Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditAs the House Judiciary Committee took up the question of how best to address what its chairman described as "the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush," it was one of the ranking Republicans in the room, Iowa Congressman Steve King, who observed that, "We are here having impeachment hearings before the Judiciary Committee."
"These are impeachment hearings before the United States Congress," King continued. "I never imagined I would ever be sitting on this side when something like this happened."
King was not happy about the circumstance.
A resolute defender of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the congressman was objecting to the very mention of the "I" word.
As it happened, impeachment was mentioned dozens of times during the hearing, often in significant detail and frequently as a necessary response to lawless actions of the president and vice president.
King's statement addressed the uncertain character of Friday morning's attempt by the relevant committee of the chamber empowered by the founders to impose accountability on presidents and vice presidents to tackle what Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, referred to as "numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration."
Conyers explained that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing." For that to happen, Conyers argued, the committee would need clearer authorization from the full House.
But members of the committee, the Democrats and the Republicans, as well as a bipartisan panel of House members and another panel of former House members, and academics and activists, repeatedly put the impeachment on the table of a chamber where the speaker had once denied it a place.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, told the committee that President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed acts that make theirs "the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."
Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee, held up a copy of the Constitution and announced, "There is a real question of whether this Constitution is being protected."
Republican members of the committee griped. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence complained that the entire session – with its discussion not just of impeachment but of legislative initiatives to address executive secrecy and overreach – caused him to worry about "the criminalization of American politics."
Addressing his remarks to Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, the author of articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney that provoked Friday's hearing, Pence said, "I just believe the gentleman from Ohio is wrong."
Kucinich, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, stood his ground, arguing when he addressed the committee that a failure to impeach would not merely let Bush off the hook but signal to future presidents that they, too, may reject the rule of law and refuse to cooperate with Congress.
Several members of the committee were, if anything, more passionate in their remarks than Kucinich.
Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson told his colleagues that if they failed to act and President Bush authorized an illegal attack on Iran, they might look back on their dismissal on the neglect of their duty to check and balance an errant executive as a deadly mistake.
It was that sense of urgency that motivated committee member Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, to say explain that, "What this Congress does, or chooses not to do in furthering the investigation of the serious allegations against this administration – and if just cause is found, to hold them accountable – will impact the conduct of future presidents, perhaps for generations."
"Mr. Chairman," Baldwin continued, "there are those who would say that holding this hearing – examining whether or not the president and vice president broke the law – is frivolous. I not only reject this, I believe there is no task more important for this Congress than to seriously consider whether our nation's leaders have violated their oath of office. The American public expects no less. It is, after all, their Constitution. No president or congress has the authority to override that document, whereby ‘We the People' conferred upon the branches of government limited and defined power, and provided for meaningful checks and balances."
There can be no question at this late date in the Bush presidency that the issue of whether the American system will be characterized by "meaningful checks and balances" is at stake – and that goes to the heart of the matter of why Friday's hearing ought not be the end of a process but a beginning.
Even after George Bush and Dick Cheney have left the White House, the definition of the presidency that they have crafted will remain.
"On January 20, 2009, the next president and vice president of the United States will stand before the American people and take an oath of office, swearing to ‘… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' This commitment and obligation is so fundamental to our democracy that our nation's founders prescribed that oath in our Constitution. They also provided for the removal of the president and vice president for, among other things, ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,'" Baldwin explained to the committee. "Presidents and vice presidents do not take that oath in a vacuum. They are informed by the actions or inactions of past presidents and congresses, who establish precedents for the future."
It is in the power of the Congress to begin setting the precedent to which Baldwin addressed herself. That power was defined by the framers of the Constitution, as were the practices and procedures to be used in executing it.
With that in mind, Baldwin correctly outlined the next steps for a committee and a Congress that has begun to place not just the matter of impeachment but the broader question of the imperial presidency on the table but that certainly has not completed the process"
(The) American people have been forced to sit by while credible allegations of abuse of power mount:• We have seen this Administration fabricate the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and allege, despite all evidence to the contrary, a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. These lies dragged our country into a preemptive and unjustified war that has taken the lives of more than 4,000 U.S. troops, injured 30,000 more, and will cost our nation more than a trillion dollars.
• We watched as this Administration again undermined national security by manipulating and exaggerating evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities and openly threatened aggression against Iran, despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or capability of attacking the U.S.
• We have looked on in horror as the Administration suspended habeas corpus by claiming the power to declare any person an "enemy combatant" – ignoring the Geneva Convention protections that the U.S. helped create.
• We have seen torture and rendition of prisoners in violation of international law and stated American policy and values, and destruction of the videotaped evidence of such torture, under the tenure of this Administration.
• We have seen this Administration spy on Americans without a court order or oversight in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
• We watched as U.S. Attorneys pursued politically-motivated prosecutions in violation of the law and perhaps at the direction of this White House.
• We watched as Administration officials outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent of the CIA and then intentionally obstructed justice by disseminating false information through the White House press office.
As we know, the framers of our Constitution called for impeachment only in the case of high crimes and misdemeanors. The standard is purposely set high because we should not impeach for personal or political gain – only to uphold and safeguard our democracy. Sadly, in my judgment, at least two high ranking administration officials have met that standard. Although the call to impeach is one I take neither easily nor lightly, I now firmly believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step."
Don't know if anyone's watching the impeachment hearing but it looks pretty good for republicans. Some republican from Arizona recited the list of democratic politicians and dignitaries who supported the invasion including Hillary and sucked all the drama out of the room. Demonstrators are being kicked out left and right.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 2:40pm
this is kabuki. it is a shame that this is kabuki - bush, cheney, and numerous others around them should last be seen publicly wearing orange jumpsuits, getting off a prison bus and heading inside for processing - but these hearings are just kabuki, ceremonial theatre and absolutely ineffectual.
Posted by Zero at 07/25/2008 @ 2:42pm
frank, would you please shut up and go away
Posted by Zero at 07/25/2008 @ 2:43pm
The hearing has been exactly the circus that most had predicted it to be. The nutcases like Cindy and her friends were removed. The long and best forgotten Vincent Bugliosi got his 15 minutes of exposure and then will go back into his obscurity.
And the Dems showed why they are merely partisan hacks and lack any sense of either history,a knowledge of the constitution, or an ability to seperate fact from spin.
A week from now, no one will even remember this hearing except the far left.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 2:43pm
Poor John Conyers. He must have resisted this hearing for a reason, that being that it would backfire on democrats. Seems that's the case now. My advist to Conyers is to wrap this thing up asap and maybe nobody will notice, going into the weekend.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 2:44pm
The time for impeachment hearings is long past. If the dems are trying to do it now to effect the election, they're making a big mistake.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 2:47pm
You can be sure the Democrats aren't doing this for love of country, the Constitution, or the American people. As accomplices it's a tricky proposition for them. The best PR tactics will be required.
At Nuremberg, the Allies defined Germany's war crimes as any crime not also committed by the Allies. That's a lot easier to do against a vanquished foe than your Republican partners and accomplices in Congress and the White House.
If only we had an actual opposition party in Congress.
Posted by geezjan at 07/25/2008 @ 3:23pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 2:47pm
If Bush or associates were criminally charged...
I wonder who would be more likely to pardon them in his first year in office (and thus shore up his base)?
President Obama or President McCain?
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/25/2008 @ 4:07pm
The hearing is over and of course it is a dead issue. It merely provided a forum for all of the leftwing kooks along with fringe players like Bruce Fein and Barr to get their moment of spotlight.
Now they can all go back into the woodwork of obscurity.
One rather humorous note at the end of the hearing. Conyers noting that the Cindy Sheehans and other fringe leftwing protesters will not be allowed back into the hearing room in the future.
Even someone like Conyers has had enough of them.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:19pm
Don't know if anyone's watching the impeachment hearing but it looks pretty good for republicans. Some republican from Arizona recited the list of democratic politicians and dignitaries who supported the invasion including Hillary and sucked all the drama out of the room. Demonstrators are being kicked out left and right. Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 2:40pm
Yeah but this argument doesn't play. It could easily be said that since he based it on a lie Congress wasn't given the right information. So their vote for war was based on information that wasn't true therefore they can't be held directly accountable.
Like if a liquor store clerk sells alcohol to a minor who had a fake ID. It's the minor who gets in trouble, not the clerk.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:32pm
What ever happened to high crimes and misdemeanors? Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 4:23pm
You can't call them that until they have actually been tried.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:33pm
If this issue is dead, then the country is lost.
Posted by Anathothian at 07/25/2008 @ 4:35pm
I say just try him. If he isn't guilty of anything well then he won't be found guilty. However there is enough doubt that a trial is not unwarranted. Enough members of Congress and the House think something wrong was done then I would try them. If they are found entirely innocent then it is a huge PR hit to Demo's everywhere. If they are found guilty well then they will be held accountable for their crimes and Republicans will have to admit there was some wrong doing or risk sounding as crazy as the fringe lefty kooks.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:37pm
If you or I is accused of a crime and there is enough evidence to make people curious we would be brought before a court. Why is the President any different?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
it's really sad, looking at some of the commentary here. you'd think by reading some of it that we aren't talking about a presidency that directed the invasion of iraq, killing hundreds of thousands, injuring god only knows how many more, and creating millions upon millions of refugees from a shattered nation. you'd by reading some of the commentary here we weren't talking about an administration that has deployed the national security agency against the domestic public, in gross and widespread violation of federal law. you'd think weren't talking about an administration has abused every power it has to pursue purely political ends. you'd think wasn't an administration that has imprisoned an unknowable number of people extra-judicially were they have been inhumanly abused and tortured. this is one of the most if not, conceivably, the *most* nakedly criminal administrations in our history. it's violations of law and human decency transcend what is merely written into our own federal law and get into gross violations of international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions which were created between nations to reduce in times of war and conflict the worst tendencies of governments and people in war zones.
some of us need to grow up
Posted by Zero at 07/25/2008 @ 4:39pm
If it takes four years (or even one year) of looking at the same evidence to convince one's self a law might have been broken, it's not an impeachable offense. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 4:50p
Well the problem is Mary. Yes what you say is true. However they don't have all the evidence. executive privilege has been used to deny them the evidence. That's why they are curious.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:57pm
If it takes four years (or even one year) of looking at the same evidence to convince one's self a law might have been broken, it's not an impeachable offense.
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Except that Congress had been run by the Republicans until the beginning of 2007, so it wasn't even possible to start looking until about 1.5 years ago, so your chronology is off.
Further, the Senate report held that Bush regularly left out the caveats and dissenting opinions that were present in the intelligence. There is a decided difference between representing something as a suspicions and representing it as a certainty.
Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2008 @ 5:05pm
I'm not even a lawyer, and I can offer reasonable explanations that refute every one of the charges in your bill of particulars. There is no chance of making this stick against real lawyers. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 5:19pm
Perhaps there's no chance YOU could make it stick against real lawyers, but as you said, you're not a real lawyer either. Your comments are as amateur as those you purport to refute.
There is no legal reason why this administration hasn't been tried. It's pure politics. Your amateur legal arguments are as meaningless as mine would be. I'm just not silly enough to make legal arguments.
Bush committed these crimes and he had plenty of accomplices on both sides of the aisle. Clinton did his share of carnage in Iraq and elsewhere, too.
This is just politics. Justice or the truth has nothing to do with it.
Posted by geezjan at 07/25/2008 @ 5:26pm
Hmmmmm....neither NICHOLS (which I totally expect) nor the first 25 Comments, mentions the one tiny little Inconvenient Truth: the POTUS before Bush 43 and his `people', were even bigger believers that Saddam had WMDs......and there wereN'T nearly the GOP loonies arguing otherwise.
Now, what does one suppose this tiny, little truth illustrate?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/25/2008 @ 6:16pm
Darin,
These leftists will still be arguing that Bush should have been impeached 20 years from now. They will be just as wrong then as they are now, but they aren't about to let that stop their dream.
As you are well aware as a veteran poster here, it's not about what's good for the US, it's about their hatred of conservatives (or even a pseudo conservative like Bush).
Even someone like Brunowe who seems to have a legal background can't really provide any evidence of wrong-doing. It really comes down to their absolute certainty that what Bush has done to make us safer should be a crime in their own little minds.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:21pm
Thats sum' logic MBB... Way to make lemonade from lemons... Real bad, bad, corrupt lemons... You Bush apologists seem to believe the more words thrown into a response or the louder you are (aka O'reilly) the more some might actually believe this sad, corrupt administration 'did no wrong'... Stay on message, stay on point... Even if you dont believe your own BS....
Well I'll dare say your kind, YOUR thinking has done more to harm America than any 'Left wing loony'... Your brand of MINDLESS, BRAINWASHED, Bush can do no wrong thought process has set OUR country back 20 years.. But thats ok right..?? Terrorists my ass... How's the borderline economy doing UNDER your boy...?? Recession..?? Wheres OIL at..?? Oh, only $128 BBl...??? Thats cheap right ??? Safe to assume (bet your ass), if it had been a DEMOCRAT in the white house the past 7 yrs, he/she would have already been in jail.. Possibly brought out back and shot (romanian style)... By the way.. LOVE your crystal ball... The Bottom line you provide is so "SPOT ON"... Once again accept the facts MY republican 'FRIENDS'... Obama is your President. You know it... It will feel better when you move on...(trust me on this, I had to do it in 00' when the SCOTUS gave it to YOUR boy) Say this to yourselves: 1. Grant me the power to accept things I cannot change...(President Obama, Repeat 3 times)
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:27pm
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:27pm
I posted to you over on the Obama Tears Down the Wall thread. It's a genuine interest dialogue about military service and not confrontational.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:35pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:33pm
I just came back online so I don't know if anyone told you yet how the impeachment process works. The actual trial is done by the Senate. There aren't enough democrats there to convict Bush and the republicans certainly won't vote to do so.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember Clinton's silly impeachment but in his case he was aquitted at the Senate stage.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 6:43pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
Refer to the United States Constitution.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 6:44pm
The only way new con repubs will ever consider impeachment of either or both hsuB/cHeney, would be a major paradigm shift in their core believe system that would require a sense of equity beyond financial gain. Since repubs gain financially by not impeaching hsuB/cHeney ala elite corporate base, they are incapable of even perceiving the word "impeachment" much less understanding it's applicability so counter their own interests. If on the other hand hsuB/cHeney were a dem...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2008 @ 6:52pm
all things considered, I think the time for considering impeachment is way past, especially since Pelosi took it off the tabl as soon as she became Speaker. This present set of events is all show and serves two purposes for the dems.
First of all, it gives the impeachment crowd a chance to speak their peace which is better than shutting them down altogeter. Second it's political because it's deep into the election season and the dems want to drudge up as much angst against republicans as possible, especially with a candidas popular as Mccain running.
I think they will succeed on both counts.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 6:55pm
Impeachment won't make anything more availble. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 5:22pm
Actually it will. If hearings are brought to order. And they decide that evidence is needed in the court then executive privilege can't be used. So they would be forced to bring forth evidence that before Congress could not force them to bring forth.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:57pm
There are no statutes of limitations on impeachment and the criminal accountability of hsuB/cHeney.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2008 @ 6:59pm
Time to go watch my Yankees demolish the Red Sox. I'll check back later.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 7:01pm
In fact with the vast numbers of dems coming into the congress next year, odds are hsuB/cHeney can be 'renditioned' by the end of 2009 and no one will know what happened per the level of national security hsuB/cHeney slapped on all their crimes...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2008 @ 7:03pm
Refer to the United States Constitution. Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 6:44pm
For what? The reason the President can't be brought to court?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:06pm
I just came back online so I don't know if anyone told you yet how the impeachment process works. The actual trial is done by the Senate. There aren't enough democrats there to convict Bush and the republicans certainly won't vote to do so. I don't know if you're old enough to remember Clinton's silly impeachment but in his case he was aquitted at the Senate stage. Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 6:43pm
I know. But it would at least put the kibosh on everything. It would be just like Clinton. Where he was disgraced but still held office till the end.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:08pm
Even someone like Brunowe who seems to have a legal background can't really provide any evidence of wrong-doing. It really comes down to their absolute certainty that what Bush has done to make us safer should be a crime in their own little minds. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:21pm |
Who was the last person on the left that you liked?
Also he can't provide any evidence that YOU will accept. He has provided plenty of evidence. You just won't accept it out of your hatred for the left.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:18pm
Oh Frank ... A Stankees fan too... Strike 3...
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:23pm
" it's not about what's good for the US, it's about their hatred of conservatives"
since most of the democrats are also conservatives, then it follows that we also hate the democrats.
having said that, bill and hillary clinton both claimed that saddam was an "imminent threat" prior to the illegal invasion of iraq. the CIA made the conclusion that hussein *wasn't* an "imminent threat" in early october of 2003, and yet had they known this (as bush had), both bill and hillary are complicit in the crimes against humanity as evidenced in the unauthorized use of force in iraq.
Posted by darladoon at 07/25/2008 @ 7:23pm
Why is it that LVL and Mary always ignore the fact that in the NIE it was blatantly stated that Saddam no longer had nuclear weapons. Just like in the one for Iran it was stated that Iran no longer had nuclear weapons and yet Bush kept denying it was true.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:28pm
frank is pretty much on strike 24,252 with most people here. he doesn't seem to recognize that the crowds in the bleachers have tossed down their hot dogs and beer and are instead throwing stones at him trying to drive him from the ball field.
Posted by Zero at 07/25/2008 @ 7:32pm
"I count 5 indictments in your bill of particulars. 1) The invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration had intelligence that Saddam had WMD and all of his statements regarding WMD were "generally supported" by the intelligence. A reasonable person could conclude that the intelligence was correct. It was, in fact, incorrect, but that was not knowable before the invasion. Bush also secured a resolution from the UN that could reasonably be interpreted to authorize military action if Saddam did not comply. Irrespective of the outcomes, his actions were based on a good faith belief that he was acting in the best interest of the country. 2) Deployed the NSA against the public. Not true. He used the NSA to wire tap international calls where a person on the terrorist watch list was outside the US. Some of these calls had US citizens on the other end of the line in the US, but that is not the same thing as deploying the NSA against the public. I believe SCOTUS ruled that the lawyers who assured Bush that this practice complied with the FISA law were incorrect and the administration took corrective action. 3) Imprisoned people extra-judicially. Judicial has nothing to do with it. Prisoners of War and illegal combatants were captured and held by the military. Relying on existing case law, the admin policy was that these people did not receive Constitutional Rights. SCOTUS clarified that the German case wasn't the correct precedent because Git Mo was completely controlled by the US whereas the German detention camps weren't and the admin took corrective action once this was clarified. 4) The administration authorized water-boarding. Administration lawyers have concluded that water-boarding does not meet the definition of torture. The SCOTUS has not ruled that water-boarding is torture. The degrading and humiliating acts that took place at Abh Graib were torture, but they were not authorized by the administration and the individuals who took part in the torture were disciplined. 5) The Geneva Conventions explicitly do not apply to illegal combatants, such as terrorists. SCOTUS has made no ruling to the contrary."
*none* of the above is true. literally none.
Posted by darladoon at 07/25/2008 @ 7:38pm
frank is pretty much on strike 24,252 with most people here. he doesn't seem to recognize that the crowds in the bleachers have tossed down their hot dogs and beer and are instead throwing stones at him trying to drive him from the ball field. Posted by Zero at 07/25/2008 @ 7:32pm
I prefer phone books. They don't leave bruises.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:43pm
here's a great one:
"The administration authorized water-boarding."
hmmmm. and water boarding is *not* torture because "administration officials" say so? interesting. so, basically, international laws governing the treatment of "detainees" (not "terrorists," mary, if they haven't been convicted of anything) does not apply to the united states because "administration officials" say so?
"He used the NSA to wire tap international calls where a person on the terrorist watch list was outside the US. Some of these calls had US citizens on the other end of the line in the US, but that is not the same thing as deploying the NSA against the public"
doing so, without warrants, is a felony, punishable by 5 years in prison. bush has already admitted that he wasn't getting the warrants before the NYT broke the scandal of december of 2005. that was the point of "retroactive immunity."
"Prisoners of War and illegal combatants were captured and held by the military"
they are neither 'prisoners of war' nor 'illegal combatants'; they fall into an entirely new classification of prisoner, chosen at the president's (in)discretion, called 'enemy combatants', and they have been held, in locations outside of US jurisdiction (like diego garcia island in the indian ocean) so that US officials can perform torture on them. again, the US has already admitted this.
so, basically, what does george bush have to do next in order to raise the suspicions of the skeptics here?
he has already:
*tortured
*held prisoners w/out charges
*spied on american citizens on american soil
*started a war under false pretenses
what next? sodomizing his father in public?
Posted by darladoon at 07/25/2008 @ 7:45pm
Funny how lvliberty1 makes the typical wingnut assertions that advocates of the Constitution are radical leftists (yes, just like Rep. Barr!?!?!), or Bush haters, or some other vacuous label. Ideology isn't argument, but it's all the neocon true believers have left.
Meanwhile, there' s the typical recycling of rightwing misinformation about Bush's illegal and immoral wars, Bush's ignoring of Americans' 4th Amendment rights, and the specious claim that this utter failure of a president has made the US one iota safer.
This is what they're heading into the elections with: a dismal president's dismal record, ideological obfuscation, and nothing else.
Pity after nearly 3 decades of a disastrous conservative revolution that this is the best they can do.
Posted by tnathant at 07/25/2008 @ 7:50pm
1) The 70% of Americans who supported the invasion of Iraq knew that intelligence is always uncertain. They knew we couldn't be certain if the war would go quickly or slowly, and the supported it just the same.
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't buy that for a minute, after all, most Americans also believed there was a link between Hussein and 9/11. The point is that representing a suspicion as a certainty is a lie.
4)Administration lawyers have concluded that water-boarding does not meet the definition of torture. The SCOTUS has not ruled that water-boarding is torture.
The administration lawyers also believe that the President can do anything he wants in wartime. There is a difference between a good-faith belief and CYA. Waterboarding is certainly torture according to the UN Convention Against Torture. Rendition to countries that torture is also a violation. The United States is a party to that convention, thus making it the equivalent of federal statute.
2) 2) Deployed the NSA against the public. Not true. He used the NSA to wire tap international calls where a person on the terrorist watch list was outside the US. Some of these calls had US citizens on the other end of the line in the US, but that is not the same thing as deploying the NSA against the public.
Any communication to which a United States person is a party is covered by FISA and requires a warrant.
3), 5) The Geneva Conventions explicitly do not apply to illegal combatants, such as terrorists. SCOTUS has made no ruling to the contrary.
Actually, the gist of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did apply to illegal combatants. Further, for the most part we haven't had competent tribunals make the illegal combatant determination.
Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2008 @ 8:02pm
cccomf01 - cute
i prefer stones, they leave bruises and lacerations
Posted by Zero at 07/25/2008 @ 9:27pm
Oh Frank ... A Stankees fan too... Strike 3...
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:23pm
Final: Yankees 1, Bosox 0
one down, two to go.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 10:16pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:43pm
Thanks for posting Zero's comments. I have him on ignore because he's such a Puke.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 10:19pm
I can't believe I watched a whole ballgame and you folks are still here arguing about an impeachment that will never take place. Not because Dubya ddoesn't deserve it but because the dems aren't smart enough to pull it off and they don't want to anyway. Talk about a waste of time.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 10:22pm
Not a gaffe, a preemptive move to mediate 'flip flop' charge.
John McCain said that he thinks Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq is "a "pretty good timetable."
Posted by winyahn at 07/25/2008 @ 11:44pm
Iraq AGREES with Obama, now McPain do to! What a joke this media is.
Posted by winyahn at 07/25/2008 @ 11:48pm
Even someone like Brunowe who seems to have a legal background can't really provide any evidence of wrong-doing.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:21pm
http://www.marymacelveen.com/ThreeIraqiChildren.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 01:31am
Funny how lvliberty1 makes the typical wingnut assertions that advocates of the Constitution are radical leftists (yes, just like Rep. Barr!?!?!), or Bush haters, or some other vacuous label. Ideology isn't argument, but it's all the neocon true believers have left. Meanwhile, there' s the typical recycling of rightwing misinformation about Bush's illegal and immoral wars, Bush's ignoring of Americans' 4th Amendment rights, and the specious claim that this utter failure of a president has made the US one iota safer. This is what they're heading into the elections with: a dismal president's dismal record, ideological obfuscation, and nothing else. Pity after nearly 3 decades of a disastrous conservative revolution that this is the best they can do. Posted by tnathant at 07/25/2008 @ 7:50pm | warn this person
The Rev. Larry pretty much despises the Constitution, as do most of the righties on this board. The US Constitution disestablished religions (that pesky no-state-religion thing), and affirmed the basic human right of personal self-determination. That's always a problem for the authoritarian/theocrat/oligarch segment of society. They demand that they be obeyed and, frankly, worshipped. Their sadistic bloodlust, epitomized by their incessant cheerleading for endless war, torture, mass murder, is matched only by their cowardice - they refuse to put their lives on the line for wars they claim to support. Their "religion" has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality - I'd dare say that the average atheist or agnostic is a far more spiritual and decent human being than these modern-day pharisees. As for their perpetual bleating about patriotism and treason, they long ago betrayed everything that constitutes the idea of "America". Their loyalty is to their Dear Leader, who has shown the same contempt for the Constitution as do they, and as such, that loyalty constitutes treason against this country.
Posted by jmusolino at 07/26/2008 @ 01:40am
For the sake of saving face (the dems)the SHRUB and his cronies should be Impeached so the shrub can`t use his Preemptive Power of Pardon for his POSSE......
Is it just me or does this despicible administration parallel the 14 points of Fascism!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by ams@50 at 07/26/2008 @ 01:42am
Oh Frank ... A Stankees fan too... Strike 3... Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:23pm Final: Yankees 1, Bosox 0 one down, two to go. Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 10:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Frank, I have to completely agree with you on this one. And I promise I won't mention what an utter whiner Youkilis is!
Posted by jmusolino at 07/26/2008 @ 01:43am
), 5) The Geneva Conventions explicitly do not apply to illegal combatants, such as terrorists. SCOTUS has made no ruling to the contrary.
Actually, the gist of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did apply to illegal combatants. Further, for the most part we haven't had competent tribunals make the illegal combatant determination.
Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2008 @ 8:02pm
I'm surprised that you would get this so wrong.
We have consistently applied Article 3 of Geneva even though technically, the terrorists do not meet the criteria for identifying them as true prisoners of war.
ARTICLE 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force,by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 04:15am
The Rev. Larry pretty much despises the Constitution, as do most of the righties on this board. The US Constitution disestablished religions (that pesky no-state-religion thing), and affirmed the basic human right of personal self-determination. That's always a problem for the authoritarian/theocrat/oligarch segment of society. They demand that they be obeyed and, frankly, worshipped. Their sadistic bloodlust, epitomized by their incessant cheerleading for endless war, torture, mass murder, is matched only by their cowardice - they refuse to put their lives on the line for wars they claim to support. Their "religion" has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality - I'd dare say that the average atheist or agnostic is a far more spiritual and decent human being than these modern-day pharisees. As for their perpetual bleating about patriotism and treason, they long ago betrayed everything that constitutes the idea of "America". Their loyalty is to their Dear Leader, who has shown the same contempt for the Constitution as do they, and as such, that loyalty constitutes treason against this country.
Posted by jmusolino at 07/26/2008 @ 01:40am
It must be terrible to have to live as you do with such a handicap limiting your ability to reason beyond the level of a 1st grader.
I love the constitution. That is why I have consistently pointed out all of the unconstitutional programs the left wants to either expand or implement. Juvenile thinkers like yourself have never bothered to either read or understand the simple and clear language of the constitution regarding Article 1 Section 8 on the enumerated powers of Congress. Nor do you have any appreciation for the 10th amendment
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
Furthermore, the Constitution did not "disestablish religion" as you claim. On the contrary, the 1st amendment established the right to the free exercise of religious belief. Prior to the establishment of the Constitution, there was no official state religion to seperate from.
I have stated often that I have no desire for a national religion or to impose my religion on others. I believe in having a secular government.
And I have put my body where my mouth is you slimy coward. I volunteered when I was 17 and earned the Purple Heart with Clusters (something you wouldn't understand but others will). And my sons have served, including one who was in the 1st Marine Division that crossed into Baghdad.
As to our supposed loyalty to Bush; well Americans should support their president in time of Wars; just like I supported LBJ by enlisting, continued that under Nixon; supported Reagan's actions; supported Clinton going into Bosnia.
However, I have also (as has John Maasch) noted that while Bush is a very good president on national defense, taxes, the life of the innocent unborn children, and SCOTUS justices, he is still a very imperfect man who has failed in other areas of his presidency. But his stand on Iraq and terrorism will stand him well when the history is reviewed and written years from now.
now you may slink back into the dark little cubbyhole of your small mind.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 04:30am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 04:15am
"We have consistently applied Article 3 of Geneva even though technically, the terrorists do not meet the criteria for identifying them as true prisoners of war."
Overall, LL, I'm surprised at the low level of reasoning by the lefties on this board, LL. Even BRUNOWE, generally one of the more rational-sounding of the mob, seems to have lost a few brain cells lately. Thanks for trying to bring a little light to their darkness. Like a missionary to ideological cannibals, you can only do good.
But I must take exception to your characterization of the terrorists we have captured as only 'technically' not meeting the standards of prisoners of war. The distinction is a lot more than technical; they purposely DO NOT wear uniforms, and they PURPOSELY DO NOT fight as soldiers, the better to kill innocent people, which is the primary aim and motivation and strategy of their form of warfare. Under the conventional understanding of the Geneva Convention, which was designed to establish protections for SOLDIERS by providing definitions of their status and standards for their treatment in time of war, terrorists are EXACTLY the type of combatant (e.g., saboteurs, spies) for whom the Geneva Convention would sanction summary execution as soon as their status is determined. For example, should Osama Bin Laden be caught alive, we would be fully within our rights under the Geneva Conventions to execute him on the spot, his guilt having been firmly established by his own videos.
Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 05:51am
LL, it is this phrase that is involved
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
These minimal protections, pontificus, apply even when the persons taken aren't partisans of a Convention signatory. The interrogation methods used in many cases would constitute humiliating and degrading treatment. Likewise, SCOTUS held that elements of the commissions as they were at the time of this opinion didn't afford the minimal judicial guarantees.
Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 06:08am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 04:15am
Simply put, LL, no rational person could conclude that the framers of the Geneva Conventions ever intended for these provisions to give legal rights to terrorists. On the contrary, there is every indication to me it was exactly the intent of the Conventions to give soldiers protections by providing a mechanism for discerning between average citizens doing their duty for their country (e.g., a Wehrmacht soldier) and those terrorist-like prisoners. Of course, the Geneva Conventions are an imperfect construct with regard to terrorists, since terrorist strategies were not yet developed at the time these provisions were formulated. But given the aim and intent of the Conventions, it can hardly be rationally concluded that the framers of those provisions would regard terrorists as soldiers, but rather more in the category of a prisoner that might be legitimately executed in the field pursuant to a summary courts martial.
And given that many if not most of the terrorists held in Gitmo regularly make statements (before, during, and after incarceration) that they will make all efforts to kill as many Americans as possible at the earliest possible opportunity, their guilt and status as terrorists is firmly established. Of course, the Left hates Bush far more than any terrorist, so this fact is generally ignored in the Bush-hating frenzy here at the Nation.
Of course in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, the Courts of the US have erred on the side of mercy and prudence in dealing with terrorists by providing them with a perhaps unexpected degree of legal protection. One suspects that this might change in the absence of President like Bush with an effective anti-terror strategy (e.g., if one of our cities is wiped out by nuclear terrorism), but this is the level of morality our Courts have decided that we can afford, apparently.
The insistence of the Left that terrorists be given full legal protections afforded by US citizens is more an artifact of their pathological hatred of George Bush (which hatred defines them, sadly but predictably) than any rational understanding of the aim or intent of the Geneva Convention. It's a convenient club to bash him with, and provide another pseudo-basis for wild assertions of wrong doing. Hardly even worth debating, really.
Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 06:22am
Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 06:08am
BRUNOWE, most terrorists don't meet the criteria for protection under the Geneva Convention. In earlier wars, they would meet the criteria for being shot on sight as spies or saboteurs, since they wear no uniform.
Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 06:24am
Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 06:08am
"These minimal protections, pontificus, apply even when the persons taken aren't partisans of a Convention signatory. The interrogation methods used in many cases would constitute humiliating and degrading treatment."
You miss the point. Regardless of whether their country of origin has signed the Geneva Convention, the combatants themselves do not meet the standards for protection as soldiers. Reportedly, most of them fully that they are terrorists, with no uniform, and no intent to fight as soldiers. They are illegal combatants in the same category as spies and saboteurs, and under any traditional reading of the Geneva Conventions, we would be fully within our rights to shoot them pursuant to summary courts martial.
"Likewise, SCOTUS held that elements of the commissions as they were at the time of this opinion didn't afford the minimal judicial guarantees."
That's an ex post facto determination, BRUNOWE. Ex Post Facto was done away with in our Constitution. Unless, that is, for example, you feel it necessary to prosecute and jail all those politicians who instituted the gun control laws which the Supreme Court recently ruled illegal.
Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 06:32am
This article is pure horse manure! Kucinich, Conyers and the other wacked out liberals involved are just trying to get payback for their boy "Slick Willie" ... it has been their plan since day one of the Bush administration! It's nothing more than a circus side-show! Laughable!
Posted by Kirt at 07/26/2008 @ 08:35am
These hearings are small and seem insignificant now, but they will remembered like the Paul's Church Assembly in Frankfurt in 1848.
What's that? You've never heard of the Paul's Church Assembly in Frankfurt in 1848? You would have if you were German! That was the first democratically elected assembly that created the first and most legitimate Constitution for the German people before 1919.
Nothing came of the Constitution of the Paul's Church Assembly, because the armed revolutionaries who were trying to overthrow the Prussian and Austrian monarchies at the same time both LOST. Monarchist armies crushed the revolutionaries and either executed them or sent them into exile (many to the United States). Deputies of the Assembly had no choice but to appeal to the victorious Prussian King, who dismissed them all with contempt and imposed a monarchist constitution of his own.
But Germans remember the Paul's Church Assembly, just as US-Americans will remember - and will honor - those few members of Congress who tried to impeach Cheney and Bush. And like the Germans, we will all feel a certain shame that at this moment in our history, the good guys were so weak and the bad guys were so strong.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/26/2008 @ 09:33am
IMPEACHMENT IS OUR ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL TOOL, TO MUZZLE THE RABID DOGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. AFTER THE ELECTIONS, OBAMA NEEDS TO SET UP A WAR TIMES TRIBUNAL AND GO AFTER ALL THE COLABORATORS. MORE THAN A MILLION HUMANS HAVE DIED SO FAR. WE MUST TRY AND PREVENT A REPEAT OF THIS TRAGEDY IN IRAN BY ALL MEANS AVAILABLE.
Posted by caojuliao at 07/26/2008 @ 10:06am
Forget the constitution: even if I had pictures of hsuB/cHeney giving each other head, giving head to a fake reporter and 5 of their interns-- the new con repubs would still not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings. Even if new con repubs found out that hsuB/cHeney personally pulled the life support plug on Raygun, new con repubs would not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings. Even if hsuB/cHeney personally gave the ok to ignore expedited help for New Orleans Katrina aftermath victims, new con repubs would not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings. Even if hsuB/cHeney allowed 9/11 to happen, new con repubs would not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings. Even if new con repubs found out that hsuB/cHeney swore allegiance to a satanic cult, new con repubs would not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings.
And why is it that anyone could even believe new con repubs care about violating our constitution, the Geneva Convention or creating an unnecessary war?
All new con repubs are about is 'covering-up' the fact that their greed has left them without a soul and thus new con repubs can and will say anything that will benefit themselves not to reveal that fact. It's one big knotted circular logic slithering snake they've become; without a head or tail, it just constantly spins in a knot-- meant to obscure and confuse.
One wastes ones time arguing with new con repubs. All one can hope to do with the thing is make it smaller.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 10:16am
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/26/2008 @ 10:18am
See.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 10:29am
listen up everyone. We are getting down to the nitty gritty of a Presidential election. Just about a hundred days to go. We still have the conventions, debates, VP picks and plenty of campaigning to go. What the hell are we doing discussing an impeachment that isn't going to happen. Those of you who despise George Bush are free to vote for Obama. Those of you who are like me and think Bush was a failure as a President but understand the nature of the threat we face can consider voting for Mccain.
But please let the impeachment nonsense go. Not even the dems in power are taking it seriously. Hopefully, this will be the last thread dealing with the subject. if people consider George Bush to be a murderer, they can go after him on those charges after he leaves office. That's a whole different ballgame.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/26/2008 @ 10:30am
see
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 10:33am
That's an ex post facto determination, BRUNOWE.
The ex post facto prohibition refers to legislation; it has nothing to do with SCOTUS rulings.
"Regardless of whether their country of origin has signed the Geneva Convention, the combatants themselves do not meet the standards for protection as soldiers. Reportedly, most of them fully that they are terrorists, with no uniform, and no intent to fight as soldiers. They are illegal combatants in the same category as spies and saboteurs,"
Wrong, Common Article 3 applies to all persons. There has to be a competent tribunal to determine whether they are, in fact, spies and saboteurs.
Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 10:33am
THE ELECTION IS SIMPLE THE UNBUSH VS THE MCBUSH
Posted by caojuliao at 07/26/2008 @ 10:38am
"admitted that Iraq approached Niger about obtaining yellowcake uranium, but that Iraq was not successful ."
He admitted nothing of the kind.
"On whether waterboarding is torture, the international laws against torture don't list waterboarding. They outlaw procedures causing physical injury or harm."
Incorrect. The US has signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture. That convention defines torture as
"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions"
Waterboarding definitely counts.
"Of course Bush knew that tapping phones in countries outside the US was a violation of US law and of course he knew the dozens of lawyers convincing him otherwise were wrong and that he'd lose before the SCOTUS."
Except that these were conversations involving US persons as well. FISA is clear-cut on this.
Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 10:40am
An impechment will lead to the truth
everything Bush and Cheny did were illegal things based on the LIE of National Security.
It would take Courage to face the truth.
http://newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley7.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Additional Titles
Other Monteith Articles:
The Peak Oil Myth
More Montieth Articles:
THE TRUE STORY OF 9-11 PART 4
By Dr. Stanley Monteith July 22, 2007 NewsWithViews.com
Most Americans weren't aware of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism before the "terrorist attack" on September 11, 2001. Where did the radical Islamic movement come from? When did it begin? The modern-day Islamic movement originated in 1977 when the CIA began funding the rebel organization that were trying to destabilize the communist government that ruled Afghanistan. By December 1979, the Soviet-backed regime was on the verge of collapse, so the USSR invaded Afghanistan to keep their puppet government in power.[1]
Saudi Arabia, Pakistani Intelligence (the ISI), and the CIA recruited Moslem soldiers from Islamic countries, and paid them to fight the Soviet invasion. The men were trained in terrorist tactics, they were given copies of the Koran and they were told about the importance of Islamic Jihad.[2] In an effort to insure the success of the effort to promote radical Islam, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) paid $51 million to have Islamic text books printed that stressed the importance of Jihad, and killing Infidels. If you find that difficult to believe, I suggest you obtain a copy of the article titled "Teaching ABCs and Jihad" that appeared in the April 1-7, 2002 issue of The Washington Post National Weekly Edition.[3]
Zbigniew Brzezinski, (CFR-TC) controlled U.S. Foreign policy at that time, and was responsible for the CIA's effort to foment the resurgence of "radical Islam". Initially he denied the charge that he orchestrated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but nineteen years later, in 1998, Brzezinsky admitted he intentionally precipitated the Afghan war because he wanted to bankrupt the USSR, and end the Cold War.[4]
Robert Dreyfuss's book, Devil's Game, traces the history of rebirth of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, and quotes Zbigniew Brzezinski's admission that:
"‘Containing Soviet Communism,' said Brzezinski, ‘dictated an avoidance of anything that might split Islamic opposition to the Soviets, especially a U.S.-Iranian military confrontation. It now seemed to me more important to forge an anti-Soviet Islamic coalition'. As in the 1950s and 1960s, the United States hoped to use Islam against radical, secular forces and their atheist ally, the Soviet Union. Carter administration officials now recognized the new possibilities for cooperation with Islamic resurgence and hoped to harness its ideological and material resources against Communist expansionism."[5]
When Zbigniew Brzezinski was interviewed by Nouvel Observateur in 1998 he admitted his intention was to provoke a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and when he was asked if he regretted supporting the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, he replied:
"What is more important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"[6]
Is that true? I don't believe Zbigniew Brzezinski was concerned about the Soviet threat because he understands the conflict between the US and the USSR is contrived to divert attention from our true enemy, the CFR and TC Globalists who want to end the sovereignty of our nation. I believe Brzezinski planned the current conflict in the Middle East because he wants to bankrupt the United States, and create a world government. If you find that view difficult to believe, I suggest you read my book, Brotherhood of Darkness, check my documentation, watch my interview with Professor Antony Sutton, (The Best Enemies Money Can Buy), read Professor Suttons's book, National Suicide, and obtain a copy of the "Aid and Trade Documents" that Congressman Larry McDonald published before he disappeared in 1983.[7]
In the Introduction to his book, Devil's Game, Robert Dreyfuss wrote:
"After 2001, the Bush administration appeared to sign on to the neoconservative declaration that the world was defined by a 'clash of civilizations,' and launched its global war on terrorism, targeting Al Qaeda - the most virulent strain of the very virus that the United States had helped create."[8]
Did the CFR - TC create the Islamic terrorist movement to justify their effort to monitor and control the American people?
The World Future Society is one of many front organizations that the Trilateral Commission uses to promote world government. The November-December 1994 issue of their magazine (WFS), The Futurist, contains an article titled "The Future Face of Terrorism" that states:
"The next 15 years may well be the age of superterrorism, when they (the Islamic terrorist-ed) gain access to weapons of mass destruction and show a new willingness to use them . . . . Terrorists in the early years of the twenty-first century will reflect the causes that excite passion and move people to violence . . . conflict will increase until a new stasis or 'world order' is established."[9]
How did the author of the article know what lay ahead? At that time the World Future Society's logo was a circle that contained three sixes – 666, similar to the Trilateral Commission's logo that contains three 6's--666.
Advertisement
Most people are distressed by the long lines they encounter at airports, and the fact that the government began monitoring private phone calls after the attack on the World Trade Center. Were those things planned before the terrorist attack? On August 4, 1996, five years before the 9/11 attack, Richard Haass, the current Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the TC, wrote an article that was published in The Palm Beach Post titled: "Land of The Free Makes a Tempting Target". Richard Haass wrote:
"The war against terrorism is a war with an unlimited number of battles, none of them decisive . . . . What price are we prepared to pay? The price will be financial and personal. People will have to accept longer lines before entering buildings, longer delays at airports, more intrusive searches of belongings and our persons, and higher ticket prices to pay for all of this . . . . Greater vigilance will also involve a willingness to compromise some of our civil liberties, including accepting more frequent phone taps and surveillance . . . .Those who would resist paying such a price should keep in mind that terrorism could well get worse in the coming years . . . there is evidence that the terrorist challenge is entering a new phase." [10]
Over 300 million people live in the U.S. at the present time, yet almost all of the important posts in industry, banking, academia, the military, and government are held by members of the CFR and the North American Group of the Trilateral Commission. Is that an accident?
Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR - TC) contends the Middle East is the center of the world, and the U.S. must dominate that region. He wrote:
"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War. It was rooted . . . in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms. In the absence of a comparable external challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies . . . ." (underlining added-ed)[11]
Zbigniew Brzezinski believes the public must believe they face an "external challenge."
Members of the "Project For the New American Century" (PNAC), primarily made up of members of the CFR and the TC, contend there must be a "widely perceived direct external threat" to justify U.S. control of the world. Their publication, Rebuilding America's Defenses, (2000) states:
"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." (underlining added)[12]
Thomas Kean (CFR), and Lee Hamilton's (CFR-TC) book, "Without Precedent" described Condaleezza Rice's (CFR) testimony before the 9/11 Commission. When Rice was asked "why more had not been done to take defensive measures in response to the threat reporting over the spring and summer:'
"she told the Commission the public wasn't prepared to support President Bush's effort to take drastic action against Al Qaeda. There had to be a catastrophic event that forced people to think differently….Rice pointed out that the nation simply wasn't prepared to take dramatic action against al Qaeda before 9/11 - either abroad or in reforming government at home - and said, 'Until there is a catastrophic event that forces people to think differently, that forces people to overcome all customs and old culture and old fears about domestic intelligence . . . you don't get that kind of change.'" (underlining added)[13]
The 9/11 attack forced the public to overcame their "customs and old culture and old fears about intelligence," and justified the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
When the 9/11 Commission asked Donald Rumsfeld why the Bush administration didn't try to prevent the terrorist attack:
"Rumsfeld acknowledged the spike in reports of possible al Qaeda attacks in the spring and summer of 2001, saying, 'There was a good deal of concern. It was certainly not business an usual.' In response, he said the Bush administration was putting together a more 'comprehensive policy' to go after al Qaeda than the Clinton administration's, a process that did not conclude until September 10, 2001."[14]
Donald Rumsfeld claims President Bush's plan to destroy al Qaeda was completed the day before the 9/11 attack. Twenty-six days later the U.S. deployed military forces in Afghanistan, but failed to capture Osama bin Laden or destroy al Qaeda. Why did that happen?
H.L. Mencken wrote:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."[15]
There is much more to this story, but it will have to wait until the next article.
Millions of Americans know something is seriously wrong. We must help them understand the spiritual force that is orchestrating the current war in the Middle East.
Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3,
Footnotes:
1, How the CIA created Osama bin Laden 2, Ibid. 3, Joe Stephens et al, "Teaching ABCs and Jihad," The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, April 1-7, 2002, p. 14. 4, John Cooley, Unholy Wars, Pluto Press, Virginia, 1999, p. 19. 5, Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2005, p. 265 . 6, Ibid., p. 5 7, Available from Radio Liberty, 800-544-8927. 8, Robert Dreyfuss, op cit, p. 265. 9, Marvin Cetron et al, "The Future Face of Terrorism", The Futurist, November-December 1994, pp 10 and 15. 10, Richard Haass, op. cit. 11, Zbigniew Brzezinski, op. cit. 12, Rebuilding America's Defenses, p. 51, 13, Thomas Kean et al, Without Precedent, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006, p. 180. 14, Ibid., p. 161. 15, H.L. Mencken, The Patriot Post, July 26, 2006.
© 2005 Stanley Monteith - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Dr. Stanley Monteith has been studying the movement to create a world government for almost 40 years. During his 35-year career as an orthopedic surgeon he traveled to Europe, lived in South Africa, and researched the records of the men and the organizations that are working to bring our nation under the control of a corporate elite.
Dr. Monteith currently spends five hours daily on talk radio across the nation. He writes extensively, and lectures on geopolitics. He is the author of AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic and his most recent book Brotherhood of Darkness is in its 8th printing.
RADIO LIBERTY, P.O. BOX 969, SOQUEL, CA. 95073 -- 800-544-8927
Web-Site: www.radioliberty.com
E-Mail: DoctorStanRadio@aol.com
Posted by Rese at 07/26/2008 @ 11:57am
Just as Atta was reportedly gambling, womnizng and drnking on Abramoff's Sun Cruises :
ZIOCON/GOP = another name for MAFIA MONEY; Abramoff scandal ties to 9-11 Atta drugrunning! http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/326565.shtml
Our own government spies, (CIA) and cooperating Mossad and Saudi intelligence made 9/11 happen with Executve blessings and vice Presidential complicity.
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2004/04/103866.mov
Video
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SCH502A.html
9/11 is an Expression of a Deep and Abiding Crisis in the Capitalist World Order: 9/11 a CIA- MOSSAD False Flag Operation by Ralph Schoenman 911 PEOPLE'S INQUIRY SF, 2004 www.globalresearch.ca 18 February 2005 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SCH502A.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
CLICK TO VIEW VIDEO
Video
9/11 is an Expression of a Deep and Abiding Crisis in the Capitalist World Order
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315848.shtml
now new evidence is out
t that shows he was no crazy
Islamic fundamentalist:
http://www.wtprn.com/Last_Nail.html
HOME LISTEN LIVE SHOW SCHEDULE BROADCASTERS SHOW ARCHIVES PODCASTS DONATIONS ONLINE STORE WEB BANNERS ADVERTISE VIDEO ARCHIVE NEWS ARCHIVE CONTACT SPONSORS HUMOR HOME
WORLD EXCLUSIVE!
THE LAST NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE 911 MYTH MOHAMED ATTA IN OKLAHOMA CITY SEPTEMBER 2001
By Jack Blood www.jackblood.com July 20th 2008
For almost a year and a half I have been in the loop on a most fantastic story involving the Herculean investigative reporting of Chris Emery, Holland Van den Nieuwenhof and crew from www.okcbombing.net
As hard as it was, I kept quiet and off the record, as the team investigated an angle of the 911 terrorist attack of 2001 which had Mohamed Atta (pictured right) and five of his alleged hijackers in Oklahoma City just days before 911, drunk, boisterous and brawling? Not a Koran, or prayer rug in site.
Last week - July 2008, they had reached the end of their investigation, and impenetrable walls of resistance prohibited them from going any further. Last Friday July 19th 2008 the Emery team decided to go public on my syndicated radio show, DEADLINE LIVE w/ Jack Blood. The result of which has sent shockwaves throughout the 911 truth community.
For the safety of all involved, the witnesses wish to remain anonymous until such time they can be guaranteed protection. All of the witnesses have given signed affidavits to Chris Emery. Documentation of the facts and evidence has been tucked away in safe houses in the USA and Canada. The evidence will later be released to Network Media, and the proper authorities.
The story started as the team was continuing their exhaustive research into the OKC Bombings of 1995. Almost accidentally they ran into witness after witness wanting to report that they had seen Atta and five 911 hijackers in Oklahoma City September 6th - 8th 2001.
On September 6th 2001 at 10 AM - 12 Noon - Mohamed Atta and four 911 hijackers were spotted at, of all places, the OKC National Memorial Museum by an employee who later told Emery that the five were speaking in a Middle Eastern dialect, and they had become "boisterous" inside the museum. The employee had to tell them to "Shut Up" and behave themselves or leave the premises. The five left the building immediately after calling attention to themselves.
The employee remembers the five lucidly, as in the entire history of the museum, no one had ever had to be asked to contain themselves. It was burned in the brain of the employee, and was recalled again a few days later when Atta's cold stare was shown back on National TV after the 911 attacks.
The employee allegedly tired to report the incident to authorities but was ignored.
The 911 hijackers seen by witnesses with Atta have been revealed as: Abdulaziz Alomari, Saeed Algamdi, Ahmed Alnami, and Hamza Algamdi. (pictured in order below)
On Friday, September 7th 2001 (evening) Atta and crew turn up again at an OKC bar. ( To be named at a later date, but known to be frequented by police and spooks ) The group returned to the same bar the next night. The five were drinking beer and hard liquor, dancing, and eventually picking a fight with two local patrons. (Again very high profile / anti fundamentalist behavior, not easy to forget)
Atta, according to witnesses was the ring-leader and the one picking the fight, while his four cohorts stood at the ready to jump into the fray if necessary.
Chris Emery and team were able to obtain the Credit Card receipts from that night, and have spent most of the last 18 months attempting to trace the card numbers, and the authorization of the cards themselves. This was not an easy task as you could imagine. When fellow investigators found out what information Emery was trying to obtain, most decidedly bailed on any involvement. What was discovered in the end, was that the sequence of numbers on Atta's credit card revealed a unique application only found on U.S. Government Credit cards. (Arranged such as to simplify accounting structures) Unfortunately, at this time? Any further search for information about the card was halted, mainly through a lack of resources to continue the investigation.
One card number used by Atta and crew had been EXPIRED a full six months before the September 7th and 8th dates the card was used and approved at this local Oklahoma City establishment. ( Now you try to use a credit card that is six months expired and see what happens) This transaction was approved without delay.
But? That is not all. There's more? A lot more!
What can only be deemed as Totally Damning to the case presented by the U.S Government, and the 911 Commission? A fifth hijacker, was back in this bar FOUR DAYS AFTER 911. He ordered the very same brand of hard liquor (never before sold in this bar) as had Atta. It was a unique brand of Dewers. This was also paid with another U.S. Government credit card, also 6 months expired.
On Saturday - 9/15/01 (FOUR DAYS AFTER 911!) a mutual friend of Atta (who shook Atta's hand and said something very briefly in Atta's ear about an hour after Atta picks the fight with two club patron's on Friday 9/7/01) comes back to the club with yet ANOTHER alleged hijacker identified in the photo line up as being Marwan Al Shehhi. (pictured left)
One witness notices this mutual friend of Atta and this new 'guy' are sad and somewhat depressed.
This mutual friend was a regular patron of the club for years and known by the witness as a trouble maker whom he's kicked out of the club several times.
Saturday 9/15/01 this mutual friend brings in Mr. Al-Shehhi and says "they had friends that were killed..." and within seconds of answering this witness, Mr. Al Shehhi jumps over the bar and grabs this witness by the shirt collar and wants to fight with him. The witness pushes Al Shehhi away and yells at the mutual friend "What the Hell is his problem..." or something to that effect...
The witness repeatedly said he will NEVER forget the face of Al Shehhi as it was only 12 to 18 inches away from his for a full 10 seconds before he could push him away and off the bar.
There is much more to this amazing story which we will reveal in the coming days and weeks on DEADLINE LIVE and at www.jackblood.com
The purpose of this article is to lay a foundation to add evidence on top of. The Emery team, including blogger and radio host Andrew Griffin at www.reddirtreport.com will be doing everything they can, along with myself, to see this story through and to hopefully find some sympathetic reporters in the Main Stream Media. We are also seeking honest persons in law enforcement to follow up on leads we currently have.
At some point, like in every story? The search for truth itself becomes the headline.
We are asking you, the people of the USA, citizens of the world, and truth seekers everywhere to help get this story out as is, and to help circulate every new addition to the story as they come out.
JACK BLOOD is a syndicated talk radio host with the Genesis Communications Network. DEADLINE LIVE is also heard online on www.wtprn.com, and www.revereradio.net Monday - Friday (4pm - 6pm EDT) More information at www.jackblood.com
More info on Chris Emery and Holland Van den Nieuwenhof can be found at www.okcbombing.net and they, along with Andrew Griffin of www.reddirtreport.com host a live talk radio show every Saturday at 6pm CST: THE RED DIRT REPORT / RADIO FREE OKLAHOMA on www.wtprn.com
Also of note:
On the DEADLINE LIVE interview originally broadcast on July 19th 2008 - Chris Emery and team presented the date of the incident with Al Shehhi as Sept 21 2001. This date has been corrected after re confirming with eyewitnesses to the date mentioned in the above article to Sept. 15th 2001.
The Full Original Interview Can Be Heard In The Video Below
*Ahmed Alghamdi [one of the alleged hijackers] had a namesake attend O.U. - School Year 1999 - 2000 [ Ahmed D. Alghamdi] @ 2037 W. Lindsey / Norman, OK
And School Year 2000 - 2001 [Mohammed A. Alghamdi] @ 3809 Quail Run Circle / Norman, OK - This M. Alghamdi had a cryptic email address printed in the student directory of [ abuali911@ou.edu ] .
*Atta, Alomari, Al Shehhi, Algami, and Alnami were also named by the BBC as still being alive. *Although a Brooklyn apartment lease from 1995-1996 bears Ziad Jarrah's name - and landlords there have identified his photograph - his family insists he was in Beirut at the time. *According to the Washington Post: (Link has been removed)
Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola.
Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base.
In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively.
* One of the roads to 9/11 starts in Oklahoma in 1993 when, according to the 9/11 Congressional report, Osama bin Laden's personal pilot came to Norman to train at Airman Flight School. Five years later this had become a trend, as the local office of the FBI warned of the large number of Middle Eastern men training in Oklahoma Fight schools in a memo titled, "Weapons of Mass Destruction" issued on May 15, 1998. The next year 9/11 hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, or men using those names, visited Airman Flight School once again to inquire about lessons. [Boston Globe] In September of 1999, the FBI finally got around to visiting Airman to ask about bin Laden's pilot training there six years previously. [9/11 Congressional Report]
In February of 2001 the supposed 20th hijacker, Zacharias Mossaoui, trained at Airman in Norman and lived in a University of Oklahoma Dormitory. [Oklahoma Gazette] He later moved off campus into a house he shared with Melvin Lattimore, a man with links to the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the OKC bombing. In April of that year, the FBI documents that hijacker Salem al-Hamzi was seen visiting this house. That same month another hijacker, Nawaf al-Hamzi, was issued a speeding ticket in Oklahoma so he very well may have visited this 0ff-campus terrorist party pad also. And although al-Hamzi was seen at an al-Qaeda conference in Malaysia the previous year and afterward followed to the United States by the CIA, his name did not trigger any red flags when he was pulled over. [Daily Oklahoman]
Mossaoui later went on in August to be arrested in Minnesota by the local FBI despite much interference from their superiors. His roommate Melvin Lattimore wrote letters to the editors of local papers defending Mossaoui, but neglected to mention that he himself abandoned his lease on September 10, 2001.
Melvin Lattimore is an African-American, a prison convert to radical Islam, and was going by the name of Majahid Abdulquaadir Menepta at the time. Following 9/11, he was arrested for being a felon in possession of a weapon and imprisoned for fifteen months. According to last reports, he has returned to his hometown of St. Louis a free man, despite being linked to three terrorist attacks since 1993.
Before leaving for Minnesota, Mossaoui is documented as having a meeting at the Sands Motel in Oklahoma City with lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi. This motel has proven popular among terrorists, for this same motel had been used the night prior to the OKC bombing by Tim McVeigh six years previously and had been a hang-out for Lattimore. [LA Weekly] According to Jayna Davis' The Third Terrorist, a motel employee says that McVeigh left the motel that morning with another man in the Ryder truck, the mysterious John Doe #2, which reeked of diesel fuel. Witnesses also report that McVeigh left with what appeared to be a convoy of vehicles, including another Ryder truck. [OKBIC Interviews]
In August of 2001, following Atta's and Mossaoui's meeting in OKC, a plane ticket that was used in the 9/11 attacks was purchased at an OU library computer. According to the research of Michael P. Wright, the library assistant who witnessed this transaction said a white American male purchased the ticket.
Read more about the above long standing links from OKC to 911 here: Key to the Truth in Oklahoma - 4.19.95 and 9.11.01 by Holland Van den Nieuwenhof
Several 9/11 hijackers seen in OKC prior to attacks
ACTUAL RECEIPT OBTAINED IN THIS INVESTIGATION
Posted by Rese at 07/26/2008 @ 12:04pm
Did it ever occur to you... Mary... that the politicization of everything under the sun might be problematic from a constitutional perspective?
At the very least, it exposes political hacks...
At the very most... it exposes the initiators and benefactors of the most insidious 'coup de tat' in United States history...
The truly amazing thing is... you actually believe your basic impetus is patriotism.... when in fact... you pervert the obvious 'civics class' meanings inherent in the US constitution... to suit the 'takeover' you so ardently support.
Your posts are more revealing than you think... but it's really the 'timing of your persistence' that is the dead giveaway...
Posted by ttr at 07/26/2008 @ 12:06pm
I can't believe I watched a whole ballgame and you folks are still here arguing about an impeachment that will never take place. Not because Dubya doesn't deserve it but because the dems aren't smart enough to pull it off and they don't want to anyway. Talk about a waste of time.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 10:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I cant believe your life is so worthless that you watched a ballgame, and then returned here to spew your worthless vile afterward on a Friday night. Then you return on Saturday morning to do the same.
I rarely post here anymore because of all the trolls, and the threads seem dominated by righties trying to defend Bush or the prospect of a McCain presidency. Frank, if I remember correctly was a Hillary supporter, and prior to that....I think had a child that was serving in Iraq. Sorry, but anyone who was anti-Bush......then flipped to Hillary.....and now talks like a Bush-apologist and a McCain supporter.....either has multiple personalities, or is extremely confused about the world we live in.
Posted by jpolston at 07/26/2008 @ 1:00pm
ALL SHOULD BE AWARE that the House Democrats did not allow this preliminary Impeachment Hearing Today Out Of The Goodness Of Their Hearts or Because of Any Particular Group's Lobbying.
There is only one dynamic that has changed recently.
The Democrats are afraid of massive voter retribution in the November Election. They are afraid of losing their jobs and their power, and the perks that go with it.
The Voters have recently and loudly told the House Democrats that we are sick and tired of their stonewalling on holding Bush and Cheney accountable. After My Democrats took over, the polls show that Congress's positive rating dropped to the single digits, the lowest in history. The refusal of the House Democrats to stop the Iraq War and Impeach is unforgiveable. We put you in office and if you do not hold Full Impeachment Hearings prior to the Election we will un-elect you.
In Colorado We Democrats, Independents, Republicans and others are currently doing negative campaigning against all incumbent House/Senate Candidates who have refused to support and even discuss impeachment. If the House Democrats do not immediately announce the date of the first full impeachment hearing scheduled prior to the election, we will greatly increase our negative campaigning. Your job is yours to lose. You have our support only if you hold serious full impeachment hearings before the election.
John H Kennedy Denver CO 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to Denver County Conv, organizer of the IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION http://ImpeachCO.com
Posted by JohnHKennedy at 07/26/2008 @ 1:03pm
Posted by JohnHKennedy at 07/26/2008 @ 1:03pm
The dems in power are indeed afraid of losing their jobs..and thats why you lefty loons from the kook section are being ignored and given only lip service for they know that is all you will respond to...
...if they go for impeachement with months left in the Bush presidency the public will throw out the dems for being complete boobs and pandering...and to pander to those on the looney left, such as those here..the dems will not do, for there are not enough of you to make a difference and you are expendable after the election.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/26/2008 @ 1:18pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1EXKLVgEx0
Posted by Rese at 07/26/2008 @ 1:21pm
This piece is nothing but Marxist rants. It rehashes old news stories that have already exonerated the Bush administration, and were proven to be nothing but partisan politics. It mainly quotes the proclaimed Marxist like Kucinich, Hinchey, and Lee some of the stupidest people in Congress. The uses of misinformation is the only thing way this writer can make his point. Bush was not the first to declare A person an "enemy combatant." It is not something that can just be used against anyone. Habeas corpus has NEVER been given to enemy combatants, and IS not part of the Geneva Convention (GC). Terrorist are not covered by the GC because they do not wear uniforms and cannot be connected to a specific government. Iraq HAD used poison gas (weapon of mass destruction) on its own people, and never proved that it had destroyed this gas. It had enough yellow cake to make a thousand bombs and scientist specializing in making nuclear weapons; several suicide vest factories with hundreds of suicide vest were found; Saddam was killing 200,000 Iraqis a year, yet the left makes is sound like we invade the Vatican. The Administration did not spy on Americans. It spied on suspected terrorist and every 90 days its actives were reviewed by select members of congress. Funny how this yellow journalist left that out. This writer is a Marxist hack spreading misinformation to take the focus of a failing Congress that wants to grow bigger. Remember Bush's approval rating is about 38%, Congress is less that 9%.
Posted by Exton1 at 07/26/2008 @ 1:26pm
SEE
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 2:10pm
Wonder if it has anything to do with even Faux Woos the hsuB/cHeney dic'tator propaganda woos wing being outed and began giving more realistic numbers:
PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in national polls
Poll/date_________Approve_Disapprove_Unsure
FOX/OpDy 7/22-23/08___27______66______7
FOX/OpDy 6/17-18/08___ 29______64______7
Quinnipiac 7/8-13/08____ 26______67______6
Quinnipiac 5/8-12/08____ 28______67______5
LA T/Blmbrg 6/19-23/08 _ 23______73______4
LA T/Blmbrg 2/21-25/08 _ 34______62______4
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
And McCave starts siding with Obama, like he was always a follower-- just hadn't picked the right one to follow...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 3:19pm
"..if they go for impeachement with months left in the Bush presidency the public will throw out the dems for being complete boobs and panderin"
i don't know about you, but i don't know a *single* person who doesn't wanna see these guys in orange jump suits, doing hard labor for the rest of their lives.
the natives are so incredibly restless that they have grown weary......
impeachment is the least the democrats can do.
just remember, last week john yoo was asked by john conyers: "can the president order someone buried alive?"
you did not deny that the president could.
and there you have it. the most transparently criminal administration in our history.
Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 3:36pm
CONGRESS – Job Rating in national polls
Poll/date_________Approve_Disapprove_Unsure
FOX/OpDy 7/22-23/08___21_____68_____11
ABC/W P 7/10-13/08____ 23_____71 _____ 6
AP-Ipsos 6/12-16/08_____23_____72_____0
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 10-13, 2008. N=1,119 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their job?"
Date________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure
7/10-13/08_____35_______57_______8
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their job?"
Date________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure
7/10-13/08_____25_______69_______6
http://www.pollingreport.com/
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 3:39pm
Generic Congressional Vote
Poll______Date_______Dems__Repubs__Dif
Pew 06/18 - 06/29_______52_____37____-15
Rasm 07/07 - 07/13______46_____36____-10
ABC /W P 06/12 - 06/15___53_____38____-15
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 3:48pm
Wrong, Common Article 3 applies to all persons. There has to be a competent tribunal to determine whether they are, in fact, spies and saboteurs.
Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 10:33am
yes, a tribunal is required. However, Geneva as noted below does not specify when such a tribunal must occur. It leaves it up to the detaining power to make that determination. It is open ended as a matter of fact.
So the Bush Admin is in full compliance on this issue as I noted previously.
ARTICLE 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 3:52pm
Rassmussen Reports (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/339253)
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.
Posted by Exton1 at 07/26/2008 @ 4:00pm
Remember Bush's approval rating is about 38%, Congress is less that 9%.
Posted by Exton1 at 07/26/2008 @ 1:26pm
NOT.
People approve of the way dems vote in congress by 46-50+%, compared to repubs' vote mid-upper 30%.
Congressional repubs have higher negs and lower approvals than dems by 10-15%.
If you separate out congressional dems, they have an overall 5-10% better approval rating than does the hsuB dic'.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 4:01pm
Posted by Exton1 at 07/26/2008 @ 4:00pm
One singular poll does not create the averages nor give an accurate picture. That's why I post several polls and you only post one.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 4:04pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 3:52pm
"such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Yes, Brunowe, and in fact we have tribunals. They are called courts martial, and they can be convened summarily, on the battlefield if necessary. And since many of the terrorists you seem so eager to protect have no problem telling anyone who will listen that the instant they are released they will start slitting throats for Allah, it's a pretty easy call.
And yes, I know, you don't really want to protect terrorists. The real point of your agenda is to pick up any random cudgel that you think might be useful in damaging the Administration, and if it ends up helping terrorists, that's just the breaks, right?
Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 4:05pm
It makes sense that McCave has stopped following hsuB and is now following Obama too. Obama is a leader; McCave is not.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 4:08pm
"on the battlefield if necessary"
what battlefield? according to the administration, the entire globe is part of the "battlefield", and the timeline for battle is indefinite.
"The real point of your agenda is to pick up any random cudgel that you think might be useful in damaging the Administration, and if it ends up helping terrorists, that's just the breaks, right?"
right. sure.
Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 4:09pm
The only reason dems haven't already impeached hsuB/cHeney is that there are still too many dic'tator worshipping new con repubs in congress.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 4:11pm
pontificus, liberty, and jomamma are truly extraordinary. they are actually using their free time to defend the most transparently criminal administration in our nation's history.
" Terrorist are not covered by the GC because they do not wear uniforms and cannot be connected to a specific government"
uh, according to the last two supreme court decisions on the issue, you are dead wrong.
Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 4:12pm
"Marxist"?!?!
Good Lord it goes from bad to worse around here. Someone bring back "frank". His ridiculous idiocy was probably a notch better than this abysmal idiocy that seems to show up afterwards.
Where do people get this crap in their heads that they spout?
Posted by Zero at 07/26/2008 @ 4:23pm
Zero, you're on target here. The righties think calling folk slimy or radical leftist or Marxis