Calls for impeachment growing louder

[KrustyKidd]

So, if the law was broken by the President it's very serious and impeachment for it is not unlikely.

It will be for the courts to decide if Constitution law is applicable and gave him the right to break other laws.

Ah some sanity.

There is no logic in saying there was talk previously, and therefore the calls for impeachment now mean nothing.

Sure there is as contrary to your previous misinformed post about how "Well, I guess I don't read the same news you do because I haven't seen four years of impeachment talk. " there was. And, it went nowhere.

I'll direct you back to the topic post. "Calls for impeachment growing louder"

And I'll sum up; Like preivous talk, it will go nowhere.

[gerryhatrick]

Constitutional Law is above all else when it comes down to it. Even the Patriot Act cannot stand up the the legal might of the Consitution.

The point is though that it's not clear that the Constitution applies to what he did.

Most legal experts I've seen comment on the matter say it does not.

First they cited the permission granted by Congress to use force. Now they're citing the Constitution. It's looking a little desperate.

[KrustyKidd]

It's looking a little desperate.

Desparate for who? Like I said, the Left has been talking for years.

Bush Doesn't seem desparate From your 'proof' on the 72% thread.

Q Could you explain why living within the legislation that allowed your administration to get a warrant from a secret court within 72 hours after putting in a wiretap wouldn't be just as effective?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate the question. He's talking about the terrorist surveillance program that was -- created quite a kerfuffle in the press, and I owe an explanation to. Because our people -- first of all, after September the 11th, I spoke to a variety of folks on the front line of protecting us, and I said, is there anything more we could be doing, given the current laws? And General Mike Hayden of the NSA said there is. The FISA law -- he's referring to the FISA law, I believe -- is -- was designed for a previous period, and is slow and cumbersome in being able to do what Mike Hayden thinks is necessarily -- called hot pursuit.

And so he designed a program that will enable us to listen from a known al Qaeda, or suspected al Qaeda person and/or affiliate, from making any phone call outside the United States in, or inside the United States out -- with the idea of being able to pick up quickly information for which to be able to respond in this environment that we're in. I was concerned about the legality of the program, and so I asked lawyers -- which you got plenty of them in Washington -- (laughter) -- to determine whether or not I could do this legally. And they came back and said, yes. That's part of the debate which you're beginning to see.

I fully understood that Congress needed to be briefed. And so I had Hayden and others brief members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, House members and senators, about the program. The program is under constant review. I sign a reauthorization every -- I'm not exactly sure -- 45 days, say. It's something like that. In other words, it's constantly being reviewed. There's an IG that is very active at the NSA to make sure that the program stays within the bounds that it was designed.

I fully understand people's concerns about it, but ours is a town, by the way, in Washington, where when you don't connect the dots, you're held up to Congress, and when you do connect the dots, you're held up to Congress. I believe what I'm doing is constitutional, and I know it's necessary. And so we're going to keep doing it.

Oh ya, he's sweating bullets.

[GostHacked]

It's looking a little desperate.

Desparate for who? Like I said, the Left has been talking for years.

Bush Doesn't seem desparate From your 'proof' on the 72% thread.

Q Could you explain why living within the legislation that allowed your administration to get a warrant from a secret court within 72 hours after putting in a wiretap wouldn't be just as effective?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate the question. He's talking about the terrorist surveillance program that was -- created quite a kerfuffle in the press, and I owe an explanation to. Because our people -- first of all, after September the 11th, I spoke to a variety of folks on the front line of protecting us, and I said, is there anything more we could be doing, given the current laws? And General Mike Hayden of the NSA said there is. The FISA law -- he's referring to the FISA law, I believe -- is -- was designed for a previous period, and is slow and cumbersome in being able to do what Mike Hayden thinks is necessarily -- called hot pursuit.

And so he designed a program that will enable us to listen from a known al Qaeda, or suspected al Qaeda person and/or affiliate, from making any phone call outside the United States in, or inside the United States out -- with the idea of being able to pick up quickly information for which to be able to respond in this environment that we're in. I was concerned about the legality of the program, and so I asked lawyers -- which you got plenty of them in Washington -- (laughter) -- to determine whether or not I could do this legally. And they came back and said, yes. That's part of the debate which you're beginning to see.

I fully understood that Congress needed to be briefed. And so I had Hayden and others brief members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, House members and senators, about the program. The program is under constant review. I sign a reauthorization every -- I'm not exactly sure -- 45 days, say. It's something like that. In other words, it's constantly being reviewed. There's an IG that is very active at the NSA to make sure that the program stays within the bounds that it was designed.

I fully understand people's concerns about it, but ours is a town, by the way, in Washington, where when you don't connect the dots, you're held up to Congress, and when you do connect the dots, you're held up to Congress. I believe what I'm doing is constitutional, and I know it's necessary. And so we're going to keep doing it.

Oh ya, he's sweating bullets.

To bad they could not connect the dots before 9/11 happened.

[KrustyKidd]

To bad they could not connect the dots before 9/11 happened.

I agree. Oh well, only so much you can do in such a short period of time and the screwed up system that had been in place for all those years before. I think the dots are getting connected a lot better now though.

[gerryhatrick]

Desparate for who?

Desperate for Bush and his neo-con pals. Why would you ask a question for which the answer was so obvious?

I said:

First they cited the permission granted by Congress to use force. Now they're citing the Constitution. It's looking a little desperate.

This was clearly in regards to the wire-tapping and the excuses they've come up with for it.

I shouldn't have to explain such clear posts to you.

[KrustyKidd]

Desperate for Bush and his neo-con pals. Why would you ask a question for which the answer was so obvious?

Obvious? It seems Bush is taking this in stride pretty much and, the desparation seems to be on the side that has for years, been doing whatever they could to put the screws to him without success. So, desparate for who Gerry? You are touting that 'if' the Dems get this, then they can maybe do that, if this and that are here and there, all the while he is just getting on with being president so .....

desparate for who?

Oh, wondering, what ever in the world happened to the Haliburton thing with Cheney? That was another 'desparation' thing going with the Left if I do remember right. More will come to me I'm sure as we go over this.

[gerryhatrick]

Desperate for Bush and his neo-con pals. Why would you ask a question for which the answer was so obvious?

Obvious?

Yes, obvious. You asked who I was referring to as being desperate, and it was pretty obvious that it was Bush and his Cabinet.

AGAIN...they first defended the wire-tapping as being permitted by the vote in Congress before the Iraq war. Once people started saying "wha?" they turned to the Constitution.

It's a desperate move.

Don't ask me again who I'm referring to please. If you're going to play dumb while debating me I'll just answer the dumb questions

[KrustyKidd]

Don't ask me again who I'm referring to please. If you're going to play dumb while debating me I'll just answer the dumb questions

Ok.

Well, it sure seems like the Left is growing more frustrated that none of their digs have worked in over five years. Now this latest joke of impeachment being talked about (seemingly in every place but in a court) is being picked up by any leftist willing and desparate enough to grab a thread in order to hold their failing, and flacid cause together. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the reason they have no strength is because they have for over five years now, forgone anything that can be construed as constructive and simply attempted to degenerate the sitting president's authority. This is but another rallying place to gather for the left and sing Kumbyah. Enjoy it, love it. And rejoice in the knowledge that there will be two more years of these meaningless, yet morale boosting theatrics.

[gerryhatrick]

Well, it sure seems like the Left is growing more frustrated that none of their digs have worked in over five years. Now this latest joke of impeachment being talked about

Hardly a joke.

As I understand it, control of a Congressional house is needed for Impeachment articles to be submitted. As things stand now it looks very possible (if not likely) that will happen.

It would be refreshing to see a rightwinger with a little honesty admit that wiretapping legality is something that Bush could be impeached upon. Your point that he's not been hauled into court over it is stunningly dishonest because you present it as evidence that he's done no wrong. Surely you're not that ignorant of how things work, so I have to assume you're being dishonest.

[KrustyKidd]

I have to assume you're being dishonest.

I'll be honest Gerry. This means shit. The US is at war with the the entire western civilization at stake and you and your ilk are playing games. I stated once before that AL Queda is a valid threat in that it is a logical and sane idea that has a real possibility of succeeding. The attoricious acts they have committed in dozens of counrtries are not random, they are designed to weaken the goverments hold on the people and pave the way for a domino type effect if AQ can take and hold Saudi Arabia where they have massive unofficial support, even amongst many of the disenfranchised extended Royal Family.

If they can do that, then the whole thing starts to come together as they form a shodow government and have acces, through petro dollars to arms, military and political force as well as being able, for the first time, to export items other than death to become a social force as well. All with the aim of taking over first, the former Caliphate and then, working on the rest of the world.

Now, we could simply leave them do it and drive Hugos but, eventually, with the money they wold ontrol they would also control stock markets in countries al over the world and hold many countries financial hostage.

So a wire tap. Well, if AQ is successful in even part of what I described, you will see a totolitarian backlash in the western world with a Patriot act that even Orwell couldn't envision. So yes, I don't put much seriousness into the wire tapping. Lincoln imprisoned journalists and exilled dissenting congressmen.

Your point that he's not been hauled into court over it is stunningly dishonest because you present it as evidence that he's done no wrong. Surely you're not that ignorant of how things work, so I have to assume you're being dishonest.

Gerry, when it goes to court I'll decide when the jury comes in with the verdict. Until then, it's all talk and, like the lawyers of the more than 90 countries heads of state that helped the US invade Iraq privately and publically, I'll assume that they did their job properly and made sure their heads of state wouldn't end up in the UN docket at the Hague beside the late Milosivik.

[gerryhatrick]

The US is at war with the the entire western civilization at stake and you and your ilk are playing games.

.......

So a wire tap. Well, if AQ is successful in even part of what I described, you will see a totolitarian backlash in the western world with a Patriot act that even Orwell couldn't envision. So yes, I don't put much seriousness into the wire tapping.

I have no problem with wire-tapping either. I think I said so.

Why can't it be done under the law?

If the law was broken, Bush should suffer the consequences. The war for Western civilization can continue just as successfully without him. In fact, given the evidence of his leadership ability lately it would in all likelyhood continue with more success.

That seems to be what you're suggesting....the war for civilization is threatened if Bush is taken down.

[KrustyKidd]

If the law was broken, Bush should suffer the consequences. The war for Western civilization can continue just as successfully without him.

Agreed. And .....

it would in all likelyhood continue with more success.

His leadership has been unfaltering and, the courage to undertake this endeavor is visionary, I also believe that another would at this point in time be more effective. Provided they continued with the course laid out with the same steady purpose and conviction.

That seems to be what you're suggesting....the war for civilization is threatened if Bush is taken down.

My goodness Gerry, you certainly read me to be a predictable two dimensional cartoon character. No, if Bush is taken down, another will take his place. It is not his personal decision that is effecting world events. It is the accumulation of hundreds if not thousands of people who, with training in political, cultural and military events and history probably amount to the most qualified group on the planet to advise any person on such matters. His decisions are akin to you taking your lawyers or doctors advice. I mean, unless you are a doctor, you get it explained and then follow the advice given. If you have say, fifty doctors each specializing in matters of the body and mind with one or two as the head, you would take their advice would you not? Or, would you wander off taking your own course countering their advice and hope for the best?

Myself, I believe that any President save Carter would have done what Bush did. In fact, Clinton made regime change in Iraq US policy minus the use of force. 911 changed a lot of things and, that caveate went with it. The right blames Clinton wrongly for a lot of things including not taking care of Iraq but, once again, 911 changed a lot of things. For example, Clinton sent cruise missiles against Afganistan when the Towers were bombed, he didn't take care of the problem the right charges. Think about it, how could he have mustered support for an ivasion without a large scale event such as 911, To do so would have been insanity and, political suicide.

Clinton, despite the bull crap impeachement put forth against him was a fine Democratic President. Weak on defense, you had to remember the times though with the Soviet Union dismantling and all, he could afford to be and look inward for growth.

Bush's problem (or rather main problem) is that he does not have the gift of Clinton - an ability to speak and make his ideas known and understandable. I believe he is known as the 'Great Communicator' and, with good reason. He has style and charm and, was well supported at home. Bush on the other hand should have fired his PR team back in January 2001. Possibly earlier.

It's for the above reasons that I firmly believe that Clinton would have handled the War on Terror better than Bush. However, would he have the courage to go to the extent Bush has? I think so, after all, he initiated a lot of it. Certainly, he would have been able to mobilize more of the US population behind him (or at least less of them opposing him) through better explanations and, been able to work better with other countries.

Would another President do better if Bush and Cheney were replaced tommorow? If they planned on staying the course they would in that they would provide a fresh start in the political arena domestically as well as internationally. New broom sweeps clean they say. Even if it's the same brand.

[gerryhatrick]

Do you think the latest details of a Jan.31 2005 meeting between Bush and Blair could contribute to impeachment proceedings?

Nobody is denying the authenticity and it clearly describes Bush being decided upon war and even coniving for ways to start one over a month before it started. They even had a date. This was before Powel went to the UN and before weapons inspectors were done.

The narrative from Bush during this period was that he didn't want war and there were ways that it could be avoided. Clearly, a lie.

[KrustyKidd]

Do you think the latest details of a Jan.31 2005 meeting between Bush and Blair could contribute to impeachment proceedings?

No. I imagine that he was intent on invading Iraq immediately after, if not during the Afgan operation. The War was not illegal so what is the problem for him?

The narrative from Bush during this period was that he didn't want war and there were ways that it could be avoided. Clearly, a lie.

Hmmm, that's interesting. He did want war no doubt yet had legal reasons to commit it with. Yet, he did say it was a last resort.

I think that I shall go back to a question I have put forth to many prior to now.

'What would Bush have done if Saddam had actually done the unthinkable and stopped being Saddam?'

Meaning, stopped being as predictable as a broken record and actually adhered to UN resolutions completely so the US had no excuse to take any and all necessary actions to get Iraq to comply with 687.

I think there would have been no war.

This question is essential as Saddam did not do that, and therefore, gave the opportunity for the US to do what it has done. Furthermore, I also believe that Saddam was played and backed into a corner where it was egostisticly and politically impossible for him to do nothing different. Pretty much, he was played like a violin the entire time.

[gerryhatrick]

Do you think the latest details of a Jan.31 2005 meeting between Bush and Blair could contribute to impeachment proceedings?

No. I imagine that he was intent on invading Iraq immediately after, if not during the Afgan operation. The War was not illegal so what is the problem for him?

I thought it might be a problem if he had obviously decided privately that the war was going to happen no matter what, but publicly was saying that it could be avoided.

That strikes me as a problem.

[KrustyKidd]

I thought it might be a problem if he had obviously decided privately that the war was going to happen no matter what, but publicly was saying that it could be avoided.

That strikes me as a problem.

It's minor in a legal sense I'm sure as it can be argued that it was unavoidable as Saddam did not comply with the applicable resolutions. Being intent on going in there prior could easily be argued that it was a planning exercise based on the almost certain possibility that he would not comply. Much like a police officer unholstering a sidearm does not mean he is going to shoot.

[gerryhatrick]

It's minor in a legal sense I'm sure as it can be argued that it was unavoidable as Saddam did not comply with the applicable resolutions. Being intent on going in there prior could easily be argued that it was a planning exercise based on the almost certain possibility that he would not comply. Much like a police officer unholstering a sidearm does not mean he is going to shoot.

The proof that he was looking to provoke a war is more than enough to stamp out any notion that he was just getting prepared, as you strangely try to portray this.

A police officer doesn't unholster his sidearm with the expectation or intent or GOAL to provoke a violent response. Give your head a shake man.

[KrustyKidd]

The proof that he was looking to provoke a war is more than enough to stamp out any notion that he was just getting prepared, as you strangely try to portray this.

Provoke a war? Sorry Gerry but there was already a war which was suspended under a conditional ceasefire. With the conditions not being adhered to by Iraq. Unless Iraq did some fast action in the form of complying it was going to happen though, even if it was a last resort. So we can use the analogy of the police officer, sure he is going to have to use the gun to subdue the suspect but, prepared to not have to if somehow, the suspect complies with the orders given.

[gerryhatrick]

The proof that he was looking to provoke a war is more than enough to stamp out any notion that he was just getting prepared, as you strangely try to portray this.

Provoke a war? Sorry Gerry but there was already a war which was suspended under a conditional ceasefire.

That is weak. But I'll play along.

OK, there already was a war...under suspension.

So then by suggesting they paint a spy plane with UN colors he was looking to provoke a violent reaction to give himself an excuse to resume the war.

Whatever. It's still the same....a cynical plan to purposely create the conditions for an invasion at the same time he outwardly claimed he wanted to avoid conflict.

You're the guy who's not ever aware that there is new first-hand information about a meeting between Bush and Blair! You think all the fuss is about the Downing Street Memo. It's breathtaking that someone stands up and debates a position without even the most basic awareness of the current events being talked about!

[sharkman]

Okay Gerry, you keep riding this pony and see where it gets you in six months!LOL

[newbie]

This ad is currently running the NY Times, SF Chronicle, and the Boston Globe.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/DocServer/...3.pdf?docID=121

This is far more serious than a lie an embarrased President told to cover up a bj.

[JerrySeinfeld]

This ad is currently running the NY Times, SF Chronicle, and the Boston Globe.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/DocServer/...3.pdf?docID=121

This is far more serious than a lie an embarrased President told to cover up a bj.

I love it.

I should respond - like i did to that ad in the back of a comic book when I was 9. I became a minister in the "unity church"!!!!

I love the USA for it's dissenting viewpoints.

In Canada if you tried that against Chretien or Martin you'd be demonized as a right wing zealot.

Good for the USA - I love dissenting viewpoints!!!

[KrustyKidd]

This ad is currently running the NY Times, SF Chronicle, and the Boston Globe.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/DocServer/...3.pdf?docID=121

This is far more serious than a lie an embarrased President told to cover up a bj.

I can tell. These guys want it so bad they are selling t shirts to pay for it.

This is a grassroots campaign, and we need your financial help. The first VoteToImpeach ad appeared in full page ads in the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Globe, as well as in other U.S. newspapers, with the help of people all around the country. Please help support the impeachment campaign's work and help place the new Impeach Bush ad in additional major newspapers and other mass media.

They have (ok, had) Bush sweating bullets last year. Since then, he has been on the run doing the normal duties of President. Heck, they even have ichons of sanity like Striesand and you know she wont sing for less than a few mill. Hey, even nutcase Sheehan has an excuse for not having the civility to place a headstone on her hero son's grave. "I was too busy trying to impeach Bush" she can opine on about now.

We need your support to bring Impeachment to the White House door! Please make a much needed contribution now for the growing costs of this demonstration - from many thousands of signs and flyers to buses to help get people to DC. Help us fill the streets with ImpeachBush banners and placards - and people!

Yes, it's inevitable! But, they need help. They need well............ they need a plan, and here, Krsuty has found the skinney on that one too;

Lawn signs, bumper stickers,

t-shirts, sweatshirts, and more

Ooooooo. Lawn signs. Bush is running for the hill (capitol hill that is)

Hey Gerry, you reading this? The crap goes back to last year and remember where you said

Well, I guess I don't read the same news you do because I haven't seen four years of impeachment talk.

This site chronicles one year anyhow. I'm sure with minimal effort, you can find more.

[gerryhatrick]

They need a television ad detailing his little Jan.'05 conivings about painting a spy plane UN colors to provoke Saddam to attack and thereby give him an excuse to invade.

All this almost two months before Bush launched an attack. Before Powell went before the UN. Before Bush said was was a "last resort".

Anyone remember this:

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

History repeats.