I also love the fact that he hasn't commented much on the actual article that exposes his lie!! lol well.. not 'the' lie.... but one of the many.. I am sure.

I'm really wishing I could meet this person "Nick", "Mr.Cool" or whatever the hell he wants....and tell him straight....It makes me so angry. I mean very, very angry when I witness such desperately sad ignorance.

 

"Bush never lied about Iraq"

 

WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU HAVE INSIDE OF YOUR HEAD???

 

Holy shit.

 

the knowledge of what the word lie means and what a lie is! what is in yours? you make the word and what it is to fit your political view not what lying really is. thats sad.

the knowledge of what the word lie means and what a lie is! what is in yours? you make the word and what it is to fit your political view not what lying really is. thats sad.

 

^^What? It's sounds like GW Bush has been giving you lessons...

 

You sound way out of your depth in every comment you make.

You don't know how to respond to anything in an intelligent way....you can only mess around with pointless word play.

What you have just said means nothing and adds nothing to your "thin" argument.

Nobody can ever take you seriously.

^^What? It's sounds like GW Bush has been giving you lessons...

 

You sound way out of your depth in every comment you make.

You don't know how to respond to anything in an intelligent way....you can only mess around with pointless word play.

What you have just said means nothing and adds nothing to your "thin" argument.

Nobody can ever take you seriously.

 

 

it sounds like you havent a clue about what a lie is....

 

hey if you refuse to listen to the definition of the damn word because you are blinded by hatred, then so be it. but dont be jelous of how i use words...ha

 

what i have to say has EVERYTHING to do with the argument because of your blind ignorance if it doesnt go with what you say it does not pertain to the conversation that is indeed very ignorant. im sorry if you dont agree with me, but simple becuase you do not believe my opinion doesnt mean what i say is not relavent to the conversation. grow up.

 

sound like my "pointless word play" is you not being able to understand simple concepts and words. like you have proved with the word lie. everything im saying has to do with the subject maybe you should stick to the subject at hand.

I bet after everything you say you do this >

I just imagine you do.

 

Your living in a glossy, sugarcoated world - AKA 'The O.C'

Somehow, this political discussion may turn into an OC chat...faaaaaaantastic!

No, no...please. No O.C Chat.....:(

I bet after everything you say something you do this >

I just imagine you do.

 

Your living in a glossy, sugarcoated world - AKA 'The O.C'

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

i live in the real world. unlike conspiracey theorist. just becuase my avatar of a tv doesnt mean i dont live in teh real world, how ignorant of you to say so. you have no grasp for reality and common sense. like most conspiracey theorist, sadly it is so. but somehow my favorite tv show makes me not in touch with reality. haha funny you.

It's actually based on the things you say, or things you try to say.

That fact that you are a mindless, pathetic, drone to your government - just how they like you.

The more you write...the more we see that you truly are very blind and ignorant.

And here you are again with "reality and common sense" bullshit. Your never going to make anyone believe that I'm devoid of a grasp on what is real.....so please stop.

Hey, I believed what your president told us.....but then I quickly was able to find out for myself that it's NOT TRUE. It's just taking you ALOT longer.

 

 

Anyway...this thread is about the IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH....not about YOU.

 

SO...lets get back to that....

It's actually based on the things you say, or things you try to say.

That fact that you are a mindless, pathetic, drone to your government - just how they like you.

The more you write...the more we see that you truly are very blind and ignorant.

And here you are again with "reality and common sense" bullshit. Your never going to make anyone believe that I'm devoid of a grasp on what is real.....so please stop.

Hey, I believed what your president told us.....but then I quickly was able to find out for myself that it's NOT TRUE. It's just taking you ALOT longer.

 

 

Anyway...this thread is about the IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH....not about YOU.

 

SO...lets get back to that....

 

maybe i should use smaller words and speak to you like a moron if thats what you would like?

 

it is but somehow you KEEP making it about me....hey i used small words for you..happy?

Just stop.

stop posting? or stop with the personal talking?

because as long as your spreading your whacky bullshit ill be here to counter it...no matter how pissed you get.

:dozey:

thats nice...

Good artical here....I can't see how anybody can last this long..

 

Last Hope For Impeachment

If Democrats don't do it now they are clearly complicit

 

Today's White House admission that George W. Bush authorized the leak of, and let's not beat around the bush and call it an 'intelligence report' like the yellow bellies at Reuters, the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame as a political stunt in retaliation for Joe Wilson's refusal to be the snake oil salesman for their rigged war, is the final nail in the coffin proving we have a dictatorship in Washington.

 

Dictatorships are not always defined by funny hand salutes and gas chambers. The dictionary definition mentions neither, but it does mention "absolute or despotic control or power."

 

Is a President who argues he can do anything even if it breaks the law, and an entire cabinet who agree, exercising absolute power?

 

Is somebody who is above the law and whose advisors and cabinet members write memos stating he is above the law exercising absolute power?

 

How about totalitarianism? Definition: "a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition)."

 

Alberto Gonzales again put George Bush above the law today when he indicated that the administration could outright (not that they haven't been doing so in secret for decades) authorize wiretaps of domestic American citizen's phone calls without a warrant. This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.

 

Bush's own advisor John Yoo is on the public record as arguing that no law could prevent the President from ordering children to be tortured by means of crushing their genitals. No, this isn't the Frist fake Fox News hoax - that was his actual argument in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

 

 

Bush's Commander in Chief designation gives him the right to resort to anything, including mass genocide, if it is done in the name of protecting the American people, according to the White House. It doesn't matter if it is unconstitutional. Is this being unrestricted by laws or opposition? If the answer is yes then we are living under totalitarianism by its very definition

 

"If anyone in this administration was involved in it (the CIA leak), they would no longer be in this administration." White House spokesman Scott McClellan, September 29 2003.

 

By the White House's own admission Bush should immediately be removed from the Oval Office.

 

If Bush started dropping babies out of Air Force One for fun would this be grounds for impeachment?

 

Neo-cons and fake conservatives will continue to defend Bush to the hilt whatever he does because their childish egos are already invested in his every word and action. The invasion of the body snatchers scenario has already passed and Bush's remaining 30 odd per cent of support is likely to remain until the bitter end.

 

If Democrats don't initiate impeachment proceedings immediately then we know without a doubt that they are complicit and have already been promised huge kickbacks in the next two elections for keeping their noses out.

 

The handful of truly independent thinking Congressmen and Senators such as Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo need to be the ones to get the impeachment ball rolling, if only to expose the Democrats for the collaborators they are.

Another good read...

 

Leaking, Lying and Burning Covert Agents from the Oval Office: The Impeachment Clock Just Clicked Forward

 

DAVE LINDORFF | April 8 2006

 

The national impeachment clock moved several minutes closer to midnight this week, with word from special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Plamegate investigation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's leaking of classified information to New York Times reporter Judy Miller and other journalists was approved by President George Bush himself.

 

What makes this latest revelation important is that if Libby's claim is correct, it means the president has lied about his role, both to Fitzgerald's federal investigators, and to the American people. The former act--lying to a federal agent--could be a federal crime even though the president was not under oath. The latter--lying to the American people--was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee as an impeachable offense in the case of President Richard Nixon, and was one of the counts approved by the full House of Representatives against President Bill Clinton. While not a statutory crime, Congress has long held that lying to the public can be a "high crime" meriting of impeachment under the Constitution.

 

Jason Leopold, in an April 6 report for Truthout, says Fitzgerald, in a filing before the federal court hearing the Libby perjury and obstruction of justice case, claimed to have evidence, in the form of recently obtained White House email messages, that Bush was at a minimum receiving reports on a White House campaign to undermine former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had exposed the president's public lie concerning supposed efforts by Saddam Hussein to buy uranium ore from the African state of Niger.

 

Again we are looking at multiple impeachable offenses here. If the president was involved in a campaign to selectively release classified CIA information to punish a critic, and particularly to "out" an undercover CIA operative, it would be a serious abuse of power--an impeachable offense.

 

Bush publicly denied having any knowledge of the source of the leaks of classified CIA information or of the leak of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA undercover employee. He apparently also denied having such knowledge to interviewers from Fitzgerald's office. If he was lying, again it is an impeachable offense.

 

Also moving the impeachment clock forward is word that the president's public approval, already in the ditch, has sunk even further, with an AP/Ipsos poll this week reporting that only 36 percent now give the president a favorable rating.

 

The president's strongest backers are still claiming that Bush's alleged transgressions aren't serious. Unlike Clinton, they say, he hasn't "lied under oath."

 

They forget that impeachable crimes are not the same thing as statutory crimes. The Founders made it clear that impeachment is about "political" crimes, not simple felonies. Certainly lying under oath is a serious matter, whether the prevaricator is an average citizen or a president. But from the Constitutional perspective, unsworn lying by a president, if it is about an important matter before the Congress, or to the American people--for example lying about the reasons for sending Americans to war--is a far more serious offense than simply lying about, say, an adulterous tryst, even if that lie is under oath.

 

The same can be said about a president's lying to cover up a serious impeachable offense such as abuse of power or conspiracy--whether or not that lie was under oath.

 

All of which means that we have moved another step towards the possibility that this president will face an impeachment proceeding.

 

As the president's growing string of lies, abuses of power and other high crimes and misdemeanors keep coming to light, and as his standing with the American public continues to sink, the odds of Democrats regaining control of the House of Representatives this November keep rising. With them, the likelihood that a new Democratic Party-led Judiciary Committee will be presented with a bill of impeachment following Election Day grows apace.

 

The clock is ticking.

 

It needs to happen soon.

ooh, thank you for the info ;)

the dems might get their impeachment if they win back enough seats in the upcoming elections. if not bush wont be impeached.

but the only main basis for impeachment is the iraq war. seeing as how the wiretaps are legal.

 

Bush’s Wiretaps Are Legal

By Isaiah Z. Sterrett | View comments

 

We should read the laws, before we accuse people of breaking them.

 

As it turns out, contrary to the mournful screams of liberals, “Bush’s wiretaps” were (and remain) completely justified by law. It’s true that this country’s record of civil liberties during wartime is hardly one in which we can take pride, but this current episode is not an example of a wartime abuse. It is an example of a national security success.

 

First, a question: Was I the only one who had a hard time deciphering actual law and legal commentary from left-wing, and then right-wing, spin? When a debate about law is taking place in which neither side immediately brings up the law itself — in this case the U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive — we have a problem.

 

USSID, enacted in July of 1993, creates the following, as described by The American Spectator’s Jed Babbin:

 

Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can’t be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court…; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States…international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

 

USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because…the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security.”

 

Babbin further reports that FISA, misrepresented by liberals far and wide, allows the Attorney General to bypass the FISA court. This obviously makes sense, since it would be virtually impossible for the government to go before the FISA court every time a terrorist made a telephone call in which someone in the United States was a participant.

 

These facts are terribly simple. As Babbin summarizes, “[e]veryone who is ranting and raving about illegality has neither the facts (most of which we don’t know) or the law and regulations (which weigh heavily in favor of legality) on their side.”

 

Knowing this, however, liberals continue to kvetch about nonexistent violations of civil liberties. “The shocking revelation that Bush has personally ordered secret wiretaps for years without court approval,” columnist Errol Louis sniffed, “are part of a White House policy of placing the President above the law.” Louis cites FISA but references only the provisions convenient to his point. He totally ignores USSID 18 (abovementioned), which justifies — at least in part — the actions of President Bush, the NSA, and Attorney General Gonzales.

 

One hates to whine about Clinton given that his successor is well into his second term, but I think liberals have abandoned their credibility when it comes to “the President [placing himself] above the law.” As one Senator suggested, the best reason to oppose the PATRIOT Act is that we may someday have President Hillary Clinton to abuse it.

 

I note further that hallucinatory Democrats did not bring up the Fourth Amendment when the Clinton-Reno Justice Department invaded a house on United States soil, shoved machine guns in the faces of the Americans who lived there, stole a member of their family (who happened to be six-years-old), and surrendered him to Castro’s Cuba.

 

Would Elian Gonzalez prefer to live under Communism, as Bill Clinton hoped, or live in the United States under the risk of “Bush’s wiretaps?”

 

Attorney General Reno actually defended her use of U.S. Marshals to kidnap a child, noting that such force had to be used as a result of the fact that “[t]here was information that it might be possible that there were guns in the crowd or in the home.” When asked if there were actually “guns in the crowd or in the home,” Reno coolly answered that the Marshals “weren’t looking for the weapons. They were looking for the child, and they got the child.”

 

I guess the “right to privacy” isn’t so “fundamental” when we’re talking about children who’ve been born, as opposed to those still in the womb.

 

“Democrats have done worse” is not the best argument — but it’s true, nonetheless, and we should not forget it. We should also not forget to read laws before we accuse people of breaking them.

 

Profile: Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee. Email comments to [email protected].

3 Comments »

 

1.

 

The relevant sections:

4.1. (C xxx) The SIGINT mission of the USSS includes the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of foreign communications (plaintext and encrypted) passed by radio, wire, or other electromagnetic means. It is the poiicy of the USSS to target or collect foreign communications. The USSS will not intentionally collect the communications of U.S. persons or communications that refer to U.S. persons except as authorized pursuant to the procedures contained in this USSID or its annexes. The USSS will only process and disseminate communications of U.S. persons, or that refer to U.S. persons, as provided for in this USSID.

 

SECTION 5 - COLLECTION

 

5.1. (C xxx) The Director, NSA, will consider requests to collect the communications of U.S. persons, or communications that refer to U.S. persons, only if one of the following criteria is satisfied:

 

a. The U.S. person has given consent and has executed the consent form as set forth in Annex I. Once the consent form has been executed, the Director, NSA, may authorize the collection. The Director, NSA, shall notify the Anorney General of each consensual collection.

 

b. The U.S. person is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. The purpose of the collection must be the acquisition of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence. It is also necessary that the information be unobtainable by less intrusive techniques. In this case, the Director, NSA, may:

 

(1) Submit an application for the collection in accordance with the FISA when the U.S. person is in the United States and the communications sought are those of that U.S. person (see Annex A).

 

(2) Request the Anomey General to authorize collection when the U.S. person is outside the United States, when the U.S. person is in the United States and only communications that refer to that person are sought, or when a U.S. person as defined in Section 3.31.b. is in the United States

 

(3) Authorize the collection if an emergency situation exists and the U.S. person is outside the United States.

 

5.2. (C xxx) In emergency situations, the Director, NSA, may approve for foreign intelligence or countefintmgence purposes the collection of communications of U.S. persons, or communications that refer to U.S. persons, when such persons are outside the United States and when securing the prior approval of the Attorney General is not practical.

 

It would be nice if so-called journalists, at least got the sections they are writing about correct, and, of course, many of the criteria for what constitutes an “emergency” are still “secret” .

For all the conservatives out there–remember that if you let this president get by with this, any president can–even those you don’t like.

So you may trust this president with this much power (I certainly don’t), but how about the next one. The constitution, with it’s checks and balances of power, was put in place for a reason, but I guess you all have forgotten that.

 

Comment by JD | January 3, 2006

2.

 

Ok, I had the wrong USSID 18 (I was looking at the 1980. I take back what I said about the journalist’s accuracy. Still many parts of this are redacted, and, it is not as clear cut as you’d like people to believe, and, I still stand by my last statement.

 

Comment by JD | January 3, 2006

3.

 

I had made a comment about this subject in another article, the main point being that we are AT WAR. No, as of yet, our beloved Congress has not set to paper a Declaration of War against our adversaries, but they MUST, and QUICKLY! JD has stated that the law says that “In emergency situations…” which states correctly that FISA courts can be sidestepped legally. JD goes on to state”…of course, many of the criteria for what constitutes an “emergency” are still “secret” .” How’s this for an emergency; the slamming of hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and an attempt at the White House? These acts being the actions of a group actively at war against our country. If one doesn’t think that is an ‘emergency situation’, how about the prospect of mushroom clouds over one or more major city in the U.S.? Maybe the introduction of a bioagent as devastating as, say, the bubonic plague? Just what should constitute an ‘emergency situation’? Please comment on how upholding the law and the spirit of it is, as JD states:”….if you let this president get by with this, any president can–even those you don’t like.” OK, get away with what? Doing his job? Protecting the American People from a decimating terrorist attacks that may be many times more decimating than the first?

5.2. (C xxx) In emergency situations, the Director, NSA, may approve for foreign intelligence or countefintmgence purposes the collection of communications of U.S. persons, or communications that refer to U.S. persons, when such persons are outside the United States and when securing the prior approval of the Attorney General is not practical.

I care little about politics when my fellow Americans may be killed. Liberals, on the other hand, care more for politics than they EVER will care about anyone else!

Come on people, no more fighting :(

 

Just look at this happy couple and learn something :kiss:

 

 

:mellow:

Oh this is entertaining! where is that popcorn. . . .

 

 

oh. . .

 

Carry on.

Sorry to reply to my own post. . . . .

 

Who said George Buh never lied?

 

this is funny!

 

http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm

Yeah, I've seen that site......I know, it's absolutly absurd he still is "commander and chief" of the most powerful country in the world.

 

I mean, there's plenty of areas from which the opposition could attack him and his administration but they are too pretty incompetent.

So it's left up to alot people who who aren't in government or part of a political party to make all of this stuff clear....and what do we get labelled -radicalist "extremists" or some other type of name that makes us out to be "crackpots". We have to put up with constant lying from the prime minister and the rest of the government here in the UK too. Now we can't even demonstrate.

Come on people, no more fighting :(

 

Just look at this happy couple and learn something :kiss:

 

 

:mellow:

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA