Uh...Mark. Bush isn't running for president. Therefore---Mark---so what?

Also---Mark---who's your audience? If it's me, I voted for him twice but now can't wait to see him out of office and off the teeeveee, but I'll still vote for the most conservative Repub' I can find---Mark :)

Because---mark---I am sooo peeved by hit pieces on Conserves' that there is no Conserve', now, who can do any wrong at all. See? Mark? Nothing.

I was with you until the next-to-last 'graf, Mark.

I'm middle class, and I'm most decidedly NOT struggling. I'm not getting rich, but I'm not trying to, either.

I don't know anybody who considers themselves middle class and who feels they're struggling, either.

If you're buying oceanfront property in the mountains of West Virginia, don't pay too much for it; there are two chances that it ever will be oceanfront: slim and none, and slim just left town.

Even the most wild-eyed "scientist" isn't predicting a rise in the oceans of more than twenty feet, and it probably won't happen before this Christmas.

We've been hated around the world since I was a kid, and I'm no spring chicken. The rich always are hated by the have-nots.

On a personal level, I don't go out of my way to irritate or annoy people (well, maybe some of them), but I don't really care if people like me either, particularly if I have to change to conform to their idea of what I should be like in order for them to do so.

I think we as a nation should do the same; one doesn't have to be loved to be a good person.

Neither does a country.

Mr. Bush seems to be taking all this pretty well. He's probably laughing about all the stupid critisms and poll figures.

Nobody critisizing him has anything better to offer. When it comes time to vote, congress totally backs his war policies.

The Republican 'desertions' mean absolutly NOTHING.

Glad to see you're back commenting again, Les (meant to say so the other day).

I always enjoy reading (and sometimes responding to) your comments, because you're one of the few on BC who usually has a unique perspective, even if I don't always agree with you. This time (#3), I do.

In short, you make me think more than most.

Welcome back.

excuse me but I think you've mispelled "I am a complete idiot"

OK...first:

Lowest approval rating since Julius Caesar? I hope you are joking.

second: Talk about the approval rating of your Democratic ran Congress. Bush's approval rating is as twice as high as Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid.

Third: The Supreme Court is ultra Conservative and the only supporters of Bush? Man, where are you from?

Anthony aka Hardcore Conservative

Anthony;
What are doing out of the Marines and back from Iraq already? Did you get wounded over there?
- MCH

Hey MCH...you have a great memory.

I went Army instead of Marines. I went to boot camp last summer then came back for my senior year in high school. Now I am shipping out for Interrogator school in Arizona on Aug 7.

So I am here to annoy you for another month.

Anthony

Interesting.

It's not called "boot camp" in the Army as I recall, Anthony. What is it called again? I've forgotten.

you can't get into the Army without a diploma or a GED

"interrogator school"?? what the fuck is the MOS for that?

the AG story, changes every time, and facts get made up as required..like the rating for Reid and Pelosi (both of whom are idiots) being half that of W's 29%

pure bullshit

Excelsior?

Mr. Bush may be laughing about all the criticism and the poll numbers, but I'll bet Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, John Sununu, Mike Voinovich, Norm Coleman and even Pete Domenici aren't. I'll also bet the 28 Republican congressional incumbents who squeaked by with less than a 3% margin in 2004 aren't laughing much either. These folks would like to keep their lucrative careers going.

Well, I see nothing has changed since a year ago when I left.

As was talking so non-military folks would understand.

I went to Army Basic Training last summer and the MOS I am going to train for is 97E - Human Intelligence Collector. I will be leaving for Fort Huachuca, Az in August.

Anthony

"... but I'll bet Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, John Sununu, Mike Voinovich, Norm Coleman and even Pete Domenici aren't."

And that is the only reason some repubs are taking public distance from the current administration and its policies. It means absolutely NOTHING of substance.

And oh yeah...Gonzo

As long as you are on track with you credits you can join the Army as a 17 year old Junior. It is part of the new split-option program.

Anthony

The AFP story acknowledged that Congress is unlikely to act on impeachment, although that's a mystery as well. What do they have to do? Have sex with interns or something?

I think I have the answer to this one. They have to commit 'high crimes and misdemeanors' as laid out in the Constitution (you've heard of that, right). That means knowingly breaking the law. It doesn't mean having an arguable interpretation of a law which some on the left don't like. It doesn't mean having low poll numbers or a creepy vice president.

All of those advocating impeachment are missing a key step in the process. You have to have a crime first - even if it's just participating in a coverup or perjury - then you can pursue impeachment.

Dave

The Republican 'desertions' mean absolutly NOTHING.

No, Les. They mean something very specific. They mean an election is coming up.

Dave

thanks for the info, AG

is the profile for the MOS, good luck

shows they have lowered the standards and changed the rules if they will take students who have not even graduated yet... times have indeed changed since i was inserv

keep your head down, and if you want to excel, learn Farsi

nuff said

Excelsior?

shows they have lowered the standards and changed the rules if they will take students who have not even graduated yet...times have indeed changed since i was inserv

That's not all that new a practice. I know of at least one person who entered under a similar program more than a decade ago, where you did training in your Junior year and committed to join and then actually joined after graduation. And remember, there used to be high-school ROTC too.

Dave

Just went into gonzo's link to the Army MOS list, and the first thing I found was typical Army:

"In this section we have seperated (sic)...

Army hasn't changed in the last 40 years - it's still a wonder they can even find the enemy, let alone fight them.

No wonder, it's operated by the gummint...

Thanks Gonzo...did you miss comment #12. You must have missed it because I posted again after that.

I was just talking so non military folks would know what I was talking about.

And yeah I believe the Army is lowering its standards. In Basic Traing I met alot of people who I believe to be too inmature to be wearing the uniform.

Learing another language was why I chose 97E but I was dissapointed to see they recently removed the language requirement. I heard a lucky few still get to go to the language school in Monterrey.

What was your MOS?

Anthony

President (Republican) Job Approval:

Newsweek 07/02 - 07/03 Approve 26% Disapprove 65%
Rasmussen 06/28 - 06/30 36% 61%
CBS News 06/26 - 06/28 27% 65%
FOX News 06/26 - 06/27 31% 60%

That's pretty ugly...

Congress (Democrat) Job Approval:

BS News 06/26 - 06/28 Approve 27% Disapprove 60%
Newsweek 06/18 - 06/19 25% 63%
Gallup 06/11 - 06/14 24% 71%

That's even worse...

Comment #17:

Thank you, Dave. What exactly would these "articles of impeachment" say?

"We don't like Bush, and we dislike Cheney even more, and they are lying liars who lied their way into a war that we mostly voted for, based on pretty much the same intelligence the guys we want to impeach were looking at"?

If you want to impeach the President, a better bet would be the fact that he has left our borders undefended, almost six years after 9/11...

i was Navy, AG...and started in one field, was injured and finished my time doing something else, wound up getting out after 4 years rather than 6 due to medical and political reasons

but that's not important

like i said, good luck, keep your head down..and take advantage of the one thing you are certain to get out of the experience...learning about more than what's right in front of you

nuff said

Excelsior!

Thank you for the advice. It is much appreciated.

Anthony

Of course he won't be impeached, but the President admitted on television that he repeatedly approved spying on people without proper judicial authority, each count of which is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

and i quote - "You have to have a crime first - even if it's just participating in a coverup or perjury - then you can pursue impeachment."

soOOooOOoo...if you commute/pardon someone convicted of perjury and obstruction, and investigation shows this was to prevent investigators/prosecutors from finding out your link to the obstruction..thus making you an accessory , would that be enough?

not certain myself...and would normally be content to allow time to play it's course and an election to solve the problem, as usual

but there's military personnel dying over some of this...thus creating a bit of urgency, and need for clarity

so the entire circumstance surrounding the whole Libby thing, among other issues, needs to be investigated completely...in order to either hold those who have committed "high crimes" accountable...or to clear any shadow or stain from said people and just leave incompetence

enough out of me, too much typing spent already

take care folks...

Excelsior!

Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury, correct? In an investigation of a leak about an "undercover" CIA agent?

But that CIA agent wasn't really "undercover," and therefore the person who actually leaked her name and position to the media - Dick Armitage - was never charged with anything. Correct?

So...you have an investigation about a non-crime that uncovers who committed that non-crime almost immediately, and yet continues to investigate this non-crime for years in order to convict someone, anyone, of a technicality. And so they got Scooter Libby.

(Gee, didn't BJ Clinton lie under oath? And isn't that perjury? And isn't perjury a felony? Why didn't BJ Clinton get sentenced to any prison time? Why didn't he have to pardon himself, like he pardoned the fugitive criminal Marc Rich, whose ex-wife just happened to donate a large sum to BJ Clinton's library?)

Bush didn't even pardon Libby. Libby is still a convicted felon. Bush merely commuted his sentence so that Libby does not have to rot in a federal prison for 30 months over a technicality because an over-zealous prosecutor couldn't find anyone else to indict.

RJ...CIA says Plame was covert, look it up

"underlying crime" is fucking moot, since it was perjury , lying to the FBI, and obstruction of justice that Scooter was charged with, and convicted of..by a jury, in front of a judge appointed by W and prosecuted by an attorney appointed by W

as for Clinton..he was an ass who also did fucked up shit, but he was never charged nor convicted of perjury now , was he? and to fuck you with your own "logic" where was the underlying crime there? what conviction? please cite the conviction for an "underlying crime" or Clinton's conviction by a jury....good luck with that...Slick Willie was a shit, i heartily agree...but lying about a blowjob is a world of difference than a war

this whole thing about a "non-crime" is bullshit, perjury and obstruction ARE crimes..and the lawyer who represented Marc Rich knew that..you know who that was right? it was Scooter... for a WH official to commit the crimes Libby was convicted of in the course of an investigation is a crime..ask Halderman,Erlichman and the rest...

so spare us the talk radio bullshit spin, ok?"

when did ya become soft on crime there RJ?

or did you forget that the folks you are calling "overzealous" were all part and parcel of the GOP and appointed by W and company?

nothing's changed around here, partisan bullshit never ending, and some people still can't see or agree on fucking objective facts

been a nice visit, thanks for reminding me why i find nothing but futility here...

for those even attempting to defend Libby.

Excelsior!

Of course he won't be impeached, but the President admitted on television that he repeatedly approved spying on people without proper judicial authority, each count of which is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Except, Leslie, that this is your interpretation, not his. What he believes is that first off, the kind of spying which was done is not the kind of spying specified in the 1978 FISA act which is rather out of date, and second off that the in the absence of clear legal restrictions - FISA not being clear enough - he can do whatever the hell he wants.

Dave

soOOooOOoo...if you commute/pardon someone convicted of perjury and obstruction, and investigation shows this was to prevent investigators/prosecutors from finding out your link to the obstruction..thus making you an accessory , would that be enough?

But Libby was pardonned after the investigation was over, and his pardon doesn't prevent him from being questioned further or from being a witness. I don't see how it can be part of a coverup in any meaningful way. Plus he's not even the primary leaker, and no one has done anything to protect Armitage.

Dave

the two comments above prove my point for me...

first one - W's warrantless wiretapping indeed does violate the FISA laws in many specific ways, time will tell if the spineless Dems have the balls to push this one, especially after the current case was rejected by the appeals court (second appeal) due to their ruling that the ones brining suit had no standing since they could not prove they were directly harmed, since the WH won't release any records...nice Catch-22 they have going there...also since Gonzalez keeps his job by not allowing anyone to pursue anything against the Administration...

the second is either intentionally obtuse or pretty naive... without jail time hanging over Scooter's head, he can just wait until the last day of W's administration for getting his full pardon...no pressure can really be placed on him...he can continue to plead the 5th while in appeals, which will last until long after W is out of office, and like i predict..last day pardon

but it's the whole "he can do whatever he wants" bit that galls me, and shows the mentality of some folks...

we are supposed to be a Nation founded on the Rule of Law, not Men...this Administration has made a consistent mockery of that, with help from the rest of the GOP, and some spineless Dems

one can only Hope that the ass-whuppin' delivered last November is only a precursor for what will come in November '08...and that when the Dems fuck up afterwards that "We the People" will wise up and rise up...

but i ain't gonna hold my breath, or waste it any further on deaf ears....

for Vox

Excelsior!

Dave, #16

"...They mean an election is coming up."

And my contention is that there is absolutely NO difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on the war question. Which party in the executive seat, or who controls congress, will be meaningless in any fundamental way.

The individual desertions are only concerned with their own lousy asses and the club (party) that gives them membership to the feeding trough.

To think otherwise is only a delusion.

Les

Well, Dave, of course we know he hasn't been convicted of anything, so yes, by definition this is my "interpretation" of the crime. Of course, he will have a defense. I'm saying this was a crime that he could easily be convicted of if evidence were produced and a trial held.

Dave, FISA is not out of date. This is a lie put forth by the administration. Congress passed a comprehensive overhaul of FISA in Oct. 2001 at the behest of the White House, adjusting the requirements to allow for technologies like cell phones and satellites and the Internet, and siginificantly lowering the proof threshhold for getting warrants.

The idea that FISA is some relic of the Carter era that has never been updated is just one of the obvious lies that the Bushies have tried to tell us, but that those of us who can read will never fall for.

I agree with Les #32.

But, I will probably continue to vote as If I didn't.

Talk about an exercise in futility...

Gonzo demonstrates once again that he and I have different philosophies of the function of the executive in a government of divided powers. As I've said before, I share the belief of the founders of this nation that the role of the executive is to challenge the limits of the law in an effort to exert executive power and that it's the role of the courts and legislature to impose clear barriers to that exercise of power. Gonzo doesn't have the same faith as I do in the balance of powers and thinks the legislature ought to basically rule all.

And do keep in mind that in #29 I was making the administration's argument, not mine. I think FISA is completely unconstitutional and ought to be struck down by the Supreme court. The protection of the rights of citizens ought to be absolute, not qualified by FISA, and foreign nationals outside the US have no rights under our Constitution at all.

Dave

The thing that continues to baffle me is, what did the WH hope to accomplish by outing Plame? It meant nothing that Wilsons wife was in the CIA.

If this is an example of administration strategy no wonder we are losing in Iraq, a war that should have been a walkover. No wonder OBL got away.

We truly have a government by boneheads who can't even perform their betrayals adroitly.

Bliffle, are you saying 'no motive, no crime'?

Dave

Dave, you were, as you say, giving the administration's defense (mostly identical to the losing one in Hamdan) in #29, but earlier you (as Dave, or at least Vox) rather derisively asked for a crime upon which Bush could be impeached. That's it. I looked it up. Title 50 Chapter 36 Subsection 1: 1809:

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally--
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

I still know Bush won't be impeached, but the public should know that the President admitted proudly on TV that he broke the law over and over again.

Leslie, let me focus on what I think is the administration's strongest argument. To wit, that data mining is not actually 'electronic surveillance' as defined by the bill. It's certainly not unreasonable to suggest that there's a difference between listening to someone's phonecall and having a machine sort through phonecalls for words and phrases.

And the real key to it all is that the president's argument doesn't have to be a winning argument in court, it just has to be plausible enough that he can say that he was operating under reasonable legal advice absent any specific court ruling.

Dave

You have to be kidding!

For a retarded guy with absolutely no skills and a mean streak almost as wide as the yellow stripe down his back, being The Decider has been--and will continue to be--a great gig.

He has received a salary for committing crimes against humanity and for being one of the worst players of Risk on the planet (that game was designed for folks with a little higher IQs).

He has been able to feel up the shoulders of European heads of state, and travel to summits with an entourage that includes bulletproof limos and which would have made Idi Amin (RIP) drool with envy.

What does he care if folks don't like him. [Edited] he has made a lifestyle out of being an asshole.

When he leaves office some publisher will pay him a few million to tell a hack "journalist" [Edited] about all the childish pranks he played in the White House that YOUR tax dollars financed.

Clav

Most middle class Americans are in debt up to the wazoo. Not sure if that is a type of struggle in your opinion.

Dave

Some people think that lying and selling the WMD story to the world and causing the death of hundreds of thousands including 3605 Americans and 35557 wounded Americans is criminal. 2974 people lost their lives on 9/11 and we are searching vehemently for Bin Laden. What of the murderers of the Iraqis and our soldiers?

Dave:
The adminstration has never advanced this legal argument. In ACLU v NSA, they argued that the President's powers in this area cannot be restricted by Article II, and that the AUMF gives him authority to break the law. Both arguments were rejected by a federal court. In the ACLU decision, the illegality of the program was referred to repeatedly as "undisputed."

In the more recent case, they successfully argued that since the program was secret, there is no way to know whether the parties were spied upon and hence have standing to sue.

Some people think that lying and selling the WMD story to the world and causing the death of hundreds of thousands including 3605 Americans and 35557 wounded Americans is criminal.

Yes, Zedd. But those people spend too much time gazing at their navels, braiding their armpit hair and hiring feng shui consultants for anyone to take them seriously. Sensible people know where the real blame in Iraq lies and it's certainly not with the US.

Dave

Dave,

How do YOU define 'sensible people'?

Les

Zedd,

Everyone in the USA is in debt. This economy operates on debt, but that doesn't mean everyone's struggling.

Those who have gotten into too much debt (i.e. beyond their means) may well be "struggling," but those who handle their money well and live within their means aren't "struggling," but DO have mortgages and car and boat loans, etc.
As I said above, nobody I KNOW is "struggling," but probably all of them have at least a home mortgage debt.

And I don't believe that "Most middle class Americans are in debt up to the wazoo."

Leslie, you should read ACLU vs. NSA. While it does find that the administration violated FISA it doesn't assess any penalty or criminality in that regard. Instead it defines where the dividing line between various surveillance activities is. What it does is declare data mining without a warrant to be legal under FISA, but affirms that pursuing those leads further in the form of actual wiretaps requires a warrant. It's also important to note that the ruling has never been implemented and is currently suspended pending appeal.

The main problem with the ruling is that it doesn't address the key constitutional issue raised over FISA which is that FISA is an unconstitutional infringement of the powers given to the president to wage war and gather data necessary for national defense, as established in the constitution and defined more specifically in several subsequent court cases.

Dave

and i quote - "While it does find that the administration violated FISA..." - the rest of the quote can be found in comment #47

now, the FISA provisions are federal Law, written and passed in accordance with the Constitution, violating them is breaking a Federal law, a "high crime" by definition

and the "key Constitutional issue" here is not about an Administration's ability to do what it wants during a War, NO FUCKING WAR has been declared by Congress, whis IS the Law as it stands, now isn't it?

the Constitutional issue is the 4th Amendment, which i will quote

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

so, no legally issued Warrant, then it becomes a clear violation of the Constitution, FISA was enacted into Law to cover certain gaps in National Security concerns while still upholding the Warrant requirement of the Constitution.

trying to argue against the clear reasoning and facts applicable appears to stand in direct violation of not only the Spirit , but the Letter of the Law and the Constitution

and a President who not only knowing commits such acts, but readily admits it to the public on National TV multiple times, does indeed incriminate himself to having committed a "high crime", no matter what the weasels and Apologists might say to try and spin it their way

the Tao of D'oh

Excelsior!

I love the Rule of Law...it is so very objective and efficient at holding the bad guys to account

ooOOOooOOooo...now now troll, Sarcasm might be too much for some folks

good to *see* ya olde Friend

Excelsior!

y tu tambien

geeze Anthony - careful son...that can be a fucked up job

remember to remember - 'ends don't justify means'

you're the one you've been looking for...and have to spend the rest of your life with

The indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson. He also was charged with perjury and making false statements to FBI agents.

The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around the same issues, among possible others.

Former President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when he said, "I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative--it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime."

The American people must know this important truth: This indictment is about a cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq.

You mean specifically as it applies to surveilling foreign nationals outside US soil? Then, yes, I think it's extraconstitutional and hence unconstitutional. But I think reasonable judicial review is a proper, Constitutional separation of powers.

All that's true about judge Taylor's in-limbo, fragile, sort-of ruling, but the fact remains that she did find, as you allow, that the adminsitration violated the law, and so I think I do indeed deserve whatever prize was offered for a poster who could produce an actual crime on which to impeach Bush.

I cannot help but point out also, not that you or anyone else ever held up the President as a paragon of truth or anything, but W said:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

The level of deceit that Bush has slipped to is would be embarrassing if the man were capable of being embarassed.

Dave, BTW, your man Ron Paul was hilarious and on the money on Stephanopolous this morning, and so was Mike Gravel. The honesty and forthrightness of both stand in stark contrast to the outright, routine lies told by Bush and his representatives (Tony Snow on Libby commutation: "This decision was not political"... true story!), Hillary "I relied on my prayer squad" Clinton, Fred "Nixon Mole" Thompson, Rudy "You've devoted your life to weasels" Guiliani, and the rest of this depressing, cynical group of scumbags.

Do people know what a patriot Gravel was during the Vietnam War? His role in ending the draft? His role in the Pentagon Papers dealio?

Do people know Paul is the only truly anti-war candidate? That he had the stones to vote against the Patriot Act because he knew it violated the Constitution? Why are these guys fringe candidates, and the guy from Law and Order is mainstream? Well, in Gravel's case, it's because of that video where he throws the rock in the water.

I never thought I'd see the day when I said this...

but...

Anthony Grande, if you're still watching this thread, you seem to have grown up a great deal since we last saw you. Color this "hardcore liberal" impressed.

Good luck. Make sure you come back alive.

Michael, Agree completely with you about Anthony. One can be an ultra-conservative and still have respectful, civil disagreements with ultra-liberals.

Good luck & take care over there.

And bring plenty of Jameson...because,

In Jameson Veritas

All I have to say is FRED!08

Bush is laughing because the American voters didn't give congress enough of a majority to get anything done, thus his fondest wish has come true...

He can trash this country, put billions in his defense contract cronie's pockets, and get away with it because congress' hands are tied with no power to override vetoes, nor a majority to get the bastard impeached.

Of course most of the American public can't figure that little concept out, or don't care, they just know that the Dems are supposed to have the majority, so they get the blame that nothing's getting done instead of King George and his veto pen.

There's a very good reason for his everpresent smirk... he won the last election, even if the GOP didn't. He's having a ball blaming the dems and diverting the real cause of our national problems.... him

"He now has the honor of having the lowest ratings for the longest period of any president since Julius Caesar in Rome"

Actually, what got Julius Caesar assassinated was the fear that he was becoming too popular, and was intending to crown himself king. The senate took action, and was rewarded with... Augustus, the first Roman emperor.

Troll, Gonzo, Anthony, and Jet are back?

Panic in the streets!

Actually I've always been here, I've just been helping tu set up the BC forum page...

@ Baronius - pondering it, check the last comment here for some details, and i'll be glad to discuss it there with any interested

Excelsior?

If you think Bush, or the current Supreme Court is "ultra-conservative", you really don't know what conservative means. Bush is a moderate, always has been. The Supreme Court is nominally conservative, in that, it at least attempts to judge the constitution by what it actually says.

That and with Congress' approval a full 10 points below Bush, it appears that it really isn't policy or partisanship that is driving the numbers, but voters just fed up with politicians in general.

Find me ANY voter that's happy. You'll find that almost every voter of every political stripe has got plenty to be fed up about.

John, trying to claim that the Congressional approval rating is a full 10 points below Bush's does not jibe with even the poll citings that RJ uses in this thread

"President (Republican) Job Approval:

Newsweek 07/02 - 07/03 Approve 26% Disapprove 65%
Rasmussen 06/28 - 06/30 36% 61%
CBS News 06/26 - 06/28 27% 65%
FOX News 06/26 - 06/27 31% 60%

That's pretty ugly...

Congress (Democrat) Job Approval:

BS News 06/26 - 06/28 Approve 27% Disapprove 60%
Newsweek 06/18 - 06/19 25% 63%
Gallup 06/11 - 06/14 24% 71%

if you look at the same sources for the same dates in the data quoted, you will see the approval ratings about the same (well within the margin of error) and the disapproval a bit higher for POTUS

but 10 points? ..please cite your source, otherwise i must call bullshit on that claim

Excelsior?

"i must call bullshit on that claim"

Polls - any polls are nothing but bullshit...

fair enough Clavos...but that doesn't change the fact that if you are going to cite something about polling data...one should be accurate concerning said data, yes?

it was that and not the data itself i was referring to as bullshit...

but you knew that

Excelsior?

I REPEAT, the general public doesn't understand that though the Democrats have the majority in concress, they don't have ENOUGH of a majority to override Bush...

Therefore Bush wins.

The American People have no one but their ignorance of politics and how vetos work to blame for their outrage at congress.

Bush is laughing because the American voters didn't give congress enough of a majority to get anything done, thus his fondest wish has come true...

He can trash this country, put billions in his defense contract cronie's pockets, and get away with it because congress' hands are tied with no power to override vetoes, nor a majority to get the bastard impeached.

Of course most of the American public can't figure that little concept out, or don't care, they just know that the Dems are supposed to have the majority, so they get the blame that nothing's getting done instead of King George and his veto pen.

There's a very good reason for his everpresent smirk... he won the last election, even if the GOP didn't. He's having a ball blaming the dems and diverting the real cause of our national problems.... him

John, when you're used to a Supreme Court that makes up laws whole-hog, a Court that pays attention to the Constitution and separation of powers seems ultra-conservative. It's going to take people years to understand the actual role of the Court. (It's never occurred to three or four of its own members.)

There is such a thing as an activist conservative judge. I don't think we've had any on the SCOTUS. Thomas is far more aggressive than the others in terms of breaking precedent, but only in pursuit of original intent. He's no activist. I think Senator Brownback is an activist conservative. He's more interested in how the Court rules than how it arrives at its rulings.

From what I've noticed, the Roberts court has been non-activist. So does that make them conservative or, even more dreadful, ultra-conservative? No. The Court could have six Communists, two white supremicists, and Ross Perot, as long as they're originalists.

Jet, of course you know I dont agree with your current comment. Im just glad to see your around. What's the latest on your health situation?
Take care. sr

Just a reminder to #s 55 and 56;
He still hasn't gone anywhere yet.
- MCH

So, MCH, let me see if I've got this right. You're calling yourself REMF now, but signing your name MCH, and you occasionally use the handle MBD in replies to MCH, and you make fun of Vox Nalle? Sure, why not? From now on, I'm going to sign in as Gonzo Moon, but of course that's only my opinion...

Yes, I did know that, gonzo.

My point was that arguing about the accuracy of someone's citation of bullshit is...

Clavos

Nobody you KNOW will tell you that they are living above their means and are heavily in debt and struggling.

That is what reports indicate. Americans are heavily in debt and don't convey their plight because by virtue of the fact that they are so much in debt, it says that they are living a false reality. A small percent are in debt because of health care issues but a large majority simply over spend.

Dave

I'm not sure what sort of response that was (re: navel lint and arm pit hair references). I don't think that you've made a clear argument about why its not our fault that we are in a war that we started under false pretenses when the rest of the world was saying don't do it.

Now who is to blame?

Dave let me see if I can help. If I bust into your fortified compound today with a Humvee, leaving your gates and doors wide open, destroy your security alarm system, take your weapons away, bust the windows and blow some of the roof off, would you simply blame the thieves who would SURELY come in to help themselves to your valuables or would you blame me for the losses in your home?

"Nobody you KNOW will tell you that they are living above their means and are heavily in debt and struggling."

True, Zedd, not voluntarily, but it's very easy to look at all kinds of clues given off by the people you know, to determine whether or not they're in debt over their heads. And actually, a surprising number of people are quite open about that kind of thing, so yes, I have an excellent general idea of what financial situation most of the people I know are in.

As far as my customers are concerned, I know EXACTLY what their financial status is BEFORE I get too far into doing business with them.

That pretty much covers the people I know.

don't forget to mention you are a yacht salesman there Clavos...

so, by your own statement, the folks who are qualified to buy yachts are in decent shape financially...

might one suggest they are a relatively small portion of the total population...top 15-20%, depending on just hwo big/expensive these yachts are, sound reasonable?

might one also suggest that using this particular demographic as any kind of reasonable representation of the much larger majority of the American public, shall we say, toss out the top and bottom 20%, leaving the middle 60% are representational for the purposes of discussing the "majority"?

in this instance, i do think that the statement that this "middle" is in debt, and that this debt is hurting in many ways...check the figures on the non-existent savings among other factors

just trying to clarify, hope that helps

Excelsior?

That's exactly why, gonzo, I separated my response into the people I know who are part of my circle of friends, vis-a-vis my clients (the people I do business with).

I myself have a pretty average middle class income, as do most of the people I hang around with; none of us feel we are struggling to get by, but by the same token none of us are driving Bentleys, either, and we live in ordinary middle class tract houses, instead of the 5,000 - 7500 square foot castles the upper middle class favors these days.

Bringing up the rate of savings in this country is a strawman, gonzo. The USA has notoriously had one of the lowest savings rates in the world for several generations; we are consumers, not savers. Every time we get a couple of bucks ahead, we go out and buy some new geegaw with it.

I'm not denying there are plenty of people struggling under a lot of debt, but most (not all) of them got themselves into that situation because of their inability to resist the urge to buy shit they don't need, including pleasure boats and enormous houses.

Actually the percentage of boats to general population in Florida, the state with most boats is something in the neighborhood of 5%, gonzo (1,000,000 boats, 18,000,000 population), but we were talking about the middle class, not the entire population.

There are LOTS of plumbers, housepainters, auto mechanics, grocery store managers, teachers, truck drivers, etc. who own boats, especially oin areas where the climate lends itself to outdoor activities.

Add in the RV and camper owners, and you have a pretty good portion of the middle class spending money on recreation. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that some of them are overextended.

not trying to give you shit, Clavos..merely stating that those who buy yachts are not indicative of the demographic being spoken of...a point we seem to both agree upon

i utilized the dismal savings rate as a comparator, looking at that data since 1980 and looking at the curve of household debt during that same time period give a bit better picture of overall fiscal health for said demographic

hence why some might easily make a reasonable claim that that middle 60% aren't doing too well by the stated metrics...not trying to assess blame for the reason, merely attempting to define the parameters for some thinking so

and yes, many of those middle folks do own boats, but not yachts, eh? that bass boat is a far cry from the beasts you sell, if i understand the definition of yacht correctly...would an apt analogy be an ATV 4 wheeler and a Humvee?...no, not quite...the 3-5 thousand for that ATV compared to what, 60-75 k for the Humvee doesn't quite scale the same...but you get the Idea

the point here is as you agreed with Zedd, most folks won't get into how hurting they are, they will put on the front and go on as best they can

another facet is that due to geographical location, income levels aren't always a solid indicator of "middle"...what's middle class in Manhattan would be upper mid/lower upper in say, Michigan

and so on

trying to make many broad generalizations about as complex a problem as fiscal matters is difficult at best...hence trying to utilize solid data as indicator of trends (how much does beer, bread and gasoline cost in adjusted dollars for example, as an indicator of purchasing power in comparative time periods, then examining wages using the same criteria)

Reagan once asked "are you doing better now than you were four years ago?"

I think folks are asking the same thing of themselves now, as a metric to judge how well the GOP stewardship of our nation has been handled since 2000...kitchen economics, yes..but the ones that "middle" understand fully

to me, that's a root to begin with, and a crucial consideration in what will drive '08, as well as how W is going to be thought of...toss in all the rest...Iraq, our standing in the World community,allegations of corruption/malfeasance (including the mere perception of same)

hence my basic agreement with the title of this Article...all the factors i mention, and more..lead me to think that it's going to get much worse for W, and our Nation

i can only hope that eventually, "We the People" can work it out, and start making it better

Excelsior?

"So, MCH, let me see if I've got this right. You're calling yourself REMF now, but signing your name MCH, and you occasionally use the handle MBD in replies to MCH, and you make fun of Vox Nalle?"
- Baronius

1) My new chops are REMF, I sign with MCH to avoid being accused of pretending to be two different people (ala Vox Populi/Dave Nalle);
2) No, I've NEVER replied to myself using the handle MBD, or any other initials;
[Edited. I've already told you we're not discussing that anymore, MCH.]
- MCH

I'm not sure what sort of response that was (re: navel lint and arm pit hair references).

i have no clear recollection of that comment. i'm sure it was fantastic in every way, however.

I don't think that you've made a clear argument about why its not our fault that we are in a war that we started under false pretenses when the rest of the world was saying don't do it.

because we are't in a war we started under false pretenses. we're in a war which started centuries ago and which we decided to get directly involved in for debatable reasons and are now stuck in because we can't figure out a way to disengage without doing a lot of harm.

Dave let me see if I can help. If I bust into your fortified compound today with a Humvee, leaving your gates and doors wide open, destroy your security alarm system, take your weapons away, bust the windows and blow some of the roof off, would you simply blame the thieves who would SURELY come in to help themselves to your valuables or would you blame me for the losses in your home?

your analogy makes no sense because you've left out essential elements of the scenario.

here's how it should go.

i'm being held hostage in my home by a gang of rapists and murderers.
the police break in and kill the guys who are holding me hostage, doing a lot of damage in the process.
then when the police pull out a bunch of looters, lawyers, insurance adjusters and social workers show up, some of them trying to steal my stuff and others trying to tell me how to rebuild and who to sue.
and every once in a while the police show up again, smack everyone around and then leave.

that's a more accurate description.

dave

i want the drugs #83 is on, because i want to know what it's like to be soOOOoOOOooOOooo delusional

Excelsior?

but gonzo, the drugs you're already on seem more than powerful enough. the drug i call reality doesn't mix well with other narcotics. it just keeps trying to reassert itself.

dave

it's like stumbling on to an AM talk-radio station and not being able to change the channel.

I'm beginning to realize why I wandered off in the first place.

Things in nature that aren't flexible (including opinions) eventually break!

Jet

here's a little story that seems appropriate in the light of our ongoing experience in the Middle East

unfortunately we couch much of our cultural knowledge in terms that we consider politically incorrect...so we avoid looking at it and become ignorant - but what else is new

could it get any worse - ?

well as Dave points out we're good and 'stuck' - but before we jam our last foot in we should look around for the fox who sees that the US is a country with the fatal conceit of a Brer Rabbit

I smell yams

Too many comments to respond to all, so I'll be selective...like it's critically important what I say, right?

Most important, it's great seeing Troll, The "new" Anthony, Jet, and Gonzo the Magnificent back. The comments in politics have been getting rather dull without them. I take full credit for this scintillating story.

Clavos, anecdotal info on the middle class won't cut it...and I'm too lazy to go find one of the myriad articles that have detailed the growing financial rift between the wealthy and the rest of the country. I'm not even sure what you call middle class; I have a friend who's a powerful patent lawyer here in D.C. whose family is worth millions. He once told me he thought of himself as middle class.

Also, the difference in attitudes towards America is more than striking--it's scary. People have always disliked most American politicos but have generally liked and respected both Americans and American values. What we're seeing is a severe loss of respect for the latter. Bush's incredibly pathetic foreign policies are now affecting attitudes America in general.

Anthony et al., Julius Caesar was joke, eh? Smile. As for Supreme Court, ultra conservative may be too strong, I admit, but 4 of them are & Kennedy's voting with them often enough to make the ultra conservatives do the happy Snoopy dance. It really does depend on your ideology, but, as a liberal justician (thanks to Ruvy), I think this court will be Bush's worst and most damaging legacy.

As for whether Busher has broken the law, we'll never agree because of the sophistry that dominates the other (evil) side of this debate. But as for Iraq, one doesn't need analogies that don't work.

Bush, Rummy, and Chainey intentionally manipulated and ignored the intelligence data, destroyed looming victory in Afghanistan by pulling our best troops out, and invaded a country with no WMD, no real ties to al Qaida, and no plan for winning the peace. They lied to Congress and the American people. They created a terrorists recruitment playground. And they've destabilized the entire Middle East.

Nice job for Republicans.

As for the bullshit around FISA, it is illegal to tap American citizens without a court order, period. Even if they're talking via cellphone to Satan, you can't wiretap without a judge saying o.k. The fact that some of them are computer monitored is just so much dog droppings. Surveillance is surveillance (even if I'm not spelling it write.)

Oy, gotta get me some of Gonzo's pills.

In Jameson Veritas

Dave

I think the problem is that you BELIEVE that we went there to police. Again Bush and Co. said we had to go because of a threat by Iraq on our security and a tie to terrorists. That was a lie. Hundreds of thousands are dead, never to walk this earth again because of their lie. That is criminal, many would say.

Zedd - until the numbers are more clearly established I don't think that you will get far that argument...some people go deaf when presented with the hundreds of thousands

Bush, Rummy, and Chainey intentionally manipulated and ignored the intelligence data, destroyed looming victory in Afghanistan by pulling our best troops out, and invaded a country with no WMD, no real ties to al Qaida, and no plan for winning the peace. They lied to Congress and the American people. They created a terrorists recruitment playground. And they've destabilized the entire Middle East.

Mark, maybe you should toss out the crooked letter at all this - why did this fine folks do these things (Iraq had WMD's which are now in the hands of the Syrians - and aimed at us)? Do you honestly think it was stupidity? Or could it have been something that they are not willing to let on to folks like you - a resource war with some sinister plans behind the war...

no zedd, i never said that i believe we went there to police anything. we went there for a variety of other reasons many of which are included among those enumerated in the AUMF and some of which were not. the 'lie' you keep prating on about has never been proven a lie, though it has clearly been shown to have been based on poor evidence and a lot of wishful thinking. a lie requires intent to deceive, not intent to believe.

but regardless of why or how we got to iraq, the truth is that it's now a policing situation where we're mediating between two main factions, both primarily driven by forces from outside iraq, which means that what we accomplish in iraq will spill over to the entire region.

if you can't see the truth of this you're really not paying attention.

btw, i spilled water on my keyboard and lost my shift key.

dave

Dave spilled water on my keyboard and lost my shift key

For a moment there I thought that was zingzing masquerading as you...

oddly i only lost the right shift key, but that's the one i normally use, so i'm only shifting when absolutely vital.

dave

Dave

Then you are suggesting an indictment instead of a finding of guilt. Your comment suggests that there may have been foul play but it hasn't been proven.

troll

I have posted those numbers on a number of occasions, sources cited, etc. during your hiatus.

Also, I just don't know the exact amount since the death toll continues to rise daily. Would you happen to have that data?

"we went there for a variety of other reasons many of which are included among those enumerated in the AUMF and some of which were not."
- Dave Nalle

First of all, "we" didn't go to Iraq, only those brave enough to actually serve went. Secondly, the reasons GW and Cheney invaded Iraq were simply to help themselves feel better about their skipping out of Vietnam, when someone else died face down in the mud in their place over there.

"the 'lie' you keep prating on about has never been proven a lie, though it has clearly been shown to have been based on poor evidence and a lot of wishful thinking. a lie requires intent to deceive, not intent to believe."
- Dave Nalle

No, it was a lie Nalle.

"but regardless of why or how we got to iraq, the truth is that it's now a policing situation where we're mediating between two main factions, both primarily driven by forces from outside iraq, which means that what we accomplish in iraq will spill over to the entire region."
- Dave Nalle

Bullshit, Nalle. The only thing accomplished by invading and occupying Iraq is the creation of more enemies to kill our soldiers over there. And again, the "we" you keep repeating is nothing more than a transparent attempt to align yourself with those braver than yourself.

- MCH

"if you can't see the truth of this you're really not paying attention."
- Dave Nalle

Look in the mirror, Nalle.

Clavos

"I can't say strongly enough how decent and hardworking these people are," she says. "The cost of being middle class has shot out of the reach of the median family. For millions of families, the situation is getting desperate."

-Elizabeth Warren HLS professor, Harvard Gazette

''I think a lot of baby boomers feel trapped in their debt. Since they do, they decided to ignore it. The idea seems to be that everybody has it, so if they don't talk about it, eventually it's just going to go away.

I have seen couples who really worked at this, They cut back, they refinanced and they paid off all of their debt. Six months later they were right back where they started.''

- Nancy Langdon Jones, an Upland investment counselor.

"Middle Class in Turmoil," produced by the Center for American Progress and the Service Employees International Union, mines data from the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, census records and other sources to paint a picture of increasing peril for those in the middle 60% of income distribution, about $18,000 to $88,000.

Despite a growing economy, a rising stock market and stronger corporate earnings that are helping the rich get richer, the middle class in America is caught in an unprecedented squeeze that makes it increasingly unstable, the study's authors say. The financial declines each year since 2001 have been dramatic, they report:

Income for middle-class families has remained stagnant or flat since 2001.

Prices for big-ticket items -- housing, health care, college education and transportation -- have skyrocketed, leaving families unable to save.

Middle-class families are borrowing record amounts of money to pay their monthly bills.

"Families are being forced to live beyond their means, just to pay for the basics, such as housing and health care," said Christian Weller, a senior economist for the Center for American Progress, which is headed by John Podesta, a former Clinton-administration chief of staff. "They are not only spending their current income but all their future income."

- MSN Money


Clavos,

Do find your public radio station. From many of your posts (you and Dave) I sense that you want to be informed but just don't have a good source for comprehensive information. It can be a challenge forging through the multitude of information sources. As an information junkie, I have found that NPR is the best source of information on just about every subject. I will hear a story on NPR and can be assured that it will appear on CNN and the rest including the networks a week later at the earliest, many times it doesn't come to greater public awareness for a year.

Take a look. Its an entirely different world if you are a curious sort.

So, for the moment, let us use 'untruths' instead of lies. For it is certainly true that what BushCo said was untrue. It was NOT true. It was false.

Does it matter to the 3000 dead soldiers, buried now in the cool tombs, that they died for untruths or lies?

Does it matter to the 30,000 wounded and disabled that they lost their legs, arms, faces for untruths rather than lies?

Does it matter to the soldiers suffering brain damage that they suffer for untruths rather than lies?

Look full at the horror of the war we've wreaked on these people for untruths. Does it really matter whether Bush spoke untruths or lies? No, he was WRONG. W R O N G. How can we let this person continue to make important decisions? Whether he's venal or stupid is a matter between him and his conscience, but of no importance to the people who died and the people who suffer the aftermath of this misbegotten war.

Why would you expect anything but untruths from this character based on his record?

I, too, have been really annoyed by Nalle's use of "WE"--then I realized that he is using the Imperial or Monarchical WE--referring to himself in the plural as if he were a king or a head of state.

Ridiculous posturing in place of facts and information--plus five bucks or so--will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

"Secondly, the reasons GW and Cheney invaded Iraq were simply to help themselves feel better about their skipping out of Vietnam, when someone else died face down in the mud in their place over there.

REMF, do you claim to be a mind-reader? Did Bill Clinton believe the intelligence about Iraq out of his guilt over fleeing the country? Did Gore believe it because of his guilt over a six-week tour of duty as a reporter? Did Kerry feel guilty because of his faked injuries that got him medals, and his back-stabbing of his brothers in front of Congress?

Regarding all the polls that show Bush at an all-time low, yet Congress even lower: I don't believe most pollsters put the partisan spin on this that conservative commenters have - i.e., that the public is being asked, whom do you like better [or hate more], Bush or the Democrats?

The low popularity rating is for "Congress," period, which happens to still be over 45% Republican. Americans are disgusted with nearly all politicians, and with the worthless stalemate we currently call a government.

It's debatable how much Democrats would be accomplishing even with a larger majority, but with the margins as slim as they are, what mostly gets 'done' is complaining and investigating.

Friends in London tell me the Sunday NY Times lead editorial
is causing quite a stir over there. I haven't seen a lot of comment on this side of the pond.

The Times basically called for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq now, unconditionally, because we are making things worse by staying:

"It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."

Conservatives may say, so what, Pravda goes peacenik. But the Times supported the initial invasion, ambivalently and reluctantly [like moi], and has until now withheld a call for immediate withdrawal.

"REMF, do you claim to be a mind-reader? Did Bill Clinton believe the intelligence about Iraq out of his guilt over fleeing the country? Did Gore believe it because of his guilt over a six-week tour of duty as a reporter? Did Kerry feel guilty because of his faked injuries that got him medals, and his back-stabbing of his brothers in front of Congress?"
- Baronius

The difference, of course, being that Clinton, Gore and Kerry are not responsible for 3,607 U.S. soldiers KIA in Iraq, 18,609 more WIA, and the cost of $442 billion to the American taxpayer.
(and counting...)
- MCH

Zedd #97,

I guess you're right. My friends and I are not middle class, so we must be rich. I for one, have NO debt; zero, zip, nada. No mortgage, no auto loans, no boat loan no credit card debt, except what I charge each month, which I pay off each month. I don't buy anything I can't pay cash for.

But, I can't quit working, because I live on cash flow; no cash coming in means I can't pay my bills.

I always thought rich people didn't have to work, but I guess I was wrong, so from now on I'm officially no longer middle class; I'm rich (with a five figure income).

well Clavos, you may not be in the "middle" by definition, but that does not mean you are "rich" as you point out...

but it does hit on something, you fall into one of the upper brackets, yet..because you are not "rich", you have considered yourself in the "middle"

can you not see how this has skewed the conversation, if nothing else? not to mention the perception of some like yourself who still work for a living, but are above that "middle" income bracket?

Excelsior?

A mid five figure income is "upper bracket??"

SR, whether you agree with me or not, the fact that the congress' hands are tied by not having a sizeable enough majority to override the GOP or the President still holds true.

By the way Bush all but said, he plans to completely ignore the September deadline concering his fourth failed "Surge" today, and will keep shipping soldiers into the civil war over there until someone gets the balls to impeach the self-righteous bastard.

As for my health, thanks for asking, I won't clog someone else's article with that, looku my "Golden umbrella" article up, it has the latest.

Jet

my bad, Clavos, i should have said "upper middle bracket"..i skipped a word

but you appear to have a much higher net worth than what your income alone suggests, what with no mortgage/debt...well do i know your plight, when i owned by arcade i had no debt and about $70k annual income...and was comfortable, but careful

but i did not own a home, my car was a solid used one i paid cash for and i had no credit card at all

now, 10 years after selling my business, i'm nose deep in debt, but have a home..i drive 20 year old pick up, my wife drives a 15 year old escort...we are paying her college loans as well as credit cards and mortgage...add to it my medical bills, and our combined $60k income is no where near enough, but we make do...barely

now "mid 5 figure" makes it around $50k by definition..if that is the case, you DO fall into the "middle"..but that's not what you implied previously by what i read...so color me confused

and heyas Jet!

Excelsior?

gonzo,

"when i owned by arcade i had no debt and about $70k annual income...and was comfortable, but careful"

Except for the arcade, that about sums it up for me, and I do consider $65-70K to be in the "mid five figures."

I DO own a home (outright), but live in a rented apartment, because in today's market, I can charge more for renting the home than I pay for renting the apt.; the apt. is about half the size of the home, too.

I have two cars, paid for, but they were modest when new (a VW and a Ford), and are now decidedly not new.

I also have a 26 year old trawler on which we used to live until my wife had to move into a wheel chair. I'm selling it, (anybody?), because there's no way she'll ever be able to get back in it.

My principal asset is the house, which I hope will become my retirement fund when (and if) I ever do retire. I like what I do, and don't have any hobbies, so I'm not inclined to retire, and probably won't unless health forces me to.

one thing Clavos...60-75 is NOT "mid 5 figures", but definition...50 is halfway between 0 and 99, so one could say 40-60 was "mid five figures", but above that is another thing completely...

and as has been pointed out previously...the middle income 60% of the population come out between 18 and 88 thousand

as for the rest, good for you! i'm happy for your circumstances...but please don't think that this puts you in the "average"

and hopefully this very conversation helps to clear up much confusion on the topic

Excelsior?

MCH - It doesn't matter. If Clinton and Gore believed the intel, they should have acted on it. Failure to act on bad intelligence isn't something to brag about. And Kerry voted for the war (before he voted against the war). Does Kerry get a pass because he sort of served his country and career in Vietnam? You can't have it both ways.

You still haven't explained how you know read Bush's and Cheney's minds. It seems to me that they're not obsessed with their activities during the Vietnam War, but you clearly are. It's tainting your analysis.

do Kerry or Clinton have any fucking thing to do with the very real fact of a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?

or the very real fuck ups of those who did give those orders?

or those who died because of said fuck ups?

or cleaning up the current mess?

Excelsior?

"do Kerry or Clinton have any fucking thing to do with the very real fact of a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?"

Of course they do. So does the New York Times. Do you remember their mia culpa?

#3 -- Les Slater

"Mr. Bush seems to be taking all this pretty well. He's probably laughing about all the stupid critisms and poll figures."

I don't think he is laughing about it at all. As pointed out by the author of this opinion piece when he stated, "I never thought I'd write this, but I actually feel sorry for the Busher."

Like him or not, what Bush has shown is an almost super-human ability to get up and face it all everyday, carry a load of responsibility that none of us can even begin to fathom, and he still holds to his convictions and leads. And most ironically of all, as you have so clearly pointed out ......... "Nobody criticizing him has anything better to offer. When it comes time to vote, congress totally backs his war policies."

It seems absolutely symptomatic of the insanity of the left that I see clavos forced to defend himself and justify his existence just for earning an above average middle class income.

As for kerry and clinton and iraq, one of them made war on iraq for 8 years and the other one voted to invade. I'd say they pretty damned well played a role.

#48 -- gonzo marx

OK gonzo, I give you all of your #48.

So now I ask you, how dose one get a warrant for a computer scanning live for words and or word phrases and their communications in efforts to thwart off another surprise attack to saves lives. Is there absolutely no value to such a program?

Lumpy...not all all, far from trying to attack Clavos in any way...we were having polite conversation trying to reach understanding and define out terms for discussion

i know i did not intend any kind of "attack"....nor did i feel "defensive" in our exchange..if he did, i would gladly Apologize instantly...for such was not my intent

having problems with your shift key there, Lumpy?

Excelsior?

for gonzo I think the answer is that u can't. fortunately the courts have clearly stated that data mining is not the same as acual surveillance.

Franco - one goes to the court and asks for said warrant, giving the specifics of what you are looking for, where you are looking and your probable cause for wanting to look

if it involves foreign intel - you go to the secret FISA court and follow the procedures for that process

simple enough and Constitutional too!

Excelsior?

oh really? have you got a link for that one, all the way through appeals?

and i never said shit about the data mining..i spoke specifically about the FBI's own reported cases of purely domestic wiretaps...over 200 of them

shift key give out completely there, Lumpy?

Excelsior?

#114 Franco,

I do not have any personal access to Mr. Bush so I really don't know if he laughs about his situation. I am sure though that he does not see his situation as the majorty of the public seems to. As you say, he is holding up quite well. I think a good sense of humor would help in that respect, hence I do think he, at least occasionally, laughs about what people think of him.

In reading your post I see no real disagreement between us, at leat as far as my #3 and your #114 go.

Les

#115 -- Lumpy

Ya Clavos,

For the love of Pete, shame on you for managing your money and living within your means. And additionally for paying off your house so your can further capitalize on it by renting it out which brings you even more income allowing you to have the means to have additional shelter elsewhere too. You capitalistic pig. Hugo hates people like you.

Keep up the good work!

Zedd #95 - as best I can gather the actual figure is somewhere between 67 thousand and a million civilians dead in Iraq since the invasion...there still seems to be a significant difference of opinion on this

...not all readers consider the Lancet studies (the only sources that I've seen from which you could have taken your hundreds of thousands figure) objective and reliable

now that it's so peaceful there re-run the study I say...third time's the charm

"RJ...CIA says Plame was covert, look it up"

Then why isn't Dick Armitage in a prison cell?

"as for Clinton..he was an ass who also did fucked up shit, but he was never charged nor convicted of perjury now , was he? and to fuck you with your own "logic" where was the underlying crime there?"

Um, the sexual harassment of Paula Jones, which BJ Clinton eventually settled out of court for nearly a million dollars...

well RJ, i think it has something to do with the difficulty in the provision of proving in court that Armitage knew Plame was covert when he outed her

we'll probably never know , you could ask Fitzgerald, the prosecutor...his statements indicate that due to Libby's obstruction of Justice, he was not able to pursue the investigation properly and prosecute fully

anything else?

Excelsior?

"But Libby was pardonned after the investigation was over"

No, Libby was never pardoned. His prison sentence was commuted. There's a difference.

as for the Clinton bit..show me the conviction, you know..with a jury, like Libby had

you keep trying to compare apples and oranges, and failing abysmally

miss me?

Excelsior?

"as for Clinton..he was an ass who also did fucked up shit, but he was never charged nor convicted of perjury now, was he?"

No, but he was disbarred by the Supreme Court. For, you know, perjury and stuff.

by the SCOTUS? you sure about that?

i think it was the Arkansas Bar association, i don';t think that SCOTUS has anything to do with removing a state law license

link your source and i will stand corrected, but otherwise, i do think you are mistaken there

no matter Slick Willie deserved to be disbarred for fucking up

it STILL has less than shit to do with Libby, why is that so difficult to understand?

Excelsior?

"by the SCOTUS? you sure about that?"

Here:

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex.

With the adducement of further evidence in the case President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan Webber Wright. His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court. He was also fined $90,000 which was paid by a fund raised for his legal expenses.

Or, if you prefer, here:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton will contest Monday's Supreme Court order that suspended him from practicing law before the high court, his attorney said.

The Supreme Court gave Clinton 40 days to argue why he should not be permanently disbarred.

...

Clinton was asked about Lewinsky during a January 1998 deposition in a sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee. His attempt to conceal the affair while under oath led to his 1998 impeachment and 1999 acquittal by the Senate.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never disbarred a former president, said presidential historian and author Stanley Kutler, emeritus professor of history and law at University of Wisconsin-Madison.

...

The decision on Clinton came as the Supreme Court opened its 2001-2002 session.

thanks for the link, RJ...what i am reading here is that the Arkansas board disbarred him, and it was upheld by SCOTUS

the jurisdiction of SCOTUS has to do with Constitutional issues, NOT things handled by the Bar Assosciation and licensing boards...the appeals process brought it up to SCOTUS and they rightfully upheld the Arkansas decision

Wikipedia isn't always a good source for some info, in this case they missed the simple fact that SCOTUS has NO jurisdiction in such a case, but DOES sit as the final route of appeals and only takes cases with Constitutional import to make a final decision on said appeals

make sense now?

Excelsior?

Now, as to whether BJ Clinton was ever convicted of perjury, the answer is no.

But OJ was never convicted of a double homicide. And Mohamed Atta was never convicted of mass murder. But everyone (except the conspiracy kooks) knows they were guilty.

So are you honestly suggesting, "gonzo marx" that BJ Clinton didn't lie under oath (which is perjury, which is a felony)?

your second link was better..he was disbarred from arguing cases in front of SCOTUS as well...

i stand corrected on that detail, i had no idea there was a separate process for being recognized by SCOTUS..i would have thought the Federal Bar association handled it...but it makes sense that SCOTUS would be the final arbiter in such an instance

so, it looks like we are both correct, in a sense

fair enoough?

it still has shit to do with Libby...a disbarment is NOT the same as conviction by a Jury now, is it?

so your point is?

Excelsior?

Let me repeat:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton will contest Monday's Supreme Court order that suspended him from practicing law before the high court, his attorney said."

i ain't suggesting shit about Clinton...i'm stating it has not a single fucking thing to do with Libby
and that it's a poor distraction tactic to bring it up, since it has NOTHING to do with the matter at hand

simple enough, RJ?

Excelsior?

Are you honestly suggesting, "gonzo marx" that BJ Clinton didn't lie under oath (which is perjury, which is a felony)?

RJ..you caught up now?

are you honestly so simple that you didn't get that i agree Clinton lied his ass off on many occasions?

now, question for you...do YOU admit that Libby was convicted by a jury of perjury, obstruction of Justice and making false statements to the FBI?

Excelsior?