Should Bush be Impeached?

[jafar00]

89% of those polled in this MSNBC Poll said YES!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/?polls%3Dis_open

[Elrathin]

This is one of those situations where I feel the need to be consistant. I hate polls, and I hate surverys because they can easily be manipulated into what you want them to be.

But one thing of note is the small print at the bottom that I felt was important which says "Not a scientific survey." If you click that link you will see why this survey is basically bogus.

[jafar00]

Using that logic, the next election should be decided by the votes counted being limited to less than 500 randomly selected votes from the pool since ...

While a poll of 100 people will be more accurate than a poll of 10, "studies" have shown that accuracy begins to improve less at about 500 people and increases only a minor amount beyond 1,000 people.

No?

[micfranklin]

No.

Impeach the whole White House, and make sure Cheney gets put out first.

[exigent]

Why Cheney? I thought he was his own branch of government...?

[Scorpion]

Could Bush be impeached? Possibly, but I'm not certain. I tend to lean towards that he could be based on his prosecution of the invasion of Iraq and handling of the war.

But more importantly, should he be impeached? No. First, Bush will be out of office in 14 months. Gone for good. Secondly, why rip open further an already deeply divided country to castigate one man. Let history judge Bush for posterity.

You don't impeach a sitting president to prove a point. You impeach to improve the government. Impeaching Bush would only further divide the country, waste time and money and subject the US to further ridicule on the world stage.

[Buck Laser]

No.

Impeach the whole White House, and make sure Cheney gets put out first.

That's essentially what they had to do to get Nixon out. Everyone viewed Agnew as worse than Nixon, so they were able to dig up sufficient dirt on him, and get him out. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

The trouble is that it's too late to carry out a successful impeachment action against Bush, and as of now, the votes aren't there.

[bobbylien]

I think it would go a long way to repair our image throughout the world, even if Cheney becomes the president.

[Alonzo]

89% of those polled in this MSNBC Poll said YES!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/?polls%3Dis_open


Apparently DU and Kos got there first.

[bobbylien]

Even so, 500,000 people is an awful lot. I am always weary of online polls though because they certainly don't represent the country.

[Scorpion]

I think it would go a long way to repair our image throughout the world, even if Cheney becomes the president.


I understand your point but I disagree. Impeaching Bush, especially after he's been in office for nearly 8 years, would only further erode the already decadent image of the US and create the impression that we are so confused and misinformed as a nation that we cannot effectively and quickly deal with an unpopular leadership.

My advice: Keep the administration on a short leash until a new president is elected.

[April15]

Could Bush be impeached? Possibly, but I'm not certain. I tend to lean towards that he could be based on his prosecution of the invasion of Iraq and handling of the war.

But more importantly, should he be impeached? No. First, Bush will be out of office in 14 months. Gone for good. Secondly, why rip open further an already deeply divided country to castigate one man. Let history judge Bush for posterity.

You don't impeach a sitting president to prove a point. You impeach to improve the government. Impeaching Bush would only further divide the country, waste time and money and subject the US to further ridicule on the world stage.
Very good points. And very true!

[Scorpion]

Thank you very kindly.

[heyjude]

The only thing that would make impeaching Bush a good thing now is keeping him from declaring an emergency, and canceling the next election. And that is a very real possibility.

[BoogyMan]

The only thing that would make impeaching Bush a good thing now is keeping him from declaring an emergency, and canceling the next election. And that is a very real possibility.


Care to flesh that fantastic claim out a bit heyjude?

[Elrathin]

Using that logic, the next election should be decided by the votes counted being limited to less than 500 randomly selected votes from the pool since ...

While a poll of 100 people will be more accurate than a poll of 10, "studies" have shown that accuracy begins to improve less at about 500 people and increases only a minor amount beyond 1,000 people.

No?


Jafar, I just went on there 4 times to vote, so how the hell can it be accurate if one person can vote on that poll multiple times eh?

Again, the poll is bogus because it is not scientific in the least.

[heyjude]

As I'm sure you are aware BoogyMan, that was my opinion. If Bush has plans to cancel the next election, he is not going to share it with the American people. My suspicion is based on the fact that he has discussed the possibility with his cabinet and he is exactly the kind of creep, dictator that would do that. IMHO.

[BoogyMan]

As I'm sure you are aware BoogyMan, that was my opinion. If Bush has plans to cancel the next election, he is not going to share it with the American people. My suspicion is based on the fact that he has discussed the possibility with his cabinet and he is exactly the kind of creep, dictator that would do that. IMHO.


You didn't state it as opinion heyjude, that is why I queried you about it. Thanks for clarifying.

[bobbylien]

I'm afraid that you might be letting your hatred for Bush cloud your judgment heyjude. There is no way he could suspend elections without the support of the military and he doesn't have that.

[Elrathin]

My suspicion is based on the fact that he has discussed the possibility with his cabinet and he is exactly the kind of creep, dictator that would do that. IMHO.


Can you please provide a link to that FACT you claim that he has discussed the possibility with his cabinet to suspend elections?

[Oedipus Rex]

I think it would go a long way to repair our image throughout the world, even if Cheney becomes the president.




You wanna improve our image throughout the world? What did you have in mind? Surrender to the French?:clapper:

[bobbylien]

create the impression that we are so confused and misinformed as a nation that we cannot effectively and quickly deal with an unpopular leadership.
It would create that? Really? That is exactly how the rest of the world sees us right now.

[Survivor]

No. First we need to clean out the demoncrats. Just wait until there is a new Attorney General nomination and confirmation hearings, and keep your eyes open.

[Buck Laser]

No. First we need to clean out the demoncrats. Just wait until there is a new Attorney General nomination and confirmation hearings, and keep your eyes open.

If Bush has any sense at all, he'll nominate former senator John Danforth, a republican, but one who's earned the respect of people on both sides of the aisle.

As to "impeaching the democrats," we're talking about a legal procedure in which the steps are laid out in the constitution. The fact that you don't like democrats really isn't sufficient grounds for impeachment. The likelihood that Bush lied about his reasons for making war on Iraq and numerous other things is grounds for impeachment, which is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. If they vote for impeachment, he'll have to stand trial in the Senate, as Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton did.

[jafar00]

Ok, so if impeachment is too late, too expensive, no point since he's out soon anyway, or any number of other excuses, how about shipping him and his gang of thieves out to the Hague for a proper international trial?

That would repair the image of the US more than anything.

[bobbylien]

Ok, so if impeachment is too late, too expensive, no point since he's out soon anyway, or any number of other excuses, how about shipping him and his gang of thieves out to the Hague for a proper international trial?

That would repair the image of the US more than anything.

That sounds good to me.

[exigent]

No. First we need to clean out the demoncrats. Just wait until there is a new Attorney General nomination and confirmation hearings, and keep your eyes open.


Hilarious.

It was the stupidity of a republican house, senate, and executive that got us in this mess and you have the balls to blame the democrats?

[tony mitra]

Here is a question I have for those that know the American system better than I do. It is not relating to impeachment of the President or vice president, but relates to elected officials down the line.

If the people of a particular constituency feel that their elected representative, a senator or a house representative, is not voting in line with the wishes of the citizens that that elected him, is there a mechanism in place whereby the people could get him to quit that office and be replaced through a fresh election in that constituency? Can a senator or a house rep be "impeached" too?

If 'yes', what is the right procedure for it?
If 'no', why not? Is the elected rep not answerable to the public except during the next scheduled election several years later? I am not talking about criminal acts which can be prosecuted in a court and the man tossed in jail. I am talking about the person having committed no legal crime at all, but simply pushed agendas that do not reflect the wishes of the people that elected him.

Has something like this ever happened before, that an elected senator/house rep was kicked out and replaced by a fresh out-of-schedule election?

Thanks in advance.
Tony

[I Like Beer]

In this post, I keep reading "how the world sees us".

I'm in Canada. I'll tell you a quick story...

When I was a kid/teenager, I generally had a very positive view of the US (my brother and at least two cousins married Americans. One cousin joined and was killed during peacetime in the US military). If I had any kind of anti-American sentiments at all, they were mostly based on jealousy. Most Canadians, in general, had an inferiority complex when it came to the States. The States was bigger, had more influence, more pervasive culture, etc. But, we didn't have any general anger towards the US. In fact, we saw you as our greatest ally.

Things are very different now. I have to constantly correct my kids who've come to view ALL Americans in very negative ways. They have connected the actions of the current Administration to reflect the wishes and desires of ALL Americans. They pick up these attitudes at school and we correct them at home. "American jokes" make repeated appearances at our dinner table.

Make no mistake, I really despise your current Administration, but I do not paint all Americans with that brush.

However, Anti-American feeling is growing in my country. Most Canadians see George Bush 43 as the greatest threat to peace in the world. In general, Canadians are developing a 'superiority' complex. Many are starting to define themselves by how they are different from Americans (they actually mean, how they are different from neo-cons, but they say 'Americans'). I have friends who will not vacation in the States anymore. They are now going to Mexico, Cuba or other places to get some sun during the winter.

I pass this along only for your consideration - the reputation of your nation has taken a pounding in my country and it will take a lot to get it back to where it was pre 2000. I am not willing to defend the views of these people. I also tell my kids every time that they make an anti-American comment that it is no different than an anti-black or anti-gay sentiment but that message is hard to get through to them.

[exigent]

I also tell my kids every time that they make an anti-American comment that it is no different than an anti-black or anti-gay sentiment but that message is hard to get through to them.


What about gay black americans?

I know our reputation has dissolved into nothingness, but I know the world hasnt permanently changed its views of us. Not to be egotistical at all, but America has a lot of things that people in other coutnries envy us over. It's just that now we are more pittied than envied. Most know that Bush caused it and that it can be fixed. But we need a president who will outwardly show disapproval of the war in Iraq and admit that the War on Terror was a mistake.

[Scorpion]

[hr]


I know our reputation has dissolved into nothingness, but I know the world hasnt permanently changed its views of us. Not to be egotistical at all, but America has a lot of things that people in other coutnries envy us over. It's just that now we are more pittied than envied. Most know that Bush caused it and that it can be fixed. But we need a president who will outwardly show disapproval of the war in Iraq and admit that the War on Terror was a mistake.


With all due respect my friend, I think that you're wrong for exactly the reason you stated. Our reputation in the US has been tarnished a bit but the greater portion of the world still respects us militarily, technologically and educationally, to name but a few attributes. As you say, we are the envy of the world. Yes we are. I very much believe that after Bush is out of office, and dependant on his replacement, the US will quickly regain its level of respect as the great power and global neighbor that it truly is.

[Pookie]

Well, back to the topic. Should Bush be impeached?
No. He led us into a war based on the lies about WMDs. He is responsible for sending many soldiers to their deaths, while he himself avoided combat duty in Vietnam.
He's a tyrant and a fool, but let the news surface that he got a blowjob from an intern and he still wouldn't be impeached, as they tried with Clinton. No matter how many call for his impeachment, it will not happen. He's surrounded by too many Republicans who will protect him.
Even if they realize they are on the Titanic after its collision with the iceberg. He'll finish out his Presidency, and history will treat him accordingly, which may not exactly be in his favor.
Purrs,

[Labrocca]

I think an impeachment is needed just to investigate everything and get to the truth of it all. There is certainly enough outcry to warrant a full-on investigation of the white house. Cheney imho has stepped over the line on a number of occassions. Bush...well seems the people just don't trust him. Sadly..the people don't trust the Democratic Congress either. So far they have done nothing to be the party of accountability. They can't use that platform again in 2008 so wtf will they run on?

[I Like Beer]

Not to be egotistical at all, but America has a lot of things that people in other coutnries envy us over. It's just that now we are more pittied than envied. Most know that Bush caused it and that it can be fixed.


I think you're absolutely correct. America has a LOT going for it. Some of the anger, I believe, is that old jealousy rearing it's ugly head.

It's like the celebrity who's fallen on hard times - everyone jumps into the 'tearing them down' phase.

Oh - and sorry to take the thread off-topic. I will shut up now.

[Scorpion]

Well, back to the topic. Should Bush be impeached?
No. He led us into a war based on the lies about WMDs. He is responsible for sending many soldiers to their deaths, while he himself avoided combat duty in Vietnam.
He's a tyrant and a fool, but let the news surface that he got a blowjob from an intern and he still wouldn't be impeached, as they tried with Clinton. No matter how many call for his impeachment, it will not happen. He's surrounded by too many Republicans who will protect him.
Even if they realize they are on the Titanic after its collision with the iceberg. He'll finish out his Presidency, and history will treat him accordingly, which may not exactly be in his favor.
Purrs,


Quite true that history will be the true and honest arbitor of the Bush legacy.[hr]
I think an impeachment is needed just to investigate everything and get to the truth of it all. There is certainly enough outcry to warrant a full-on investigation of the white house. Cheney imho has stepped over the line on a number of occassions. Bush...well seems the people just don't trust him. Sadly..the people don't trust the Democratic Congress either. So far they have done nothing to be the party of accountability. They can't use that platform again in 2008 so wtf will they run on?


I certainly understand the feelings of anger about and the percieved betrayal by the current administration, but we can't let emotions rule over rational thought.

Indeed, a year or two ago I would have supported an impeachment inquiry based solely on the evidence that the administration had invaded Iraq on unfounded and doctored evidence. But to initiate impeachment proceedings at this late date in the current administration based on emotion would be expensive and subject the US to additional needless global ridicule.

As I've said before, Bush is gone soon. Until then, keep his administration on a tight, short leash in the meantime. Let history deal with the Bush presidency.

[AnnEsthesia]

Mike, respecting us militarily (ie: knowing we have weapons and we are not afraid to use them) is not saying much. China has a much greater military... do you think they therefore have a great reputation?

As far as education, other countries are doing a good job in educating their children and the US has slowly fallen in ranking.

The United States ranked third among the G-8 countries for the percentage of 25-to 64-year-olds to have completed a higher education (39 percent), following the Russian Federation (55 percent) and Canada (45 percent). The United States slides to the No. 4 slot in the ranking for the younger age group (25-34), as Japan moves in front of the United States on this indicator. Although the United States awarded the greatest percentage of first university degrees in social sciences, business, and law combined, it lags behind all other G-8 countries in the percentage of first degrees awarded in science, mathematics, and engineering-related fields. Germany leads the G-8 countries in the percentage of first degrees awarded in science, math, and engineering-related fields.

Eighty-three percent of U.S. adults ages 25 to 64 with secondary education as their highest level of educational attainment earned at or below the median income of U.S. adults in 2004. The U.S. percentage was higher than the corresponding percentages in all of the other G-8 countries except the United Kingdom (also at 83 percent). This would indicate that, relative to other G-8 countries, educational attainment is closely tied to income level in the United States and the United Kingdom.
http://www.nacubo.org/x9338.xml

Third, how do you figure we are technologically more advanced than other countries? Seems as though we import a heck of a lot of our newest and best tech from other countries. I would love to see current statistics on this. :)

[exigent]

With all due respect my friend, I think that you're wrong for exactly the reason you stated. Our reputation in the US has been tarnished a bit but the greater portion of the world still respects us militarily, technologically and educationally, to name but a few attributes. As you say, we are the envy of the world. Yes we are. I very much believe that after Bush is out of office, and dependant on his replacement, the US will quickly regain its level of respect as the great power and global neighbor that it truly is.


You can hate someone and still have respect for them. I'm not exactly arguing this point.

[ViolaLee]

In this post, I keep reading "how the world sees us".

I'm in Canada. I'll tell you a quick story...

When I was a kid/teenager, I generally had a very positive view of the US (my brother and at least two cousins married Americans. One cousin joined and was killed during peacetime in the US military). If I had any kind of anti-American sentiments at all, they were mostly based on jealousy. Most Canadians, in general, had an inferiority complex when it came to the States. The States was bigger, had more influence, more pervasive culture, etc. But, we didn't have any general anger towards the US. In fact, we saw you as our greatest ally.

Things are very different now. I have to constantly correct my kids who've come to view ALL Americans in very negative ways. They have connected the actions of the current Administration to reflect the wishes and desires of ALL Americans. They pick up these attitudes at school and we correct them at home. "American jokes" make repeated appearances at our dinner table.

Make no mistake, I really despise your current Administration, but I do not paint all Americans with that brush.

However, Anti-American feeling is growing in my country. Most Canadians see George Bush 43 as the greatest threat to peace in the world. In general, Canadians are developing a 'superiority' complex. Many are starting to define themselves by how they are different from Americans (they actually mean, how they are different from neo-cons, but they say 'Americans'). I have friends who will not vacation in the States anymore. They are now going to Mexico, Cuba or other places to get some sun during the winter.

I pass this along only for your consideration - the reputation of your nation has taken a pounding in my country and it will take a lot to get it back to where it was pre 2000. I am not willing to defend the views of these people. I also tell my kids every time that they make an anti-American comment that it is no different than an anti-black or anti-gay sentiment but that message is hard to get through to them.

This sentiment is growing all over the world, as well as in our own country. And this is one of the things that makes me the most angry about the Bush administration. Before Bush came along we were all very proud to be American, living in the best country in the world. Now we are looked down upon and despised and ridiculed in the world. That is Bush's legacy. He's taken the most well respected and loved country and turned it into a joke.

[Scorpion]

Thanks Ann and great to hear from you.

Militarily, the US is superior to China in all aspects excepting personnel numbers. I do concede that China is making vast inroads in closing the military technology gap. At this point they have surpassed Russia.

The US is still formidable in the development and implementation of technology but, again, others are catching up rapidly.

Lastly, education. The US still has the largest number of excedllent colleges and universities attracting students from throughout the world.

Will these trends continue? I hope so, but I doubt it. So in that sense you may be on target.

[Stoner]

Should Bush be Impeached?

Well you have to do something wrong first to be impeached. No one to date has posted any hardcore evidence or proof that Bush has committed any crimes. Only lib talking points and conspiracy theories. If Bush did something wrong then he will be impeached. Period. Until then all libs have is rhetoric.

[exigent]

-He lied to congress and the american public for reasons to occupy iraq
-Illegal wiretaps
-Geneva convention violations (torture)
-International law violations for pre-emptively invading another country

[Scorpion]

Should Bush be Impeached?

Well you have to do something wrong first to be impeached. No one to date has posted any hardcore evidence or proof that Bush has committed any crimes. Only lib talking points and conspiracy theories. If Bush did something wrong then he will be impeached. Period. Until then all libs have is rhetoric.


It's not just liberal rhetoric. Indeed, there has been bi-partisan concern about President Bush's statements leading up to the invasion of Iraq, implimentation of the Patriot Act, presidential privilege, partisan appointments and the list goes on.

I'm not saying that President Bush has done anything illegal or unethical, but the prevailing evidence suggests that an investigation into the behavior of the Bush administration may be in order.

[Stoner]

-He lied to congress and the american public for reasons to occupy iraq
-Illegal wiretaps
-Geneva convention violations (torture)
-International law violations for pre-emptively invading another country


Exigent did a great job posting line for line lib talking points. This is the trash you see on Kos and Moveon. All that is important is that he, like all other libs has no proof or evidence. It's just rhetoric.

[Scorpion]

-He lied to congress and the american public for reasons to occupy iraq
-Illegal wiretaps
-Geneva convention violations (torture)
-International law violations for pre-emptively invading another country


Exigent did a great job posting line for line lib talking points. This is the trash you see on Kos and Moveon. All that is important is that he, like all other libs has no proof or evidence. It's just rhetoric.


Exigent posted some valid, non-partisan points which deserved equally non-partisan responses. Why do you have to drag liberalism into this?

[Marley]

-The Iraq Liberation Act of1998? Are we supposed to pretend that doesn't exist? As well as about a dezen confirmable quotes from Clinton administration officials stating these same alleged "lies?"

- Would someone PLEASE explain to me how our Supreme Court has allowed these "illegal wiretaps?" How can they be "illegal" if the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it? And why hasn't iot been brought to the courts to rule on?

- "Torture" sounds really neat, but eventually you need FACTS -- who, where, when, how. I have never, ever seen any facts presented on this "torture" crap, just mindless mantra chanting "torture...torture...torture..."

- LOL "international law" gee, I guess it's written down somewhere, maybe even annotated? What exactly is this? What "law?" When you break a law, the state's attorney charges you with violating something SPECIFIC, a written law anyone can find for themselves.

[Stoner]

Why do you have to drag liberalism into this?


I didn't. Exigent did with the lib talking points he memorized from Kos and Moveon.

[Marley]

1. Who stated this?

"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

2. Who stated this?

"[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

3. Who stated this?

"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

4. Who stated this?

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002

5. Who stated this?

"There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."

Congressional Record, October 8, 2002

6. Who stated this?

"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Answers:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Charles Schummer
3. Jay Rockefeller
4. Ted Kennedy
5. Chris Dodd
6. John Kerry

[exigent]

Typical neocon canned responses.

I'm not arguing either way but of those I listed, there are valid points for and against each.

Torture was committed against the geneva conventions before it was redefined. That one resonates deepest within me and others who outright oppose torture.[hr]

Answers:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Charles Schummer
3. Jay Rockefeller
4. Ted Kennedy
5. Chris Dodd
6. John Kerry


big fucking deal. Who was the president who made the decision and whom the responsibility falls upon 100%?

[Marley]

Dude, crack a book sometime, CONGRESS has the power to declare war, CONGRESS passed the Joint Resolution to Use Military Force in Iraq October 2002, Bush just signed it into law and did what Congress told him to do.

At least that's how the real world works, you know, the written, official record.

What magical kingdom are you yalking about where "the president who made the decision and whom the responsibility falls upon 100%?"[hr]Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
[hr]"Torture was committed..."

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you just prove my point that you're chanting mantra.

Who was "tortured?"

Where were they "tortured?"

When were they "tortured?"

How were they "tortured?"


Let's stick to facts please.

[Stoner]

At least that's how the real world works, you know, the written, official record.

Libs prefer to live in fantasy world where you make false claims and potray them as the truth despite not being able to prove any of it. Typical lib mantra.[/quote]

[April15]

Dude, crack a book sometime, CONGRESS has the power to declare war, CONGRESS passed the Joint Resolution to Use Military Force in Iraq October 2002, Bush just signed it into law and did what Congress told him to do.

At least that's how the real world works, you know, the written, official record.

What magical kingdom are you yalking about where "the president who made the decision and whom the responsibility falls upon 100%?"[hr]Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
[hr]"Torture was committed..."

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you just prove my point that you're chanting mantra.

Who was "tortured?"

Where were they "tortured?"

When were they "tortured?"

How were they "tortured?"


Let's stick to facts please.
The simple fact is congress abdicated it's responsibility! It wrote an open check to the president.

[exigent]

Dude, crack a book sometime, CONGRESS has the power to declare war, CONGRESS passed the Joint Resolution to Use Military Force in Iraq October 2002, Bush just signed it into law and did what Congress told him to do.

At least that's how the real world works, you know, the written, official record.

What magical kingdom are you yalking about where "the president who made the decision and whom the responsibility falls upon 100%?"[hr]Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
[hr]"Torture was committed..."

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you just prove my point that you're chanting mantra.

Who was "tortured?"

Where were they "tortured?"

When were they "tortured?"

How were they "tortured?"


Let's stick to facts please.


ok soooo...then this quote


Answers:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Charles Schummer
3. Jay Rockefeller
4. Ted Kennedy
5. Chris Dodd
6. John Kerry


Is completely irrelevant

and since we're all about big long quotes today...



* At least 45 detainees died in U.S. custody due to suspected or confirmed criminal homicides.[1] At least eight people were tortured to death. At least 98 detainees have died while in U.S. custody in Iraq or Afghanistan;[2]
* At least 69 of the detainees died at locations other than Abu Ghraib;[3]
* At least 51 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was informed of the abuses at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004;[4]
* 12 deaths have led to punishments of U.S. personnel;[5]
* 0 CIA personnel have been charged with wrongdoing in connection with alleged involvement in at least 5 deaths;[6]
* As of November 2005, over 83,000 people have been held in U.S. custody, and about 30,000 of those were entered "into the system," and assigned internment serial numbers in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan;[7]
* There have been nearly 600 criminal investigations into allegations of detainee abuse; each investigation tends to include more than one U.S. soldier, more than one instance of abuse, and more than one victim. Allegations against 250 Soldiers have been addressed in courts-martial, non-judicial punishments, and other adverse administrative punishments. The highest ranking military member judicially punished in connection with the death of a detainee is Marine Major Clarke Paulus, who was found guilty of maltreatment and dereliction of duty and dismissed from the service.[8]
* Reportedly 100-150 individuals have been rendered from U.S. custody to a foreign country known to torture prisoners, including to Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan;[9]
* There are 6 main acknowledged U.S. detention facilities worldwide--3 in Iraq, 2 in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay;[10]
* There are approximately 25 transient facilities - field prisons designed to house detainees only for a short period until they can be released or transferred to a more permanent facility-in Afghanistan and Iraq;[11]
* There are believed to be at least 11 'secret' detention locations used since September 2001. They are/were CIA facilities in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Poland, Romania, and Jordan, detention facilities in Alizai, Kohat and Peshawar in Pakistan, a facility on the U.S. Naval Base on the island of Diego-Garcia, and detentions of prisoners on U.S. ships, particularly the USS Peleliu and USS Bataan.[12]
* Over 15,000 people are currently in U.S. detention in just Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. As of February 16, 2006, in Iraq, there were 14,389 detainees in U.S. custody; as of December 2005, the U.S. was holding approximately 500 detainees in Afghanistan; as of February 10, 2006 there are approximately 490 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and one enemy combatants held in the U.S.;[13]
* 36 prisoners are believed to be held in unknown locations;[14]
* At least 376 foreign fighters detained in Iraq to whom the Administration has asserted the Geneva Conventions do not apply;[15]
* There were up to 100 ghost detainees in Iraq;[16]
* The U.S. transferred at least one dozen prisoners out of Iraq for further interrogation in violation of the Geneva Conventions;[17]
* 8 percent of 517 Guantanamo detainees were considered al Qaeda fighters by the U.S. Government. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection to al Qaeda or Taliban.[18]
* 5 percent of the 517 detainees held at Guantanamo were captured by the United States and the majority of those currently in custody were turned over by other parties during a time when the United States was offering large sums for captured prisoners.[19]
* At least 267 detainees have been released from Guantanamo Bay since January 2002. 187 were released out right, and 80 were transferred to their home countries for continued detention;[20]
* 38 detainees at Guantanamo determined not to be enemy combatants pursuant to CSRT and at least 23 detainees subsequently released; 558 CSRTS conducted in total[21]
* As of February 9, 2006, the military had completed its first round of Administrative Review Board (ARB) hearings, resulting in 463 board recommendations of which Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, the Designated Civilian Official for ARBs decided to allow 14 releases (3 percent), 120 transfers (26 percent) and to continue to detain 329 individuals (71 percent);[22]


[1] Human Rights First, COMMAND’S RESPONSIBILITY: DETAINEE DEATHS IN U.S. CUSTODY IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN (Feb. 2006), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/command.
[2]Human Rights First includes in its count of 98 deaths any death caused by one or more members of the U.S. Armed Forces or other official U.S. governmental agency while the person was under U.S. control, including a death at a detainee’s home, a death during an alleged escape attempt, and death at the point of capture but after a person’s surrender. The 98 deaths also include ten deaths about which only minimal information, such as name or a date of death is publicly available, and for which there is no publicly available information on cause or circumstances of death. For the purposes of this Report, Human Rights First has not included in its analysis deaths in situations where U.S. custody is open to question (including deaths allegedly caused at check-point stops where circumstances of the stop or surrender are unclear), or deaths allegedly caused at a later point in time by injuries sustained during combat (including alleged “mercy” killings). See COMMAND’S RESPONSIBILITY.
The total number of deaths Human Rights First counts is 141; this number includes 38 detainees who died when their detention facilities were struck by mortar attacks, and five deaths of detainees killed in U.S. custody by other detainees. While these latter 43 deaths are of concern – and appear to be in part a reflection of poor operational decisions, noted by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, to house detainees in areas of active danger – they were not a function of interrogation or detention policy or practice. See FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEP. PANEL TO REVIEW DOD DETENTION OPERATIONS, Aug. 2004, at 63, 77.
[3] COMMAND’S RESPONSIBILITY.
[4] As of February 10, 2006. See COMMAND’S RESPONSIBILITY.
[5] COMMAND’S RESPONSIBILITY.
[6] COMMAND’S RESPONSIBILITY.
[7] Assoc. Press, U.S. Has Detained 83,000 in Anti-terror Effort, Nov. 16, 2005, available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10071594/; Email from Maj. Wayne Marotto to Priti Patel, Fri 1/20/2006 5:10 PM.
[8] Email from Maj. Wayne Marotto to Priti Patel, Fri 1/20/2006 5:10 PM; See also Francis J. Harvey and Peter J. Schoomaker, Detainee Details, NAT’L REVIEW ONLINE, Sept. 22, 2005, available at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/harvey_schoomaker200509220821.asp.
Monica Davey, An Iraqi Police Officer’s Death, A Soldier’s Varying Accounts, N.Y. TIMES, May 23, 2005, A1, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/23/national/23soldier.html; News Transcript, Dep’t of Defense, DoD News Briefing (June 1, 2005), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050601-secdef2981.html.
[9] Douglas Jehl and David Johnston, Rule Change Lets CIA Freely Send Suspects Abroad to Jails, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 6, 2005, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/politics/06intel.html; Jane Mayer, Outsourcing Torture, NEW YORKER, Feb. 14, 2005, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/politics/06intel.html.
[10] See Human Rights First, BEHIND THE WIRE: AN UPDATE TO ENDING SECRET DETENTIONS (March 2005) available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/behind-the-wire-033005.pdf; E-mail from LTC Michele Dewerth, Combined Forces Command to Priti Patel, Human Rights First (June 9, 2004, 13:36 EST) (on file with Human Rights First); Telephone Interview with Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, Detainee Operations, Multi-National Forces (Oct. 20, 2004); Press Briefing, White House (Jan. 9, 2002), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020109-5.html.
[11] BEHIND THE WIRE; Telephone Interview with Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, Detainee Operations, Multi-National Forces (Oct. 20, 2004) ; E-mail from LTC Pamela Keeton, Public Affairs Officer, Combined Forces Command to Priti Patel, Human Rights First (Oct. 25, 2004, 10:51 EST) (on file with Human Rights First); U.S. Military to Allow Red Cross to Visit Second Afghan Prison, ASSOC. PRESS, June 9, 2004, available at http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=31223&format=; Prisoner Abuse Claim Emerges in Afghanistan, AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE, July 6, 2004, available at http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2004%20News%20archives/
July/4%20n/Prisoner%20Abuse%20Claim%20Emerges%20in%20Afghanis tan.htm; Other news sources list the number of outlying facilities to be 30. See Declan Walsh, Frustrated US Forces Fail to Win Hearts and Minds: Troops Hunting Taliban Run Into Wall of Silence, GUARDIAN, Sept. 23, 2004, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1310564,00.html.
[12] Human Rights First, ENDING SECRET DETENTIONS (June 2004), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/EndingSecretDetentions_web.pdf; Dana Priest and Joe Stephens, Secret World of U.S. Interrogation: Long History of Tactics in Overseas Prisons is Coming to Light, WASH. POST, May 11, 2004, at A1; David Kaplan and Ilana Ozernoy, Al Qaeda’s Desert Inn, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, June 2, 2003, at 22-23; Yossi Melman, CIA Holding Al-Qaida Suspects in Secret Jordanian Lockup, HAARETZ, Oct. 13, 2004, available at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7066.htm; See Expeditionary Strike Force One, U.S. Naval Special Operations Command Office of Public Affairs, ESG 1 Strikes From the Sea, Jan. 5, 2004, available at http://www.navsoc.navy.mil/esg1/pdf/dhowtakedown.pdf ; Australian Taliban Fighter Handed Over to U.S. Military Forces in Afghanistan, ASSOC. PRESS, Dec. 17, 2001, available at http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/military/1217australia.html; Carlotta Gall and Mark Lander, A Nation Challenged: The Captives, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 5, 2002, at A5; Memorandum from Dep’t of Army, U.S. Army Crim. Investigation Command, Afghanistan (July 2, 2004), re: CID Report of Investigation – Final (C)/SSI – 0061-2004-CID369-69277-5C1J (on file with Human Rights First); Dana Priest and Barton Gellman, U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations; 'Stress and Duress' Tactics Used on Terrorism Suspects Held in Secret Overseas Facilities, WASH. POST, Dec. 26 2002, at A1; Dana Priest, Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects, WASH. POST, Jan. 2, 2005, at A1; News Release, Dep’t of Defense, Defense Department Operational Update Briefing (July 14, 2004), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040714-1002.html; Glenn Kessler, U.S. Will Address E.U. Questions on CIA Prisons Body May Sanction Countries Involved, Wash. Post, Nov. 30, 2005, at A1.
[13] Assoc. Press, Details on Detainees in US Custody in Iraq, Feb. 15, 2006, available at http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/iraq/index.ssf?/base/international-29/1140072383272540.xml&storylist=oriraq; Email from CPIC Press Desk to Priti Patel, Thu 12/1/2005 6:54 AM; Email from Lt. Michael Cody, Kabul Press Desk to Priti Patel, Thu 12/1/2005 7:17 AM; Josh White, U.S. Frees 7 Afghans From Guantanamo, WASH. POST, Feb. 10, 2006, A14; Andrew Zajac, Legal Battle Plods Along for `Enemy Combatant,’CHI. TRIB., Feb 10, 2006, available at http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13839118.htm
[14] Douglas Jehl, Questions Left by C.I.A. Chief on Torture Use, N.Y. TIMES, March 18, 2005, A1.
[15] William M. Arkin, Early Warning: 190,000 and Other Terrorism Numbers, (Dec 13, 2005), available at http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/
war_on_terroris.html#more; Douglas Jehl and Neil A. Lewis, U.S. Said to Hold More Foreigners in Iraq Fighting, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 8, 2005, at A1. Recent reports indicate that the U.S. military has 391 foreign fighters in its custody. See Eric Schmitt, U.S. and Allies Capture More Foreign Fighters, N.Y. TIMES, June 19, 2005.
[16] Investigation of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade At Abu Ghraib Prison: Hearing Before the Senate Armed Services Comm., 108th Cong. (2004) (statement of Gen. Paul Kern, Commanding General, United States Army Material Command)
[17] Douglas Jehl, U.S. Action Bars Rights of Some Captured in Iraq, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 25, 2004, at A1.
[18] MARK DEBEAUX & JOSHUA DENBEAUX, REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES: A PROFILE OF 517 DETAINEES THROUGH ANALYSIS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DATA (February 2006) (interim report), available at http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
[19] MARK DEBEAUX & JOSHUA DENBEAUX, REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES: A PROFILE OF 517 DETAINEES THROUGH ANALYSIS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DATA (February 2006) (interim report), available at http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
[20] News Release, Dep’t of Defense, Detainee Release Announced, Feb. 9, 2006, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060209-12461.html.
[21] Dep’t of Defense, Combatant Status Review Tribunal Summary, March 29, 2005, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050329csrt.pdf; Pamela Hess, 38 GTMO Prisoners Note ‘Enemy Combatants’, WASH. TIMES, March 29, 2005, available at http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050329-060048-6884r.htm.
[22] Dep’t of Defense News Release, Guantanamo Bay Detainee Administrative Review Board Decisions Completed, Feb. 9, 2006, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060209-12464.html.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/misc/factsheet.htm



Neocons live in a fantasy world where accountability only applies to democrats and when they can no longer hide behind their propaganda.

[Survivor]

No. First we need to clean out the demoncrats. Just wait until there is a new Attorney General nomination and confirmation hearings, and keep your eyes open.

If Bush has any sense at all, he'll nominate former senator John Danforth, a republican, but one who's earned the respect of people on both sides of the aisle.

As to "impeaching the democrats," we're talking about a legal procedure in which the steps are laid out in the constitution. The fact that you don't like democrats really isn't sufficient grounds for impeachment. The likelihood that Bush lied about his reasons for making war on Iraq and numerous other things is grounds for impeachment, which is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. If they vote for impeachment, he'll have to stand trial in the Senate, as Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton did.
Buck Laser, I did not say "impeach" the demoncrats, I said "clean out" which means espose their motives and actions and then vote them out in the next election.

Your "numerous other things" does not count because you are not specific, and besides, President Bush did not lie about anything including his reasons for "making war" on Iraq. Sadam was warned and refused to admit the inspectors. April15 and exigent here have delineated the role of U.S. Congress in approving the war, including approval of Mrs. Clinton.

If the U.S. House of Representatives has any reasons for impeachment of the current president, none are known.

Mr. Clinton set a bad example for the youth in this country and got away with it for reasons known to those who were members of the impeachment committee.

[lily]

As I'm sure you are aware BoogyMan, that was my opinion. If Bush has plans to cancel the next election, he is not going to share it with the American people. My suspicion is based on the fact that he has discussed the possibility with his cabinet and he is exactly the kind of creep, dictator that would do that. IMHO.


Jude, you're not too far off with this. They tried a "dry run" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-12-postpone-elections_x.htm) in 2004 when the elections were looking pretty close.[hr]


- Would someone PLEASE explain to me how our Supreme Court has allowed these "illegal wiretaps?" How can they be "illegal" if the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it? And why hasn't iot been brought to the courts to rule on?

Well, emale.....it's working it's way up there. It's been found illegal by 2 state courts so far.

[BoogyMan]

That article doesn't talk about any kind of dry run Lily, it says that due to concerns about a large scale attack during the election they sought to be able to delay the election. I don't remember that coming to fruition, do you?

[lily]

That article doesn't talk about any kind of dry run Lily, it says that due to concerns about a large scale attack during the election they sought to be able to delay the election. I don't remember that coming to fruition, do you?



Notice I said "dry run"........Boogy how do we know what would have happened? Timing is everything. He was down in the polls and to me, this was a "let's run it up the flagpole and see what happens".

[Marley]

"state" courts???????

"state" courts do not apply to judicial review of the constritutionality of matters.

Just plain simply do not.

And don't the Kool Aid drinkers notive they can't provide a single NAME of anyone they claim has been tortured? Not one?

Sorry the real world is populated with real people, not chanted mantra.

[Deadshot]

Why impeach someone that's shitting their legacy and damning their party?

We discussed this before and the Republican impeachment of Clinton was a joke and actually HELPED Clintons poll, or was it pole:nana:, numbers. So why make a martyr out of Bush.

His White House is falling apart and most of his most trusted and, at one time, faithful advisors are "cutting and running."

Impeachment, as the Republicans showed us, isn't about Justice, it's about political retribution. So why attack someone that is destroying themselves. 36% Approval with 61% of the country believing he's policies are taking us in the wrong direction. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/13/bush.poll/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

Read a little Sun Tzu and just sit back and watch the enemy defeat himself.:fight:

:ecstatic:...'08 is coming fast...:ecstatic:

[exigent]

"state" courts???????

"state" courts do not apply to judicial review of the constritutionality of matters.

Just plain simply do not.

And don't the Kool Aid drinkers notive they can't provide a single NAME of anyone they claim has been tortured? Not one?

Sorry the real world is populated with real people, not chanted mantra.


WTF are you talking about? The white house does not deny that they are torturing prisoners.

Here are some names.

Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1909883.ece

This report talks of torture in detail. And yes there are names listed.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf

Besides denial, what else you got?

[Marley]

Still no names, dates or places huh?

Fine.

[Deadshot]

Still no names, dates or places huh?

Fine.


Maybe you should read the post above yours. Links to names, dates and places.

[exigent]

Still no names, dates or places huh?

Fine.


Wow. Debating with you is as disappointing as debating with a steamy pile.

Heres a good read for you.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/torture/index.html

Straight from the white house.

[lily]

"state" courts???????

"state" courts do not apply to judicial review of the constritutionality of matters.

Just plain simply do not.

Really? Just how do you think cases get to be heard by the Supreme Court? They just pick them out of a hat?




And don't the Kool Aid drinkers notive they can't provide a single NAME of anyone they claim has been tortured? Not one?

Sorry the real world is populated with real people, not chanted mantra.

I think you have enough people responding to this and you ignoring the response, so I'll let them have their turn.....since we weren't discussing it to begin with.

[Marley]

Funny, we can't get away from a real, live, breathing Cindee Sheehan, yet these alleged real "tortured people" no one can seem to find anywhere.

No doubt because the least bit of objective scrutiny will expose the truth.

It's simply inane, if this were true we'd know about it.

They'd be in our courts, in our media, and our democracy would be getting to the bottom of it.

But instead, it's just a chant, droning on and on. No real live flesh and blood where we citizens cans ee anything for ourselves.


LOL It's not like the leftist hostile media wouldn't embrace and promote these alleged vicitms.

That's the real world.

[preservanation]

The Dems have been skunked and humiliated and in a fit of petulance and revenge are accusing Bush of impeachable offences of nonexistent infractions.
If there was any shred f evidence, the Dem Congress would have brought articles of impeachment long ago.
They even ran on that notion in 06.
Are the Dems liars, incompetent or is it just that they are factually unable to do so?
IMO, all of the above.
Pelosi and Reid are failing the libs.

[Marley]

Exactly!

If any of these "torture victims" were real, we couldn't escape their image and voice on TV, radio and print, testifying at every conceivable Senate committee.

[preservanation]

Maybe CBS could resurrect Dan Rather to use forged torture victims.

[Elrathin]

Yet if any of these "interrogation" methods were used on a conservative they would be screaming for their mommies and yelling torture.

[preservanation]

Yet if any of these "interrogation" methods were used on a conservative they would be screaming for their mommies and yelling torture.
You mean like what Biden et al did to Clearance Thomas or Bork?
I do not have the same confidence that you do in big gov run by elite libs.
I do not believe they have my best interest at heart and certainly do not have confidence that they will preserve my freedoms.
Neither should you.

[Elrathin]

I do not have the same confidence that you do in big gov run by elite libs.
I do not believe they have my best interest at heart and certainly do not have confidence that they will preserve my freedoms.
Neither should you.


And I have absolutely no confidence that a government run by conservatives have done any better. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch like it or not. There is not denying that FACT.

[preservanation]

I do not have the same confidence that you do in big gov run by elite libs.
I do not believe they have my best interest at heart and certainly do not have confidence that they will preserve my freedoms.
Neither should you.


And I have absolutely no confidence that a government run by conservatives have done any better. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch like it or not. There is not denying that FACT.
So tell your fellow Dems in congress to start impeachment hearings on all the mountains of evidence you have.
Otherwise it's just another fart in the wind as far as I'm concerned.

[Elrathin]

So tell your fellow Dems in congress to start impeachment hearings on all the mountains of evidence you have.
Otherwise it's just another fart in the wind as far as I'm concerned.


In all my statements, where did I even bring up impeachment? So I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[preservanation]

So tell your fellow Dems in congress to start impeachment hearings on all the mountains of evidence you have.
Otherwise it's just another fart in the wind as far as I'm concerned.


In all my statements, where did I even bring up impeachment? So I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
You know, Elrathin, I owe you an apology.
If you do not believe that Bush committed impeachable offences, I applaud you.
I just wish more people here could see that fact as well.
I will refrain from lumping you in with others here.
I am truly sorry.

I hope you will accept my apology and look forward to corresponding with you in the future.

[Elrathin]

In all my statements, where did I even bring up impeachment? So I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
You know, Elrathin, I owe you an apology.
If you do not believe that Bush committed impeachable offences, I applaud you.
I just wish more people here could see that fact as well.
I will refrain from lumping you in with others here.
I am truly sorry.

I hope you will accept my apology and look forward to corresponding with you in the future.
[/quote]

Thank you for your comments.

Given the evidence we have right now I do not see how he can be impeached. Now that's not to say I don't question a lot of what he has said and I do believe there still are some investigations that could be done.

However, he is not guilty from what I see at this time. I won't lie, I would love to see him testify under oath. Of course I like to see that for all politicians. I have suspicions that there are things he hasn't told us or been straight forward about (I don't trust any politician at face value regardless of party). That is not the same as saying he is guilty. These are my opinions given the man and the administration. That's all they are is opinions though. Much like other conservatives have their opinions about Hillary. That is fine on both sides.

The important thing is to not let those opinions try to become fact without evidence supporting that. I think there is some shady stuff going on in the administration, but there is NO EVIDENCE to support impeachment at this time. Until I see some hard irrefutable evidence I will not call for it.

[lily]

If there was any shred f evidence, the Dem Congress would have brought articles of impeachment long ago.
They even ran on that notion in 06.



You keep bringing this up. I can't remember any Democrat running on the platform if they get elected they will impeach Bush.[hr]

Yet if any of these "interrogation" methods were used on a conservative they would be screaming for their mommies and yelling torture.
You mean like what Biden et al did to Clearance Thomas or Bork?


YIKES! I don't remember Thomas or Bork being tortured during their hearings.

[preservanation]

lily Wrote:
You keep bringing this up. I can't remember any Democrat running on the platform if they get elected they will impeach Bush.Ah, but yes they did. Note the date.

Tuesday 14 March 2006

From the Wall Street Journal to MSNBC, talk of impeachment is no longer on the fringe.
The groundswell for President Bush's impeachment is growing, and last week the establishment media finally took notice.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story analyzing how a planned impeachment of President Bush will play out as an "election issue," including a helpful pie chart showing 51 percent of Americans support Congress in considering Bush's impeachment if he "didn't tell the truth about the reasons for the Iraq war."

The Washington Post published a commentary acknowledging that support for impeachment is now "reaching beyond the usual suspects," and the Associated Press covered the spike in pro-impeachment resolutions from local officials across the country. Resolutions recently passed in Vermont and California, and this weekend Democratic Party officials in Michigan voted to urge local officials to pass another. Meanwhile, 14 Democratic candidates for Congress have announced their support for impeachment.http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/18382
Not only that but it was purposely implied in such way that convinced the lib voters that it was going to be their first order of business along with getting us out of Iraq.
Witness the disappointment the libs feel. They must have assumed something. Where did that assumption come from?

Coming on the heels of mass actions and resolutions across the country in support of impeachment, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s introduction of Articles of Impeachment against Cheney, this action by the powerful California Democratic Party builds on the pro-impeachment momentum.

The resolution refers to Bush and Cheney having acted in a manner “subversive of the Constitution” by. . .
1) using false information to justify the invasion of Iraq
2) authorizing “the torture of prisoners of war”
3) “authorizing wiretaps on U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant”
4) “disclosing the name of an undercover CIA operative”
5) suspending “the historic Writ of Habeas Corpus by ordering the indefinite detention of so-called enemy combatants”
6) “signing statements used to ignore or circumvent portions of over 750 Congressional statutes”

The resolution ends by calling for “vigorous investigation” and “appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment.”http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0705/S00037.htm
With this mountain of "evidence" I can't see why not.

"I would like to see the President removed." -Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA)

The libs want to see the Dems move on Bush impeachment and Moveon is ready to pounce if they do not.

[lily]

14 Democratic candidates for Congress have announced their support for impeachment.

I stand corrected and thank you.......I knew about Kucinich....but I don't think anyone really takes him seriously.

[Yamel]

Liberals hate president Bush so much that their hatred takes over their common sense and thinking capacity. They believe idiots like the big fat liar "Michael Moore". Its true that it was on Bush's term when this happened but the difference is that we know that everything in life happens because of a set of events in the past not just because somebody was president for a few months. If there is anyone to blame it is Clinton. He was the one that did nothing when American interests and Americans were being attacked abroad and in our own soil. But maybe he was too busy doing something else. He and his comrades allowed terrorists to grow throughout the world. During his glorious presidency almost totally shut down our intelligence capacity to spy on our enemies. When he was president he Talked and Talked about how Saddam was a threat to the world but did nothing about it. IF Bush lied, do your research because the Democrats like Kerry and Clinton wanted Saddams head before Bush ever took office but did nothing about it. By the way if Bush would have done anything before 9/11 to those terrorists to avoid such a tragedy you know that the liberals would have been all over him calling him war mongul, killer because he invaded without us being attacked. (damn if you do and damn if you don't) I believe that liberals should keep with their conspiracies and their impeachment hearings even if Bush is not president anymore. This will show Americans who you really are a bunch of crazy people that rather believe what a terrorist, a left wing dictator, or some filmmaker with a Communist agenda than your own people.
So you have an enemy, well good. Must mean you stood for something once in your life. Winston Churchill.

[preservanation]

By the way if Bush would have done anything before 9/11 to those terrorists to avoid such a tragedy you know that the liberals would have been all over him calling him war mongul, killer because he invaded without us being attacked. (damn if you do and damn if you don't)
Just like if Bush had sent the National Guard into New Orleans after Katrina while Gov Blanco was refusing to let him.
The Dems would have had a screaming conniption fit and the glaring headline in the NYT would have read BUSH INVADES LOUISIANNA!
Hoo boy they would have run with that one and might have actually had a real impeachable offence then.

Damned if you do damned if you don't, ah, the life of a Republican at the hands of the press and the Dems.
Sad.

[Yamel]

you are right.

[NortheastCynic]

One of the most absurd misconceptions that has been perpetrated by a certain segment of the American population and by some individuals on this site is that the people who 'hate' George Bush in this country are 'liberals'. Nearly 2/3rds of this country disapproves of the current President's handling of the country. Only 1/3 of this country are registered Democrats, not all Democrats are liberal...The math is simple.

-NC

[preservanation]

"Hate" is different than "disapprove", Zo.
I disapprove of Bush letting Kennedy write the education bill, and his $400 bil Medicare entitlement plan, his position on illegal immigration, his attempts to appease the left with his "New Tone" (we all see what that got him), his support of ethanol, and even some aspects in Iraq after the successful invasion, but I do not "hate" him.
There are people who "Hate" him and there is a difference.

[Elrathin]

Damned if you do damned if you don't, ah, the life of a Republican at the hands of the press and the Dems.
Sad.


Hell using that logic it wouldn't have mattered what actions Clinton took in office there would have been republicans that hated him anyway and disagreed. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

[preservanation]

Damned if you do damned if you don't, ah, the life of a Republican at the hands of the press and the Dems.
Sad.


Hell using that logic it wouldn't have mattered what actions Clinton took in office there would have been republicans that hated him anyway and disagreed. Damned if you do damned if you don't.
Clinton brought all that upon himself when he boinked that young intern. Then lied about it to a grand jury in a civil trial. Those are facts.
After that...all bets were off.

[heyjude]

Clinton had sex with an adult. Bush has tried and is trying and succeeding in overthrowing the constitutional government of the United States. Don't even talk to me about it. Bush should be tried and shot.

[BoogyMan]

Clinton had sex with an adult. Bush has tried and is trying and succeeding in overthrowing the constitutional government of the United States. Don't even talk to me about it. Bush should be tried and shot.


Hmmm, last time I looked heyjude, Bush was elected president and overthrew nothing.

We ARE on a debate forum, if you post it in an open forum it is going to get debated.

[Elrathin]

Bush should be tried and shot.


I'm sorry but that's pretty harsh IMO. I dislike like many of his policies and how his administration has acted, but beyond that I wouldn't doubt he'd be a great guy to go have a beer with.

[preservanation]

Clinton had sex with an adult. Bush has tried and is trying and succeeding in overthrowing the constitutional government of the United States. Don't even talk to me about it. Bush should be tried and shot.
Good plan.
Why bother with a trial?

[Elrathin]

Clinton brought all that upon himself when he boinked that young intern. Then lied about it to a grand jury in a civil trial. Those are facts.
After that...all bets were off.


So are you telling me because he lied about it, that gives Republicans the right to just openly hate ANYTHING about Clinton? Sorry I don't buy that one.

Many Republicans HATE Clinton and it wasn't lying about a blow job that did it and it is quite clear in many cases that many Republicans are just as partisan about Clinton as many democrats are about Bush.

[preservanation]

Heyjude,
BTW why are you pestering me about it?
You should be demanding action from your elected Dems. After all, that is why you elected them, now they are dropping the ball and failing you miserably.
Hold their feet to the fire.[hr]

Clinton brought all that upon himself when he boinked that young intern. Then lied about it to a grand jury in a civil trial. Those are facts.
After that...all bets were off.


So are you telling me because he lied about it, that gives Republicans the right to just openly hate ANYTHING about Clinton? Sorry I don't buy that one.

Many Republicans HATE Clinton and it wasn't lying about a blow job that did it and it is quite clear in many cases that many Republicans are just as partisan about Clinton as many democrats are about Bush.

No, all bets were off on that subject.
I never said I hate Clinton, now you are assigning statements to me that I never made.
I certainly never called for him to be shot.

[lily]

I never said I hate Clinton, now you are assigning statements to me that I never made.



Oh the irony:


There are people who "Hate" him and there is a difference.

[preservanation]

I never said I hate Clinton, now you are assigning statements to me that I never made.



Oh the irony:


There are people who "Hate" him and there is a difference.

C'mon lily.
Do I have a bullseye on my foerhead?

I'm refering to how people hate Bush not Clinton.

"Hate" is different than "disapprove", Zo.
I disapprove of Bush letting Kennedy write the education bill, and his $400 bil Medicare entitlement plan, his position on illegal immigration, his attempts to appease the left with his "New Tone" (we all see what that got him), his support of ethanol, and even some aspects in Iraq after the successful invasion, but I do not "hate" him.
There are people who "Hate" him and there is a difference.

[lily]

I never said I hate Clinton, now you are assigning statements to me that I never made.



Oh the irony:


There are people who "Hate" him and there is a difference.

C'mon lily.
Do I have a bullseye on my foerhead?

I'm refering to how people hate Bush not Clinton.


:madlaugh: It just keeps getting better! Please tell me you are doing this on purpose? :madlaugh:

[preservanation]

I never said I hate Clinton, now you are assigning statements to me that I never made.



Oh the irony:


There are people who "Hate" him and there is a difference.

C'mon lily.
Do I have a bullseye on my foerhead?

I'm refering to how people hate Bush not Clinton.


:madlaugh: It just keeps getting better! Please tell me you are doing this on purpose? :madlaugh:

I love Clinton, and I have a dress to prove it!:P

[Elrathin]

I certainly never called for him to be shot.


Tell you what preservation. I have given you a fair shot, I have even given you a positive on your rep because I have believed you have always said you believed in what you felt was best for America. I have never questioned your loyalty, I have never questioned your position that you believe you believe what is best for America even though I disagreed with it. I have never called you a traitor for your beliefs nor have I ever said you were Un-American.

Show me now where I said you you ever said he should be shot. Likewise I ask for you to show me where the MAJORITY of Dems and libs have asked for Bush to be shot.

They haven't. Yes there are extremes on EVERY side. I mean there are those that think Kerry and Clinton should be shot and please don't try to deny that one. so there are extremes on every side. But don 't try to paint the left as wanting Bush to be shot.

[preservanation]

heyjude:Bush should be tried and shot.
El:Many Republicans HATE Clinton and it wasn't lying about a blow job that did it and it is quite clear in many cases that many Republicans are just as partisan about Clinton as many democrats are about Bush.

preserva:I never said I hate Clinton, now you are assigning statements to me that I never made.
I certainly never called for him to be shot.

El:Show me now where I said you you ever said he should be shot.
El, you jumped in on a discussion I was having with heyjude. I was pointing out the difference of the attitude I have toward Clinton and the attitude people like heyjude have about Bush, not you.
I am sorry you took my comment personally.
I do not mean it personally to you.
I will try to exclude you from discussions if you would like.
I do not want to hurt your feelings, or misrepresent your positions anymore.
It seems I have failed to do so in the past and I would sincerely like to keep our relationship a cordial one.
Thank you, preservanation

[Deadshot]

What's so funny about this discussion, not about impeachment but about popularity, is that many Republicans care more then Bush does. Bush believes history will exonerate him, he doesn't care about the here and now, he's thinking ahead remember?

So when people argue about Clinton and Bush it's kinda funny. Clinton, especially when his wife is running, DOES care about his image and popularity now. Bush, even though it's hurting his party, just doesn't care about today, he's focused on 20 years from now.

Kinda sad really...

[preservanation]

There's two ways you can look at that DS,
Bush has the confidence of his convictions and stand by them, even though it might disappoint his supporters and give ammo to his detractors.
Clinton was famous for taking positions according to what their polls said on a daily bases.
One exudes leadership, the other exudes politics.
I'll let you figure out which one is which.

[Deadshot]

There's two ways you can look at that DS,
Bush has the confidence of his convictions and stand by them, even though it might disappoint his supporters and give ammo to his detractors.
Clinton was famous for taking positions according to what their polls said on a daily bases.
One exudes leadership, the other exudes politics.
I'll let you figure out which one is which.


Isn't the leader supposed to do what's best for those led? Right now the country doesn't believe Bush is doing that.

As to the politics vs. leadership angle, you do realize that Bush is killing his party's politics and it's ability to lead, right? So, to use your view, Bush will have led us for 8 years then crippled those who would follow his vision to lead any farther. So the question is which would you rather have?

The leader who burns every bridge on the way to a goal. A leader who so alienates those led that they would not trust those close to the leader.

or

A leader who builds bridges on the way to a general direction. A leader who is so loved that even when not leading he's turned to. A leader who's wife can run for office on, partially, his strength.

I'll leave it to you to decide...

[preservanation]

Isn't the leader supposed to do what's best for those led? Right now the country doesn't believe Bush is doing that.Same was said about Lincoln and even DDE.
So....
We elect our leaders for four years with the confidence they will protect and have the best interest of this nation at heart.
After those four years, if the people do not think that is the case, we put someone new in.
Bush was elected, then reelected.
Get over it.
You now have a chance to elect a Dem not running against Bush.
Concentrate on that or you might be truly frustrated for four more years or longer.
Good luck.

[Deadshot]

Isn't the leader supposed to do what's best for those led? Right now the country doesn't believe Bush is doing that.Same was said about Lincoln and even DDE.

The Majority in the North ALWAYS believed the Union should be preserved, they just argued that the war wasn't being run right. In this case the Majority of Americans believe both the War AND being in Iraq is a bad thing. Lincoln also realized that if things didn't get better he'd have to follow the will of the people. Read Lincoln's writings about the Gettysburg Address. He was begging his Generals for a victory so that he could give a speech about what they were fighting for. Though not written, he knew that he had to re-invigorate his people because they were losing heart. Without that victory at Gettysburg, Lincoln was afraid that elements throughout the country would force him into a peace that would keep the nation divided. Lincoln understood that while working for a future of hope, one must still tend the garden of the present and make sure that it grows and the people are happy. Bush doesn't get that. EVERYTHING with Mr. Bush hangs on the future.

As to Ike, I don't really see your point. What, specifically, are you refering to?

So....
We elect our leaders for four years with the confidence they will protect and have the best interest of this nation at heart.
After those four years, if the people do not think that