[rick_reno]

I hope Bush hasn't crapped on the Alito nomination. That would be a real loss for the Nation. This administration has used the Constitution for toilet paper long enough - if they go after him, he'll have no one to blame but Cheney. ;) They're running a "poll" on impeachment with this story - a recent check shows 88% in favor of impeachment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/from/RS.4/

WASHINGTON - In the first weeks and months after 9/11, I am told by a very good source, there was a lot of wishing out loud in the White House Situation Room about expanding the National Security Agency’s ability to instantly monitor phone calls and e-mails between American callers and possible terror suspects abroad. “We talked a lot about how useful that would be,” said this source, who was “in the room” in the critical period after the attacks.

Well, as the world now knows, the NSA — at the prompting of Vice President Cheney and on official (secret) orders from President Bush — was doing just that. And yet, as I understand it, many of the people in the White House’s own Situation Room — including leaders of the national security adviser’s top staff and officials of the FBI — had no idea that it was happening.

As best I can tell — and this really isn’t my beat — the only people who knew about the NSA’s new (and now so controversial) warrant-less eavesdropping program early on were Bush, Cheney, NSA chief Michael Hayden, his top deputies, top leaders of the CIA, and lawyers at the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office hurriedly called in to sprinkle holy water on it.

Which presents the disturbing image of the White House as a series of nesting dolls, with Cheney-Bush at the tiny secret center, sifting information that most of the rest of the people around them didn’t even know existed. And that image, in turn, will dominate and define the year 2006 — and, I predict, make it the angriest, most divisive season of political theater since the days of Richard Nixon.

We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security.

Some thoughts on where all of this is headed:

The president says that his highest duty is to protect the American people and our homeland. And it is true that, as commander-in-chief, he has sweeping powers to, as his oath says, “faithfully execute the office” of president. But the entity he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” isn’t the homeland per se — but the Constitution itself.
The Patriot Act will be extended, but it’s just the beginning, not the end, of the never-ending argument between the Bill of Rights and national security. The act primarily covers the activities of the FBI; the sheer volume of intelligence-gathering across the government has yet to become apparent, and voters will blanch when they see it all laid before them. The department most likely to get in trouble on this: the Pentagon, which doesn’t have a tradition of limiting inquiries, and which, in the name of protecting domestic military installations, will want to look at everyone.
If you thought the Samuel Alito hearings were going to be contentious, wait till you see them now. Sen. Arlen Specter, the prickly but brilliant chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that the issue of warrant-less spying by the NSA — and the larger question of the reach of the president’s wartime powers — is now fair game for the Alito hearings. Alito is going to try to beg off but won’t be allowed to. And members who might have been afraid to vote against Alito on the abortion issue might now have another, politically less risky, reason to do so.
Arguably the most interesting — and influential — Republicans in the Senate right now are the libertarians. They’re suspicious of the Patriot Act and, I am guessing, pivotal in any discussion of the NSA and others' spy efforts. Most are Westerners (Craig, Hagel, Murkowski) and the other is Sen. John Sununu. He is from New Hampshire, which, as anyone who has spent time there understands, is the Wild West of the East Coast. All you have to do is look at its license plate slogan: “Live Free or Die.” It’ll be interesting to see how other nominal small-government conservatives — Sen. George Allen of Virginia comes to mind — handle the issue.
For months now, I have been getting e-mails demanding that my various employers (Newsweek, NBC News and MSNBC.com) include in their poll questionnaires the issue of whether Bush should be impeached. They used to demand this on the strength of the WMD issue, on the theory that the president had “lied us into war.” Now the Bush foes will base their case on his having signed off on the NSA’s warrant-less wiretaps. He and Cheney will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war on the Taliban and al-Qaida. They will respond by calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The “I-word” is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more.

[Standing Wolf]

For months now, I have been getting e-mails demanding that my various employers (Newsweek, NBC News and MSNBC.com) include in their poll questionnaires the issue of whether Bush should be impeached.

If a tree falls in the forest, should representatives of the Democratic (sic) party snivel and whine about impeachment?

[LAR-15]

Impeach him about what???

:confused:

[jefnvk]

If a tree falls in the forest, should representatives of the Democratic (sic) party snivel and whine about impeachment?

That all depends on how fast Bush got on the phone to FEMA, and the Department of the Inerior, and the Fish and Wildlife Services, to go do endless reports on the environmental impact, up to and including how many fractions of a fraction of a degree the global climate will increase due to that tree falling, how much oxygen overa span of 32.7 years we will lose because that tree is no longer producing, and who we can throw money at to make this right, because someone somewhere is going through emotional distress because of that tree.

[pax]

Impeach him about what???
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is the usual formula, I believe.

A gross violation of his oath of office would probably qualify.

pax

[LAR-15]

And what would that be?

:confused:

[TxCajun]

And what would that be?
Illegal phone taps of American citizens without benefit of warrants.

[RealGun]

Yes, Barbara Boxer wants to make hay with the impeachment idea, one she got from John Dean, Nixon White House counsel. He said Bush "was the first President to admit to an impeachable offense". That doesn't make it so, but it has some credibility.

Even more credible to me is Lindsay Graham (R-SC), a prominent spokesman for the GOP and one of my Senators, being very unhappy with Bush's disclosure. Bush will not be impeached unless there is something bad enough to draw in the Republicans. I don't see that happening, so Congress will just waste a lot more time and get less done if they want to pursue this. They could accomplish more by passing explicit legislation, closing any loophole claimed by the White House and Attorney General.

[LAR-15]

Illegal phone taps of American citizens without benefit of warrants.


Illegal? :uhoh:

Where?

:confused:

[LAR-15]

Deleted post's quote removed by Art


How so?

Real specific proof of impeachable offenses?

:confused:

[seansean]

Impeach him about what???

:confused:

well...courtesy of ramsey clark...

Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

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. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

5) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

7) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

8) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

9) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

10) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

11) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

12) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

13) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

14) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

15) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

16) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

17) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

18) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

[LAR-15]

LMAO! RAMSEY CLARK???

TRY AGAIN

[Preacherman]

Well, first of all, it would have to be decided whether the wiretaps (in this case, of international conversations where only one party was American, and where the conversations were intercepted as they came into the country, most of the time) were, in fact, illegal. Previous Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have acted against foreign threats in ways that they were not permitted to do against Americans, due to the restrictions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Also, POTUS has apparently kept Congressional leaders informed of these activities since they began, thereby satisfying the "checks and balances" requirement. If they didn't raise any objection then, they're going to have a hard time doing so now, and will probably be crucified along with President Bush for tolerating such "abuses" (if they were, in fact, abuses).

So, a responsible authority (usually the Supreme Court, in high-profile cases such as this - certainly not the allegations of political opponents) has to rule that the wiretaps were illegal. Having done that, the originating authority behind the wiretaps can be held accountable for them. However, given the years that it will take any court case to wend its way up to SCOTUS, I rather suspect Bush's successor will be in office before we have to worry about impeachment proceedings. It's going to be a really difficult job to prove that today's technology, applied to foreign telephone calls, is an infringement of basic rights. Think about it - a telephone call comes from overseas, passes through a satellite above the USA, and is routed down to a US receiver. If the NSA is intercepting the call off the satellite overhead, it's not tapping any lines, or any cellular communications, or anything like that, within the USA. Does this fit the classic legal definition of "wire-tapping" or not? Should be an interesting legal can of worms...

Note that I'm not opposed to impeachment proceedings if the POTUS's actions can be demonstrated to be at the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" called for by the Constitution. I just don't think that we'll get there for several years yet, by which time impeachment will be a moot point.

[yonderway]

How so?

Real specific proof of impeachable offenses?


His admission of authorizing, over 30 times, a secret program that completely flew in the face of the fourth amendment, circumventing the FISA courts that could retroactively grant warrants, thus nullifying Bush's argument for why he needs such a program in the first place (though the idea of a retroactive warrant also seems to fly in the face of the constitution, he took matters completely into his own hands and bypassed entirely any chance for judicial review)

[Ohen Cepel]

Then why didn't clinton get busted for Carnivore or Echelon?

[rock jock]

The kind of emotional drivel on this thread rivals anything on the DU. I've got news for ya, just because you think something is unconstitutional doesn't make it so.

Bush isn't going to be impeached, so go drink your Koolaid.

[yonderway]

Looks like Conyers is taking the first step towards impeachment hearings...

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney has called for "strong and robust" presidential powers, saying executive authority was eroded during the Watergate and Vietnam eras. Some lawmakers objected that President Bush's decision to spy on Americans to foil terrorists showed he was flexing more muscle than the Constitution allows.

At the same time, a Michigan congressman called for an impeachment inquiry.

The revelations of Bush's four-year-old order approving domestic surveillance without court warrants has spurred a fiery debate over the balance of power between the White House, Congress and the judiciary.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," Cheney said Tuesday.

On Capitol Hill, senators from both parties said the role of Congress cannot be sidelined _ even in wartime.

"I think the vice president ought to reread the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Democrats said they were deeply troubled by the surveillance program, and contended the president had no authority to approve it. "He has no legal basis for spying on Americans without court approval," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop _ without warrants _ on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment _ an event that is extremely unlikely in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Democrats called attention to a Bush statement in April 2004 that they said conflicts with what the president is saying now.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires _ a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said during a speech on the Patriot Act in Buffalo, N.Y. "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

The White House said the president's comments _ two years after approving the domestic surveillance program _ applied to the kind of roving wiretaps the Patriot Act allows for law enforcement, not eavesdropping for foreign intelligence.

[CAnnoneer]

Arguably the most interesting — and influential — Republicans in the Senate right now are the libertarians. They’re suspicious of the Patriot Act and, I am guessing, pivotal in any discussion of the NSA and others' spy efforts. Most are Westerners (Craig, Hagel, Murkowski) and the other is Sen. John Sununu. He is from New Hampshire, which, as anyone who has spent time there understands, is the Wild West of the East Coast. All you have to do is look at its license plate slogan: “Live Free or Die.”

Good.

Then I suggest they clean up the party from inside and kick out the RINOs.

As far as impeachment goes, if GWB is guilty of what is claimed, nothing will please me more than to see the RINO-in-Chief take a permanent, well-deserved vacation.

[PCGS65]

seansean
You mean for protecting this country and not being a coward?

[yonderway]

Then why didn't clinton get busted for Carnivore or Echelon?

Among other things.

And he was impeached. He just wasn't removed from office (as the Senate lacked the necessary 2/3 majority to remove him from office).

[longhorngunman]

Why didn't Clinton get impeached over Echelon and Carnivore? Easy, he is a Democrat, :rolleyes: , I mean, come on Republicans are all evil, Democrats good. Now go drink your kool-aid:neener: .

[LAR-15]

Why didn't Clinton get impeached over Echelon and Carnivore? Easy, he is a Democrat, :rolleyes: , I mean, come on Republicans are all evil, Democrats good. Now go drink your kool-aid:neener: .

That is totally correct.

Democrats are the good guys.

Republicans are evil

[longhorngunman]

Yeah, what is that big meanie Bush trying to pull on us. It's not like there is a war going on or anything, C'mon its not like their is a group of incredibly evil people trying to destroy us and crash planes into our buildings or plan our complete destruction or anything. Dude, pass me the bong, peace brother.

[LAR-15]

Then why didn't clinton get busted for Carnivore or Echelon?

Because he was Democrat and it was covered up by the media, Thehighroad.org, and his buddies in congress

[LAR-15]

Bush is damned if does, damned if he doesn't.

:mad:

[PCGS65]

Bush is damned if does, damned if he doesn't.:mad:
+1 YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!!

[Lone_Gunman]

It doesnt really matter if Bush has done anything wrong, he will not be impeached. No president, Republican or Democract, will ever be impeached if his own party controls the Congress.

Clinton would not have been impeached if the Democrats had controlled Congress at the time. The Republicans control all branches of government now, and will not cannibalize their own leader.

Party politics will trump justice every time.

[Biker]

Bush is damned if does, damned if he doesn't.

:mad:
Long as he's damned, it's alright with me.
Biker

[PCGS65]

Long as he's damned, it's alright with me.
Biker
biker that's funny.
You know out of all the people that want to be president...not me no way. I don't care how much it pays or how many perks you get!!!!

[mcooper]

Learning of this action on Bush's part has been the straw that broke my back.

I want him OUT of office.

[StopTheGrays]

I hope Bush hasn't crapped on the Alito nomination. That would be a real loss for the Nation. This administration has used the Constitution for toilet paper long enough - if they go after him, he'll have no one to blame but Cheney. ;) They're running a "poll" on impeachment with this story - a recent check shows 88% in favor of impeachment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/from/RS.4/



And somewhere on DU there are about 37 threads asking everyone to "DU" that same poll. :rolleyes: Because Bush is teh evil!!!111!!! [/moonbat]

[stevelyn]

Yeah, what is that big meanie Bush trying to pull on us. It's not like there is a war going on or anything, C'mon its not like their is a group of incredibly evil people trying to destroy us and crash planes into our buildings or plan our complete destruction or anything. Dude, pass me the bong, peace brother.

So we're supposed to give up our Constitutional rights and allow ourselves to be spied upon by our own govt?

If that's that's the case OBL and his minions have already won. All we need to do now is hand over title and deed to them because it isn't worth fighting for anymore.:banghead:

[Dmack_901]

I think this has become a real problem with Americans. You can't just jump to impeaching the guy. First Clinton about irrelevant affairs, and now about something which the President has the legal authority to do. (I'm not sure of the specifics, so I'm just going off what MSNBC said.)

Be mad, sure. Want change, sure. Vote differently next election, by all means. But you can't keep trying to throw out the other party's president ever time he does something you don't like. The man's got 3 years left, and it would probably take 2 before you could get him out. And then you'd have to have elections one year months away from when you usually would have had them, and the new guy would be in for how long? And over what?

Sure probably cause or reasonable suspiscion or whatever it is may be a low standard, but if this was ever used against someone, we have an entire branch of our government to determine whether what Bush did was constitutional. That's how you correct this type of problem.

edit: Oops, by "irrelevant affairs", i meant "actions which had very little impact". Well, minus the impeachment that it caused, but you understand.

[M-Rex]

The kind of emotional drivel on this thread rivals anything on the DU. I've got news for ya, just because you think something is unconstitutional doesn't make it so.

Bush isn't going to be impeached, so go drink your Koolaid.

+1

Well stated.

I'd bargain that a lot of the fervor for impeaching President Bush is little more than Democrat 'get-even-with-them-ism' for the impeachment of the idiot Clinton.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Even more credible to me is Lindsay Graham (R-SC), a prominent spokesman for the GOP and one of my Senators, being very unhappy with Bush's disclosure. Bush will not be impeached unless there is something bad enough to draw in the Republicans.

At the rate things are going, I'll be amazed if there is a Republican congress come January 2007. Except for a handful of people who believe that the executive branch should be beyond the reach of Constitutional law so that the nanny state can keep us safe, most people have reached the breaking point with the Bush administration. Any congressman who has been seen as too cozy with the administration is going to be dragged down with the man. When the Democrats regain control of the congress they will impeach Bush, and they will succeed, because unlike the last time a president was impeached, the majority of the population will support the impeachment this time.

I'm genuinely worried about what kind of liberal dingbats the Democrats are going to put into office as a reaction to the excesses, incompetence, and criminality of the Bush administration. I think the legacy of liberal moonbats who will run this country for the next generation as the country tries to distance itself from the horror of the Bush administration will be one of the man's most endearing and damaging legacies.

[bjbarron]

Bush isn't going to be impeached, so go drink your Koolaid.

+2

What should happen is those who leaked this be tried for treason and the New York Times closed down.

The rest of us should pray that no one dies because this program was compromised.

That this is legal (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed) can be found here...no matter what your BDS wish is.

The mods should put up a poll....are we in a war to the knife, or should we let the cops handle it?

[M-Rex]

I think this has become a real problem with Americans. You can't just jump to impeaching the guy. First Clinton about irrelevant affairs, and now about something which the President has the legal authority to do. (I'm not sure of the specifics, so I'm just going off what MSNBC said.)

<snipped for brevity>


Just to clarify, Clinton was not impeached because of "irrelevant affairs". Clinton was impeached because he ""...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence""

Cite:
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

[roo_ster]

Some folks need to engage their brains before mashing hte accelerator.

Legal Reality
What GWB did has been backed up by case law. He has not committed a crime by doing what he said he did.

I may not like what he did and think it violates the US Constitution, but that doesn't mean squat, relative to SCOTUS rulings.

Political Reality #1
As was already mentioned, the Republicans control the US House. No impeachment will gain traction there. That talk is nothing more than firing up the lefty's base.

Political Reality #2
Notice any polls comissioned by the MSM asking the public if they agree/disagree with GW's actions? No, neither have I. Why? Because the vast majority of folks, when given the facts, will support GW's actions. The MSM doesn't want to douse the fire of controversy with the cold, clear water of reality.

[roo_ster]

The Republicans increase their margins in the US House & Senate.*

The Democrats will repeatedly step on their generative members, giving GWB and the Repubs the advantage, especially with regard to national defense & security. The Democrats just are not to be taken seriously on the issue. The party of Howlin' Howard and retreat & defeatism will look even more anti-American than they currently do. They will look especially foolish as conditions in Iraq improve so much, even the MSM punks in their hotel rooms will have to acknowledge the facts on the ground.

This wll not necessarily be the best outcome for out country. We need at least two parties that are viable and that love this country.

[jefnvk]

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

...


So, you are going to remove everyone in congress that voted to give him that power, too, right?

Impeachments are great, until they just become another tool that one side tries to use to smear the other.

[mr.trooper]

Its a sad, sad, day when we have become So partisan that every president that comes into office has to be "impeached" by the opposing party for no reason but to drag his name throught he mud.

If you ask me this kind of lunacy is the real abuse of the constitution.

People need to STFU and realize that administrators of the opisite party will do things they dont like, and THAT THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bush isn't going to be impeached and anybody who thinks so is living in fantasy land. First, a Republican majority Congress isn't going to impeach a sitting Republican President during a war over a gray-area legal call that shares some common characteristics with unpunished abuses by earlier Presidents.

[Standing Wolf]

It's all gas and no go, of course, but I've to admit I kind of like the sound of "President Cheney."

[fallingblock]

"as the country tries to distance itself from the horror of the Bush administration will be one of the man's most endearing and damaging legacies."
*********************************************************

I'm of the opinion that Bush and his administration will be treated rather favorably by history - for their spirited and strategically competent response to terrorist attacks upon the U.S..;)

The only horror will indeed be if the people buy the moonbats' line and elect a democratic congress and president.:eek:

[Powderman]

well...courtesy of ramsey clark...

Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

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. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

5) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

7) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

8) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

9) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

10) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

11) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

12) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

13) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

14) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

15) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

16) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

17) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

18) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

Oh, PLEASE!!!! Give me a BREAK, will ya?

Will everyone just PLEASE leave the President ALONE, and let the man do his job? :cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Powderman]

Just to clarify, Clinton was not impeached because of "irrelevant affairs". Clinton was impeached because he ""...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence""

Cite:
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

Amen! Clinton was impeached for committing the crime of perjury--which, last time I looked, is a felony offense.

GWB has committed no crime.

[PCGS65]

by powderman, Will everyone just PLEASE leave the President ALONE, and let the man do his job?
+1 powderman
While we are focused on wire tapping, by the way to prevent terrorism. The terrorists might sneak in here AGAIN, while our backs are turned and blow the hell out of something else!!! That's how they operate.

[LAK]

And yet, as I understand it, many of the people in the White House’s own Situation Room — including leaders of the national security adviser’s top staff and officials of the FBI — had no idea that it was happening
Funny; they could have just asked me. I could have told any and all of them that convicted felon Poindexter's "Total Awareness" program was not only nothing new - but wasn't going to go away either.

Not that I have access to any "secrets" of the ongoings in the WH or anywhere else; it has simply been quite open and obvious where those at the helm have been steering us for a great many years.
----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[LAK]

Why didn't Clinton get impeached over Echelon and Carnivore?
For the same reason he wasn't busted over the unprovoked bombing of Serbia, and the murder of thousands of Serbian citizens.

Bill Clinton was helped into office by a lady whose associations with the Bush family go back decades ago. She even spent millions of her own money on Clinton's campaign. This "democrat" vs "republican" nonsense is a big show, nothing more. It's all WWF under one syndicated club.
------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Byron Quick]

Only one problem with the premise that no majority party will ever impeach a President of the same party: it's already happened...and the Republicans did it. The man who attained the Presidency upon Abraham Lincoln's assassination, wouldn't follow the Radical Republicans wishes. They impeached him. The Senate didn't convict. If I remember correctly, the vote was one short.

[Ryder]

I guess only us tinfoil hatters that about this. Why is it a revelation to anyone? I make a lot of out country calls (work). I am not real happy about paying for people to eavesdrop on my calls but why should I care? Half of what I say isn't going to be understood by anyone without technical knowhow. The half they do understand was directed at them. They seemed to handle it just fine. :D

[bogie]

Just remember - it'll be a lot better with Hillary Clinton, Chuckie Schumer, Al Gore and John Kerry running things...

[Lobotomy Boy]

Just remember - it'll be a lot better with Hillary Clinton, Chuckie Schumer, Al Gore and John Kerry running things...


When that happens Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves for allowing an out-of-control administration hijack the party and run it into a brick wall. Thanks guys.

[Lone_Gunman]

Only one problem with the premise that no majority party will ever impeach a President of the same party: it's already happened.

The Andrew Johnson affair was an anomaly. The Republican party was in the midst of massive internal change at that time. Johnson was not a part of the strongest faction, and so he was eaten by his own party members.

The Republican party has undergone big changes in the last 20 years, but Bush is part of the group that has come out on top. The GOP used to be a party of conservatives, but now has become a party of big government, fiscal liberals with an aggressive foreign policy (ie, the neo-conservatives). Bush is a perfect example of a neo-conservative.

The party has come a long way from the days of Reagan, who said "Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them". Can you imagine Bush believing a statement like that?

[The Drew]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is the usual formula, I believe.

A gross violation of his oath of office would probably qualify.

pax

Yeah especially the part about defending the constitution...

Really though, the wiretap thing is the first thing that really has any legs as far as the president actually breaking the law...

[El Tejon]

Yeah, except for the fact that no law was broken, it's got really strong legs in the Washington Post, New York Times and Democratic Underground.:D

[Waitone]

Impeachment has been on the table since 2004 election. Democrats and their media organs have been throwing stuff on the wall in a effort to find something that sticks. Nothing sticks, up to the current flap. For the strategy to work the issue has to have high emotional content, a perceived personal threat to the voter, and complicated enough to discourage an informed voter from education him or her self. I am beginning to think the wiretap flap has all the required characteristics. The reality of a republican power structure impeaching their president is not the issue. Democrats want the issue, air time, and repetition of 3 second soundbites. This is the beginning of the 2006 campaign.

[Trip20]

NOTICE:

THE INTERNET REQUIRES NO PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM

EVERYONE GETS ENOUGH EXERCISE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, FLYING OFF THE HANDLE, AND RUNNING DOWN THE PRESIDENT.

[RealGun]

The Republican party has undergone big changes in the last 20 years, but Bush is part of the group that has come out on top. The GOP used to be a party of conservatives, but now has become a party of big government, fiscal liberals with an aggressive foreign policy (ie, the neo-conservatives). Bush is a perfect example of a neo-conservative.

The party has come a long way from the days of Reagan, who said "Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them". Can you imagine Bush believing a statement like that?

I am not sure why we keep hammering the GOP for not being conservative enough, "neocon", "RINO", and all the other pejoratives. Without being moderate they wouldn't be "on top". Any idealistic party with all the answers would find itself heavily compromised if actually in charge. Both major parties have the same problem, so one would have to pay close attention to tell them apart. However, picking one over the other DOES make a difference. A President is just the current facade. I think bill proposals and partisan voting by Congress is probably a better measure of what a party represents. What actually gets passed does not clearly distinguish one party from another. Relying upon the MSM is probably the worst way to be informed since they pander to cynicism and anti-establishment outrage to make money. Good news is no news. When it's good, spin it negative.

[bakert]

I can't believe I scrolled through three pages of this thread. As far as I'm concerned although there were a few pretty good posts there was also a whole lot of drivel. Where does all this information come from. I am a rather cynical old guy that believes nothing written or aired by the news media and very little by publicity seeking Senators or Congressmen. Ramsey Clark?? Impeachment my A--!!

[22-rimfire]

The Democrats have been trying to find something to "impeach" GW Bush since he was elected. Seems to be a Democratic past time. It is all a bunch of BS. But Bush will have to pay attention to things. Bush is not a dishonest man. Again, it is a bunch of C*R*A*P.

[db_tanker]

Only one word comes to mind while reading this rant from MSNBC....


drivel.



D

[GTSteve03]

b-b-b-b-b-b-But Clinton! :rolleyes:

Remember folks, the same thing happened last time around, with a Democratic president with a Republican-controlled Congress. The Repubs decided that a blowjob compromised the office of the President and was all ready to impeach Clinton over lying about it.

Lying about a blowjob.

Not violating 4th Amendment rights of US citizens, holding US citizens indefinitely without trial, or using misleading and/or false information to take the country to War.

A blowjob. :barf:

[The Drew]

Yeah, except for the fact that no law was broken, it's got really strong legs in the Washington Post, New York Times and Democratic Underground.:D

It's NOT a fact that no laws were broken... It IS a fact that the president NEVER got warrants for these wiretaps, either before or after the fact. And THAT is a violation of all kinds of laws... The CLAIM that the president has the power to break these laws under "war powers" has yet to be substantiated.

[xd9fan]

The Republican party has undergone big changes in the last 20 years, but Bush is part of the group that has come out on top. The GOP used to be a party of conservatives, but now has become a party of big government, fiscal liberals with an aggressive foreign policy (ie, the neo-conservatives). Bush is a perfect example of a neo-conservative.

The party has come a long way from the days of Reagan, who said "Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them". Can you imagine Bush believing a statement like that?


Thats why I spend half my time on this website shaking my head at the comments Camp David makes when he thinks GWB is a conservative!!:rolleyes:

This may seem like I am picking on Camp David (and I am..its a fair fight in the battle of ideas) his anti Civil Liberties pro militery at all costs approach is just pre 1940-ish. History is simply not kind when Govts have that kind of power. No Conservative would ever let this fly......but the NEOCONS would.

[Trip20]

Drew, your wrong. He did not break all kinds of laws. What will surface is that the government in this case, followed law - and the issue will become how unconstitutional is the LAW.

[Lone_Gunman]

I am not sure why we keep hammering the GOP for not being conservative enough, "neocon", "RINO", and all the other pejoratives. Without being moderate they wouldn't be "on top".

Hammering the GOP? How did my comments hammer them? Do you disagree that the party has undergone the changes I describe? I was simply describing how the party has changed over the years.

[Master Blaster]

If the president broke all kinds of laws please post one law in its entirety that he broke. Also please let us know that jurisdiction this crime is a felony under, and what the penalty proscibed by the law is. Thanks.

BTW no one is going to be able to do this because there is no such law.

If a policeman in your town wiretaps a suspected drug dealer without getting a warrant, (ther is no break in by police to do this since it is a matter of asking the phone company) what law is he violating, does this law carry a penalty?????

As I understand it the evidence he gathered would be inadmissable in court, but there is no actual law on the books that makes this a felony or even a misdemeanor and the policeman will not be arrested.

[The Drew]

Drew, your wrong. He did not break all kinds of laws. What will surface is that the government in this case, followed law - and the issue will become how unconstitutional is the LAW.

They didn't follow law, they followed legal opinion... I have never seen ANYWHERE where there is a law that says NO WARRANTS are needed to spy on or search americans.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW

They can in "an emergency" spy first, then go back and get the FISA court to issue a warrant after the fact... This was not done...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Apologize all you want... You KNOW what was done was wrong... you just seem to support it because "W's our guy..." or "he's only spying on terrorists"...

Yeah, and as soon as gunowners and 2a activists become labeled as terrorists, you'll be sorry...

[The Drew]

As I understand it the evidence he gathered would be inadmissable in court, but there is no actual law on the books that makes this a felony or even a misdemeanor and the policeman will not be arrested.

It doesn't matter if it is inadmissable, the government will just throw you in prison without taking you to trial just like they have done on many occasions so far... and it will be a LENGTHY legal process you MAY NOT win just to get a trial...

Tell me again how this isn't a violation of the 4th amendment???

[Master Blaster]

I'll be happy to explain how its not a violation of the 4th,

after you explain how all the laws regulating the ownership of firearms, are not a violation of the second ammendment. :)

[Lone_Gunman]

Master Blaster,

Does the fact that the government violates the 2nd Amendment make it Ok in your mind for them to violate the 4th also?

[Trip20]

The Drew - before you get upset with me, know that I do not support what has gone on, and that I do not blindly support "W".

What I would like to see, though, is that "W", et al, is held responsible for relevant happenings, not what people think.

Here's an interesting legal analysis by Prof. Orin Kerr (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml). This was found by TFL Staff member "Antipitas", who is a lawyer if memory serves:
Legal Analysis of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program:

Was the secret NSA surveillance program legal? Was it constitutional? Did it violate federal statutory law? It turns out these are hard questions, but I wanted to try my best to answer them. My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. My answer is extra-cautious for two reasons. First, there is some wiggle room in FISA, depending on technical details we don't know of how the surveillance was done. Second, there is at least a colorable argument — if, I think in the end, an unpersuasive one — that the surveillance was authorized by the Authorization to Use Miltary Force as construed in the Hamdi opinion.

This is a really long post, so let me tell you where I'm going. I'm going to start with the Fourth Amendment; then turn to FISA; next look to the Authorization to Use Military Force; and conclude by looking at claim that the surveillance was justified by the inherent authority of Article II. And before I start, let me be clear that nothing in this post is intended to express or reflect a normative take of whether the surveillance program is a good idea or a bad idea. In other words, I'm just trying to answer what the law is, not say what the law should be. If you think my analysis is wrong, please let me know in the comment section; I'd be delighted to post a correction.

My point, The Drew, is that there is too much unknown at this point. It's entirely possible, moreso probable, that most persons in this and other threads ranting about broken laws and constitution toilet paper, really don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I'm only asking that we wait to understand what has really happened before we wrap ourselves in the flag, make a kevlar out of the constitution, and start firing our evil black rifles at the capitol.

Here's some additional interesting info:

Pres. Carter executive order 12139:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.


Pres clinton executive order 12949:

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence


Pres. George W. Bush merely amends previous EO's with his EO 13383, 7-15-05:

Executive Order: Amending Executive Orders 12139 and 12949 in Light of Establishment of the Office of Director of National Intelligence

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section. 1. Section 1-103 of Executive Order 12139 of May 23, 1979, is amended by:

(a) striking "(c) Director of Central Intelligence" and inserting in lieu thereof "(c) Director of National Intelligence";

(b) striking "(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence" and inserting in lieu thereof "(g) Director of the Central Intelligence Agency"; and

(c) adding at the end thereof "(h) Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.".

Sec. 2. Section 3 of Executive Order 12949 of February 9, 1995, is amended by:

(a) striking "(c) Director of Central Intelligence" and inserting in lieu thereof "Director of National Intelligence";

(b) striking "and" at the end of subsection (f);

(c) striking "(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence." and inserting in lieu thereof "(g) Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and"; and

(d) adding at the end thereof "(h) Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.".

Sec. 3. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 15, 2005.

[RealGun]

Hammering the GOP? How did my comments hammer them? Do you disagree that the party has undergone the changes I describe? I was simply describing how the party has changed over the years.

I agreed with your quote completely. It was only the basis of my further thoughts. I repeatedly read indictments of the GOP for not being the party some would like it to be. I think these commentators overlook that the party would be extinct or marginal at best if it conformed to their desires. With all due respect to any well informed and politically savvy voter or any other exception, when you have women and blacks voting, the major blocks of the ecomonically dependent essentially, you cannot be purely conservative and put together any kind of plurality. The good ole days are gone. A successful party can only tend to be this or that, essentially moderate. Thus you get the vitriol that they are all alike by those disinclined to be moderate in their views.

[Waitone]

The more I read threads like this one, the stronger my conclusion is that there is not a linear continuum to politics. Instead of libertarianism at one end and totalitarianism at the other, I am beginning to see a circle with libertarianism and totalitarianism side by side. The only difference between the two is the approach take.

I am astounded at the Pavlovian response to fragmentary reports from political organs with well-defined axes to grind. All stories of these type run in a cycle where charges are made, facts are explored, spin and counter spin, etc. is conducted. We are early in the cycle yet what I assume to be reasonable and rational people draw conclusions which can be considered extreme. Maybe the latest flap is the final straw in a lot of people's mind. Maybe its the time of year. Perhaps we're looking at a political realignment. I can't figure out the dynamic at work. I see similar conclusions being drawn on both DU and THR. The disturbing part is poster's I've identified as swinging libertarian in the past seem to echo the "logic" I see on DU; hence my conclusion of a circle instead of a straight line.

[WayneConrad]

The more I read threads like this one, the stronger my conclusion is that there is not a linear continuum to politics.
Good point. Have you seen The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)? It measures liberal/conservative on one axis, and libertarian/authoritarian on another. It's an interesting way to view what being libertarian does (and does not) mean.

[xd9fan]

Cool website (I'm almost on top of Friedman!!) cool

[The Drew]

The Drew - before you get upset with me, know that I do not support what has gone on, and that I do not blindly support "W".

What I would like to see, though, is that "W", et al, is held responsible for relevant happenings, not what people think.

Here's an interesting legal analysis by Prof. Orin Kerr (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml). This was found by TFL Staff member "Antipitas", who is a lawyer if memory serves:


My point, The Drew, is that there is too much unknown at this point. It's entirely possible, moreso probable, that most persons in this and other threads ranting about broken laws and constitution toilet paper, really don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I'm only asking that we wait to understand what has really happened before we wrap ourselves in the flag, make a kevlar out of the constitution, and start firing our evil black rifles at the capitol.

Here's some additional interesting info:

Pres. Carter executive order 12139:




Pres clinton executive order 12949:




Pres. George W. Bush merely amends previous EO's with his EO 13383, 7-15-05:

So a violation of the FISA law isn't breaking any laws? It's made legal by the president issuing an executive order???

What should happen is that if it does come out that it was technically legal due to an EO, then there should be MAJOR outrage from the populace... Problem is that because this is being done in pursuance of "the war on terror" most of the sheeple don't give a damn...

There are too few real patriots left...

[Khornet]

because 1) while it may become apparent that men of good will could come to opposite conclusions about the legality of Bush's actions, that ain't good enough to charge a president,

and 2) there won't be any Dem congress because this kind of talk will have convinced Americans that the Dems aren't serious about terrorism.

[ibex]

Warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens is a clear and gross violation of the Fourth Amendment and thus, of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Proponents of this measure "against terrorism": Please note my sigline.

The SCOTUS must have this reversed. Hopefully, they will.

I am against impeachment of President Bush, though. I'm not happy with him, but if he got kicked out of the office, I fear there will be a stronger knee-jerk reaction against Republican candidates than what I already expect in the next election. And that means that Hillary or Kerry would take over.

[Phyphor]

Long as he's damned, it's alright with me.
Biker

Nicht Scheisse!

It just totally boggles the mind how he's caught flat-out breaking the law (Before anyone jumps on me, keep in mind Bush did not get the warrants in the 72 hour grace period, he simply ignored them entirely,) - then he goes on to finger-point at those that exposed him.

If he would have just taken the effort to seek the warrants as the law allows him, I wouldn't have as much of a problem, but since he didn't even respect the law enough to do that, how does this make him any better than Clinton?

Hell, some folks defend him by saying "Oh, he's just spying on terrorists, it doesn't affect me in any way. " Kinda reminds me of them folks that say "Oh, they can take away the assault rifles, it doesn't affect my hunting rifles or shotguns........" :banghead:

[Master Blaster]

It just totally boggles the mind how he's caught flat-out breaking the law (Before anyone jumps on me, keep in mind Bush did not get the warrants in the 72 hour grace period, he simply ignored them entirely,) - then he goes on to finger-point at those that exposed him.

What law did he break???? Please post a copy of it.

What is the proscribed penalty????

Apologies to Master Blaster, meant to hit "quote" and hit "edit" instead and changed his post. Did my best to restore it to its original form. Sorry!

[Werewolf]

b-b-b-b-b-b-But Clinton! :rolleyes:

Remember folks, the same thing happened last time around, with a Democratic president with a Republican-controlled Congress. The Repubs decided that a blowjob compromised the office of the President and was all ready to impeach Clinton over lying about it.

Lying about a blowjob.

Not violating 4th Amendment rights of US citizens, holding US citizens indefinitely without trial, or using misleading and/or false information to take the country to War.

A blowjob. :barf:ROFLMAO! Well - that certainly puts this whole affair in perspective.

[ReadyontheRight]

So...If there is an impeachment trial, do you think the Bailiff will carry 9mm or 45acp as a sidearm? .40 S&W?

This stuff is getting old. I thought this was a gun-related site.:rolleyes:

[El Tejon]

The Drew, this isn't a violation of the Fourth Amendment as there is no expectation of privacy in such phone calls. NSA had been doing this for decades as under Carter as under Clinton. Just like Agent Schmuckatelli reading THR.:)

[Master Blaster]

In order to get a warrant you need to name the phone number/ location / person, and provide some idea of the thing you are searching for.

Now imagine we are living in the age of super computers, Imagine a computer at the NSA which can capture and monitor every phone call made out of the US and into the US, say 2 million calls at any given time. Imagine that this computer has a complex program that includes speach and voice recognition, and looks for certain patterns of calls to and from millions of locations, and looks for patterns of words.

When it finds something it writes it to a database and assigns a priority to it so it can pass through another set of programs on another super computer.
Eventually a human being will be allerted if over a certain time span there are repeats of the pattern being sought. This may take a day, a week, a month, 6 months.

How would one go about getting a warrant for the initial 2 million calls, when one doesnt know the location, or the number in advance.

72 hours later does one present all 2 million calls to the court for a warrant as described above?????? Imagine at the end of say a month this filtering database has come up with 1,000 locations that need to be checked, but most would have been monitored for the first time more than 72 hours ago.

Bush via his order allows the above to happen and the FBI to check out after the fact 20 of the 400,000,000 calls/ locations that were fed into the database and super computers that month.

That is what we are talking about.

Unfortunately Now that I have revealed this top secret, you will all have to be TERMINATED

JUST KIDDING

[Trip20]

What law did he break???? Please post a copy of it.

What is the proscribed penalty????

Even Jesus agrees.

[The Drew]

72 hours later does one present all 2 million calls to the court for a warrant as described above?????? Imagine at the end of say a month this filtering database has come up with 1,000 locations that need to be checked, but most would have been monitored for the first time more than 72 hours ago.

Have you totally missed the point of all this discussion...

YES those calls are supposed to be reported to the FISA court for Warrants after the fact... That is what the FISA Act requires!!!

Just because it isn't easy to comply with the law doesn't excuse breaking it...

[The Drew]

The Drew, this isn't a violation of the Fourth Amendment as there is no expectation of privacy in such phone calls. NSA had been doing this for decades as under Carter as under Clinton. Just like Agent Schmuckatelli reading THR.:)

There IS a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone call otherwise there wouldn't be a need for ANY law enforcement to get a warrant for a wiretap...

Public forums are a totally different thing...

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Have you totally missed the point of all this discussion...

YES those calls are supposed to be reported to the FISA court for Warrants after the fact... That is what the FISA Act requires!!!

Just because it isn't easy to comply with the law doesn't excuse breaking it...

Perhaps more germaine:

They monitor 2 million calls, discovered that 20 of those calls were made to a known terrorist number. They then listen to those calls (they have 72 hours to get a warrant), and then they discover that this guy's TN is "hot".

File for a warrant. 72 hours leeway. Not difficult to do.

OTOH, what do *I* know, I am not the President or the VP. I am just the guy that *employs* them.

[SIGarmed]

Bush is damned if does, damned if he doesn't.

:mad:

That's the whole point. There's no other reason these marxists like Boxer and her cohorts in the media are opening their mouths. They're pushing their propoganda campaign so that their minions can have something to scream about.

You know what's funny? Just out of curiousity I've done searches running certain posters user names. I've found that some of the big mouths don't have their usernames come up much for actual gun posts.

Gee I wonder why?

[longhorngunman]

SigArmed, thats because they do most of their regular posting at DU.:D I'll give the libtards credit, this little non-story has done exactly what they wanted it to. Which is to discount Bush and our military after the incredible Democratic elections that were held in Iraq last week. Gotta hand it to the libtards and media, they do go all out when it comes to breaking down the USA. BTW one of the other posters was spot on when it comes to the current Republicans and Presidents apparent lack of conservatism. While I wish Bush was more like Reagan domestically, I love his "neo-conservatism:neener: " when it comes to foreign affairs. Hate to tell "true" conservatives this but Bush is as conservative as we'll ever see elected again. The days of Reagan are long since over, with an ever expanding minority vote, soccer moms, government care for me and keep me safe public, etc, it's a miracle (and pitiful Democrat candidates) someone as conservative as Bush actually won this century's two elections.

[The Drew]

Wow... You guys are more closedminded than I thought... Just because someone isn't a neocon, suddenly they're a marxist lib???

The political spectrum isn't black and white, right or left, or red and blue... It is possible that SOME people value liberty more than they value party loyalty...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What law did he break???? Please post a copy of it.

What is the proscribed penalty????

Everybody except the Attorney General seems to feel that Bush has plainly violated FISA requirements. However, there is still considerable discussion over whether or not this is legal.

Previous Presidents going back to Carter have maintained that they have the constitutional authority to order warrantless searches in order to gather foreign intelligence. All of them have maintained that they did not surrender that authority just because FISA was signed. Since most of the cases in the brief I read on it were named things like "In re Classified" and "Unnamed v. Classified" it was a little difficult to get an idea of just how broad that authority is and were FISA supercedes it.

The second issue is that the Bush Administration is claiming that even if they did not have the constitutional authority before this, they do as a result of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after September 11.

Those who are saying this is plainly illegal are wrong. It isn't plain and is in a grey area. However, I think a pretty good case can be made that letting the Executive branch both electronically surveil American citizens AND be the sole decisionmaker on whether such surveillance is legal is a really, really bad idea. This is the whole reason FISA exists.

The Bush Administration isn't going to be impeached over this because:

1) Republicans aren't going to impeach their sitting president in this case
2) Too many skeletons would surface during the debate - nobody from either party wants to see that happen
3) It is a genuinely grey area legally where the President has plenty of plausible room to justify his policy, even if it is a policy I think is horrible.

[yonderway]

NSA had been doing this for decades as under Carter as under Clinton. Just like Agent Schmuckatelli reading THR.:)

The fact that it has been going on for decades doesn't make it okay. The federal government has overstepped its bounds, and must be brought back in line.

[yonderway]

How would one go about getting a warrant for the initial 2 million calls, when one doesnt know the location, or the number in advance.

Answer: One doesn't. This isn't the Soviet Union, or East Germany.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Seems pretty cut and dry.

[yonderway]

Those who are saying this is plainly illegal are wrong. It isn't plain and is in a grey area.

Simple law doesn't carry the full weight of the constitution. The amendments do carry the full weight of the constitution. In the event that a simple law tries to grant the government powers specifically denied by the constitution, the constitution must prevail.

[Pward]

Amen

[Phyphor]

*snip*
Those who are saying this is plainly illegal are wrong. It isn't plain and is in a grey area.

Now, this I do agree with. As of now, it does seem to be in a fairly grey area. Hell, the only reason I tripped out about it was because I was wondering where it would stop.

However, I think a pretty good case can be made that letting the Executive branch both electronically surveil American citizens AND be the sole decisionmaker on whether such surveillance is legal is a really, really bad idea. This is the whole reason FISA exists.


Well, yea.



The Bush Administration isn't going to be impeached over this because:

1) Republicans aren't going to impeach their sitting president in this case
2) Too many skeletons would surface during the debate - nobody from either party wants to see that happen
3) It is a genuinely grey area legally where the President has plenty of plausible room to justify his policy, even if it is a policy I think is horrible.

Sad but true.

[jeff-10]

I kind of like the sound of "President Cheney"

Me to. :D

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Simple law doesn't carry the full weight of the constitution. The amendments do carry the full weight of the constitution. In the event that a simple law tries to grant the government powers specifically denied by the constitution, the constitution must prevail.

SCOTUS has not ruled that such actions are unconstitutional. Whether you agree with that interpretation or not, it has been the role of the Supreme Court to make those decisions since Marbury v. Madison.

If you wish to qualify your statements with "Under the Constitution of the United States of yonderway this is blatantly illegal" then you have a point. Otherwise you are substituting your own interpretation of the law for that of the people who have the Constitutional authority to interpret the law.

[jbear6]

It's a shame we only know what has been reported in the news. The New York Times held the story for a year before going public, are they telling the whole story now?

It seems to me that if the FISA Court was purposely left out of the loop, they might have denied approval if informed of the depth of the eavesdropping. Maybe this was more of a "blanket USA eavesdropping" rather than a "one party in Afganistan, the other in the USA.

Why don't we seal up the US/Mexico border if we want to stop terrorists from getting to us? How many terrorists have crossed our open border while they listen to domestic phone calls, and search grandma's shoes before she boards a plane? I'm a conservative by the way, not a liberal.

[PCGS65]

1. People LOVE to HATE and will reach to the end of the universe to do so.
2. Especially demorats because of how clinton humiliated his party. First it was Bush lied about WMD. Now that has taken the back seat for "Bush broke the law". Whether he did or didn't doesn't matter. People will say he did just like the media.
3. The media does more harm to this country than anything.
4. End of story.

[rhubarb]

Dittoheads make me :barf:

We've got a chance to make it two in a row. Let's make it standard practice to impeach presidents. Take some wind out of their sails.

[Trip20]

Everybody except the Attorney General seems to feel that Bush has plainly violated FISA requirements. However, there is still considerable discussion over whether or not this is legal.

Previous Presidents going back to Carter have maintained that they have the constitutional authority to order warrantless searches in order to gather foreign intelligence. All of them have maintained that they did not surrender that authority just because FISA was signed. Since most of the cases in the brief I read on it were named things like "In re Classified" and "Unnamed v. Classified" it was a little difficult to get an idea of just how broad that authority is and were FISA supercedes it.

The second issue is that the Bush Administration is claiming that even if they did not have the constitutional authority before this, they do as a result of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after September 11.

Those who are saying this is plainly illegal are wrong. It isn't plain and is in a grey area. However, I think a pretty good case can be made that letting the Executive branch both electronically surveil American citizens AND be the sole decisionmaker on whether such surveillance is legal is a really, really bad idea. This is the whole reason FISA exists.

The Bush Administration isn't going to be impeached over this because:

1) Republicans aren't going to impeach their sitting president in this case
2) Too many skeletons would surface during the debate - nobody from either party wants to see that happen
3) It is a genuinely grey area legally where the President has plenty of plausible room to justify his policy, even if it is a policy I think is horrible.

Bolding, mine.

It's finally happened! A post concerning this controversial topic, which is truly worthy of +1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See! This is what it looks like when someone disagrees with what's going on.... yet they have the prescience to know there may be more to evaluate than what's being spewed by the mainstream media. The result is commentary that shows both apprehension towards the actions, and skepticism towards the biased reports of the same. Beautiful.

[LAK]

Anyone find any statute prohibiting the transfer to the United States government of information on U.S. citizens living in the United States obtained in the surveillance operations conducted by foreign intelligence services?

I thought not ;)
---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Fidel Castro]

Everybody except the Attorney General seems to feel that Bush has plainly violated FISA requirements. However, there is still considerable discussion over whether or not this is legal.

Previous Presidents going back to Carter have maintained that they have the constitutional authority to order warrantless searches in order to gather foreign intelligence. All of them have maintained that they did not surrender that authority just because FISA was signed. Since most of the cases in the brief I read on it were named things like "In re Classified" and "Unnamed v. Classified" it was a little difficult to get an idea of just how broad that authority is and were FISA supercedes it.

The second issue is that the Bush Administration is claiming that even if they did not have the constitutional authority before this, they do as a result of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after September 11.



It's called Martial Law, not the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Americans. Read the definition and note the striking simularities.

"Martial law is the system of rules that takes effect (usually after a formal declaration) when a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice.

Martial law is instituted most often when it becomes necessary to favor the activity of military authorities and organizations, usually for urgent unforeseen needs, and when the normal institutions of justice either cannot function or could be deemed too slow or too weak for the new situation; e.g., due to war, major natural disaster, civil disorder, in occupied territory, or after a coup d'&#233;tat. The need to preserve the public order during an emergency is the essential goal of martial law. However, declaration of martial law is also sometimes used by dictatorships, especially military dictatorships, to enforce their rule.

Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law. In many countries martial law prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes, even if ordinary law does not contain that crime or punishment in its system.

In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to military tribunals, called courts-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur."

[Master Blaster]

From the Horses Mouth:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored. In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.


ADVERTISEMENT


"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."

President Bush has acknowledged he authorized such surveillance and repeatedly has defended it in recent days.

But Moschella's letter was the administration's first public notice to Congress about the program in which electronic surveillance was conducted without the approval of a secret court created to examine requests for wiretaps and searches in the most sensitive terrorism and espionage cases.

Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."

The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.

Congress adopted the resolution in the chaotic days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, authorizing the president to wage war against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups that pose a threat to the United States.

Moschella said the president's constitutional authority also includes power to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance inside the United States. He said that power has been affirmed by federal courts, including the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. The FISA court was created in 1978 after public outcry over government spying on anti-war and civil rights protesters.

The administration deliberately bypassed the FISA court, which requires the government to provide evidence that a terrorism or espionage suspect is "an agent of a foreign power." The foreign intelligence law makes it a crime for anyone who "intentionally intercepts" a communication without a warrant.

Moschella said Bush's action was legal because the foreign intelligence law provides a "broad" exception if the spying is authorized by another statute. In this case, he said, Congress' authorization provided such authority.

The resolution didn't limit the president to going after al-Qaida only in Afghanistan, Moschella wrote.

Moschella also maintained the NSA program is "consistent" with the Fourth Amendment _ which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures _ and civil liberties.

For searches to be reasonable under law, a warrant is needed, Moschella said. But, outside criminal investigations, he said, the Supreme Court has created exceptions where warrants are not needed, finding that the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstances."

"Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement," Moschella wrote.

"Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable."

[El Tejon]

MB, what? The test for the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness? "Totality of the circumstances", isn't that a test involving whether or not Republicans or Democrats are in office?

That's not what they say at DU or the New York Times! Isn't it an absolute standard for privacy? If only more judges in my county thought that it was.:D

Isn't it funny how the Democrats/Media love privacy and believe in solid walls between terrorists and the government, unless American gun owners ask for privacy.:uhoh:

[Waitone]

Amazing! Just amazing. :what:

[The Drew]

saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

That's all I need to know... and is all ANYONE in this nation should need to know to see where we are really headed...

[Robert J McElwain]

Wow... .The political spectrum isn't black and white, right or left, or red and blue... It is possible that SOME people value liberty more than they value party loyalty...

You bring up a good point about the spectrum. The political/social spectrum is not a straight line. It's circular. Think of a circle with Moderation being at the bottom of the circle and then follow the circle to the left or right. Follow it far enough and the two extremes meet at the top, which is totalitarianism.

Given that description, how close are we to the top of the circle these days?

Bob

[The Drew]

Politics are not just a circle, but more of a globe like the political compass. Authoritarianism Vs. Libertarianism in one axis, and Fiscal policy on the other...

In reality it's probably much more than that...

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Politics is ... a very precious, delicate thing that must be held ever so gently to ones buxom and caressed slowly and lovingly...

Yes politics is like the first snowflake... falling slowly ... drifting ... like the dulcid tones of Robert Byrd lovingly lambasting his Republican rivals whilst he designs yet another public toilet in West Virginia to put his name upon...

I could go on, but the muse escapes ...

Merry Christmas to all, and remember, we are all snug in our beds whilst the Congress is back home keeping from mischief...

:)

[Fidel Castro]

Politics is ... a very precious, delicate thing that must be held ever so gently to ones buxom and caressed slowly and lovingly...

Yes politics is like the first snowflake... falling slowly ... drifting ... like the dulcid tones of Robert Byrd lovingly lambasting his Republican rivals whilst he designs yet another public toilet in West Virginia to put his name upon...

I could go on, but the muse escapes ...

Merry Christmas to all, and remember, we are all snug in our beds whilst the Congress is back home keeping from mischief...

:)
I think Mongo the Mutterer writes porn.:D

:No offense intended sir:

[Mongo the Mutterer]

nope I don't do porn, but it is amazing the colorful words which pop into my mind each time I see KKK Byrd...

[Phyphor]

1. People LOVE to HATE and will reach to the end of the universe to do so.

I don't really see much real "hate" for Bush in this thread. Some dislike, of course, especially in light of the decisions he's made, and what he's said about those decisions.


2. Especially demorats because of how clinton humiliated his party. First it was Bush lied about WMD. Now that has taken the back seat for "Bush broke the law". Whether he did or didn't doesn't matter.


Whether he broke the law doesn't matter? Since when? I seem to remember a huge ruckuss when Clinton perjured himself. Folks were shouting that he should be impeached for breaking that law. So, if it's proven that Bush did in fact violate the law...



People will say he did just like the media.


There's just as many that will say he didn't.


3. The media does more harm to this country than anything.


As opposed to politicians with their own agendas for how they think this nation should be run? Now, that doesn't apply just for Bush, it applies for creatures like Feinstein, Boxer, etc....

Plus, I seem not to recall much complaining regarding the media attention the Clinton debacle(s) got.

4. End of story.

No, I think this S-storm is just beginning. :banghead:

[AirForceShooter]

We went through this with Bubba. One reason I can't stand Newt is that he impeached Clinton Knowing he wouldn't be removed from office by the Senate.
The whole country was put through a process that the House knew would result in nothing. I always wondered if the Impeachment diverted Clinton from dealing with stuff.

So, if somebody in the House plans on Impeaching our resident idiot they better KNOW it will go all the way and we wind up with President Cheney.
How does that sound? President Cheney.

What I think is sad about this is that I truly believe Bush thinks he's in the right. It's for our own protection. WOW.
Just my .02

AFS

[RealGun]

So, if somebody in the House plans on Impeaching our resident idiot

This is the kind of excessive rhetoric that we should get under control in order to have any pretense of being the high road. Snarky pejoratives are one thing, but this label is offensive. It lacks respect for either the person or the office.

[telewinz]

Impeach him about what???

:confused:

For the good of the country, just like Bush's "Patriot" Act.

[wingnutx]

in a WashingtonPost.com chat (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/12/19/DI2005121900972.html), Richard Morin, the Post's polling editor, provides some context (ellipses in original):

Naperville, Ill.: Why haven't you polled on public support for the impeachment of George W. Bush?

Richard Morin: This question makes me mad . . .

Seattle, Wash.: How come ABC News/Post poll has not yet polled on impeachment?

Richard Morin: Getting madder . . .

Haymarket, Va.: With all the recent scandals and illegal/unconstitutional actions of the President, why hasn't ABC News/Washington Post polled whether the President should be impeached?

Richard Morin: Madder still . . .

Dublin, Ireland: In a statement on Sunday, John Dean, former White House counsel during Watergate, stated that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Will The Washington Post be polling about impeachment of the President in the near future, now that this topic has taken on national significance?

Richard Morin: An impeachment demand from Ireland? Oh my gawd. Now I'm furious.

Let me explain.

For the past eight months or so, the major media pollsters have been the target of a campaign organized by a Democratic Web site demanding that we ask a question about impeaching Bush in our polls.

The Web site lists the e-mail addresses of every media pollster, reporters as well as others. The Post's ombudsman is even on their hit list.

The Web site helpfully provides draft language that can be cut-and-pasted into a blanket e-mail.

The net result is that every few months, when this Web site fires up the faithful with another call for e-mails, my mailbox is filled with dozens and dozens of messages that all read exactly the same (often from the same people, again and again). Most recently, a psychology professor from Arizona State University sent me the copy-and-paste e-mail, not a word or comma was changed. I only hope his scholarship is more original.

We first laughed about it. Now, four waves into this campaign,we are annoyed. Really, really annoyed.

Some free advice: You do your cause no service by organizing or participating in such a campaign. It is viewed by me and others with the same scorn reserved for junk mail. Perhaps a bit more.

That said. we [sic] do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion--witness the fact that no member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's impeachment. When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls.

Enough, already.

[enfield]

- - -- - - snicker- - - - -

What a bunch of losers!:p

[spartacus2002]

saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

That's all I need to know... and is all ANYONE in this nation should need to know to see where we are really headed...

yep. The true test of any law is not how it will be used, but how it can be abused. Do the Bush-lovers want President Hillary to have the same legal authority? What do you think Atty Gen Schumer would do with such powers?

[AirForceShooter]

I can't call him an idiot??

AFS

[CAnnoneer]

I can't call him an idiot??

AFS

Sometimes the truth is so harsh that it looks very offensive.

But especially to those that idolize the office.

But especially to those that are heavily emotionally invested in politicians that deserve neither their loyalty nor their efforts.

[RealGun]

Sometimes the truth is so harsh that it looks very offensive.

But especially to those that idolize the office.

But especially to those that are heavily emotionally invested in politicians that deserve neither their loyalty nor their efforts.

Bush is not literally an idiot, so what are we calling the truth.

"Idolize" is pretty harsh for merely respecting the office. Why would we even care if we didn't want the presidency well served.

"Heavily emotionally invested" is an extreme way to describe being objective, willing to consider that Bush and his administration could do or say something right. A lot of this kind of harsh commentary is disingenuous. It's just partisan nonsense, mostly Democrat or third party, here most likely Libertarian, people who think it's their job to be mean and critical, with no real stake in what's actually happening and no practical future for their point of view.

My President, both Senators, and my House rep are all relatively pro gun, and the ecomony is doing really well. I have some good reasons for being loyal. Actually, the alternatives are pretty troubling. I do have a list of gripes, however, not a lot different than many others might cite.

Happy Holidays.

[Lone_Gunman]

[QUOTE]A lot of this kind of harsh commentary is disingenuous. It's just partisan nonsense[/QUOTE

I have voted straight Republican since 1980 (including Bush in 2000 and 2004), and think Bush has done the nation more harm than any other president during that time.

So dismissing anti-Bush commentary as partisan is not accurate. I am a Republican, and will probably always be a Republican.

I don't think I am the only Republican who dislikes Bush. The only reason Bush has remained in power is because he is less offensive than the candidates the Democratic party has run lately.

[Robert J McElwain]

[QUOTE]
I have voted straight Republican since 1980 (including Bush in 2000 and 2004), and think Bush has done the nation more harm than any other president during that time........

...........I don't think I am the only Republican who dislikes Bush. The only reason Bush has remained in power is because he is less offensive than the candidates the Democratic party has run lately.

I agree with your last part. If there had been an acceptable alternative the last two times, Bush would still be in Texas.

However, I'm confused about your first part. You don't like Bush, but you voted for him twice. Are you saying that, as a Republican, you're unable to vote anything other than a straight ticket? I'm also a Republican, but if the party puts up an idiot, I feel no obligation to confirm the party stupidity. There's always third parties.

Bob

[Lone_Gunman]

I'm confused about your first part. You don't like Bush, but you voted for him twice.

Allow me to explain.

In 2000, I was too stupid to realize that Bush was a big government, fiscal liberal. I was really looking forward to replacing Clinton with Bush, and thought that with Bush at the helm, we would really see some changes in our country. Well, we have seen changes alright, but mostly they have been for the worse. I was sorely disappointed in him.

In 2004, I fell victim to the "lesser of two evils" argument. Republican party leadership and strategists scared me, and many other republicans, into voting for Bush, saying that a Kerry presidency would be far worse. So I didn't vote third party out of fear of wasting my vote.

Its a sorry thing for me to have done, but thats how it happened for me. I don't think I will repeat that in 2008 though. If the Republicans won't run a good candidate in 2008, I will not vote Republican.

[The Drew]

I really think that there are too many people who can't be as honest with themselves at lone_gunman... I voted for bush in 2000, but saw how things quickly went downhill using terrorism as an excuse...

Add to this the fact that I was MAJORLY disillusioned by the party system when a REAL LIVE conservative lost a senatorial primary To that RINO Specter, only because he had party backing (he actually only won by a few thousand votes)....

I was smart enough to see the writing on the wall, the republican party had left me. So I just made it official and changed my reg to independant.

I voted 3rd party in 2004. And have NO regrets.

[CAnnoneer]

In 2000, I was too stupid to realize that Bush was a big government, fiscal liberal. I was really looking forward to replacing Clinton with Bush, and thought that with Bush at the helm, we would really see some changes in our country. Well, we have seen changes alright, but mostly they have been for the worse. I was sorely disappointed in him.

In 2004, I fell victim to the "lesser of two evils" argument. Republican party leadership and strategists scared me, and many other republicans, into voting for Bush, saying that a Kerry presidency would be far worse. So I didn't vote third party out of fear of wasting my vote.

Its a sorry thing for me to have done, but thats how it happened for me. I don't think I will repeat that in 2008 though. If the Republicans won't run a good candidate in 2008, I will not vote Republican.

So very true.

Lone_Gunman's boat is a Queen Mary II.

[RealGun]

I could easily vote for a third party candidate if there was a GOP candidate I didn't like well enough. The problem is there are no third party platforms that speak to me. Some are quite repulsive. My main concern then becomes that of keeping Democrats out of office. I also want to maintain GOP registration so I can vote in the primaries, sometimes defensively.

[Art Eatman]

Lone Gunman, don't feel like the Lonesome Stranger. I've been voting for what I saw as the lesser of two weevils ever since Eisenhower...

:), Art

[Powderman]

So, then, what do we do? Some of the posters seem to be overlooking one thing.

As Art said, there are times--MANY times--that we don't get what we want. I don't believe that we will ever see (at least during my lifetime) a President that EVERYONE is pleased with. Thus, we must choose between the "lesser of two evils".

As for saying, "Hey! I'll vote my conscience" all I'll say is this:

If Ross Perot had not run, Clinton would NEVER had been in office. Think hard about it.

No Assault Weapons Ban.

No S&W agreement.

Those are the two things I can remember. I'm sure there are many more examples.

So think about it, before someone votes for a candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning an election.

Would I vote Libertarian? Most definitely--

AS SOON AS THE LIBERTARIANS CAN FIELD A CANDIDATE THAT DOESN'T SOUND OR ACT LIKE A LOONEY TUNE.

[GTSteve03]

If Ross Perot had not run, Clinton would NEVER had been in office. Think hard about it.
It's impossible for you, or anyone to know this for sure. There is no way of knowing how that election would have turned out, and it's useless to use that (frankly impossible to prove) assertation to turn people away from voting their conscience.

So, keep voting for the lesser of two evils. You're just throwing your vote away. :rolleyes:

[Lone_Gunman]

Powderman, after 5 yrs of Bush, 8 yrs of Clinton just doesn't seem so bad.

Maybe we are lucky Ross Perot ran to spare us 4 more years of Bush the First. I don't think its fair to blame the AWB totally on Clinton, seeing as how both Bush I and Bush II supported it.

[ibex]

saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

That's all I need to know... and is all ANYONE in this nation should need to know to see where we are really headed...

+1

[Powderman]

It's impossible for you, or anyone to know this for sure. There is no way of knowing how that election would have turned out, and it's useless to use that (frankly impossible to prove) assertation to turn people away from voting their conscience.

So, keep voting for the lesser of two evils. You're just throwing your vote away. :rolleyes:

Here, I must disagree. My vote was not thrown away; here's why.

Let's say that you have three candidates for office.

Candidate A is an anti gunner. They have some ideas which might be good financially, but they are willing to bend over to accomodate other countries and the United Nations. Candidate A has a large backing and following.

Candidate B embodies everything that we as Americans desire in a leader: views toward complete liberty, the drastic scaling back of mala prohibitum laws (this is bad because I say it's bad!!), restoration of gun rights to those ex-criminals who have paid their debt to society, the carrying of firearms unrestricted, etc. Problem is, this candidate does not express themself in a cogent manner, and comes across as Bubba the love sponge. B has a very small support base

Candidate C is somewhat middle of the road. When asked about gun control, they'll waffle--but they seem to be pro gun. As a matter of fact, they seem to be pretty ambivalent toward everything; in short they're trying to be everything to everyone. But, C is a skilled politician, and has a large following.

You do NOT want A to win.
Unfortunately, with B's presentation and demeanor, he or she can not win. Not a chance.

On election day, the totals look like this:

Candidate A : 20 million votes.
Candidate B : 50,000 votes.
Candidate C : 21 million votes.

Candidate C, being closer to our ideals and beliefs, is the best choice. But what happens if, perhaps, 1.7 million people decide to vote their conscience?

Candidate A : 20 million votes.
Candidate B : 1.7 million votes.
Candidate C : 19.3 million votes.

So, you've voted your conscience; unfortunately no one cares because an avowed anti gunner is now in office. See what I mean?

[RealGun]

Powderman, after 5 yrs of Bush, 8 yrs of Clinton just doesn't seem so bad.

No doubt the MSM ("the filters") would be happy to hear that you feel that way. Mission accomplished.

The beat goes on. Next month it will be Patriot Act and Alito ad nauseum. Then it will be Rumsfeld, who is approaching 80, announcing his retirement, triggering a whole new wave of antiwar sentiment and intense Senate confirmation hearings.

Of course, next year will include Senate and House election campaigns, so there might be a lot of posturing going on.

[GTSteve03]

Candidate C, being closer to our ideals and beliefs, is the best choice. But what happens if, perhaps, 1.7 million people decide to vote their conscience?

Candidate A : 20 million votes.
Candidate B : 1.7 million votes.
Candidate C : 19.3 million votes.

So, you've voted your conscience; unfortunately no one cares because an avowed anti gunner is now in office. See what I mean?
See, this is all well and good for a hypothetical situation but it takes a lot of assumptions into account that you cannot plan for.

Supposing, in your example, that half of those 1.7 million decided that since there was no Candidate B (if Ross Perot had not run) then they decided to stay at home and not vote at all. Then, of the .8 or so million left, just 1/4th decided to vote for Candidate A. That still leaves Candidate A with enough votes to win, even if Candidate B did not run at all.

The '92 election was not a closed system where all votes that went to Perot would have gone to Bush, and without a candidate that people do not feel closely reflects what they want in a leader, many will probably choose to stay home and not vote at all.

Voting for Candidate C just because you feel "anybody but A" is exactly the same kind of strategy that Republicans mock Dems about when they say "anybody but Bush" and you see how well that strategy has worked for them for 2 straight election cycles now. :rolleyes:

[M-Rex]

So, then, what do we do? Some of the posters seem to be overlooking one thing.

As Art said, there are times--MANY times--that we don't get what we want. I don't believe that we will ever see (at least during my lifetime) a President that EVERYONE is pleased with. Thus, we must choose between the "lesser of two evils".

As for saying, "Hey! I'll vote my conscience" all I'll say is this:

If Ross Perot had not run, Clinton would NEVER had been in office. Think hard about it.

No Assault Weapons Ban.

No S&W agreement.

Those are the two things I can remember. I'm sure there are many more examples.

So think about it, before someone votes for a candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning an election.

Would I vote Libertarian? Most definitely--

AS SOON AS THE LIBERTARIANS CAN FIELD A CANDIDATE THAT DOESN'T SOUND OR ACT LIKE A LOONEY TUNE.

Once again, the voice of reason speaks.

+100

[M-Rex]

It's impossible for you, or anyone to know this for sure. There is no way of knowing how that election would have turned out, and it's useless to use that (frankly impossible to prove) assertation to turn people away from voting their conscience.

So, keep voting for the lesser of two evils. You're just throwing your vote away. :rolleyes:

As opposed to those Libertarians, and other 'third partiers' who keep voting for Libertarians and other third parties? Oh yeah. Those folks aren't wasting their votes at all. No siree, Bob.

[Powderman]

See, this is all well and good for a hypothetical situation but it takes a lot of assumptions into account that you cannot plan for.

Supposing, in your example, that half of those 1.7 million decided that since there was no Candidate B (if Ross Perot had not run) then they decided to stay at home and not vote at all. Then, of the .8 or so million left, just 1/4th decided to vote for Candidate A. That still leaves Candidate A with enough votes to win, even if Candidate B did not run at all.

The '92 election was not a closed system where all votes that went to Perot would have gone to Bush, and without a candidate that people do not feel closely reflects what they want in a leader, many will probably choose to stay home and not vote at all.

Voting for Candidate C just because you feel "anybody but A" is exactly the same kind of strategy that Republicans mock Dems about when they say "anybody but Bush" and you see how well that strategy has worked for them for 2 straight election cycles now. :rolleyes:

You are actually very close to what I am saying, here.

Here is the point: no matter what the reason--although plain laziness is plain pitiful--there will be votes lost.

We can, however, evaluate with a critical eye the people who are running for office. And, we can cast our votes for the person who does the most good, and who embraces the core values this Nation was founded on.

Could we field a viable candidate? Yes. Does that candidate have to be Republican? Libertarian? Again, no.

As an example, if Zell Miller were to run for President, I would vote for that man in a heartbeat! There, the political label is just that--a label. Senator Miller is a gentleman and a patriot, and I would have NO problems with him being in office.

[bjbarron]

Lone Gunman, don't feel like the Lonesome Stranger. I've been voting for what I saw as the lesser of two weevils ever since Eisenhower...

As have I.

My biggest problem with this 5-year-long ongoing debate is the theory that equates the current crop of republicans with conservatives.

Not even close...and more's the pity for it. These republicans would have been considered left leaning democrats 50 years ago. If they could get away with it, these guys would grab our guns as quickly as the dems would.

I find it funny to think what the progressives would think if they ever had a real conservative in the White House.

But, we do what we can...and if that means voting for the lesser of evils to try and stave off decay and decline, it's what we must do. Conservative values have always been mainstream...but hidden by 45 years of illiberal media bias. With the Internet and talk radio, the Jinn is out of the bottle...and not going back.

[Fidel Castro]

The procedure for electing a president is spelled out in Article II. Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to that state's representation in Congress (Senate + House). Since each state has two senators and at least one Representative, every state has at least three electors. Currently California has the largest number of electors: 55. The electors meet in their respective state capitals in December of each election year to cast their votes for president and vice president. These electors, who together form the electoral college, are the ones who actually elect the president. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives elects the president, with each state having one vote. This happened in 1800 and again in 1824.

Since it is the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that actually elects the president, keeping track of it is crucial for people who want to know how the campaign is going.

Getting rid of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Amending the constitution is (by design) an exceptionally difficult process requiring not only 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress, but also by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Even in 1788, the Founding Fathers knew that politicians often made outrageous promises. They wanted to make sure the constitution, which most Americans regard as sacred, could only be changed when there was a massive consensus in favor of the change. To give a modern example, president George W. Bush has called for a constitutional amendment stating that a marriage shall be a union between exactly one man and one woman. The Founding Fathers well understood that political slogans like this should not find their way into the constitution too easily, so they made the process very difficult. Changing the electoral college system will not be easy.

A second criticism of the electoral college is its winner-take-all character.There is nothing in the constitution mandating winner-take-all. The manner for choosing electors is regulated by state law. In fact, two states, Maine and Nebraska, do not use winner-take-all. In those states, the winner of each congressional district gets one elector and the winner of the state as a whole gets an additional two. Any state that wanted to adopt this system need only pass a state law to do so. No constitutional amendment is required.

Would it be legal if any President signed a secret executive order abolishing the electoral collage "for our own good" during "wartime"?

[LAK]

As Art said, there are times--MANY times--that we don't get what we want. I don't believe that we will ever see (at least during my lifetime) a President that EVERYONE is pleased with. Thus, we must choose between the "lesser of two evils".
The problem with simply choosing the "lesser of two evils" in this context is that the issues are not simply matters of displeasure, or aethetics; they are destructive. And one party is as ultimately as destructive as the other because they have us on the same general path that does not waver in several key areas. It never changes. They switch roles like good cop bad cop. People should be asking themselves why. Aside from some sideshows, there really isn't any difference of substance between them. Like the difference between a small dose of cyanide and very large dose of arsenic. They are both fatal.

Hardly a matter of choosing anything, the Federal election is a tightly controlled arena in which only two parties, and two handpicked candidates are allowed into the ring. This is no "accident", there are individual people who have seen to it that this is so, and it has not been permitted to go any other way for decades.

-------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Hawkmoon]

The president says that his highest duty is to protect the American people and our homeland. And it is true that, as commander-in-chief, he has sweeping powers to, as his oath says, “faithfully execute the office” of president. But the entity he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” isn’t the homeland per se — but the Constitution itself.
The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but that doesn't give him any magical powers to suspend or to ignore the Constitution in regard to non-military matters. Last I knew, the NSA was not part of the armed forces.

[Hawkmoon]

Lone Gunman, don't feel like the Lonesome Stranger. I've been voting for what I saw as the lesser of two weevils ever since Eisenhower...
I did that for a number of years, until I awoke to the startling realization that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. So in both 1996 and again in 2000 I voted FOR the person I thought was best qualified to be president ... myself.

And, like some others, I fell prey to the fear-mongering in 2004 and voted for Bush, not because I thought he was good for the country, but because I thought Kerry would be worse.

I honestly don't know if I reget that decision, but I am fairly certain that I will never again vote for the lesser of two evils. Unless some third party puts up a really stellar candidate, I'll get a couple or three more votes for president before I die.

[22-rimfire]

I voted for Bush in 2000 and I voted for him the second time around. I was not totally thrilled with his performance during the first term, but I doubt that I would ever truly be happy with any president. My unhappiness mostly related to spending... Bush was supposed to rein in the federal government not enlarge it. But 9-11 changed that. With all the money being thrown around in the last 5 years, I think the federal government could find enough money to adequately fund our National Parks. Letting them fall apart is unconscionable and the Clinton Administration did the same thing.

I do not believe that Kerry or Gore would have responded as appropriately to the 9-11 hit. Both would have done what Clinton did, blew up a couple of buildings and talk talk talk.... I tired of talk. The terrorist threat is REAL. They want to KILL YOU if they could figure out a way to do it.

Bush IS an honest man. Bill Clinton was NOT. You think that the Clintons were not heavily involved in Whitewater? And do you believe it is okay for the president to commit perjury to a grand jury, if so, then anything goes. As president, Bush has to depend on the legal advice of his people. I don't believe that the president would have ordered anything 30 times or 10 times if he did not believe it was within his authority. The talk about impeachment is a bunch of BS and is mostly a political ploy for the Democrats to try to win more elections in both the House and Senate. The presidency, that's down the road a ways and it remains to be seen just who stands out in the Democratic party.

If the presidential election was held today, I would still vote for George W. Bush based on his record.

[Krenn]

"Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?"

[Hawkmoon]

Yeah, what is that big meanie Bush trying to pull on us. It's not like there is a war going on or anything, C'mon its not like their is a group of incredibly evil people trying to destroy us and crash planes into our buildings or plan our complete destruction or anything. Dude, pass me the bong, peace brother.
There's a war going on? Nobody told me.

Please ... bring me up to speed. Against what foreign nation has the Congress of the United States enacted a declaration of war?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Last I knew, the NSA was not part of the armed forces.

Actually the NSA is part of the Department of Defense. Its predecessor agency was the Armed Forces Security Agency which is why the current director is a military general. The NSA also relies on the Central Security Service (military enlisted and officers) for much of its manpower fro grunt work.

The civilians at NSA are mostly those with advanced degrees in computers and mathematics.

[Biker]

"Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Hah! Good one...
:)
Biker

[PCGS65]

by 22-rimfire, Bush IS an honest man. Bill Clinton was NOT. You think that the Clintons were not heavily involved in Whitewater? And do you believe it is okay for the president to commit perjury to a grand jury, if so, then anything goes. As president, Bush has to depend on the legal advice of his people. I don't believe that the president would have ordered anything 30 times or 10 times if he did not believe it was within his authority. The talk about impeachment is a bunch of BS and is mostly a political ploy for the Democrats to try to win more elections in both the House and Senate. The presidency, that's down the road a ways and it remains to be seen just who stands out in the Democratic party.

If the presidential election was held today, I would still vote for George W. Bush based on his record.
+1

22-rimfire your one of the very few that have mentioned some of the good things Bush has done. However not much detail. But that's ok.
One of my other posts I mentioned how people love to hate and this thread sure shows it.
We seem to have amnesia when it comes to good things about Bush?
Can anyone remember good things that Bush has done while in office?
I can. Here are a few for starters....
1. He favors man/woman only marriages and has the morals to publicly stand behind this. This is a big plus in my book.
2. He sent taxpayers a $300 tax rebate check and increased the child tax credit to $1000 per child. To help the economy. The child tax credit I do thank Clinton for starting.
3. He aggressively is going after terrorists for 9/11 as 22-rimfire mentioned. The man is not a coward and freedom has never been free.
In 2001, He inherited an over inflated stock market and an economy that was well on its way into recession. Then 9/11 came and that put the icing on the cake.
Some will say the economy lost 2+million jobs during his first term and place the blame solely on Bush. If it is all his fault then the 3+million jobs gained in the last 2 years is to his credit.
I know what most of you are going to say "the deficit" yes a constant problem through out government. As far as the federal deficit goes it's mostly the result of recession,9/11,katrina,rita and wilma oh yea the price of oil. But that's Bushs fault too I suppose.
Where I work we have a saying among the workers for lack of recognition, 1000 things right and 1 thing wrong and guess what they remember?
The economy is doing well now and people still hate Bush.:rolleyes:
Can anyone else remember some good things Bush has accomplished?

[RealGun]

One ah???? erases 10 attaboys.

[Art Eatman]

"Against what foreign nation has the Congress of the United States enacted a declaration of war?"

I guess what bothers me about that rhetorical question is the idea that "war" can only be between geographically delineated areas controlled by some form of government whereby we can use the label "nation".

When an organized, well-financed group has stated publicly and at length that we have been and will be targets of all manner of hostile actions, I tend to think in terms of war. That is, they're happy to kill us because of otherness; they're willing to try to set up financial campaigns against our currency, and they're working to suborn governments of nations to work against us. While that's reminiscent of the Axis of the WW II era, I do not see it as necessary that only a nation can create a warlike situation.

When somebody comes against me in that manner, I'm pretty much disinterested in worrying about dictionaries. His fundamental motivations are of interest only as they affect strategy and tactics. I want to remain upright and breathing, and I'm quite content that he no longer remains in that condition.

If this present worldwide situation indeed is Fourth Generation Warfare, sobeit. We have no choice but to deal with it as though it indeed were the Real Thing.

:), Art

[72Rover]

Great thread...but its fact check time for some....

Have any of y'all seen this? From CapitolHillBlue.com, the oldest internet news service....

----
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've [Doug Thompson] talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the ???? that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

----
Wow....of course, I can't confirm this quote and Mr. Thompson states that he would never 'burn' any of his sources, but if it IS true.... :fire:

For now, put aside all personal beliefs or party affiliation. It doesn't matter if you are a red- or blue-stater, liberal or conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or even Druid (Reformed). It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq... or not. For centuries, The Constitution has stood as the defining document of our government, and the ultimate source to determine if something is legal or right.

From the POTUS on down, every federal official who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

What really ticks me off about the neo-cons - that is, despite the outright incompetence, blatant cronyism, and deplorable hypocrisy - is that whenever any aspect of W's agenda is challenged, we get statements like "red-on-red" or "commisar", or even the stupid "they must hate freedom" comment, all while they wrap themselves in a flag. "If you don't support us you must be a terrorist" is one of the more moronic replies.

In 1935, Sinclair Lewis wrote a satirical, best-seller titled "It Can't Happen Here" about a populist President becoming dictator in order to "save" the country from welfare cheats, sex, crime, the liberal press, etc., all while wrapped up in a patriotic, red-white-and-blue outfit.

Lewis's book chronicles the fictional rise of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic, southern Senator who becomes President against the protests of FDR and some of America's saner citizens. Though always proclaiming the common man, Windrip is on the take of big business (i.e. Corpos in the book), is favored by religious extremists, and though he talks of freedom and prosperity for all, he eventually becomes the ultimate crony capitalist. Championed by the Hearst newspaper syndicate (the 1930's equivalent of FOX News), he nullifies both Congress and the Supreme Court, before stripping people of their civil liberties and installing an Orwellian dictatorship.

Well, it *could* happen here. It *is* happening here. "The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present he truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public."– Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace, the New York Times, April 9, 1944

As if in opposition to the Founding Fathers of this nation, there is more than ample evidence that W&Co. is trying to set up a fascist state. And the damage that the Repugs are doing to this country will be long-lasting indeed. The American Heritage Dictionary defines this as "a philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government, usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism. Go to Cornell University's website for another definition: "a philosophy or system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism."

My own Webster's Unabridged states that it is: "any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalist policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Any of this sound vaguely familiar with regard to the current antics of those in charge in Washington? Going beyond these definitions, take a look at the research of Laurence W. Britt (former exec with Allied Chemical, Mobil and Xerox) published two years ago in Free Inquiry magazine. Britt analyzed seven fascist regimes, including Nazi Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Spain under Franco, Salazar in Portugal, Pinochet in Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia, and found "fourteen common threads that link them to recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power." Count all those that currently apply:

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism.
2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. Supremacy of the military.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. Controlled mass media..
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and government intertwined.
9. Corporate power is protected.
10. Labor power suppressed.
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist here...how many did you count? Ten? A even dozen?

The most recent highway appropriation bill was so filled with ‘pork', despite Tom Delay's public assertions that nothing more could be cut, that it amounted to nothing more than a corporate feed trough. Oil companies are being given tax credits in spite of record revenues. One Bush environmental agenda, the "Clear Skies Plan" is an abject sellout to the energy companies, in that it calls for scrapping existing anti-pollution programs in favor of voluntary measures to reduce mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide releases. It does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the principle cause of global warming, and allows coal-fired power plants to avoid forced clean up costs. Of course Bush doesn't believe in global warming - or evolution - the recent record hurricane season notwithstanding.

Prior to the Clear Skies initiative, the EPA had proposed more stringent terms for reducing air pollution, which would have prevented 19,000 premature deaths and saved $154 billion in annual health care costs by 2020.

A year ago, as a part of the "Healthy Forests Program," the 30 year-old National Forest Management Act was re-written, making it easier to clear-cut old growth forests and drill and graze in formerly protected areas. Clear-cutting environmentally-sensitive habitats as a means to prevent forest fires is something that sounds a lot like the Vietnam-era slogan, "in order to save the village, we had to destroy it." Unbelievably, the new rules also allow "independent audits" to be conducted by the timber companies themselves, which is very much a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton used to be a lobbyist for the timber industry.

A current proposal will exempt forest management plans from public review. These plans are in essence the owner's manual or operational guidebook for each unit administered by the Forest Service. The National Environmental Policy Act is a law that gives concerned citizens rights to comment on environmental policies. The proposed exemptions would greatly reduce information available to the public, and it would make difficult or impossible for the public to provide comments, objections or alternatives to Forest Service proposals. It also would make it easier for Forest Service officials to ignore the impacts of logging and other development on an area's wildlife, watersheds, recreational uses (including hunting and fishing), and cultural resources. Our national assets are being given away, quite literally, for fractions of a penny on the dollar. Remember, Enron was Bush's largest contributor in 2000.

The Reinvest Foreign Earnings provision in last year's laughably-named American Jobs Creation Act, was nothing more than a corporate tax gimme to drug and other big corporate contributors to Bush's campaign. In essence, companies that move operations off-shore get to pay 5% tax, while those that remain in the good ol' US of A get to pay 35%. How is this creating jobs here?

Bush's tax policies have only benefitted the wealthiest 2% of our population. Gone is the budget surplus of $122 billion at the end of the Clinton administration, replaced with current annual deficit of $317 billion, primarily as a result of the Iraq war. Of course, the administration's spin is that this year's deficit is supposed to be 96 billion less than last year's record budget shortfall of 412.55 billion dollars. Whoopee. I certainly feel better. Guess I'll go out and charge something....

According to the conservative Brookings Institute: "The U.S. federal budget is on an unsustainable path. In the absence of significant policy changes, federal government deficits are expected to total around $5 trillion over the next decade. Such deficits will cause U.S. government debt, relative to GDP, to rise significantly. Thereafter, as the baby boomers increasingly reach retirement age and claim Social Security and Medicare benefits, government deficits and debt are likely to grow even more sharply. The scale of the nation's projected budgetary imbalances is now so large that the risk of severe adverse consequences must be taken very seriously, although it is impossible to predict when such consequences may occur."

Who is Bush & Co. kidding with regard to this immense deficit? Who will pay for it - besides you and me - or our kids? We got a $300 bribe, but only the wealthy and big corporations are the better for these tax breaks. No, these tax cuts have not created jobs, spurred growth or increased industrial investment. Was the administration stupid or lying when these were proposed? Of course, some cuts are proposed. Over a ten-year period, the GOP is proposing a cut of $9.7 billion in veterans' health care and other benefits, including reducing cash payments to veterans disabled by military service. (Iraqi war veterans, you're entirely welcome.) :fire: But with Dick Cheney in charge, we'll only see more of our tax dollars shoveled out to the super rich.

H. L. Mencken, the humorist, social critic and long-time editor of the Baltimore Sun, best summed it up over a half-century ago: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Or, if you prefer Groucho Marx: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." I don't know of a better way to describe Bush's policies both domestically and in the Middle-East.

Will Bush get impeached? I seriously doubt it, given the Republican majority in Congress - and the fact that Cheney is ample "insurance" against it. I could go on, but even I'm getting bored....and I need a drink. A double....

Cheers

[NorthernExtreme]

I think it funny how many on this board obsess over their hatred of Bush. Lets try something new: how about we bash Bush then try to suggest a better way of doing it. For every time we complain about what he's done, let’s try to figure out why he did it. When we call for impeachment; lets back it up with relevant information and legal support for doing so and leave the left wing emotional, political drivel out of it.

Do I like the idea of secret wiretaps, NO. Do I see a need for them, Yes. If I had information that the terrorists were using a known phone number overseas, I would monitor any calls made to that number from the US also.

I think a few good questions would be; why did Bush find it necessary to do them secretly. If the ability to get a warrant was as easy as the Democrats say, why were they not obtained? If these wiretaps were so secret, how did we find out about them? Is the same person who leaked this information the same person for the wiretaps being secret. Is it possible that information obtained during the taps required the secrecy in the first place (possible high level involvement).

I think this whole issue is devoid of some basic logic. Everyone who is against Bush has jumped on the first conspiracy train to leave the Station. Before you go out and make accusations about Bush (Our President), I think you need to ask yourself a few questions like the ones listed above. We shouldn't get ourselves trapped in arguments about a persons motives or conspiracy theories without first giving the President the benefit of the doubt. What I'm saying is; we should look at all the facts before we make accusations about anybody (even a Republican President).

This whole issue isn't more than a few days old, and there are people here who seem to be so knowledgeable about all the Legal, and Constitutional issues involved in this case they feel confident in calling for his Impeachment. The very fact that there hasn’t been enough time to consider all the possibilities, or review every Legal avenue or possible reason suggests to me that many of you are just too Jaded in your opinion to see past it (or want to see past it). The Media has again (MSN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN,...) have all shown their stripes by refusing to temper their assertions with relevant fact and review of possible reasons. Many of you here have shown your stripes in doing the same.

I am truly saddened to see how we (Americans) are willing to do everything in our power to hurt a sitting President (Democratic or Republican) during a time of War (especially in his/her effort to win that war). I am in no way suggesting we sit back and allow any president to wage war on our Constitution as some of you here have asserted he has (please ask yourself why he ordered this to be secret). But please don't try to tell me that far too many of you have not gone off the deep end on this one. If any of you are truely as aware of all the issues involved to a point of calling for Impeachment with a degree of absolute certainty I'll listen intently. But the simple fact that Congress itself doesn't know all the issues leads me to believe the whole Impeachment dribble is nothing more than politically motivated venting.

Again: If these warrants were as easy to obtain as the Democrats (and some Republicans) say it was, why were they not obtained.

And here is a good conspiracy question. If you were involved in communicating with the terrorists (for what ever reason) and found out your communications might have been intercepted because the guy you had on the inside was subverted (because the taps were kept secret) what would you do If? What Political party has anything to gain by working with the Terrorists in this country, and who is making the biggest commotion about this while trying to wrap them self in the Flag and discredit the very people who may know about it, or bring it to the public?:uhoh:

I know that all sounds off the deep end, but ponder that for a while :cool: .

Regards,

[RealGun]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist here...how many did you count? Ten? A even dozen?

One.

[NorthernExtreme]

There's a war going on? Nobody told me.

Please ... bring me up to speed. Against what foreign nation has the Congress of the United States enacted a declaration of war?

The Terrorists are not a Nation, Please apply a little common sense. Intellectual honesty goes a long way.

[The Drew]

The Terrorists are not a Nation, Please apply a little common sense. Intellectual honesty goes a long way.


And WAR powers were never meant to be used essentially as law enforcement tools.

There is no war with terrorists, we are at war with Bathists in Iraq, and the taliban in Afganistan, fighting anyone else is completely out of scope of the "war". If we are now "keeping the peace" in those nations, we're not at war, we're essentially police officers, and anyway I look at it, NO justification for suspending laws.

[NorthernExtreme]

And WAR powers were never meant to be used essentially as law enforcement tools.

There is no war with terrorists, we are at war with Bathists in Iraq, and the taliban in Afganistan, fighting anyone else is completely out of scope of the "war". If we are now "keeping the peace" in those nations, we're not at war, we're essentially police officers, and anyway I look at it, NO justification for suspending laws.


Drew, unfortunately there are no laws written to address this war we are in. The president has to use the tools at his disposal (none appropriate for this war). Your assertion of, "suspending laws" is only true if a law has been suspended. To this point we can only conclude #1 A law has been suspended, or #2 The Law was folowed and you (myself included) don't know how it was applied. Untill we know for sure (not how we feel) it's unfair to judge.


As far as who we are at war with, the President has done a poor job of informing the American people of the larger threat. I can assure you American (and other) forces are on the ground in far more countries than Iraq, and Afghanistan fighting other groups (terrorists) who are trying to become the next Taliban (murdering Americans).

Regards,

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Great thread...but its fact check time for some....

Have any of y'all seen this? From CapitolHillBlue.com, the oldest internet news service....

Oldest internet news service? Is that like the most distinguished brothel in DC?

Having read the original, all I can say is that you should have included the author's name and a link to the original source; both so people can see some of the utter tripe this particular author has published with a straight face and because the organization that prints and publishes it deserves recognition for it.

[LAK]

I guess what bothers me about that rhetorical question is the idea that "war" can only be between geographically delineated areas controlled by some form of government whereby we can use the label "nation".

When an organized, well-financed group has stated publicly and at length that we have been and will be targets of all manner of hostile actions, I tend to think in terms of war. That is, they're happy to kill us because of otherness; they're willing to try to set up financial campaigns against our currency, and they're working to suborn governments of nations to work against us. While that's reminiscent of the Axis of the WW II era, I do not see it as necessary that only a nation can create a warlike situation.

When somebody comes against me in that manner, I'm pretty much disinterested in worrying about dictionaries. His fundamental motivations are of interest only as they affect strategy and tactics. I want to remain upright and breathing, and I'm quite content that he no longer remains in that condition.

If this present worldwide situation indeed is Fourth Generation Warfare, sobeit. We have no choice but to deal with it as though it indeed were the Real Thing.

:), Art
An element of precise language is important, as it is essential to rational and logical continuity and stability of thought, communication, record, perception, and progress. This is why scientific and legal language to name two are traditionally latin or derived directly from latin for example.

Perverting language to suit a political agenda is inherently fraudulent. While the term war has been brought into common usage when referring to many things, to wage a war there must be a clearly defined enemy and a rational, clearly defined and tangible objective. A perceivable end.

Terror, terrorism and terrorists are as old as civilization. They will exist as long as civilization exists. For our government - any government - to suggest that they can somehow be eradicated indicates that they are incredibly deluded or, in my opinion being charactaristically deceptive. Terrorists are an ever changing list of names, groups etc, which will continue as long as civilization continues.

Of course they have a history of similar deceptions supporting particular agendas. Such the "war on drugs", the "war on poverty", the "war on disease" and "the war on crime". They are intellectually unsupportable, and history has adequately proven this so to those who might not have known any better.

And like drug production, sale, transfer and use, poverty, diseases and crime, terrorism and terrorists are not going to be eradicated, or any such "war" against reach some conclusive "win".

The current "war on terrorism" is no different in any of these regards, and is simply a manipulative part of yet another political agenda by those who claim to be waging it.

Historically this is nothing new.
--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[RealGun]

And WAR powers were never meant to be used essentially as law enforcement tools.

There is no war with terrorists, we are at war with Bathists in Iraq, and the taliban in Afganistan, fighting anyone else is completely out of scope of the "war". If we are now "keeping the peace" in those nations, we're not at war, we're essentially police officers, and anyway I look at it, NO justification for suspending laws.

You ignore reports of "foreign fighters" who enter the country and join the fight. al Quaida is part of it.

Policing action is standard procedure after combat operations cease. That is often signalled by a hand off from Marines to the Army or from the Americans' lead to the allied forces. Ultimately the handoff is to the Iraqis. I expect it is a "watch your back" or "who do you trust" situation".

[The Drew]

You ignore reports of "foreign fighters" who enter the country and join the fight. al Quaida is part of it.

Policing action is standard procedure after combat operations cease. That is often signalled by a hand off from Marines to the Army or from the Americans' lead to the allied forces. Ultimately the handoff is to the Iraqis. I expect it is a "watch your back" or "who do you trust" situation".

I didn't ignore them, I just said that they're part of the peace keeping mission.

I am still baffled that so many of you are so convinced that "terrorism" is such a great threat to Americans. That is completely overblowing the situation. Islamic terrorism has been a mild threat to americans since the early seventies... Just because they pulled off their biggest attack in history, doesn't mean that suddenly the threat is any greater. Things have been done to change the way our airlines are secured. And short of a nuclear device, there is NO other way they could pull off such an attack again.

I've said before that using the deaths of 3000 to excuse the taking away of 300000000's civil rights just doesn't fly with me... There is no great threat. The Axis was a great threat, The USSR and her sister countries was a great threat. An increasingly desperate North Korea, and it's nuclear weapons are a threat. Terrorism is just not in that league... Very minimal.

[Lobotomy Boy]

I've said before that using the deaths of 3000 to excuse the taking away of 300000000's civil rights just doesn't fly with me... There is no great threat. The Axis was a great threat, The USSR and her sister countries was a great threat. An increasingly desperate North Korea, and it's nuclear weapons are a threat. Terrorism is just not in that league... Very minimal.


This argument has been made repeatedly, eloquently, and convincingly for page after page on numerous threats. I believe the same as Drew and many, many others, but there is an element on this list who obviously disagrees. My guess is that if they continue to disagree at this point they are not going to change their opinion. Either they don't buy this argument or they are ignoring all posts by those who hold differing opinions. Whichever the case, we're probably beating our heads against the wall by continuing to inject what we believe to be reason into this aspect of the discussion.

[RealGun]

I've said before that using the deaths of 3000 to excuse the taking away of 300000000's civil rights just doesn't fly with me... There is no great threat.

I believe the goal is to remove the fear, restoring at least the illusion of security. You see this first in attempts to remove people's concerns about air travel. As soon as we get frequent occurences of IEDs at random locations, the fears will be hard to dispel. Osama wins. You can't fight this by being subtle.

[The Drew]

I believe the goal is to remove the fear, restoring at least the illusion of security. You see this first in attempts to remove people's concerns about air travel. As soon as we get frequent occurences of IEDs at random locations, the fears will be hard to dispel. Osama wins. You can't fight this by being subtle.

Obviously the goal of the Other side is to keep the sheeple afraid so that they give up their liberties willingly, so that the government can keep them safe.

There is NOTHING stopping some idiots right now from creating hundreds of IEDs and leaving them out on the roads... It won't happen, Why you ask? Because it would be a sure sign to the american people that the terrorists have lost their presumed power. They blew their proverbial load in 9/11, so nothing short of another spectacular attack will do. You've got to get inside the heads of these people, you've got to realize that small scale attacks will make them look in their eyes weaker.

They've set their own bar pretty high. Anything less will not further their cause.

BTW, Osama has won when he by his ordered actions gets Civil liberties curtailed... Oh yeah, I guess he did.

[NorthernExtreme]

Lets see, I turn on the internet and see American citizens having their heads hacked off, I watched as thousands of Americans were incinerated and crushed to death on 9/11, I watch our best and bravest (soldiers) shot and blown up. I remember the USS Cole (19 American soldiers dead), the Embassy bombings in Africa (several hundred dead), the first attempt on the World Trade Towers, Cobol Tower in Saudi Arabia, Anthrax in the US, Bali bombings, bombings in Greece, bombings in England, and who knows what else I'll see over the next few weeks or years (or what I have left out).

Now I read with horror as some here assert I'm the one who's wrong because I won't accept someone’s version of "reason" by not blaming Bush. I'm being told that because some Nation hasn’t claimed responsibility for all the above, we have no reason to think there is a larger problem. That somehow since terrorism was and always will be is some justification for doing nothing. And that somehow if we are just willing to put our fate in the mercy of our enemies’ things would all be better (the same butchers who hack the heads off of people on the internet). :barf:

I guess I truly am as stupid or devoid or “reason” as some of you here assert I must be.

[PCGS65]

Lets see, I turn on the internet and see American citizens having their heads hacked off, I watched as thousands of Americans were incinerated and crushed to death on 9/11, I watch our best and bravest (soldiers) shot and blown up. I remember the USS Cole (19 American soldiers dead), the Embassy bombings in Africa (several hundred dead), the first attempt on the World Trade Towers, Cobol Tower in Saudi Arabia, Anthrax in the US, Bali bombings, bombings in Greece, bombings in England, and who knows what else I'll see over the next few weeks or years (or what I have left out).

Now I read with horror as some here assert I'm the one who's wrong because I won't accept someone’s version of "reason" by not blaming Bush. I'm being told that because some Nation hasn’t claimed responsibility for all the above, we have no reason to think there is a larger problem. That somehow since terrorism was and always will be is some justification for doing nothing. And that somehow if we are just willing to put our fate in the mercy of our enemies’ things would all be better (the same butchers who hack the heads off of people on the internet). :barf:

I guess I truly am as stupid or devoid or “reason” as some of you here assert I must be.
Northern Extreme I for one agree with you 110%. Some of these people would change their tune if their family members were lost to terrorist attacks.
I prefer not to wait till that happens even though it has.
Just because there will always be terrorists,crime,drugs ect. doesn't mean we should throw in the towel beacuse it costs too much.:fire:
Have a good one, and Happy New Year to everyone.:)

[The Drew]

You're not stupid, you're just looking at it from the wrong perspective. You see these things as a WAR, rather than a law enforcement problem. Terrorists are criminals, and they need to be brought to justice. However saying that they are a great threat to the american people is overblowing the issue.

What is more of a threat to the average american citizen? Terrorism, or violent crime? We should look at things in their proper context. Those guys that went abroad and got murdered, knew there were risks. They knew that they were going into hostile territory. American soldiers know the risks as well. The 3000 that worked and died in the WTC, SHOULD have known that the building was a target. As evidenced back in the 90's with the bombing.

The point is that using terrorism as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, is a lame one at best. Terrorism is a minor threat to americans here at home. It should be handled like any other law enforcement matter.

[RealGun]

I guess I truly am as stupid or devoid or “reason” as some of you here assert I must be.

I don't know. Perhaps some are just angry, not exactly sure why, and need a target. They either eat their children, blame George Bush, or reason their way through it.

[The Drew]

Northern Extreme I for one agree with you 110%. Some of these people would change their tune if their family members were lost to terrorist attacks.
I prefer not to wait till that happens even though it has.
Just because there will always be terrorists,crime,drugs ect. doesn't mean we should throw in the towel beacuse it costs too much.:fire:
Have a good one, and Happy New Year to everyone.:)

You talk like terrorism can be stopped in one statement yet in the next you say there will always be terrorism.

I don't think we should throw in the towel, but they should be handled just like any other criminal that kills americans. They should be caught and tried, then put to death. There is no war... If you think it's a war that can be won you have clearly been snowballed by the spinmeisters...

[NorthernExtreme]

You're not stupid, you're just looking at it from the wrong perspective. You see these things as a WAR, rather than a law enforcement problem. Terrorists are criminals, and they need to be brought to justice. However saying that they are a great threat to the american people is overblowing the issue.

What is more of a threat to the average american citizen? Terrorism, or violent crime? We should look at things in their proper context. Those guys that went abroad and got murdered, knew there were risks. They knew that they were going into hostile territory. American soldiers know the risks as well. The 3000 that worked and died in the WTC, SHOULD have known that the building was a target. As evidenced back in the 90's with the bombing.

The point is that using terrorism as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, is a lame one at best. Terrorism is a minor threat to americans here at home. It should be handled like any other law enforcement matter.


:( Drew we tried to handle the terrorist issue as a Law Enforcement issue for over 20 years and look what that got us. The US has gone longer without an attack on our soil than we did under the Law Enforcement program. Please tell me you're not suggesting another failed policy be resurrected from the dead.

I agree with you 100% about our Civil rights (I fought for them and had friends killed protecting them), but I for 1 do not see how the president ordering secret wire taps on international phone numbers known to have terrorists ties as a violation of my civil rights (ask yourself why they were kept secret I think there is a lot more to that than you think). By your twisted logic (ie the people who were in the WTC should have known) the people who call Terrorists should have known.

I still can't believe you feel the people in the WTC should have known!?!:( That's a sad my friend. Very, Very Sad.

[PCGS65]

by Drew, There is no war... If you think it's a war that can be won you have clearly been snowballed by the spinmeisters...
Last time I checked tanks,artillery,air craft carriers,destroyers,coordinated air attacks and hundreds of thousands of troops is not law enforcement IT'S WAR.
And no Drew I do not think it can be won. But we must pursue them to disrupt their operations.:)

[The Drew]

:( Drew we tried to handle the terrorist issue as a Law Enforcement issue for over 20 years and look what that got us. The US has gone longer without an attack on our soil than we did under the Law Enforcement program. Please tell me you're not suggesting another failed policy be resurrected from the dead.

I still can't believe you feel the people in the WTC should have known!?!:( That's a sad my friend. Very, Very Sad.

What we got??? We got 2... count them 2, foreign terrorist attacks on our soil during that time... We haven't gone longer under this system without an attack... The airline security was a failure... That is where we failed, not in pursuing terrorism as law enforcement. I don't advocate airline security going back to the way it was. I believe we've come quite a ways since 9/11, But in too many other aspects, we're just barking up the wrong trees.

As for the people in the WTC, They should've known they were taking a risk. Any time you live or work in such a monument to our system, it is a potential target. Besides that, it was proven over and over to be a target of islamic terrorists. (not only the bombing, but other plots that were either canceled or foiled) So anyone choosing to work in such a place should've known the danger.

[RealGun]

What we got??? We got 2... count them 2, foreign terrorist attacks on our soil during that time... We haven't gone longer under this system without an attack... The airline security was a failure... That is where we failed, not in pursuing terrorism as law enforcement. I don't advocate airline security going back to the way it was. I believe we've come quite a ways since 9/11, But in too many other aspects, we're just barking up the wrong trees.

As for the people in the WTC, They should've known they were taking a risk. Any time you live or work in such a monument to our system, it is a potential target. Besides that, it was proven over and over to be a target of islamic terrorists. (not only the bombing, but other plots that were either canceled or foiled) So anyone choosing to work in such a place should've known the danger.

Maybe their fears had been assuaged. Ground security was probably adequate after the '93 bombing, but someone failed to envision a need for missiles on the roof.

My nephew worked in one of the towers until 10 months before 9/11. He was still in sight from his office window. He moved to London shortly after that but is back now.

[NorthernExtreme]

Drew,

The terrorists became stronger, better financed, larger in numbers, more technologically advanced, more organized, and a bigger threat under our Law Enforcement strategy. Like I said, it was a failed policy.

But I know there is nothing that can be said to change your mind. The terrorists (home Brewed and International) have learned to play this game better than many are willing to give them credit for, and have a much better understanding of what is at stake than most Americans. And if you ask them which approach we should take in going after them I'm sure you will find many more who agree with you.

That is not to say there is not a place for Law Enforcement in the fight. But American Law Enforcement cannot reach into the living quarters of a terrorist in Afghanistan and put a bullet (or a smart bomb) where it needs to be. The military can. I'm for going after them over there and not here.

Nobody is going to argue with you that there is no way to eliminate the terrorists, but we can dismantle their support, numbers, finances, logistical assets and leadership to a point where it will be harder for them to live and breath out in the open as they did just a few years ago. It's hard to commit a terrorist attack in the US when bullets and bombs are flying at you every time you stick your head out of the ground in Iraq. When the terrorists no longer have the ability to butcher, burn, and crush thousands of Americans I will consider that a win. Until then, as long as they breath and grow I'm all for fighting them with bullets and leaving the Law Books at home.

[GoRon]

You're not stupid, you're just looking at it from the wrong perspective. You see these things as a WAR, rather than a law enforcement problem. Terrorists are criminals, and they need to be brought to justice. However saying that they are a great threat to the american people is overblowing the issue.

The problem is the whole middle east. It is the festering pool that breeds the terrorists.

The dictators and mullahs that run the region are the fount from which the extremists come forth. You couldn't arrest the bad guys as fast as they recruit them.

Now with the threat of regime change and turning the reigns of government over to the citizens the despots have something to worry about. Many in the despots own countries wouldn't mind a "liberal" democracy in place of the ruling party.

Treating the terrorism problem as a law enforcement issue is right out of the leftist playbook. It brings scorn and further attacks from our enemies. It puts innocent citizens in harms way instead of the men and women we have trained to take the fight to the "evil doers".

Wake up, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia cannot be dealt with by law enforcement.

[Flyboy]

As for saying, "Hey! I'll vote my conscience" all I'll say is this:

If Ross Perot had not run, Clinton would NEVER had been in office. Think hard about it.

No Assault Weapons Ban.

No S&W agreement.

Those are the two things I can remember. I'm sure there are many more examples.

So think about it, before someone votes for a candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning an election.

One. More. Time.

The Republicans lost to Clinton as a result of conservative Republicans deciding that Perot was more conservative than Bush. This caused them to lose the 1992 election.

Shortly thereafter, the Republicans acquired Clue. Remember the "Contract with America," and other conservative pushes? Remember our budget surplus? The one that resulted from (in addition to a strong economy) responsible (...ish) spending? Guess where spending bills come from. Yeah, Congress--you know, the bit that was Republican-dominated in the late nineties?

The President is powerful, but he's not all-powerful. It's an understandable mistake, really, given our current example, but he's kind of an anomaly. If the Republicans start losing at the polls, they'll start looking at why. It's a self-preservation thing. So we lose the Presidency; big deal. A Republican Congress can wield more power than the President can, if they want; they can override a veto, but I haven't yet met the President who can pass a law without help from Congress (and even Executive Orders--which our current specimen seems to like a bunch--can be overriden by Congress).

The Democrats taking the Oval Office isn't the end of the world. In fact, it might be for the best in the long term, if it reminds the Republicans of what we want from them.

[Waitone]

So we lose the Presidency; big deal. A Republican Congress can wield more power than the President can, if they want; they can override a veto, but I haven't yet met the President who can pass a law without help from Congress (and even Executive Orders--which our current specimen seems to like a bunch--can be overriden by Congress).
I remind the court of opinion here on THR that it was a republican controlled house that filed articles of impeachment against a democrat president in a senate controlled by republicans. It was the republican senate majority leader that decided there would be no trial of the democrat president. Put it this way: it was a republican congress that pulled a democrat president's bacon out of the fire.

Neither party is worth a cup of warm spit.

[Biker]

I remind the court of opinion here on THR that it was a republican controlled house that filed articles of impeachment against a democrat president in a senate controlled by republicans. It was the republican senate majority leader that decided there would be no trial of the democrat president. Put it this way: it was a republican congress that pulled a democrat president's bacon out of the fire.

Neither party is worth a cup of warm spit.
Other than the fact that you misspelled the word 'spit', you couldn't be more right.
:evil:
Biker

[ceetee]

...Some of these people would change their tune if their family members were lost to terrorist attacks.
I prefer not to wait till that happens even though it has.



You're absolutely right. It has happpened, here... more than once. All I have to say about it, is this:

If any of my family were killed by terrorists, I'd darn sure NOT want the soldiers and Marines off invading Kenya, or Taiwan... I'd want them catching or killing the SOB's. And if there were any caught alive, I'd want to personally wield the blowtorch as I sent them off to Allah with no equipment left to satisy the virgins.

It's just wrong to allow our current administration to break the law, no matter what the reason. Especially when they could have stayed within the law so easily.

[cbsbyte]

What I don't understand is why so many people on this site are willing to put up with Republicans in office. They complain daily on the abuses of this adminstration but instead of voting for change they vote third party. If you want to make a change today the only party that will reverse the evils of the Bush adminstration today is the Democrat party. I believe it is easier to change the Democrats from within than try to vote a third party into office in the near future, especially when the third parties beliefs are alien to most american voters. At least that is my rant.

[Art Eatman]

cbsbyte, the way you change any party is the method used by the socialisticc types to take over the national-level Democratic elite: You take small steps over a period of a decade or two. You get activists to actually go to work: Stuffing envelopes, manning phone banks, and packing local precincts to get "your" people in office. Not just at the national level, but at local and state levels as well.

The large-city areas proved the easiest to suborn.

We've gone from the Democratic Party of JFK with his "Pay any price, go anywhere, to expand freedom and democracy" to some sort of "Don't do much of anything for anybody if they won't vote for me." It started with LBJ and culminated with Clinton when Hippies and Vietnam War protesters moved into the White House.

You want change? First think "Grassroots" like the Republicans did in Texas or pro-CHL folks did in many states; then, get off the duff and go to work.

Dunno any other way...

Art

[RealGun]

What I don't understand is why so many people on this site are willing to put up with Republicans in office.

Because they are Republicans who did what they could to keep a Democrat, especially Gore and Kerry, from being President.


They complain daily on the abuses of this adminstration but instead of voting for change they vote third party.

That's a different group. THR includes some libertarians who have the support of list management.

If you want to make a change today the only party that will reverse the evils of the Bush adminstration today is the Democrat party.

What evils? The issues trumpeted by those who never have anything good to say, who love to dig the dirt, the wannabees, or the issues that make the party faithful squirm? No one gets their perfect President. Actually this is a productive presidency with strong leadership, a dang sight better than one would expect from Kerry.

I believe it is easier to change the Democrats from within than try to vote a third party into office in the near future, especially when the third parties beliefs are alien to most american voters.

The Democrats are actually champions of some of my causes, since I guess I qualify as "moderate", not one of the church-in-government people or extreme conservative. In any case, if you want votes, you can't be extreme one way or the other. The problem with Democrats is that some of their positions are deal breakers. You can't just pick the candidate that makes the best impression. You have to look at what the party supports in contrast to its opponent. You vote for the party unless their candidate is just awful. I think that's what happened to the Democrats, enhancing Bush's position as incumbent.

I think the Democrats have plenty of support for nanny government to regain their position. The time is actually quite good for Hillary to really harp on relief from health care costs. A vast number of WWII babies and Vietnam era politicos will be right at retirement age during the next election. Hillary will have their full attention. The new drug plans taking effect in a few days may be costly but they steal some of Hillary's thunder. To do that, the GOP cannot be totally unlike the Democrats. You gotta play the middle.

[LAK]

GoRon... The problem is the whole middle east ...
If the whole Middle east was turned into a sheet of glass; you would still have your "war on terror".

Forever, and with no tangible progress.

Because "terrorism" is interwoven worldwide with organized crime; arms dealing and smuggling, the drug trade, and every other major criminal racket in existance. Historically it is also the persuasive tool of people in and around governments.

Attempting to catalogue "terrorism" as some unique affliction is absurd.
----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you want to make a change today the only party that will reverse the evils of the Bush adminstration today is the Democrat party.

No doubt the Democrats have an entirely different list of evils in mind than the Bush Administration...