, and our own Congressional leaders in which they affirmed that despite his inability to confirm where he recieved his intelligence from, due to U.S. national security, Bush had, indeed, convinced them that Iraq still possessed WMD.


1. He had WMD in the past.
2. He used them.
3. He was actively trying to develop them again.
4. He tried to have a US president assassinated.
5. He sponsored suicides bombers in Israel by paying their families twenty-five thousand dollars.
and last but not least (and this one alone would be enough),
6. Weekly, his military forces fired on American planes enforcing the (UN-mandated, BTW) no-fly zones. An act of war.


1. So? The past is just that. The past.

2. For which Grampa Bush sent over a congratulatory Rumsfeld, and probably a magnum of champagne, along with a note that read, "See? I told you they would work when you bought 'em!"

3. Not according to the U.N. inspectors on the ground in the days just before we attacked.

4. That's what despots do. Think maybe we should've struck while the iron was hot? Oh, yeah... that's right Clinton did. He passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for (specifically):


SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE

(A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE

(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.


......

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.



As you can see, this Act specifically DOES NOT call for the military removal of Saddam Hussein... Iraq Liberation Act (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm)


5. Now, suicide bombers are blowing up our kinsmen for free. Great trade.
6. Already been addressed... (thanks, davec!)

CeeTee, your time line is off by a decade and your glee to impugn President Bush is wrong:

Why do Republicans always have to drag Clinton into a discussion about Bush?

I don't want to make it about unprotected borders. I want to make it about war crimes. I want to make it about invading a sovereign nation without just cause. I want to make it about weakening our nation. I want to make it about lying to Congress, us citizens, and the rest of the world. I want to make it about a government that over 60% of us don't trust any more. I want to make it about Sensenbrenner uninlaterally declaring that the minority members of the Judiciary Committee just don't matter. There are a thousand things I want to make it about... but that's not for here and now.

Other people have stated that we have to wait until we're attacked again, and it's proven that the attack has come across our border... I asked "Why wait?" Are you saying that squandering Border Patrol money overseas has not weakened our Borders? Creating tens of thousands of new terrorists, all dedicated to harming you and me has not weakened our borders? Espousing a program whereby any foreigner is free to cross our border to work at will has not weakened our borders?

It was said best on another shooting forum... not by me, I admit to my chagrin:

Substituting slavish emperor-worship for a consistent devotion to liberty is a recipe for disaster.


Florida Shooters Network (http://www.floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=6025)

[JitsuGuy]

Bush is a liar and a lunatic.

Okay, continue on...

J

[DRZinn]

1. So? The past is just that. The past.

2. For which Grampa Bush sent over a congratulatory Rumsfeld, and probably a magnum of champagne, along with a note that read, "See? I told you they would work when you bought 'em!"My point is that when he had them, he used them, and was actively seeking to develop them again. The inspectors said they hadn't found any, which only meant that he hid his attempts well (Trucks leaving buildings right before the inspectors showd up?). Hell, even he thought he had them.

[RealGun]

But yet on other matters, conspiracy theories are discredited.

You know, I think critics are mostly mad because military money could be spent on "welfare" instead. It is no coincidence that the big hearing last week, chaired by Conyers, was attended by most of the CBC, all Democrats. Why is it suddenly a CBC issue? Are they anti-war by definition? Since when? I didn't hear introductions of anyone but CBC members.

Who was it said Conyers never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like? It is true that the CBC is his power base.

[ceetee]

My point is that when he had them, he used them, and was actively seeking to develop them again. The inspectors said they hadn't found any, which only meant that he hid his attempts well (Trucks leaving buildings right before the inspectors showd up?). Hell, even he thought he had them.

He did have them... a decade ago. He may (or may not) have been actively seeking to develop them again; we'll never know.

The impetus to attack was imminent threat. WMDs, and delivery systems potent enough to get them here. The one guy in a position to know best was William Scott Ritter, a retired Marine, and the longest US weapons inspector in Iraq. He told Time magazine, in 2002, "...no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has constituted weapons-of-mass-destruction capability with anything that resembles substantive fact."

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program." Charles Duelfer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html)

After no overt weapons were used (or even found), Condoleeza Rice said the weapons programs are "in bits and pieces" rather than assembled weapons. "You may find assembly lines, you may find pieces hidden here and there," she said. Ingredients or precursors, many non-lethal by themselves, could be embedded in dual-use facilities. Condi Rice (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/30/1051381997497.html)

After no "assembly lines" or even raw materials were found, the original reason for the attack morphed out in dozens of different directions.

Yes, Saddam was a baddie. Yes, he deserves a death too horrible for description. No, it's not legal for America to go an invade a sovereign nation, without being attacked first. The leader that does so breaks the law, and should be punished.

[scottgun]

1. refusing to let inspectors into facilities
2. broken UN resolutions, 14 I think
3. mass graves

Sour grapes are hard to swallow. They (the President, his advisors, Congress) all had the same intelligence information. It's not like Bush read the report and then told everyone else something that wasn't on the report.

[Lone_Gunman]

It's not like Bush read the report and then told everyone else something that wasn't on the report.

That's debatable.

[scottgun]

That's debatable.

That they didn't read the intelligence report or weren't provided the report?

We all know there are Congress people who do not read the bills that are presented to them, but if they chose not to read the report, then get misled by exaggerated catch phrases, the president isn't the one who is an idiot.

[seansean]

here are the main players: http://newamericancentury.org/
this group includes many current and former members of the bush admin.

here is the game plan(written before 9/11)
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

This was the catalyst:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11BasicQuestions

and this, the result(with some historical context):
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html

don't even bother coming at me with tin-foil hat comments. :)

[DRZinn]

No, it's not legal for America to go an invade a sovereign nation, without being attacked first.Attacked first? The planes that enforced the no-fly zones, maybe?

[JitsuGuy]

It is debatable whether Bu$h would bold-face lie about if he really knew the situation and is blaming this big cluster @#$@ on the intelligence agencies. At least that's the point I believe Lone_Gunman was making... After all the other crap Bu$h has pulled, I would not be shocked to find that out and actually believe that is the case.

The love of money is the root of all evil. This applies to America and its leaders as well.

How people can continue to support such an administration who's had so many screw ups, costing peoples lives... I just don't get it. We were supposedly attacked by "terrorists" which we didn't have the knowledge to stop... Then we wage a war based on "facts" Bu$h admin and himself would constantly throw in our faces. Yet it appears these weren't even even close to being accurate... And people still support this guy. On top of that, people don't even get the slightest big suspicious. America is asleep and our trust in government and our current system is ultimately going to cost us our country if it hasn't already.

J

[R.H. Lee]

Some of you crack me up. One minute George Bush is an incompetent bumbling nincompoop, and the next he's an evil genius who is able to contrive intricate plots that fool everybody. Which is it?

[JohnBT]

Whatever fits their needs of the moment.

JT

[shermacman]

How people can continue to support such an administration who's had so many screw ups, costing peoples lives... I just don't get it.

Must suck to be smarter than the president, smarter than the majority of people who voted for the president, and still 'not get it'.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Must suck to be smarter than the president, smarter than the majority of people who voted for the president, and still 'not get it'.

When I was an undergraduate I worked with a psychology professor conducting a study on the MMPI (Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory, the primary tool shrinks use to decide whether or not a person is nuts). Part of the study involved administering IQ tests, which was my job. I administered hundreds of IQ tests, and the results were sobering. To put it in layman's terms, most people really are dumber than a box of hammers.

I don't know if Bush is an idiot manchild or not. My guess is that he's well above average, though his lack of verbal skills indicates he's no genius. Still, being above average means he's smarter than most of the people who voted for him.

On the other hand, "average" is so incredibly stupid that I have no doubt that "majority of people who voted for the president... still 'not get it'." I'd be surprised if they got anything more complicated than a football game.

[RealGun]

Part of the study involved administering IQ tests, which was my job. I administered hundreds of IQ tests, and the results were sobering. To put it in layman's terms, most people really are dumber than a box of hammers. - Lobotomy Boy

Were you only testing those suspected of being "nuts"?

[Lobotomy Boy]

Nope. We tested hundreds and hundreds of students from a random cross section of the student body.

What we found was interesting. The point of the study was to verify the validity scales on the test. We had students take the test twice. If they had elevation on the original test and their validity scores were within spec, we'd have them retake the test and fake sane. If they tested normal and their numbers were within spec, we'd have them fake crazy.

There were two striking findings. The first was that of all the people who had elevation (ie. showed evidence of one of a number of personality disorders), only 8 were able to fake sane without getting caught on the validity scales. Of those 8, seven were adult children of alcoholics.

The other interesting finding was that people with higher than average IQs were much more likely to have elevation on one of the scales. Conversely, those with lower IQs and no elevation were generally the most boring, lifeless, dull-witted people I knew. I started thinking of them as "dullards," a phrase my wife and I still use to describe people who bore us to tears. They were nice people, but absolutely lacking any spark of life whatsoever. I came to the conclusion that to lack a personality disorder was to lack a personality. This freaked me out so much I changed my major to English and graduated a year early because it was so easy compared to psychology.

[Rebar]

On the other hand, "average" is so incredibly stupid that I have no doubt that "majority of people who voted for the president... still 'not get it'."
Maybe it's you who does "not get it".

And by the way, "stupid" Bush and "smart" Kerry got the same GPA in college.

[RealGun]

Nope. We tested hundreds and hundreds of students from a random cross section of the student body. - Lobotomy Boy

It sounds to me like you were testing for critical thinking more than IQ or sanity. To characterize a large part of the electorate, I would say they are not critical thinkers and go with any impression gained from media exposure of candidates. How much they know about government and politics would be a good test, I think. "The informed voter" should be what we would hope to see and what we try to be, right?

[shermacman]

LobotomyBoy, please let me start by saying that I enjoy your posts, you are well reasoned and bright even if I don't agree with many of your opinions. That having been said, go back and read your post about your psych testing days. It strikes me as the absolute epitome of...well I can't say it because it is just too provocative.

But suffice to say that those of us "average" people who voted for George W. Bush keep beating those, like Jean Fraud Kerry, who are so much smarter, so much more nuanced, so much more European, so much more intellectual.

And we do it even though we are dullards with even less personality than al-Gore and Jean Fraud.

[Art Eatman]

Just a data point in a thread which has become pointless: For college curricula of the 1940s/1950s, it was alleged that one needed an IQ of roughly 105 to be able to graduate. For PhDs, that rose to 125.

Another FWIW is that successful NFL quarterbacks tend toward the 125 level...

:), Art

[JohnBT]

"the MMPI (Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory, the primary tool shrinks use to decide whether or not a person is nuts)"

That's not true for the majority of people seen for mental health services because they are seen in mental health clinics. It takes 60 to 90 minutes to complete the nearly 600 true-false questions on the MMPI and then there's the whole interpretation to do. Ha. Two hours for one patient?

And don't get me started on the validity of IQ tests as a stand-alone instrument. Even the good ones have severe limitations. And then there are the 'smart' high-IQ people with bad judgment versus the 'dumb' people with good judgment. Which is more important, mental quickness backed by a good fund of knowledge or slow, plodding correct decisions?

I test and counsel people for a living. Been in the business 30+ years not counting college and grad school.

John

[Lobotomy Boy]

You're right--what we have now is much more of a fast-food approach to mental health, and the MMPI doesn't neatly fit into that. The whole bean-counter approach to mental health care was another reason I switched to English those 20-or-so years ago.

You are talking about emotional IQ versus intellectual IQ, and you're absolutely correct. A lot of people with extremely high IQs don't have the sense God gave a goose. Take my wife, for example.

But I stand by my totally subjective observation that most people are as dumb as a box of hammers, whether you measure that by lack of intelligence or lack of common sense. Ever try to have a conversation with some of the half wits you meet in the course of a day? I've always thought the word "befuddled" was strange, since to be "befuddled" means someone is "fuddled," and I'm not sure how to define "fuddled." But however you define "fuddled," it seems like more people be it than not be it. My anecdotal experience giving IQ tests backed up that subjective observation.