READER COMMENTS ON
"Conyers Op/Eds in WaPo on Impeachment and our Electoral System..."
(73 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Laura
said on 5/17/2006 @ 11:53 pm PT...
Thank God we still do have a man with integrity to fight for the rule of law. Thank You John Conyers you sir are a very eloquent statesman. Believe me I don't say that lightly. Especially in todays age where statesmen with integrity are far and few between. I wish we could clone you so we could take our country back. I still cannot believe Pelosi took impeachment off the table. I just do not get the entrenched thinking of the dem leaders. I say term limits are the only way to beat corruption. I'm glad to see that the media are deploying the administrtions talking points so John can get some exposure. Thanks Brad for posting this article.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Bluebear2
said on 5/17/2006 @ 11:56 pm PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
barryg
said on 5/18/2006 @ 2:54 am PT...
crooksandliars has been taken over by ZIAspace.com so be prepared for an attack here Brad.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Kewalo
said on 5/18/2006 @ 3:01 am PT...
I am delighted to you posted this today. I received my copy of Time Magazine yesterday and had just read the column of that asshole, pseudo-liberal Joe Klein. In it he has the stones to call Conyers an embarrassment. Naturally I am going to write an email lamenting Time not having at least one real liberal. John's op-ed really helped to get the bad taste out of my mouth from reading Klein.
I hope everyone here will also write Time and let them know it's time for Klein to go.
Many thanks to you for posting this and a thousand thanks to Conyers for his wise words.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/18/2006 @ 3:14 am PT...
I'm sure Pelosi took impeachment off the table to deny Republicans a talking point ("If Democrats take over Congress, they'll impeach Bush..."). Of course, Republicans are saying it anyway. So now Pelosi has painted herself into a corner. Pathetic.
Mr. Conyers, I agree with my friends that you're a beacon of dignity and integrity on Capitol Hill. I think your call for laws to protect our elections really means abandoning the Electoral College. As you probably know, The New York Times called for its abolition about a month ago in an editorial.
Under the current system, individual states can set their own election laws (even for federal elections) and order flawed voting machines or not do so at their discretion; secretaries of state may double as fundraisers and even campaign chairpersons for a particular candidate, a blatant conflict of interest; and states may count votes and/or recount them, or not do so, according to their own laws. This means corruption in a few battleground states may determine a national election...and did in 2000 and 2004.
The Supreme Court invalidated the Electoral College in 2001 by interfering with the right of the Florida Supreme Court to order a recount of the state's votes. Al Gore was elected president, but George W. Bush took office. As long as this can happen, any benefit the Electoral College might confer will always be subject to forfeit according to the political sentiment of men like Scalia.
Small states won't want to get rid of the E.C., because it favors them disproportionately. Wyoming and Alaska get credit for two senators, same as California and New York do. Because the small states lean Republican, this will be hard to do.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Larry Bergan
said on 5/18/2006 @ 3:21 am PT...
PBS had a documentary about singer Johnny Mathis tonight. A rare talent with an incredibly smooth, and calming style.
Conyers similarly soothes us.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
SUDS
said on 5/18/2006 @ 3:50 am PT...
Breaking News from Wayne Madsen website
May 17, 2006 --- LATE EDITION --- WMR can report tonight on more details concerning the confusing reports regarding Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from last Friday. WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice.
According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove. Contrary to other reports, some of which may have emanated from the Rove camp in order to create diversions and smokescreens, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict delivered to Rove. In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19 generally following the same scenario from October 28, 2005 --- the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutor's web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice.
WMR was also told by a credible source that part of the reason for Fitzgerald's visit to Patton and Boggs was to inform Rove attorney Luskin that he has moved into the category of a "subject" of the special prosecutor's investigation as a result of a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak, in which Novak told Luskin that Rove was a source for Time's Matt Cooper. The special prosecutor, who has prosecuted one defense attorney in the Hollinger case, is reportedly investigating whether Luskin, as an officer of the court, may have violated laws on obstruction of justice.
WMR has also discovered that last year Rove, realizing he remained a lightning rod in the CIA Leakgate scandal, made preliminary plans to move into the private sector from the White House to take political heat off the Bush administration. However, as it became clear that he was in over his head legally and his legal bills piled up, Rove decided to remain at the White House.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/18/2006 @ 4:40 am PT...
From WMR's mouth to God's ears, Suds.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 5/18/2006 @ 6:42 am PT...
If Bush wants to get even with Conyers he can resign and leave us with President Cheney, and Vice President Hastert.
Conyers is wise to avoid that "wonderful" development.
And wise to point out that extinguishing the fires of the republican dictatorship is its own reward.
And for a congress that once again keeps the administration in check with balances.
These would be moves in the proper direction ... a direction we need sorely.
Unfortunately '08 is the time to take care of the presidential fiasco.
And lets hope America learns the lesson now of how important it is to elect sane vice presidents.
If the candidate picks a looser like Cheney to freeze the impeachment process, like Bush did, then the people should reject that candidate for that reason alone.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Joan
said on 5/18/2006 @ 7:01 am PT...
Excellent piece: clear, concise, rational & statesmanlike, in stark contrast to bush/cheney et al.
Thank you, Brad and thank you, Mr. Congressman! You are both heros & patriots.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Dorothy Fadiman
said on 5/18/2006 @ 7:55 am PT...
The encroaching darkness, emanating from what is called the news (…the war, the "official" lawbreaking", the threats to personal freedoms…), would blind me if it weren't for piercing bolts of wisdom from a few individuals like John Conyers. When he, and a handful of others, rise to speak out, they inject truth, an antidote to the sight blurring poison of the lies being pumped into the population. What you do Brad, when you reprint Conyers' words along with your personal commentary, is hold up a mirror to capture these flashes of brilliance. Like a child focusing rays of the sun with a magnifying glass, you then carefully burn holes through the paper on which the death warrant for our Democracy, written from the ink of lies, is written. These little fires of truth destroy tiny patches in this ominous document. The resulting illumination helps me to see my way through the darkness. Thank you Brad, and fellow bloggers, for enabling me to keep on keeping on.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Peg C
said on 5/18/2006 @ 9:22 am PT...
Sanity and integrity: what rare commodities in our governmental leadership! Thank you for the light, Mr. Conyers.
And thank you so much, Brad, for standing up for those things most of us believe in.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/18/2006 @ 9:57 am PT...
Conyers' disclaimer was perfect. He called the G.O.P. fear-mongering a straw-man strategy. Exactly right.
He went further, saying he wouldn't move for impeachment as Judiciary Committee chairman, but would appoint a bi-partisan committee to gather facts from an administration that has failed to provide them when asked (often they haven't been asked). Whether the White House's answers to questions meet the smell test (my choice of words) would determine his committee's strategy going forward. Beautiful. Right on, Mr. Conyers.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/18/2006 @ 11:10 am PT...
Well, am I the only one reading this all the way through?
Conyers is backpedaling, to be in step with the rest of the Democratic party.
Now he DOESN'T want impeachment.
Now he wants a bi-partisan oversite committee, & if impeachable offenses are found--the info will be given to the Judicial committee...blah..blah..blah.
Shit!
We KNOW what they have done is impeachable--it's forcing them to turn over documents & testify while under oath that we need--so we can jail them. We don't need another stinkin committee that will continue to ASK for info that will NOT be supplied! Been there, done that.
Impeachment will FORCE them to turn over documents & hold them liable for perjury when they lie.
It's not like Clinton's impeachment at all, damnit. This is not partisan--or should not be if Republicans had character. This is a case where impeachment of the sitting President is NECESSARY!
Conyers just backpedaled.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/18/2006 @ 11:18 am PT...
Conyers said, "So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses."
He just rolled over, people.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/18/2006 @ 11:28 am PT...
#11 Dorothy Fadiman
I appreciate your stab at literary beauty for what it's worth.
But don't get comfortable because you have like minded people to schmooze with on here.
We aren't here to lull each other into a happy place.
We're here to light a fire under our asses to take action.
Democracy is a verb.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/18/2006 @ 1:45 pm PT...
Do I have follow Charlene? ... oh brother!
You seem to have a love-fest going on here....So...
At the top of the blog main page, the changing blurbs has this statement about BradBlog as I came to the page:
"One of the most informative progressive voices in the alternative media!"
- Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
Hmm, think that I can get him to order one of his Congressional staff to do my errands and watch my child for the evening? Or how about getting his staff to work on the campaign for our local Democrat challenger for US House of Representatives?
CNN: Congressman accused of using staff to baby-sit
Brad and Rep.Conyers do have something in common. The both hate Pres. Bush. Isn't that right, Brad?
If your side wins in November, I will congratulate you. But I won't be surprised when Rep.Conyers and company do exactly what we suspect. Like Charlene said, he rolled over and backed away from the impeachment issue (Gads, I can't believe I just agreed with Charlene, the only disgruntled poster on this thread so far). But don't worry Charlene, Rep.Conyers will roll right back to where you want him to be IF his party wins the House in November.
Have a nice day!
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Joan
said on 5/18/2006 @ 2:26 pm PT...
I don't believe Conyers is back-pedaling. He introduced House Resolution 635 in January of '05, which reads:
"...First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses..."
...which is exactly what he's saying in the present clarification, which was made necessary by Republicans wringing their hands & whining that as soon as dems regain the majority they will begin impeachment proceedings.
(There was also 636, which called for censure of bush & cheney.)
I wrote my letter to Pelosi (posted on an earlier thread) because I was taking her most recent statements as back-peddling, too; but I think she & Conyers may be on the same page.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 5/18/2006 @ 2:31 pm PT...
I ran out and mailed all the money in my pocket to the Conyers campaign yesterday.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 5/18/2006 @ 2:44 pm PT...
Charlene - I've not seen/heard Conyers call for impeachment in the past. I may have missed it, since you're saying he's backpedalling. But do you have any cites, quotes, links to that effect?
Mike J. - Not sure who you're referring to when you say you hope "your side wins in November." I'm kinda hoping America wins for a change. Who are you rooting for? You show your destructive partisan foolishness when you make such statements without any particular information to support it.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/18/2006 @ 3:25 pm PT...
Charlene, it isn't impeachable until the facts are presented in the proper forum. I agree with you that Bush deserves to be impeached, but from a Constitutional point of view the facts have to be vetted and debated. Conyers is approaching the matter cautiously and correctly, and he's denying the right wing their talking point, that "liberals" are going to impeach Bush no matter what.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
sam samson
said on 5/18/2006 @ 4:38 pm PT...
Nice, but why does he support electoral reform for '08? If we don't chuck these rigged machines before November you wont see Conyers and co. or anyone else investigating this admnistration anytime soon.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/18/2006 @ 4:54 pm PT...
Brad, #20
Don't lump me in with the other conservatives that post on your board. I give right information and FACTS, sir, not just retoric.
Whether or not you are a registered Democrat does not matter. Your side is obviously anything and anybody not Republican. Have you ever voted for a Republican?
And you did not deny hating Pres.Bush either.
America will win when our terrorist enemies are defeated. They won't be defeated by nit-picking the President on methods of terrorist surveillance or methods of election reform.
I'm rooting for America. I have no confidence that a Democrat President will do what is necessary to defeat terrorists where ever they are. THAT is what I want for my family and my country to be protected.
Do you hope that the USA wins the war in Iraq? Roger gave me his answer on another thread here. Never mind for the moment how we got there, just please answer that question. THEN go into your history of why you think the Iraq war is wrong.
Your information on your site has convinced me of the need to verify our election systems across the country (not just in the states that liberals complain about in FL and OH where Democrats lost. Oh, yeah, you think they didn't lose.... oh well).
So I have posted on your site before that your work in the area of election systems is GREAT (except for the part about blaming Republicans for everything).
Brad, "destructive partisan foolishness"? What do you call your campaign against anything Republican? What do you call nit-picking Pres.Bush over whether or not one of his aides made a mistake and gave him a bill to sign that had not passed both sides of Congress yet? What do you call following the Democrat line in the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame story? What do you call engaging in the wacko conspiracy theory of a missle hitting the Pentagon and that the WTC was brought down by explosives? What do you call bad-mouthing any Republican talk-show host or supporter and bestowing kudos to most Democrats like Rep. John "Babysitting Staff" Conyers?
If you want to "out-left" Al Franken, be my guest.
As I said, your work on election re-reform (double "re" intentional) is great, but your voter registration card does not require a "D" in order for you to be partisian in Democrat issues and causes.
Again: Have you ever voted for Republicans? I have voted for Democrats.
(Also I'm getting tired of having to copy-and-paste my comments before I hit "preview" just in case I decide to go back and find the comments gone. It would be great if you could fix that. I've had to do that several times today.)
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/18/2006 @ 5:50 pm PT...
It is not "nit-picking" to call a lie a lie. That is "truth telling."
Bush lied about when he first decided to invade Iraq. He lied about his reasons for the invasion. He lied about torture, about extraordinary rendition, and he lied about spying on Americans. If what Bush was doing was right and proper, there would have been no need to lie. But he lied. Repeatedly.
That has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. Neither party has a right to lie to the American people. That is not nit-picking.
There is no such thing as a war on terrorism. That is a neo-con phrasing, used to justify illegal conduct. If every country that was ever victimized by a terrorist attack acted as if it were at war, there would be fifty wars going on at once. And every war would be interminable, because there is no way to eradicate terrorism permanently...a fact Bush admitted to himself in one of his rare honest moments about two years ago.
America cannot win "the war in Iraq," because the enemy is indistinct. No war has ever been declared there. We are an occupying army in a country that never threatened us, never declared war on us, and wants nothing more than for us to leave. To pretend that the war is winnable assumes that an actual war is being fought (no), that an enemy can be identified (no), and that we will be able to tell when we've won (no).
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/18/2006 @ 8:50 pm PT...
Robert, #24
Well, now I know where you stand. You, sir, sound like a pacifist. You don't want any war in any way at any time. You sound like Sen.Kerry during the election.
Here's one for you to consider:
If you believe that Pres.Bush lied about Iraq having WMD's and since Pres.Clinton is on record as stated in 1998 that Iraq had WMD's, then who is doing the lying?
If you believe that Pres.Bush was lying about Iraq's WMD's, then you ALSO have to believe that Pres.Clinton and his people were also lying about that too in 1998 (as well as lying about Lewinsky).
You can't logically think Pres.Bush is lying but Pres.Clinton did not lie also.
The only way out for you and your friends is to understand where Presidents get their foreign information from: the CIA. If the CIA was wrong (or outrightly lied), then the information they gave to both Presidents Clinton and Bush was wrong.
So is it Pres.Bush's fault that Pres.Clinton received wrong info from the CIA? Was it Pres.Bush's fault that he received the same briefings after he was sworn in? Was it Pres.Bush's fault that he got the same wrong info from the CIA? NO, NO, and NO!!!
FACT: If you want to blame correctly, blame the CIA.
I don't give a hoot about your accusation on "neo-con phrasing". The FACT is that they were at war with us before we were at war with them. Yes, terrorism occurs all around the world. Terrorism occured to US citizens in other places in the world before 9-11-2001.
Remember the USS Cole? Or do you discount that because it was a military ship?
Remember the Kobar Towers bombing? Or do you discount that because the occupants killed were US military personnel?
Remember the bombing in Bali, Indoneasia?
Remember the US embassy bombings in Africa? Pres.Clinton said then that those responsible would be hunted down and caught. They weren't. Then Democrats turn around a blame Pres.Bush for not catching bin Laden.
Remember the US Marine barracks bombing in Lebannon? My co-worker knows a woman who lost her husband in that attack.
So, you think that in order for there to be a war, Congress has to go thru the process of declaring war with the President. Do we have to wait for that before we defend ourselves?
A war can be upon you without a declaration of war. War is a physical state, not a diplomatic excercise.
"We are an occupying army in a country that never threatened us, never declared war on us, and wants nothing more than for us to leave."
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
The USA is the largest part of a multi-national force made up of U.N. countries.
Never threatened us? I guess providing support for our terrorist enemies does not count in your opinion?
Never declared war on us? You think that they play by the same rules as us? You think that they follow the Geneva convention? Look at all the thousands of Iraqis murdered each year by Iraqi army people, their own country's army!
They want us to leave, but "nothing more"? Wrong still. The terrorists in Iraq are on the defensive. If we were not there they would be on the offensive and carrying out their objective in what they do want. They want Americans dead. That's what they want. On the other hand, many thousands of Iraqis want the US Army to stay because they believe that the terrorists will take over again when the US leaves. So not all Iraqs want the US to leave.
Yes, the enemy can be identified. Let's see, the ones that make bombs and target US soldiers. The ones who kill innocent Iraqis in the market and those children standing next to US soldiers...
We will have won when their are no more terrorists making bombs and killing innocent civillians.
Is this too hard for you to figure out? And I thought that *I* was a pessimist!
So sounds like you don't want America to win in Iraq. Too bad. Say hello to Neville Chamberlain when you get the chance. You are appeasing our enemy with your pacifism and your writings just like Chamberlain tried to appease Nazi Germany, in my opinion.
Have a nice day!
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Arry
said on 5/18/2006 @ 10:22 pm PT...
I think Conyers' article is good and could lead toward impeachment, but I believe only an impeachment trial will create the authority to disclose in detail what specifics need to be in the light and show the detailed pattern of constitutional abuse.
I can't say if the Democratic strategy toward impeachment is right or wrong on a strictly political level. The Democrats may be right in that respect.
But people (including Conyers) are just playing games when they say there is not abundant material for initiating impeachment at any time. I'm not talking about political strategy. I'm talking about facts.
I'm not at all sure that calls for impeachment will cause a panic or a great public trembling. I'm not sure where the Democrats (and Republicans) get that idea. I do see, however, that such calls may be interpreted to be partisan - as the Republicans politicized the impeachment process to an absurd extent, and this fact may be foremost in the minds of Democratic strategists.
But remember, impeachment is not just one option among others in cases of egregious abuse of the Constitution and failure to uphold the oath of office. It is the remedy written into the Constitution. Americans should insist that their elected officials carry out their constitutional responsibility. If it doesn't coincide with election strategy - well, there is nothing in the Constitution that says political consultants rule in our country, and American citizens have no role to play in changing the political landscape. The intent is clearly quite the opposite.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
Joe Warwick
said on 5/18/2006 @ 11:09 pm PT...
The Baath party in Iraq were not friends of the Taliban or Al Qaeda, in fact they were antagonistic and so as the CIA made blatantly aware to the Bush Admin, there was no connection, no support and no harbouring of Islamic terrorists sanctioned in Iraq as they were enemies (The taliban wanted different leaders in Iraq). The terrorists that Iraq harbours today are the direct result of the invasion and destabilisation of that area. Therefore killing these terrorists is just a very sad and pointless infinitely recurring quagmire that is absolutely the fault of the invasion itself.
A soldier on the ground is not told this, a soldier is indoctrinated soullessly to believe a lie so as to be able to perform on the battlefield only. For a serviceman to believe the reterict spewed by his superiors is a sad mistake but allows him to function without feeling immediate remorse; to realise this remorse is difficult for a soldier and many prefer not to.
There are many documented cases wherein the invasion of Iraq and Afganistan 'required' a blind eye to the Geneva Convention, Abu Ghraib for example is like the tip of the iceberg.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 5/18/2006 @ 11:28 pm PT...
So, you think that in order for there to be a war, Congress has to go thru the process of declaring war with the President. Do we have to wait for that before we defend ourselves?
A war can be upon you without a declaration of war. War is a physical state, not a diplomatic excercise.
Are you familiar with a document titled The Constitution of the United States, Mike J?
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/18/2006 @ 11:50 pm PT...
#21 Robert
Latest polls show 71% of citizens dislike what Bush has done.
That means 71% would take a promise to impeach as the reason they vote Democratic.
To hell with "talking points".
If the Democrats would stop trying to out-guess Republicans, & just BE THE OPPOSING PARTY STRAIGHT UP, they would be something to believe in, they could be winners instead of losers.
They'll blow this big chance to get majority by their own lack of leadership & timidity.
You can't be HOT & timid at the same time.
What would Abe Lincoln do?
He'd run by promising to nail Bush, save our Constitution, & fix everything Bush ruined! THat's what. Period.
We deserve better than both the Dems or the Republicans. Both of them suck.
I see Mike J is back. He wrote a lot of words, but I scroll past them, considering the source. Whatever he said isn't worth the time to read. I suggest the rest of you do the same.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
Larry Bergan
said on 5/19/2006 @ 1:10 am PT...
Conyers was on one of those panels you always see on C-SPAN a few months ago. All of the participants were introduced with the expected, courteous applause. When it got to Conyers, the audience went “Elvis” wild! I don’t think the popularity of this guy can be measured against anybody else in congress right now. The Bush cabal is TERRIFIED of him.
Every human being has to have something they think they can do better then anybody else. It’s just human nature. Soldiers back from war, rightfully have their bravery and courage to be proud of. The republicans have USED that pride, (and the soldiers along with it), for decades, to promote their agenda of war and destabilize their political enemys by calling them cowards. You know the list. Environmentalists, liberals, Democrats, peace activists, etc...
These chickenhawks are hiding behind the soldiers and using them to strike out wildly at anything that scares them, much like a little girl going after a spider using a vacuum cleaner with her eyes closed! Nothing against girls here. I’ve noticed that there are, easily, as many women that post here as men, but I decided to use that stereotype for effect. Sorry.
I’ve been fascinated by the absence of gun rights activists whenever the republicans are in charge. Bob Barr, the crazy gun nut leading the Clinton impeachment has said that it’s much harder working for gun rights under Bush then with Clinton and even signed up to introduce Al Gore when he gave a speech about Bush’s trashing of the constitution.
Well the gun nuts are back. Our great hero’s are going after the armed and dangerous immigrants. The funny part is that they realize Bush is responsible. Looking the other way while the corporations have been doing everything possible to prove that Michael Moore is a a prophet! It’s hilarious. The only guy that’s been visible for years is Ted Nugent. Locked, loaded, and omnipresent calling everybody who isn’t “packing” a sissy!
If you haven’t seen Michael Moores segment from “TV Nation” where a slight young man from his staff interviews Nugent, you don’t know what you’re missing! And his confrontation with Newt Gingrich around the time of the “Gingrich revolution” was the best thing I’ve EVER seen on television! Nothing comes close! Buy the series. You won’t be sorry!
I’ll never forget the sad spectacle of John Conyers being forced to hold a “hearing” in a tiny room in the basement concerning Bush’s unconstitutional war lies, while the Republicans simultaneously held a hearing about flag burning upstairs. Dana Milbanks seen frequently on MSNBC made fun of the Democrats in a column the next day saying they were “playing house”. Thanks Dana, that was a real knee slapper!
The day Conyers walks out of that basement, these cowards are going to scatter like rabbits!
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/19/2006 @ 1:13 am PT...
#20 Brad
My understanding was that Conyers already held the meeting to discuss whether an impeachment for Bush was warranted over the lies told to Congress re Iraq--that was when the Republicans forced him to hold the meeting in a tiny basement room & kept calling votes so they had to run up & vote then come back, etc.
My understanding was that the impeachment was a done deal as soon as support from a majority of Dems in the House agreed.
If this is not so--it's my bad.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/19/2006 @ 2:17 am PT...
BVAC #28,
You may be great at driving ambulances, but not so great at understanding sentences.
When I wrote that "Congress has to go thru the process of declaring war", that means that I understand the official process of declaring war.
When I wrote that "A war can be upon you without a declaration of war. War is a physical state, not a diplomatic excercise", I was again refering to the process spelled out in the Constitution.
However I was trying to make the point that the official process of having a war declared verses what a physical war is, can be two different things. Yes, it is true that this conflict is not an officially declared war according to the Constitution.
Yet the physical actions of a war is upon us. I refer you back to the list of terrorist attacks that I listed in #25. There are more examples, but you should get the point. All those happened before 9-11-2001. Then when your neighbors were killed in NYC and the Pentagon (as well as PA), the war that the terrorists have waged against us in foreign lands came suddenly to our land.
My wife was born in NYC and her parents still have family there. We were concerned for their safety during 9-11-2001. We learned later that they were all ok. But the pictures of the missing people, later realized to be dead, posted by family and friends on the fences should always be a reminder of just how terrible this attack was to the USA as a whole and NYC/NJ/DC/VA in particular.
You have seen this up close and personal, more so than me. Yet you disagree with taking this war, undeclared so it is, back to where the terrorists live? Amazing....
Robert, BVAC, and all:
I'm not sure if war can be declared against a group of people, an organization of terrorists, instead of a declaration of war against a specific country. I'm sure any and all of you will correct me if I'm wrong (or even if I'm not), but since the terrorist groups are not a specific country, I don't think the official declaration will work (unless it gets changed). So go ahead and find fault with that too. :rolleyes:
Charlene:
Wow, you referred to me without using profanity. See, you can do it! Don't you feel better that way?
See Ya!
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/19/2006 @ 3:20 am PT...
For Mike J.: Bill Clinton has nothing to do with Iraq. Dragging his name into the argument is pointless and diversionary. I am no great fan of Clinton's, by the way. When he lied, he was called on it. Now I'm calling Bush on his lies. You don't like that, clearly. You're also shifting the argument, quite cleverly.
George W. Bush used 9/11 as a justification for invading Iraq. Yet Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill testified that the invasion was planned before 9/11.
Bush denied that was the case. It's not just about WMD, it's about motivations. Both 9/11 and WMD were excuses, not reasons, for invading Iraq.
Either Bush is lying about when the decision was made, or both Clarke and O'Neill are. Bush has a history of lying (going back to his days in the National Guard). Clarke and O'Neill do not have histories of lying. Whom would you believe? Just as with Clinton, a bad track record speaks volumes when it comes to truth-telling.
I am not a pacifist. I just will not allow you, or Bush, or anyone to state "we are at war" when we are not at war. If a terrorist attack is a declaration of war, then all the following countries are now at war against somebody (God knows whom)...Spain, Chechnya, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, Colombia, Panama, Mexico, Indonesia, Kosovo, Pakistan, India, and Argentina. If Palestine were a country, she'd be at the top of the list.
I'm sure I left someone out. The point is, if a terrorist attack creates war, then war will never cease. And what about domestic terrorist attacks, like Oklahoma City? Whom do we invade in that case? Timothy McVeigh had an Irish surname...so do we invade Dublin? That's what we did in Iraq; because the 9/11 gang had Arabic names, it became O.K. to bomb Baghdad, because Saddam Hussein also had an Arabic name and is a bad guy.
Finally, the "terrorists in Iraq" weren't there until our invasion drew them in. When you invade a sovereign country, you destabilize it. That invites chaos, and terrorists thrive on chaos. I won't attempt to refer you to the mountains of written material since March, 2003, that confirms the point. Iraq had few if any terrorists before our invasion, now they have thousands of them.
The statement "Sounds (as if) you don't want America to win in Iraq..." carries the implicit premise that it's possible to win there. So I won't answer.
But I certainly will answer your absurd statement that "...we will have won when there are no more terrorists making bombs and killing innocent civilians." That will never end. Not ever. It happens virtually every day somewhere in the world. Let's send in the 102nd Airborne, O.K.? How childish! How futile! When someone else's ox is gored, we call it "turmoil in ______ (whatever location)..." But when it's us that gets hit, we may invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack, and when local people respond to our invasion with guerilla warfare, we call that terrorism and use it as grounds for staying there until terrorist acts cease.
Absolute, utter nonsense.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 5/19/2006 @ 5:37 am PT...
People who want "impeachment" actually want "punishment".
But wants can get in the way of sound judgment. A good number of folk in the punishment movement are reckless.
The results of what they want are not considered, because they are senseless with anger.
The American people should not be punished because some want the republican dictatorship punished.
Impeachment will result in the punishment of the American people, because as a result of it we will have President Cheney and Vice President Hastert.
We have to find a better way to punish the republican dictatorship, because the American people have suffered enough.
Set up a special prosecutor to begin a long investigation of Bush and Cheney. One that will last beyond the '08 presidential election.
Wait until just after Bush and Cheney are gone from office, then indict them for crimes and put them away.
They can't pardon each other after they are no longer in office as they can if indicted now.
And vote the republican dictatorship rubber stamp congress out in November.
These actions will punish the republican dictatorship but will not punish the American people by promoting Cheney and Hastert for their crimes.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 5/19/2006 @ 5:43 am PT...
Conyers, Feingold...can anyone name any other federal politicians that aren't on "the take"?
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 5/19/2006 @ 5:48 am PT...
Conyers: Accused of using staff to babysit.
Bush: Lied us into war.
Duke Cunningham: Ripped off taxpayers for millions.
Tobin: Disenfranchising voters.
DeLay: Stepped down.
Ney: Under indictment.
Cheney: Outed CIA agent, put lives in jeopardy.
Rush Limbaugh: Dope addict.
Yeah, Mike J...SAME LEVEL OF CORRUPTION!!!
Ooooo.....babysitting!!!!!
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
...
GWN
said on 5/19/2006 @ 6:51 am PT...
# 20 Charlene. That meeting was about the Downing Street Memos.
"Those hearings on the "Downing Street Documents" have become known as "the basement hearings", since they were held in a small room in the basement of the U.S. Capital Building after Republican lawmakers refused to give Democrats on the Judiciary Committee access to a regular Congressional hearing room"
Basement Hearings
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
...
GWN
said on 5/19/2006 @ 6:57 am PT...
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 5/19/2006 @ 7:46 am PT...
IMPEACH, HOLD COURT, AND JAIL THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR 9/11, WAR IN IRAQ, WIRE TAPING AMERICANS, RAPING THE US WILDLANDS, ILLEGAL TORTURE OF DETANIES, AND ALL OTHER CRIMINAL DISCRETIONS. WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE GET REP CONYERS JR. A COPY OF THE LOOSECHANGE911 VIDEO DEBUNKING THE US GOVERNMENT ANALYSIS OF THE EVENT CALLED 911 AND COME CLEAN WITH THE TRUTH.
THANK YOU!!!
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
...
Judge of Judges
said on 5/19/2006 @ 10:13 am PT...
#32 - Not if I see ya first . . .
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 5/19/2006 @ 10:51 am PT...
Mike J: You're not very good at understanding the mechanics of a democratic republic nation state. War is a relation between two states declared by the elected congress, not whatever you want it to be to make you feel better when you are scared.
Your 9/11 hokum isn't going to work on me. The Constitution was drawn up in a time when terrorism was a hundred times worse than it is today, by people going against the grain of popular opinion, and risking annihilation by England. It has held a nation together for centuries, and taken us to war when necessary to defend ourselves. I'll side with the Constitution over some Orwellian concept of perpetual war against an unnamed enemy.
I take the war on terror about as seriously as I do the war on drugs, and so do most people I know. It's nothing more than an elaborate military exercise run amok, serving the interests of the military industrial complex more than national security. If Americans want to deal properly with the terrorism of the past few decades they better first acquaint themselves with the term "blowback".
You have seen this up close and personal, more so than me. Yet you disagree with taking this war, undeclared so it is, back to where the terrorists live? Amazing....
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/19/2006 @ 12:20 pm PT...
Dan, #36
If you had taken the time to read the CNN story I linked to, you would have read this:
"Aside from the baby-sitting allegations, one of the most serious complaints includes former staff members' accusations that they were ordered to work on political campaigns. The ex-employees say they used congressional staff time to work on local elections in Michigan, including a campaign for Conyers' wife, Monica, who is the Detroit City Council's president pro tem."
Rep.Conyers' conduct is unethical and illegal. But you say that others are worse. So? The fact is that Rep.Conyers is in trouble as well as the ones you mention plus more below.
On your list, you "forgot" to mention any Democrats..... I wonder why?
Pres.Clinton - Lied to a federal grand jury. Impeached by the US House. Had "sexual relations" with an intern in the Oval Office of the White House. Had his law license revoked in Arkansas.
VP Al Gore Jr. - Made fundraising calls from the White House, which is illegal. Took advantage of a Chinese Buddist Temple for fund raising, after which the leaders of the temple fled the country when the investigation started.
Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor to President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 - Convicted of taking as many as fifty classified documents, in October 2003, from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. When initially questioned, Berger claimed that the removal of top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his pants and jacket pockets was accidental. He would later, in a guilty plea, admit to deliberately removing materials and then cutting them up with scissors. Berger left the John Kerry campaign shortly after the incident became public. Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. Under a plea agreement, received a fine of $50,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. Unfortunately, no jail time. Anybody else would have been in the slammer for years.
Rep. James "Beam Me Up!" Traficant - convicted of 10 federal counts that included bribery, racketeering and tax evasion. Expelled from the US House by vote of members.
Rep. William Jefferson - ongoing criminal investigation: federal agents searched his home in New Orleans and his home and car in Washington, D.C., and the home and office of his campaign accountant. FBI agents apparently found a large amount of cash in the Congressman's freezer. After Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, he used National Guard troops to check on his home and collect a few belongings, which is against US House rules to use federal resources for personal reasons.
Rep. Mel Reynolds - Convicted in August 1995 on charges of criminal sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography in a case stemming from his relationship with a 16-year-old campaign worker. Resigned from Congress soon after he was convicted. Sentenced to five years in prison. He and his wife were indicted by a federal grand jury on a variety of fraud charges relating to personal and campaign finances.
Rep. Maxine Waters - has used her office to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son. Her daugter operates a mailing company that charges big bucks for political advertising using Rep.Waters photo and the candidates she supports. Her husband works as a part-time consultant for a bond underwriting firm seeking government investment and uses Rep.Waters to recommend contacts earning him $54k. Rule 23 of the House Ethics Manual requires all members of the House to conduct themselves "at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House."
AND I'll give you one Republican you forgot about:
Rep.Tom Feeney(R-FL) - Has taken 3 trips in apparent violation of House travel and gift rules. Accused of vote-rigging scandal with a software firm to produce illegal vote machine software. The state Ethics Commission cleared him of ethical missteps surrounding his ties to his client.
Happy now?
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/19/2006 @ 1:20 pm PT...
BVAC,
Blowback: misinformation resulting from the recirculation into the source country of disinformation previously planted abroad by that country's intelligence service.
If I understand you correctly, you think that the CIA planted disinformation into Arab countries that has resulted in misinformation from those countries coming back to the USA.
You sound like Prof.Ward Churchill at Univ. of Colorado. Absolute, utter nonsense.
You apparently belong to the "blame America first" crowd who would not see the light of truth if it burned them white-hot.
That is the tempurature that the bodies of the men, women, and children became when their planes slammed into the WTC. Those people on those planes and in the WTC were all types of people from many countries (many of them Middle Eastern). Those people were liberals, conservatives, and moderates. Those people were Americans going about their business when evil came to kill them because of the hatred the terrorists have for all of us. The terrorists don't care who of us are liberal or conservative. They would kill you just as quickly as me. Those people were your neighbors, and you don't want terrorists hunted down and killed?
Ok, please tell me why you are not a pacifist. Robert says he's not, so I won't assume anymore. But I will ask.... Are you? Yes or No.
Go ahead and stick your liberal head in the sand. We'll do the fighting for you. I wore the uniform of my country for 10 years. Now I'm too old to re-up, but I have thought recently that I should have stayed in. I really wish I would have not left the military when I did.
So you don't care about stopping terrorism and you don't care about stopping people from hurting themselves and others with illegal and dangerous drugs. And you work with the medical community?
I understand the terrorist threat. You don't.
I understand how they will try and try to kill Americans until they are defeated. You don't.
I understand that the best defense of a good offense. You don't.
I believe in taking the terrorist fight to our enemies. You don't.
I support the fight that my county needs to be in. You don't.
"I'll side with the Constitution over some Orwellian concept of perpetual war against an unnamed enemy."
Hmm, might have some disagreement with Robert here. He thinks that there will always be a perpetual battle against this "unnamed enemy" (which is called Al-Qaeda terrorists, BTW).
Again, I understand the Constitutional process of declaring war. But what I asked you and Robert to explain is, can Congress declare war on a group (Al-Qaeda) and not only on a country? You did not volunteer your opinion on that.
So, the fight against terrorism is, in your opinion, "an elaborate military exercise run amok, serving the interests of the military industrial complex more than national security."
The military industrial complex? The Revolutionary War had more terrorism than today? National Security is not important to you? You are quite some piece of work, there.
Hey, I'll echo the words of Jeff posting here on the Pentagon video thread. He said that some of you won't recognize the terrorist threat until they have you tied up on the ground and are sawing your head off with a rusty knife.
Looks like that applies to you as well.....
Enjoy your complacency.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/19/2006 @ 1:38 pm PT...
Hey BVAC,
This is for you:
Later!
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 5/19/2006 @ 2:19 pm PT...
Charlene - Looks like GWN and others corrected your misperceptions about the Downing Street Memo Hearing (The Basement Hearing). I blogged it live at one of the links that GWN linked to, so you can check out what happened there.
Mike J. - I'm glad I caught your post, as I'm not usually able to get back to older comments these days (especially of late, as things are hellish busy). So forgive me also if I can't reply to the reply you'll surely post to my reply here. Your comments are quoted below in italics, along with my answers to your questions:
Don't lump me in with the other conservatives that post on your board. I give right information and FACTS, sir, not just retoric.
With the emphasis on "right information" apparently. Witness your followup comments to someone else about Clinton being as guilty as Bush for his Iraq positions. Clinton never sent our country to war over them, but acted responsibly instead, and furthermore, Clinton NEVER declared there were Nuclear Weapons (or programs) in Iraq being deployed, made, purchased or anything else.
Chem and Bio weapons with no means of delivery to anywhere beyond Saddam's own border is one thing, "a nuclear attack in 45 minutes" "the smoking gun as a mushroom cloud" "Saddam purchasing uraniam in Niger" etc. etc. is quite another matter.
All statements *known* to be FALSE at the time that Bush and/or people in his Admin made them.
He LIED the American people and Congress into support of this war. Then failed to support our troops as it was being waged, and allowed for BILLIONS of tax dollars to be sent into oblivion with no oversight and the most corrupt administraiton of a war ever known in this country.
Whether or not you are a registered Democrat does not matter. Your side is obviously anything and anybody not Republican. Have you ever voted for a Republican?
Yes.
And Libertarian as well.
I am happy to support non-corrupt Republicans (and have done so many times here) and am happy to smash up corrupt Democrats (and have done so many times here).
Inform yourself *before* making a fool of yourself. Or afterwards, and then make a fool of yourself anyway. It's up to you.
And you did not deny hating Pres.Bush either.
Frankly, it's never occured to me whether I "hate" him or not. I don't spend much time on personal nonsense.
His administration and policies are amongst the most corrupt and disingenuous and destructive and evil of any Administration this country has ever seen.
I don't waste my time "hating" anybody. I reply to the FACTS of the matter, and do so as I watch innocent man, woman and child be put at greater threat than ever by his atrocious policies, be killed by the thousands, and all the while listen to his rhetoric --- and those of his dead-ender supporters --- talk about "supporting the troops" while he himself has failed to do so to the tune of nearly 2500 dead American troops and scores of thousands wounded for life.
For. No. Reason.
America will win when our terrorist enemies are defeated.
Our "terrorist enemies" will be defeated when we start protecting our country against the threat they pose, instead of failing to do so, and making the that threat all the more serious and deadly every day.
They won't be defeated by nit-picking the President on methods of terrorist surveillance or methods of election reform.
You say "nit-picking", I say, following the words of our country's founders, constitutionalists and *true* conservatives who give a damn about both the Constitution and the rule of law.
In the meantime, spying illegally on American citizens in direct contravention of the law, and instituting election "reform" which spends billions of American tax-dollars to ensure that our electoral system is more vulnerable than ever to fraud, is hardly what I'd think *anyone* would applaud.
Apparently, you put party over country, and so you do exactly that.
I have no confidence that a Democrat President will do what is necessary to defeat terrorists where ever they are. THAT is what I want for my family and my country to be protected.
Good for you. Then don't vote for a Democrat for President.
But don't tell me that Bush has either made this country safer, or done anything than embarrass this country, put all Americans at far greater risk through atrocious policies while demonstrating the greatest incompetence and loathing for this country that we have ever seen in our history.
That has nothing to do with partisanship, I don't give a damn what party he is. That's just a fact.
Do you hope that the USA wins the war in Iraq?
What the hell are you talking about? For a start, I don't even know what the hell "winning" means. Do you?
That said, I hope the misadventure comes to a successful solution and not one single more American troop or innocent Iraqi is killed due to this nonsensensical war of invasive aggression against a country that posed NO threat to America.
Never mind for the moment how we got there, just please answer that question. THEN go into your history of why you think the Iraq war is wrong.
I've answered your question. Then read my blog, the public documents, George Bush's letter to congress, the Pentagon's and State Dept's reports, and everything else on the public record to find out why the War on Iraq is/was wrong.
Your information on your site has convinced me of the need to verify our election systems across the country (not just in the states that liberals complain about in FL and OH where Democrats lost. Oh, yeah, you think they didn't lose.... oh well).
Oh, well, indeed. And I've not argued for verifiable elections in only such states. I've been brutally critical of many others. Amongst them, Maryland and Georgia and New Mexico where it was Democrats responsible for allowing these horrendous, hackable, unreliable voting machines.
Are you unclear about that, Mike J?
So I have posted on your site before that your work in the area of election systems is GREAT (except for the part about blaming Republicans for everything).
Apparently you haven't read much here. Or only retained what you wanted to retain, what fit into your partisan, nonsensical, and unAmerican agenda.
Brad, "destructive partisan foolishness"? What do you call your campaign against anything Republican?
I call it a figment of your imagination.
What do you call nit-picking Pres.Bush over whether or not one of his aides made a mistake and gave him a bill to sign that had not passed both sides of Congress yet?
I call it the rule of law, congressional oversight (lacking) and the constitutional responsibility of the Executive Branch completely corrupted.
I call your speculation that it was a "mistake" to be completely and wholly lacking a shred of evidence.
If it was a mistake, where is the Administration in demanding that Congress revisit the bills and establish ONE that both houses can pass as according to the Constitution of the United States of America (which he had previously vowed to protect and defend...but was apparently just kidding about).
What do you call following the Democrat line in the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame story?
I call it following the FACTS in the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame story. I call it Treason that a White House for the first time in American History has outted a covert CIA operative. I call it a tragedy that she was apparently working on monitoring Nuclear Arms programs in Iran and that the network was completely blown, our Intel forces now blinded, because Bush and Cheney decided to play politics with our national security.
What do you call engaging in the wacko conspiracy theory of a missle hitting the Pentagon and that the WTC was brought down by explosives?
I call it again your wacko speculation that I have done.
What do you call bad-mouthing any Republican talk-show host or supporter and bestowing kudos to most Democrats like Rep. John "Babysitting Staff" Conyers?
I call it, again, your wacko disinformation. I have (and continue to be) on many Republican talk-shows and have supported many such Conservatives who are honest in the way they deal with the unprecedented corruption of this administration. Ask Dr. Stan Monteith, ask Jay Lawrence, ask Walter Jones, ask Jim March.
Get your facts straight (about anything) before you start mouthing off about such unsupported horseshit here.
If you want to "out-left" Al Franken, be my guest.
If you want to "out-misinform" Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Bill Cheney, George W. Bush et al, be my guest.
But if you continue to post knowing disinformation, you're comments will not last here long, and you will not continue to be my guest. Which you currently are, by the way.
As I said, your work on election re-reform (double "re" intentional) is great, but your voter registration card does not require a "D" in order for you to be partisian in Democrat issues and causes.
Fighting against unprecedented corruption, simply because it's 99.9% done by those in power (who happen to Republican), has nothing to do with being partisan or being a "Democrat" issue or cause.
Again: Have you ever voted for Republicans? I have voted for Democrats.
Again, yes I have.
(Also I'm getting tired of having to copy-and-paste my comments before I hit "preview" just in case I decide to go back and find the comments gone. It would be great if you could fix that. I've had to do that several times today.)
And I am getting tired of this blog being attacked by friends of yours who don't wish this information to get out, and spend day and night trying to take the system down, and making it hard for people like you to post your comments.
My apologies for that. I'm trying to save up enough money to purchase new software that will make that happen less often. If you'd like to help do something about it, feel free to donate to that effort here.
Thanks!
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 5/19/2006 @ 3:08 pm PT...
Mike J: We're not clear on blowback. It's the unintended consequences of foreign policy and covert military operations. Simply put: if we're going to trot around the globe for decades assassinating leaders, arming militias, and propping up dictators - it's going to come back to bite us. If what you are referring to is the propoganda about Zarqawi and the favorable stories from the paid off media in Iraq initiated by the Pentagon being recirculated into the American press, your point is duly noted but it's not what I'm getting at.
You are completely avoiding my argument by wrapping yourself up in the flag and hiding behind that "Blame America first" baloney. What a pathetic straw man. I don't blame America, but rather the misguided Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton policies that resulted in this mess we're in.
Again, your 9/11 hokum is not going to work on me.
The Constitution is what holds this country together. Whether the War of 1812, Pearl Harbor, or 9/11, we have survived because of one principled document. It's the one thing that guarantees our freedom. Not God, not the military, not charismatic politicians, not generous and not-so-generous corporations.
I'm not a pacifist. That doesn't mean I mindlessly support any war that happens to be going on though. I also don't trust any president that stands in a military uniform on an aircraft carrier to declare mission accomplished three years before 76 soldiers were killed in a month.
It's interesting how you say liberals, moderates, and conservatives died on 9/11, then tell me to bury my head in the sand and let "you" [conservatives] do the fighting for us. You know, a Zogby poll in February showed that 72% of the troops in Iraq want to see a pull out in 2006. So are you saying that they want to stick their heads in the sand? Why do you hate our troops?
That same poll, by the way, found that 85% of them thought their mission was to retaliate for Saddam's role in 9/11. I wonder where they got that impression from!
War is declared by nations, on nations. Congress can authorize military actions on a smaller scale, against Al Qaeda for instance. Anything beyond that and you'd have to ask a Constitutional scholar.
The fight against terrorism is a broader struggle to deal with violence with intelligence, diplomacy, and multilateral military action when necessary. The "war on terror" so far has involved destroying afganistan and handing it over to warlords, resulting in harsher treatment of women and minorities and a surge in drug production, and the destruction of iraq predicated on lies and manipulation of intelligence, resulting in civil war, instability, the rise of home-grown terrorism, and the perfect segue into our next adventure in Iran. That's to say nothing of our domestic situation. Who benefits from all this?
National security is important. That is why wars that undermine our national security should be swiftly ended.
Eh. Some people wouldn't recognize a war crime until they're put on trial at the Hague.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/19/2006 @ 3:48 pm PT...
Well then, WHAT is the political point being made by Conyers when he said, "So, RATHER THAN SEEKING IMPEACHMENT, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses?"
Why does he say "..rather than seek impeachment.." if he IS still seeking impeachment--which we know he was?
And that still leaves the other mystery--if this "comprehensive oversight" has subpoena authority, everyone KNOWS it WILL lead to impeachment because Bush IS guilty--so that would negate the point of declaring he is NOT seeking impeachment--as far as not scaring-off the Republicans.
It's confusing, because it doesn't make sense.
If he's not back-pedaling, then what point is Conyers making by saying "..rather than seeking impeachment.."?
Does anyone get it?
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/19/2006 @ 3:56 pm PT...
I wouldn't worry about Bush going down, leaving Cheney & Hastert to rule.
Cheney will go down if Bush does & it won't be pretty.
That will make an impression on Hastert & friends.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/19/2006 @ 4:15 pm PT...
For Mike J.: I don't know if Congress can declare war on al Qaeda. I'd like to believe it could, and along with you, I'd support such a war.
But doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that with Osama bin Laden wandering around from one cave to another in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or God knows where, that we've forgotten about him and invaded Iraq, with disastrous consequences...even though Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda or with 9/11? Isn't that a bit bizarre, Mike? Doesn't it strike you as odd that Bush said he didn't know where Osama was and didn't think a lot about him? This guy who (supposedly) launched the attack on American soil that gave rise to the debacle in Iraq...and Bush doesn't know or care about him?
Has it occurred to you that possibly Osama bin Laden didn't orchestrate 9/11 after all? Or if he in fact did, have you wondered why Bush doesn't seem concerned about his whereabouts now?
That doesn't strike you as just a bit peculiar?
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
...
Roger
said on 5/19/2006 @ 6:45 pm PT...
Mike J.
You're makin' me look bad, man. I think I'm the only one that has stood up for you. This thread is revealing something that looks a lot like YOUR head is in the sand. You're getting a bit too accusatory and not checking your facts closely enough. You're also putting too much blind trust in this administration. I think you should step back and critically look at our points. It takes time and I'm sure you're pretty busy but you need to recognize where your critical thinking skills bow to your partisanship. I don't have such a problem. Brad and I are together on that. I have voted both ways and also independent. (I made the mistake of believing Peter King and voted for him. Not gonna happen this time.) I believe you are geniunely concerned for your family but war is NOT the only way. And a sincere reminder that the president does not take an oath to keep the American people safe. Laws are supposed to do that. He vows to uphold the Constitution of the United States and faithfully execute the laws of the United States. In that he has failed miserably.
One more thing. I pointed out that this domestic spying program without warrants is carried out under the "claimed inherent authority" of the president as commander-in-chief. Since there is a dispute as to the constitutionality of that authority, the matter belongs in the Supreme Court. Why hasn't that been done? (They'd rather take a case involving a bubblehead blonde with big tits.) I think it's because they KNOW that it wouldn't be upheld. But I'm willing to see. Put the matter up before the court.
The people here and elsewhere believe in the Constitution and the defense of that most incredible document that has allowed this country to survive and thrive for so long. It is under vigorous attack now. It has been under attack before but never to this extent. If these 'people' succeed, it will be reduced to just words on paper for all the meaning of those words will have been destroyed and freedom will be arbitrary, subject to the whims of those in power.
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
...
Mar
said on 5/19/2006 @ 8:22 pm PT...
There's this little nagging feeling that keeps popping up from time to time and especially when I think of how Bush and Co were gung-ho to get into Afghanistan and run down Bin Laden. Now he doesn't seem interested at all in his whereabouts.
Has anyone else ever wondered if these two are really buddy buddies on the quiet and Bin Laden agreed to let Bush blame him for 911, with the understanding that the invasion of Afghanistan. on the pretence of 'going after Bin Laden', was a sort detour for a month or two before Bush really went after what he wanted.......a war with Iraq.
It IS common knowledge that the Bush family have for years had very close ties with the Bin Laden family, plus the Bin Laden family members were spirited away very quickly a couple of days after 911 when all other aircraft were grounded.
One more thing that keeps cropping up is that when times get rough, up pops a Bin Laden video that has been released to the press. Maybe El Chimpo calls on his buddy to help him out......"Hey Osama, need your help......I need a diversion here, put out another tape".
Sorry....it's probably just my fertile mind going into overdrive. Please, you guys, don't crash down on me too hard......I can't HELP my 'female intuition', it came with the territory, but must admit, it has served me well on numerous occasions.
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 5/19/2006 @ 8:27 pm PT...
Birds of a feather, Mar. Birds of a feather.
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/19/2006 @ 11:18 pm PT...
#51 Mar
Righto.
How difficult is it to find a man that is very tall, has a chef that feeds him a special diet for his condition, & requires a kidney dialysis machine that must have sterile solutions & a constant source of electricity hanging off of his arm in a 3rd world country?
How many caves got all that?
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
...
Erik
said on 5/20/2006 @ 4:39 am PT...
So now even Conyers says he will not impeach. I guess he means well, but it is very sad that the republican talking points made him step back and adapt to the democratic spinelessness. Now Bush can do what ever he wants without having to worry about any democrat mentioning the word impeachment. At most, they might dare to say the word "committee" once in a while when he does something extraordinarily illegal.
A bipartisan committee is worth absolutely nothing when dealing with an administration that ignores congress and comittees are certainly not necessary to conclude that dictator Bush and his thugs have committed crimes. What we need is intense protest, not requests for committes to ask the criminals if they have done anything wrong.
Remember the "bipartisan and independent" 9/11 commission that concluded that not a single person in the US Government had any responsibility for the complete failure to stop the terrorists and protect the skies, despite massive amounts of surveillance and forewarning? A bipartisan committe on Bushs crimes would surely conclude that whatever crime he may have accidently committed, he did the best he or anyone else could have done with the information avaliable to him, or some other bullshit that completely frees him any everyone else from any guilt. The democrats can't come to any other conclusion because they are also complicit in these crimes.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
...
Erik
said on 5/20/2006 @ 5:25 am PT...
Mar: Your intuition is spot on. Not just Bush, but the US Government as a whole has been cooperating with Bin Laden for a long time. The US and Bin Laden trained and radicalized the Mujaheddin together for the wars in Afghanistan and the Balkans in the 1980's and -90's. With the help of the CIA and US State Department Bin Laden established al-Qaeda cells to conduct this training and indoctrination all around the US and the world. These cells also became centers for the proliferation of terrorism, wich has served the interests of both the US and al-Qaeda.
Check out some information on Osama Bin Ladens al-Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn New York and Mr Ali Mohamed who simultaneously was a seargeant in US Special Forces, teacher at US military schools, CIA- and FBI-agent, weapons instructor for mujaheddin fighters at al-Kifah, leader of an al-Qaeda cell in Silicon Valley and organiser of the US embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Strangely, even though he confessed to be an organiser of these bombings, he was never convicted. The head of al-Kifah was previousely convicted as the leader of of the 1993 WTC bombers, some of wich were trained by Ali Mohamed. By the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism Youssef Bodansky, Ali Mohamed was described as "an emissary for the CIA with various Arab Islamist militant/terrorist movements ".
The people accused for 9/11 were also connected to this al-Qaeda cell in New York. Mohamed Atta himself, under his real name Mohamed el Amir, was exonerated by Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff for trying to buy weapons for al-Qaeda by an undercover agent in 1999. As was his brother, Dr Magdy el Amir, a known Osama Bin Laden financier, who previously had Michael Chertoff as his lawyer when he was accused of skimming money from his failed HMO to fund terrorism.
These are just a few examples of the connections between the US and al-Qaeda that are still present throughout this global network. "International terrorism" is mostly a nasty, but handy, side effect of this cooperation.
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 5/20/2006 @ 3:26 pm PT...
Charlene said:
If he's not back-pedaling, then what point is Conyers making by saying "..rather than seeking impeachment.."?
Does anyone get it?
An investigator --- let's say a Prosecutor, for example --- worth their salt, begins their investigation with prima facia evidence of a crime (Conyers laid that out in both is Op/Ed and his "Constitution in Crisis" report).
They then begin the investigation for more details to determine if a crime in fact has been committed and if an indictment is necessary.
They do not (or at least should not) set out to "seek an indictment".
Make sense?
Erik said:
So now even Conyers says he will not impeach. I guess he means well, but it is very sad that the republican talking points made him step back and adapt to the democratic spinelessness.
Conyers did not say "he will not impeach", neither do I read it has he has "stepped back" or "adapted to democratic spinelessness".
You guys need to understand how politics (in the good sense, not in the crass sense) works. No one person has the authority to do anything without growing a consensus of their peers. That's the political process. That's clearly what Conyers' has been doing from the get-go.
I'd like to think you could understand (given your appropriate disdain for unilateral, unconstitutional Bush Administration policies) the necessity for any politician to move forward in such a necessarily NON-unilateral way towards obtaining any worthwhile objective.
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
...
Roger
said on 5/20/2006 @ 3:50 pm PT...
How'd you get so smart, Brad?
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/20/2006 @ 9:35 pm PT...
56 Brad
No, it doesn't make sense at all.
The Dem leaders are sayng they won't seek impeachment if they get majority, so Republicans won't be able to use the impeachment as a negative "talking point" against the Dems--or so the wise Dem leaders have reasoned.
How does saying "...rather than seeking impeachment.." make the Republicans feel better when they know a subpoena power investigation will also definetely lead to an impeachment, because we all know Bush IS really guilty on several different points of high crimes?
There is no difference between the two, in effect, unless the "investigation" the Dems speak of does not have subpoena power.
If it has NO subpoena power, Bush will continue to refuse to hand over documents required & get off---which will make the Republicans happy.
If it DOES have subpoena power, Bush will forced to do what he's told & he'll be nailed--that will do nothing to make the Republicans feel good.
It shur'nuf looks like they got to Conyers & he rolled over--otherwise his statemant makes no sense.
If Conyers is saying he will investigate but with no subpoena power--then they got to him.
Besides, I understood, Brad, that it takes ONLY ONE Representative in the House to start an impeachment proceeding.
My God.
This situation right here & now is EXACTLY the reason the founding fathers made impeachment available.
Any pussyfootin now is unacceptable & just stupid on the Dems part.
COMMENT #59 [Permalink]
...
m3
said on 5/21/2006 @ 1:55 am PT...
Mike J..
Spying on domestic calls is not a method of "terrorist surveillance".
As for our "terrorist enemies", when we wage illegal wars that incite anger and violence.. we create "terrorist enemies"...
Under this administration, we're creating more "terrorist enemies" than we can keep up with.
You said "I have no confidence that a Democrat President will do what is necessary to defeat terrorists where ever they are."
I have FULL CONFIDENCE that this administration will create "terrorist enemies", will drive up oil prices, will continue to sneak around spying on Americans who have nothing to do with terrorism and have never made communication with anyone in the middle east, will continue to break laws and retroactively redefine the law, will continue to lie to us and will continue to distribute propaganda against it's own people.
Since Bush took office... terrorism in general has increased significantly.
- You claim that supporting Bush will help stop terrorism.
- 175 terrorist incidences in 2003
- 1907 terrorist incidences in 2004
- and the number is bigger for 2005
- Since Bush has taken office... Terrorist incidents have apparently increased to over TEN TIMES what they were around 2002/2003.
COMMENT #60 [Permalink]
...
Mar
said on 5/21/2006 @ 8:03 am PT...
# 52 BVAC
# 53 Charlene
# 55 Erik
I hoped that my intuition had gone astray on this one, and I did have a hard time believing it, but after reading the info you posted Erik, wow...!! This is SO far reaching, it's more than frightening, not only to your country but also to the rest of the free world. Come to think of it, maybe there isn't too much 'free world' left anymore..!!
Tony Blair seems to have distanced himself from Bush of late. Guess he has also realized how much of a madman Bush really is.
COMMENT #61 [Permalink]
...
Bluebear2
said on 5/21/2006 @ 12:29 pm PT...
Charlene #58
I think the reasoning is that it is a matter of perception. A direct call for impeachment would play to the repugs since they could stir up their 29% with the threat, whereas that faithful horde would more likely be complacent with the threat of an investigation since they are already convinced there is nothing wrong.
COMMENT #62 [Permalink]
...
Charlene
said on 5/21/2006 @ 3:14 pm PT...
#61 BlueBear2 & Brad #56
Thank you for trying to clear this up, I appreciate it.
I see your point, that the 29% believe Bush is innocent.
And I see Brad's point, that you don't indict before you have done an investigation & have enough evidence to know the indictment will stick.
Still, the founding fathers made impeachment different than indictment for a reason.
You have to have evidence to indict, but you impeach just with strong suspicion that "high crimes & misdemeanors" have occurred, & then you name what you think they are.
The founding fathers knew the executive branch could stonewall an investigation (such as Bush is doing right now)--that's why they invented the impeachment proceeding.
The PURPOSE of the impeachment is to force a 'showdown at high noon' between the legislative branch & the executive branch, with the judicial branch supposedly neutral, looking for the truth. An investigation follows an impeachment at which any evidence requested WILL be given & given promptly. THEN, if the evidence is there, the impeached is found guilty.
The Dems are shirking their DUTY, no question.
Every elected officail takes the same oath of office.
They solemnly swear only one thing--"to uphold & protect the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, both foreign & domestic".
So start upholding & protecting, baby.
COMMENT #63 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/23/2006 @ 9:50 am PT...
BRAD,
I realize this is now three days later. I don't do news on weekends and I did not visit here yesterday either. I was too busy.
So you may not see this, but I'll link it somewhere.... (as well as save the text on my PC in case it needs reposting).
I praised your work for election reform, but you attack my opinions as unresearched and foolish. Neither is true.
I support and was convinced by you (as well as acknowleding) that electronic voting machines need to be made trustworthy and are not now. However you can't even acknowledge that.
Yet even after all that, you threaten to delete my posts? Scheez.....
Sure, this is your site. I fully realize that I am your guest. But I am also your site's Republican punching-bag.
What did Paul say that caused you to delete his post? Dis-information? Or how about opinion? A lot of times I link to stories, just as you and your friends. I don't link to far-left or far-right sources like your friends do.
I pointed out exactly how wrong Dan was on the journalism-to-government issue yet he still thinks he was right. I showed the work history of one man and Dan can't admit he was wrong. I mention that as an example of just how stubborn some of your friends are.
I admitted I was wrong about the election machines. I hope the issue gets corrected soon.
I put country before party. I always have and always will. But you say that without seeing my other posts about that or realizing that a more outlandish way of putting party before country is speaking out against our country while visiting other countries. People on your side of the asile do that. We don't do that.
If you start deleting my posts which are not outlandish, then I will get your attention in another way. I am sorry that some people can't believe in the excersise of free speech. Both those right-wing hackers and you are doing just that.
Those hackers are not my friends. They should not try to compromise your site. However, you should not delete a post that disagrees with your opinions. You allow profanity, yet you won't allow disagreement? Hey, it's your site and your decision. Do it as you wish.
About your ever voting for Republicans, I was actually ASKING the question if perhaps you had. Sure, I thought that maybe you had not, but since you have then that is good. But don't make fun of me asking the question because it's a reasonable one to ask considering the volume and content of anti-Republican articles and posts here.
Direct quotes from Democrats are not "dis-information". They are FACT. But it's a FACT that you don't want to be spread around.
These direct quotes on Nuclear weapons are not from Pres.Clinton himself, but they are from those in his administration and party both while he was in office and afterward including one from Sen.Hillary Clinton.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. I addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
I guess 12 years and 17 UN resoutions is not enough for you. Maybe Iraq or Iran actually putting a nuclear bomb over here would be? They might choose your city. I don't want that anywhere in America or the entire world. But they won't stop their terrorism by you just talking nice to them. Pres.Clinton tried that with North Korea. It didn't work.
COMMENT #64 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/23/2006 @ 12:46 pm PT...
BVAC,
"Simply put: if we're going to trot around the globe for decades assassinating leaders, arming militias, and propping up dictators - it's going to come back to bite us."
Wow, you are a "Ward Churchill" far-leftist to the extreme. There is no talking sense to you. You do blame America first, no question about it.
No I don't hate the troops. I was one of them. I wore a uniform of my country's military for 10 years! I don't regret for one moment the time I served in the military. However, I have regretted leaving. Before you say it, I'm too old to get back in and no longer healthy enough for military service.
"...destroying afganistan and handing it over to warlords, resulting in harsher treatment of women ..."
Wrong again. ABC TV news must be your favorite "news source". Women in Afganistan are treated a lot better. They can go to school and have a job, which they could not do before. The women were publicly executed by the Taliban government on soccer fields in front of their children just for not having their burka completely on. And you call today's democratic Afganistan worse for women? You must be on some serious drugs (hopefully not while on duty).
I could write more but why bother with you? Your hate drives you way too far from reason.
COMMENT #65 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 5/23/2006 @ 2:27 pm PT...
Took you long enough, Mike. So are you denying that the United States government: 1. Assassinated or removed from power by military coup political leaders 2. Provided arms, training, and intelligence to militias and guerillas during the cold war period 3. supported anti-communist/pro-american dictators in central america and the middle east? If you are not, please explain. I'm not sure why you keep misinterpreting criticism against the government as criticism of the heart and soul of the America, but I think it might have something to do with stupidity. Go and read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution a bit, it states pretty clearly that we the people form these United States, not a bunch of politicians in warshington that are doing a pretty shitty job of running things!
Asking if you "hate the troops" was an amusing, and apparently effective, way of showing you how ridiculous that rhetoric is in normal discourse. You ignored my broader point though; if I am in agreement with the 72% of soldiers that think we should pull out of Iraq before the end of this year, why is it that I am the one burying my head in the sand, and why should I let "you" do the fighting for me? It seems like you are the one with your head in the sand, if you can't understand that a military presence is not going to fix Iraq, and was never a legal, sane, or practical option in the first place.
For the record, I do not advocate equal distribution of wealth, state control of the means of production, seizure of all private property for public use, or forced population control. So take your far-leftist bogeyman and shove it up your ass.
As for afganistan, the actual treatment of women remains virtually unchanged. they have more freedoms on paper, but that is dependent on the conditions on the ground. I trust you'll take my word for it, but I'll let you fire the first shot before throwing pesky reports and statistics at you. I noticed you cut off the part about drug production soaring, so i'm glad we're in agreement about that.
COMMENT #66 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 5/24/2006 @ 8:32 am PT...
COMMENT #67 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 5/24/2006 @ 12:31 pm PT...
What did Paul say that caused you to delete his post? Dis-information? Or how about opinion?
Disinformation. Knowing disinformation. One long-time debunked statement after another. The same ones over and over. Without ever presenting evidence to support his side (he couldn't, there was none). Time after time for months (actually years) on end before he was finally banned.
A lot of times I link to stories, just as you and your friends. I don't link to far-left or far-right sources like your friends do.
Don't know what "friends" your talking about. Or even what your talking about for that matter.
a more outlandish way of putting party before country is speaking out against our country while visiting other countries.
More "outlandish" than what? Supporting illegal policies that make us more vulnerable and kill more of our citizens for no justifiable reason or cause? And continuously lying about it?
As to "speaking out against our country while visting other countries" I have no clue what you're talking about. And so, far, I can't imagine any such thing putting us at more risk than what you "and your friends" in the White House are doing to this country by undermining everything it stands for.
People on your side of the asile do that. We don't do that.
What side of the aisle are you talking about, Mike? And who is "we" and what is it that you don't do? Because whoever you are and whatever you claim to not do, I'm sure I can prove that you do it in spades. In about a minute.
If you start deleting my posts which are not outlandish, then I will get your attention in another way.
Oh, my. Skeery! A threat?
I don't give a shit how "outlandish" your posts are. I give a shit about whether or not they are full of purposeful disinformation. You are welcome to be wrong on the topics all you want. You are not welcome to lie or offer information known to be untrue.
I am sorry that some people can't believe in the excersise of free speech.
Me too. Be sure to let your Rightwing blogger friends who disallow comments, delete them without notice and ban those who don't agree with them. Start over with your Freeper friends who will ban you after 30 seconds if you write a single word they don't agree with.
Both those right-wing hackers and you are doing just that.
Sorry, Mike. Were you born full of crap, or did you just end up that way? I've done nothing of the sort.
However, you should not delete a post that disagrees with your opinions.
I never have.
You allow profanity, yet you won't allow disagreement? Hey, it's your site and your decision. Do it as you wish.
Hey, Mike. Knock it off. Understand? You are welcome to disagree with me all you want.
But when you start making claims like those above (demonstrably untrue) you won't last long here. It's not about you disagreeing with me, or anybody else, it's about you lying. Your two comments above are complete lies.
So knock it off.
These direct quotes on Nuclear weapons are not from Pres.Clinton himself, but they are from those in his administration and party both while he was in office and afterward including one from Sen.Hillary Clinton.
Um, Mike. Thank you for posting the actual quotes to which you refer.
Do I actually need to point out that not a single one was from Bill Clinton (who you claimed said the same things about Saddam's nuke program). Only one quote was from someone in his administration, and it didn't refer to nukes in Iraq. And all the rest were *after* Bush was in office, and made by people not in Clinton's administration, nor who had access to the intel that Clinton and then Bush had.
In other words, your claims, taken word for word, along with your evidence, is little more than horseshit. And you either know it, or don't give a shit that you are attempting to mislead people. Or you're an utter fool.
I guess 12 years and 17 UN resoutions is not enough for you.
I guess the same UN you're pointing to as an authority on what should be done about Iraq --- the same one who asked for permission to keep their inspectors in for another 30 days, the same one who refused to support Bush's resolution to go to war (despite his previous promise to bring it to a vote in the Sec. Council before going to war), who never voted in favor of this war on Iraq --- is nice to point to when it's convenient for ya. But easy to ignore when it isn't, eh?
Maybe Iraq or Iran actually putting a nuclear bomb over here would be? They might choose your city.
What?! My city?! Oh, my Christ! Let's bomb those fuckers! I'm skeered of the terrorists! I'm skeered of the terrorists! Let's bomb them all right away! Even if they aren't terrorists, but might be some day! Let's bomb all those fuckers!
(I'd write more, but I have to go put duct tape and plastic on my windows right away!)
I don't want that anywhere in America or the entire world. But they won't stop their terrorism by you just talking nice to them.
Really? Shoot! I thought "talking nice to them" would work! That was my plan! And everyone who opposed Bush's violation of the US Constitution. Our plan was to talk nice to the terrorists instead. You sure learned us!
Well, that's good, because, unlike you, I (and everyone else who knows Bush is a criminal and a liar) wanted terrorism all over the country.
Why can't you just let us have terrorism every in America like we want?!
Dope.
COMMENT #68 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 5/27/2006 @ 4:59 am PT...
BVAC,
Why don't you act mature instead of childish?
You make reasoned arguments, then ruin it with your "shove it up your ass" comment.
OK you think that you don't blame America first. The "failed policies" of the previous four Presidents you mention might have been decisions that you would have gone along with if you were President. They have access to tons more covert intelligence from the CIA and the military than any of us do. The heart and soul of America, the people, voted for Presidents Carter, G.H.W.Bush, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W.Bush. You blame the Presidents for their decisions, yet you don't blame the voters of America? Sure you do. Everything wrong in the world is the fault of American Presidents, according to the great BVAC.
Stupidity? Look in the mirror. Your statement about "..equal distribution of wealth..." etc makes no sense. What in the world are you talking about? I did not accuse you of being a Communist. So I don't know where you got that from. Perhaps from your overactive imagination.
I didn't ignore your point about your supposed poll (which you didn't bother to provide a link for, therefore no verification). I just got tired of arguing that day.
I'm sure that a poll taken of troops during the Korean and Vietnam conflict would produce the same results. Perhaps even in certain areas during WWII and WWI.
But don't mis-interpret that as an attack on the troops. The ones in the majority of your poll (if true) simply don't want to be there. I fully understand that, in any war. War is Hell, after all. It's not a fun place to be.
Let me ask you this: On 9-11-2001, when you saw the events unfold as they did, did you immediately think that it was because of those "failed policies"? Did you immediately blame the current and former four Presidents for the attack? Were you immediately not suprised that the attack occured?
It's people like you, and those who post here on a regular basis with hate and vile toward the Administration's efforts to stop terrorism, who will force Congressmen like Rep.Conyers to bring charges of impeachment. Yes, they will take their time, they will research the issues involved, they will get all their ducks in a row, then they will go for it.
Just like you want them to.
COMMENT #69 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 5/27/2006 @ 5:36 pm PT...
And as well they should, Mike J. If that's what their constitutional duty involves.
COMMENT #70 [Permalink]
...
Joan
said on 5/28/2006 @ 8:32 am PT...
Brad,
Maybe YOU know what comment #70 is actually about. I sure don't. Spam?
I do like "nature wobbled the night" though.
Re your #66...excellent analysis, which will no doubt not even make a dent in their disinformation machine. I don't know where you get the patience but I admire you for it.
COMMENT #71 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 5/29/2006 @ 8:01 pm PT...
Mike J,
I'll start from the bottom up. Sure, I want an impeachment inquiry submitted to congress. Why wouldn't I? High crimes and misdemeanors have been committed that are far worse than anything Clinton was impeached for. It has nothing to do with emotions, or "hating" the administrations "efforts to stop terrorism" though, that's just more delusional rhetoric on your part.
On 9-11-2001, when you saw the events unfold as they did, did you immediately think that it was because of those "failed policies"?
Nope.
Did you immediately blame the current and former four Presidents for the attack?
No.
Were you immediately not suprised that the attack occured?
And no. What was your point, exactly?
The ones in the majority of your poll (if true) simply don't want to be there.
The difference is, not long ago those numbers used to be the other way around. They were happy to be there to avenge for the 9/11 attacks, to liberate a people living under tyranny, to chase out all the Al Qaeda, to build schools and hospitals. But then they found out Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, that liberating Iraqis placed them in the middle of a civil war, that Al Qaeda made Iraq a training ground because of the instability, that the schools and hospitals they built only had electricity for a few hours a day. The soldiers realize they were sent on a poorly defined mission by their Commander in Chief based on falsehoods, and they want out.
I did not accuse you of being a Communist. So I don't know where you got that from. Perhaps from your overactive imagination.
You were the one who threw around the old 'far-left' canard. You're confusing what I am saying with some political and philosophical ideology (one that I don't have in the first place). Let's get this one straight:
No right to private property = leftist idea
Powerful central government = leftist idea
Internationalism and intervention in foreign affairs = leftist idea
forty years of immoral foreign policy and a messy international situation spanning many leaders and ideologies = real fucking life.
Criticising foreign policy has nothing to do with "far-left" thinking.
As if it weren't bad enough that you think criticism of U.S. foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the left, you have to malign me with Ward Churchill. I have said nothing that can be described as leftist, far-leftist, social ist, communist, or extreme. That's a nice trick though - whenever you can't debate someone on the merits of what they say, just call them a far-"whatever" extremist.
You blame the Presidents for their decisions, yet you don't blame the voters of America? Sure you do. Everything wrong in the world is the fault of American Presidents, according to the great BVAC.
More pablum from our friend Mike J. So what is it Mike? Do I blame the voters, or do I blame the Presidents? You just said I blame both. I actually blame neither. Tell me I'm wrong, though. Here's an amusing observation though: if you take your premise that voters are responsible for foreign policy decisions because they elect the presidents, well, it should be encouraging to not that five of the principals in the decades-long disaster were booted out after one term for screwing up so bad! So the people are generally on the right track. Tell me Mike, where do problems come from? Do you believe in a cause-effect relationship at all? If so, what are the causes? Who causes them? If not, why does bad stuff happen? Do world leaders bear any responsibility for the effects their policies have on people foreign and domestic?
I also note that you did not address my first and last paragraphs.
And finally, grow thicker skin. If you're going to dish out nuggets of shit like "stick your liberal head in the sand," accuse me of hating our country, and basically roll your eyes at anything I say, I'm going to call you on it. Your "far-left" comments were complete bullshit, and you know it. All you seem intent on doing is spewing out words like "liberal" "far-left" "blame America first" in order to create a false impression of me in your mind, making it all the more easier for you to convince yourself that I'm wrong and dismiss anything I say. It's a hell of a lot easier than debating, isn't it?
COMMENT #72 [Permalink]
...
Mike J.
said on 6/4/2006 @ 1:35 pm PT...
BVAC,
more diatribes, more diatribes....
It's a hell of a lot easier than debating, isn't it?
I would debate your points with no problem, if you made sense.
It's a hell of a lot easier for you to describe my view of your "leftist" opinions and condem me for it than it is for you to actually admit that Ward Churchill's views are actually like your views read.
I actually did respond to your paragraphs, sorry you can't understand the meaning of my 2nd paragraph in #68, I thought it was simple enough. AS for the women in Afganistan, sure it's still a dangerous place. But the women go from having nothing and no rights at all to having jobs and the right to drive and attend school is certainly better than before. However, the terrorists there are killing those men who help the US in front of their women and children. It's got to stop.
Now that you have explained more of your point about the poll you mention, again without stating the source (hello?), I now understand that with the numbers reversed (again no proof) you think that they should be brought home based on that? I want them brought home too, AFTER they kill the terrorists.
Again and again, they signed the military contract just like I did in our VOLUNTEER services. The knew that they could be ordered anywhere in the world for any time.
You want to fix the problems that you see? Run for office yourself. Get the voters to put you in elected positions to make a difference. I don't need to but apparently you have a chip on your shoulder that's big enought for a paper mill.
So I need to get thicker skin, eh? Look at your collection of my comments that you present. Apparently I got under your skin... must not be too think skinned up there in NJ.
The cause-and-effect relationship can be fast and can be slow. It can take a year or it can take 500 years. That view of US policies over time causing radical extremism to knock our WTC down is exactly what Ward Churchill refers to when he says that it was "chickens comming home to roost". So you might think you disagree with him, but if you see what is views are, you might be suprised.
Lastly, the point of asking you what you thought as to the cause of the descrection as you witnessed it was a way of asking if you already had this in your head before 9-11. Maybe so, maybe not. But to come to it is not suprising.
Have a nice day!
COMMENT #73 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 6/8/2006 @ 9:47 am PT...
Mike J,
You're a sophist, plain and simple.
Take this for example: In #43, you completely misunderstood the definition of blowback, and called me a Ward Churchill extremist. In #46 I corrected you, and gave the correct definition of the word, as coined by the CIA. In #64, you again called me a Ward Churchill far-leftist extremist, and say there is 'no talking sense into me', presumably denying the existence of blowback. In #65, I asked if you denied specifically that the following took place: 1. Assassinated or removed from power by military coup political leaders 2. Provided arms, training, and intelligence to militias and guerillas during the cold war period 3. supported anti-communist/pro-american dictators in central america and the middle east? In #68, you ignore that and say the very policies I am arguing against "might have been decisions that [I] would have gone along with." Not only is this unprovable, but also besides the point. The point is to look at decades of failed ideology and learn from it, and begin correcting the course of history. That point and the greater discussion surrounding it is lost on you though, since all you seem to think about is Ward Churchill.
Or take this gem:
#43, responding to a call for withdrawal from Iraq (incidentally, something I never mentioned in this thread), you said "Go ahead and stick your liberal head in the sand. We'll do the fighting for you." This followed the statement that the victims in the WTC were liberals, conservatives, and moderates. Implied is that: 1. I am liberal and 2. Only conservatives are fighting in Iraq. #46, I cite a Zogby poll showing 72% of the troops want to see a pull out in 2006. #64 no response to poll. #68 You question the veracity/existence of the poll, then hypothesize about non-existent polls taken during Korea, Vietnam, WWI and WWII. You ignore the point that if 72% of troops want to see a pull out, why am I "sticking my head in the sand" when I support the same thing. An artful dodge of debate. #72, I say that it wasn't always 72% that wanted to see a withdrawal. #73, you accuse me of "[not] stating the source (hello?). The source was actually cited in the first post I mentioned it in, it is a Zogby poll from February 2006. It's not hard to find. Google it. You then say I now understand that with the numbers reversed (again no proof) you think that they should be brought home based on that? apparently forgetting the original context of the poll. I did not cite it to justify my support for withdrawal, but as a rebuttal to the ridiculous claim that I am "sticking my head in the sand" for wanting to pull out. Something you can't seem to understand.
There's a lot more I could dissect here, but it's not worth it. There's no discourse going on here. Anything I say will get a canned dismissive ("you make no sense" "far-leftist" "extremist" "ward-churchill!") and no thoughtful response.
Have a nice day!