http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/24/bush/index.html



"I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection," said Bush. "The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/iraq_war) and across the world, and they're plotting to kill Americans here at home again."
Umm...there was no connection before 9/11 to AlQueda and Iraq no matter how much you want people to think it was so or how craftily you word your statements to suggest it. The only reason they are there now is because we are. Keep beating the 9/11 drum you jackass. :(:cryin::mad2:

a know sink the propoganda

or whatever the load of BS among many he has spewed

He’s got no one left on his side except for the far, far right who don’t care about the facts anyway. He might as well preach to the choir.

He’s got no one left on his side except for the far, far right who don’t care about the facts anyway. He might as well preach to the choir.

and he seems to be--anyone with a lick of reasoning skill should be able to see through the rhetoric he's been spewing lately. I have to suspect it'll get worse the closer we get to the elections.

Alexander thought he could get away with it so why wouldn't George?

He gives a speech about the current situation and you guys relate it to 9/11 and your view of the validity of this war. Whatever you believe the original situation to have been, it is changed today.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/24/bush/index.html




Umm...there was no connection before 9/11 to AlQueda and Iraq no matter how much you want people to think it was so or how craftily you word your statements to suggest it. The only reason they are there now is because we are. Keep beating the 9/11 drum you jackass. :(:cryin::mad2:

AQ in Iraq didn't exist before we invaded their country.

AQ that attacked us, of course, did exist before we invaded Iraq.

AQ in Iraq and the AQ that attacked us on 9/11 are 2 different, completely different, entities that really share little, or no connection, not to mention that most of the people we're fighting in Iraq are not terrorists, but sectarian groups fighting within the country for control.

I'm just glad that most people don't believe this jack off anymore.

He gives a speech about the current situation and you guys relate it to 9/11 and your view of the validity of this war. Whatever you believe the original situation to have been, it is changed today.

No, he related it to 9/11, Not us.

I guess we can put you down in the column of "I believe Bush".

No, he related it to 9/11, Not us.

I guess we can put you down in the column of "I believe Bush".

Here is what he said in context, clearly about the situation today.
" Ahead of the speech, a White House official said Bush would reveal "newly declassified information" about the links between al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq.

"I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection," said Bush. "The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they're plotting to kill Americans here at home again."

I guess you could put me down in the column of those who can read.

that says AQ in Iraq lacks the organizational, logistical and conceptual power to attack the American homeland.

AQ in Iraq was 6th in 'responsible for deaths in Iraq' in the llatest report put out by Bush's own people

I guess you could put me down in the column of those who can read ...

...propaganda and blindly believe it.


Yes, we know, Snakebit. We know.

...

...propaganda and blindly believe it.


Yes, we know, Snakebit. We know.

There was no propaganda involved except the distortions of what was said by my left handed friends on thois forum. My comprehension is fine and my hearing is just good enough to enable me to tell where the braying is actually coming from.

your ears are blocked by the inner walls of your colon

It's that word "Again" that you seem to be NOT SEEING. In his pathetic attempt at reasoning, he is (once again) trying to link AQ to Iraq.

Bush...#1 jackass (http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1137732#post1137732)



no ... the majority of Americans who voted him in are and that is who you should be mad at and direct your energies towards for their stupidity, ignorance and gullibility. I saw that with my own eyes in the city that was most affected by 9/11 and I knew it was time to get out of dodge.

honestly, your nation has been hoodwinked and robbed and is too proud to admit it.

I ain't too proud to admit it. That said, I didn't vote for the idiot; I can only hope that (enough) people are pizzed to vote for change.

your ears are blocked by the inner walls of your colon

Cute but it doesn't change the fact that I am right. Even HUA I can see this more clearly than you guys with the long ears. :)

I ain't too proud to admit it. That said, I didn't vote for the idiot; I can only hope that (enough) people are pizzed to vote for change.
Well, no matter what, it'll be a different guy in the seat. Bush is ... a disaster, even though I think he's a neat guy. Hell, I'm taking a US Diplomacy class in the fall, and I'm betting that after one course I could have a grasp at least as solid as Bush's.


At this point, I am not hopeful of the elections outcome.

no ... the majority of Americans who voted him in are and that is who you should be mad at and direct your energies towards for their stupidity, ignorance and gullibility. I saw that with my own eyes in the city that was most affected by 9/11 and I knew it was time to get out of dodge.

honestly, your nation has been hoodwinked and robbed and is too proud to admit it.

If you want to talk about gullibility, how 'bout someone that believes it when he's told he'll go to heaven and get hundreds of virgins to serve him if he just blows himself up killing people that are just shopping? How 'bout someone that believes that and still thinks their religion honors and respects women? Talk about hoodwinked!

If you want to talk about gullibility, how 'bout someone that believes it when he's told he'll go to heaven and get hundreds of virgins to serve him if he just blows himself up killing people that are just shopping? How 'bout someone that believes that and still thinks their religion honors and respects women? Talk about hoodwinked!

A person like that has a lot in common with

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20070725/2007_07_24t132839_382x450_us_iraq.jpg

If you want to talk about gullibility, how 'bout someone that believes it when he's told he'll go to heaven and get hundreds of virgins to serve him if he just blows himself up killing people that are just shopping? How 'bout someone that believes that and still thinks their religion honors and respects women? Talk about hoodwinked!

ahhhh snake :nonod:

and you were doing so well. answer the criticism instead of flaming away ... you really sound silly otherwise.

i'll say it again .. you know your country has gone to the dogs when young bright and clever people like Paint think of Bush as "a neat guy". Still surprised the remaining good people in your country haven't as yet sought to cut their losses and have Bush assasinated. You've done it before ... and with far far better Presidents.

I have more respect for the idiots that blow themselves up in vain, at least they have more balls, just as stupid, but not just filled with empty pamp rhetoric.

i'll say it again .. you know your country has gone to the dogs when young bright and clever people like Paint think of Bush as "a neat guy".
Well to give myself a little credit, I also said he was a disaster - and by that I meant his presidency, not necessarily his personal life (which I don't presume to have credible information about).

Here is what he said in context, clearly about the situation today.
" Ahead of the speech, a White House official said Bush would reveal "newly declassified information" about the links between al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq.

"I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection," said Bush. "The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they're plotting to kill Americans here at home again."

I guess you could put me down in the column of those who can read.The statements were carefully crafted to be about the situation TODAY, but sound like justification that they were right all along...

May not say that (because they WOULD get called out on it), but that's the road it leads people down. It draws links between 9/11 and today -- even though that link didn't exist previously.

Purposeful obfuscation.

Well to give myself a little credit, I also said he was a disaster - and by that I meant his presidency, not necessarily his personal life (which I don't presume to have credible information about).

his failed his countrymen, led his nation close to despair, and is left with zero credibility outside of the US ... what semblance of integrity would his personal life have left ???? public office means no personal life, and he's about as high up as it gets. the guys a moron and twit ... what about him makes him "a neat guy". :rolleyes:

spare me the patriotic rubbish by coming to the defense of your President when he is criticized. the world gauges your country by him first ... and they laughing at him. we have a billboard which is by a main highway on the way to the airport in Sydney advertising a real estate search website. it shows a full sized picture of Bush seated on a sofa with a laptop on his lap. the ad copy reads "so simple, anyone could use it". not only is it visible to all Sydneysider's but every tourist and visitor that flies out. Bush is now openly ridiculed for commercial gain and this is Australia ... one of your Allies.

honestly, there is nothing to like about Bush or the republican party as he/they have been grossly wrong, have openly lied, and have purposely misled your entire nation on a scale never before seen. anyone that does even sympathize for a smidgin surpises me becuase it's not easy going about your day with rocks in their head. if there were any/enough real patriots he would be referred to as former President Bush. america really needs to be undone, and put back together again. there is nothing to fix anymore, it needs to be rebuilt.

anyone that does even sympathize for a smidgin surpises me becuase it's not easy going about your day with rocks in their head.
Well I would try to justify my "neat guy" comment with further explanation, but all the rocks in my head are preventing me from assembling a coherent thought.

Well I would try to justify my "neat guy" comment with further explanation, but all the rocks in my head are preventing me from assembling a coherent thought.

While I wouldn't say I hate "the man" per se, but I hate the job he's doing. I hate the fear mongering and the lies that he spews. I hate that he's giving democracy a bad name throughout the world. I hate that he violates the law and fails to uphold the constitution. I hate that he has needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of innocents.

That said I don't really care that I don't know him personally. He's destroying this nation and the world, and I can hate him personally for that.

I prefer the impeachment route. Send him packing in shame. Can you imagine if someone made a martyr out of him? It would make me sick to my stomach...


his failed his countrymen, led his nation close to despair, and is left with zero credibility outside of the US ... what semblance of integrity would his personal life have left ???? public office means no personal life, and he's about as high up as it gets. the guys a moron and twit ... what about him makes him "a neat guy". :rolleyes:

spare me the patriotic rubbish by coming to the defense of your President when he is criticized. the world gauges your country by him first ... and they laughing at him. we have a billboard which is by a main highway on the way to the airport in Sydney advertising a real estate search website. it shows a full sized picture of Bush seated on a sofa with a laptop on his lap. the ad copy reads "so simple, anyone could use it". not only is it visible to all Sydneysider's but every tourist and visitor that flies out. Bush is now openly ridiculed for commercial gain and this is Australia ... one of your Allies.

honestly, there is nothing to like about Bush or the republican party as he/they have been grossly wrong, have openly lied, and have purposely misled your entire nation on a scale never before seen. anyone that does even sympathize for a smidgin surpises me becuase it's not easy going about your day with rocks in their head. if there were any/enough real patriots he would be referred to as former President Bush. america really needs to be undone, and put back together again. there is nothing to fix anymore, it needs to be rebuilt.

While I wouldn't say I hate "the man" per se, but I hate the job he's doing.
Well there we can agree. I just think that even if you're horrible at your job, that doesn't necessarily translate into being a horrible person. It takes more to compel me to write off an entire human being (especially personally) than what is available through the american media.

I love his ranch. Some crazy cool enviro-technology he's got going on there. And even though I don't remember most of his presidency (except asking for a pilot death count each day during Gulf War I), I like his old man. Watched him skydive on his 80th birthday. I hope I'm that cool when I'm 80.

Purposeful obfuscation.a.k.a. juxtaposition. This has been a consistent speech tactic for the Bush administration for years.

Saddam, 9-11.

Saddam, 9-11.

Saddam, 9-11.

Keep saying those two together in the same sentence and lots of people start to subconsciously connect them. Has Bush said, "Saddam is responsible for 9/11?" Technically, no. But for most people, just hearing the two in the same sentence is enough. Why do you think many Americans still believe in a connection, despite evidence to the contrary.

a.k.a. juxtaposition. This has been a consistent speech tactic for the Bush administration for years.

Saddam, 9-11.

Saddam, 9-11.

Saddam, 9-11.

Keep saying those two together in the same sentence and lots of people start to subconsciously connect them. Has Bush said, "Saddam is responsible for 9/11?" Technically, no. But for most people, just hearing the two in the same sentence is enough. Why do you think many Americans still believe in a connection, despite evidence to the contrary.

In the context of this thread, the obfuscation is coming from the Bush haters. bush was clear enough in his meaning, Al Qaeda in Iraq is part of the same Al Qaeda network that attacked us on 9/11. There was no attempt to connect Saddam to 9/11 and anyone who says differently either needs a remedial reading course or is a bold faced liar. I'm not certain that he even mentioned Saddam in the speech in question, I would have to read it again to be sure but I am certain that he was not trying to make the implied connection between Saddam and 9/11.

ahhhh snake :nonod:

and you were doing so well. answer the criticism instead of flaming away ... you really sound silly otherwise.

i'll say it again .. you know your country has gone to the dogs when young bright and clever people like Paint think of Bush as "a neat guy". Still surprised the remaining good people in your country haven't as yet sought to cut their losses and have Bush assasinated. You've done it before ... and with far far better Presidents.

I have more respect for the idiots that blow themselves up in vain, at least they have more balls, just as stupid, but not just filled with empty pamp rhetoric.

Well my friend, if you want to flame my country and culture the way you do, you can expect some question about the culture you choose to champion as superior. Why don't you try to answer my criticism, it is legitamate. Women are chattle, not human beings to Muslims. Their only purpose is to serve men and that is why they are offered as a reward in heaven for the attrocity of murder in the name of Allah. Why not gold to buy those services, at least *****s have a choice.

A person like that has a lot in common with

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20070725/2007_07_24t132839_382x450_us_iraq.jpg

What, exactly?

In the context of this thread, the obfuscation is coming from the Bush haters. bush was clear enough in his meaning, Al Qaeda in Iraq is part of the same Al Qaeda network that attacked us on 9/11. There was no attempt to connect Saddam to 9/11 and anyone who says differently either needs a remedial reading course or is a bold faced liar. I'm not certain that he even mentioned Saddam in the speech in question, I would have to read it again to be sure but I am certain that he was not trying to make the implied connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Snake, I have to believe that you are some sort of Bush and company plant. No one could be this thick. Bush states: " The facts are that Al Qaeda terrorist killed Americans on 9/11, THEY"RE fighting us in Iraq. The use of the word "they're" implies that they are the same ones, as in they are one and the same people that attacked us on 9/11. Jeez, what Bush is trying to do and has been trying to do all along is so obvious a reasoning person just cannot look at it any other way.

Snake, I have to believe that you are some sort of Bush and company plant. No one could be this thick. Bush states: " The facts are that Al Qaeda terrorist killed Americans on 9/11, THEY"RE fighting us in Iraq. The use of the word "they're" implies that they are the same ones, as in they are one and the same people that attacked us on 9/11. Jeez, what Bush is trying to do and has been trying to do all along is so obvious a reasoning person just cannot look at it any other way.
Snake is actually pretty level-headed compared to some of the other bushies that used to hang out here. What happened to Bill105 or Steamy? Steam seems only good for a drive-thru these days--usually when there is news of Bill Clinton to report. Fixed/Do[u]g only posts in bike forums anymore.

In the context of this thread, the obfuscation is coming from the Bush haters. bush was clear enough in his meaning, Al Qaeda in Iraq is part of the same Al Qaeda network that attacked us on 9/11. .

and that's not what our intelligence says.

it's what Bush says the intelligence says. the actual reports of our best intelligence agencies says otherwise. and that's what everyone is saying, that Bush twists the intelligence, and shades his manner of speaking to imply something that is not.

But you just keep on believing whatever Georgie tells you to. you're a good little puppet.

The absolute DOLT proved just what an utter idiot he is yesterday when he actually mentioned the name Osama Bin Laden!
His Dad couldn't 'get' Sadam, now this loser can't get Bin Laden and yet his cheerleaders cheer on.
ABSOLUTELY the worst President ever and the biggest embarrassment this country has ever had.

The guy in this video is what we need at the helm!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTau9zzK2bI

no ... the majority of Americans who voted him in are and that is who you should be mad at and direct your energies towards for their stupidity, ignorance and gullibility. I saw that with my own eyes in the city that was most affected by 9/11 and I knew it was time to get out of dodge.

honestly, your nation has been hoodwinked and robbed and is too proud to admit it.


You've got that right.

I cannot stand how people still talk about Bush as if he was doing a good job. If you look at what he has accomplished in the past seven years it beyond horrible for us and the world, yet people still talk here in Texas as if he is okay. I as far as I can tell he has done the following:
1. Destabilize the middle east with a war with Iraq.
2. Plan and carry out a war without any follow thorugh
3. Isolate American allies with a war which was not approved by the UN, Europe, Russia, China and host of others.
4. Undermind the 1st Amendment with wire tapping the American Public and the Patriot Act
5. Abusing the Executive privilege in order to secure power without oversight from Congress or the Supreme Court.
6. Make Dick Cheney Vice President then keep him (I had to throw that one in).
7. Polarize the American public with the war and a far right wing policy.
8. Placing politcs above justice in the Judicial system. The whole Attorney General and the DA firings.
9. Deleting our surplus from Clinton to a huge deficit
10. The whole hurricane Katrina blunder. Good job Brownie!
11. The No child Left Behind policy which is not working. Placing no money with the state to fund all of the testing...etc.
12. Not funding the vets. The whole VA Hospital disgrace. Bush's way of supporting the tropps.
13. Big tax cuts to the filthy rich and oil companies, while increasing state and local taxes to make up for the short falls in tax revenue.
14. Missed oppurtunities with immigration.
15. A really bad health care program made worse by the Prescription Drug Plan.
16. Of course misleading the world and the US about the weapons of mass destruction.

I am sure there are others which I left out, but you get the idea and STILL people think he's great.

I cannot stand how people still talk about Bush as if he was doing a good job. If you look at what he has accomplished in the past seven years it beyond horrible for us and the world, yet people still talk here in Texas as if he is okay. I as far as I can tell he has done the following:
1. Destabilize the middle east with a war with Iraq.
2. Plan and carry out a war without any follow thorugh
3. Isolate American allies with a war which was not approved by the UN, Europe, Russia, China and host of others.
4. Undermind the 1st Amendment with wire tapping the American Public and the Patriot Act
5. Abusing the Executive privilege in order to secure power without oversight from Congress or the Supreme Court.
6. Make Dick Cheney Vice President then keep him (I had to throw that one in).
7. Polarize the American public with the war and a far right wing policy.
8. Placing politcs above justice in the Judicial system. The whole Attorney General and the DA firings.
9. Deleting our surplus from Clinton to a huge deficit
10. The whole hurricane Katrina blunder. Good job Brownie!
11. The No child Left Behind policy which is not working. Placing no money with the state to fund all of the testing...etc.
12. Not funding the vets. The whole VA Hospital disgrace. Bush's way of supporting the tropps.
13. Big tax cuts to the filthy rich and oil companies, while increasing state and local taxes to make up for the short falls in tax revenue.
14. Missed oppurtunities with immigration.
15. A really bad health care program made worse by the Prescription Drug Plan.
16. Of course misleading the world and the US about the weapons of mass destruction.

I am sure there are others which I left out, but you get the idea and STILL people think he's great.

He's a decider. :rolleyes:

I'm not certain that he even mentioned Saddam in the speech in questionNow you're just being pedantic. I was merely giving an example of juxtaposition, something the Bush admin. has been doing consistently since they first decided to invade Iraq. Plus, I poasted late and was tired :idea: How's this:

9-11, Iraq.

9-11, Iraq.

9-11, Iraq.

Still works. :thumbsup:

Now you're just being pedantic. I was merely giving an example of juxtaposition, something the Bush admin. has been doing consistently since they first decided to invade Iraq. Plus, I poasted late and was tired :idea: How's this:

9-11, Iraq.

9-11, Iraq.

9-11, Iraq.

Still works. :thumbsup:

It works for you but it's you doing it, not Bush. Those of you who demand such honesty and integrity should display some in your criticism of this admistration.

How's that?

I cannot stand how people still talk about Bush as if he was doing a good job. If you look at what he has accomplished in the past seven years it beyond horrible for us and the world, yet people still talk here in Texas as if he is okay. I as far as I can tell he has done the following:
1. Destabilize the middle east with a war with Iraq.
2. Plan and carry out a war without any follow thorugh
3. Isolate American allies with a war which was not approved by the UN, Europe, Russia, China and host of others.
4. Undermind the 1st Amendment with wire tapping the American Public and the Patriot Act
5. Abusing the Executive privilege in order to secure power without oversight from Congress or the Supreme Court.
6. Make Dick Cheney Vice President then keep him (I had to throw that one in).
7. Polarize the American public with the war and a far right wing policy.
8. Placing politcs above justice in the Judicial system. The whole Attorney General and the DA firings.
9. Deleting our surplus from Clinton to a huge deficit
10. The whole hurricane Katrina blunder. Good job Brownie!
11. The No child Left Behind policy which is not working. Placing no money with the state to fund all of the testing...etc.
12. Not funding the vets. The whole VA Hospital disgrace. Bush's way of supporting the tropps.
13. Big tax cuts to the filthy rich and oil companies, while increasing state and local taxes to make up for the short falls in tax revenue.
14. Missed oppurtunities with immigration.
15. A really bad health care program made worse by the Prescription Drug Plan.
16. Of course misleading the world and the US about the weapons of mass destruction.

I am sure there are others which I left out, but you get the idea and STILL people think he's great.

When the final verdict is in, he may well be.

Snake, I have to believe that you are some sort of Bush and company plant. No one could be this thick. Bush states: " The facts are that Al Qaeda terrorist killed Americans on 9/11, THEY"RE fighting us in Iraq. The use of the word "they're" implies that they are the same ones, as in they are one and the same people that attacked us on 9/11. Jeez, what Bush is trying to do and has been trying to do all along is so obvious a reasoning person just cannot look at it any other way.

You have to really work to distort this to your own use. THEY'RE, refers to the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and he links them to the same Al Qaeda factions that attacked us on 9/11 and he is completely accurate in that. He does NOT say they were part of the 9/11 attack at any time in that speech. You guys did that on your own.

You have to really work to distort this to your own use. THEY'RE, refers to the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and he links them to the same Al Qaeda factions that attacked us on 9/11 and he is completely accurate in that. He does NOT say they were part of the 9/11 attack at any time in that speech. You guys did that on your own.
Snake...people are stupid...he's counting on that when he uses this language--most people have long since forgotten that Al Queda weren't in Iraq at the time we went ti war so now he can connect the dots and the sheeple will think they were there all along. Classic rhetorical trick.

Snake...people are stupid...he's counting on that when he uses this language--most people have long since forgotten that Al Queda weren't in Iraq at the time we went ti war so now he can connect the dots and the sheeple will think they were there all along. Classic rhetorical trick.

Bush made no attempt to fool anyone here, you are the one that is being dishonest about this speech and the motive behind it. He said nothing about AQ being in Iraq pre 9/11, go back and read it again with an open mind and see if you don't agree.

Bush made no attempt to fool anyone here, you are the one that is being dishonest about this speech and the motive behind it. He said nothing about AQ being in Iraq pre 9/11, go back and read it again with an open mind and see if you don't agree.

Oh I agree...he is careful with the word choice, but he is still banging the 9/11 drum for cause to have invaded Iraq when no association existed at the time. If anything his ill-advised war caused them to be there now.

and that's not what our intelligence says.

it's what Bush says the intelligence says. the actual reports of our best intelligence agencies says otherwise. and that's what everyone is saying, that Bush twists the intelligence, and shades his manner of speaking to imply something that is not.

But you just keep on believing whatever Georgie tells you to. you're a good little puppet.

Gee, you'd think repeatedly knowingly misleading and lying to the American people would be an impeachable offense? I guess we've never had to consider it before cause we've never had someone so dumb as president in our history...

Gee, you'd think repeatedly knowingly misleading and lying to the American people would be an impeachable offense? I guess we've never had to consider it before cause we've never had someone so dumb as president in our history...

He's still there because the exagerations and distortions of the truth by your opposition won't stand up through the impeachment process. He is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, didn't even get a blowie from a childish intern.

He's still there because the exagerations and distortions of the truth by your opposition won't stand up through the impeachment process. He is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, didn't even get a blowie from a childish intern.

Why does he keep using Exec Priv. if he doesn't have anything to hide? Bush shiould be in jail--not in the White House.

You have to really work to distort this to your own use. THEY'RE, refers to the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and he links them to the same Al Qaeda factions that attacked us on 9/11 and he is completely accurate in that. He does NOT say they were part of the 9/11 attack at any time in that speech. You guys did that on your own.


Bull. Just keep parsing the words there chief. How about this from today's Chicago Tribune referencing yesterday's speech.

Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director, said the speech was devised as a "surge of facts" meant to push back against critics who say Bush is trying rebuild support for the war by drawing links between the Iraq group and the one led by bin Laden.

But Democratic lawmakers quickly accused Bush of overstating those links to provide a rationale for the continued American presence in Iraq. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader, said Bush was "trying to justify claims that have long ago been proven to be misleading."

The Iraqi group is a homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group with some foreign operatives that has claimed a loose affiliation to bin Laden's network, although the precise links are unclear.

In his speech, Bush did not try to debunk the fact -- repeated by Reid -- that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until after the U.S. invasion in 2003 and has flourished afterward.

His comments also reflected a subtle shift from flat assertions earlier this month and last that "the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th."


Like I said Bush is still trying to link 9/11 and Iraq.

He's still there because the exagerations and distortions of the truth by your opposition won't stand up through the impeachment process. He is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, didn't even get a blowie from a childish intern.


Sorry Charlie, more than a few legal scholars have said he has committed high crimes... Warrantless wiretaps are a good place to start. They just have to write the articles...

They just have to write the articles...So why haven't they?

Not that I don't think Bush is guilty, I do. But I want to know why your Dems are dragging their feet on this.

So why haven't they?

Not that I don't think Bush is guilty, I do. But I want to know why your Dems are dragging their feet on this.

That's the trillion dollar question. I believe it's partly cause it would sideline everything else... There's a false belief among the incumbants that if they impeach they will lose in '08. They give so many BS excuses it will eventually lead to their own demise.

What type of Congress do we have if they refuse to stand up for the Constitution?

That's the trillion dollar question. I believe it's partly cause it would sideline everything else... There's a false belief among the incumbants that if they impeach they will lose in '08. They give so many BS excuses it will eventually lead to their own demise.

What type of Congress do we have if they refuse to stand up for the Constitution?
Let’s be fair and analytical for a minute.

“High crimes” is not a well-defined legal term. The Constitution and case law really doesn’t explain exactly what it means. Only two presidents have been impeached, Johnson and Clinton, both for ultimately political reasons (Nixon resigned).

Personally, I think that we need to reserve impeachment and potential indictment for clear cases of blatant disregard for the law. If not, impeachment would be gutted of its seriousness and become a little more than a political tool.

Don’t get me wrong. I can’t stand Bush and am certain that history will judge him as one of the worst presidents in history. However, despite his administration’s BS, I don’t think it quite rises to this level.

Personally, I think that we need to reserve impeachment and potential indictment for clear cases of blatant disregard for the law.Agreed. And I would only want to see Bush impeached for law breaking, not unwise or unpopular decisions.

That said, there's really no question that Clinton broke the law when he lied to a grand jury. Does that make his impeachment justifiable?

It seems to me that a pretty solid case could be made against Cheney right now over the Plame thing. I don't care what you think of a person's politics or peformance, you don't compromise the identity of a covert CIA operative. It's not just unethical, it's treasonous.

I am sure there are others which I left out, but you get the idea and STILL people think he's great.
I heard this lady - a Bush supporter - being interviewed on the radio last week. She talked about how wonderful he is fighting terrorists and all, and how important it is to keep those "mooslims" "over there".

ugh! :rolleyes5:

Agreed. And I would only want to see Bush impeached for law breaking, not unwise or unpopular decisions.

That said, there's really no question that Clinton broke the law when he lied to a grand jury. Does that make his impeachment justifiable?

It seems to me that a pretty solid case could be made against Cheney right now over the Plame thing. I don't care what you think of a person's politics or peformance, you don't compromise the identity of a covert CIA operative. It's not just unethical, it's treasonous.
Clinton’s case was difficult. He did lie to the grand jury and he thus broke the law. It’s also a serious violation because telling the truth is fundamental to our legal system. However, he was ultimately lying about a BJ. Personally, to impeach a president, I think there needs to be more substance related to the office of the presidency beneath the law breaking.

By contrast, Cheney’s case is really more impeachable for me. This is a serious law violation that goes right to the role of the office of the vice presidency. It’s absolutely shocking that Bush commuted Libby’s sentence and made it unlikely that justice could climb the chain of command.

I heard this lady - a Bush supporter - being interviewed on the radio last week. She talked about how wonderful he is fighting terrorists and all, and how important it is to keep those "mooslims" "over there".

ugh! :rolleyes5:
A foolish populace is one of the risks of a republic.

Bull. Just keep parsing the words there chief. How about this from today's Chicago Tribune referencing yesterday's speech.

Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director, said the speech was devised as a "surge of facts" meant to push back against critics who say Bush is trying rebuild support for the war by drawing links between the Iraq group and the one led by bin Laden.

But Democratic lawmakers quickly accused Bush of overstating those links to provide a rationale for the continued American presence in Iraq. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader, said Bush was "trying to justify claims that have long ago been proven to be misleading."

The Iraqi group is a homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group with some foreign operatives that has claimed a loose affiliation to bin Laden's network, although the precise links are unclear.

In his speech, Bush did not try to debunk the fact -- repeated by Reid -- that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until after the U.S. invasion in 2003 and has flourished afterward.

His comments also reflected a subtle shift from flat assertions earlier this month and last that "the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th."


Like I said Bush is still trying to link 9/11 and Iraq.

Like I said, you're still wrong. Read your own quotes in context, if you can, and you should be able to understand that fact, maybe. This is what you guys do so much of, twist words and change context to spin them into "proof" of your accusations. If you really were as capable of real thought as you claim to be, you'd disgust yourselves as much as you do me. :)

When the final verdict is in, he may well be.
He won't. Too many people all over the world and throughout the country think Bush is one of the worst ever....EVER. Just look at how many people are supporting him now.

He won't. Too many people all over the world and throughout the country think Bush is one of the worst ever....EVER. Just look at how many people are supporting him now.

By their own testimony, most of those folks are easy to fool. They'll all wake up one day and be so glad that wiser and stronger folks persevered.

Cute but it doesn't change the fact that I am right. Even HUA I can see this more clearly than you guys with the long ears. :)


on the day you finally realize you are dang near the very back of the short bus on all of this

you keep the dream alive!

Here is what he said in context, clearly about the situation today.
" Ahead of the speech, a White House official said Bush would reveal "newly declassified information" about the links between al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq.

"I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection," said Bush. "The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they're plotting to kill Americans here at home again."

I guess you could put me down in the column of those who can read.

Errr, reading is not the problem, comprehension maybe?????

Bush is a degenerate scumbag, That's pretty clear, eh?

Errr, reading is not the problem, comprehension maybe?????

Bush is a degenerate scumbag, That's pretty clear, eh?

Yes, I'd have to agree that comprehension is your problem. As to the rest, clearly you think so.

Bull. Just keep parsing the words there chief. How about this from today's Chicago Tribune referencing yesterday's speech.

Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director, said the speech was devised as a "surge of facts" meant to push back against critics who say Bush is trying rebuild support for the war by drawing links between the Iraq group and the one led by bin Laden.

But Democratic lawmakers quickly accused Bush of overstating those links to provide a rationale for the continued American presence in Iraq. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader, said Bush was "trying to justify claims that have long ago been proven to be misleading."

The Iraqi group is a homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group with some foreign operatives that has claimed a loose affiliation to bin Laden's network, although the precise links are unclear.

In his speech, Bush did not try to debunk the fact -- repeated by Reid -- that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until after the U.S. invasion in 2003 and has flourished afterward.

His comments also reflected a subtle shift from flat assertions earlier this month and last that "the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th."


Like I said Bush is still trying to link 9/11 and Iraq.

Don't even try. Reasoning doesn't work with these people. There are all kinds out there. Lost cause. Really. There is nothing you can say. They have some kind of gland which enables them to secrete some type of hormone which allows their brain to come up with anything. Try analyzing 3 years olds. That will give you a clue. Arrested development is probably the area, child psychology..

I'm at a loss. I'll say a prayer for the lost people. Sorry about this. Oy veh.:confused:

Don't even try. Reasoning doesn't work with these people. There are all kinds out there. Lost cause. Really. There is nothing you can say. They have some kind of gland which enables them to secrete some type of hormone which allows their brain to come up with anything. Try analyzing 3 years olds. That will give you a clue. Arrested development is probably the area, child psychology..

I'm at a loss. I'll say a prayer for the lost people. Sorry about this. Oy veh.:confused:

Sorry for your confusion. Maybe you should try moving up from your usual 3 year old level increnmentally. It might help you to get up to speed before you jump right in with big people, just a thought.

clearly you think so.

It doesn't matter what I think. The evidence is incontrovertible that GW Bush lied to start a war which has claimed at least 100,000 innocent victims. He is a treacherous freak who is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now what you think and why you think it is a huge mystery to the majority of Americans.

It doesn't matter what I think. The evidence is incontrovertible that GW Bush lied to start a war which has claimed at least 100,000 innocent victims. He is a treacherous freak who is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now what you think and why you think it is a huge mystery to the majority of Americans.

You bought ALL the propaganda, didn't you? How you can believe that crap is the real mystery.

You bought ALL the propaganda, didn't you? How you can believe that crap is the real mystery.

The title of the best selling book by Bob Woodward was "State of Denial." That itself is a psychological analysis. The vast majority of recognized experts don't agree with you. That won't deter you or GWB though, will it?

Powell, Shinseki, Zinni? Snakebit and the draft dodgers know better, right? Can you see how this is getting more than a little absurd and ridiculous.

I'll answer for you, no, you can't see it.

I'll let you stand with Gingrich, pathetic bastard he is, this is WWlll, a battle for our civilization.

Whatever dude....

The title of the best selling book by Bob Woodward was "State of Denial." That itself is a psychological analysis. The vast majority of recognized experts don't agree with you. That won't deter you or GWB though, will it?

Powell, Shinseki, Zinni? Snakebit and the draft dodgers know better, right? Can you see how this is getting more than a little absurd and ridiculous.

I'll answer for you, no, you can't see it.

I'll let you stand with Gingrich, pathetic bastard he is, this is WWlll, a battle for our civilization.

Whatever dude....

How do you choose THE experts? You spout the same crap that a herd of folks that claim they collectively got flimflamed by someone they consider too dumb to tie his own shoes and tell me I don't know what reality is? This is the same group that will always be doing what they recommended because they have just about covered everything in their flip flopping road to success. When push came to shove, they collectively caved, lacking the courage to follow through on their promised hard line. Don't tell me what they say is right, I already saw through them and warned you about it as well if you bothered to listen. I'll dance with who brung me, dood.

How do you choose THE experts? You spout the same crap that a herd of folks that claim they collectively got flimflamed by someone they consider too dumb to tie his own shoes and tell me I don't know what reality is? This is the same group that will always be doing what they recommended because they have just about covered everything in their flip flopping road to success. When push came to shove, they collectively caved, lacking the courage to follow through on their promised hard line. Don't tell me what they say is right, I already saw through them and warned you about it as well if you bothered to listen. I'll dance with who brung me, dood.

Oh my! More proof that Texas is a different country... Of course, they'll believe whatever Bush says cause in the end, it's all about the oil. War profiteers always stick together...

How do you choose THE experts? You spout the same crap that a herd of folks that claim they collectively got flimflamed by someone they consider too dumb to tie his own shoes and tell me I don't know what reality is? This is the same group that will always be doing what they recommended because they have just about covered everything in their flip flopping road to success. When push came to shove, they collectively caved, lacking the courage to follow through on their promised hard line. Don't tell me what they say is right, I already saw through them and warned you about it as well if you bothered to listen. I'll dance with who brung me, dood.

Shinseki and the rest of the generals caved? Shinseki told the truth and got fired.

WMD. That is the stated reason we went to war. Then we have this jerk off joking about not finding those weapons. Are they over here? Behind this chair, under this table?

Snakebit, you have a hard time discerning and sticking to those pesky little things called facts.

Oh, btw, who did you see through. Come up with some facts rather than your spin.

By their own testimony, most of those folks are easy to fool. They'll all wake up one day and be so glad that wiser and stronger folks persevered.

Just because you are easy to fool, do not under estimate the American public. I think when historians write the history of America from 2000 - 2008 it will place Bush's administration as a black mark and a warning to others.

Snakebit, can you please go back and tell us exactly how and when you were brain-washed?

Snakebit, can you please go back and tell us exactly how and when you were brain-washed?

How ironic.

Just because you are easy to fool, do not under estimate the American public. I think when historians write the history of America from 2000 - 2008 it will place Bush's administration as a black mark and a warning to others.

You think? Now there's a novel idea, there is no evidence of that here. I've been called a sheep, ignorant, stupid, a fool and other names that get blanked out here and all that by people who follow a group that can't make up their minds if Bush is an ignoramus or a shrewd con man that pulled the wool over all their eyes. They tell you he lied when he used the same intellignece reports the most beloved pervert in their party of the last hundred years (not counting a Kennedy) used to say the same things and you buy it.

If you want to know who is the fool here, just watch after the next election cycle. Democrats will most likely control the whole shebang at that time and you won't see any remarkable change in what we are doing today. "New" evidence will come to light to change their minds about the war. You, of course, will understand and believe and I will be relieved and vindicated. :)

You have to really work to distort this to your own use. THEY'RE, refers to the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and he links them to the same Al Qaeda factions that attacked us on 9/11 and he is completely accurate in that. He does NOT say they were part of the 9/11 attack at any time in that speech. You guys did that on your own.

again, you claim this, despite our intelligence agencies saying they are not one and the same group. you have some kind of info they don't?

Just cause Bush says they're the same, doesn't make it so. I'd have thought you'd have learned that by now, given his record on truthfullness and veracity.

"iran is shipping IED's to Iraq" oops, a week later we discover a manufacturing facility making those same IED's right inside Iraq. buut of course, Bush wasn't lying about that, right?

How ironic.

Say what? I thought I asked you a very simple question. How about an ansewer?
All I have to go by is reading your posts and your apparant inability to see things clearly.

So... when did the brainwashing occur? Just answer the question because... I care! :yesnod:

Say what? I thought I asked you a very simple question. How about an ansewer?
All I have to go by is reading your posts and your apparant inability to see things clearly.

So... when did the brainwashing occur? Just answer the question because... I care! :yesnod:

Simple?That figures. I think the brainwashing began with Gore's tantrum after he lost the election, you were vulnerable then but it's just a guess.

The turmoil in which we find the republic + Bush = Nero...

Peace :cool:

...

Personally, I think that we need to reserve impeachment and potential indictment for clear cases of blatant disregard for the law. If not, impeachment would be gutted of its seriousness and become a little more than a political tool.

Don’t get me wrong. I can’t stand Bush and am certain that history will judge him as one of the worst presidents in history. However, despite his administration’s BS, I don’t think it quite rises to this level.


1. What part of warrantless wiretaps doesn't violate the law?

2. What part of intentionally lying and deceiving America doesn't constitute fraud?

3. What part of torture doesn't violate the Geneva Conventions?

These could easily be the titles for the artilces of impeachment... :rolleyes:

1. What part of warrantless wiretaps doesn't violate the law?

2. What part of intentionally lying and deceiving America doesn't constitute fraud?

3. What part of torture doesn't violate the Geneva Conventions?

These could easily be the titles for the artilces of impeachment... :rolleyes:
Sadly, these things are much more complicated when you analyze the details. I don't know all the details on these issues, but I know from experience as an attorney, that legal issues re far more complex than they ever first appear. This may help:

1. From what I understand, the illegality of the warrantless wiretap program is not settled. Granted, it seems to me to be unconstitutional. However, even if hat is the case, if it was a good faith mistake or attempt to enforce the law, I'm not so sure it's impeachable as I previously discussed.

2. It's not clear that Bush intentionally lied or decieved. From what I understand, there were bad decisions made and reliance on bad intenlligence. When you have to make a legal proof, it's difficult to show fraud.

3. There are many ways to define torture and from wht I know, American law does not provide guidance. Further, I do not believe that the Geneva Convention is binding on the U.S. government unless Congress passes a statute making it so.

Like I said before, I'm not a Bush apologist. However, it's never so cut and dry. While these could be the articles of impeachment, I'm not convinced that this President's policy choices require impeachment for the reasons previously discussed on my views of the impeachment clause.

operating a secret govt is legal?

what part of not using the WH server exclusively for your business is allowed under the records act?

or 5 million missing e-mails?

oh and the tap issue is illegal, it is why they didn't get a re-up and then tried to get a sick ashcroft to sign off on it.

I'm not saying it's legal or ok. What I am saying is that the Impeachment Clause is a unique tool that should only be used in extreme and clear cases.

You think? Now there's a novel idea, there is no evidence of that here. I've been called a sheep, ignorant, stupid, a fool and other names that get blanked out here and all that by people who follow a group that can't make up their minds if Bush is an ignoramus or a shrewd con man that pulled the wool over all their eyes. They tell you he lied when he used the same intellignece reports the most beloved pervert in their party of the last hundred years (not counting a Kennedy) used to say the same things and you buy it.

If you want to know who is the fool here, just watch after the next election cycle. Democrats will most likely control the whole shebang at that time and you won't see any remarkable change in what we are doing today. "New" evidence will come to light to change their minds about the war. You, of course, will understand and believe and I will be relieved and vindicated. :)

Whatever. You are lost.

The Democrats are a very large group of people with a lot of opinions (good and bad) unlike the neocon's who lockstep with an idiot (Bush or Cheney) and then chant whatever happens to fall out of his mouth no matter how much it goes against the Republican party or common sense. If someone happens to disagree with that idiot that they lock step too, then you are unpatriotic or un-American. Then when the idiot makes a mistake they do not correct him they continue to chant whatever silly notion happen to come out of his head. For the record you are right no one know's how dumb Bush is, since Cheney has wrapped up everything as a big national secret which could hurt the security of the world. The best response you can get from the neocon or Bush supporters is that the Democrats are worse. I'll take my chances on change rather than continue with the Bush administration.

Whatever. You are lost.

Sadly, these things are much more complicated when you analyze the details. I don't know all the details on these issues, but I know from experience as an attorney, that legal issues re far more complex than they ever first appear. This may help:

1. From what I understand, the illegality of the warrantless wiretap program is not settled. Granted, it seems to me to be unconstitutional. However, even if hat is the case, if it was a good faith mistake or attempt to enforce the law, I'm not so sure it's impeachable as I previously discussed.

2. It's not clear that Bush intentionally lied or decieved. From what I understand, there were bad decisions made and reliance on bad intenlligence. When you have to make a legal proof, it's difficult to show fraud.

3. There are many ways to define torture and from wht I know, American law does not provide guidance. Further, I do not believe that the Geneva Convention is binding on the U.S. government unless Congress passes a statute making it so.

Like I said before, I'm not a Bush apologist. However, it's never so cut and dry. While these could be the articles of impeachment, I'm not convinced that this President's policy choices require impeachment for the reasons previously discussed on my views of the impeachment clause.

Impeachment is a political tool, used by politicians to fix problems when members of government go astray. Since impeachment isn't well defined we actually should start impeaching more govt officials, thus setting precedent and defining what are impeachable offenses. It's a tool that the FFs left to our best judgment.

As an atty you are trained to argue and obfuscate. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued. I could care less if they impeach and find him innocent, at least they'll have upheld the Constitution, and investigated, and drawn a line as to setting precedent for future impeachable offenses.

When Congress ratified the Geneva Conventions we (America) adopted them as law. Unless someone is completely stupid, or has an agenda, it's more than clear what's been going on has been torture and was sanctioned by Bush, and the DOJ...

Again, if he's impeached, and found innocent, I will buy a beer and toast him a brilliant politician. But not to investigate and debate the potential/probable violations of law means that Congress simply isn't doing its job.

Impeachment is a political tool, used by politicians to fix problems when members of government go astray. Since impeachment isn't well defined we actually should start impeaching more govt officials, thus setting precedent and defining what are impeachable offenses. It's a tool that the FFs left to our best judgment.

As an atty you are trained to argue and obfuscate. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued. I could care less if they impeach and find him innocent, at least they'll have upheld the Constitution, and investigated, and drawn a line as to setting precedent for future impeachable offenses.

When Congress ratified the Geneva Conventions we (America) adopted them as law. Unless someone is completely stupid, or has an agenda, it's more than clear what's been going on has been torture and was sanctioned by Bush, and the DOJ...

Again, if he's impeached, and found innocent, I will buy a beer and toast him a brilliant politician. But not to investigate and debate the potential/probable violations of law means that Congress simply isn't doing its job.
I guess we have different views of the Impeachment Clause. So it goes.

As an attorney, I'm trained to see issues and consider all the details and complexity and make plain, but very limited statements. Complex thigs should and are pursued. I only pointed out thecomplexity to show that it's not as simple as you implied. I don't think impeachment should be pursued becasue of my previous opinion of the proper use of the Impeachment Clause. Further, I disagree that we should impeach more officiials to flesh out the Clause.

The role of international treaties in domestic law is not as you imply.

Finally, I think that COngress should investigatethe violations and let the political process do its job and use the Impeachment Clause in certain instances.

I'm not saying it's legal or ok. What I am saying is that the Impeachment Clause is a unique tool that should only be used in extreme and clear cases.

which was neither clear nor extreme

they dimished the value of the tool and made any future case appear to be partisan sniping

that was the true genius of what they did

this admin has done enough stuff against the Constitution to warrant impeachment

there's a former Reagan (very Con) Asst US Atty who spells it out very clearly

I don't think that the Republicans' absurd impeachment of Clinton should be the rubric.

I guess we have different views of the Impeachment Clause. So it goes.

As an attorney, I'm trained to see issues and consider all the details and complexity and make plain, but very limited statements. Complex thigs should and are pursued. I only pointed out thecomplexity to show that it's not as simple as you implied. I don't think impeachment should be pursued becasue of my previous opinion of the proper use of the Impeachment Clause. Further, I disagree that we should impeach more officiials to flesh out the Clause.

The role of international treaties in domestic law is not as you imply.

Finally, I think that COngress should investigatethe violations and let the political process do its job and use the Impeachment Clause in certain instances.

What you've expressed as "proper use" of impeachment is simply your opinion as to when impeachment should be applied. You don't support it with anything other than your opinion.

IMO, when there are probable violations of the law, as we clearly have with the warrantless wiretaps, as well as the violation of the records act (thanks ATP), then impeachment investigations/hearings should occur. These cases clearly support a case for impeachment because we have a president who refuses to stop said offenses based solely upon his own interpretation of the Constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "the refusal to stop said behavior" is within the impeachment clause.

Congress should be holding hearings, inviting legal scholars to give opinions, gather evidence and begin writing articles. Having read much of the debate during the Clinton impeachment, that process is far from easy. Isn't upholding our Constitution worth the effort?

Whatever. You are lost.

The Democrats are a very large group of people with a lot of opinions (good and bad) unlike the neocon's who lockstep with an idiot (Bush or Cheney) and then chant whatever happens to fall out of his mouth no matter how much it goes against the Republican party or common sense. If someone happens to disagree with that idiot that they lock step too, then you are unpatriotic or un-American. Then when the idiot makes a mistake they do not correct him they continue to chant whatever silly notion happen to come out of his head. For the record you are right no one know's how dumb Bush is, since Cheney has wrapped up everything as a big national secret which could hurt the security of the world. The best response you can get from the neocon or Bush supporters is that the Democrats are worse. I'll take my chances on change rather than continue with the Bush administration.

Whatever. You are lost.

I haven't seen that variety here. While you claim I am lockstep, I am a voice in the wilderness here and it is you guys that are shoulder to shoulder, nose to tail and heading for the cliff behind confused leadership.

What you've expressed as "proper use" of impeachment is simply your opinion as to when impeachment should be applied. You don't support it with anything other than your opinion.

IMO, when there are probable violations of the law, as we clearly have with the warrantless wiretaps, as well as the violation of the records act (thanks ATP), then impeachment investigations/hearings should occur. These cases clearly support a case for impeachment because we have a president who refuses to stop said offenses based solely upon his own interpretation of the Constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "the refusal to stop said behavior" is within the impeachment clause.

Congress should be holding hearings, inviting legal scholars to give opinions, gather evidence and begin writing articles. Having read much of the debate during the Clinton impeachment, that process is far from easy. Isn't upholding our Constitution worth the effort?
As I previously said, the Impeachment Clause has been interpreted almost never by the courts. Thus, as I’ve said, my opinion of the Clause is just my opinion based on my understanding of the interaction of politics and law following law school and studying political science. We’re all just expressing our opinions here. That means me, you, and everyone else here. Until the federal courts speak on the issue and give us some guidelines, or until we all read a book on the Founding Fathers’ views on the Clause not that that would be dispositive), we’re all just opining based on the same few words in the Clause. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

I of course agree that the Constitution is worth fighting for. We just disagree about what the rules of the game are. However, we need to keep in mind that Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches of government that both have the duty to interpret the Constitution. Sometimes they’ll get it wrong, but I’m not convinced this calls for impeachment.

Well, we disagree. Such is life. The best thing to do now is keep the political pressure on the president, work these issues through the courts, and enact political change next election.

Perhaps you should be supporting your opinions with things like facts or at least reason?

One would think a good atty would do that?


As I previously said, the Impeachment Clause has been interpreted almost never by the courts. Thus, as I’ve said, my opinion of the Clause is just my opinion based on my understanding of the interaction of politics and law following law school and studying political science. We’re all just expressing our opinions here. That means me, you, and everyone else here. Until the federal courts speak on the issue and give us some guidelines, or until we all read a book on the Founding Fathers’ views on the Clause not that that would be dispositive), we’re all just opining based on the same few words in the Clause. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

I of course agree that the Constitution is worth fighting for. We just disagree about what the rules of the game are. However, we need to keep in mind that Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches of government that both have the duty to interpret the Constitution. Sometimes they’ll get it wrong, but I’m not convinced this calls for impeachment.

Well, we disagree. Such is life. The best thing to do now is keep the political pressure on the president, work these issues through the courts, and enact political change next election.

I used reason. See, e.g., Post #54. You disagreed. Get over it.

I haven't seen that variety here. While you claim I am lockstep, I am a voice in the wilderness here and it is you guys that are shoulder to shoulder, nose to tail and heading for the cliff behind confused leadership.
I live in Dallas, Texas. Over here the "bushies" run wild. I am the only voice within miles and miles that does not like the Bush Administration. Over here there are alot of 'snakes' with all of them following Bush to the very end.

This forum is my refuge and my confirmation that American has not turned into mindless idiots.

Keep looking for a good actor Snake, once you find him make sure the Republicans make that person a candidate for President. Don't worry about their platform, just make sure they look the part and they talk real slow and keep their sentences to just a few words. That will keep you from a confused leadership not that Bush's is NOT confused by the world surrounding it.

I don't think that the Republicans' absurd impeachment of Clinton should be the rubric.

it should be, when all the Repubs will cry that the only reason why they want to impeach Bush is because the Repubs impeached Clinton, and this is just partisan revenge.

as ATP said, they lowered the bar for impeachment so much that the repubs will hue and cry about this, and most of the American public, who know practically nothing of the Constitutional issues involved, as a whole are largely stupid and uninformed on the major issues of the day, will fall for it, and attack the Democrats for doing so.

that's why the Dems are so hesitant to do it, becuase they're afraid it will backfire on them. not because it isn't necessary, or the right thing to do, but the right wing noise and smear machine will paint it that way.

edit: love how Snake is avoiding the fact that outr intelligence agencies show that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not affiliated or taking orders from Osama's Al Qaeda, despite what Bush is telling him. let's him go on blissfully ignorant and believing whatever he wants to believe.

I used reason. See, e.g., Post #54. You disagreed. Get over it.

Sorry, but we're on post #94... Nice citation though, reiteration might work better...

I guess you aren’t able to scroll back. You keep at it; you’ll figure it out. I’ll send you the full brief and my bill later.

There is no authority on when to impeach. Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993) held that the Senate has the sole power to impeach but did not discuss when that power should be invoked. It is most likely a political question that the court’s would not answer based on the silence of the constitution and the political question doctrine. See U.S. v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385, 394 (1990) (discussing political question doctrine). The Court generally does not get involved in direct clashes between the other co-equal braches of government. See, e.g., Nixon, 506 U.S. 224. See also Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Most Dangerous Branch: Executive Power to Say What the Law Is, 83 GEO. L.J. 217, 323 (1994); see also William H. Rehnquist, The Impeachment Clause: A Wild Card in the Constitution,85 NW. U. L.REV. 903, 917-18 (1991).

Therefore, when to impeach is most likely a political question. Political issues are based on an amalgam of person beliefs. Personally, I think constitutional conflicts between the branches should be avoided. The Supreme Court generally agrees and thus steers clear.

However, “[t]he Impeachment Clause of the Constitution can hardly be thought to be undermined because of nonuse.” Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 728 n.5 (1986); In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50, 60, (D.C. Cir. 1987) (same). “The real intent of the Impeachment Clause, then, is to guarantee that the President always will be available to fulfill his constitutional duties.” Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 757 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

it should be, when all the Repubs will cry that the only reason why they want to impeach Bush is because the Repubs impeached Clinton, and this is just partisan revenge.

as ATP said, they lowered the bar for impeachment so much that the repubs will hue and cry about this, and most of the American public, who know practically nothing of the Constitutional issues involved, as a whole are largely stupid and uninformed on the major issues of the day, will fall for it, and attack the Democrats for doing so.

that's why the Dems are so hesitant to do it, becuase they're afraid it will backfire on them. not because it isn't necessary, or the right thing to do, but the right wing noise and smear machine will paint it that way.

edit: love how Snake is avoiding the fact that outr intelligence agencies show that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not affiliated or taking orders from Osama's Al Qaeda, despite what Bush is telling him. let's him go on blissfully ignorant and believing whatever he wants to believe.

just like the Cons are big on Exec. Priv now but forced Clinton to turn over damn near everything.

just like they tried Bill for things he did AS GOVENOR and none were affronts to the Constitution or Sep. of Powers

oh forgot a couple impeachable offenses
Bush's executive order of about a week ago that gives him sole authority to seize assets fo someone HE deems a threat to Iraq recovery. that is a breach of the 5th

or the order that allows him to toss someone HE defines as a terr'ist in jail without habeus corpus

honestly, there is nothing to like about Bush or the republican party as he/they have been grossly wrong, have openly lied, and have purposely misled your entire nation on a scale never before seen. anyone that does even sympathize for a smidgin surpises me becuase it's not easy going about your day with rocks in their head.
I would qualify your statement by saying there is nothing to like about Bush politically ....

Beyond that, I think my pity for Bush says less about my country and the existence of rocks in my head and more about the amount of sympathy I have for a guy who's a little bit dumb, sucks at his job, and tells lies (whether based on misinformation or not). There are half a million joes out there who are a little dumb, suck at their job, and lie. The only difference between them and w is that he's a public figure and so will get raked over the coals on a regular basis (even though it is deservedly so).

I doubt I am in the least representative of my country because my interest in the man has little to do with his presidency - I have given up on it.

sucks at his job

won't listen to any outside advice

and has gone to the highest office in the world because of his connections

had he been a non-Bush he'd be working some mail room

sucks at his job

won't listen to any outside advice

and has gone to the highest office in the world because of his connections

had he been a non-Bush he'd be working some mail room
Exactly. The blame should be split between himself and people stupid enough to elevate him to his current position.

Exactly. The blame should be split between himself and people stupid enough to elevate him to his current position.

I mean having total dumba$$es use nepotism to get top level jobs is nothing new in this country

I think his mental capacity is why he was chosen for his latest gig. was an easy pushover for PNAC and he had that down home/pot roast populism that advertises so well to the big dumb voting bloc

I think his mental capacity is why he was chosen for his latest gig. was an easy pushover for PNAC and he had that down home/pot roast populism that advertises so well to the big dumb voting bloc
Damn, potroast sounds good! It is possible to have that down home vibe and still be an adept leader - not in Bushies case, just sayin'.

Exactly. The blame should be split between himself and people stupid enough to elevate him to his current position.

c'mon, quit picking on Snake. :(

Damn, potroast sounds good! It is possible to have that down home vibe and still be an adept leader - not in Bushies case, just sayin'.

see thiuus is the problem is you have a bunch of numbskulls who want a President to which they can relate.
Instead of thinking "Gee, this is a pretty important position, I'd really like someone smart"
Hell I want someone with the mind of Jefferson (Thomas not Mr.). I want somebody that makes me go "Dauym, now that boy is bright"

Pot Roast populism, and the demonizing of intellectualism is what dumbed down the Presidency.

Pot Roast populism, and the demonizing of intellectualism is what dumbed down the Presidency.
Well I was talking about the food, but yeah.... :p


I don't think smarts and populism are always mutually exclusive.

I live in Dallas, Texas. Over here the "bushies" run wild. I am the only voice within miles and miles that does not like the Bush Administration. Over here there are alot of 'snakes' with all of them following Bush to the very end.

This forum is my refuge and my confirmation that American has not turned into mindless idiots.

Keep looking for a good actor Snake, once you find him make sure the Republicans make that person a candidate for President. Don't worry about their platform, just make sure they look the part and they talk real slow and keep their sentences to just a few words. That will keep you from a confused leadership not that Bush's is NOT confused by the world surrounding it.

You're even more treacherous than I thought. You ain't a borned Texan, are ya? :)

c'mon, quit picking on Snake. :(

Ouch!

Yeah, but if snake does leave this place turns into the sound of one hand clapping... I mean, all we'll have left are fakes like rydster who are just neocons in sheeps clothing...

Seems the neocon regulars like Steam, Mr. Grumpy, Money...et al have all gone MIA.

My hope is they've either changed their minds, or at least are stewing with with conflicting thoughts and refuse to admit they're wrong?

Ouch!

Yeah, but if snake does leave this place turns into the sound of one hand clapping... I mean, all we'll have left are fakes like rydster who are just neocons in sheeps clothing...

Seems the neocon regulars like Steam, Mr. Grumpy, Money...et al have all gone MIA.

My hope is they've either changed their minds, or at least are stewing with with conflicting thoughts and refuse to admit they're wrong?

Steam was here this morning posting his usual right-wing blog claptrap on the Tillman thread.

Ouch!

Yeah, but if snake does leave this place turns into the sound of one hand clapping... I mean, all we'll have left are fakes like rydster who are just neocons in sheeps clothing...

Seems the neocon regulars like Steam, Mr. Grumpy, Money...et al have all gone MIA.

My hope is they've either changed their minds, or at least are stewing with with conflicting thoughts and refuse to admit they're wrong?

Right on, all that would be left wouild be flakes but......... not to worry. :)

You're even more treacherous than I thought. You ain't a borned Texan, are ya? :)

Snake he was born an American

once again Snake's thread shows we shouldalet them go to the mexicans

Snake he was born an American

once again Snake's thread shows we shouldalet them go to the mexicans

Son, they's Americans and Amurikins. Amurikans are proud of their country and defend it against all comers, including those Americans that are just sooooo ashamed of ourselves. Amurikins figger hell, it happened a long time ago and we all are better off for it, good for them good ol' boys. (Texas has a lot of Amurikins)

Son, they's Americans and Amurikins. Amurikans are proud of their country and defend it against all comers, including those Americans that are just sooooo ashamed of ourselves. Amurikins figger hell, it happened a long time ago and we all are better off for it, good for them good ol' boys. (Texas has a lot of Amurikins)

lemme guess these Amurikans think we're all better off with what happened in Texas and say slavery

I think some African Americans and Latinos may differ
\
but it figures, so Amerikuns would be equal to Japanese who deny all the horrors bestowed upon the Chinese and Koreans during WW2
or German's who deny the holocaust

thx for confirming what II already knew though

Amerikuns love for their country is on par with a child's love for their parents

which shows why you believe every piece o crap that comes out of their mouths

lemme guess these Amurikans think we're all better off with what happened in Texas and say slavery

I think some African Americans and Latinos may differ
\
but it figures, so Amerikuns would be equal to Japanese who deny all the horrors bestowed upon the Chinese and Koreans during WW2
or German's who deny the holocaust

thx for confirming what II already knew though

It's ok to whine 'bout how ashamed you are of us, Amurikins made it safe for you to do so, keep 'er that way too.

If I might interject Mr Snakebit. I believe the proper spelling is 'Mericans, no "A" in it IMHO.

If I might interject Mr Snakebit. I believe the proper spelling is 'Mericans, no "A" in it IMHO.

AKA Texas Rednecks.

AKA Texas Rednecks.

Whutever.

where chainin' a colored feller behind the truck and takin' him for a drag is a great way to spend a Saturday night.

it's alright cause ya'll still love the shrub and you'll be one of the first to suffer for his climate policies.

ya might wanna sell yer house on the beach in Padre while folks still think it has some value

where chainin' a colored feller behind the truck and takin' him for a drag is a great way to spend a Saturday night.

it's alright cause ya'll still love the shrub and you'll be one of the first to suffer for his climate policies.

ya might wanna sell yer house on the beach in Padre while folks still think it has some value

Whatever happened to them ol' boys that done that draggin anyhow?