25 Oct 05
2 edits
Today it's become clear that Cheney is heavily implicated in treasonous behaviour. The funny sound you hear is that of a butt-load hitting the fan in slow motion.
It's becoming clear that a Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal ...with or without the knowledge of the President... sought to intentionally paint a false picture in order to attempt some reasonable "justification" for a war of aggression in violation of the Nuremburg Principles. The Plame affair stuff is but the tip of the iceberg...a peripheral indication of the extent to which the Administration would go in order to destroy anyone who attempted to shine a light on the fabrications.
It's almost worse if the President didn't know....in fact it probably is worse. A man who is already manifestly over his head just demonstrates it that much more. By willful participation or mindless ignorance, the President is guilty of systematic actions in violation of domestic and international law.
Impeachment in 5...4...3.....
Start practicing your speechmaking skills President Hastert.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Amen.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Funny how a Republican Congress impeached a guy who got a blowjob but has nothing at all to say about a Vice President (let's be clear about who was running the country and who was sitting in the corner spinning the propeller on his beanie) who:
created an office to "analyze" (read: manipulate) intellig ...[text shortened]... ld have been locked up as well, but it's too late for that crowd. Not too late for this bunch.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672it's hard to argue with someone who likes guiness and U2 but i'll try. you, nor I, know the truth about the vice's chief of staff, those are allegations...the rest of your points do not reflect any illegal acts to justify impeachment....do they? And what lies are you speaking of?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Funny how a Republican Congress impeached a guy who got a blowjob but has nothing at all to say about a Vice President (let's be clear about who was running the country and who was sitting in the corner spinning the propeller on his beanie) who:
created an office to "analyze" (read: manipulate) intellig ...[text shortened]... ld have been locked up as well, but it's too late for that crowd. Not too late for this bunch.
25 Oct 05
9 edits
Originally posted by newdad27Let's just say for the sake of argument that no smoking gun..no firm, incontrovertable evidence exists.... And even if we do have that in the Plame case...say we don't have it with respect to a larger conspiracy to fabricate bogus rationales for engaging in a war of aggression.
...your points do not reflect any illegal acts to justify impeachment....do they? And what lies are you speaking of?
Impeachment is still possible. It just takes enough people and a sufficiently strong surmise. The language in the Constitution is vague and open ended. It just takes enough people to see that the President and his people have committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"....and/or violated the Constitution.
Given that even possession of WMDs would not have warranted a war of aggression... and given that the United States violated the UN Charter in waging war, the Administration violated international law to which the US is signatory.... and thus violated the Constitution. And it is also clear we violated the Nuremburg Principles under which we once prosecuted Germany.
The lies and the systematic attempt to cook intelligence and/or ruin peoples lives who stood to interfere.... that's just "icing on the cake"....or, that is to say, that's just what it takes to make the nature of the violation begin to register in the brains of the American people. This is the most extreme abuse of power...and should be met with extreme Constititutional force.
Incompetence and ignorance are no excuse. The Administration has weakened the United States and will continue to do so until they are removed from power. As soon as this recognition reaches critical mass..... "Dennis Hastert, do you solemnly swear...."
25 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672I would not put stock in anything printed in the NY Times as their sole purpose is to push a liberal agenda. And while Bush has screwed up Iraq, I distinctly remember MI 5, British Intell., Cia, Clinton and Kerry, Israeli Intel., etc all saying that WMD's in Iraq was a slam dunk. I'm not a right winger, mistakes have been made in Iraq and one can definitely debate whether Iraq is the best place to fight terrorism, but I think Bush (and every other intelligence source) believed there were wmd's in Iraq. We know there were as Saddam has used them before, and was not cooperating with inspectors. I do think Bush cherry picked intelligence and wanted to find reason to go into Iraq, but I think it was a consensus that wmds were there and with no INTENT I wouldn't say he lied.
Well - let's call impeachment a fantasy. Actually, not really. Joe Wilson had provided an assessment of Iraqi WMD capability that reflected Iraq's lack of current capability. The intelligence office that Cheney created and staffed with Douglas Feith existed because CIA would not give the Administration the assessments they wanted. There were the n't.
EDIT: If your screen name reflects a change in your parenting status, congratulations.
Thanks for the congrats.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672your debate on bush is valid, but the ny times leans way left. I don't want them to lean right or anything, but they should be fair. They did over 50 front page stories on the prisoner abuse at Abu..., they just did a story on how we should heavily increase the gas tax, justifying it by saying this extra income could be used for entitlements for the poor, the pretty much only editorialize to the left, and there is maybe one conservative editorial writer who has publicly said there is a left wing group think at the times and he has been ostracized for his beliefs. They are very left secular progressive, and they have the right to editorialize how they wish, the problem arises because they use this slant to influence the news which is suppose to be an accurate representation of the facts. But I don't want to go on and on, the times slant is common knowledge and doesn't make for a good debate.
Mmm...the comment about the NY Times disturbs me a little. They publish alot of conservative columnists. The series by Judy Miller was intended to make the case for war. And yes, Clinton wanted to bomb Iraq - but I seem to recall a Republican Congress calling the move "wagging the dog". I think Bush believed that there were WMD's in Iraq too - bu ...[text shortened]... while Bush may not have lied, he misled. And he misled because his administration lied to him.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672If Cheney is indicted the head domino falls. I sincerely hope he is, but we'll see.
This is breaking right now...apparently, Vice President Cheney was Scooter Libby's source regarding the identity of Valerie Plame. Libby told the grand jury that a reporter was his source, which indicates that Libby was somehow trying to protect Cheney. In addition to perjury on Libby's part, this is an indication that the investigation reaches righ ...[text shortened]... Vice President. Apparently, it's unlikely, but possible, that Cheney will be indicted himself.
Libby may be burning bridges at this point, but that may also be his best option. From what I've read Libby might just get caught in some lies with the Grand Jury. It may be he already has and "flipping" Cheney is getting Libby out of some hot water. It's fun to watch crooks squirm ain't it? No honor among thieves as the saying goes.
Anyway, that's all speculation on my part.
These crooks should have taken a page from Clinton (the squiggly lie master), lie lie lie, deny deny deny, and then when you finally get caught beg for forgiveness, admit you were wrong, and cry like a baby. The problem is this group of hard-heads never believe they could be wrong about anything. they just try to cover everything up and attackk anyone that diagrees with them. That was bound to bite them in the @ss eventually.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672demand would not decrease and anymore tax on gas would lead us to an even worse recession than we are going to already have. The Times' position is to redistribute income from the "haves" to the "have nots" under the gise of a gas tax. That's socialism. But I am off track, torture is never justified, but i dont think that was military policy and 50+ front page stories seems like over kill.
Yeah but what happened at Abu Ghraib was abominable. I'm a veteran of the Marine Corps and the Army. I did not join the military to torture people. I did not join the military to fight for a government that tortured people, or to fight for a people that approve of torture. Torture is wrong on many levels, including the pragmatic one - it's a lousy ...[text shortened]... le that Cheney too will be indicted. I don't think it's likely. But the heat's coming down.
I'm off for the day, nice talking to you.