IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Yeah, almost as bad as elevating extramarital blowjobs to...
...the status of "High Crimes and Misdeameanors", isn't it?

Sauce, geese male and female -- it was the Repugnicons who turned US politics into a sleaze-fest; now they get to reap what they sowed.


[Edit: I *hate* making tpyos in the "Subject:" line.]


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
Expand Edited by CRConrad May 18, 2007, 08:36:49 AM EDT
New WHAT!
YOU made a typo! Unglaublich. :-)
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
New Oh, not at all unheard of. There is the small consolation...
...though: Look who caught it. :-)


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New lying about blowjobs under oath is the same as
not needing a warrant to tap domestic telephone conversations. Both illegal, both at least misdemeanors.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Point missed.
Point being, why is the president's getting a hummer of interest in the first place?


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New because of the paula jones lawsuit claiming sexual assault
patterns of reckless behavior the 850k to make it go away? Maybe for a quickie in the hallway he would sell the UK to france?
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Ah, the Paula Jones lawsuit.
That'd be the one that was dismissed by the judge, yes?

(True, Bill did settle out-of-court - but I always regard these settlements as "shut up and go away" settlements...)

Please. Cease equating getting a hummer and telling a porkie about it with trying to alter the legal system and disregarding the constitution.

The two are not equivalent except in the most childish, naive sense.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New NFW are they the same
What BS Bill. Even if efforts to remove sexual predators from office warranted enough mind share as it deserves, to equate the two is due an injustice to both issues. Getting Clinton to lie about the blow job was forced strictly to bring about the impeachment, if they really cared about stopping sexual predation, and went after Clinton, then I could see how you might equate the two crimes. If they were really concerned with sexual predation we would have seen a lot more repos convicted than dems, but they only went after Clinton.

Domestic spying is a constitutional issue and therefore a much more serious crime, wouldn't you say?
Seamus
New yawn, quick poll
how many people think it was totally unfair to impeach clinton for lying under oath about his employee relations and want to impeach bush for gonzalez firing 8 Federal attorneies because they wernt bushie enuff.

thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Yes on both - HTF could anyone vote any other way?!?
New If Starr was going after Gringrich
and all the other hypocritical, lying, adulterous bastards pushing for the impeachment than you'd have a point.

After this post and the post about the fired subway worker you should cut the champion of the little people out, because it is pure crap.
Seamus
New Im no champion, you have me confused wit someone else
Talk about hypocritical, they are both extreme HR violations yet bubba gets a pass and gonzo is for the high jump
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New You were when the subject was Hillary
Clinton's affair was an extreme HR situation, it was an ethical violation. An ethical violation and not an impeachable offense. If Starr could have proved the rape allegations I would have supported the impeachment.

Gonzales firing the 8 attorneys for political reasons and stonewalling congressional oversight is a much more serious offense.
Seamus
New lets reason on this
congress and the president are exempt from federal labor laws agreed.
"it was an ethical violation. An ethical violation and not an impeachable offense." how is that decided? American law is precedent based

again, you agree that it was an ethical violation however you dont address what he was impeached for. He was not impeached for an ethical violation but lying under oath, purjorative statements. Repeat, not the sex but for lying under oath. You are right, there was not enough votes to impeach him.Senator Ted Stevens R alaska was quoted as saying if he was standing over a naked dead woman with a smoking gun in his hand there was not enough votes to impeach him. There are plenty of cases where people who lied under oath about sex went to jail. The offence was real, the process wouldnt convict.

Now gonzalez, he hires or is persueded to hire someone totally incompetant to do HR for the Justice department. She committed grievous HR in hiring pracices and decided that 8 good hard working Fed atty's would be fired because they wernt politically loyal enough. Again, federal labor laws are exempt in the congress and the executive at the political appointee level. So is there an impeachable offence, yes if it can be proved that gonzo lied under oath. Why do you think the broad wanted immunity? She didnt want to be staring at a purjory jail sentence.

Using base logic, not political likes, dislikes purjory is impeachable for clinton as it is for gonzales. Being a total neocon evangelical is not nor is a serial womanizer.
my 2 cents,
wanna discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and why next?
thanx,
bill


Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Yes, lets reason on this
An impeachable offense, is what congress says it is and that congress decided his perjury was an impeachable offense, only they didn't have enough votes to actually convict. Most normal congresses probably wouldn't have voted to impeach if they didn't have enough votes to convict, but this house did. I personally think it was to appease the social conservatives and that most didn't actually think that he should be impeached, but that is just my opinion. Why did the social conservatives want him impeached? Because they didn't like him and they didn't like his politics.

Lets get back to the perjury, if he just told the truth in the first place he wouldn't committed perjury, but the country wouldn't have been as sympathetic to then as it was during the impeachment. If America wasn't so hung up about sex, the right wing groups wouldn't have funded the Paula Jones lawsuit and he probably wouldn't have to the lawsuit till after he left office. If America wasn't so hung about sex, his political career wouldn't have threatened and he wouldn't have to perjury himself.

Clinton's crime wasn't directly related to his current job duties where as Gonzales' crimes are directly related to his current job duties. Why should AG be impeached? Because he fired the attorneys to affect the outcome of political elections through selective investigation of election fraud and is stonewalling congress.

The point you are missing Box is that impeachment is a political process to remove unsuitable people from office. Clinton was not considered unsuitable for office by congress because he wasn't considered unsuitable by the American people because they understood what Starr and the republican congress were trying to do. If Starr and congress hadn't been so transparent in their actions and just gave the appearance of trying to be impartial Clinton might actually have been impeached. They overplayed their hand.

Again a high crime is what congress say it is, federal labor laws have nothing to do with this discussion. Subverting congressional oversight into activities that were intended to affect the outcomes of elections is a high crime to me and I imagine most people would end up supporting it. If Gonzales had been smarter in the way he testified, it never would have gotten this far.

To me unsuitable for office means that the person is damaging the country by being in office, Clinton wasn't but Gonzales is. It is as simple as that. It takes a lot to convince congress that someone is unsuitable for office, which I think is a very good thing. I also think that Gonzales has done enough to convince most reasonable people that he is unsuitable for office.

You and your angels can dance on your pinhead all you want, that's not for me.



Seamus
New I see, so getting a hummer while talking to senators
doesnt affect your job preformance, wag the dog ring a bell? I was sitting in a congressmans office in DC when clinton announced he was bombing an aspirin factory, impeachment hearings were going on. I asked my rep why he was hanging out in the office instead of the floor. He was bitter, the joker in the whitehouse is trying to get the news off of the impeachment, he was working his contacts but the senior senator accross the way sez there wasnt enough votes. you said the congress didnt have enough votes to impeach, you are confused are dont really understand how it works. Congress had enough to impeach and voted to send him to the SENATE for trial. the senate didnt. Now you CLAIM! that all this didnt impact the country! If the fucker had done the right thing and resigned the entire fucking world would look different now. yeah, right no impact to job preformance.

Gonzalez, you havnt mentioned where he lied under oath and you could prove it.
"Subverting congressional oversight into activities that were intended to affect the outcomes of elections is a high crime to me and I imagine most people would end up supporting it." what congressional oversight was subverted? huh? WTF are you talking about? What elections were affected? Name them. I think you have grand FEELINGS about the events but no clear understanding of them.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New The Senate is PART OF Congress, mr Law Expert. HTH!
New I got yer suppah swingin
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Seamus was differentiating between the two earlier in the conversation.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New A) I'm not sure he got it wrong, and...
...B) Him getting it wrong is not much of an excuse for you to copy the mistrake, is it?

(But your doing so anyway does tend to cast your comment about me not knowing [U.S. Constitutional] law as well as language[s] into a different light, though, doesn't it?)


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New This is so great...you misspelled mistake :-) HTH
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New At the risk of killing the frog: What - you don't mean...
...I made a tpyo?!?


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Killing frogs?
You sure that's not your Saxon roots showing?

I may never be able to do that again..so I enjoyed it while I had the chance.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New No Bill, I lumped the 2 together and didn't explicitly state
which body of Congress had which roll, mainly to save time.
Seamus
Expand Edited by Seamus May 24, 2007, 06:27:31 PM EDT
New I understand it just fine
I said congress, I should have been more specific and said the Senate.

The bombing was either a wag the dog scenario or a major intelligence screw up: [link|http://www.slate.com/id/2098102/|Slate] 

Congress should have investigated. If they really felt the bombing was a wag the dog scenario the House could have passed an additional set of articles of impeachment, but they didn't.

My point is that if Congress really wanted to do the right thing instead of just wounding a president they didn't like, they wouldn't have impeached Clinton and then they could continue to explain why it should be an impeachable offense and maybe have him censured. Even if they continued with the impeachment because they felt it was the right thing to do they would have continued to investigate all sexual improprieties and deal anyone who perjured themselves. But they didn't do that either.

As to Gonzales, have you been watching him lie to Congress lately? Could they prove it is a lie beyond a reasonable doubt? No, but any reasonable person cabn see he his lying to Congress. He admitted to delegating the firing to subordinates with out any real oversight. He said the list of fired attorneys was a consensus of his senior staff, but they have said that wasn't true. By admitting to being a completely incompetent manager and [link|http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/16/rove.documents/|telling congress it doesn't have the subpoenaed documents and then giving up] 
should be enough to have him impeached, but Congress really needs to figure out a way to reclaim its oversight role.

[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301725.html|Election Fraud] 

As to the elections, this part is my opinion as to the why the firings happened. Rove and the White House were and [link|http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008232.html|continue to push election fraud even when there isn't any evidence of it.] 

But, there is evidence of the DOJ bending it own guidlines and rushing indictments just before elections ([link|http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003159.php|tpm] ):

And of course no piece on Schlozman would be complete without a mention of his precious ACORN indictments when he was the U.S. Attorney for Kansas City. Schlozman, you'll remember, rushed the indictments of four ACORN voter registration workers to land five days before the 2006 election.

The Justice Department is still desperately trying to portray the indictments as uncontroversial. As I reported Friday, the Justice Department's election crimes manual is crystal clear: "most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates." And that's investigations -- an indictment, obviously, would be an even greater departure from policy.

But here's what the Justice Department told Savage:

The department said Schlozman's office got permission from headquarters for the election-eve indictments. It added that the department interprets the policy as having an unwritten exception for voter registration fraud, because investigators need not interview voters for such cases.

An "unwritten exception." How nice.

Because Schlozman didn't have FBI agents interrogating voters, his indictments had no possible chilling effect, apparently.

Just consider: On November 2, 2006, the indictments were widely reported, many of them featuring a quote from Schlozman that "this national investigation is very much ongoing." That same day, Schlozman released a statement that his office would have a prosecutor on duty on Election Day, ready to pounce at allegations of voter fraud. This was in a climate of trumped-up hysteria about ACORN's efforts to register poor voters both in Kansas City and in St. Louis, where Republicans were charging that tens of thousands of voter registration forms were "questionable."

Schlozman, in other words, knew just what he was doing. And now the Justice Department is inventing "unwritten exceptions" to its policies to cover for him.


I cleaned up some typos and grammatical errors and made the AG paragraph readable. I am not sure how I mangled that paragraph so badly the first time.
Seamus
Expand Edited by Seamus May 24, 2007, 07:10:30 PM EDT
Expand Edited by Seamus May 24, 2007, 07:13:15 PM EDT
New Numbers?
All Repos are child-molesting sexual predators, everyone knows this.

I mean just look at the record...

Barney Frank, Kennedy, Jim McGreevey, Dan Sutton, Gerry Studds, Mark Foley.

Oh wait.

5 out of 6 of these were Democrats. And I didn't even use Bill.

Never mind.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New If he can name 7, will you concede?


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New Would just like to see some backup
which I'm sure he didn't have when he typed that last message.

Sort of like saying all Brits are cheeky bastards based only on our knowledge of you..which would be an insult to your wonderful wife and many other fine members of the Kingdom:-)

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New You are a piece of work (new thread)
Created as new thread #285038 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=285038|You are a piece of work]
Seamus
New Re: Numbers?
Bob Packwood, Newt Gringrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde

Tends to even it out. The post was about the why they went after Clinton, not who commits the most sex scandals.
Seamus
New Then don't do this
"If they were really concerned with sexual predation we would have seen a lot more repos convicted than dems"

Predation isn't a party thing.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New You expanded to include affairs
Infidelities are non-denominational. Unfortunately, the republican party tends to attract more dominators of all kinds than the democrats.
Seamus
New Strike 2
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New You struck out a long time ago.
Seamus
New Right. Keep those blinders on firmly.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Again, utterly hilarious coming from you.
Even more so than your previous one, I think.


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Right. You seem to be affected by the same...
...complete misconception.

It seems that you share more in common with shrub than you care to admit...as its another case of "if you ain't fer'im, you's agin'em."

Since I don't toe the popular line here I must be a rabid neocon, right?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
Expand Edited by bepatient May 22, 2007, 07:49:09 AM EDT
New "Toe". You *tow* a car, and *toe* a line. HTH!
No, it's because you (A) blithely claim to be a "pessimist" about "politicians" in general, but the politicians you complain about ALWAYS "happen" to be Democrats, and because you (B) ALWAYS spout EVERY Repugnican talking point on EVERY issue, that you are exposed as a rabid neocon. Hope *this* helps!


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Thank you Mr Roget.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New I don't think you're getting it.
That's all right; we all know English isn't among your best languages...

What you're not getting is that the word 'high' in the phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors" refers to BOTH 'crimes' and 'misdemeanors' -- it's shorthand for "High crimes and high misdemeanors". Think about it -- what the fuck would be the sense in bundling together "High crimes and ordinary puny misdemeanors", leaving out anything in between?!?

The blowjob thing is at most an *ordinary* misdemeanor, orders of magnitude different from fooling the contry (and the world) into a war on trumped-up evidence. What the fuck is WRONG with you people, that you don't SEE that? Have you totally fucking lost your moral compass???

The one is like burping in the face of the law without holding your hand in front of your mouth; something that polite people pretend didn't happen, except for a mumbled apology. The other is like fucking the founding fathers up their butts with compressed-cardboard dildos made from shredded copies of the constitution, in front of national network TV cameras in the Rose Garden -- nobody in their sane mind could even pretend NOT to notice it.

What the FUCK is WRONG with you people, that you try, in defense of the Chimp-in-Chief, to make this shit seem like fucking *nothing*? You're all bloody *scary*!


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New *applause*
Meanwhile, in France, the presidential election was between a single mother of 4 and a man who doesn't live with his wife any more.

Folks, you might call them cheese-eating surrender monkeys, but when it comes to sexual politics, they're a hundred years ahead of you.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New Meanwhile, in France
they won't perjure themselves and/or obstruct justice to hide getting some from a subordinate in the workplace thats the same age as their kids.

Like I've said many times...if BC would have owned up to it right away (like they do in France)...I'd have voted to get rid of term limits.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Why did you mention age?
Is that somehow important or relevant? She was legal, was she not?


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New All part of the story.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New This is what I'm on about.
This prurient obsession with age/sex/tits (Oh noes, Janet! End Of World Is Nigh! We Saw A BEWB! In the middle of the SUPER BOWL!) is exactly why it was a load of bollocks (hoho) in the first place. In a civilised country, women wash their clothes after the president's blown his beans on them.

It doesn't matter that Bill got a gobble. It double dog doesn't matter how old the gobbler was, be she 25 or 85.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
Expand Edited by pwhysall May 21, 2007, 09:41:35 AM EDT
New Ah, I see.
A man's choices say nothing about his character, then?

Its not that you don't have a very good point, just that the opposing camp also has a point. Even if you think its a repressed one.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Gibbering on and on about this, in order to relativise...
...the other thing -- or just to distract our attention away from it? One wonders... Or rather, one WOULD wonder, were it not for the fact that this is so well-worn an old tactic from you, Bill.

What a man's choice of age in his sex (or not, as the case and definition of 'is' may be) partners says about his character is all TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT compared to what the fact that he is prepared to LIE HIS COUNTRY INTO A WAR says about his character, isn't it?


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New First of all.
My read was this was about the AG crap. If its lying into a war that you're on about it would be very simple to produce quotes from damned near every politician in Washington talking about Saddam and WMD et al prior to the invasion.

That boat doesn't float..which is why, imo, you haven't seen a wholesale push by the Democrats to impeach. They don't want their pre-war comments brought back either.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New They may have thought that he had WMDs
But, they were still pushing for continued sanctions and working through the UN. Unfortunately, I think they are too worried about making Bush sympathetic to impeach him, but their pre-war comments do worry them.
Seamus
Expand Edited by Seamus May 21, 2007, 06:20:43 PM EDT
New You know...
that argument is getting really, really old.

I've seen Kathleen Parkers arguments on it as well. (No one thought Saddam didn't have WMD... Really? No one talked to Scott Ritter? Damn...look at his quotes, and tell me, in hindsight, the man didn't know what was talking about. But I digress...)

Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah, everyone thought he had WMD.

Defense concedes the issue and throws itself on the mercy of the court. Yes, everyone *cough* thought he had weapons of mass destruction.

And your point? That's why *EVEN THE FRENCH* wanted UN Weapon inspectors to go to Iraq.

Ah, so...I forgot, Saddam wasn't letting them in. I apologize. (That's why we had to pull out Hans Blix before we invaded?)
New My isn't revisionist history alive and well.
The Democrats were equally convinced of the threat here (Ritter aside) which is how we ended up with a majority vote in Washington...lest we forget the entire Kerry episode of voting for the war before voting against the war.

AND, maybe with the exception of the French, there wasn't anyone satisfied with the Iraq acceptance of inspectors. They were repeatedly not allowed the access specifically set forth in multiple UN resolutions.

And the "everyone" I should qualify as inside the beltway.

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."


John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."


Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"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, 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."
\t


Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. 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."



Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."


Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."


Need more?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New they really didnt beleive it tho, snicker
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Thats why they voted for it b4 voting against it!
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Let's see what else Byrd said.
[link|http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/byrd_speeches_2003february/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_1.html|February 12, 2003]:

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

[...]

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.


Cheers,
Scott.
New Eloquent but irrelevant.
The hue and cry is to impeach Bush based on "lies" told to take this country to war.

The point is that even Democrats fully believed Iraq had weapons and/or weapons programs in place...and said so.

So, how can they impeach the President for saying the same things they themselves were saying?

Short answer. They can't.

PS. I happen to agree with his speech.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
Expand Edited by bepatient May 23, 2007, 10:13:21 AM EDT
New You're being too broad again...
The point is that even Democrats fully believed Iraq had weapons and/or weapons programs in place...and said so.


Weapons program != WMD

Find me a list of Democrats who "fully believed" [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html|Cheney's speech] to the VFW:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.


I don't think you'll find many. Maybe Lieberman. <rolls eyes>

Your statement is trivially true if you find at least 2 members of the Democratic Party who believed those things. It's hardly enlightening.

If one looks at the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution|vote]:

House: 296 to 133. 215/296 = 72.6% of the votes in favor were Republicans. 126(+1)/133 = 95.5% of the votes against were Democrats (+ the independent).

Senate: 77 to 23. 48/77 = 62.3% of the votes in favor were Republicans. 21(+1)/23 = 95.7% of the votes against were Democrats (+ the independent).

It's disingenuous to say that "even Democrats fully believed..." when the opposition to the War resolution was lead by the Democrats. If everyone believed it, one would think that the percentages wouldn't be so lopsided on an issue as important as an authorization to use military force.

Finally, [link|http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp|Snopes] gives more context to the quotes you cited. For example:

In October 2002, as the U.S. Senate debated Joint Resolution 46 authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, Senator [link|http://byrd.senate.gov/|Robert Byrd] of West Virginia delivered [link|http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:5iGVJ1wAe30J:byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_2.html+%22Robert+Byrd%22+speech+%22october+3%22+2002&hl=en&ie=UTF-8|remarks] regarding his belief that the "rush to war" was "ignoring the U.S. Constitution" and that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. Among his remarks were the following statements:

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it -- we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.


If you haven't noticed by now, I get suspicious of isolated quotations. ;-)

Bottom line: The Democrats were not saying the "same thing" as the Administration.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I don't think so.
Others, like Rockefeller cite "unmistakable evidence" of Iraq's pursuit of nukes. He, Dick Durbin and John Edwards were all quoted similarly...and they were on the Senate Intel committee at the time..seeing the same things the administration was seeing at the same time.

They cannot say the admin lied to convince them...unless, of course, they admit to not doing their job...which I supposes is always a possibility.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Not so.
He, Dick Durbin and John Edwards were all quoted similarly...and they were on the Senate Intel committee at the time..seeing the same things the administration was seeing at the same time.


You shouldn't keep repeating Bush and Cheney's talking points, Bill...

The Senate and House intelligence committees [link|http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm|only sees what the Administration lets them see]. They didn't see the "same" intelligence that Bush and Cheney saw.

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.


[...]


Emphasis added.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Ok, so they don't get the President's Daily Brief.
Then again, they aren't the president.

USSSCOI

Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.


Like I said, they can't say they didn't know without admitting that they weren't doing their job.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New The "You didn't catch me, so it's not my fault" defense? :-/
New Hardly
Wondering what summaries of intel are being dealt to the President when you are responsible for the agencies creating that brief seems...well...a little backwards, don't you think?

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New You do remember who ran the Senate until Jan 2007, right?
The Republican party had control of the Senate and House leadership. They weren't much interested in investigating the Administration or doing vigorous oversight.

[link|http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html|Raw Story]:

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush issued an [link|http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/bushrestrictedintel.pdf|order] to the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, and his cabinet members that severely curtailed intelligence oversight by restricting classified information to just eight members of Congress.

"The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information," he writes, "are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate."

The order is aimed at protecting "military security" and "sensitive law enforcement."

[...]

The Senate and House intelligence committees were created in the 1970s after a series of congressional investigations found that the CIA had acted like a "rogue elephant" carrying out illegal covert action abroad.

By the late 1990s, members of the committees and their staffs were seeing more than 2,200 CIA reports and receiving more than 1,200 substantive briefings from agency officials each year to assist them in their role of providing proper oversight.

But the little-reported 2001 Bush directive changed that, ensuring that only two members of each committee received full briefings on intelligence operations, and preventing committee staffs from carrying out meaningful research.

Tom Reynolds, spokesman for the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Jane Harman (D-CA), downplayed the significance of the order, saying members continued to have access. He acknowledged, however, that the "gang of eight" had higher-level clearances.

The spokesman for the Senate Intelligence Committee deferred comment to the White House; the White House did not return requests for comment.

[...]

Whether Roberts actually saw the Niger forgeries during Hadley\ufffds briefings is unclear. What is clear is that by March of 2003, the Intelligence chairman was in a position to head off any serious investigation into concerns raised by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the committee's ranking Democrat and vice-chair.

Rockefeller has grave concerns about deceptive intelligence, so serious that he pens a formal letter to FBI director Robert Mueller.

Rockefeller urges Mueller to investigate the Niger forgeries as part of what he feared to be "\ufffda larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq," writes the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh.

Roberts declines to sign the Rockefeller letter, seeing the involvement of the FBI as inappropriate. As a result, Rockefeller's letter falls on deaf ears.

On July 11, 2003, faced with public pressure to investigate the Niger forgeries, Roberts blames the CIA and defends the White House.

[...]


It's hard to have oversight when the information is so restricted to so few people, when the interests of the Party superscede the oversight functions, and when too many people don't ask probing questions.

I fear we aren't going to make much additional progress on this topic, so I'll let you have the last word.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: I don't think so. (new thread)
Created as new thread #285685 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=285685|Re: I don't think so.]
lincoln

"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow


Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.


I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States.


[link|mailto:golf_lover44@yahoo.com|contact me]
New and which prrominant democrats running for prez
voted against?
I think you buy moveon.org hook line and sinker.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New See #285239. I don't read MoveOn.org.
Expand Edited by Another Scott May 23, 2007, 11:52:11 AM EDT
New Yes, yes indeed it is.
Let's be CRYSTAL clear....there is no chance that Democrats will impeach Bush for "spreading lies".

That said, the LIE that EVERYONE bought the argument that Saddam Hussein had WMD and had to be brought down by force is FALSE.

Washington Beltway Names only? Sigh...I can google as well as you can.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham (et al)

Of course, Kennedy, Boxer and Graham all voted against the resolution to use force. Shrug, go figure. Maybe they wanted a solution other than war?

I haven't even googled for the other 23 Senators who voted against the resolution.

Shrug - btw: for those who care. [link|http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm|http://www.thememory...powell-no-wmd.htm]
New Alright then.
A significant amount as opposed to "everyone". And you gave Teddy twice. Granted he's big enough for 2 quotes...but that's another matter ;-)

I'll give you that nit.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New What can I say, I just pulled them from RightWingNews (iirc)
New Never been to that site (new thread)
Created as new thread #285304 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=285304|Never been to that site]
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Nor is it a consistent one
If you are repo, the social conservatives will forgive, but they don't seem to forgive dems. Probably because the repos are so convicing when they apologize, yeah right.
Seamus
New More like all part of the "narrative"
New Ok. Nit well picked.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New No. A distinction, not a nit.
I said "narrative" specifically to identify it as an artifice formed for a specific (political) end. I am not particularly surprised that the difference eluded you.
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
New So why didn't you mention her religion? Or the colour of...
...his socks?

Are they somehow NOT just as much "part of the story" as her age?

Don't you despise yourself -- if even just a tiny little bit -- when you squirm so transparently?


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Nope.
Goes to relevance your honor.

There are those in this country that feel raiding the girls locker room is improper if you happen to be the coach.

Me personally...its all about owning your actions.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Ah, "relevance". That's a good one, coming from you.
See other post on that subject.


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Just easily distracted :-)
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New You're joking right?
A corruption investigation where all leads pointed to Chirac always stopped one station short and Sarkozy used the secret service to eliminate the competition to his presidential ambitions within the party.
New Talk to Peter
He was the one waxing on about them.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New I didn't say they weren't corrupt.
I said they weren't childishly obsessed with willies and boobies and such.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New Ah! Well, yes, that is a bit alien to us as well...
Really :-) This is part of our [link|http://www.nee-antwerpen.be/index-eng.htm|national election campaign] (NSFW)
New signed up, had to choose the second life option tho
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Thats why I love Belgium :-)
Well...and the beer.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New your great skills in language match your ignorance of law
[link|http://www.hmichaelsteinberg.com/feloniesmisdemeanors.htm|http://www.hmichaels...smisdemeanors.htm]
gross and abusive is not high. High crimes and misdeameanors means exactly that.
No such animal as a high misdemeanor.
As for the rest of your whining, if Clinton had done what he should have done, resign before being impeached as Nixon did, who would be president today? Not Bush thats for sure.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Another article about it:
[link|http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm|http://www.constitut...t/high_crimes.htm]
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New I like this one better
[link|http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v50/ai_21129268|http://findarticles....7_v50/ai_21129268]
For more than six hundred years, "high crimes and misdemeanors" has referred exclusively to conduct requiring impeachment. Though any serious felony will do, impeachment will not result in a prison sentence or beheading. An impeachment conviction in the Senate merely removes a statesman from his office of "honor, trust, or profit" with the United States. The criminal law is for personal punishment; impeachment is for keeping statesmen virtuous.

Some history: The Framers borrowed the phrase from Britain, where it was first used in connection with an impeachment in 1380. There were several instances of its use during the colonial period: in 1666 Viscount John Mordaunt was impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of making uncivil addresses to a woman; in 1680 Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the King's Bench, was impeached on account of "his frequent and notorious excesses and debaucheries," bringing "the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom"; in 1701 Edward, Earl of Oxford, a member of the King's Council, was impeached for procuring an office for someone "known to be a person of ill fame and reputation."

The list goes on. Notably, none of these are crimes -- or even misdemeanors -- under the criminal law. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his great Commentaries on the Constitution, it is not only "crimes of a strictly legal character" that are impeachable offenses, but also political offenses, growing out of "personal misconduct . . . so various" that they "must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty."
kinda matches what happened
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New In the end all that matters is what congress thinks of as
high crimes and misdemeanors. Since the constitution has ratified it has been rarely used. You may think it should be used more, but the repos knew they didn't have the votes, but they went forward anyways to appease the social conservatives. If the social conservatives were really interested in change the culture in America, why was Clinton the only politician with questionable sexual ethics the only one they chose to fight? Why after the impeachment failed did they not continue their quest to rid DC of sexual impropriety? Because they only cared about getting Clinton out of office.

Impeachment is/has become a political tool to remove dangerous presidents. Clinton was not a dangerous president, Bush certainly is.

Seamus
New OTOH, Posner's book covers this stuff, too.
[link|http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/posnerr/anaos.htm|Complete Review] has a summary of various reviews, and their own.

You can read Posner's opinion by searching for "misdemeanor" in the book at [link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674003918/ref=nosim/completereview|Amazon]. It's been a while since I read it, but Posner didn't think it was as cut and dried as your excerpt. The phrase was deliberately vague.

([link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner|Richard A. Posner] is a federal judge.)

Cheers,
Scott.
New dont think much of posner's ideas
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Different strokes. :-)
New Im more aligned with Blackstone, Gerry Spence and Pliskin
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Snake Plisken, I heard you were dead.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New sshhh!
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Interesting, but zooks that's broad...
New think about it, Gore would have been president for 2 years
so the anti clinton backlash wouldnt be there. Unless he truly screwed the pooch its hard to unseat a sitting president. I dont think bush would have beat President Gore in 2000. So because of selfishness of Clinton we got 12 years of bush. And everyone here is cheering that decision
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Nope.
If Clinton had resigned or been pushed out, it would have set the precedent, and the demand, for the Republican leadership in Congress to be brought up on charges of various sorts. It wouldn't have been easy for Gore (or anyone) to work in such an environment. They were trying to tar Gore with the same brush (remember the Buddhist temple stuff?).

A President should only be removed, or leave, when he doesn't have some support of the people and some of the Congress. Clinton's support among the people was very high at the time, and the Democrats weren't pushing for him to go.

We got 8 years of Bush for various reasons - impeachment wasn't the biggest of them, IMO. Gerry, Jimmy, and GHWB show that it's not that difficult to remove a sitting President if the conditions are right. It doesn't take a disaster - Gore probably would have had trouble keeping the job.

Cheers,
Scott.
     What the f*** kind of question is that. - (bepatient) - (104)
         I blame Jimmy Carter. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             I was looking for his 'lust in my heart' line -NT - (Seamus)
         Same as the rest of the media and the American public. - (n3jja) - (5)
             Just caught that episode tonight - - (Ashton) - (2)
                 Re: those Stupid French! - (a6l6e6x)
                 In true noo-meeja style... - (pwhysall)
             Heard an interesting comparison of French politics. - (static) - (1)
                 OT: what is it with tiny text? - (pwhysall)
         Scratching head.... - (Simon_Jester)
         Yeah, almost as bad as elevating extramarital blowjobs to... - (CRConrad) - (94)
             WHAT! - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                 Oh, not at all unheard of. There is the small consolation... - (CRConrad)
             lying about blowjobs under oath is the same as - (boxley) - (91)
                 Point missed. - (pwhysall) - (2)
                     because of the paula jones lawsuit claiming sexual assault - (boxley) - (1)
                         Ah, the Paula Jones lawsuit. - (pwhysall)
                 NFW are they the same - (Seamus) - (30)
                     yawn, quick poll - (boxley) - (15)
                         Yes on both - HTF could anyone vote any other way?!? -NT - (CRConrad)
                         If Starr was going after Gringrich - (Seamus) - (13)
                             Im no champion, you have me confused wit someone else - (boxley) - (12)
                                 You were when the subject was Hillary - (Seamus) - (11)
                                     lets reason on this - (boxley) - (10)
                                         Yes, lets reason on this - (Seamus) - (9)
                                             I see, so getting a hummer while talking to senators - (boxley) - (8)
                                                 The Senate is PART OF Congress, mr Law Expert. HTH! -NT - (CRConrad) - (6)
                                                     I got yer suppah swingin - (boxley) - (5)
                                                         A) I'm not sure he got it wrong, and... - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                             This is so great...you misspelled mistake :-) HTH -NT - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                 At the risk of killing the frog: What - you don't mean... - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                     Killing frogs? - (bepatient)
                                                         No Bill, I lumped the 2 together and didn't explicitly state - (Seamus)
                                                 I understand it just fine - (Seamus)
                     Numbers? - (bepatient) - (13)
                         If he can name 7, will you concede? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                             Would just like to see some backup - (bepatient) - (1)
                                 You are a piece of work (new thread) - (Seamus)
                         Re: Numbers? - (Seamus) - (9)
                             Then don't do this - (bepatient) - (8)
                                 You expanded to include affairs - (Seamus) - (7)
                                     Strike 2 -NT - (bepatient) - (6)
                                         You struck out a long time ago. -NT - (Seamus) - (5)
                                             Right. Keep those blinders on firmly. -NT - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                 Again, utterly hilarious coming from you. - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                     Right. You seem to be affected by the same... - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                         "Toe". You *tow* a car, and *toe* a line. HTH! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                             Thank you Mr Roget. -NT - (bepatient)
                 I don't think you're getting it. - (CRConrad) - (56)
                     *applause* - (pwhysall) - (42)
                         Meanwhile, in France - (bepatient) - (41)
                             Why did you mention age? - (pwhysall) - (34)
                                 All part of the story. -NT - (bepatient) - (33)
                                     This is what I'm on about. - (pwhysall) - (25)
                                         Ah, I see. - (bepatient) - (24)
                                             Gibbering on and on about this, in order to relativise... - (CRConrad) - (22)
                                                 First of all. - (bepatient) - (21)
                                                     They may have thought that he had WMDs - (Seamus)
                                                     You know... - (Simon_Jester) - (19)
                                                         My isn't revisionist history alive and well. - (bepatient) - (18)
                                                             they really didnt beleive it tho, snicker -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                 Thats why they voted for it b4 voting against it! -NT - (bepatient)
                                                             Let's see what else Byrd said. - (Another Scott) - (11)
                                                                 Eloquent but irrelevant. - (bepatient) - (10)
                                                                     You're being too broad again... - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                         I don't think so. - (bepatient) - (6)
                                                                             Not so. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                 Ok, so they don't get the President's Daily Brief. - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                     The "You didn't catch me, so it's not my fault" defense? :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                         Hardly - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                             You do remember who ran the Senate until Jan 2007, right? - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Re: I don't think so. (new thread) - (lincoln)
                                                                         and which prrominant democrats running for prez - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                             See #285239. I don't read MoveOn.org. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                             Yes, yes indeed it is. - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                                                                 Alright then. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                     What can I say, I just pulled them from RightWingNews (iirc) -NT - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                         Never been to that site (new thread) - (bepatient)
                                             Nor is it a consistent one - (Seamus)
                                     More like all part of the "narrative" -NT - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                         Ok. Nit well picked. -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                             No. A distinction, not a nit. - (rcareaga)
                                     So why didn't you mention her religion? Or the colour of... - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                         Nope. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                             Ah, "relevance". That's a good one, coming from you. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                 Just easily distracted :-) -NT - (bepatient)
                             You're joking right? - (scoenye) - (5)
                                 Talk to Peter - (bepatient)
                                 I didn't say they weren't corrupt. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                     Ah! Well, yes, that is a bit alien to us as well... - (scoenye) - (2)
                                         signed up, had to choose the second life option tho -NT - (boxley)
                                         Thats why I love Belgium :-) - (bepatient)
                     your great skills in language match your ignorance of law - (boxley) - (12)
                         Another article about it: - (admin) - (11)
                             I like this one better - (boxley) - (7)
                                 In the end all that matters is what congress thinks of as - (Seamus)
                                 OTOH, Posner's book covers this stuff, too. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                     dont think much of posner's ideas -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                                         Different strokes. :-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                             Im more aligned with Blackstone, Gerry Spence and Pliskin -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                                 Snake Plisken, I heard you were dead. -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                     sshhh! -NT - (boxley)
                             Interesting, but zooks that's broad... -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 think about it, Gore would have been president for 2 years - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Nope. - (Another Scott)

Holy String Unravelling, Batman!
497 ms