Discussion:
The I Word is Back - IMPEACHMENT
(too old to reply)
torresD
2005-12-22 17:35:49 UTC
Permalink
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last


NEW YORK -

Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.

The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-

has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
with some conservatives joining in the shouting.

Ron Hutcheson,
White House correspondent for
Knight Ridder Newspapers

(known as "Hutch" to the president),

observed that "some legal experts asserted
that Bush broke the law on a scale that could
warrant his impeachment."

Indeed such talk from legal experts
was common in print or on cable news.

Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat,
and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman,
declared that Bush opponents are

"calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already
hauled forth no less an authority than John
Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial
perfidy.

The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict,
you are going to hear more of it next year -
much more."

When chief Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin appeared for an online chat, a reader
from Naperville, Ill.,

asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment.

"This question makes me mad," Morin replied.

When a second participant made the same query,
Morin fumed, "Getting madder."

A third query brought the response:

"Madder still."

Media Matters recently reported that
a January 1998 Washington Post poll
conducted just days after the first
revelations of President Clinton's
relationship with Monica Lewinsky
asked about impeachment.

A smattering of polls
(some commissioned by partisan groups)
has found considerable, if minority,
support for impeachment.

But Frank Newport,
the director of the Gallup Poll,
told E&P recently that he would
only run a poll on the subject if
the idea really started to gain
mainstream political traction,
and not until then.

He noted that he had been besieged
with emails calling for such a survey,
but felt it was an "organized" action.

Still, he added,

"we are reviewing the issue,
we take our responsibility seriously
and we will consider asking about it."

Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg
at National Review Online takes the talk
seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it,

practically begging Bush
foes to try to impeach him.

"The main reason Bush's poll numbers
would skyrocket if he were impeached,"
Goldberg wrote,


"is that at the end of the day the
American people will support what he
did [with the spy program]."

And the folks at conservative blog
RedState.org took issue with Fineman's
prediction,

noting that for "all his fearmongering"
he "fails to note the essential point:

the more the Dems mutter
'impeachment' in 2006,
the more it helps the GOP,

because it just further entrenches
the notion that the Dems are out of
touch, partisan, and not serious
about national security."

But John Dean,
who knows something about these matters,
calls Bush "the first President to admit
to an impeachable offense."

The American Civil Liberties Union
threw more fat on the fire with a
full-page ad in The New York Times
on Thursday calling for a special
counsel to look into the secret
spy operations and urging Congress
to get involved in considering the
possible high crimes involved.

And one of those thoroughly unscientific
MSNBC online polls found about 88% backing
the idea through late Wednesday.

On Wednesday,
Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin,
declaring that "The 'I-word' is back,"

assembled an array of quotes on the subject.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),
he pointed out,

sent a letter this week to four
unidentified presidential scholars,

asking whether they think Bush's
authorization of warrantless domestic
spying amounted to an impeachable offense.

Todd Gillman wrote in the Dallas Morning News:

"Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.,
suggested that Mr. Bush's actions
could justify impeachment."

And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley,
a law professor at George Washington
University and a specialist in surveillance law,

saying 'When the president admits that he
violated federal law, that raises serious
constitutional questions of high crimes
and misdemeanors."

When Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin finally answered the "I" question
in his online chat, he said,

"We do not ask about impeachment
because it is not a serious option
or a topic of considered discussion --
witness the fact that no member of
congressional Democratic leadership
or any of the serious Democratic
presidential candidates in '08 are
calling for Bush's impeachment.

When it is or they are,
we will ask about it in
our polls."

Morin complained that he and
other pollsters have been the

"target of a campaign organized
by a Democratic Web site demanding
that we ask a question about impeaching
Bush in our polls."

But Froomkin commented,

"there's nothing wrong
with asking the question."

The debate should only grow in 2006.

Fineman predicted a dark year ahead:

"We are entering a dark time in
which the central argument advanced
by each party is going to involve
accusing the other party of committing
what amounts to treason.

Democrats will accuse the Bush
administration of destroying the
Constitution;

Republicans will accuse the
Dems of destroying our security."
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-22 17:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Yeah Impeach him again !



CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval

Secret searches of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993,
both without a federal warrant.

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S.
citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department
official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find
information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use
classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to
observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration
believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

1982: COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES

By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published:
November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may
lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people
overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign
agents.
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 17:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval
False. You sure do lie a lot. Why is that?

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH
ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER." It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Stan de SD
2005-12-22 18:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval
False.
True.
Post by Joseph Welch
You sure do lie a lot. Why is that?
Speaking to the mirror again?
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval
False.
True.
False. A lie. Complete bullshit.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
You sure do lie a lot. Why is that?
Speaking to the mirror again?
No, just the usual assortment of sociopathic, deluded, lying right-wing
scumbags.

http://www.cato.org

Big Brother At Home

President Bush recently acknowledged the existence of a secret program that
allows the NSA to eavesdrop on phone and email conversations of suspected
terror subjects without a court warrant. Both Bush and Vice President Cheney
took opportunities to stand behind the program this week, with Cheney
calling the program "absolutely consistent with the Constitution."

Cato senior fellow in Constitutional studies Robert A. Levy says, "President
Bush's executive order sanctions warrant-less wiretaps by the National
Security Agency of communications from the United States to foreign
countries by U.S. persons. Reportedly, the executive order is based on
classified legal opinions stating that the president's authority derives
from his Commander-in-Chief power and the post-911 congressional
authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda. That
pernicious rationale, carried to its logical extreme, renders the PATRIOT
Act unnecessary and trumps any dispute over its reauthorization. Indeed,
such a policy makes a mockery of the principle of separation of powers.

"Perhaps the government is justified in taking measures that in less
troubled times could be seen as infringements of individual liberties. But
if so, the Congress, not the president, is charged with establishing the
rules that apply in exigent circumstances. The executive branch cannot
unilaterally set the rules and enforce the rules, then eliminate court
review of possible civil liberties violations."

In "Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Preserving Our Liberties While Fighting
Terrorism," Timothy Lynch, director of Cato's Project on Criminal Justice,
writes: "Like the power to arrest and search, the primary 'check' on the
power to wiretap is the warrant application process. By requiring the police
to seek advance approval from a judicial officer, the process allows wiretap
applications to be vetted by an impartial judge. In this way, meritorious
applications can be separated from fishing expeditions. Under the
president's initiative, however, the attorney general retains exclusive
decision-making authority to conduct monitoring without being subject to
judicial approval, review, or oversight."
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-22 18:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval
False. You sure do lie a lot.
======================

You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
EAT IT BITCH !


CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994:

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp



Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in
the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you
wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S.
citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic
surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside
their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration
believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and
October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
END
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied. I've proven it - many times,
and not just on this subject.

You appear to be pathologically incapable of telling the truth, or of
accepting it when it is presented to you.

You are a sick, sick person. You need help.

Get some.

You know what's *really* pathetic though? Right-wingers using arguments
that something that they opposed during Democratic Presidencies is justified
for Bush.

Man, you people are pathetic.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-22 20:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied.
========================

Liar , thats why you snip out all my Govt Docs website that i cited you
pile of Pig bile & excrement.
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 20:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
Post by Joseph Welch
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied.
========================
Liar
False. How far back would you like to go? To your claim that Clinton
invaded Haiti without going through the UN perhaps you name changing
shitball?
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
thats why you snip out all my Govt Docs website that i cited you
pile of Pig bile & excrement.
I snipped it because it doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does you lying
fuck.

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH
ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER." It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
George Z. Bush
2005-12-22 22:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied.
========================
Liar , thats why you snip out all my Govt Docs website that i cited you
pile of Pig bile & excrement.
Hey, tell him what you REALLY think of him; if you hold back just to be nice,
it'll run your blood pressure right through the top of your head. C'mon, show
us the class act we know you really are....don't hide it from us. Tell him off!

George Z.
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-23 02:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
No, I've told the truth, and you have lied.
========================
Liar , thats why you snip out all my Govt Docs website that i cited you
pile of Pig bile & excrement.
Hey, tell him what you REALLY think of him; if you hold back just to be nice,
it'll run your blood pressure right through the top of your head. C'mon, show
us the class act we know you really are....don't hide it from us. Tell him off!
George Z.
======================
You cant tell off someone that is mentally challenged and thinks underwear
is to be used as toilet paper.
Rev. 11D Meow!
2005-12-23 20:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You cant tell off someone that is mentally challenged and thinks underwear
is to be used as toilet paper.
I bet you write DUHbya's speeches for him.
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Drudge - wrong as usual. And as usual, brain-dead mentally ill right-wing
shitbags lap it up with a spoon.

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH
ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER." It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Tim Crowley
2005-12-22 19:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
You lying Fucking Maggot cesspool drinking pile of monkey Pus .
EAT IT BITCH !
buahahahahaha. You're gonna need to take your meds, quick.
torresD
2005-12-22 17:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Post by torresD
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
with some conservatives joining in the shouting.
Ron Hutcheson,
White House correspondent for
Knight Ridder Newspapers
(known as "Hutch" to the president),
observed that "some legal experts asserted
that Bush broke the law on a scale that could
warrant his impeachment."
Indeed such talk from legal experts
was common in print or on cable news.
Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat,
and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman,
declared that Bush opponents are
"calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already
hauled forth no less an authority than John
Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial
perfidy.
The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict,
you are going to hear more of it next year -
much more."
When chief Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin appeared for an online chat, a reader
from Naperville, Ill.,
asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment.
"This question makes me mad," Morin replied.
When a second participant made the same query,
Morin fumed, "Getting madder."
"Madder still."
Media Matters recently reported that
a January 1998 Washington Post poll
conducted just days after the first
revelations of President Clinton's
relationship with Monica Lewinsky
asked about impeachment.
A smattering of polls
(some commissioned by partisan groups)
has found considerable, if minority,
support for impeachment.
But Frank Newport,
the director of the Gallup Poll,
told E&P recently that he would
only run a poll on the subject if
the idea really started to gain
mainstream political traction,
and not until then.
He noted that he had been besieged
with emails calling for such a survey,
but felt it was an "organized" action.
Still, he added,
"we are reviewing the issue,
we take our responsibility seriously
and we will consider asking about it."
Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg
at National Review Online takes the talk
seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it,
practically begging Bush
foes to try to impeach him.
"The main reason Bush's poll numbers
would skyrocket if he were impeached,"
Goldberg wrote,
"is that at the end of the day the
American people will support what he
did [with the spy program]."
And the folks at conservative blog
RedState.org took issue with Fineman's
prediction,
noting that for "all his fearmongering"
the more the Dems mutter
'impeachment' in 2006,
the more it helps the GOP,
because it just further entrenches
the notion that the Dems are out of
touch, partisan, and not serious
about national security."
But John Dean,
who knows something about these matters,
calls Bush "the first President to admit
to an impeachable offense."
The American Civil Liberties Union
threw more fat on the fire with a
full-page ad in The New York Times
on Thursday calling for a special
counsel to look into the secret
spy operations and urging Congress
to get involved in considering the
possible high crimes involved.
And one of those thoroughly unscientific
MSNBC online polls found about 88% backing
the idea through late Wednesday.
On Wednesday,
Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin,
declaring that "The 'I-word' is back,"
assembled an array of quotes on the subject.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),
he pointed out,
sent a letter this week to four
unidentified presidential scholars,
asking whether they think Bush's
authorization of warrantless domestic
spying amounted to an impeachable offense.
"Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.,
suggested that Mr. Bush's actions
could justify impeachment."
And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley,
a law professor at George Washington
University and a specialist in surveillance law,
saying 'When the president admits that he
violated federal law, that raises serious
constitutional questions of high crimes
and misdemeanors."
When Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin finally answered the "I" question
in his online chat, he said,
"We do not ask about impeachment
because it is not a serious option
or a topic of considered discussion --
witness the fact that no member of
congressional Democratic leadership
or any of the serious Democratic
presidential candidates in '08 are
calling for Bush's impeachment.
When it is or they are,
we will ask about it in
our polls."
Morin complained that he and
other pollsters have been the
"target of a campaign organized
by a Democratic Web site demanding
that we ask a question about impeaching
Bush in our polls."
But Froomkin commented,
"there's nothing wrong
with asking the question."
The debate should only grow in 2006.
"We are entering a dark time in
which the central argument advanced
by each party is going to involve
accusing the other party of committing
what amounts to treason.
Democrats will accuse the Bush
administration of destroying the
Constitution;
Republicans will accuse the
Dems of destroying our security."
Stan de SD
2005-12-22 18:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.

You're no conservative.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Stan de SD
2005-12-31 21:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.
Tell us what law that is - sources, cites?
mrmcafee(nospam)
2006-01-01 02:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.
Tell us what law that is - sources, cites?
Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Stan de SD
2006-01-01 04:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.
Tell us what law that is - sources, cites?
Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is hardly
"unreasonable". If addition, if you think cell phone conversations (the
Islamofascists aren't calling from pay phones in Falluja) are "private",
you're terribly misguided and not very up to date regarding how wireless
communication works... :Oo
Clave
2006-01-01 04:47:52 UTC
Permalink
"Stan de SD" <***@covad.net> wrote in message news:18668$43b75ab9$45035f0b$***@msgid.meganewsservers.com...

<...>
Post by Stan de SD
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is hardly
"unreasonable". If addition, if you think cell phone conversations (the
Islamofascists aren't calling from pay phones in Falluja) are "private",
you're terribly misguided and not very up to date regarding how wireless
communication works... :Oo
Stan, can you answer the question Bush can't?

If time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the
warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They
conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive
warrants.

Jim
mrmcafee(nospam)
2006-01-02 14:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clave
<...>
Post by Stan de SD
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is hardly
"unreasonable". If addition, if you think cell phone conversations (the
Islamofascists aren't calling from pay phones in Falluja) are "private",
you're terribly misguided and not very up to date regarding how wireless
communication works... :Oo
Stan, can you answer the question Bush can't?
If time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the
warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They
conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive
warrants.
It is because they never intended to use the information gleaned (if
any) in court. I've noticed, if you have not, an appalling lack of
prosecutions considering the resources that the Bush Administration had
squandered in its hopeless fight against terrorism. Either we've all bee
buffaloed into thinking the danger is much greater and widespread than
it truly is, or the Bush Administration has elected to prosecute these
people in extra-legal ways. Either way, it's not good.
Post by Clave
Jim
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
SMITH29
2006-01-03 09:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Clave
<...>
Post by Stan de SD
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is hardly
"unreasonable". If addition, if you think cell phone conversations (the
Islamofascists aren't calling from pay phones in Falluja) are "private",
you're terribly misguided and not very up to date regarding how wireless
communication works... :Oo
Stan, can you answer the question Bush can't?
If time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the
warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They
conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive
warrants.
It is because they never intended to use the information gleaned (if
any) in court. I've noticed, if you have not, an appalling lack of
prosecutions considering the resources that the Bush Administration had
squandered in its hopeless fight against terrorism. Either we've all bee
buffaloed into thinking the danger is much greater and widespread than
it truly is, or the Bush Administration has elected to prosecute these
people in extra-legal ways. Either way, it's not good.
xxxx
You would prefer street fighting with Al Qaeda in a major city as an
example for perusal?
Or perhaps explosions in DC ?
A few plane hijackings and one into the White House?

I'm quite content NOT to have trouble here.
Bush is doing an excellent job of protecting the nation.

29
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Clave
Jim
James H. Hood
2006-01-03 09:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMITH29
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Clave
<...>
Post by Stan de SD
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is hardly
"unreasonable". If addition, if you think cell phone conversations (the
Islamofascists aren't calling from pay phones in Falluja) are "private",
you're terribly misguided and not very up to date regarding how wireless
communication works... :Oo
Stan, can you answer the question Bush can't?
If time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the
warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They
conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive
warrants.
It is because they never intended to use the information gleaned (if
any) in court. I've noticed, if you have not, an appalling lack of
prosecutions considering the resources that the Bush Administration had
squandered in its hopeless fight against terrorism. Either we've all bee
buffaloed into thinking the danger is much greater and widespread than
it truly is, or the Bush Administration has elected to prosecute these
people in extra-legal ways. Either way, it's not good.
xxxx
You would prefer street fighting with Al Qaeda in a major city as an
example for perusal?
Or perhaps explosions in DC ?
A few plane hijackings and one into the White House?
If they can use it to smear Bush, they'd be perfectly happy to see it.
mrmcafee(nospam)
2006-01-03 14:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMITH29
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Clave
<...>
Post by Stan de SD
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is hardly
"unreasonable". If addition, if you think cell phone conversations (the
Islamofascists aren't calling from pay phones in Falluja) are "private",
you're terribly misguided and not very up to date regarding how wireless
communication works... :Oo
Stan, can you answer the question Bush can't?
If time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the
warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They
conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive
warrants.
It is because they never intended to use the information gleaned (if
any) in court. I've noticed, if you have not, an appalling lack of
prosecutions considering the resources that the Bush Administration
had squandered in its hopeless fight against terrorism. Either we've
all bee buffaloed into thinking the danger is much greater and
widespread than it truly is, or the Bush Administration has elected to
prosecute these people in extra-legal ways. Either way, it's not good.
xxxx
You would prefer street fighting with Al Qaeda in a major city as an
example for perusal?
Or perhaps explosions in DC ?
A few plane hijackings and one into the White House?
Sure. I'd much prefer to defend my liberties than to have them usurped
by an out of control Executive Branch and a cowardly Legislative Branch.
Wouldn't you?
Post by SMITH29
I'm quite content NOT to have trouble here.
Bush is doing an excellent job of protecting the nation.
Guess not.
Post by SMITH29
29
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Clave
Jim
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Joseph Welch
2006-01-03 16:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMITH29
You would prefer street fighting with Al Qaeda in a major city as an
example for perusal?
Or perhaps explosions in DC ?
A few plane hijackings and one into the White House?
What does any of this have to do with Iraq?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Defendario
2006-01-04 04:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SMITH29
You would prefer street fighting with Al Qaeda in a major city as an
example for perusal?
Or perhaps explosions in DC ?
A few plane hijackings and one into the White House?
What does any of this have to do with Iraq?
Both based on stupid fearmongering and demagogery.

What dipshit is really afraid of is Quakers and Vegans -- since those
are the ones he's justifying snooping on...

;D
Joseph Welch
2006-01-02 02:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant
Define "known enemy combattant"? How has this status been determined?
Through what process?

If they are a "known enemy combattant" why are we listening to their phone
calls - and not capturing and/or killing them?

If they are a "known enemy combattant" - why the need to circumvent the FISA
law and the Constitution in order to place wiretaps?

Why do you hate America, traitor?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Joseph Welch
2006-01-02 15:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Define "known enemy combattant"? How has this status been determined?
Through what process?
Membership in a terrorist organization would pretty much nail it.
So how is this being determined? Through what process?
Now you can play semantics games if you want, but all it will do is make
you look
even more idiotic...
I'm not playing semantics games at all - I'm trying to get you to define how
Bush determines whether someone is a "known enemy combattant". Apparently
you believe that the administration is verifying their membership in a
terrorist organization. On what do you base this belief?
Post by Joseph Welch
If they are a "known enemy combattant" - why the need to circumvent the
FISA
Post by Joseph Welch
law and the Constitution in order to place wiretaps?
What makes you think they circumvented the law in the first place?
Bush has ADMITTED doing it.
Post by Joseph Welch
Why do you hate America, traitor?
Why do Lefty Liberals such as yourself
Why do you call me a "lefty liberal"? Do you even know what THAT means?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/12/19.php
"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the
kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was
discussed."
-Norm Ornstein, AEI Scholar

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm
"President Bush secretly ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to
eavesdrop on the international communications of U.S. citizens in violation
of the warrant requirement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, abominations. "
". . .Mr. Bush has continued the NSA spying without congressional
authorization or ratification of the earlier interceptions."
". . .Volumes of war powers nonsense have been assembled to defend Mr.
Bush's defiance of the legislative branch and claim of wartime omnipotence
so long as terrorism persists, i.e., in perpetuity. Congress should
undertake a national inquest into his conduct and claims to determine
whether impeachable usurpations are at hand. As Alexander Hamilton explained
in Federalist 65, impeachment lies for "abuse or violation of some public
trust," misbehaviors that "relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to
the society itself."
-Bruce Fein, former Attorney General for Ronald Reagan

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/no-legal-basis/
"If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to
accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was-created a court
set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response
to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don't know of
any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I'm not aware of
it. And here's the concern I have. We can't become an outcome-based
democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because
that's what a democracy is all about: a process."
-Lindsey Graham (R)

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/13428787.htm
"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate."
-Arlen Specter (R)

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1205/28edbarr.html
"Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever
experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's
defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens."
"First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic,
"it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush
responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now
appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by
trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to
"monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court
order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications."
-Bob Barr (R)

"The president's authorization of domestic surveillance by the National
Security Agency contravened a statute's clear language. Assuming that urgent
facts convinced him that he should proceed anyway and on his own, what
argument convinced him that he lawfully could?"
-George Will

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB113538491760731012.html
"AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and
learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by
intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on
its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad
situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have
tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of
powers . . .

"Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at
least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk
and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who
staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this
situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report
either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a
bill of impeachment."
-Barron's

"President Bush's executive order sanctions warrant-less wiretaps by the
National Security Agency of communications from the United States to foreign
countries by U.S. persons. Reportedly, the executive order is based on
classified legal opinions stating that the president's authority derives
from his Commander-in-Chief power and the post-911 congressional
authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda. That
pernicious rationale, carried to its logical extreme, renders the PATRIOT
Act unnecessary and trumps any dispute over its reauthorization. Indeed,
such a policy makes a mockery of the principle of separation of powers."
-Robert Levy, Federalist Society

There's more.

This is what CONSERVATIVES are saying about Bush. You're no conservative -
you're just another radical lunatic.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
mrmcafee(nospam)
2006-01-02 14:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.
Tell us what law that is - sources, cites?
Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is hardly
"unreasonable".
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision. Our system of "checks and balances" call for the Judiciary to
judge what is unreasonable and what isn't. The President doesn't have
the legal power to just up and decide one day whose telephone
conversations can be listened to.

If addition, if you think cell phone conversations (the
Post by Stan de SD
Islamofascists aren't calling from pay phones in Falluja) are "private",
you're terribly misguided and not very up to date regarding how wireless
communication works... :Oo
I do know that legally they are considered private conversations. Just
as we have the technology to wire tap a land line, we have developed the
technology to listen in on a cell phone conversation. Doing either one
to an American citizen in America without a warrant is impeachable (or
should be). If we had patriots in Congress instead of GOP hacks, Bush
would be on permanent vacation today cutting all that brush on his
ranchette near Crawford.
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Stan de SD
2006-01-02 15:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.
Tell us what law that is - sources, cites?
Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is hardly
"unreasonable".
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Our system of "checks and balances" call for the Judiciary to
judge what is unreasonable and what isn't. The President doesn't have
the legal power to just up and decide one day whose telephone
conversations can be listened to.
What makes you think he made that decision alone without consulting his
legal staff?
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
If addition, if you think cell phone conversations (the
Post by Stan de SD
Islamofascists aren't calling from pay phones in Falluja) are "private",
you're terribly misguided and not very up to date regarding how wireless
communication works... :Oo
I do know that legally they are considered private conversations.
If they are domestic in peacetime. International calls originating from war
theatres and made by suspected combatants are considered SIGINT and open to
military monitoring as well as national security agencies.
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Just
as we have the technology to wire tap a land line, we have developed the
technology to listen in on a cell phone conversation. Doing either one
to an American citizen in America without a warrant is impeachable (or
should be).
Added the little qualifier because you're not sure. As it turns out, most
Americans don't believe listening in to phone calls from war zones is an
impeachable offense. However, in the event we are attacked again on our own
soil, they might just consider deliberately ignoring calls by people
possibly planning terrorist attacks to be an impeachable offense.
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
If we had patriots in Congress instead of GOP hacks, Bush
would be on permanent vacation today cutting all that brush on his
ranchette near Crawford.
And you have a better solution tocollect data onpeople who are suspected
terrorists and might be planning attacks? Let's hear it.
Joseph Welch
2006-01-02 15:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is
hardly
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
"unreasonable".
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Congress does.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Our system of "checks and balances" call for the Judiciary to
judge what is unreasonable and what isn't. The President doesn't have
the legal power to just up and decide one day whose telephone
conversations can be listened to.
What makes you think he made that decision alone without consulting his
legal staff?
He appointed his legal staff based on their proclivity to agree with and
support him. Bush appoints lackeys. It's one of his major weaknesses.

His legal staff - the ones that advised him that he was operating within the
law - were wrong. The ones that advised him against taking this action were
ignored. That's what Bush does - pays attention to people who agree with
him, and ignores those who doesn't. That's why we've gotten into this war
we never needed.
Post by Stan de SD
If they are domestic in peacetime. International calls originating from war
theatres and made by suspected combatants are considered SIGINT and open to
military monitoring as well as national security agencies.
Not without proper authorization.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
If we had patriots in Congress instead of GOP hacks, Bush
would be on permanent vacation today cutting all that brush on his
ranchette near Crawford.
And you have a better solution tocollect data onpeople who are suspected
terrorists and might be planning attacks? Let's hear it.
Simple: follow the law.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
mrmcafee(nospam)
2006-01-02 20:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is
hardly
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
"unreasonable".
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Congress does.
Nope. Just the Judiciary.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Our system of "checks and balances" call for the Judiciary to
judge what is unreasonable and what isn't. The President doesn't have
the legal power to just up and decide one day whose telephone
conversations can be listened to.
What makes you think he made that decision alone without consulting his
legal staff?
He appointed his legal staff based on their proclivity to agree with and
support him. Bush appoints lackeys. It's one of his major weaknesses.
His legal staff - the ones that advised him that he was operating within the
law - were wrong. The ones that advised him against taking this action were
ignored. That's what Bush does - pays attention to people who agree with
him, and ignores those who doesn't. That's why we've gotten into this war
we never needed.
Post by Stan de SD
If they are domestic in peacetime. International calls originating from war
theatres and made by suspected combatants are considered SIGINT and open to
military monitoring as well as national security agencies.
Not without proper authorization.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
If we had patriots in Congress instead of GOP hacks, Bush
would be on permanent vacation today cutting all that brush on his
ranchette near Crawford.
And you have a better solution tocollect data onpeople who are suspected
terrorists and might be planning attacks? Let's hear it.
Simple: follow the law.
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Joseph Welch
2006-01-02 23:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Congress does.
Nope. Just the Judiciary.
The judiciary interprets existing laws - only Congress can make new laws.

Bush apparently decided that the judiciary wasn't doing what he wanted, and
Congress never would - so he took it upon himself to assume powers that he
never legally had - in effect, making a new law via Executive Order, in
direct violation of the Constitution.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Clave
2006-01-02 23:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Congress does.
Nope. Just the Judiciary.
The judiciary interprets existing laws - only Congress can make new laws.
Bush apparently decided that the judiciary wasn't doing what he wanted,
and Congress never would - so he took it upon himself to assume powers
that he never legally had - in effect, making a new law via Executive
Order, in direct violation of the Constitution.
SHORTER CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT 1994:

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

HAW HAW HAW! AW HAW HAW HAW HAW! Thassa good one! Yee-haaa!


SHORTER CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT 2005:

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to spy on you and perhaps
indefinitely detain you without charges."

That sounds reasonable.
Scout
2006-01-02 23:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Congress does.
Nope. Just the Judiciary.
The judiciary interprets existing laws - only Congress can make new laws.
Bush apparently decided that the judiciary wasn't doing what he wanted,
and Congress never would - so he took it upon himself to assume powers
that he never legally had -
Sounds kind of like SCOTUS in Manberry v. Madison (sp?)

Odd how you don't seem to be bent out of shape about that assumption of
power.
Post by Joseph Welch
in effect, making a new law via Executive Order, in direct violation of
the Constitution.
Free hint: Executive Orders are a power Congress has granted to the
President and until they repeal it or let it lapse, then it is a legitimate
expression of authority, as least as far as the laws of this nation are
concerned. Now whether such laws and orders are Constitutional is another
story, but once again you don't seem bent out of shape about Congress
granting such Unconstitutional authority in the first place.

So tell me, other than this case is there any Unconstitutional assumption of
power or redirection of power you don't like?

In short is this a matter of principle, or you just don't like Bush?
mrmcafee(nospam)
2006-01-03 00:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Congress does.
Nope. Just the Judiciary.
The judiciary interprets existing laws - only Congress can make new laws.
Bush apparently decided that the judiciary wasn't doing what he wanted,
and Congress never would - so he took it upon himself to assume powers
that he never legally had -
Sounds kind of like SCOTUS in Manberry v. Madison (sp?)
Marbury.
Post by Scout
Odd how you don't seem to be bent out of shape about that assumption of
power.
That's because interpretation of the law is inherent to a Judiciary. As
natural as heat from fire.
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
in effect, making a new law via Executive Order, in direct violation of
the Constitution.
Free hint: Executive Orders are a power Congress has granted to the
President and until they repeal it or let it lapse, then it is a legitimate
expression of authority, as least as far as the laws of this nation are
concerned. Now whether such laws and orders are Constitutional is another
story, but once again you don't seem bent out of shape about Congress
granting such Unconstitutional authority in the first place.
Congress can not give what it is not empowered to give. The Executive
Branch can not listen in on private phone conversations of Americans in
America without a warrant issued by the Judiciary so as to satisfy the
4th Amendment. Period!
Post by Scout
So tell me, other than this case is there any Unconstitutional assumption of
power or redirection of power you don't like?
Yes.
Post by Scout
In short is this a matter of principle, or you just don't like Bush?
Both.
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Scout
2006-01-03 00:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Congress does.
Nope. Just the Judiciary.
The judiciary interprets existing laws - only Congress can make new laws.
Bush apparently decided that the judiciary wasn't doing what he wanted,
and Congress never would - so he took it upon himself to assume powers
that he never legally had -
Sounds kind of like SCOTUS in Manberry v. Madison (sp?)
Marbury.
Darn, knew it was something like that, but didn't want to bother looking it
up.
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
Odd how you don't seem to be bent out of shape about that assumption of
power.
That's because interpretation of the law is inherent to a Judiciary. As
natural as heat from fire.
True, but interpretation must conform to the language and meaning of the
actual text, and not something the Court reads into it because they want it,
like it, or think it should have it. If their interpretation can't be
supported by the plain meaning inherent in the language then their
interpretation is flawed.
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
in effect, making a new law via Executive Order, in direct violation of
the Constitution.
Free hint: Executive Orders are a power Congress has granted to the
President and until they repeal it or let it lapse, then it is a
legitimate expression of authority, as least as far as the laws of this
nation are concerned. Now whether such laws and orders are Constitutional
is another story, but once again you don't seem bent out of shape about
Congress granting such Unconstitutional authority in the first place.
Congress can not give what it is not empowered to give.
True, but they seem to be doing it.
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
The Executive Branch can not listen in on private phone conversations of
Americans in America without a warrant issued by the Judiciary so as to
satisfy the 4th Amendment. Period!
Patriot Act.

It was enacted by Congress, signed into Law, and according to some that
means it's Constitutional until and unless overturned by SCOTUS, something
they haven't done BTW. :-)
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
So tell me, other than this case is there any Unconstitutional assumption
of power or redirection of power you don't like?
Yes.
Good. I was afraid you were going liberal on me there.
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
In short is this a matter of principle, or you just don't like Bush?
Both.
Well, I can understand and accept that.

However, you have to admit that all to often people are willing to bark
about certain abuses and ignore the exact same thing being done elsewhere.
Joseph Welch
2006-01-03 01:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Congress can not give what it is not empowered to give.
True, but they seem to be doing it.
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
The Executive Branch can not listen in on private phone conversations of
Americans in America without a warrant issued by the Judiciary so as to
satisfy the 4th Amendment. Period!
Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act requires use of the judiciary - even after the fact - for
wiretaps.

Bush even said so when he told this lie last year:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Post by Scout
However, you have to admit that all to often people are willing to bark
about certain abuses and ignore the exact same thing being done elsewhere.
Who is?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Scout
2006-01-03 10:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Scout
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Congress can not give what it is not empowered to give.
True, but they seem to be doing it.
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
The Executive Branch can not listen in on private phone conversations of
Americans in America without a warrant issued by the Judiciary so as to
satisfy the 4th Amendment. Period!
Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act requires use of the judiciary - even after the fact - for
wiretaps.
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing
has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
That's nice, but it's not in the legislation.
Joseph Welch
2006-01-03 16:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing
has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down
terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
That's nice, but it's not in the legislation.
Not in what legislation?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
r***@comcast.net
2006-01-03 18:09:23 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 05:15:29 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing
has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
That's nice, but it's not in the legislation.
What's not?

Section 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law
except as authorized by statute;

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
-
2006-01-05 06:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Scout
That's nice, but it's not in the legislation.
What's not?
Section 1809. Criminal sanctions
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law
except as authorized by statute;
Color of law being by police ect.

Cops need less tools and more checks and balances to do the job or they
get sloppy, lazy and criminall in their police work.

Cops should not be automatically consideredy trustworthy.
-----------

NEWS: Top 10 List of Police Database Abuses
Only 1 message in topic - view as tree

Eugene the Jeep
Jun 19 2002, 9:13 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.fan.howard-stern
From: ***@aol.com (Eugene the Jeep) - Find messages by this
author
Date: 19 Jun 2002 15:12:16 GMT
Local: Wed, Jun 19 2002 9:12 am
Subject: NEWS: Top 10 List of Police Database Abuses


Top 10 List of Police Database Abuses
written by James Hamilton, Web producer on Thursday, August 01, 2002

Law enforcement officers are supposed to protect and serve, but some
cops misuse police databases to get dates and more.
Your address, telephone number, Social Security number, date of birth,
criminal record -- all this data and more can be accessed by police
officers if they have basic information about you. Some cops, however,
use their database access for less-than-honorable reasons. This week on
"CyberCrime" we show you how some cops used police databases to harass
exes and even get telephone numbers of women they see in cars.

These abuses happen in law enforcement departments around the world.
Here's 10 stories about cops who have abused their information
privileges in police departments in Michigan, California, Ohio, and even
as far away as Australia.

Cop Suspected of Using Database to Plan Murder of Ex-wife
A State Police detective whose estranged wife was shot dead at a
Michigan zoo admitted using the Law Enforcement Information Network
(LEIN) to check on his wife and her acquaintances, according to Lansing
police search warrant requests. Although the detective is not suspected
of pulling the trigger, the Lansing, Michigan, police department says it
believes he knows who shot his wife a month after she filed for divorce.
Read the story.

Rookie Cop Checks on 'Potential Girlfriends': 6,900 Database Searches in
Only Two Months
An Australian constable new to the beat used the police database to
check on potential girlfriends. In just over two months the then
20-year-old policeman performed an unprecedented 6,900 searches on the
police database. The counsel assisting the case says that of those 6,900
searches at least 300 weren't connected to official duties. Read the story.


FBI Files Sold to Mob and International Criminals by Nevada Attorney
General's Office Employee and Former FBI Agent
Dubbed the "Secrets for Sale Scandal" by the Las Vegas media, an
attorney general's office worker and a former FBI agent were caught
selling information from the FBI NCIC database to organized crime
syndicates and other criminals for more than $100,000.

The office worker and the former agent sold documents containing
classified information about organized crime investigations, white
collar crime investigations, and investigations involving international
alien smuggling. These documents were sold to members of organized crime
syndicates in New York and to an FBI informant. One defendant's phone
records also shows that he had communications with people in Mexico and
Cuba and his passport listed recent visits to the drug cartel cities of
Medellin and Bogota, Colombia.

The former agent worked for the Las Vegas FBI for several years and had
access to national security and electronic surveillance information as
well as data on confidential informants and witnesses stored in the
FBI's nationwide computer system. Read the story.

Indiana PD Banned From FBI Database
The Highland, Indiana, police department had its access to the state's
FBI database suspended due to misuse. The revocation of Highland's
access to the Indiana Data and Communications System (IDACS), the
state's portal into the National Crime Information Center, is believed
to be the first such suspension in at least a decade. State police
auditors claim that local investigators had been using the system to run
checks on contractors and door-to-door solicitors in direct violation of
IDACS policy, and continued to do so even after being warned. Read the
story.

Political Candidates Probed by Police Chief
The city attorney in Eastpointe, Michigan, is looking into allegations
that the police chief and city manager violated state law by using the
Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) to check the backgrounds of
candidates for an ethics committee. The mayor ordered the investigation
after it was revealed that the city manager and police chief may have
violated state regulations governing LEIN use by checking backgrounds of
eight people considered for a volunteer committee created by the city
council. Many people were surprised to find that first-time misuse of
the LEIN is not a crime. Read the story.


Police Investigated for Using Database to Target Organizers of
Sheriff-Recall Campaign
Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall investigated a county sheriff
department after receiving a complaint that the department did criminal
background checks on two organizers of a petition attempting to recall
the sheriff. Read the story.

Prosecutor's Office Uses Database to Smear Prosecutor's Political Opponent
The Butler County Republican Party has asked the county commissioners to
investigate allegations that an employee in the prosecutor's office
misused a state database to obtain information about his boss's
political opponent. Read the story.

Police Lieutenant Charged With Abusing Database to Influence Elections
In Maryland, a Charles County sheriff's lieutenant faces criminal
charges for misusing the sheriff's computer system on behalf of local
Democrats connected with elections. He is charged by sheriff's officials
with 102 violations of departmental rules relating to the abuse,
according to court documents filed in Charles County Circuit Court. Read
the story.

Cop Uses Database to Find Woman's Unlisted Phone Number -- Gives It to
Woman's Ex
A Brisbane, Australia, police officer admitted to giving a local
businessman the personal details of his ex-girlfriend. The investigator
told the court how the woman, whose name has been suppressed, complained
earlier that an ex-boyfriend had called her unlisted home phone number.
The senior police constable admitted to providing the woman's personal
details. Despite twice denying in previous CJC interviews to handing
over the silent number, Constable Crawford changed his evidence. Read
the story.

Cop Fired for Abusing Database, Chief Accused as Well
The town of Atherton, California, has ruled that a former police officer
should not get his job back after alleged misuse of the California Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). He is also accused of
violating a restraining order and destroying personal property in a case
involving his ex-girlfriend, and reportedly using the database to find
information about her. The CLETS system, administered by the California
Department of Justice, is a database containing information ranging from
driving records to criminal records. Following the firing, the officer
accused Atherton's police chief of also misusing the CLETS system. Read
the story.

mrmcafee(nospam)
2006-01-03 14:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Congress does.
Nope. Just the Judiciary.
The judiciary interprets existing laws - only Congress can make new laws.
Bush apparently decided that the judiciary wasn't doing what he wanted,
and Congress never would - so he took it upon himself to assume powers
that he never legally had -
Sounds kind of like SCOTUS in Manberry v. Madison (sp?)
Marbury.
Darn, knew it was something like that, but didn't want to bother looking it
up.
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
Odd how you don't seem to be bent out of shape about that assumption of
power.
That's because interpretation of the law is inherent to a Judiciary. As
natural as heat from fire.
True, but interpretation must conform to the language and meaning of the
actual text, and not something the Court reads into it because they want it,
like it, or think it should have it. If their interpretation can't be
supported by the plain meaning inherent in the language then their
interpretation is flawed.
I'm sure that if you asked a Supreme Court Justice if their decisions
always reflect the meaning of the Constitution, they'd say that they do.
Since it is their opinion that get to count in this matter, we'll just
have to trust them. If there is a decision or two that you disagree
with, start an Amendment campaign.
Post by Scout
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
in effect, making a new law via Executive Order, in direct violation of
the Constitution.
Free hint: Executive Orders are a power Congress has granted to the
President and until they repeal it or let it lapse, then it is a
legitimate expression of authority, as least as far as the laws of this
nation are concerned. Now whether such laws and orders are Constitutional
is another story, but once again you don't seem bent out of shape about
Congress granting such Unconstitutional authority in the first place.
Congress can not give what it is not empowered to give.
True, but they seem to be doing it.
Just as COngress seems intent on abdicating its Constitutional powers,
the Judiciary seems intent on allowing them to do so. It is time to draw
in the power of the Presidency, starting with the ability to wage war.
Post by Scout
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
The Executive Branch can not listen in on private phone conversations of
Americans in America without a warrant issued by the Judiciary so as to
satisfy the 4th Amendment. Period!
Patriot Act.
So far as I know, wiretapping under the Patriot Act requires a warrant.
Post by Scout
It was enacted by Congress, signed into Law, and according to some that
means it's Constitutional until and unless overturned by SCOTUS, something
they haven't done BTW. :-)
And they would be correct. An act of Congress, signed by the President,
is considered the law of the land until the Judiciary says otherwise.
Post by Scout
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
So tell me, other than this case is there any Unconstitutional assumption
of power or redirection of power you don't like?
Yes.
Good. I was afraid you were going liberal on me there.
I did.
Post by Scout
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Scout
In short is this a matter of principle, or you just don't like Bush?
Both.
Well, I can understand and accept that.
However, you have to admit that all to often people are willing to bark
about certain abuses and ignore the exact same thing being done elsewhere.
The most egregious have been the unprincipled right wingers who have
defended the Bush Administration through thick and thin. Many were the
same people who squealed like little girls every time Clinton address
the nation that he was spewing lies. Damned few were ever discovered to
be untruths, and only one subject matter was found to be prone for
actual lies. Bush, on the other hand, has been caught in a lie so often
that we expect it from him. Yet his supporters still cling to him as if
he were the Messiah.
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Joseph Welch
2006-01-03 01:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
The judiciary interprets existing laws - only Congress can make new laws.
Bush apparently decided that the judiciary wasn't doing what he wanted,
and Congress never would - so he took it upon himself to assume powers
that he never legally had -
Sounds kind of like SCOTUS in Manberry v. Madison (sp?)
No, it sounds nothing like the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madson.
Post by Scout
Odd how you don't seem to be bent out of shape about that assumption of
power.
Because there's no comparison. And even if there was - those issues have
been resolved for the better part of a TWO FUCKING CENTURIES.

Duh. You really expect people to get as worked up over a controversial
Supreme Court decision TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO as they would about a
president - ONE MAN - assuming power he doesn't have HERE, NOW TODAY?

Damn, you're a fucking moron.
Post by Scout
Free hint: Executive Orders are a power Congress has granted to the
President and until they repeal it or let it lapse, then it is a
legitimate expression of authority, as least as far as the laws of this
nation are concerned.
False. No Executive Order may violate the United States Constitution or
existing U.S. law. Bush's Executive Orders do both.
Post by Scout
So tell me, other than this case is there any Unconstitutional assumption
of power or redirection of power you don't like?
While there have been a number of questionable issues focusing and
redirecting power into the Executive Branch - this is the first that I feel
rises to the level of unConstitutional and illegal behavior by the
President.
Post by Scout
In short is this a matter of principle, or you just don't like Bush?
I don't like Bush, and this is a matter of principle - just as it was with
Clinton's lie, albeit with much broader consequences for the American
people.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Scout
2006-01-03 10:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
The judiciary interprets existing laws - only Congress can make new laws.
Bush apparently decided that the judiciary wasn't doing what he wanted,
and Congress never would - so he took it upon himself to assume powers
that he never legally had -
Sounds kind of like SCOTUS in Manberry v. Madison (sp?)
No, it sounds nothing like the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madson.
Post by Scout
Odd how you don't seem to be bent out of shape about that assumption of
power.
Because there's no comparison. And even if there was - those issues have
been resolved for the better part of a TWO FUCKING CENTURIES.
Ah, so the Unconstitutional assumption of power is something that doesn't
matter if they can get away with it long enough...
Defendario
2006-01-04 04:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Scout
Post by Joseph Welch
The judiciary interprets existing laws - only Congress can make new laws.
Bush apparently decided that the judiciary wasn't doing what he wanted,
and Congress never would - so he took it upon himself to assume powers
that he never legally had -
Sounds kind of like SCOTUS in Manberry v. Madison (sp?)
No, it sounds nothing like the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madson.
Post by Scout
Odd how you don't seem to be bent out of shape about that assumption of
power.
Because there's no comparison. And even if there was - those issues have
been resolved for the better part of a TWO FUCKING CENTURIES.
Ah, so the Unconstitutional assumption of power is something that doesn't
matter if they can get away with it long enough...
Hey, that's what Herr Bushler sez!

;D
mrmcafee(nospam)
2006-01-02 20:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
Bush is the target of Impeachment now.
Only in your wet dreams...
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.
Tell us what law that is - sources, cites?
Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Tapping the phone of somebody talking to a known enemy combatant is
hardly
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Post by Stan de SD
"unreasonable".
Under the Constitution the Executive Branch doesn't get to make that
decision.
But you do?
Who me? Your grasp on what the Constitution says is astonishing little.
Only a Judge can issue a warrant.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Our system of "checks and balances" call for the Judiciary to
judge what is unreasonable and what isn't. The President doesn't have
the legal power to just up and decide one day whose telephone
conversations can be listened to.
What makes you think he made that decision alone without consulting his
legal staff?
Why should anybody care what Bush's legal staff says?

Is it that you don't comprehend the 4th Amendment?
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
If addition, if you think cell phone conversations (the
Post by Stan de SD
Islamofascists aren't calling from pay phones in Falluja) are "private",
you're terribly misguided and not very up to date regarding how wireless
communication works... :Oo
I do know that legally they are considered private conversations.
If they are domestic in peacetime. International calls originating from war
theatres and made by suspected combatants are considered SIGINT and open to
military monitoring as well as national security agencies.
Not according to the Constitution. BTW, we are in peacetime. Congress
has not declared a state of war since 1941. Only Congress can declare
war. Not that that makes any difference as to what the Constitution
allows since the Constitution is not suspended during war.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
Just
as we have the technology to wire tap a land line, we have developed the
technology to listen in on a cell phone conversation. Doing either one
to an American citizen in America without a warrant is impeachable (or
should be).
Added the little qualifier because you're not sure.
No. I added it to point out that the GOP dominated House has not brought
impeachment charges and most likely will not bring charges for political
reasons. It certainly isn't for a lack of impeachable transgressions.


As it turns out, most
Post by Stan de SD
Americans don't believe listening in to phone calls from war zones is an
impeachable offense.
You've ask all Americans and discovered that most of them think that a
violation of the 4th Amendment should not be impeachable? SOmehow, I
doubt that you have.

However, in the event we are attacked again on our own
Post by Stan de SD
soil, they might just consider deliberately ignoring calls by people
possibly planning terrorist attacks to be an impeachable offense.
Not if they value their freedom.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by mrmcafee(nospam)
If we had patriots in Congress instead of GOP hacks, Bush
would be on permanent vacation today cutting all that brush on his
ranchette near Crawford.
And you have a better solution tocollect data onpeople who are suspected
terrorists and might be planning attacks? Let's hear it.
Get a warrant.
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Joseph Welch
2006-01-02 02:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.
Tell us what law that is - sources, cites?
The United States Constitution:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

FISA:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Stan de SD
2006-01-02 03:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Joseph Welch
Real conservatives agree that Bush broke the law.
Tell us what law that is - sources, cites?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

Nice, you can now find links. Can you actually comprehend what is in them to
make your argument? Didn't think so...
Joseph Welch
2006-01-02 15:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Stan de SD
Tell us what law that is - sources, cites?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html
Nice, you can now find links.
I never couldn't find them.
Post by Joseph Welch
Can you actually comprehend what is in them to make your argument?
Yep, I sure can.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Screaming Howeird Dean
2005-12-22 18:23:20 UTC
Permalink
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994:

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp



Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in
the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you
wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S.
citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic
surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside
their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration
believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and
October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
END
Joseph Welch
2005-12-22 18:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH
ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER." It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time
ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not
authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Number 9
2005-12-22 20:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screaming Howeird Dean
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
It's kind of funny that your nickname is making fun of someone
screaming and then you start your posts by typing in all capital
letters.

Don't you think?
Stan de SD
2005-12-22 18:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by torresD
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
You mean surveillance of people with known ties to established or suspected
terrorist groups, which Congress as been aware (and approved of) for a
couple of years now...
torresD
2005-12-22 18:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
You mean surveillance of people with known ties to established or suspected
terrorist groups, which Congress as been aware (and approved of) for a
couple of years now...
Well maybe if our government refrained from attacking, invading other
countries,
overturning the democratically elected presidents of other people's
countries,
because we don't like who they elected, perhaps if we stopped turning a
blind
eye to atrocities committed by those countries, that we fund and arm,
that float on a sea of American taxpayer's cash, while they decimate,
discriminate,
slaughter the native population of that country, we wouldn't have to worry
about
"terrorist nations" attacking us so much.
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-22 19:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
You mean surveillance of people with known ties to established or suspected
terrorist groups, which Congress as been aware (and approved of) for a
couple of years now...
Telling four congress critters does not equate to Congressional
approval.

The Rockefeller letter (one of the four) makes that doubly clear.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Northern Storm
2005-12-22 20:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by torresD
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
You mean surveillance of people with known ties to established or suspected
terrorist groups, which Congress as been aware (and approved of) for a
couple of years now...
No, I mean groups like Greenpeace and PETA who were labeled
"environmental terrorist" by the drunken bush and have been spied upon
without a warrant.
2005-12-22 19:45:09 UTC
Permalink
But are you gonna do it?
torresD
2005-12-22 19:47:02 UTC
Permalink
If I were the judge, Bush would be on Texas Death Row,
for the murder of over 2000 of our boys and girls.
HE LIED!
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm

Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last


NEW YORK -

Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.

The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-

has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
with some conservatives joining in the shouting.

Ron Hutcheson,
White House correspondent for
Knight Ridder Newspapers

(known as "Hutch" to the president),

observed that "some legal experts asserted
that Bush broke the law on a scale that could
warrant his impeachment."

Indeed such talk from legal experts
was common in print or on cable news.

Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat,
and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman,
declared that Bush opponents are

"calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already
hauled forth no less an authority than John
Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial
perfidy.

The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict,
you are going to hear more of it next year -
much more."

When chief Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin appeared for an online chat, a reader
from Naperville, Ill.,

asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment.

"This question makes me mad," Morin replied.

When a second participant made the same query,
Morin fumed, "Getting madder."

A third query brought the response:

"Madder still."

Media Matters recently reported that
a January 1998 Washington Post poll
conducted just days after the first
revelations of President Clinton's
relationship with Monica Lewinsky
asked about impeachment.

A smattering of polls
(some commissioned by partisan groups)
has found considerable, if minority,
support for impeachment.

But Frank Newport,
the director of the Gallup Poll,
told E&P recently that he would
only run a poll on the subject if
the idea really started to gain
mainstream political traction,
and not until then.

He noted that he had been besieged
with emails calling for such a survey,
but felt it was an "organized" action.

Still, he added,

"we are reviewing the issue,
we take our responsibility seriously
and we will consider asking about it."

Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg
at National Review Online takes the talk
seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it,

practically begging Bush
foes to try to impeach him.

"The main reason Bush's poll numbers
would skyrocket if he were impeached,"
Goldberg wrote,


"is that at the end of the day the
American people will support what he
did [with the spy program]."

And the folks at conservative blog
RedState.org took issue with Fineman's
prediction,

noting that for "all his fearmongering"
he "fails to note the essential point:

the more the Dems mutter
'impeachment' in 2006,
the more it helps the GOP,

because it just further entrenches
the notion that the Dems are out of
touch, partisan, and not serious
about national security."

But John Dean,
who knows something about these matters,
calls Bush "the first President to admit
to an impeachable offense."

The American Civil Liberties Union
threw more fat on the fire with a
full-page ad in The New York Times
on Thursday calling for a special
counsel to look into the secret
spy operations and urging Congress
to get involved in considering the
possible high crimes involved.

And one of those thoroughly unscientific
MSNBC online polls found about 88% backing
the idea through late Wednesday.

On Wednesday,
Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin,
declaring that "The 'I-word' is back,"

assembled an array of quotes on the subject.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),
he pointed out,

sent a letter this week to four
unidentified presidential scholars,

asking whether they think Bush's
authorization of warrantless domestic
spying amounted to an impeachable offense.

Todd Gillman wrote in the Dallas Morning News:

"Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.,
suggested that Mr. Bush's actions
could justify impeachment."

And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley,
a law professor at George Washington
University and a specialist in surveillance law,

saying 'When the president admits that he
violated federal law, that raises serious
constitutional questions of high crimes
and misdemeanors."

When Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin finally answered the "I" question
in his online chat, he said,

"We do not ask about impeachment
because it is not a serious option
or a topic of considered discussion --
witness the fact that no member of
congressional Democratic leadership
or any of the serious Democratic
presidential candidates in '08 are
calling for Bush's impeachment.

When it is or they are,
we will ask about it in
our polls."

Morin complained that he and
other pollsters have been the

"target of a campaign organized
by a Democratic Web site demanding
that we ask a question about impeaching
Bush in our polls."

But Froomkin commented,

"there's nothing wrong
with asking the question."

The debate should only grow in 2006.

Fineman predicted a dark year ahead:

"We are entering a dark time in
which the central argument advanced
by each party is going to involve
accusing the other party of committing
what amounts to treason.

Democrats will accuse the Bush
administration of destroying the
Constitution;

Republicans will accuse the
Dems of destroying our security."
2005-12-22 20:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by torresD
If I were the judge, Bush would be on Texas Death Row,
for the murder of over 2000 of our boys and girls.
HE LIED!
That would be interesting. Then we would find out how sincere all those
liberal nuts are that are supporting the murderer's on death row. I suspect
though it will be like the Clinton thing. They will make an exception to
allow the hypocrisy.

By the way, if we put all the people on death row that told the same "LIE"
there wouldn't be anyone left to administer the shot. Nice rant though.
Post by torresD
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1222-07.htm
Published on Thursday, December 22, 2005 by Editor & Publisher
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
NEW YORK -
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in
the media have started mentioning the "I" word,
or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable
offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor-or,
some might say, foolishness-
has been sparked by the uproar over revelations
of a White House approved domestic spying program,
with some conservatives joining in the shouting.
Ron Hutcheson,
White House correspondent for
Knight Ridder Newspapers
(known as "Hutch" to the president),
observed that "some legal experts asserted
that Bush broke the law on a scale that could
warrant his impeachment."
Indeed such talk from legal experts
was common in print or on cable news.
Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat,
and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman,
declared that Bush opponents are
"calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already
hauled forth no less an authority than John
Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial
perfidy.
The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict,
you are going to hear more of it next year -
much more."
When chief Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin appeared for an online chat, a reader
from Naperville, Ill.,
asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment.
"This question makes me mad," Morin replied.
When a second participant made the same query,
Morin fumed, "Getting madder."
"Madder still."
Media Matters recently reported that
a January 1998 Washington Post poll
conducted just days after the first
revelations of President Clinton's
relationship with Monica Lewinsky
asked about impeachment.
A smattering of polls
(some commissioned by partisan groups)
has found considerable, if minority,
support for impeachment.
But Frank Newport,
the director of the Gallup Poll,
told E&P recently that he would
only run a poll on the subject if
the idea really started to gain
mainstream political traction,
and not until then.
He noted that he had been besieged
with emails calling for such a survey,
but felt it was an "organized" action.
Still, he added,
"we are reviewing the issue,
we take our responsibility seriously
and we will consider asking about it."
Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg
at National Review Online takes the talk
seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it,
practically begging Bush
foes to try to impeach him.
"The main reason Bush's poll numbers
would skyrocket if he were impeached,"
Goldberg wrote,
"is that at the end of the day the
American people will support what he
did [with the spy program]."
And the folks at conservative blog
RedState.org took issue with Fineman's
prediction,
noting that for "all his fearmongering"
the more the Dems mutter
'impeachment' in 2006,
the more it helps the GOP,
because it just further entrenches
the notion that the Dems are out of
touch, partisan, and not serious
about national security."
But John Dean,
who knows something about these matters,
calls Bush "the first President to admit
to an impeachable offense."
The American Civil Liberties Union
threw more fat on the fire with a
full-page ad in The New York Times
on Thursday calling for a special
counsel to look into the secret
spy operations and urging Congress
to get involved in considering the
possible high crimes involved.
And one of those thoroughly unscientific
MSNBC online polls found about 88% backing
the idea through late Wednesday.
On Wednesday,
Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin,
declaring that "The 'I-word' is back,"
assembled an array of quotes on the subject.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.),
he pointed out,
sent a letter this week to four
unidentified presidential scholars,
asking whether they think Bush's
authorization of warrantless domestic
spying amounted to an impeachable offense.
"Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.,
suggested that Mr. Bush's actions
could justify impeachment."
And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley,
a law professor at George Washington
University and a specialist in surveillance law,
saying 'When the president admits that he
violated federal law, that raises serious
constitutional questions of high crimes
and misdemeanors."
When Washington Post pollster Richard
Morin finally answered the "I" question
in his online chat, he said,
"We do not ask about impeachment
because it is not a serious option
or a topic of considered discussion --
witness the fact that no member of
congressional Democratic leadership
or any of the serious Democratic
presidential candidates in '08 are
calling for Bush's impeachment.
When it is or they are,
we will ask about it in
our polls."
Morin complained that he and
other pollsters have been the
"target of a campaign organized
by a Democratic Web site demanding
that we ask a question about impeaching
Bush in our polls."
But Froomkin commented,
"there's nothing wrong
with asking the question."
The debate should only grow in 2006.
"We are entering a dark time in
which the central argument advanced
by each party is going to involve
accusing the other party of committing
what amounts to treason.
Democrats will accuse the Bush
administration of destroying the
Constitution;
Republicans will accuse the
Dems of destroying our security."
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-22 20:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
2005-12-22 20:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country. To you guys its just politics. He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Post by r***@comcast.net
- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-22 20:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country.
Violating the COnstitution and international law, and lying us into a
war is not defending the country.
Post by
To you guys its just politics.
actually no, it's valuing the Constituion the rule of law, and civil
rights. I can understand why that's beyond you. Because for you it IS
all about THE Party.
Post by
He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Remind me about the Presidential Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001 again?

How many terrorist attacks were there in the US during Clinton's era?
How many terrorists caught and prosecuted? How many American dead?

Now answer all the same for Bush's watch.

You haven';t a clue what Clinton did in the war on terror. THE Party
prohibits you learning that.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
George Z. Bush
2005-12-22 22:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country. To you guys its just politics. He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Really? Did he lose 2,112 American lives and still counting, not to mention
more than 10,000 Americans now wandering about missing arms, legs and/or eyes?
I must have missed it on the evening news or maybe it just wasn't important
enough for Republicans to mention while they were busy getting the details of
the blowjob.

George Z.
Tim Crowley
2005-12-22 22:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country. To you guys its just politics. He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Really? Did he lose 2,112 American lives and still counting, not to mention
more than 10,000 Americans now wandering about missing arms, legs and/or eyes?
I must have missed it on the evening news or maybe it just wasn't important
enough for Republicans to mention while they were busy getting the details of
the blowjob.
These pigs could care less about our soldier, they don't care how many
lives are lost, they don't care how many of our brave defendes are
crippled, they don't care that the President lied to the world; harming
the repuation of our nation for a generation. They put Party before
country. They disgust me to the core. If they had any real American
blood, they would be outraged.
Post by George Z. Bush
George Z.
J.M. Flagg
2005-12-22 23:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
These pigs could care less about our soldier,
Which "soldier" is that Creepy?
colonel
2005-12-23 03:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by George Z. Bush
Post by
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by
But are you gonna do it?
Ask after November. If the House changes hands Bush is toast. Of
course this means they are going to be desperate and take very
desperate measures to foreclose that possibility.
If pigs could fly too.........but if I was the president I would be happy to
go down defending the country. To you guys its just politics. He was just
defending the country. He's doing a much better job then the last guy.
Really? Did he lose 2,112 American lives and still counting, not to mention
more than 10,000 Americans now wandering about missing arms, legs and/or eyes?
I must have missed it on the evening news or maybe it just wasn't important
enough for Republicans to mention while they were busy getting the details of
the blowjob.
These pigs could care less about our soldier, they don't care how many
lives are lost, they don't care how many of our brave defendes are
crippled, they don't care that the President lied to the world; harming
the repuation of our nation for a generation. They put Party before
country. They disgust me to the core. If they had any real American
blood, they would be outraged.
Post by George Z. Bush
George Z.
Actually I put our country in front of your eyes, arms and legs. It's a
moot point because you are obviously ignorant of military service,
devotion to duty and volunteering.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...