New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment (Trees And Things)

thefadd: Re: Since I'm only 1/2 smart, I'm really kinda' du

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:23:06 EST

That the gross death count is not for the lack of trying.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Since I'm only 1/2 smart, I'm really kinda' du

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:06:47 EST

As has been well documented throughout the media, vastly more soldiers are being injured in this war...

As a percentage of all casualties, but not in absolute numbers. Not even close. So what's your point?

thefadd: Re: Since I'm only 1/2 smart, I'm really kinda' du

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:23:03 EST

By the end of his presidency three times as many US troops were killed in battle in a single year than have been killed in Iraq in nearly five years.

Does this sentence have a conclusion you're attempting to imply? The only reason fewer Americ

permazorch: Re: Since I'm only 1/2 smart, I'm really kinda' du

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:39:44 EST

I like the cut of your jib, on this comment, zyxwvutsr.

rEvolution inAction: Re: 9/11

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:18:53 EST

My sentiments exactly.

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:18:40 EST

You should already knot that by now though.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Jimmy Carter

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:35:47 EST

I think Al Qaeda is in the right...and that 9/11 was probably the greatest strike for freedom the world has ever seen

You know, rEv, you should have simply led with that and saved us all a lot of time.

skeptic: Re: 9/11

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:24:05 EST

Your comment is far too insulting to deserve any serious reply.

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:16:28 EST

For the first two paragraphs go reread what I wrote as you are mixing up timelines.

Since I showed that you were mistaken about the basic facts of these events, you have tried deflecting the discussion in other directions. First you claimed

zyxwvutsr: Re: Jimmy Carter

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:54:47 EST

I explained why the previous extradition attempt failed in my first comment

No you didn't. You claimed that the Taliban were willing to give up bin Laden, but that is not true. You also said is was "a complete lie" that the T

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:29:53 EST

I'm not avoiding anything, I explained why the previous extradition attempt failed in my first comment so I don't really feel the need to rehash the subject when you haven't brought anything new to the table. The issue of extradition before and after 9/11

zyxwvutsr: Re: Jimmy Carter

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:22:50 EST

By international norms in this case I am talking about the US refusing to hand over evidence of Bin Laden's invovlement in 9/11, one of the primary requirements of any extradition

You keep avoiding the fact that the Taliban h

rEvolution inAction: Re: 9/11

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:54:07 EST

Wow, I'm glad I don't know you. I hope you get killed in the next 9/11-style attack cuz you are the type of person the world doesn't need. Your entire essay boils down to: We got guns, do as we say! Nice ethics for a bank robber, senseless and destructive

skeptic: Re: 9/11

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:07:42 EST

We get into a kind of twilight zone when we insist on following meticulous legal procedures in a country where the government and courts are run by religious fanatics who have no actual sense of justice, and work solely on the basis of their ridiculous rel

rEvolution inAction: Re: 9/11

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:49:17 EST

Afghanistan refused to extradite the alleged terrorists without evidence that they were involved. They said they would make a judgement regarding the extradition once they were presented with evidence. In the face of US aggression, they finally capitulated

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:31:03 EST

By international norms in this case I am talking about the US refusing to hand over evidence of Bin Laden's invovlement in 9/11, one of the primary requirements of any extradition. As for the on-going diplomatic actions, they weren't all that successful, n

MayorBob: The Enemy Of My Enemy.

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:13:31 EST

Nazi Germany declared war on us first. They did so because they had a pact with Japan. So, once we were formally at war with Germany (and actually we had been informally been at odds with them since 1939 by way of our support of the Brits) the

skeptic: 9/11

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:54:53 EST

But Afghanistan did refuse to extradite the terrorists. You are now telling me that this isn't true because the US failed to make a sufficiently good case for extradition, but as I recall, the response of the Taliban was not that the US needs to make

skeptic: Re: Jimmy Carter

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:44:01 EST

Exactly, we picked the poison of the USSR over that of the Third Reich, and then we picked the poison of militant Islam over that of the USSR. We keep solving problems by creating new and similarly dangerous problems.

The roots of all these proble

zyxwvutsr: Re: Jimmy Carter

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:54:41 EST

I have no idea what you're talking about by "international norms." I already explained that there was on-going diplomatic action, both before and after the 9/11 attacks, and that the UNSC had long since made public evidence that bin Laden was guilty of ter

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:21:36 EST

Which completely excuses the US from folowing international norms in even the smallest way... gotcha.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:56:04 EST

The Taliban had previously been given evidence of bin Laden's involvement with other terrorist acts. They were also told that if they continued to shelter bin Laden that they would be held responsible for future terrorist attacks. Yet, despite the fact tha

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:28:52 EST

Nah, I claimed that they weren't given evidence of his involvement in 9/11 which was the specific reason that the US was requesting his extradition at that given moment... and guess what, it's true.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:24:31 EST

Also that resolution called for an asset freeze, travel ban, and an arms embargo... nothing about taking action...

Those are 'actions" by most definitions of the word. Anyway the point was that you claimed that the Taliban wa

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:17:44 EST

It's hardly amazing: we were discussing the Taliban's intransigence, not the myriad other failures of the Clinton Administration's anti-terrorism policy.

We were? I thought we were talking about deception in reporting by US media co

zyxwvutsr: Re: Since I'm only 1/2 smart, I'm really kinda' du

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:06:38 EST

I thought John F. Kennedy was the man who got the blame for that mess. I guess I don't have a problem with revising my revisionist speculative fiction (AKA history). So, we can spread the blame between JFK + LBJ, and give the latter the lion

thefadd: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:45:54 EST
Given that the US shown little actual interest in Bin Laden and the President himself as said we're not interested in capturing Bin Laden, it's difficult to accept as fact any assertion that presupposed the opposite.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:37:13 EST

It's pretty amazing that the point when the US was closest to getting Bin Laden isn't even mentioned in your link, in 1998 between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, not the Sudan-Saudi link in 96
It's hardly amazing: we were disc

rEvolution inAction: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:29:19 EST
wow... just think of the possibilities for abuse of power. If Nixon had issued an exectuvie order to spy on his rivals it would have been fine in that case.

PenitenziAgite: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:21:54 EST
The issuance of the executive order is legal, however. If it is ruled uncontitutional later on, you cannot prosecute someone for doing something which was legal at the time.

permazorch: Since I'm only 1/2 smart, I'm really kinda' dumb.

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:39:19 EST
No, that award would go to Lyndon Johnson, who killed far more people for no good reason than Bush has.
The Vietnam War?
I thought John F. Kennedy was the man who got the blame for that mess. I guess I don't have a problem with revising my re

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:23:01 EST
From this link you wanted me to read again:
"We never heard what they were trying to say," said Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief who oversaw U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:10:58 EST
that should read as "the internationally recognized procedures for the US to start a war (with lies)".

zyxwvutsr: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:06:35 EST

As I said in my original comment, the Taliban were willing to give him up until Clinton bombed their country
If you would consult the story link in my comment you might realize that is not true.

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:01:44 EST
As I said in my original comment, the Taliban were willing to give him up until Clinton bombed their country.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:03:28 EST

The US never presented Afghanistan with prima facie evidence that OBL was involved in the attacks as the Taliban requested
I won't call your comment "a complete lie," but it definitely is divorced from some important historic

gerrymander: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:45:37 EST
When the US demanded that the Taliban hand Bin Laden over to them they did not follow any of the internationally recognized procedures for an extradition
No doubt the Taliban breathed a sigh of relief when the US returned to the internationally r

thefadd: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:25:05 EST
We actually defeated the Third Reich by throwing our support behind Josef Stalin. Pick your poison.

rEvolution inAction: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:31:31 EST
What about an executive order that is later ruled unconstitutional?

rEvolution inAction: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:29:09 EST
One more thing... as to before 9/11, the Taliban were ready to extradite Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 98 but nixed the plan after the USS Cole response (cruise missiles into Afghanistan). One of Clinton's bigger mistakes in office.

rEvolution inAction: Re: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:27:23 EST

that organization had the full support of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan at the time, both before and after 9/11, when they refused to extradite the terrorists
That's a complete lie. The US never presented Afghanistan

Steve Urkel: Re: Impeachments are fun

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:18:41 EST
"The "torture" that this administration approved was legal, due to approval from Congress, who voted on bills regarding prisoner treatment."
That is the central problem, isn't it? How can Congress impeach someone for something it condones?
"firmly b

skeptic: Jimmy Carter

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:08:29 EST
Even though I agree with you that Carter showed undue hostility toward Israel by using the emotionally loaded term apartheit in describing Israel's treatment of Arabs, it would really be an exaggeration to call this anti-Semitism. I am sure that Cart

profwhat: Impeach Polk

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:58:41 EST
simply given the sheer magnitude of invading another nation (on the other side of the globe) for no justifiable reason
Surely President Polk's justification for the Mexican-American war was far flimsier. And the casualties might have been w

zyxwvutsr: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:06:30 EST

Even so, I do still think Bush is the worst ever, simply given the sheer magnitude of invading another nation (on the other side of the globe) for no justifiable reason
No, that award would go to Lyndon Johnson, who killed fa

zyxwvutsr: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:57:35 EST

Getting driven out to a designated location where a guy lets some quail out of a box down range so you can shoot them is not "hunting", now is it?
No, it's skeet with tasty targets.

profwhat: Re: html meta

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:50:01 EST
Yes, when you are using "auto format," surrounding text with asterisks (*) makes it bold. Surrounding text with underscores (_) makes it italic. Just another of the hidden, undocumented featur

permazorch: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:25:40 EST
Excellent post, only points removed for saying, "back in the day". I hate that shit more than, "anti-choice".
Even so, I do still think Bush is the worst ever, simply given the sheer magnitude of invading another nation (on the other side of the globe)

Acefantastik: html meta

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:06:29 EST
Huh. there were no bold tags in that post, just an * symbol. Somehow, the asterisk vanished and a bold sentence appeared. weird.
Test: *will this sentence be bold?

Acefantastik: Re: Impeachments are fun

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:56:09 EST
I am not an attorney, but my interpretation of the law is that the Bush administration flouted US law (and various international agreements, which may or not be "binding" according to Senate rules) regarding torture*, specifically actions taken on the advi

PenitenziAgite: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:46:16 EST
Cheney does not go quail hunting, at least not in the way I know it. I also don't have wealthy campaign contributors footing the bill for 4-start accomodations and a collection of $10,000 Italian shotguns.
Getting driven out to a designated

PenitenziAgite: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:14:49 EST
WRT to Woodrow Wilson, just because he signed a law that was later ruled unconstitutional, I do not accept that he should have been impeached for that. Roosevelt OK'd the internment camps, so how come that didn't make your list?
The constit

thefadd: Re: Van Buren

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:02:39 EST
C'mon. There's just no topping Millard Fillmore.

profwhat: Van Buren

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:49:41 EST
Thank you -- I've been saying for a long time that Martin Van Buren is the one we should award the title of "worst president ever." When Bush orders the genocidal evacuation of lawful

PenitenziAgite: Re: Half way there

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:29:29 EST
Souter nearly quit over Bush v. Gore. Check out Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine for an excellent blow-by-blow of Bush v. Gore.
Souter dissented on the first two points of the case (ceasing the recount and the Equal Protection issue), and was in t

Lou: Half way there

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:41:10 EST
whomever he wishes onto the supreme court.
Well, he got Roberts and Alito and daddy got Souter and Thomas. Be patient, these things take time.

zyxwvutsr: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:02:45 EST
The armed forces is loyal to Musharraf, and he seems to be able to put whomever he wishes onto the supreme court.

thefadd: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:17:54 EST
I dunno, how does Musharraf do it? I'm sure there's a guy or two with the technical know-how around the office.

zyxwvutsr: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:54:22 EST

...I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Bush/Chaney declare any upcoming election null-and-void and try to retain power in office
How would that work, exactly? Would the state and local elections officials simply acquiesce?

thefadd: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:40:10 EST
No way in hell the Republicans honor any type of IOU (or the Dems were the shoe on the other foot). Most they can hope for is precedent that in the face of monica-gate you don't impeach a President unless you really, really, really mean it.

gerrymander: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:27:40 EST
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Bush/Chaney declare any upcoming election null-and-void and try to retain power in office.
Not going to happen. In fact, I'm so sure that will never happen that I'll willing place hard money on the line. Anyo

skeeter1: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:16:46 EST
Given the shenanigans that took place in the last presidential election, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Bush/Chaney declare any upcoming election null-and-void and try to retain power in office. They've already done a fine job of raping the co

Steve Urkel: Impeachments are fun

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:55:51 EST
But the Bush administration has not committed any impeachable offenses, which is why decrepit liberals like McGovern can't name any specific 'high crimes or misdemeanors".

gerrymander: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:29:41 EST
has also been a remarkably ethical ex-President
So long as you ignore the anti-Semitism, you mean.
And incidentally, at the present time it appears that we would have been a lot better off if we had supported the Soviets in Afghanistan rath

skeptic: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:35:08 EST
Jimmy Carter does seem to have been a remarkably ethical President, and has also been a remarkably ethical ex-President, who has advanced many worthy causes since leaving office. Even so, he did one thing as President which offended me deeply, which

port1080: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:10:01 EST
It is actually horrifying to consider the long series of US Presidents who have violated the constitution, abused human rights, and committed terrible crimes, without being removed from office.
Yep. Pretty much the only one that didn't was Ca

skeptic: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:59:25 EST
It is actually horrifying to consider the long series of US Presidents who have violated the constitution, abused human rights, and committed terrible crimes, without being removed from office. But I would disagree with your conclusion that things ar

port1080: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:40:45 EST
If any administration deserved it Bush Co does
Meh, Bush is bad, but does he deserve impeachment more than Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson, who oversaw the audaciously shameful ethnic c

pO157: Re: New Year, New Calls For Bush Impeachment

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:00:38 EST
If any administration deserved it Bush Co does. But, votes and a public show trial aside the dems will not pull the trigger. Why?
Two reasons:

By impeaching the Decider they give him ammo. He couldn't get the war in Iraq solved w

MayorBob: In politics, math will out.

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 08:48:10 EST
The difference between Nixon in 1974 and Bush in 2008, in terms of the likelihood they'd get impeached is twofold:
Fold number one, the Democrats controlled Congress in 1974 and Nixon's presidency had sunk into a spiralling funk over Watergate, e