-
Website
http://technosailor.com -
Original page
http://technosailor.com/2006/04/27/california-joins-illinois-in-calling-for-bush-impeachment/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Spying on America? If that's what you want to call it go right ahead, and if you want to get rid of it, go right ahead, and if you want to start digging that bomb shelter, I suggest you do that ASAP, because the terrorists are going to stop at nothing to attack this country. complete privacy, which was lost years ago, in case you didn't notice, has a heavy price, including, in this case, loss of security
and just what is going to be accomplished by impeaching Bush? It would be an embarassment to the country and a victory for the french and the arabs, and nothing more
You didn't read my article then did you? It has nothing to do with not liking him. I think he's a fairly likable guy. It has to do with the rule of law, the same way the Clinton impeachment was about lying under oath (not a blowjob like A.J likes to think). There is no legality to the NSA eavesdropping without a warrant. The argument has already been made. Read it.
If the right to privacy can be used to justify abortion rights, it certainly can be expected as a basic tenant of American liberty. If you're so willing to give it up, I suggest you go turn yourself in to the FBI so they can document your life, take fingerprint and DNA samples of you and place a tracking device on your car. I, for one, am not willing to simply give up civil liberties because some guy from texas and his gangster adviser say it's necessary. If it's necessary, run it through your own Republican Congress and have the Constitution amended to remove the 4th amendment. Until then, yes, I expect privacy.
Since when has this been a popularity contest in the world. This is a nation of laws and three branches of government, not one that can do whatever he wants. Give me a break.
Oh I read your article. So you like Bush, fair enough. That wasn't really the main argument for either of us, but this:
The issue, though, is that we both have a completely different view on this. I don't think he broke the law. It was a little sketchy, but I don't think he did anything illegal. You're coming from the opposite direction, so we're just going to end up going in circles.
I don't know if you're being serious or not, but the idea that allowing abortion is giving the mother privacy is one of the lamest excuses ever to circumventing constitutional law
I'm not saying I enjoy loss of privacy, merely that I'm not "naive" (if you will) enough to think I ever had it.
That still doesn't answer what you expect impeachment to accomplish. It will embarass the country, be a victory for the enemies, and be a huge battle won for the likes of John F'ing Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Michael Moore.
I don't like any of those three
2. How is it a victory for enemies? I thought the real war was a battle over ideals. Was not aware it was a battle over George Bush. In that case, let's hold steady because the 2008 election will mean the end of terrorism because George Bush will be out of office. Please.
3. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy. Who cares? It's not political. It's legal.
I don't think a law has been broken, and I don't think there is any integrity missing from the current oval office.
Like it or not, anything involving this presidency and this regime is going to be all about bush. at the moment he is the face of the nation. having congress impeach him is a victory for those all over the world who hate him and hate what he's done
For being a legal issue it's remarkably partisan
All of a sudden, privacy means a loss of security, and we should all give up our privacy for little if any security? Where does this logic come from? Didn't Ben Franklin address this already?
Fearmongering!
Name one single shred of evidence that supports the idea that being spied upon by the NSA directly prevents terrorist attacks. How about basic old ordinary police and intelligence work! You know, the boring kind that doesn't result in a ruined morale, wrecked legal code, and the sort of bullcrap that went on in all those "other" countries like the Soviet Union and East Germany. They had the absolute best of intentions with keeping tabs on their citizens. You see how that turned out, don't you?
This crap has got to stop - the "post 9/11 terrorist addiction" robs taxpayers of both money and freedom and offers a fig leaf of a shadow of a half-assed promise of "security" and "safety".
It's insulting to see the same right-wingers who decried and deplored relatively mild gun laws as evil pre-emptive desecrations of the sacred right to keep and bear arms suddenly fall in love with the idea of pre-emptive laws concerning communications and terrorism and then up the ante by many order of magnitude with a pre-emptive WAR!
What hypocritical garbage. Can it! Grow some nads and be a Republican of merit, not a Republican of convenience!
There, I've said my piece. And now I need to count to three. Or ten! Twice!
2. Okay, so it's a victory for those who hate him. It's a victory for a nation built on justice as well.
3. Yes it is partisan, as was Clinton's impeachment. NAturally. I don't think anything can be done in Washington that isn't partisan these days. AND it's still a legal issue. Wow... 2 for the price of one.
Hey, hey... HEY! ;-) I happen to be one of thos pro-gun conservatives and I obviously haven't fallen in love with this stuff.
Damn... preach it.
BUT
I think the legality is far too grey to say Bush is a criminal
and
Bush hardly deserves to be impeached for this, which was what the original argument was.
It’s insulting to see the same right-wingers who decried and deplored relatively mild gun laws as evil pre-emptive desecrations of the sacred right to keep and bear arms suddenly fall in love with the idea of pre-emptive laws concerning communications and terrorism and then up the ante by many order of magnitude with a pre-emptive WAR!
I don't think I follow your logic here. Being anti gun laws doesn't really have a ton to do with Bush getting impeached over this
Aaron, you brought up abortion rights, and that's a good point: abortion ends as many live daily as terrorists did on 9/11. Sounds like "penny wise, pound foolish" to me.
I still don't understand how Republicans support a man who is more liberal than Bill Clinton, but hey, I guess this will piss them off.
I...I don't quite know where to begin on this one, so I'll take the bait- how is Bush more liberal than clinton?
Ooh, ooh! I've got one!
No Child Left Behind.
Also, Clinton was guilty of doing nothing economically, which is exactly how we ended up in a 90s boom. Low government interfereance, high private sector performance.
Also, Clinton never increased the size of government as Bush has.... can anyone say Department of Homeland Security?
Added: +1 on NCLB
*pro abortion
*pro gay rights/marriage
*anti death penalty
*pro big spending/govt.
*pro socialism
*pro gun control
*pro reverse discrimination
*pro environment crap
and Bush is one out of eight
By the way, I do hope you understand that neoconservatism is not conservatism. You do know that right?
....And all these people who believe they are so patriotic are the first ones to give up their civil rights out of fear! During WWII the entire world was at stake as millions were dying and what did a real leader say?? "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - FDR... Here's an older one - "They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty" - Ben Franklin...
Taht's patriotism...Not blind support for George W. Bush.
as for iraq, that's a completely different issue.
When you regurgitate all that stuff about giving up privacy because we are at risk of being attacked by terrorists is opening a door that shouldn't be opened.
Obviously, you did not read everything in that article. Ask Duncan how much I like repeating myself. ;-)
THEN, he admitted it. :-)
It's an admission of guilt and impeachment isn't even necessary. Remove 'im from office! :-)
Okay, so maybe we couldn't be that lucky.
The one man who I think is behind a lot more of this than people think and who very well might have broken countless laws is Donald Rumsfeld
On the one hand you say you're not backing up wiretap, but it's been done so it's okay?
On the one hand Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached...blah, blah, blah, but Donald Rumsfeld is behind a lot? Wasn't it Truman who said the buck stops here?
If Bush didn't authorize the wiretaps then he is still responsible for his direct reports. But Bush did at the very least know about them because he admitted as much. Doesn't that make him even more culpable?
Listen to yourself for a minute and ask yourself why you are taking the position you're taking. It's so all over the map that you might as well be John Kerry!
You have yet to present a reasonable argument for Bush not being impeached (or at minimum investigated). There's a rule of thumb in the intelligence business (of which I am familiar given my job) that generally classified infomration taken in part is not usually sensitive but when taken as a whole becomes dangerous in the wrong hands. When you look at one incident of the President's administration you might say it's harmless by itself or it's a mistake. But when you combine everything into a solid timeline and portfolio of failures and shortcoming, one starts to wonder if this man is fit for office.
2) Both Bush and his Attorney General have said that such wiretaps require a warrant
3) Bush has admitted ordering domestic wiretaps and specifically refusing to request a warrant, even though he has access to a special court dedicated to just that purpose, and can even wait and request the warrants three days after the fact if he wants to.
Liking or not liking Bush is not the issue. That's the sort of argument you make in a feudal society, or a despotic one.
Agreeing or not agreeing with his goals is not the issue. That's the kind of argument you make in an anarchy, or a bastion of corruption.
Here, we have laws. He broke them, and admitted it. End of story.
-- MarkusQ
I have no time to have intelligent conversation with you, Mike.
On 9/11/2001, roughly 3,000 people were murdered. The U.S. has since invaded two nations and is currently overseeing the establishment of new governments in their places.
Since 1/22/1973 over 40,000,000 children have been murdered "legally." Nothing has been done to stop this.
Muslim jihadists are not a Big Threat to this nation.
I can't even begin to tell you how stunning those words are. You obviously don't have a clue about the Islamic goal. If threatening to launch nuclear attacks against us isn't a threat, what the #@$& is?
Mike, we've had these conversations more than I care to. The fact is you blindly follow a man whose ideals are nothing similar to yours. You say the alternatives are people like Kerry or Kennedy or Pelosi when they are clearly not and you're being irrationally dramatic about it. There are TRUE c onservatives out there, such as Sen Chuck Hagel for one, that would do a fine job leading the nation in a war on terror and who are true conservatives and don't buy into this neo-con bullshit of America's superiority and soveregnty in the world. Because thats what this is. It's about putting bases in the middle east and Osama and Saddaam are just means to that end. If we were concerned about safety and terrorism we'd be more worried about immigration policy and North Korea. But no, those problems are too big and don't have the same kind of return on investment that middle east pimping does.
And you buy it hook line and fucking sinker. There is nothing conservative about Bush's policies and you questioning my Americanism and patriotism because of a man is nothing short of ludicrous. Let's just change the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to George Bush of the Executive Branch of the government. And to the war in which he stands, one middle east, under America, indivisible, with ill-concieved liberty for all.
I don't like wiretapping.
The legality is grey
Bush isn't the best president ever
I respect his responsibility to do anything and everything he can to protect this country.
I don't buy that he did everything he could. I DO however buy that he did what his agenda-pushing advisors told him to do.
In regards to Iran... What do you propose we shoud do? Of course in your thinking Bush was wrong to invade Iraq... He keeps you awake at night because your phone is tapped... The evidence keepss pouring in that justifies what Bush did, but because you feel some of your Civil Liberties have been violated Bush is BAD... Impeach BUSH... So Fn... Childish... Grow up... You might live longer...
Since 1978, it is illegal for the Executive Branch to engage in wiretaps apart from the authorization of the FISA court. Congress did not consent to change this with either the AUMF or the PATRIOT Act, so it's only "legal" if Bush has declared himself Emperor.
In which case there's no America left to defend.
FURTHERMORE, since when can the President do whatever he wants in time of war? That is not at all the case, nor has it ever been the case. You're fabricating stuff.
FURTHERMORE PART TWO, Republicans and Democrats both express reservations in that the war powers act did NOT expressly give the President the right or power to do anything that he wanted. It gave him the power to use military force, which is not the same as civilian agency wiretapping on Americans.
You're brainwashed.
That's from a li'l ol' thing called the Declaration of Independence. It kinda lays out why this country was formed in the first place.
liiiitle bit of a discrepancy there
Additionally, there has been no Declaration of War since the U.S. entered World War II. AUMF is, by the very fact of its existence, not a Declaration of War. Thus your remark here has nothing to do with this discussion.
Yes he is.
Eliminate the need for a Legislature by taking authority that is Constitutionally only theres (war powers).
Eliminate the need for a Judiciary by taking away authority that is only theres (warrants, habeas corpus, etc).
That sure seems like the ascendecy of the Executive branch to me.
This adminstration is acting like Samara L. Spann.
Ah, but that's ignoring the key point, isn't it?
We now know that the Congress didn't have access to the same intelligence--that in fact the administration specifically provided them with the portions of the NIE that supported war (and misrepresented those), while actively hiding the fact that the portions they provided were not representative and in fact many had already been conclusively discredited at the time they were given to Congress.
This is called lying, and lying to Congress is a crime. Lying to a Congress controlled by your own party, who would back you on almost anything you could make a cogent case for, in order to divert the nations attention from a clear and present danger (remember Bin Ladden?) and set them on a course that is unnecessary and hideously expensive is close to treason if it can't be explained away be stunning incompetence.
--MarkusQ