[mike777]

"....Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges?..."


Hmm lets try and not be a hanging jury.....I hope there would be some evidence of an impeachable crime before the witch hunt begins ok? I hope you are not voting for a blind investigation now?

If you have some evidence of an impeachable offense please send it to Nancy P.

[mike777]

I was a bit surprised, ok very surprised by a poll I saw saturday. Mrs. Clinton was far ahead of the Dems by a huge margin and Gulianni(sp) had a big lead over McCain..sure it is early but this poll surprised me.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 4 2007, 10:56 PM, said:

"....Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges?..."


Hmm lets try and not be a hanging jury.....I hope there would be some evidence of an impeachable crime before the witch hunt begins ok? I hope you are not voting for a blind investigation now?

If you have some evidence of an impeachable offense please send it to Nancy P.

We could start with illegal wiretaps which have been admitted.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 4 2007, 11:03 PM, said:

I was a bit surprised, ok very surprised by a poll I saw saturday.  Mrs. Clinton was far ahead of the Dems by a huge margin and Gulianni(sp) had a big lead over McCain..sure it is early but this poll surprised me.

I don't understand how some of these characters so misjudge political climate - with the approval rating of Iraq at around 28%, McCain has as much chance of election as Bush does of a third term.

I wonder if we will have a third party run this time around.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 5 2007, 06:13 AM, said:

Lost me ...another simplistic question, what is Bush accused of lying about this time and what is the evidence of this lying? If you just believe nothing that comes out of his mouth, nevermind.

Hard to keep track of all the accusations at this point.

Comment 1: If you look at my original posting my comments were directed to the Bush administration in general, not just the shrub.

Comment 2: From my perspective, the war in Iraq provides the best evidence that the Bush administration systemically distorted the truth. The American people didn't wake up one day and develop a mass hallucination that the 9/11 was perpetrated by Iraq. These lies entered into the mass conciousness through a very deliberate propaganda effort.

The so-called "Downing Street Memo" provides some very useful outside commentary:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Here's another useful little piece of information that showed up on my doorstep this morning: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/20...by_cia_on_niger

Comment 3: Theres a nice little website out there called "Bushlies". Its easily accessible at www.bushlies.net

Here are some of my favorite quote from this site:

BUSH: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

Bush "We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture."

During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

No Time for Warrants It could not wait to get a warrant because it needed ”to move quickly to detect" plotting of terrorism between people in the United States and abroad. (President Bush 12/19/05)

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 5 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

mike777, on Feb 4 2007, 10:56 PM, said:

"....Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges?..."


Hmm lets try and not be a hanging jury.....I hope there would be some evidence of an impeachable crime before the witch hunt begins ok? I hope you are not voting for a blind investigation now?

If you have some evidence of an impeachable offense please send it to Nancy P.

We could start with illegal wiretaps which have been admitted.

I agree that if the President ordered illegal wiretaps and they were illegal at the time of the order and he knew this, all of this would seem to be an impeachable offense.

Does Congress know this and have evidence? What are they doing about this?

[luke warm]

mike777, on Feb 4 2007, 10:13 PM, said:

Lost me ...another simplistic question, what is Bush accused of lying about this time and what is the evidence of this lying? If you just believe nothing that comes out of his mouth, nevermind.

Hard to keep track of all the accusations at this point.

this time he's being accused of lying about his reference in the SoU speech to a foiled terrorist plot, knowing (so the disbelieving ones say) that this is not true... i personally lost faith when he assured us that WMD existed in iraq when in fact none did... that means, to me at least, that we went to war without sufficient reason and without due diligence... he may not have lied then, but he at the very least excercised poor judgement... even so, the earlier lie (or lack of judgement) has no bearing on the SoU excerpt

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 5 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 5 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

mike777, on Feb 4 2007, 10:56 PM, said:

"....Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges?..."


Hmm lets try and not be a hanging jury.....I hope there would be some evidence of an impeachable crime before the witch hunt begins ok? I hope you are not voting for a blind investigation now?

If you have some evidence of an impeachable offense please send it to Nancy P.

We could start with illegal wiretaps which have been admitted.

I agree that if the President ordered illegal wiretaps and they were illegal at the time of the order and he knew this, all of this would seem to be an impeachable offense.

Does Congress know this and have evidence? What are they doing about this?

In response: 1) did he do it? 2) did he know it was illegal? 3) what is being done?

Question #1)

Quote

Bush, however, said he authorized the program on several occasions since the September 11 attacks and that he plans on doing it again.

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

Sounds like a confession to me. Too bad no Miranda rights read. This should be suffidient proof for Congress, don't you think?


Question #2)

Quote

After hearing Bush's response, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said there was no law allowing the president's actions and that "it's a sad day."

He added that the law clearly lays out how to obtain permission for wiretaps.

"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that, and even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."

That pretty much says it is against the law - and it is of interest to note that illegal wiretaps were one of the impeachable charges against Nixon.

Question #3) Pelosi and Co. have raised the minimum wage - yep, that ought to do it.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 4 2007, 10:13 PM, said:

Lost me ...another simplistic question, what is Bush accused of lying about this time and what is the evidence of this lying? If you just believe nothing that comes out of his mouth, nevermind.

Hard to keep track of all the accusations at this point.

The debate is whether Bush lied when in his SoU address he made these types of statements:

Quote

3.-"Just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean."

And this is what has been learned about this so-called plot:

Quote

Well, the British "authorities" did arrest two dozen people, but numerous reports found consensus among experts that those arrested could not have possibly mixed together on an airplane the liquid explosives they allegedly planned to use.

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, summed this case up well:

"None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time. In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

"What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests. Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth."

So if you want to quibble, it is whether knowingly exagerating is lying. Unlike in court when we are not allowed to know the previous pattern of crimes, in this case we are allowed to use our judgement on previous patterns of lies and half-truths. So maybe you want to say that uncovering a chat room talk about water-bottle bombs made on a plane is indeed a plot, so technically there was no lie - but to associate such blatant crap with real terrorists and claim some kind of victory is a lie in itself, IMO.

Pakistani interrogation: "you can get you the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tend to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert toruture."

But then, if you suspend the Genova Convention for terrorist suspects, this is the kind of truth you get.

However, we don't have to believe it.

[Winstonm]

On a slightly unrelated subject:

Quote

Republicans block Senate debate on Iraq

What are the Republicans trying to do - commit suicide? I do not think this party truly grasps the degree of anger felt by the majority of Americans over Iraq and the lies that led us there.

If they don't want a return to the Johnson Democratic-control era, they had better quickly get wise and start listening to the people instead of trying to rule their monarchy.

[mike777]

Suicide?


HMMMM

1) pro anti gun
2) pro gay
3) hmmm ok ok ...this is a really long shot......pro choice?

ok ok...must be too many brandys to write this

[pbleighton]

"ok ok...must be too many brandys to write this"

WAY too many

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Feb 6 2007, 05:54 AM, said:

Suicide?

HMMMM

1) pro anti gun
2) pro gay
3) hmmm ok ok ...this is a really long shot......pro choice?

ok ok...must be too many brandys to write this

Well more people because less will be killed by guns.

Less people because gays can't produce offspring.

Fewer unwanted children so those that remain are happier and better off and there will be fewer total.

Sounds like a good plan to save humanity...and it all revolves around equality and individual freedom.....how (UN?) american......

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 6 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

Suicide?


HMMMM

1) pro anti gun
2) pro gay
3)  hmmm ok ok ...this is a really long shot......pro choice?

ok ok...must be too many brandys to write this

Personally, I think that the Republican's carefully orchestrated "Daily Hate" regarding homosexual marriage is one of the last gasps from a dying generation. All of the political polls within the United States show that the single most significant predictor of individual positions regarding gay rights is age. Religious identification is also significant, but not nearly so much. (Luckily, the younger evangelicals aren't nearly as bigotted as their parents... Maybe there's some hope for them after all) There is a reason that the the Religious Right is trying so hard to push "Protection of Marriage Measures" here and now. They recognize that every passing day weakens their position. Quite honestly, I expect that gay rights and single sex marriagewill be complete non-issues in 20 years time. I think that America will be a stronger country for it.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

(Luckily, the younger evangelicals aren't nearly as bigotted as their parents... Maybe there's some hope for them after all)

that's just a fill in the blank thing... the younger evangelicals aren't nearly as __________ as their parents... as for hope, i guess it depends on how it's defined and for whom it tolls

[mike777]

The guy leading the Republicans, as I said, is pro gun control, pro gay marriage and pro choice and you guys hate him and say the Republicans are committing suicide?

I like that big tent. Why all the hate?

Will the Democrats elect a pro life, pro gun President or is their tent small?

[pbleighton]

"The guy leading the Republicans, as I said, is pro gun control, pro gay marriage and pro choice and you guys hate him and say the Republicans are committing suicide?"

You think Guiliani will get the nomination?

I don't. He's totally unrepresentative of the national party.

I realize he's leading in the polls, but Republican primary voters tend to be substantially more conservative than the larger set of those who identify themselves as Republican to pollsters in these polls (the same thing is true in reverse for Democrats).

Ben Nelson isn't getting the Democtatic nomination, either

BTW, Guiliani isn't pro gay marriage, nor are any of the leading Democratic contenders. They are pro civil union - a politically huge distinction.

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 7 2007, 01:22 AM, said:

The guy leading the Republicans, as I said, is pro gun control, pro gay marriage and pro choice and you guys hate him and say the Republicans are committing suicide?

I like that big tent. Why all the hate?

Will the Democrats elect a pro life, pro gun President or is their tent small?

I see nothing wrong with Rudy Giuliani's social policies. I dislike the man intensely, as do most of the NYC residents that I that I know. However, I wouldn't say that this extends to hatred. I certainly don't have the same visceral reaction towards Gulianni that I do towards Brownback, the Shrub, Ashroft, of the rest of the American Taliban.

Back to Rudy. While Giuliani was viewed successful DA, he was widely seen as a failure as NYC mayor up until 9-11. Most of his "successes" are attributed to the economic boom during the Clinton years. NYC resident's widely remember him as a jackbooted authoritarian who presided over a series of disasters. The Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo scandals occured during Giulini's tenure, as did the whole Brooklyn Museum idiocy. (There are plenty of other examples)

9-11 was the best thing that ever happened to Giuliani. He really comported himself beautifully that day. He exerted a real calming presence over the city and the nation. Even so, I don't think that this qualifies him for the Presidency.

As for your whole "Big Tent" argument. lets see if he is actually the Republican nominee. I'd bet dollars to donuts that he can't get the nomination. And with respect to the Democratic party: its true that none of the Democratic candidates are expousing a pro-life position. However, there are plenty of leading members of the party who do. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and Senator Bob Casey are two obvious examples.

[mike777]

At this point Rudy G. may be the only one to give Mrs. Clinton a run for the money.
I really thought she would have a primary fight but she really shot out of the pack.

With all the anti Bush emotion running high I expect the Dems to start lining up early and in huge numbers in November 2008.

I am a bit worried by her turn in rhetoric saying "I will end the War" as the media reports it. She cannot end the war, she does not have that power, the war will continue and may get very worse once she pulls us out.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 7 2007, 01:59 AM, said:

I am a bit worried by her turn in rhetoric saying "I will end the War" as the media reports it. She cannot end the war, she does not have that power, the war will continue and may get very worse once she pulls us out.

Don't expect me to defend Hillary.

I don't have good feelings about her the Democratic nominee. I think that she'd rile up the Republican base which is the last thing that the Democratic party wants. About the best thing that you can say about her as a candidate is that she's survived 16 odd years of the vast right-wing noise machine without sustain a knockout blow. This is more than could be said for Gore or Kerry. Even so, she strikes me as more trouble than she's worth. I also don't particularly want to see eight more years oof the Clinton's triangulating bullshit. I think that Bill Clinton undercut the Deocrats message on a wide variety of positions rnaging from "Star Wars" to medical care.

Sadly, I'm resigned to the fact that i'm never gonna see the ticket that I want. I'd love to see Russ Reingold and Eliot Spitzer in high office. My hope right now is one of the more palatable Democrats does something interesting like picking their running mate early on. It would be interesting to see a ticket like Obama - Clark or Gore - Clark emerge early on.