[snowdog]

I read that in a few of the posts thru the forum. THat is extremely
funny.

Even the Democratic party wouldn't do that at this time. They at least
appear to be using their grey-matter more than the "progressives".

So lets say that GWB gets impeached and removed from office.....
Hello, Mr. Cheney! hell, I wouldn't vote for Dick Cheney as he is
much more conservative minded for my taste! and the progressives
want to give Mr. Cheney a free pass into the presidency.....

Thats about like Barry bonds batting, and the pitcher wanting to intentionally
walk him,
but the pitchers manager pointing to the on-deck circle, where Vladamire
Guerrro awats his turn at bat......I don't think so.

[gratelady1]

Let me reiterate, that "impeachment" is too good for that Redneck bigot, son-of monkey turd, Jew hating, dog butt sniffing-brown noser, aint got no hair-do, simpleton, Laura loving, back stabbing, non-caring, stupid, idiot and power hungry, liberal spending peasant- George Wuzz Bush! Send his ass to Iraq and make the bastard fight his was on terror! And any other bastard that supports the war- stop argueing about supporting it and strap on a gun and take your butts with GWB- Cowards!!!!!

And dont give any stupid childish excuses, about why you cant go- there is no good excuse! Support the "War on Terror" and your President and go fight it, instead of being yellow enough to send your kids to do it! :mad:

[snowdog]

I just wish you wouldn't be afraid to mention your true feelings glady1.

LOL, Go get em glady1!

[-V-]

You forget, snow, that Cheney has been running the country all along so impeaching Bush doesn't make things any worse. Regardless, justice needs to be served and all those involved in the greed, lies, corruption, and manipulation need to get the message.

IMPEACH BUSH!

(say it with us snow, you know you want to)

[kyindy]

I have to agree with Snow that Cheney would be worse that GW. But look who is after Cheney...

Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

How about we do a recall!

[Lionhearted]

I agree that impeachment is probably not a viable option. If I understand the rules governing impeachment (and understand this is in all probability wrong), the House impeaches and the Senate tries all impeachments and requires a two-thirds vote of members for conviction, and regardless of how irked some in his own party may be at Bush at this moment in time, I just don't see it happening.

[gratelady1]

I agree that impeachment is probably not a viable option. If I understand the rules governing impeachment (and understand this is in all probability wrong), the House impeaches and the Senate tries all impeachments and requires a two-thirds vote of members for conviction, and regardless of how irked some in his own party may be at Bush at this moment in time, I just don't see it happening.

Yup and all the above equates to why GWB is so arrogant enough to think he has gotten away with everything. ie. GROUPTHINK!

[Adolph]

Let me reiterate, that "impeachment" is too good for that Redneck bigot, son-of monkey turd, Jew hating, dog butt sniffing-brown noser, aint got no hair-do, simpleton, Laura loving, back stabbing, non-caring, stupid, idiot and power hungry, liberal spending peasant- George Wuzz Bush! Send his ass to Iraq and make the bastard fight his was on terror! And any other bastard that supports the war- stop argueing about supporting it and strap on a gun and take your butts with GWB- Cowards!!!!!

And dont give any stupid childish excuses, about why you cant go- there is no good excuse! Support the "War on Terror" and your President and go fight it, instead of being yellow enough to send your kids to do it! :mad:

Do you realy think that there are men and woman serving in Iraq just because their parents sent them?

[gratelady1]

Do you realy think that there are men and woman serving in Iraq just because their parents sent them?

Lets do the math.... You vote for Bush+ Bush wants Iraq war= your kids in Iraq

I dont know, maybe it could be argued, that if hundreds of thousands tolerate Bush as (still) president and his policies, that they are in fact responsible for the end result! They voted for him twice- I think????

Of course, you could do like snowdog and blame the Liberals for not providing a better candidate to run against GWB.

Or we could blame God, for being stupid enough to think that if he made GWB's ranch, then there would be a GWB, then their would be a "W" for president, and all the special interest, then the oil....

No, I think I like the fact that "we the people" are responsible for who our president is and that we are responsible for holding him accountable, and if we dont= what?

The opposite (your point) would mean that 287 million Americans, are powerless before God- I mean GWB- my bad!

[Adolph]

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. And you didn't realy answer my question. Parents are not sending their kids off to Iraq. The men and woman serving over there made the decision to enlist as adults, not because mommy and daddy ordered them to because they forgot to take out the trash.

[Adolph]

Of course, you could do like snowdog and blame the Liberals for not providing a better candidate to run against GWB.

Snow dog makes a good point. The Democrat's party nomination process to pick their presidential candidate allmost allways assures that they will nominate somebody too Liberal to be elected in a generaql election.

[gratelady1]

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. And you didn't realy answer my question. Parents are not sending their kids off to Iraq. The men and woman serving over there made the decision to enlist as adults, not because mommy and daddy ordered them to because they forgot to take out the trash.
So no premise I put out there is true then?
We are not responsible for who the president is?
The president does not want the war in Iraq?
Our kids are not in Iraq because of the two premises?

Interesting......

[Adolph]

Do you realy think that there are men and woman serving in Iraq just because their parents sent them?

You babble at length but still havn't answered this very simple question.

Interesting :rolleyes:

[gratelady1]

So no premise I put out there is true then?
We are not responsible for who the president is?
The president does not want the war in Iraq?
Our kids are not in Iraq because of the two premises?
Interesting......

Like I said before- its much better if you hear the answer from your lips/head/rationale, then there is a chance you might believe it, you will never listen to any other's ideas!

Answer (to yourself) the above and then you can say those serving are there of their own admission. No one cares what I think- but I believe you care what you think! What do you think? Do you care what you think? Or is it more important to everyone what I think?

[haus]

From http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69123


U.S. Rep. John Lewis said Monday in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans.

The Democratic senator from Georgia told WAOK-AM he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move.

Lewis is among several Democrats who have voiced discontent with Sunday night’s television speech, where Bush asked Americans to continue to support the Iraq War. Lewis is the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush.

“Its a very serious charge, but he violated the law,” said Lewis, a former civil rights leader. “The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president.”

[haus]

excerpt of email from DNC:


This is not an easy letter to write, and I'm afraid it may be a hard one to believe.

By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.

These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.

You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours:

www.democrats.org/foia
...

Richard Nixon once said in an interview that, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal."

He found out that wasn't true. This administration may need a reminder.

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

[haus]

CensureBush.org Campaign Launched in Response to New House Legislation


The AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, an alliance of over 100 grassroots organizations, has launched a new campaign called CensureBush.org in order to support new legislation introduced by Congressman John Conyers that would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.

H.Res.635 would create a select committee - modeled after Sam Ervin's Watergate committee - to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 would censure, respectively, Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and – in the case of President Bush – for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958.

These two efforts are complementary - H.Res.635 seeks accountability for the Bush administration's monumental crimes, while H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 seek accountability for their coverups.

Ask your Congress Member to support these efforts!
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=8329176

[sweetpea]

excerpt of email from DNC:


Quote:
This is not an easy letter to write, and I'm afraid it may be a hard one to believe.

By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.

These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.

You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours:

www.democrats.org/foia
...

Richard Nixon once said in an interview that, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal."

He found out that wasn't true. This administration may need a reminder.

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.


Want to take a guess to who this statement belongs to?

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general,"

[MAGI]

Howard Fineman MSNBC contributer:By Howard Fineman
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 4:01 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005

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

Well, as the world now knows, the NSA — at the prompting of Vice President Cheney and on official (secret) orders from President Bush — was doing just that. And yet, as I understand it, many of the people in the White House’s own Situation Room — including leaders of the national security adviser’s top staff and officials of the FBI — had no idea that it was happening."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/

[haus]

Tonight's email from democrats.com:


Since we told you Tuesday night about Congressman Conyers' new bills to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their war lies, 26,000 people have visited the action alert page, and 17,000 have Emailed their Congress Members. You can add to those numbers here:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=8329176

Already there are seven cosponsors of a bill to create an investigation and make recommendations on impeachment, four cosponsors on a bill to censure Bush, and five cosponsors on a bill to censure Cheney.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5768

This work, combined with our polling on impeachment, and the news that Bush authorized illegal spying on Americans, has pushed impeachment into the media.

For many months the media wouldn't cover and Congress wouldn't talk about the public's demand for impeachment of Bush and Cheney because the pollsters wouldn't poll on it, and the pollsters wouldn't poll on it because it wasn't in the media and wasn't in Congress. Remember Gallup's excuse for not polling?
http://www.democrats.com/gallup-drop-dead

The week before Christmas, things changed. Look at the spike in instances of the I word in recent media punditry.
http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=impeachment-news
...

[gratelady1]

Heres another reason to impeach that stupid Saudi- butt- kissing- anti-christ- melon head!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179577,00.html

Man, I would sell the farm, and pay for the opportunity to Slut-slap the little peasant!

excuse me for being politically incorrect, but Dick Cheney needs a raise like Iraq needs more "Insurgents"!!! :cool:

[haus]

With 158,892 responses, 86% of the respondants to this MSNBC poll support impeaching George W. Bush. That's around 137,000 people. Take the poll yourself at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904 . Here are the current results:


Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 86%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 5%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 8%

I don't know. 2%

[snowdog]

Was that poll before or after GWB poll numbers started climbing upwards? :)

[jimbo]

George has declared a new war since he declared his war on terror it is called "THE BUSH WAR ON DEMOCRACY" it began when he invaded our privacy

[joepol4]

Hello and Happy New Year to all:
Repr Conyers has also drafted a letter (to Bush) which is posted at
www.censurebush.org (click on first 'here' link)

so everyone who favors the investigation of the current admin
Please sign onto the letter!

[snowdog]

George has declared a new war since he declared his war on terror it is called "THE BUSH WAR ON DEMOCRACY" it began when he invaded our privacy

Hummm you might want to do a bit more research there Jimbo, President
Carter enacted the Law, and Bill Clinton Used it.

[FDRfollower]

I agree that impeachment is probably not a viable option. If I understand the rules governing impeachment (and understand this is in all probability wrong), the House impeaches and the Senate tries all impeachments and requires a two-thirds vote of members for conviction, and regardless of how irked some in his own party may be at Bush at this moment in time, I just don't see it happening.

Hey Lion, and everyone else. Impeaching Bush is not a good idea, because it's exactly what Cheney wants. He really doesn't care if GW get's thrown to the wolves. Look how happy he is to send that grinning fool out to defend his illegal activities.

Now, if Cheney is forced out, or impeached, or given the Agnew treatment, that would be the right step. The neo-con policies would have the legs chopped out from under them.

To the earlier poster talking about Carter, you're wrong, it was the Zbigniew Brzezinski administration, Carter was just the talking head. ;)

But think, if former Reagan officials are equating the Bush admin and Hitler, you know the end is near. :) (for them that is)

[gratelady1]

Hey Lion, and everyone else. Impeaching Bush is not a good idea, because it's exactly what Cheney wants. He really doesn't care if GW get's thrown to the wolves. Look how happy he is to send that grinning fool out to defend his illegal activities.

Now, if Cheney is forced out, or impeached, or given the Agnew treatment, that would be the right step. The neo-con policies would have the legs chopped out from under them.

To the earlier poster talking about Carter, you're wrong, it was the Zbigniew Brzezinski administration, Carter was just the talking head. ;)

But think, if former Reagan officials are equating the Bush admin and Hitler, you know the end is near. :) (for them that is)

Suggesting we should not take out one wolf because another will take his place, is profoundly ludicrous- How? One wolf less than two- chewing on your leg, and when you just have one to combat, who has been weakened because the pack is reduced, and proven "defeatable", you would have at least started to manage the problem.

[haus]

If we impeach all the way down to the 12th eligible person in the line of succession, we get to a pretty good egg: Sec. of Transportation Norman Mineta.

(cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_Line_of_Succession)

[FDRfollower]

Suggesting we should not take out one wolf because another will take his place, is profoundly ludicrous- How? One wolf less than two- chewing on your leg, and when you just have one to combat, who has been weakened because the pack is reduced, and proven "defeatable", you would have at least started to manage the problem.

Well, it's good thing that wolves aren't at the executive mansion, human beings are. :D Although Cheney does a good imitation of a Gorilla. :p

Think a little more strategically. The political system isn't mechanistic. You're dealing with the institution of the presidency, and the other institutions, Senate, Congress, and judiciary. It's because of people in those institutions, that Cheney didn't implement a dictatorship after 9/11. Plus, don't leave out those who are retired, but still play a part in the institutions, who tend to be more outspoken. Like Paul Craig Roberts equating Bush/Hitler, or Brent Skowcroft saying that the Iraq war is a failure, for example.

Please keep in mind, that the neo-cons are a small group. Cheney is very important. You get him, the rest go down with him.

[gratelady1]

Well, it's good thing that wolves aren't at the executive mansion, human beings are. :D Although Cheney does a good imitation of a Gorilla. :p

Think a little more strategically. The political system isn't mechanistic. You're dealing with the institution of the presidency, and the other institutions, Senate, Congress, and judiciary. It's because of people in those institutions, that Cheney didn't implement a dictatorship after 9/11. Plus, don't leave out those who are retired, but still play a part in the institutions, who tend to be more outspoken. Like Paul Craig Roberts equating Bush/Hitler, or Brent Skowcroft saying that the Iraq war is a failure, for example.

Please keep in mind, that the neo-cons are a small group. Cheney is very important. You get him, the rest go down with him.

I would love to see some good emperical evidence proving that Bush and Cheney are remotely "Human", They are perverbial wolves chewing at the leg of "Liberty" and you and I and our familys and our children's futures are the perverbial flesh they are devouring- accept it, relish it and pray that nothing anyone does will change the status-quo. At least the status-quo can be dealt with. :eek:

[FDRfollower]

I would love to see some good emperical evidence proving that Bush and Cheney are remotely "Human", They are perverbial wolves chewing at the leg of "Liberty" and you and I and our familys and our children's futures are the perverbial flesh they are devouring- accept it, relish it and pray that nothing anyone does will change the status-quo. At least the status-quo can be dealt with. :eek:

Well, Justin Frank in his book "Bush on the couch" certainly made a convincing case that GW is not living in the real world, which is dangerous, if you put a basket case under the "tender" mercies of a person like Cheney.

Cheney on the other paw ;), is dangerous. Don't treat the guy lightly. The guys intention is to impose a fascist bankers dictatorship, for his boss, George Shultz, in the style of a Pinochet dictatorship, or the fascist movements in the 30's. But, he's just the thug for higher ups. The free trade/globalization system is what is going to devour your family. In that sense, the current administration is replaying the "let the markets decide" attitude of Hoover/Mellon with some of the trappings of the fascist system, torture, pre-emptive war, spying, etc. even using the same wording as Nazi Jurist Karl Schmidt to justify opposing the Senates unanimous outlawing of torture.

[FDRfollower]

Yes! We're getting closer every day! Yahoo!

Cheney is now taking the fifth. He he heeee!!

The lies are gonna git em!! :loveit:

[FDRfollower]

Come on everyone! I know you're all depressed about the Alito fight.

Let's move, it's time to impeach Dick Cheney!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[haus]

Some headlines are not meant to be read at 4am. I submit the following example for your consideration:


Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter
AP - 10 minutes ago

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas...full story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_hunting_accident)


I'm sure he'll frame his fellow hunter as an al-Qaeda operative. I already checked: it wasn't Scooter. :)

[FDRfollower]

Hey everybody, here's the update on who's onboard the Dump Cheney/Bush bandwagon. Note if your congresperson is listed or not.

As it stands now, there are 25 co-sponsors on the Conyers resolution:

Abercrombe (HI), Baldwin (WI), Capps (CA), Clay (MO), Conyers (MI), Farr (CA), Hinchey (NY), Honda (CA), Jackson-Lee (TX), Lee (CA) mine!:thumbup: Lewis (CA), Maloney (NY), McDermott (WA), McKinney (GA), Moore (WI), Nadler (NY), Oberstar (MN), Owen (NY), Payne (NJ), Rangel (NY), Schakowsky (IL), Stark (CA), Velazquez (NY), Waters (CA), Woolsey (CA).

So that means there's 12 percent of house democrats supporting an impeachment probe. Moore and Velaquez, the newest, stated that they signed because of the wiretapping.

If your congressperson isn't on there, get busy getting them on there, especially you folks out in the midwest.:whipit: :D

[haus]

I'll drop by Marcy Kaptur (http://kaptur.house.gov)'s office on Tuesday and see what's up with her not co-sponsoring HR's 635/636/637.

[sweetpea]

Hey everybody, here's the update on who's onboard the Dump Cheney/Bush bandwagon. Note if your congresperson is listed or not.

As it stands now, there are 25 co-sponsors on the Conyers resolution:

Abercrombe (HI), Baldwin (WI), Capps (CA), Clay (MO), Conyers (MI), Farr (CA), Hinchey (NY), Honda (CA), Jackson-Lee (TX), Lee (CA) mine!:thumbup: Lewis (CA), Maloney (NY), McDermott (WA), McKinney (GA), Moore (WI), Nadler (NY), Oberstar (MN), Owen (NY), Payne (NJ), Rangel (NY), Schakowsky (IL), Stark (CA), Velazquez (NY), Waters (CA), Woolsey (CA).

So that means there's 12 percent of house democrats supporting an impeachment probe. Moore and Velaquez, the newest, stated that they signed because of the wiretapping.

If your congressperson isn't on there, get busy getting them on there, especially you folks out in the midwest.:whipit: :D
---------

Well by golly 12% of less than 50% has got to mean something, right?
Wrong.
You are wasting your time, FDR.
I'm sure Maureen Dowd makes you feel good about hating bush/cheney, but there is nothing there. It aint gonna happen. Further, the more energy and political capital Dems. spend on this the sillier and more marginalized they look.

[FDRfollower]

Well by golly 12% of less than 50% has got to mean something, right?
Wrong.
You are wasting your time, FDR.
I'm sure Maureen Dowd makes you feel good about hating bush/cheney, but there is nothing there. It aint gonna happen. Further, the more energy and political capital Dems. spend on this the sillier and more marginalized they look

Thank you for repeating Limbaughs/Katzs/O'hanitys/Ingrams opinion. It saves me the effort of listening to those pompous, lying, enraged, windbags. I'd much rather listen to Beethoven then those guys.

How long did it take between the Watergate breakin and Nixon resigning? What you're saying isn't much different from what Republicans were saying then about Dick. Hmmm, I think we need less Dicks in the White House. I understand, that you're in hysterical denial, and I sympathize with you. As the early christians would do, as the "Conservates" then, would be stoning them to death, I forgive you for your sins.:angel:

[sweetpea]

Well by golly 12% of less than 50% has got to mean something, right?
Wrong.
You are wasting your time, FDR.
I'm sure Maureen Dowd makes you feel good about hating bush/cheney, but there is nothing there. It aint gonna happen. Further, the more energy and political capital Dems. spend on this the sillier and more marginalized they look

Thank you for repeating Limbaughs/Katzs/O'hanitys/Ingrams opinion. It saves me the effort of listening to those pompous, lying, enraged, windbags. I'd much rather listen to Beethoven then those guys.

How long did it take between the Watergate breakin and Nixon resigning? What you're saying isn't much different from what Republicans were saying then about Dick. Hmmm, I think we need less Dicks in the White House. I understand, that you're in hysterical denial, and I sympathize with you. As the early christians would do, as the "Conservates" then, would be stoning them to death, I forgive you for your sins.:angel:


Fine.

Hammer away at it.

I'll make you a bet, though. GWB and Dick Cheney will be gone in Jan. 2009. Wanna bet $50 to the charity of your choice that neither one will be impeached?

One last note. Stop it with the talk radio references. You make assumptions that anyone that disagrees with you that they msut listen to talk radio OR you can't stand them so much you gotta get in your shots where you can. Either way it is pointless. Why do you assume I or any other person who disagrees with you listens to talk radio? I'm in the crown room in Cincinnati, OH and haven't heard US radio in about 9 days, btw. Finally, who is Katzs?

[-V-]

I'm not impressed by your past or present wagers pea. We all know the GOP and their powerful allies in this country are capable of pulling off a lot of things, including elections, so keeping a sitting president sitting is no monumental task for them, despite the level of stench seeping out of the White House on a daily basis.

I'd be a lot more impressed if you could tell me, not IF, but WHY you personally and ethically believe this president should NOT be impeached?

[JamesP]

Kudos, -V-. You've asked the right question.
The stench is apparent.
What is it that causes some (gratefully, fewer all the time) to choose not to smell it?

[sweetpea]

I'm not impressed by your past or present wagers pea. We all know the GOP and their powerful allies in this country are capable of pulling off a lot of things, including elections, so keeping a sitting president sitting is no monumental task for them, despite the level of stench seeping out of the White House on a daily basis.

I'd be a lot more impressed if you could tell me, not IF, but WHY you personally and ethically believe this president should NOT be impeached?
--------
Who cares if you are impressed.

From a practical and political point of view I'm saying impeachment will not happen and many on this board seem to spend a lot of energy chasing it.
If you don't like the wager then restate it. But I don't believe it will happen.

BTW, I don't believe GWB or Cheney will be impeached because there are no impeachable offenses. Strip away the emotion and the irrational hatred and it's not hard. Nothing there.

[Jane of Arc]

Clinton lie: "I did not have sex with that woman." = Impeachment

Bush lies:

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." President Bush (09.26.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." President Bush (10.02.03)

"There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." President Bush (10.16.02)

"There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein." President Bush (10.28.02)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." President Bush (11.23.02)

Facts:

According to the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq: Iraq HAD NO WMD’s.

“Iraq had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions ended. "

Iraq failed “to acquire long range Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.”

“Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”

"In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.”

This is consistent with pre-war findings, which agrees with all inspection reports.



OVER 105,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE NEEDLESSLY DEAD BECAUSE OF THE LIES OF THIS CORPUPT MAN!!!

IMPEACHMENT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH. I wonder how the people of the world would judge him?

[sweetpea]

[QUOTE=Jane of Arc]Clinton lie: "I did not have sex with that woman." = Impeachment

Bush lies:

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." President Bush (09.26.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." President Bush (10.02.03)

"There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." President Bush (10.16.02)

"There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein." President Bush (10.28.02)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." President Bush (11.23.02)

Facts:

According to the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq: Iraq HAD NO WMD’s.

“Iraq had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions ended. "

Iraq failed “to acquire long range Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.”

“Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”

"In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.”

This is consistent with pre-war findings, which agrees with all inspection reports.
------ ---- ----- -----

Sooooo. predicatble.

The fact that you cannot recognize the difference is astounding, but predictable.

But for arguments sake let's say that GWB believed the intelligence reports he was given and put them forward to the American people and then Congress voted overwhelmingly to give him the authority to go to war and that many of the hypocritical critics got the very same intelligence and voted Yes. (Oh wait, that is what happened.)
The question is would that make all these people liars too?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
(You remember Sandy [stuff some classified docs in my socks and get away with it] Berger don't you?)

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
(The same Al Gore who got paid some bucks to go bad mouth his own country in Saudi Arabia)

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


FYI... The people of the US have already judged him. Remember the 2004 elections?

[FDRfollower]

How did your visit with the Representative go Haus? Any firm commitments?

Katz, you don't want to know. He's even more insane than Shaun. He's so out of his mind, :crazy2: that he's stated that all Democrats should be burned alive.

[haus]

She's in D.C., so I spoke with an aide. I took in a list of lefty sites I do work with, and it apparently made an impression. But, the proof's in the pudding. I'll update y'all when I hear back.

[Jane of Arc]

sweatpea,

Pay close attention now. Watch how this is done. It's cool. It's called telling the truth.

John Kerry is a big FAT liar!

Hillary Clinton is a big FAT liar!

Bill Clinton is a big FAT liar!

George W. Bush and his group of NeoCon thugs are the biggest, FATTEST liars of all!

Anyone who voted to go to war is complicit in the deaths of 105,000 innocent civilians and soldiers!

And remember sweetpea ~ stolen elections have consequences!

[JamesP]

Pea has done some research on this - he is obviously passionate about defending the indefensible.

He's found so many statements, so many errors, so much bluster by so many politicians in his doomed quest......

but only one President took us to an illegal, immoral war in Iraq - without UN sanction or support. Only one "shocked & awed" innocent civilians to the horrific tune of a-quarter-million 2 ton bombs dropped on their cities. Only one claimed to have solid evidence of WMD and turned up nothing. Only one went in with no realistic plan for the critical post-invasion. Only one has spent American lives and treasure turning Iraq into another hostile Islamic state bound to Iran. Only one failed to stop 9-11, squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, failed to capture Bin Laden, shamed America with Abu Graib and turned millions more Islamics into America-haters on his watch.

And Republican's used to claim to stand for accountability & personal responsibility!

For Pea: It is, after all, everyone's fault but the Bush administration...
and more the fault of those that trusted in the Bush administration's lies than those telling the lies.

Some people are hopeless in their blind partisanship.... but, thankfully, fewer & fewer everyday. The people are "judging" again. Pea is on the "endangered species" list.

[FDRfollower]

How about you, -V-, Jane D'arc, and JamesP? Been able to finangle a statement out of your Reps?

[MAGI]

[Essay]

The Case for Impeachment
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.

SourcesA country is not only what it does—it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. —Kurt Tucholsky
HARPER'S MAGAZINE PRESENTS

************************************************** ***********
IS THERE A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT?
A PUBLIC FORUM FEATURING:
Lewis H. Lapham, editor of Harper's Magazine
Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.), ranking member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee
Michael Ratner, president, Center for Constitutional Rights
Elizabeth Holtzman, member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during Watergate
John Dean, White House Counsel to President Nixon and author of Worse Than Watergate

Moderated by Sam Seder, host of "The Majority Report" on Air America Radio
Thursday, March 2, 8:00 p.m.
Town Hall
123 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10063
$10
Tickets are available at The Town Hall box office or through Ticketmaster

************************************************** **********
"On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.

“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law. "

http://harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html



"The Conyers report doesn't lack for further instances of the administration's misconduct, all of them noted in the press over the last three years—misuse of government funds, violation of the Geneva Conventions, holding without trial and subjecting to torture individuals arbitrarily designated as “enemy combatants,” etc.—but conspiracy to commit fraud would seem reason enough to warrant the President's impeachment. Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous. Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child's tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?"

[FDRfollower]

Thank Magi. I'll alert my friends in Joisey.

[MAGI]

Thank Magi. I'll alert my friends in Joisey.

:) Wish we could be there...............:thumbup:

[haus]

This is hot stuff: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf

Bush's job approval rate at 34%, lowest ever. 59% disapprove.

On issues, he's doing even worse. Iraq 30%. Economy 32%. Energy 27%.

[FDRfollower]

Did that poll include Cheney?

I think a recent one had his numbers in the mid teens.

You know you're finished when even shooting a lawyer doesn't help your ratings.:D

[MAGI]

Cheney's was 18%! :eek: :D

[MAGI]

Even though this author believes we only have eyes for the flora & fawna of this, our earth, which of course we do, BUT I'd like them to know we have earnest feelings about what the far right is doing to America................. so here is the full article from The Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0603010138mar01,1,1576117.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

What to do when the emperor has no clothes

Garrison Keillor, Tribune Media Services
Published March 1, 2006


These are troubling times for all of us who love this country, as surely we all do, even the satirists. You may poke fun at your mother, but if she is belittled by others it burns your bacon. A blowhard French journalist writes a book about America that is full of arrogant stupidity, and you want to let the air out of him and mail him home flat. And then you read the paper and realize the country is led by a man who isn't paying attention, and you hope that somebody will poke him. Or put a sign on his desk that says, "Try much harder."

Do we need to impeach him to bring some focus to this man's life? The Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker carries an article by Jane Mayer about a loyal conservative Republican and U.S. Navy lawyer, Albert Mora, and his resistance to the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. From within the Pentagon bureaucracy, he did battle against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and John Yoo, who then was at the Justice Department, and shadowy figures taking orders from Vice President Dick "Gunner" Cheney, arguing America had ratified the Geneva Convention that forbids cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners, and so it has the force of law. They seemed to be arguing that President Bush has the right to order prisoners to be tortured.

One such prisoner, Mohamed al-Qahtani, was held naked in isolation under bright lights for months, threatened by dogs, subjected to unbearable noise volumes and otherwise abused, so that he begged to be allowed to kill himself. When the Senate approved the Torture Convention in 1994, it defined torture as an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."

Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast?

Wiretap surveillance of Americans without a warrant? Great. Go for it. How about turning over American ports to a country more closely tied to Sept. 11, 2001, than Saddam Hussein was? Fine by me. No problem. And what about the war in Iraq? Hey, you're doing a heck of a job. No need to tweak a thing. And your blue button-down shirt--it's you.

But torture is something else. Most people agree with this, and in a democracy that puts the torturers in a delicate position. They must make sure to destroy their e-mails and have subordinates who will take the fall. Because it is impossible to keep torture secret. It goes against the American grain and it eats at the conscience of even the most disciplined, and in the end the truth will come out. It is coming out now.

Our adventure in Iraq, at a cost of billions, has brought that country to the verge of civil war while earning us more enemies than ever before. And tax money earmarked for security is being dumped into pork-barrel projects anywhere somebody wants their own SWAT team. Detonation of a nuclear bomb within our borders--pick any big city--is a real possibility, as much so now as five years ago. Meanwhile, many Democrats have conceded the very subject of security and positioned themselves as Guardians of Our Forests and Benefactors of Waifs and Owls, neglecting the most basic job of government, which is to defend this country. The peaceful lagoon that is the White House is designed for the comfort of a vulnerable man. Perfectly understandable, but not what is needed now. The U.S. Constitution provides a simple, ultimate way to hold him to account for war crimes and the failure to attend to the country's defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the evidence.

----------

Garrison Keillor is an author and the radio host of "A Prairie Home Companion."

[Jane of Arc]

The truth is George W. Bush should not be impeached. He should be tried for homicide. 1,300 of our fellow citizens died last August and from all indications, not all of them had to die.

The families of the American citizens who needlessly perished in Hurricane Katrina due to the President's negligence should file a class action lawsuit and sue George Bush. He should be charged with negligent homocide. They have the evidence on tape.

[sweetpea]

sweatpea,

Pay close attention now. Watch how this is done. It's cool. It's called telling the truth.

John Kerry is a big FAT liar!

Hillary Clinton is a big FAT liar!

Bill Clinton is a big FAT liar!

George W. Bush and his group of NeoCon thugs are the biggest, FATTEST liars of all!

Anyone who voted to go to war is complicit in the deaths of 105,000 innocent civilians and soldiers!

And remember sweetpea ~ stolen elections have consequences!
----

So tell me Jane. Who is telling the truth then. I am dying to know.

[Jane of Arc]

Sweatpea,

I just finished watching two documentaries on Iraq. One done by a group of highly educated Iraqi women who have lost all their families ... all their husbands ... all of their children ... many whom died in their arms. Their plea was to American families to please make our government stop. They were begging for America to leave their country. The other was a speech done by the British reporter Robert Fisk, who's been in the Middle East for 30 years and therefore is one of the very few reporters who can still actually report events. He's not a "hotel reporter" with only one side. The US "official" side. He reports the whole story with all the awful, awful, awful pictures.

The truth, of what he says is happening in Iraqi, is a brutal, savage destruction of a country. Not enough water. Almost no electricity. No oil for their cars, in a country rich with oil. No education. Little food. No employment. Children and women rounded up and sold for prostitution or slaves. Unclaimed bodies eaten by packs of dogs. No government. No police. Death squads roaming the streets. Official Iraqi hospital reports of thousands of Iraqi's dying every week.

You and I, sweetpea, can sit down at our computers and babble. We'll both probably have several good meals today, some fresh water, a shower and we can watch our "sanitized" news tonight on our TV's where we are fighting a war that amazingly has no blood and no dead babies in the street.

So who is "telling the truth" sweatpea??? The truth???

Anyone who supported or voted for this despicable slaughter called a "war" and anyone who backed all these Democrats and Republicans have blood on their hands. But no one is responsible, are they?

Well, as an American, I feel responsible. And I feel terrible.

[sweetpea]

So Jane,

I still didn't get your answer. Who is telling the truth, then. you have called a lot of people liars. That infers that someone must be telling the truth.

Who is it? Al-Jazeera? Saddam? The New York Times? Who? Hans blix?

I also just got done watching an interesting piece where the Joint Chief of Staff, general Peter Pace answered some direct questions about Iraq. He talked about the fact that Iraq has a Constitution, has had elections, has public schools, is continuing to grow thier own defense, that our troops are cheered.

Now you and I can spout off plenty of stuff we have watched. Who you gonna beleive? The General who is there and doen't have a political agenda or any (and I mean any) reporter who tells you the story that you wanna hear? By the way, the story you wanna hear is something along the lines of ' The Us is bad as long as GWB is in ofice / we should understand terrorists more / America is to blame for everything'....you get the picture. Self-loathing to the extreme.

I'll be waiting on you to tell us who told the truth about Iraq pre-invasion.

[Jane of Arc]

Sweatpea,

Sorry, I'm not going to go back and forth with this nonsense. You and I will never agree. Obviously, what you perceive as truth, is eons away from what I perceive as truth. I honestly don't know what to say anymore to someone who still supports what's turned out to be the worst, most economically and socially destructive presidency this country has ever had to endure.

My only solace is that the majority of Americans have woken up and no longer approve of this man. Many of my friends that supported him feel incredibly duped, lied to and saddened, as they watch their country get trashed in more ways than they ever thought possible.

[sweetpea]

Sweatpea,

Sorry, I'm not going to go back and forth with this nonsense. You and I will never agree. Obviously, what you perceive as truth, is eons away from what I perceive as truth. I honestly don't know what to say anymore to someone who still supports what's turned out to be the worst, most economically and socially destructive presidency this country has ever had to endure.

My only solace is that the majority of Americans have woken up and no longer approve of this man. Many of my friends that supported him feel incredibly duped, lied to and saddened, as they watch their country get trashed in more ways than they ever thought possible.
-----------------

That is a cute little way of not taking responsibility for what you post. You claim past and present public servants of this country are liars, but then cop out when pressed to state who told the truth.

Since you copped out there are two things I will infer. Either you believe we as a nation are just pure evil adn you hate your own country or we had faulty intelligence. It's too bad you won't pony up and say what you believe. By the way we probably do agree on many things, but your irrational hatred of one temporary President seems to have blinded you to having reasonable debates.

[Jane of Arc]

Sweetpea,

CoooooL. I'm an irrational, blind, cute little cop-out artist who won't pony up. Excellent. I always wanted to be that. I have arrived! :) You actually may not be aware of your personal attacks reflected in "sarcastic tones" (in red). Or maybe you are. We all do this in online chat rooms when we 'debate', and it usually gets us no where. I'm just not in a Fox News 'debating' mood. Sorry.-----------------

That is a cute little way of not taking responsibility for what you post. You claim past and present public servants of this country are liars, but then cop out when pressed to state who told the truth.

Since you copped out there are two things I will infer. Either you believe we as a nation are just pure evil adn you hate your own country or we had faulty intelligence. It's too bad you won't pony up and say what you believe. By the way we probably do agree on many things, but your irrational hatred of one temporary President seems to have blinded you to having reasonable debates.

I'm in a more problem solving frame of mind, because this country has extremely serious challenges. The American people have to come together and start being Americans again. So, I'm more interested in what you wrote in BLUE. I appreciate your input into this room, sweetpea. You're obviously a smart individual and we'd all be better served, I feel, by sharing possible solutions.

What do we agree on? What do we have in common???

[sweetpea]

Sweetpea,

CoooooL. I'm an irrational, blind, cute little cop-out artist who won't pony up. Excellent. I always wanted to be that. I have arrived! :) You actually may not be aware of your personal attacks reflected in "sarcastic tones" (in red). Or maybe you are. We all do this in online chat rooms when we 'debate', and it usually gets us no where. I'm just not in a Fox News 'debating' mood. Sorry.[/COLOR]

I'm in a more problem solving frame of mind, because this country has extremely serious challenges. The American people have to come together and start being Americans again. So, I'm more interested in what you wrote in BLUE. I appreciate your input into this room, sweetpea. You're obviously a smart individual and we'd all be better served, I feel, by sharing possible solutions.

What do we agree on? What do we have in common???

I'm glad you are suddenly in a problem solving mode. What do you think we should do about Islamic terrorism? and what do you think we should do in Iraq?

The other problem we seem to have is that everybody is a liar. What should we do to solve the problem of you not being able to identify who (if anyone) actually told the truth about Iraq before invasion?

[Jane of Arc]

More sarcasm. Dang, sweetpea. Give it up. It goes no where. Nobody learns a thing.

[sweetpea]

More sarcasm. Dang, sweetpea. Give it up. It goes no where. Nobody learns a thing.
------------------

More issue avoidance. I thought you were into problem solving, now?

How are we going to solve this problem of many national leaders all being liars and responsible for so many deaths? You brought it up.

[MAGI]

------------------

More issue avoidance. I thought you were into problem solving, now?

How are we going to solve this problem of many national leaders all being liars and responsible for so many deaths? You brought it up.

:rolleyes:

With HONEST voting machines..........VOTE THEM OUT in NOVEMBER 2006!

AND.............THEN.......
IMPEACHMENT....s

[sweetpea]

Ok it's a start. Don't understand the virtual screaming, though.
Who we gonna impeach? All of those Congressional members that lied also? OR are we jsut going to cherry pick the liars based upon political preferences?

[MAGI]

yes!
and
YES

:D

[sweetpea]

Truth comes out, huh?

You really want to impeach the vast majority of Congress? OR are you just not apprised of the vote?

[MAGI]

Truth comes out, huh?

You really want to impeach the vast majority of Congress? OR are you just not apprised of the vote?

I honestly hold most of the old guard in Congress and the Senate, since 1994, responsible for sabotaging "We The People " in our country!

We hear how the economy is up............and we believe it is up for the top 2%wage earners, (those getting the shamefull tax cuts at the expense of "WE The People" .......with absolutely no thought or care for "The People" who are being so terribly hurt!)

"We The People" ARE paying a larger percent of OUR income to taxes! "We The People" ARE getting less and less social benefits for the taxes WE PAY.

I am "apprised" of these facts ...............as are many "Of THE PEOPLE"!


"WE The People" are working more hours for less pay and benefits as well, while the cost of everything keeps rising!

"WE The People" are becoming more knowledgeable by the day!

I believe there should be more competition, (Pimaries), in many cases throughout our country. I hope it will be so!

And YES, in some cases it is democrats as well as Repressives! And yes, I am apprised of ALL the manipulated lies and endless blunders coming to view daily!

AND YES, I hope ALL RESPONSIBLE get thrown OUT OF OFFICE......let the axe fall where it MAY!

:mad:

[sweetpea]

I honestly hold most of the old guard in Congress and the Senate, since 1994, responsible for sabotaging "We The People " in our country!
--Does taht include John Kerry, Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi?

We hear how the economy is up............and we believe it is up for the top 2%wage earners, (those getting the shamefull tax cuts at the expense of "WE The People" .......with absolutely no thought or care for "The People" who are being so terribly hurt!)
--Be glad to debate you on economics and/or tax cuts. Let's se if we can focus a little bit, though. Do you know who said what/when and who voted for teh war in Iraq? I don't think you do. I think you started off on that topic and fro whatever reason switched completely to the economy. Focus, Magi. You said you wanna impeach the whole lot. I don't believe you understand who that is.
Jane sure doesn't. she/he conveniently ignores everyone except GWB. More irrational hatred that does absolutely NO GOOD. Unless you call making yourselves look shrill, unfocused, irrational good.

[MAGI]

--Does taht include John Kerry, Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi?

THAT is for me to know, and NONE of your business!



--Be glad to debate you on economics and/or tax cuts. Let's se if we can focus a little bit, though. Do you know who said what/when and who voted for teh war in Iraq? I don't think you do. I think you started off on that topic and fro whatever reason switched completely to the economy. Focus, Magi. You said you wanna "impeach the whole lot." I don't believe you understand who that is.
Jane sure doesn't. she/he conveniently ignores everyone except GWB. More irrational hatred that does absolutely NO GOOD. Unless you call making yourselves look shrill, unfocused, irrational good.

"impeach the whole lot" ............ No............you didn't get that right.............I said those that are responsible! and, absolutely , I want them to face investigation!

The war? .................You and I have been there already ..........and done that! If you're really interested..........go back and find it!

I do NOT wish to DEBATE you on ANYTHING! You twist and turn and quote out of context and change the subject to suit YOU!

MOST ALL that YOU write is so CONTRARY to my beliefs, it would be unproductive and a complete waste of my time!

I suggest you listen to more Al Franken and Ed Shultz if you truly want to understand what progressives are ALL about! They let their guests speak. Unlike Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Rielly, Matthews, Coulter, to name a few!

BTW, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were in Iraq investigating WMDs, ect..............Remember we had that discussion ............LONG AGO! THEY did not believe there were any WMS's before the Bush Invasion and it was proving to be so when the UN sent them in just before the NEO CON manipulated INVASION, and were proving THAT to be so.................until the Neo-cons pulled them out because they were SCREWING UP their PLANNED INVASION SINCE ..........1998!

IT'S STILL "THE ECONOMY, STUPID" as well as this PROVEN WRONG IRAQ INVASION!.................and " WE THE PEOPLE KNOW IT!"

[MAGI]

3/8 or 3/9 by Tom Teepen of the Atlanta Journal & Constitution:

"Secrets harden in this darkest of White Houses

As it becomes more beleaguered, with its programs and policies collapsing around it like plague victims - the needless Iraq invasion, Social Security privatization, the bungled response to Katrina, port security, domestic spying and more - the Bush administration is digging ever-deeper holes of secrecy in which to hide.

This administration from its start has been battened down, secretive, uncommunicative and even sneaky, and as it has entrenched itself in power, that instinct to keep the public from nosing around in what after all is the public's own business has deepened and hardened.

In recent months we have learned that the CIA has established secret prisons abroad, that foreign law enforcement agencies are investigating U.S. kidnappings in their countries, that the administration has been reclassifying previously declassified documents, that thousands of completed criminal cases are being kept secret and that the White House is threatening journalists who report leaks with imprisonment under the 1917 Espionage Act.

Small wonder, when you recall that one of Bush's earliest executive orders effectively spiked the 1978 Presidential Records Act. It blocked the routine release of documents from recent presidencies - conveniently including his father's and his own - and even buried 68,000 pages from the Reagan presidency that the Reagan Library itself wanted to make public.

The administration hops on requests for documents under the Freedom of Information Act with turtlelike alacrity and then often releases documents that have been mortally redacted

The New York Times reported last month that more than 55,000 historical documents that had been released, often years ago, have been reclassified, even including ones already published in the State Department's own series "Foreign Relations of the United States."

The reclassifications range from the silly - a 1948 CIA memo about a scheme to float balloons loaded with propaganda leaflets over the Iron Curtain - to the incomprehensible: a 1962 English translation of a Belgrade newspaper article about China's nuclear weapons program.

The Associated Press has found that more than 5,000 criminal cases in federal courts - most drug related, a few dealing with security - have been kept secret in the past three years even after the cases have been completed. The number doubled between 2003 and '05.

And building on the administration's eagerness to subpoena journalists and force testimony from them, the Justice Department has announced that journalists who publish classified leaks may henceforth be prosecuted for espionage.

Now we learn that Vice President Dick Cheney, like no predecessor, has been authorized to declassify information at will. The administration thus grants itself a unilateral privilage in Washington's age-old game of leaks. If Cheney leaks, reporters can run with it. If anyone else does, prison looms.

President Bush says he wants to build democracy around the world, which is sweet. But how odd, then, that he is resorting the tools of tyranny here at home."
:eek:

[Mr. Magoo]

"In recent months we have learned that the CIA has established secret prisons abroad, that foreign law enforcement agencies are investigating U.S. kidnappings in their countries, that the administration has been reclassifying previously declassified documents, that thousands of completed criminal cases are being kept secret and that the White House is threatening journalists who report leaks with imprisonment under the 1917 Espionage Act. "

SO WHAT???? Why would you have a problem with "secret prisons abroad"? Do you think maybe, just maybe, they are kept secret so the radical muslims of the world will not know where they are? Why do YOU need to know? Would it change anything? Are you against these prisons? or just that they were a "secret"?

"The New York Times reported last month that more than 55,000 historical documents that had been released, often years ago, have been reclassified, even including ones already published in the State Department's own series "Foreign Relations of the United States."


Oh, it was in the NY times? It must be true !!!! Again, SO WHAT???? If I was able to get you these 55,000 documents, would you sit down and read them? what would you expect to glean from them? Isn't this just ANOTHER attempt to dump on Bush? Really, why does this concern you? If it is true, did the NY times give the reason for the "reclassification"? Are you just another liberal "Headline" spewer?

"The Associated Press has found that more than 5,000 criminal cases in federal courts - most drug related, a few dealing with security - have been kept secret in the past three years even after the cases have been completed. The number doubled between 2003 and '05."

Are you serious???? I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. Come on, I take it you follow ALL of these criminal cases? You must have a sh*tload of time on your hands. Again, if they were released, would you sit down and read 5000 cases? Why the HELL does this matter????


"And building on the administration's eagerness to subpoena journalists and force testimony from them, the Justice Department has announced that journalists who publish classified leaks may henceforth be prosecuted for espionage."

GOOD !!!! They should. The media is a bunch of left wing loonies trying to undermine the President. And in doing so undermining OUR NATIONAL SECURITY !!!! If these files are "classified", why should a journalist be allowed to print it?????? Your right to know? WAKE UP LIBERALS !!!! WE ARE AT WAR !!!! Don't you think that if this information was made public, that maybe, the people that want to KILL us will see it also? If Kerry was in office, would it bother you like this?

"President Bush says he wants to build democracy around the world, which is sweet. But how odd, then, that he is resorting the tools of tyranny here at home"

Tyranny?? Based on what? reclassifying material? Give me a break. Liberals are like little kids. They get so frustrated, and don't know how to convey their feelings in a rational manner. They resort to name calling, shouting, whining and crying !!!!!

[Jane of Arc]

ILB says:

SO WHAT???? Why would you have a problem with "secret prisons abroad"? Oh, it was in the NY times? It must be true !!!! Are you just another liberal "Headline" spewer? Are you serious???? I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. Why the HELL does this matter?? The media is a bunch of left wing loonies trying to undermine the President. And in doing so undermining OUR NATIONAL SECURITY !!!! If these files are "classified", why should a journalist be allowed to print it?????? Your right to know? WAKE UP LIBERALS !!!! WE ARE AT WAR !!!!Liberals are like little kids. They get so frustrated, and don't know how to convey their feelings in a rational manner. They resort to name calling, shouting, whining and crying !!!!!



Are you trying to tell us you're a liberal? But, there, there ... calm down. I know that if you keep hanging around POL ... (which we want you to do because you're a blast!) ... we can fix that boo-boo and get some ice cream later. How does that sound? Okay ... group hug! :p

[FDRfollower]

:laughing: lurking over here with my flame retardent suit

[-V-]

ILB says:

SO WHAT???? Why would you have a problem with "secret prisons abroad"? Oh, it was in the NY times? It must be true !!!! Are you just another liberal "Headline" spewer? Are you serious???? I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. Why the HELL does this matter?? The media is a bunch of left wing loonies trying to undermine the President. And in doing so undermining OUR NATIONAL SECURITY !!!! If these files are "classified", why should a journalist be allowed to print it?????? Your right to know? WAKE UP LIBERALS !!!! WE ARE AT WAR !!!!Liberals are like little kids. They get so frustrated, and don't know how to convey their feelings in a rational manner. They resort to name calling, shouting, whining and crying !!!!!

Are you trying to tell us you're a liberal? But, there, there ... calm down. I know that if you keep hanging around POL ... (which we want you to do because you're a blast!) ... we can fix that boo-boo and get some ice cream later. How does that sound? Okay ... group hug! :p

ILB won't get your humor Jane. The last time I saw someone so - not get - that they are damning themselves was watching Humphrey Bogart (Captian Quigg) twirling 2 metal balls in his palms while testifying on trial that "it was the strawberries, yes -- the strawberries that started it all"

... actually, on further thought, the last time I saw it, it was Jack Nicholson all red faced shouting "you're damn right I ordered the Code Red on Santiago!"

hang in there, ILB. It's only going to get worse for you and GWB. You've experienced the group pounce. Take us up on the group hug before you snap.

[Jane of Arc]

:sunny: Gentlemen,

I am a lucky soul to have such smart, funny POL buddies as-V-and FDR ... I had a healthy chuckle reading both of your posts.

Although ILB and I are going through a divorce ... I still like the guy. He has passion and he cares about this country. I believe he does.

And I am sure that through his exposure to the smart, insightful liberals here, he will develop some understanding and tolerance towards his fellow Americans on the "left". He might even discover we have some things in common.

Peace out.

[Mr. Magoo]

I am a lucky soul to have such smart, funny POL buddies as-V-and FDR

Personally, I think FDR &-V-are a couple of self righteous, egotistical Aholes. They enjoy talking down to me and lecturing me because I am not a liberal. They are two people I would LOVE to meet in person.

Although ILB and I are going through a divorce ... I still like the guy. He has passion and he cares about this country. I believe he does.

I like you too Jane. You are the only civil liberal here. I care about the future of this country VERY much !!!!

And I am sure that through his exposure to the smart, insightful liberals here, he will develop some understanding and tolerance towards his fellow Americans on the "left". He might even discover we have some things in common.

Well I haven't come across a smart and insightful liberal yet !!! Though your close Jane. Understanding? I don't know. Tolerance? NEVER !!!!

And -V-, you can change my name to anything you'd like. When I first came in here, I only picked that name because I knew it would piss you guys off. The name can change, the views will not !!!!!

[-V-]

And -V-, you can change my name to anything you'd like. When I first came in here, I only picked that name because I knew it would piss you guys off.

OK, Pinball Wizard

The name can change, the views will not !!!!!

I have no doubt about that.

[haus]

Well, HRes 635 has 29 co-sponsors now (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.res.635:), up from 16 the last time I wrote about it. (Marcy still hasn't signed on, but I'll give her another nudge. She's steamed about the ports deal.) In case you missed it, here's the synopsis:


Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

[Jane of Arc]

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As a young man I was honored to serve our nation as a commissioned officer and helicopter pilot in the US Navy. Before me in WWII, my father defended the country spending two years in the Pacific aboard the USS Hornet (CV-14). We were patriots sworn "to protect and defend". Today I conclude that you have dishonored our service and the Constitution and principles of our oath. My dad was buried with full military honors so I cannot act for him. But for myself, I return enclosed the symbols of my years of service: the shoulder boards of my rank and my Naval Aviator's wings.

Until your administration, I believed it was inconceivable that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive and preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us. Until your administration, I thought it was impossible for our nation to take hundreds of persons into custody without provable charges of any kind, and to "disappear" them into holes like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Until your administration, in my wildest legal fantasy I could not imagine a US Attorney General seeking to justify torture or a President first stating his intent to veto an anti-torture law, and then adding a "signing statement" that he intends to ignore such law as he sees fit. I do not want these things done in my name.

As a citizen, a patriot, a parent and grandparent, a lawyer and law teacher I am left with such a feeling of loss and helplessness. I think of myself as a good American and I ask myself what can I do when I see the face of evil? Illegal and immoral war, torture and confinement for life without trial have never been part of our Constitutional tradition. But my vote has become meaningless because I live in a safe district drawn by your political party. My congressman is unresponsive to my concerns because his time is filled with lobbyists' largess. Protests are limited to your "free speech zones", out of sight of the parade. Even speaking openly is to risk being labeled un-American, pro-terrorist or anti-troops. And I am a disciplined pacifist, so any violent act is out of the question.

Nevertheless, to remain silent is to let you think I approve or support your actions. I do not. So, I am saddened to give up my wings and bars. They were hard won and my parents and wife were as proud as I was when I earned them over forty years ago. But I hate the torture and death you have caused more than I value their symbolism. Giving them up makes me cry for my beloved country.

Joseph W. DuRocher


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031106A.shtml

[haus]

Feingold Wants Bush Censured for Spying
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing censuring President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality...

"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview. (Full story...) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060312/ap_on_go_co/bush_censure)


He's introducing a Senate bill tomorrow. The associated video from this week's "This Week" is available here: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/12/feingold-censure/

[sweetpea]

THAT is for me to know, and NONE of your business!




"impeach the whole lot" ............ No............you didn't get that right.............I said those that are responsible! and, absolutely , I want them to face investigation!

The war? .................You and I have been there already ..........and done that! If you're really interested..........go back and find it!

I do NOT wish to DEBATE you on ANYTHING! You twist and turn and quote out of context and change the subject to suit YOU!

MOST ALL that YOU write is so CONTRARY to my beliefs, it would be unproductive and a complete waste of my time!

I suggest you listen to more Al Franken and Ed Shultz if you truly want to understand what progressives are ALL about! They let their guests speak. Unlike Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Rielly, Matthews, Coulter, to name a few!

BTW, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were in Iraq investigating WMDs, ect..............Remember we had that discussion ............LONG AGO! THEY did not believe there were any WMS's before the Bush Invasion and it was proving to be so when the UN sent them in just before the NEO CON manipulated INVASION, and were proving THAT to be so.................until the Neo-cons pulled them out because they were SCREWING UP their PLANNED INVASION SINCE ..........1998!

IT'S STILL "THE ECONOMY, STUPID" as well as this PROVEN WRONG IRAQ INVASION!.................and " WE THE PEOPLE KNOW IT!"

For you to knowand me to find out, huh? What an enlightening answer! you don't have a clue as to who said what, when and who voted for what, when do you?

My beleifs are contrary to yours, therefore you all caps tell me that you don't want to debate? At least you are honest. Closed minded, ignorant of the facts, but honest.

go ahead and call your congressmen and tell her/him you want to impeach all that voted fo rhte war or urged military action in Iraq. After she/he informs you that there wil be about 10 people left come back and we'll talk.

[Jane of Arc]

It is apparent to many that George Bush broke the law.

He broke the law by authorizing the NSA to wiretap Americans without a warrant required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The President admitted to spying on Americans without a warrant and he should be tried for this offense. If found guilty, he should be impeached.

But I'm describing the old United States of America, not the New Fascist States of America, Inc.



Bush is above the law. His actions are one of a dictator with no legislative branch to rein him in.



Sandra Day O'Connor warns of a Bush dictatorship on NPR.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_0310.ht ml

These are dark days when a Reagan appointee WARNS us of the beginning of a dictatorship in America.

[wimzkl]

Pinball Wizard quote
The name can change, the views will not !!!!!

Sweetpea quote
Closed minded, ignorant of the facts, but honest.

Many voters today are cosmetic conservatives (CosCons) because they have forgotten or are unaware of key points of history. They are asking the wrong questions and coming up with the wrong answers. Politics is the main stream of history. It follows that political judgments demand historical knowledge. The conservative leaders of this nation have fabricated their political position from two big lies.

In ‘Mein Kampf,” Adolph Hitler said that plausible untruths were one of the best tools for obtaining political power. Enough repetition of a slogan would instill it as truth in common man to the point that, when confronted with incontrovertible disproof, the disproof would be doubted. Thus we have inalienable political fabrications.:mad:

The first of the two lies is that our conservative leadership wants a smaller, more efficient government. A politician’s fiscal conservatism is unsustainable over time and becomes liberal because of career motivated public spending. Campaign contribution quid pro quo inevitably produces legislation specifically benefiting the rich and powerful to the detriment of the public interest.

The second is that the great burden of taxation on our middle class is the responsibility of the liberal governments of the past. The recent increases in this burden can be laid directly to the enactment of Reagan’s “supply-side” tax reforms. Those reforms shifted the tax burden down the social scale while adding income share to the top 20% of American households concurrently lowering the share of the lower 80%. This is a dangerous concentration of wealth. Conservatives will continue to doubt that these are lies, in spite of the strong arguments in this book. They are inalienable political fabrications.

Political positions are to be argued without name calling and, if you are open-minded, your political position must be subject to change. So much of the information behind political opinions is based on slogans and words and must be questioned. We all favor the "war on terror." To defeat "terror," we would have to take it out of the dictionary. It is a feeling. You want to fight a war on terrorists? Okay. But the war is really about protecting our liberty. The only worthwhile wars in history (French and our revolution, Civil War, WW1 and WW2) were about liberty. How can you fight a war to protect liberty by giving up liberty?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

[FDRfollower]

Recent statements by our Congressmen:

--In a press conference about his censure resolution, Sen Russ Feingold said that ``there are many people in America who are fearing their own government.'' He also said that Bush has ``asserted a doctrine of executive power that is so extreme that it essentially has no end.''
--Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa), now a cosponsor of the Feingold motion, said Bush ``has broken the law.... We have an out-of-control President whose arrogan, and illegal behavior is running our country into the ditch. It's time to reign him in.''
--Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) blasted Bush's latest signing statement on the Patriot Act renewal, saying that Bush has violated the Constitution, by boasting that he will not answer questions by the Congress;
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) warned in a letter, that if it is true that Bush had foreknowledge that the version of the 2005 budget bill he was signing, had not passed the House, he was violating the Presentment clause of the Constitution, and had placed himself, ``above the Constitution.'' (mjs)

[FDRfollower]

And Cheney! I don't know how much it's reported, but the California and Illinois state legislatures have resolutions on Impeaching Cheney and Bush, based on Thomas Jeffersons rules for the House of Rep. whereby States can initiate an impeachment. The Illinois one only specifies Bush, the California one mentions Bush and Cheney, and legislators from 12 states so far have called into the Cal assemblyman who initiated it to get copies.

More to come.

The storm is BUILDING!

[wimzkl]

Anonymous: “Official Announcement: The government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government’s political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you’re actually being screwed. It just doesn’t get more accurate than that!”

Dwight Eisenhower: “In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?”


Richard Nixon: “When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."

George Bernard Shaw: “Political necessities sometime turn out to be political mistakes.”

I hope you are correct about "the storm is building!"

[FDRfollower]

Source: thomas.loc.gov]
UPDATE: REP. JOHN CONYERS IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION NOW HAS 36 CO-SPONSORS. H.Res.635, entitled "Creating a committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment," which was referred to the House Rules Committee, after its December 18, 2005 introduction, now has 36 Democratic co-sponsors:
California: Capps, Farr, Filner, Honda, Waters, Lee, Stark, Woolsey, and Lofgren;
Georgia: Lewis, McKinney
Hawaii: Abercrombie
Illinois: Schakowsky, Davis, Jackson
Massachusetts: Olver, Tierney, Capuano
Minnesota: McCollum, Sabo, Oberstar
Missouri: Clay
New Jersey: Payne
New York: Nadler, Hinchey, Maloney, Owens, Rangel, Valazquez
Oregon: Wu
Pennsylvania: Fattah
Texas: Jackson-Lee
Vermont: Sanders
Washington: McDermott
Wisconsin: Baldwin, Moore

[wimzkl]

Bush is just a figurehead for a gang of so-called conservatives who are bent in controlling our nation for their own benefit. JoanofArc, they want to control the elections as well and may be doing just that.

I feel strongly that the only way to defeat their control is by Constitutional Amendments making it illegal for corporations to lobby or contribute to political elections. Another necessary step is to reinstitute the steeply graduated income tax to reverse the concentration of wealth now endangering our liberty. We have to limit the political control of the rich and powerful. In the short run, Mr. Bush may turn out to be one of our best allies in accomplishing these ends. He has so screwed up the Republican party, they may be decades in recovery.