I did. You keep defending him. That *scares* me.

Post #285,684 by CRConrad 5/29/07 10:36:11 AM Reply	I did. You keep defending him. That scares me.
Post #285,687 by boxley 5/29/07 11:00:48 AM Reply	go back further, I explicitely stated who I would vote for twasnt shrub 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]
Post #285,707 by CRConrad 5/29/07 3:38:22 PM Reply	What,you saying you don't defend him at every opportunity? OK, so maybe you don't belong to that stupid part of the sheeple -- that makes it if anything even more scary how you keep defending him at every opportunity. [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]
Post #285,709 by boxley 5/29/07 3:44:10 PM Reply	I dislike the " I's hates bush so It must be impeachable" mentality. Rather use pragmatic judgements based on facts and precedent not hopes and feelings. 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]
Post #285,712 by bepatient 5/29/07 4:04:43 PM Reply	Good nutshell Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #285,722 by Seamus 5/29/07 6:35:32 PM Reply	Not speaking for anyone else, but I think GWB has committed impeachable offenses. First, what are impeachable offenses: Foreword I am pleased to make available a staff report regarding the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment prepared for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary by the legal staff of its impeachment inquiry. It is understood that the views and conclusions contained in the report are staff views and do not necessarily reflect those of the committee or any of its members. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. February 22, 1974 ... The impeachment of Warren Hastings, first attempted in 1786 and concluded in 1795, is particularly important because contemporaneous with the American Convention debates. Hastings was the first Governor-General of India. The articles indicate that Hastings was being charged with high crimes and misdemeanors in the form of gross maladministration, corruption in office, and cruelty toward the people of India. Two points emerge from the 400 years of English parliamentary experience with the phrase "high Crimea and Misdemeanors." First, the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament's prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. Second, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was confined to parliamentary impeachments; it had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, and the particular allegations of misconduct under that heading were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes. B. The Intention of the Framers [Return to Top] The debates on impeachment at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia focus principally on its applicability to the President. The framers sought to create a responsible though strong executive; they hoped, in the words of Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, that "the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief Magistrate could do no wrong. " Impeachment was to be one of the central elements of executive responsibility in the framework of the new government as they conceived it. The constitutional grounds for Impeachment of the President received little direct attention in the Convention; the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was ultimately added to "Treason" and "Bribery" with virtually no debate. There is evidence, however, that the framers were aware of the technical meaning the phrase had acquired in English impeachments. Ratification by nine states was required to convert the Constitution from a proposed plan of government to the supreme law of the land. The public debates in the state ratifying conventions offer evidence of the contemporaneous understanding of the Constitution equally as compelling as the secret deliberations of the delegates in Philadelphia. That evidence, together with the evidence found in the debates during the First Congress on the power of the President to discharge an executive officer appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, shows that the framers intended impeachment to be a constitutional safeguard of the public trust, the powers of government conferred upon the President and other civil officers, and the division of powers among the legislative, judicial and executive departments. The following is from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis. [link\|http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/SPECIALREPORTS/impeachment.html\|Constitutional Grouns for Impeachement] Bill, there is a clear set of documentation for the belief that the constitution allows, actually calls for the impeachment process to used to safeguard the country from harmful administration. You may not agree with that view of the impeachment process, but it is not wishful thinking on the part of the authors of the linked document. You also may not agree that GWB has done enough harm to the country to warrant impeachment. So be it, but there is precedent for the view that impeachment is in the realm of possibilities to be discussed in regards to GWB. Please either argue against the above document or argue that GWB hasn't done enough damage to the country to be impeached. If you can't or wont, then dismissing discussion of his impeachment as wishful thinking is not warranted anymore. Seamus
Post #285,723 by boxley 5/29/07 6:50:56 PM Reply	of course the idiot is impeachable for wiretapping without court oversight with no plausable denialbility for recinding pussy communists for recinding habeus corpus for recinding paddilla's civil rights as an american citizen for suspending habeus corpus for issuing a presidential finding of emperorship on may 9th this year not for invading Iraq not for his incompetant humps in charge of federal prosecutors and fema not for invading afghanistan not for telling congress to go fuck themselves not for being a fundie christian not for being anti abortion not for being who he was when he was elected The link you cite is not a confidence poll as you are suggesting it is. I will disagree with it as has others. 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]
Post #285,732 by Seamus 5/29/07 8:10:41 PM Reply	Actually if you read the document he is impeachable for: for invading Iraq for telling congress to go fuck themselves It falls under betrayal of trust and encroachment of Congressional prerogatives: First, the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament's prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. again from the above linked document. The issue of whether he will be impeach or not is another issue. I think they should impeach both Bush and Cheney, but that won't happen. If the only choice is impeaching Bush and getting Cheney or leaving Bush in office, in the short term you probably do more harm getting Cheney as president, but long term leaving Bush in office will continue to erode our standing in the world. Seamus
Post #285,736 by boxley 5/29/07 8:21:34 PM Reply	wrong on both counts congress told him to go invade iraq whenever telling congress to fuck themselves is every patriotic americans duty. re-read andy jackson vs supreme court, you dont have precedent behind you thanx, also wonder why you are going back to 74 for insight when you have a perfectly good grounds for impeachment document much closer to our time :-) 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]
Post #285,742 by Seamus 5/29/07 8:56:24 PM Reply	No not wrong. The document from 1974 has a rather through reading of the history and meaning of impeachment. A more impressive document than anything from 1998. Impeachment is a little used instrument, for very good reason. It is not something to be taken lightly. Nor do I think I am taking it lightly. Impeachment is not tied to a set criminal code, so precedent is not as important as it with a criminal case. Congress is free to decide what constitutes impeachment so it can be free to protect society from unforeseen and unprecedented events. Contemporary comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No, 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as: ". . . those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." If you are talking about Andrew Johnson, which refers the impeachment trial and the presentation of evidence, not the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors. Seamus
Post #285,797 by boxley 5/30/07 9:56:05 AM Reply	again, I said Jackson vs supreme court he was handed a ruling stating that he could not remove native americans west of the mississippi. He did it anyway, told the court to kiss his ass. Bush was given the consent of congress to invade iraq, so you cant use the invasion as an impeachable offence. You seem to be of the opinion "I dont like Bush lets impeach" doesnt work that way. If you had sat thru the clinton hearings (I did, not just the news bites) you would find there is a lot more than politics to an impeachment process. 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]
Post #285,874 by Seamus 5/30/07 5:03:42 PM Reply	Yes you did but it is less relevant to this than you think Given consent doesn't cover what he did to the intelligence in getting the authorization nor does it cover his his failure to plan for the occupation. Both are impeachable offenses because of the harm done to the country. The term high crimes and misdemeanors replaced the maladministration because maladministration was to vague. The clear intent of the impeachment clause of the constitution is the ability to remove from office major incompetents such as Bush. If it is not a dislike of him or his politics, it is all about the harm he is doing to the country. The have enough other charges to impeach, but impeaching without dealing with everything he has done wrong to the country, invites some future Rove clones to interpret what this administration did with the war with Iraq as permissible. Seamus
Post #285,878 by boxley 5/30/07 5:53:54 PM Reply	I can name quite a few presidents who did more harm to this country than bush. Lets see, his butchers bill is under 4k Economy is still staggering along He has only participated in 2 regime changes (so far) our occupation of dominican republic philipines germany japan cuba nicaraugua vietnam panama etc etc etc was handled well in the first 5 years? other than his complete attacks against our civil rights which he hasnt yet caught up to lincoln, list the ireeparable harm you claim 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]
Post #285,880 by Ashton 5/30/07 6:09:38 PM Reply	Oh Well, Then - - - I see how your comparative caliper works - So if we just wait till another civil war occurs (about when the corporate Representatives have moved to the Magenta Zone), a walled-off concertina-wired Escape from DC - the sequel... compound thing - Then we just may be permitted to think of taking serious action to remove this dull-witted regime, here at home. Zzzzzzz all the way to late '08. Gosh, that's awfully calculating of you, Box. I Knew calculators; calculators were friends of mine.. Mr. Box ... You're no Calculator. .....go ahead and putt - it'll be at least a half minute before the blast wave hits
Post #285,884 by boxley 5/30/07 6:43:18 PM Reply	re-read my post when were the troops due home from Bosnia? Christmas about ten years ago wasnt it? My compatative caliper is fine. Take a longer look than the last 8 years. He is still a first rate idiot. I have said so repeatedly. The "I'se dont likes him so lets impeach" is what gets my skivvies in a skid. If you are going to compare occupations by all means do so. Its not like we havnt had plenty of practice fucking them up over the last 200 years or so. You want to remove the regime? By all means do so. I am willing to assist. At least have a carefully reasoned plan.... never mind 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]
Post #285,888 by Seamus 5/30/07 6:56:30 PM Reply	Everyone does Bill We disagree about the nature of the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors. I have shown the evidence I have supporting my definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. You on the other hand are still stuck on a criminal code mindset. Impeaching him without holding him accountable for the way he started and executed the war on Iraq is irresponsible. And it is not based on wishful thinking. Seamus
Post #285,885 by Seamus 5/30/07 6:49:42 PM Reply	Where to begin Bringing Lincoln into the discussion is pointless. He was a real war time president who held the union together. Should he have held it together? Maybe not. Lincoln's civil rights violations were temporary. IMO Bush wants his violations of our civil rights to permanent. What past presidents did to harm the country is not the standard by which we judge the current president's impeachability. As an aside, because Congress didn't try to stop abuses when they happened, such as the invasions of the Philippines and Cuba, future presidents were emboldened to wreak more havoc on sovereign nations, esp in Central and South America. I never said that the damage Bush did was irreparable. The Iraq war, the circumventing of the Geneva conventions, fighting a war on terrorism that has encourage more people to want to attack us, using signing statements to ignore the congress and the constitution is not enough damage to the country to impeach him? Seamus
Post #285,891 by boxley 5/30/07 7:12:24 PM Reply	nope, there is a laundry list of impeachable items The Iraq war now that is not an impeachable offence as congress told him to go ahead. If you bring up false intel then that is on cheneys plate if you can prove it. the circumventing of the Geneva conventions so? Clinton, Bush 41, dunno about carter or ford, reagan, nixon, lbj, kennedy, etc all flouted the geneva conventions. Also there is a good legal argument that the people in gitmo could be classified as pirates which has legal standing instead of this enemy combatant mumbo jumbo. using signing statements to ignore the congress and the constitution to which there is a specific legal remedy that congress isnt interested in pursuing, and its not impeachment Those arguments boil down to "I dont care if other presidents did the same and damaged the country, I dont like bush so impeach him" 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]
Post #285,893 by Seamus 5/30/07 7:24:56 PM Reply	We have been over this I disagree with your opinion about what is impeachable and you disagree with my opinion. And they are opinions, not fact, not matter how much state the opposite regarding your opinion. Just because I believe he should be impeached, esp regarding the war, doesn't mean I think Congress will actually impeach him. But, they should have to explain why they are not. Seamus
Post #285,894 by boxley 5/30/07 7:33:34 PM Reply	Im curious about your stance on signing statements If a signing statement is acted upon and congress determines its a egrgeous breach a suit could be filed directly to the supreme court for a ruling on the signing statement. They will either agree with the legislators or the executive. A problem with a clear solution. So why do you think that is impeachable? Congress hasnt even determined that even one of these signing statements are egregious to date. If congress doesnt think its worth suing over, I highly doubt its impeachable, unless of course he ignore the USSC and continues.... THAT would be impeachable. otherwise agree to disagree 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]
Post #285,896 by Seamus 5/30/07 7:55:18 PM Reply	In his signings statements he has basically said he isn't going to follow the intent of the law he just signed. I will search for specifics examples later, as I need to take the dogs out to exercise. Seamus
Post #285,897 by boxley 5/30/07 7:58:37 PM Reply	I beleive you as I have read the same however impeachment isnt the remedy of first resort and there is a process to handle those signing statements that no one in congress seems interestd in following 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]
Post #285,900 by Seamus 5/30/07 8:38:34 PM Reply	Impeachment isn't the first response but I added them to show a pattern of abuse of the constitutional separation of powers. Democrats are letting them get lost in their confusion of what to do next. Seamus
Post #285,901 by boxley 5/30/07 8:44:06 PM Reply	the democrats are too concerned about getting the whole hog during the next election cycle to give a rats ass about the country 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]
Post #285,902 by bepatient 5/30/07 9:10:36 PM Reply	Signing statements go back to Monroe Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton all used them...with progressively more legal challenge included. Clinton even had his Justice dept write up a formal statement that abdicated his duty to enforce specific parts of the law that he disagreed with. GW has taken this slide down the slope to an entirely new level, of course, because it is very difficult to put the cat back in the bag. However, the ABA is working it. If we could get a line item veto rule passed, this would likely all go away. But calling the use of signing statements impeachable is..well it isn't. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #285,907 by Simon_Jester 5/30/07 10:19:29 PM Reply	Minor nit If we could get a line item veto rule passed, this would likely all go away. Line-item vetos are on budgetary items, not bills. Most signing statements I've seen refer to bills.
Post #285,908 by Another Scott 5/30/07 10:31:44 PM Reply	John Dean had an interesting commentary on them. [link\|http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060714.html\|FindLaw] from July 2006: [...] Bush's defenders have portrayed his actions with signing statements as standard operating procedure for all recent presidents. In particular, they have cited Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton's signing statement practices as precedents. But Bush's use of the signing statement is not only non-standard, it is egregious, and plainly itself unconstitutional. The Constitution, and the president's oath of office swearing to uphold it, require a president to veto legislation he finds unconstitutional, and send it back to Congress so its members can correct the flaw. The system is simple and wise - and Bush is subverting it. In over six years in office, Bush has not vetoed a single bill. Therefore, he has avoided the political costs those vetoes would have rightly entailed. Instead, Bush has issues a steady stream of signing statements claiming that the very bills he is signing have constitutional problems. Bush's extraordinary and unconstitutional use of signing statements is making the laws enacted by the representatives of the people irrelevant. It is also making a mockery of due process: How can anyone have prior notice of what the law says, if so many laws come with a warning that the President may disregard some of their provisions? [...] Cheers, Scott.
Post #285,921 by bepatient 5/31/07 5:56:00 AM Reply	GWB has taken this... ...previous abuse of the office and stretched it to its "logical" conclusion for Washington...which is as far as it can be stretched without snapping in half. IMO, the SC needs to take one of these laws and invalidate it by saying, specifically, that the signing statement is unconstitutional. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #285,929 by boxley 5/31/07 9:21:11 AM Reply	Rats and constitutional law dont exactly go together 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]
Post #285,930 by Another Scott 5/31/07 9:28:27 AM Reply	Shooting the messenger (Dean) doesn't help the argument...
Post #285,925 by hnick 5/31/07 7:27:32 AM Reply	There is a line item veto. Just veto any bill that contains more than one item. Just vote on one thing at a time. That would keep all those idiotic pork riders off. It would also keep the pols on the hook as they wouldn't be able to say "I had to vote for the blah bill because it was tied to the snort bill that is SO importent to the CHILLLDREEEEN..." It would be interesting if everybody in government just did their friggin job. On a different topic... If we deleted all posts that contained the "But somebody else did it!" excuse/justification and the derivitive posts, we would have about 7 posts left in this forum. It's getting past boring and into disgusting.
Post #285,927 by bepatient 5/31/07 8:09:43 AM Reply	2 things Hurray!!! Several states have the one item per vote rule. Some critics say it would make Washington screech to a halt because there would be too many bills to process. I support it. Think its a fabulous idea. Second...the problem (that seems largely relegated to box and myself) is the contention that somehow this latest (P)resident invented all of this crap. He should be (blah blah blah) because he (blah blah blah). It seems, sometimes, that it has to be pointed out that this crap has been happening for far longer. Hell...maybe they should thank him instead of trying to impeach him for showing them all the ways their Fed government has been screwing them for nearly 40 years. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #285,941 by hnick 5/31/07 12:18:15 PM Reply	Heh! Washington screeching to a halt because they had to pass so many bills would be wonderful. That would imply that they actually had to read all of each bill and know what it was about (I think somebody proposed a bill like that which was immediately rejected.) Further, if they only had time to pass necessary bills, maybe government would be less intrusive. Just a thought. I think it was Sam Clemens who said something like "No mans liberty or wallet is safe when congress is in session." Thanking W for showing us how badly government can foul up, would be like expecting the Cambodians to thank the Kymer Rouge for reminding them that death exists. At a certain point there are no more excuses. W is way past that point. I suspect that the last bunch of presidents have screwed things up so badly that our government as it stands, is past repair. I'd like to be wrong...
Post #285,943 by boxley 5/31/07 1:00:27 PM Reply	as a country we have survived worse 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]
Post #285,965 by hnick 5/31/07 6:32:11 PM Reply	Think Hookes modulus My thought is that each time government process/policy is twisted in a new direction, the "heat of deformation" will produce stress and brittleness that will eventually cause the material to break. The effect is cumulative. Our civil war caused enormous stress and brittleness which is still spreading. It's not over either. It will outlive all of us. I assume that was what you where referring to. If not, I don't really care about Indians. Sorry. Recent (since and including Kennedy) presidents have done a lot of twisting and mangling. The damage done, destruction of the Constitution, corporate citizenship, manipulation of states rights... an endless list, has caused cumulative material damage to our society that only massive treatment can correct. That will not be pretty. my last 0.02 to this discussion. Not only am I broke, but I'm not dumb enough to argue with you when you've been popping your redneck pills.
Post #285,971 by Ashton 5/31/07 6:52:37 PM Reply	+5 Originality - an apt scienterrific application of Hooke! -- exceeding the modulus of elasticity of any [color=] [psi=] [object=neck]
Post #285,954 by Seamus 5/31/07 5:26:23 PM Reply	Signing statements I am not saying he invented any of this crap. My view on signing statements is not that the use of signing statements is impeachable but it is just one tool this president as used to subvert the constitution and place itself as the sole interpreter of the law. Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like. [link\|http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html\|John Dean at FindLaw] His use of signing statements goes well beyond what preceding presidents have used them for. Other presidents have push the line and tried to grab power from congress and the courts, but this president operated from a different perspective. Instead of trying to grab power, IMO he started his administration with the believe that the presidency already had these powers and he doesn't have to explain his view of presidential powers to anyone; including Congress. That is why he is different from other presidents and why I am treating him differently than I would treat other presidents. Congress has done anything about signing statements, so I doubt they put them in to any articles of impeachment - not that I think they are going to impeach him either. Seamus
Post #285,957 by boxley 5/31/07 5:40:08 PM Reply	another rat reference, why is he an authority on anything? 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]
Post #285,959 by Seamus 5/31/07 5:53:18 PM Reply	Why is he a rat? Because he felt a greater loyalty to the country than to Nixon? Seamus
Post #285,960 by boxley 5/31/07 6:00:58 PM Reply	yeah, right. He had a greater loyalty to his virgin asshole which is why he ratted out to avoid prison. 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]
Post #285,961 by Seamus 5/31/07 6:08:20 PM 5/31/07 6:08:36 PM Reply	So there is nothing he has done since then to redeem himself in your eyes? Seamus Edited by Seamus May 31, 2007, 06:08:36 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #285,966 by boxley 5/31/07 6:37:05 PM Reply	what has he done? rat days [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean] Dean pled guilty to obstruction of justice before Watergate trial judge John Sirica on November 30, 1973. He admitted supervising payments of "hush money" to the Watergate burglars, notably E. Howard Hunt, and revealed the existence of Nixon's enemies list. On August 2, 1974, Sirica handed down a sentence of one to four years in a minimum-security prison. However, when Dean surrendered himself as scheduled on September 3, he was diverted to the custody of U.S. Marshals and kept instead at Fort Holabird (near Baltimore, Maryland) in a special "safe house" holding facility primarily used for witnesses against the Mafia. He spent his days in the offices of the Watergate Special Prosecutor and testifying in the trial of Watergate conspirators Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson, which concluded on January 1, 1975. Dean's lawyer moved to have his sentence reduced, and on January 8, Sirica granted the motion, adjusting Dean's sentence to time served. post rat days what has he accomplished since then, he claims to have written a book about watergate, ended up in court over it and has written about law since. He is too flawed to have an legal argument without the stench of corruption attached. Same reason I wouldnt buy into Liddy's version of what the constitution means. At least liddy wasn't a rat. 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]
Post #285,970 by Another Scott 5/31/07 6:51:55 PM Reply	So he shouldn't have told the truth?
Post #285,982 by boxley 5/31/07 8:01:40 PM Reply	he should have been building a case to get all of them instead of rolling over like a trick when caught. I would have had a lot more respect if he had said I am respnsible but will not discuss anyone elses role. And done his time. 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]
Post #285,986 by Another Scott 5/31/07 8:42:23 PM Reply	Has anyone else in the US government ever done that? I'm not aware of an example. Isn't it better for someone to come forward and tell the truth about their illegal activities, and what they know about the illegal activities of others, than to do what, say, Scooter Libby did? I think it's much better to come clean in sworn testimony, even if it's late. I also think his obligation to the country was much greater than to his former colleagues. Cheers, Scott. (Who notices that Amazon's "Surprise Me" excerpt of Libby's novel [link\|http://www.amazon.com/Apprentice-Novel-Lewis-Libby/dp/0312284535/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/002-5664532-8022445\|The Apprentice] has some weird discussion among hunters about having their way with a deer...)
Post #285,987 by boxley 5/31/07 8:54:41 PM Reply	scooter did the right thing so did Liddy, they have the courage of their convictions, even if they are wrong. Either one has priciples and stands on them or one does not. Dean clearly does not stand for anything except what is good for dean. Dean did not "come forward" he was hoisted squealing like a pig after being caught. Come forward it aint. I guess I am of a different era. You beleive what you are doing is right and stck by it. The vagaries of circumstance really shouldnt determine morals practiced. 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]
Post #285,996 by Another Scott 5/31/07 9:35:44 PM Reply	Scooter lied to FBI, obstructed justice, comitted perjury. Somehow I thought that if someone was held up as an example of standing up for the "courage of their convictions", then they should also accept the consequences. [link\|http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/52507_fitzgerald_sentencing_memorandum.pdf\|Libby's a whining liar]. Dean [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2002/05/31/AR2005112200792.html\|talked to the Senate investigators] before he was granted immunity. He understood that Nixon was damaging the country and he stood up and took the heat for testifying against a pretty [link\|http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/poll.html\|popular president]. He served time. For someone who's so idealistic about so many things, I'm surprised that you think that Libby's somehow honorable. It seems to me that our system of government and our judicial system *cannot* work if people lie under oath and obstruct justice. But different strokes, I guess. Cheers, Scott. ("But what about Clinton?" That's a different thread...)
Post #286,024 by CRConrad 6/1/07 9:34:25 AM Reply	"The courage of their convictions, even if they are wrong"? That's what makes Scooter "Perjury" Libby and G. Gordon "Zippo" Liddy good guys, in your eyes??? Wow. That's just, um... Wow. (To [probably] misquote an LRPDism.) You DO realise, of course, that that also makes Adolf a good guy, according to you? (Along with every single one of his SS henchmen -- the more unrepentant of their crimes against humanity they were, the more "good guys" they were, in your reasoning.) Are you beginning to see why I've been calling you "scary" a few times, recently? Maybe you think I was kidding. If so, you are mistaken: I was not. [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]
Post #286,030 by boxley 6/1/07 10:50:58 AM Reply	principled!=good in any case We were talking about criminal elements in government that broke many laws excluding murder. Different class than the crowd you are describing. Gleefully carrying out burglaries, paying off henchmen and then ratting out your fellow crooks makes that person a lesser being than those who gleefully carried out burglaries, henched then did their time with a no comment. Why are you scared? I cant afford to fly to DC much less finland :-) 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]
Post #286,088 by CRConrad 6/2/07 7:33:48 PM Reply	Because you, and people like you, get to vote over there. Actually, I've been scared of where the fuck you guys -- Americans, the ones who vote on who gets to be the most powerful man not only in America but the WORLD, with his finger hovering over The Button -- are taking us all ever since 2004. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...", and all that. You (all) voted in the Chimp-in-Chief again. How the fuck could anybody sane NOT be scared of you? [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]
Post #286,090 by Andrew Grygus 6/2/07 7:48:18 PM Reply	Given that the Ohio elections were probably rigged . . . . . by Dibold, we probably didn't actually elect him for the second term, and with the Florida fiasco we may not have actually elected him to the first term either. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #286,091 by CRConrad 6/2/07 8:27:54 PM Reply	Sorry, not good enough; shouldn't have been even close. The fact that he got more than, say, ten percent, the second time around, that alone means that something's wrong as Hell over there. Heck, the fact that he even got the nomination already does. [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]
Post #286,099 by boxley 6/3/07 10:28:23 AM Reply	yer saying it was better in the old days? only white property owners could vote senators were appointed by governors president was appointed by the electoral college which was run by the state legislators I'll bring it up during the next MLK rally and see how it flies. By the way, how come mr KGB Putin got re-elected? Case of pot and kettle etc. 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]
Post #286,104 by CRConrad 6/3/07 11:21:10 AM Reply	WTF are you gibbering about? Yes, of course it was! In... ...the "good old days" under, say, Clinton -- he only screwed an intern; he did not fuck the Constitution up the ass with a chainsaw. Now cut it out with the stupid strawmen, willya, before everybody thinks you ARE as stupid as you're trying to sound here. Thank you. [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]
Post #286,112 by boxley 6/3/07 1:29:28 PM Reply	clinton didnt trample the WHAT! of course he did although not the shattering the current crew is doing. Makes me glad you lot cant vote here, 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]
Post #286,136 by CRConrad 6/3/07 4:45:37 PM Reply	OK, so read it as "Clinton didn't shatter it" in stead. Still makes it the good old days, compared to the total ass-reaming the current crew is giving it. WTF is wrong with you, that you insist on pretending this huge difference is as nothing?!? You might be glad, but that is precisely what has me so scared: That you, OTOH, are allowed to vote over there. [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]
Post #286,015 by Seamus 6/1/07 6:22:56 AM Reply	No you tell everything you know and take the consequences That would be impressive. Libby was, and I assume he still is, blindly loyal. Blind loyalty has no place in a representative government. Seamus
Post #285,972 by Ashton 5/31/07 7:04:02 PM Reply	What I see in this analysis is - Exactly the rationale for when.. {{ Street kid wants to get into local gang. Big kids say, OK punk - go shoot some random cop. [like, quite recently - in Sackamenna CA - killed him dead] The watching, wise-quipping gangbangers, all knowing Code-of-Silence, (having seen the latest massively popular Mafioso-deifyin Tee Vee series) - to the point of memorizing the comical-tough-lines to drop on new 13 yos: watch. the. kid. go. out. door, clearly enroute to 1) Acceptance by this Lovely Group 2) 17 virgins -- but first: 3) Life sans parole. And.. that's All that any One of them next Does. }} These kids..? Not. a. RAT. in. the. bunch. {{{Applause by The Troops}}}
Post #285,981 by boxley 5/31/07 8:00:03 PM Reply	so a trained lawyer is no better than a street punk? nevermind... but you would think he would have more morals than that? nevermind,,, grumble, 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]
Post #285,998 by Ashton 5/31/07 9:45:21 PM Reply	We were talking about RATS You were saying: ~ if you TELL, you are a RAT. And I say.. that's Mafioso doggerel (and <13 yo territory) == prior to ever Getting to any intro-to personal 'ethics' course. (The subject-topic just hasn't come up - for many.) For some - it never Does. Those last stay pre-teen for liff. Dying as winos or CIEIOs. Some admire {{a Lot, I guess}} - those guys/psychopaths who can hold their hand in a candle flame till it smells lika a Baghdad street.. then, \ufffd l\ufffd 007, declare - the trick is in not minding.. (I could say ~~ "when you TELL" and why you tell, if.. you do tell.) But I wouldn't want to disturb your simple homily by incinerating it, prematurely - now would I? As to ~~Lawyers~~ any so-called 'Profession'al? (We profess to ___ and to ___ and: pay us $Lots/hour because We Profess ___) See above. See Foulwell; see lawyer-Nixon, see the University-educated Nazis amidst the mob. See Reiser (made neat file systems though, eh?) See MBAs at Enron. Professionals - all. Hint - a foolish consistency is
Post #285,973 by Seamus 5/31/07 7:09:02 PM Reply	Liddy was/is psycho Having a ghost writer and trying to protect his wife's reputation doesn't detract from his current research. If you can find flaws in his arguments, lets hear them. Seamus
Post #285,980 by boxley 5/31/07 7:58:38 PM Reply	why dont you read a real constitutional scholar instead of a hack whose only claim to fame is to get caught breaking the law then sliming all over himself when caught. He should have done the same thing ashcroft did on his hospital bed, "thats against the law" full stop. Then he would have some gravitas in regards to constitutional law. John Hart Ely Gerry Spence Thurgood Marshal David Golove Lawrence A Tribe None of the above are lowlifes and actually have experience in something other than investment banking, mopery and ratting out fellow co-conspirators 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]
Post #286,014 by Seamus 6/1/07 6:17:32 AM Reply	Constitutional scholars The ABA panel of constitutional scholars find Bush's use of signing statements constitutional problematic. Tribe, while not agreeing with the panel does think that Bush's use of signing statements show that he is over stepping his constitutional authority in the signing statements by taking on Congress's role of regulating conduct of executive branch officials. Which is my I think his use of signing statements is needed to show the pattern of abuse of his office that warrants impeachment. Seamus
Post #286,023 by boxley 6/1/07 9:12:00 AM Reply	just for grins, what decade of life are you in? no obligation to answer of course. 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]
Post #285,955 by Seamus 5/31/07 5:26:36 PM 5/31/07 5:27:10 PM Reply	duplicate Seamus Edited by Seamus May 31, 2007, 05:27:10 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #285,875 by Ashton 5/30/07 5:03:55 PM Reply	The pre-impeachment hearings re Nixon were televised, donchaknow? .. even way-back then. Anyone paying attention during those - got the full spectrum of the breadth of the process, and of the pivotal effect of the quality of rhetoric AND content (or any lack thereof.) 'Jackson', or any ref thereto today - is of NO USE to a post-literate, fatally preoccupied nation of shoppers and trivia hounds. Tee Vee OTOH - is where they liff.
Post #285,744 by Seamus 5/29/07 9:00:27 PM Reply	Just to be clear When I say he is impeachable for the invasion of iraq, it is the lying about the reasons for war. The democrats are vulnerable on this issue, but they need to responsible for what they did as well. Seamus
Post #285,802 by boxley 5/30/07 10:00:13 AM Reply	the inteligence estimates need to be publicised the intel committee was given in depth intel. Clinton for example admits she had never read them. Until those are published we dont really know what was with held from congress do we? I imagine it was close to what was in the presidents daily briefing. If it was, the people who prepared them should be punished, not the receiptiants 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]
Post #285,877 by Seamus 5/30/07 5:45:49 PM Reply	There is a lot to the intelligence side than just the PDB But, sticking with the daily briefs, the people preparing the briefs are not the ones to go after it is the one(s) who set up the alternative intelligence gathering and analysis units that provided the intelligence used in the PDB. Cheney certainly had his hand in this. Seamus
Post #285,879 by boxley 5/30/07 5:56:40 PM Reply	absolutely, you just pointed out the problem cheney not bush set up all of that and he is impeachable for that if found to deliberately mislead the commander in chief. Bush cannot be got at that way. 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]
Post #285,889 by Seamus 5/30/07 6:58:29 PM Reply	Yes he can As president he is ultimately responsible for not only letting it happen, but actively using it to forward his agenda. Seamus
Post #285,892 by boxley 5/30/07 7:14:44 PM Reply	not without evidence you cant 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]
Post #285,895 by Seamus 5/30/07 7:52:12 PM Reply	This is the crux of the matter You are looking for beyond a reasonable doubt proof of specific actions. The Bush administration has governed in such a way as to keep as little evidence of the actual decisions made as possible Their goal is not to be accountable to Congress. If you govern that way and screw up this bad, you deserve to be impeached. It is also a betrayal of trust, which the historical precedent shows that betrayal of trust is an impeachable offense. If he is not impeached, why wouldn't future presidents follow this president's lead and actively avoid congressional oversight? Two points emerge from the 400 years of English parliamentary experience with the phrase "high Crimea and Misdemeanors." First, the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament's prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. Second, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was confined to parliamentary impeachments; it had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, and the particular allegations of misconduct under that heading were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes. [link\|http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/SPECIALREPORTS/impeachment.html\|Link] Seamus
Post #285,898 by boxley 5/30/07 8:04:34 PM Reply	I would expect future presidents to actively avoid congressional oversight, its the nature of the position. Just like reagan ignored congress meddling in his foreign affairs found a way to get money to the contras. An executive who is the rolling buttplug for congress is useless in my opinion. 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]
Post #285,909 by inthane-chan 5/30/07 11:09:30 PM Reply	And vis a vis a Congress that is a rubber stamp for... ...the Imperial President is worthless as well. Odoru aho ni miru aho! Onaji aho nara odoranya son son!
Post #285,931 by boxley 5/31/07 9:29:05 AM Reply	yup, strong beleiver in tight gridlock 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]
Post #285,734 by Seamus 5/29/07 8:16:15 PM Reply	He is exactly who he was when he was elected Seamus
Post #285,737 by Silverlock 5/29/07 8:23:05 PM Reply	The "not for"s are bs. Name someone, not in your imagination of a lefty, who has called for impeachment for any of those reasons. The only one you are even close on is Iraq and the offense there is lying to congress about the reasons to invade, not the invasion itself. If anyone ever called for impeachment over the invasion of Afghanistan, I have yet to see it. As for the others? Hogwash. I have a feeling this is a "leftys swirl clockwise" stance. ----------------------------------------- Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Post #285,724 by Simon_Jester 5/29/07 6:52:23 PM Reply	He's impeachable...but he won't be impeached. Do you really want Cheney as President?
Post #285,782 by jb4 5/30/07 9:10:45 AM Reply	Sure! His bionic ticker wouldn't survive the self-imposed paranoia that the "whole world is out to get me". (Which it is, but that's another story.) We'd have President Pelosi long before the Congress (sensing the eventual outcome) would ratify Al Gonzales as the new VeeP. jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #285,788 by Another Scott 5/30/07 9:34:48 AM Reply	s /Al Gonzales/Jeb Bush/ :-/
Post #285,789 by jb4 5/30/07 9:35:35 AM Reply	Jeb ain't that stupid! jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #285,728 by boxley 5/29/07 7:44:10 PM Reply	one other thing, there isnt 60 votes so by your definition he isnt impeachable :-) same argument the clinton folks used 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]
Post #285,733 by Seamus 5/29/07 8:14:41 PM Reply	Not yet there isn't, but there's still time If they don't get the votes to convict, they still need to do to keep it from happening again and regaining their lost powers. Seamus
Post #285,779 by Simon_Jester 5/30/07 8:21:47 AM Reply	Technically speaking he's impeachable, just not convictable. Same thing as Clinton. (Cept I think the votes would be there, if Cheney wasn't)

Welcome to IWETHEY!