Today on Blogcritics
Home » “Impeach Bush” Nonsense

“Impeach Bush” Nonsense

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. – – ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

There have been people calling for President Bush to be impeached since before he was ever even sworn in. There was a seeming upsurge around the start of the Iraq invasion. Of course, the minor foolishness of Scooter Libby has started another round of wishful thinking that way.

Such interest being at a high point, let’s take a little look at the ImpeachBush.org website, and have a quick review. The idea seems ludicrous, but perhaps I’ve missed something.

Conveniently, they’ve actually drawn up “Articles of Impeachment” against George W Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzalez. CLICK HERE for their “Articles of Impeachment.”

They list a total of 18 items, which seem to pretty much broadly include all major disagreements with administration policy. Let’s look at a few of the particulars. Note that there are two article 4s, which dumb error speaks volumes on the real thoughtfulness and rigor of the content of their arguments.

Impeachment article 1: Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

This is the main enchilada- and it’s total nonsense in about half a dozen directions. Seizing power to wage war in defiance of the US Constitution? In fact, they had a vote in the Congress in October 2002 authorizing the war. You may reasonably argue that it was not a good idea, but they did have a legitimate public vote. Further legitimizing it, Bush pushed for that vote right before the midterm election, maximizing the accountability of Congress critters voting either way.

It’s particularly telling – and damning of them- that these impeachment advocates cite (supposed) defiance of the UN as grounds for the impeachment of a US president. He does not work for the UN. They didn’t hire him. We did. Anyone not real clear on this point should not be taken very seriously in the court of public opinion.

All the rest of this article is just nonsense. It’s questionable how much threat Iraq was or wasn’t, but it’s not a constitutional issue nor grounds for impeachment either way. There’s nothing in the US Constitution that would make invasion of another country without “good” reason a “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This applies to their articles 3, 4A, 6, and 17.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

All presidents tend to bend the truth, to spin, to not tell the whole truth. That’s not a crime nor grounds for impeachment, it’s merely politics. That would probably have to get to the point of commiting actual felonies to rise to such a level. That would likely involve outright deliberate factually false statements under oath. Most likely, lots of these same people were not impressed with the impeachment of Bill Clinton for absolutely factually lying under oath in front of a grand jury and witness tampering.

Bush simply hasn’t done anything like that. Indeed, I’ve not seen a significant direct factual lie from him ever. He didn’t want to volunteer his little DUI, and he wanted to act like he didn’t really know Ken Lay. Those just are not legal offenses.

But in truth, Bush seems to be about the most honest president in my lifetime. That’s setting the bar a bit low, granted. But it’s just NONSENSE to call Bush a “liar” over WMDs in Iraq.

Now, there are a few of these articles that I’m sympathetic to on policy grounds, stuff about violations of domestic civil liberties. Articles 7, 8, 9, and 11 – 14 all express legitimate concerns about Patriot Act and “enemy combatant” issues and so forth. The Bush administration do sometimes seem to be significantly pushing their proper constitutional boundaries.

But it is ridiculous to call most of that stuff anything LIKE an impeachable offense. The courts will trim their claws on some of this stuff- though not enough to suit me. Bush needs this Patriot Act stuck up directly in the center of his ass as far as I’m concerned. Personally, I’m much more bothered by the ridiculous campaign finance law he signed- though that truly and blatantly unconstitutional law does not ire these pro-impeachment folks.

Mostly, though, these “Articles of Impeachment” are better evidence of the fascism underlying Bush’s more radical opponents than they are of crimes by the Bush administration. At least 90% of their complaints are policy issues pure and simple, and not any kind of criminal activity. Their people have been beaten soundly and repeatedly at the ballot box, so they wish to concoct bogus legal charges to get their way no matter what the democratic process says. I’m sure the ends justify the means, though.

Addressing the most basic point of these charges, President Bush made a case for war. The Congress and the public agreed- rightly or wrongly. That’s democracy in action.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    The Civil War was not about slavery! My history book said it was!!1!

    ImpeachLincoln.org

  • http://flippedoutdotcom.blogspot.com/ Preston Parkhurst

    Al Barger wrote: “The Bush administration do sometimes seem to be significantly pushing their proper constitutional boundaries.”

    Since both houses of the legislature and the executive branch share the same party, I am concerned that this is one of the main reasons we are seeing an administration that comes across to many Americans as so unaccountable. Whenever this happens in our government by either party, we tend to get an agenda lacking in many of the checks and balances that normally occur in a more balanced government.

    Cost of the Starr investigation into Clinton = 60 million
    Cost of the investigation into the attacks on September 11th = 15 million

    I suspect the same scenario would have occurred if the situation was reversed concerning the governmental party make up.

  • http://www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com Mike Kole

    Al- The Impeach-The-President items, from websites to bumper stickers, are a good way to identify the kind of people who engage in little or no independent thought and parrot the talking points represented by their respective wings. For that, I kind of like their presense.

    I’ll never forget my ex-father in law sporting an “Impeach Clinton” bumper sticker *before* the inauguration! Wow. Then again, there were “Impeach Bush” stickers out there before his inauguration, too.

    When you get right down to it, Al, the great shortcoming of the Libertarian Party is the lack of masses of blind followers that the Ds and Rs have.

  • http://www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com Mike Kole

    Uh, Preston… When Clinton was President, there was a Republican majority in Congress. What was your point about accountability?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    BU$CH IZ HITLUR!!!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The LP has its blind followers, the problem is that they’re not effective enough at getting anything done for anyone to take them as seriously as the zombies who serve the extreme wings of the two major parties.

    Dave

  • Not Al Barger

    This has got to be the most pathetic straw-man post I’ve ever seen. Al, please stop. Please?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Dear Not-Al, I wasn’t looking for a straw man. This is about as good a listing of such things as I’ve seen. Do you have a beter alternate source with specific articles of impeachment that we can evaluate?

  • http://flippedoutdotcom.blogspot.com/ Preston Parkhurst

    “Uh, Preston… When Clinton was President, there was a Republican majority in Congress. What was your point about accountability?”

    Well I am very well aware of this, the point was to show the disparity between a party on the offensive in the case of the Clinton investigation and that of a party in a more defensive scenario. Granted the special prosecutor is alleged to be non partisan,but it should be noted that he was Republican and a conservative.

  • http://www.mytown.ca/sakin Larry A. Sakin

    Hi Al-

    As a progressive, liberal as they come democrat, I’m in complete agreement with you. I think part of the problem stems from the fact that a number of folks on the polarized left are unfamiliar with the flexibility of the Constitution, especially Article 1 section 8, in which many get the ‘Congress Declares War (only) idea. They aren’t familiar with the revised 1973 War Powers Act, which allows Congress to authorize war powers to the president, based on the presidents assessment of a need for military powers.

    Of course, whether or not Mr. Bush was entirely truthful about his motives for war remains to be seen. There are some who’re calling for an investigation on this point and they may find that certain allegations the president made in his quest for authorization were not true. However, this is beside the point.

    I find that there are few people, progressive, conservative, what have you, who have a good working knowledge of how government functions, and how the constitution is amenable to change. I constantly find myself explaining to people that a Congressional impeachment is not a conviction of the president, only an indictment, but they choose not to believe me.

    More’s the pity. If I were ruler of the world, I’d send every adult in this country back to remedial school to upgrade their civics knowledge, reading and writing capabilities, and basic concepts in law. Sadly, I doubt my ruler of the world fantasy will come about anytime soon.

    Larry

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Yeah, some right wingnuts went a bit nutsy on Clinton. However, Bill Clinton absolutely commited perjury under oath in front of a grand jury, and witness tampering. Those are clear, unequivocal felonies while he was president.

    So then, Clinton gave them the rope. Bush has done no such. You may disagree with many Bush poliicies, and you may reasonably have doubts about some civil liberties issues with the Patriot Act and such. But that’s not the same thing categorically even.

    Yes, they spent a lot of money on the Ken Starr investigations. But if they had spent $60 billion instead of $60 million, they would still have never uncovered misdeeds if he hadn’t been doing them. Lots of them.

  • http://bonamassablog.us Joanie

    Al, you can also direct folks to Front Page’s article about the recent indictment of Libby to shed some light on the actual reasons presented to Congress. Of course, people will have to actually READ the article to understand what happened, but the more intelligent will do so.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    I don’t think Bush needs to be impeached, but I do think he’s a terrible President.

    The way I see it is that going into a way on shaky grounds without strong allies (Britain aside) and especially without a strong post-war plan is far worse than lying about having sex.

    Is perjury bad? Yep, and we’ll see how bad vis a vis Libby. But comparing Clinton’s scandal and Bush’s presidency doesn’t seem to me to be apples and oranges.

  • Alethinos

    Impeachment would cut into good TV time… Likely override next year’s World Series even… We don’t want that. Such things call for politicians on both sides of the aisle that can pontificate and bellow with the best of years-gone-by. There aren’t any. So it would be really REALLY boring TV… America couldn’t stomach that.

    They can stomach lies. They can stomach a stupid war. They can tolerate more lies. They can put up with a President that DESPERATELY needs to enroll in an ESL program…

    But American will NOT put up with politics if it screws with their FALL TV LINE UP!

    So, no… This impeachment thing – bad…

    Unless of course you could start it right after season finale’s and BEFORE the beginning of say the new FOX Sunday premiers!

    Alethinos

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Alethinos, I think you’ve pretty much got that argument wrong. C-Span is mostly pretty boring, but impeachment would bring out the best in tv entertainment.

    On the legal and political merits, impeachment would be utterly unjustified- but the pure spectacle of it would be great entertainment. The house impeachment hearings for Clinton were GREAT. When they got down and actually impeached Clinton, that was the best tv series payoff in years. It was better than finding out who shot JR.

    Granted though, the next season ie the Senate trial was a big flop. The writing just wasn’t there.

    Still, though, they got a couple of great seasons with Lewinsky and the dress and all that stuff, and then the impeachment hearings themselves. Is this series available on DVD?

  • Alethinos

    You’ve got a point Al… Right now I’m sure the Networks are running test groups seeing if an impeachment would be good for sweeps week…

    Alethinos

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    the idea of impeaching pres. bush is plainly ridiculous.

    our government has become all about incompetence, and there president bush and a buncha his fellers fit right in.

    give the man a raise, i say.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    The argument for impeachment is that if you remove the President from office, and the guy after that, is that somewhere down the chain you’ll find someone good enough to be President, which is sort of like firing all your managers until you get to your AA hitting coach.

  • Stan Meissner

    Al, the terms “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes abuse of power.

  • http://gkurtz@hotmail.com Dr. Kurt

    For once, I will not pretend to know all the answers (its a character defect, I guess). My reading of history indicates that the impeachment clause is a tool that we, like our English predecessors, retain so as to limit despotic behavior in our leaders. It is pretty flexible, with good reason.
    I am fairly certain that many Americans sincerely believe that Bush & Co. manipulated us into mass murder on the basis of outright lies. Let’s call war what is is, OK? War is blowing the legs off of innocent children for political ends. Last time I checked, if you or I did that to a child, we would (hopefully) get a rapid one-way trip to the state pen. On the other hand, I retain my right to blow the legs off a home invader who is seeking to harm my family! There is a difference – intentions matter.
    We are not sure about the administration’s intentions. They may have been, as they keep claiming, honorable self-defense. Or not. We won’t know, really, until certain players – our employees, remember – testify under oath about the specifics. Then, we citizens can make informed decisions. As a citizen, I would like to know the truth.
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely – regardless of party affilitation.

  • steve

    I agree. Impeach Bush. Get him out of office. Make way for Cheney who is smarter, and off-the-charts rightist.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >> am fairly certain that many Americans sincerely believe that Bush & Co. manipulated us into mass murder on the basis of outright lies.<<

    Many people also believe that Jews secretly control the government, that there are aliens abducting people in their sleep, and that the CIA created AIDS to kill black people. People believe a lot of stupid, illogical things. I recommend trying a bit harder and limiting your beliefs to things that make sense.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    I’d go for impeachment on the grounds that Bush is criminally spendthrift. Some conservative! All he knows how to do is spend-Spend-SPEND!

  • http://frictionblog.blogspot.com/ Jackson

    I don’t necessarily think there are grounds to impeach Bush, but that may change in the next few months or years, especially after the new revealation of domestic surveillance outside of FISA. However, Al, I’m troubled about this: “Note that there are two article 4s, which dumb error speaks volumes on the real thoughtfulness and rigor of the content of their arguments.” I clicked on the link and examined the Articles over and over again. Each time, however, I could only see one article #4. Your article is peppered with other innuendos that aren’t quite fair, but this one is troubling. Why do I only see one #4?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Howdy Jackson. I had no intention of making any “innuendos” in this article. I presented it as a frontal assault, starting with the title.

    As to the two article #4s, that’s what was there when I wrote the story in October. Perhaps the authors have corrected that simple error.

    I too am somewhat troubled by the FISA business, but it isn’t anywhere NEAR to an impeachable offense. Dubya probably DOES need to get slapped around a bit for hubris on this, though.

  • gonzo marx

    so big Al, you don’t think violation of FISA is impeachable, but you stand by earlier assertations that Slick Willie’s peccadillos rose to the “crisis” that required impeachment

    careful with that Answer, big Al…this is all recorded fer Posterity…you know, Nixon like

    Excelsior!

  • MDE

    Impeached hell…he should be in the dock beside Saddam. Arrrgh

  • gonzo marx

    i dunno MDE..i for one am not ready to go quite that far….yet

    but i DO think these Incidents require non-partisan Investigation, and it should be taken from there

    check today’s new Politics articles, some new Posts there by David Mark that covern a lot of things that came out in the MSM this weekend about these very Issues

    Excelsior!

  • http://frictionblog.blogspot.com/ Jackson

    Sorry Al. I didn’t look at the date the article was written. I just stumbled upon it. I should have known that it had been changed since you wrote it. Anyway, I don’t know if ‘innuendos’ is the right word, but stuff like this:

    “He does not work for the UN. They didn’t hire him. We did. Anyone not real clear on this point should not be taken very seriously in the court of public opinion.”

    It isn’t very fair. People have disagreements about the UN and those disagreements are important to discuss. International law, in my opinion, is extremely important. Saying something like that discourages dialogue. Maybe you could just state your opinion instead of ridiculing those who disagree.

    And then there is this:

    “Mostly, though, these “Articles of Impeachment” are better evidence of the fascism underlying Bush’s more radical opponents than they are of crimes by the Bush administration. At least 90% of their complaints are policy issues pure and simple, and not any kind of criminal activity. Their people have been beaten soundly and repeatedly at the ballot box, so they wish to concoct bogus legal charges to get their way no matter what the democratic process says. I’m sure the ends justify the means, though.”

    Labeling advocates of impeachment as fascist doesn’t make sense. These people don’t have the tools to be fascists. They don’t have power. They don’t have public support either, so they never will have tools or power. This seems like innuendo to me.

    I agree that as of now, Bush hasn’t fucked up enough to be impeached. I’m not calling for impeachment… I’d just like to see the administration admit mistakes, stop being so secretive and isolated, and genuinely try to solve problems in a bi-partisan manner. That said, I think there is probably much that we don’t know yet and especially with the developments around domestic surveillance, we may yet have grounds to impeach the president. Anyway, sorry again about that comment about #4 of the articles of impeachment, that was accidental innuendo on my part. I’ll try harder.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Jackson, thank you for your continuing thoughtful contribution to the democratic dialogue here. Obviously, that was just a minor misunderstanding about the article #4 thing.

    I don’t mean to stifle dialogue or intimidate anyone from speaking their piece, but the stuff about W not working for the UN is important. In their manifesto, they list defiance of the UN as one of their major grounds for impeachment.

    It’s one thing if you say that W needs to work better with the UN, or that he should pay more attention to international opinion. But to list disagreement or defiance of the UN as grounds for impeachment is absolute nonsense.

    Personally, as a Libertarian, I support US withdrawal from the UN. US out of the UN, UN out of the US, I say. I list raising hell with the UN as one of W’s better points, by my lights.

    And don’t worry about slighting me. As a gadfly and sometimes politician myself, I expect some opposition and scrutiny. You’d have to get pretty severely hateful with me before I’d even begin to get annoyed. You’re fine.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    heck today’s new Politics articles, some new Posts there by David Mark that covern a lot of things that came out in the MSM this weekend about these very Issues

    Hell, why bother with David Mark? Go straight to Capitol Hill Blue and read completely fabricated stories about Bush’s made up crimes.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Labeling advocates of impeachment as fascist doesn’t make sense. These people don’t have the tools to be fascists. They don’t have power. They don’t have public support either, so they never will have tools or power. This seems like innuendo to me.

    The fact that they don’t have ultimate executive power doesn’t mean they don’t have power – they still have the power of the smear campaign, the whispered lie, the unassailable slur and the endless partisan sniping. Did the Nazis have power prior to Hitler’s election when they intimidated people, silenced their critics with threats and violence, and created an atmosphere which chilled debate? They may not have been in power yet, but they had the mechanisms to silence opposition and discourage debate, and that is by its nature fascistic, is it not?

    I agree that as of now, Bush hasn’t fucked up enough to be impeached. I’m not calling for impeachment..

    This raises the question of whether just fucking up is sufficient justification for impeachment at all.

    I’d just like to see the administration admit mistakes, stop being so secretive and isolated, and genuinely try to solve problems in a bi-partisan manner.

    Hard to imagine that happening when the opposition has assumed the role of enemy rather than potential working partner.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    well Mr Nalle, i have NO interest in “fabrication”

    but i do think that much of what David referenced in his links is insightful

    liek the Bob Barr quotes…hardly soem fire breathing Liberal, eh?

    that’s the real Fun part about all this, the GOP types that are actually showing some spine and voicing their dismay at the Administrations actions

    now, the Cynic in me says that it’s all about the ’06 elections, but the Idealist in me hopes that some fo these people are actually outraged and trying to do the right thing

    if the latter, then there might just be some hope for the future of the GOP

    we will see in November

    Excelsior!

  • http://frictionblog.blogspot.com/ Jackson

    Dave- Damn, I was just addressing Al, really. Wasn’t really interested in joining this debate, because I pretty much agree, Bush hasn’t done enough to be impeached, yet. I really think this whole impeachment thing is a non-issue. The people pushing for impeachment aren’t taken seriously by either the right or left.

    And yes, fucking up is grounds for impeachment if that fuck-up consists of breaking the law. I hope you understand that breaking the law is grounds for impeachment.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Well, Jackson, it wasn’t a private post, so I thought I’d join in.

    Most of the time fucking up doesn’t lead to breaking the law, and if it does then there’s some argument for saying that it wasn’t a mistake which will be repeated because the law was broken by accident.

    On th eother hand, deliberately and consciously breaking the law cannot be excused as a mere ‘fuck-up’ and might be grounds for impeachment.

    Dave

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Mr Nalle, now right here is one of your better quotes, “The fact that they don’t have ultimate executive power doesn’t mean they don’t have power – they still have the power of the smear campaign, the whispered lie, the unassailable slur and the endless partisan sniping.”

    I might add that seeing the fascist presumptions and intentions behind some of this stuff is good reason not to trust them, and makes me glad they’re not in power.

    Dubya and crew might be overreaching a bit with some of this FISA stuff, but it’s nothing compared to the jackboots some of these administration critics would put on our necks if they had the chance.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    And welcome to Nutball Political Corner. Oy.

    I don’t think there are legal grounds or political support for impeachment, but there’s no way you can dismiss this whole thing as an unfortunate “fuck-up.” The Bush administration has clearly set out, in both legal briefs and in their more covert executive policies, to pursue and employ extra-legal and often extra-Constitutional authority without Congressional or judicial review in the war on terror, whether it be outsourcing torture through extraordinary rendition or wiretapping since 9/11.

    It’s not a case of “Oops, we forgot.” The conditions and procedures for going through the FISA court for approval, which is neither a particularly difficult or onerous process, are well-established over the years and known by EVERY DOJ lawyer and intelligence officer in Washington.

    And this is a really bad political debate started by a pretty weak post. Yeah, calling political opponents “fascists” for opposing abuses of Presidential authority is EXACTLY the best way to have a sophisticated, refined debate. The best way to fight Fascism is to imply that everyone who opposes the leaders you adore are jackboot thug Fascists who would do physical violence to you. How infantile.

    And I don’t know why Democrats would want Bush impeached. So you can have President Cheney? Bush is a lame duck President who can’t get his agenda passed and is dragging his entire party down for the 2006 midterms — GOP members of Congress are now distancing themselves from Bush and are much less interested in having him campaign for them, except in the most conservative of Districts. If the Democrats want to win back seats in the Congress in 2006 and win back the White House in 2008, George W. Bush may be a necessary frustration. As things stand today, he’s become a political liability who’s now grasping for any domestic agenda item he can pass (immigration reform?) in order to bolster his low approval ratings and unpopular foreign policy.

    That is all.

  • gonzo marx

    Mr Nalle sez…
    *On th eother hand, deliberately and consciously breaking the law cannot be excused as a mere ‘fuck-up’ and might be grounds for impeachment.*

    Quoted for Truth

    and a thunderous
    /golfclap

    for good ole Booey in Comment #37

    i got all warm and fuzzy “down there”

    Excelsior!

  • http://frictionblog.blogspot.com/ Jackson

    When I said ‘fuck-up’ I didn’t mean an accidental mistake or ‘oops i forgot’. Deliberate actions that break the law are serious fuck-ups too. Anyway, just felt I was being misunderstood. And now, goodbye, I’m leaving this debate. Until there are grounds for impeachment this really seems like a non-issue. The impeachment crowd just doesn’t have any real credibility. I’d rather rant about things that will make a difference. Goodbye.

  • MDE

    re: “And I don’t know why Democrats would want Bush impeached. So you can have President Cheney?”

    BaBs – much as I enjoy your braininess, this statement could only be that of a political realist willing to bracket moral sentiment for the cause – a position many view as necessary. To suggest that one should consider excusing criminal behavior* in order to avoid elevating Cheney is an excellent example of the cynical ‘ends justify the means’ thinking that attends this so-called realist position.

    It’s like a bipartisan virus going around…and around

    *IMO members of the administration did what they thought realistically necessary and pushed the boundaries of executive power. Bush, the figure head and a direct participant here, now needs to face the consequences openly without whining or hiding information. It is up to the other branches to evaluate his actions in the light of the Constitution. Nothing personal.

    Will this further gum up the machinery of government? Probably so. But that was ‘his’ choice when he authorized the taps.

  • JR

    If Bush committed an impeachable offense, Cheney was surely in on it. So doesn’t he go on trial too?

  • MDE

    …President Hastert…I like the sound of it

  • mt

    One word says it all and sums it all up — incompetance!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Welcome back, Babs.

    I think the administration would argue that the Constitution gives the executive broad powers to implement policy at need without the approval of congress or the courts in times of crisis or in response to specific threats. Not long term programs, not the creation of new agencies, but special case type stuff.

    Think back to the Lincoln and Roosevelt administrations and you’ll see numerous examples of executive orders and simple policy decisions which were massively significant in response to specific issues that needed to be addressed quickly. At that time, and presumably in the opinion of the current administration in our current situation, the course was to take necessary action and then resolve the repercussions later.

    It’s not entirely unreasonable, so long as it doesn’t go overboard. But I should point out that this reasoning probably should not apply to an established procedure like the use of the FISA court.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    Mr Nalle sez…
    *But I should point out that this reasoning probably should not apply to an established procedure like the use of the FISA court.*

    quoted for Truth

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    MDE – I think that’s why bill was never shot…the thought of algore as president was to scary even for someone crazy enough to shoot a president!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’m actually starting to warm up to Al Gore when I think about the other people the Democrats could offer. Kerry was certainly a blast of cold air in comparison.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Warming up to Al Gore? Isn’t that kinda like warming up to ice in your shorts???

  • MCH

    “Oh yeh, you don’t agree with the Dems who voted to go into Iraq…”

    The war is wrong, Joe babe, because the reasons for the invasion were fabricated by a Deserter (GW)…

  • http://www.iamcorrect.com Lono

    Well, what Bush did with the illegal Wiretaps is impeachable… especially with the consequences it is beginning to have. Terrorist suspects are beginning to charge that the evidence against them was achieved through some of these illegal taps. If that is so, courts could throw the charges out.

    This could be the biggest setback to the ‘war on terror’ – and that is impeachable.

    stop defending this asshole. He belongs in jail. Like the Hammer DeLay said when they were ousting Clinton “No one is above the law”

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Yeah MCH, I’ma have to go ahead and call BULLSHIT on you, there. I might would be called a schmuck if I simply said that you’re LYING, but that last statement contains two separate conscious pieces of dishonesty from you. The “deserter” charge is absolutely unfounded, and you know better. Sloughing off on your reserve training- which is the worst W might be accused of there- is not “desertion.” That’s just a cheap smear.

    Much worse, however, that charge that Bush “fabricated” evidence against Iraq is not true, and you goddam know better when you say it.

    You just hate Bush for whatever reasons you have, and then you’re happy to make shit up to support it. Apparently you have some ridiculous idea of epistemology that says that if you just stamp your feet, and talk yourself into being really, really mad, that’ll make your charges true. Or perhaps it’s social epistemology, that if you convince enough people to believe, that will make the charges true.

    Either way, honest folk need have little regard for someone who displays so little care for simple honesty.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Lono, come on now. I’m not real thrilled with these wiretaps. We need to look into that, and perhaps reign the president in a bit there.

    But saying that he’s committed an impeachable offense, that’s just wishful thinking on your part. He’s not spying on the DNC, or some such Nixonian foolishness. These are enemies with Al Qaeda ties in question. At worst, he’s been a little overzealous in doing his duty.

    I’d much rather deal with needing to reign in a slightly overly aggressive commander in chief trying to protect the country than deal with a commander in chief asleep at the switch like Clinton.

  • gonzo marx

    big Al sez…
    *Sloughing off on your reserve training- which is the worst W might be accused of there- is not “desertion.” *

    ummm..no, the worst is that Bush did not obey orders when told to show up for a medical exam to qualify him as a pilot, thus “malingering” and “disobeying a lawful order” are the aactual charges…whether he went AWOL or not is another thing entirely…but by his willful disobediance of said lawful order, he did waste years and quite a lot of taxpayer money to make him a fighter pilot…which he NEVER was, due to not taking said exam….simple enough?

    next, big Al sez…
    *Lono, come on now. I’m not real thrilled with these wiretaps. We need to look into that, and perhaps reign the president in a bit there.

    But saying that he’s committed an impeachable offense, that’s just wishful thinking on your part.*

    sorry ta disagree once again…but if it is proven that Bush DID order those taps, in direct Violation of Federal Law, as well as lied to the American public ( see the speeches where he stated you “had to go to a Judge to order a search or wiretap”..those quotes have been all over the news all week)

    well, violating a Federal Law IS an impeachable offense..by fucking definition

    now, i said it before..go and burn yer Libertarian membership card, if you can possibly defend these alleged violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments by a sitting President, not to mention the blatant disregard for the “separation of Powers” under the Constitution inherent in those actions…

    well then…burn the LIbertarian card and ask Rove to send you yer Secret Decoder Ring…sign up for some courses in Straussian world view and proudly display yer new NeoCon bumper sticker

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Gonzo, I appreciate your fervor, but c’mon. Sloughing off in the guard perhaps did not speak very well of young George W, but that is VERY different than “desertion.” It’s dishonest to equate the two.

    General “lying to the American public” isn’t an impeachable offense, or we wouldn’t have a Congress at all. There are a couple of quotes that are being replayed that you’re invoking that do sound like lying. That might prove to be a hit against his credibility which will cost him, but that’s STILL not the same as lying under oath in court.

    Also, the nature and the meaning of the lies in question counts. If Bush was lying, it was about perhaps overly zealous efforts to protect the nation, rather than CYA over a tawdry personal matter like Clinton. That doesn’t make it ok, but it is definitely a mitigating factor in my book.

    Like my hero Buck Turgidson, I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but it’s beginning to appear that the President has exceeded his authority with this FISA stuff. That’s still a LONG ways from an impeachable offense.

    MAYBE the president actually thinks he had reasonable authority to order these questionable wiretaps. That’s a reasonable and legitimate point of disagreement.

    To me, he appears to have overreached. We need to look into it, and perhaps get him to be a little more careful about warrants and such.

    But by no means is it reasonable to want to crucify the guy for trying to do his best to protect the country, as Bush clearly has done. It’s certainly not even the beginning of grounds for impeachment.

  • gonzo marx

    well big Al…note i ani’t said shit yet about the “I” word or “desertion”..i am ex-military, and i was VERY careful about what i said concerning W’s time InServ

    the Quotes i spoke of were to show and compare with the shitstorm a few years back, you know…the last President?

    my True Concern here involves your saying…
    *MAYBE the president actually thinks he had reasonable authority to order these questionable wiretaps. That’s a reasonable and legitimate point of disagreement.*

    now, try this…”maybe that >insert crime here< actually thinks he had reasonable authority”

    silly, ain’t it?

    he has plenty of Folks to explain Federal Law and the Constitution to him..you know, the Thing he swore to uphold and defend…twice?

    and that’s the Thing…if he did, as he himself has already said he did, order folks to break Federal Law…well then…investigate the Facts, and prosecute if needed

    can we Agree that is how it’s done under the Rule of Law?

    Excelsior!

  • amanda

    bush sucks,we need a black president.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Well Gonzo, I’m concerned too, somewhat, but in context I’m more worried about terrorists than I am about what so far looks like relatively minor questionable behavior in the legitimate effort to stop people from killing us. That doesn’t completely excuse bad behavior, but it does mitigate.

    I’m still not seeing anything especially egregious. It makes a big difference how >insert crime here< gets filled in. Nixon goddam knew better than sending people to burgle his domestic political opposition and then cover it up.

    Bush being a little hamhanded with the way he’s gone about smacking terrorists is a whole different kettle of fish. I might disagree and think that W needs reigned in a bit, but so far it pretty much looks like he was acting in good faith to protect the country.

    The worst thing so far is that he was not really lying maybe, but was certainly less than forthcoming in a couple of those quotes from last year. Then again, you could file those under “you can’t handle the truth.”

    And Miss Amanda, I concur. Condi’s looking pretty good about this point.

  • RogerMDillon

    “Nixon goddam knew better than sending people to burgle his domestic political opposition and then cover it up.”

    History shows that he didn’t.

  • MDE

    Al – how does it go? The road to hell is paved with what?

    How do you suggest W be ‘reigned in’? Congressional censure or what?

  • gonzo marx

    bah…i have to differ big Al

    ALL elected Representatives have to follow the fucking Law…those that don’t, suffer the consequences

    i don’t care about the excuses, i don’t care about the weaseling, quibbling, prevarications, justifications, or whining…

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • JR

    Al Barger: I’d much rather deal with needing to reign in a slightly overly aggressive commander in chief trying to protect the country than deal with a commander in chief asleep at the switch like Clinton.

    Uh… which president was on vacation when increased chatter indicated an imminent terrorist attack? Which president was on vacation when Katrina hit?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    But Gonzo, you hate Bush, and you’re going to say the same stuff no matter what he does.

    There DOES seem to be some significant gray area about what exactly his legal authority actually is. I’ll be interested to see exactly what questionable things have been done here, but he seems to have been acting in good faith for what he would reasonably think was the good of the country.

    This all comes from Bush being hardball about trying to catch Al Qaeda types- which is generally exactly what we want a commander in chief to be doing. Considering that, I think any reasonable person should be giving him every benefit of the doubt until or unless there is clear evidence of serious and unambiguous wrongdoing.

  • gonzo marx

    big Al sez…
    *But Gonzo, you hate Bush, and you’re going to say the same stuff no matter what he does.*

    ummm..wrong there Al…i could give a shit about Bush..i don’t care enough about him to hate him and i make no judgements about the man( try and find somewhere that i have, ain’t happened)…i talk about his Policies or action of he and his Administration

    Rove…well, him i hate..but that’s another Story

    big Al sez…
    *There DOES seem to be some significant gray area about what exactly his legal authority actually is.*

    ummm…nope…go and read yer Constitution, clearly delineated…addendums via Federal Law….ya know, like FISA

    big Al sez…
    *This all comes from Bush being hardball about trying to catch Al Qaeda types*

    that’s the spin…if so, why aren’t there 100k troops in Afghanistan?

    look Al, my problem here is the Administrations glib disregard for the legalities involved in their Office and the pursuit of their duties

    a whole Host of Issues arise, but if a tiny fraction of the Allegations concerning these “wiretaps” and “data mining surveillance” are actually proven True, then this President has delivberately ordered the violation of Federal Laws and a bunch of the Constitution…all because he couldn’t be bothered to take this shit to the proper, secret Court? especially when he coudl go there AFTER setting his taps?

    if you can defend that kind of behavior, then i don’t understand where you are coming from

    me?..i like the Rule of Law, Constitution and Bill of Rights (especially those pesky 4th and 5th Amendments), Due Process, Separation of Powers…not to mention “checks and balances”

    IF the allegation sare true, it adds to a pattern of arrogant behavior that most likely stems from controlling House, Senate and WH…so they KNOW they are NOT going to be INvestigated

    06 will tell much

    now…go and burn that Libertarian card for even pretending to defend the possibility of warrantless searches and surveillance

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You hit right to the heart of the matter there, Al. The argument which will be made, and will probably win the day, is that unusual measures taken to catch terrorists are part of the war powers of the Commander in Chief. Since we have a war on terror – undeclared or not – it may require the kind of quick and decisive response you need in a time of war and which can only be made through an executive decision.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    what the fuck is so difficult to understand about there being no “war” in a legal and Constitutional sense, with the proper Declaration by Congress…as set out in the Constitution and delineated by the War Powers Act?

    i could give a rat’s ass how Professor Yoo, Gonzalez or any NeoCon think tank wants to spin and massage it

    we still do NOT live in a dictatorial state where the President weilds unchecked power by fiat

    and there ain’t no fucking “war” without the Declaration by Congress…a very real and legal proceeding

    Rule of fucking Law and all that, guys

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    And I can work with that. However, I think it only reasonable that he be expected to run that stuff past a judge- even if it’s after the fact.

    Do what you have to do, but at some point you HAVE to check in with the other branches of government on this stuff.

  • gonzo marx

    EXACTLY, Al

    and that’s the problem i have with this current Situation…not only didn’t the WH do that, but they are proud of not doing so, brag about it, and don’t see anything wrong with it

    and THAT is my problem

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    We’ve been over this before, Gonzo. It’s not clear how one would declare war on a concept like terrorism. That doesn’t change the fact that we’re at war with it. You can be at war when others declare war on you – as al Qaeda certainly has – just as much as when you declare war on them.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    American Heritage dictionary sez…
    *A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.*

    as the definition of War

    now, our Constitution clearly states what it takes for such a condition to exist

    just because someone calls something a “war” does NOT legally make it so

    fair enough?

    Excelsior!

  • Bliffle

    Didn’t we (or various presidents presuming to speak for us all) declare war on Poverty, Drugs, Illiteracy, etc., at various times? Did we win any of those wars? Isn’t it kinda stupid to go around witlessly declaring war on squishy concepts? Why do it at all? Except, of course, to provide a pretext for seizing extraordinary power.

    Seems to me there’s a faulty concept abroad in the land that by giving unlimited power to some “czar” that a problem can be solved. Has it ever worked?

  • http://screenrant.com Screen Rant

    Putting Bush in the same category with Hitler and Saddam is just plain hateful, stupid and ignorant.

    Vic

  • Dave Nalle

    gonzo, by your definition then there’s no question where at war – so what were you getting at, exactly?

    Dave

  • fatwhitedog

    One thing that is left out of this argument is the definition of an impeachable offense.

    Maybe a quick refresher course in Government 101 might be needed since congress are the ones that define exactly what impeachable offenses are above the “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.

    “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” are the offenses that require obligatory removal from office, if found guilty by the senate who are the ones that try the case for impeachment. The constitution doesn’t actually state these are the only offenses required for impeachment, and as such the articles for impeachment can be other offenses, and can be what ever congress wants to make them.

    Andrew Jackson was impeached and tried by the senate and the impeachable offense included reproach and contempt of congress.

    Contempt as defined as: The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.

    Reproach as defined as: To express disapproval of, criticism of, or disappointment in.

    So President Andrew Jackson was impeached and tried because he felt that congress was a bunch of low lifers and was critical of them and expressed himself regarding that feeling.

    Congress can make the offenses for impeachment anything they want. The fact that people are making articles of impeachment based on their feelings regarding Bush isn’t indicative of fascism at all, since congress can pretty much call anything they want impeachable.

    With the current Enron issue at hand, there may be reason for congress to look at the bribery or other misdemeanors part of the argument depending on Ken Lays connection to Bush.

    Nice spin on the fascism part though. Maybe a the tenets of fascism should be posted here as well…

    You don’t see any parallels in the modern GOP trend that’s fascist?

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

    Notice all the photo ops and flag waving that’s continuous. Not to mention the continued chant of Bush won! Bush one! By the masses of GOPs.

    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

    Republicans kill defense-spending bill because McCain Amendment prohibits “cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment”

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

    The GOP have succeeded into getting people rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: including racial, ethnic and religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, and of course the “terrorists”.

    4. Obsession with National Security

    Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. There’s been that “terror alert status”. And then the total “WE are at war!” chant… and not to mention that it’s been Bush’s push and strategy since 9/11.

    5. Religion and Government are intertwined

    Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

    Note the God Bless America rallying points, Bush talking about doing the work of god, and that god told him to do what he’s doing. Not to mention the over abundance of religious politicos like Delay.

    6. Corporate Power is Protected

    The industrial and business aristocracies of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    This one could go with both GOP and DEM, but over all the GOP make legislation to protect or advance the industries that fund their war chests to get them elected. Notice the Oil industries rise in profits and the correlation of oil men in the Whitehouse. Not to mention that Condi Rice had a Tanker named after her at Exxon. Not to mention the Delay fiasco and Cunningham fiasco that’s come to light.

    7. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

    Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism.
    There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. Homeland security? And Patriot Act? With help from the NSA and CIA now under the one supreme leader…

    Trying to point out that someone, or a group of people, are engaged in a first amendment activity by dissenting with current administration tactics as fascism falls under which tenet above?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    That’s Andrew JOHNSON who was impeached, not Jackson and 25 years later.

    As for your ridiculous points:

    1. This is no different from every president since the beginning of time.

    2. Cruel and inhumane treatment is already prohibited by multiple conventions and treaties we’re signatory to as well as the US Constitution.

    3. The GOP has never promoted any kind of racism or hatred of groups because of who they are. What anger they have expressed is based on peoples actions, not who they are.

    4. You think we shouldn’t be concerned about security after 9/11?

    5. Lots of leaders are religious. How about Ghandi? He was spiritual. Was he a fascist? How about Martin Luther King? How about Jesus – was he a fascist too?

    6. Every American government has protected and worked with business. This is just good sense.

    7. Give me a call when the stormtroopers show up in your neck of the woods. They sure aren’t here yet.

    BTW, my final assessment of your intellect is being reserved because of the comment policy.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I found this pretty interesting…from Executive Order 12333.

    2.3 Collection of Information. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order. Those procedures shall permit collection, retention and dissemination of the following types of information:

    (a) Information that is publicly available or collected with the consent of the person concerned;

    (b) Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including such information concerning corporations or other commercial organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons;

    (c) Information obtained in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism investigation;

    (d) Information needed to protect the safety of any persons or organizations, including those who are targets, victims or hostages of international terrorist organizations;

    (e) Information needed to protect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence sources or methods from unauthorized disclosure. Collection within the United States shall be undertaken by the FBI except that other agencies of the Intelligence Community may also collect such information concerning present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present or former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting;

    (f) Information concerning persons who are reasonably believed to be potential sources or contacts for the purpose of determining their suitability or credibility;

    (g) Information arising out of a lawful personnel, physical or communications security investigation;

    (h) Information acquired by overhead reconnaissance not directed at specific United States persons;

    (i) Incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in activities that may violate federal, state, local or foreign laws; and

    (j) Information necessary for administrative purposes.

    In addition, agencies within the Intelligence Community may disseminate information, other than information derived from signals intelligence, to each appropriate agency within the Intelligence Community for purposes of allowing the recipient agency to determine whether the information is relevant to its responsibilities and can be retained by it.

    This pretty much tells me that the president has the authority to do what he did…and still has that authority to keep doing it!

    Am I wrong?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    And then there’s this, also from Executive Order 12333:

    2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.

    This one tells me it’s up to the AG…

    Am I wrong?

  • gonzo marx

    well Andy…the problem is…what you quoted was an “Executive Order”

    so, it did NOT pass Congress, now was it approved by the Judiciary

    thus bypassing “checks and balancs” as well as “searation of Powers”

    that pesky Constitution thing again

    what you quoted was a president(i don’t care which) authorizing himself broad Powers WITHOUT going thru the proper legisl;ative and Constitutional channels

    and THAT is why there’s some difficulty

    make sense?

    oh yes, and Mr Nalle…i agree that we have hit the dictionary definition of “war” but NOT the leglal definition as defined by the Constitution and the War Powers Act

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    It does make snese Gonzo…but isn’t an executive order just that…an executive order? Doesn’t that kinda constitute a CYA?

    Presidents sign them all the time…I recall clinton signing one right before he left office that had everybody fired up…

    I’m just trying to figure this all out.

  • gonzo marx

    and the WH always tries to test the boundaries of it’s Power

    my problem with this particular one is that it attempts ot bypass both the Legislature( who are supposed to be the ONLY Ones making Law) and the Judiciary( who are supposed to R?ule on things to decide the Constitutionality)

    case in point, surveilance of US citizens…Bill of Rights, 4th and 5th Amendments….even the federal FISA Law

    you can snoop all ya want, but get the fucking court order first…

    Bush bypassed that

    that’s my problem

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I’m actually trying to find some history on Executive Orders and not having much luck. At least not in what I’m actually looking for…what kind of power does an executive order carry?

    I mean they’re not laws created the way the constitution says our laws are supposed to be created, but they do seem to be carried out when a pres signs them…so what’s the deal? Are they laws, lawful orders issued by the CinC, what are they?

    Teach me!

  • gonzo marx

    well now Andy…i’m at work, so i don’t have the Time right now

    but yer a bright one…i’m certain ya can figure it out

    the Executive has some broad Powers under the Constitution , and Executive Orders allow him to excercise some of that

    it has been a big Debate over the course of US history just hwo much can be odne that way, how much steps on the otes of theother two branches, and how much is needed to “provide for the common Defense”

    a VERY worthwhile Debate for our Nation…and i am inclined to give the Oval Office a lot of latitude…however, there are some VERY clear delineations of what can and cannot be done by EACH Branch of our government, and if an “executive order” steps over those line (such as creating “laws” in effect, or bypassing Due Process, etc)

    well then, it is up to the system of “checks and balances” to correct the overreach of Power…my bitch about our current situation is that since the GOP controls HOuse, Senate and WH…there are NO “checks and balances” being excercised

    examples? check yer headlines…Frist under investigation by the SEC, DeLay’s Indictment, Libby’s Indictment, the California ex-military rep confession to major corruption, Abramhoff’s Indictment

    on and on

    “absolute power corrupts absolutely”

    i ain’t saying the other “gang” would be/are better….just that the ones in Power right now are unchecked…and that is fucking up the feedback loops that make the System self correcting

    but i woudl be willing to wager that half the shit we are hearing about woudl NEVER be happening in a divided government, cuz the scumbags on both sides of the Aisle woudl be more careful when they know the other “side” has subpeona power

    and THAT is hwo it’s supposed to work around here, IMO

    class dismissed

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Thanks Teach!

    Gonzo, you are fun to read…and I think I actually learn shit in the process!

    Gotta love them Jersey boys!

    Happy New Year!

  • http://screenrant.com Screen Rant

    gonzo,

    I have to agree with Andy. Although we disagree on things you do argue your points in a fairly civil and intelligent manner.

    Vic

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    It is kind of amusing that a probe would be started to find out how the NYT found out about this before a probe was started on whether or not Bush committed a crime…dontcha think???

  • gonzo marx

    amusing?

    i find it fucking disgusting, actually…and very typical of the Rovian/NeoCon protocol

    i do want to say thanks to Andy and Vic for the kind Thoughts about my mad ramblings at the keyboard…and thus the gist of my lunch time Screed here

    i think a lot of what you two complimented me on stems from my really not being “partisan” about everything…i like to deal with Issues, NOT political “gangs”…

    i know, some are saying “but gonzo, you are always ripping into the GOP” …which is partially True

    i DO tend to focus more of my vitriolic diatribes against the current Incarnation of the GOP, why?

    because they have a totalitarian stranglehold on the Federal Government, that’s why…if 06 and 08 shift that to the Dems having such unchecked Power, you can bet i’ll be bitching about THEIR abuses as well

    and “abuse” IS the active term here…i think i have been pretty consistent in my Positions, and many times i have publicly corrected myself and apologised as well as shifted my stated Opinions when and if i have been shown to be factually incorrect/misinformed about a Topic

    how rare is THAT when it comes to political discourse?

    but i think that behavior is REQUIRED to further understanding of an Issue, and where folks stand on it…would that our elected Representatives had the cojones to do the same, our Nation would be MUCH better off…don’tcha think?

    i come to this website to read up on different viewpoints, learn a few things, and to try and discuss Issues in a Rational manner with the hope of expanding Understanding and clarifying the underlying principles of cause and effect in our World

    a big Goal, i’ll admit…but why think in small, puny terms?

    it helps when reasonable folks approach the Issues rather than purely partisan bickering

    and what do i mean by “partisan” you Ask?

    decent Question…

    howabout this…when someone has made up their mind on an Issue and have a Position which they follow dogmatically , rather than hearing the entire Issue and evalutating said Issue purely on the merits, facts and principles involved

    then they are a partisan puke whom i have little patience with on EITHER side of the Aisle

    this is why i am a registered Independant, rather than affiliated with either “gang”

    fuck Party “loyalty”…i’m Loyal to our Constitution and our Nation…i coudl give a rat’s ass about either “party”

    in fact, the only thing i can think of worse than a two Party political system, is a single Party totalitarian Rule…like Iran…or even the current circumstance in Washington D.C. as we speak

    but there is hope, ladles and jellyspoons

    it seems there are still folks in the GOP that have pangs of conscience, and will try to do what is best fo the Nation, rather than what the “leadership” of their “gang” tells them to do

    we can only Hope

    just like i fervently Hope for a return to a divided government and gridlock after the 06 elections in November

    well, i can Dream…can’t i?

    Excelsior!

  • Bliffle

    No president is absolutely free of potential impeachment charges. There’s always SOMETHING! It just depends on Congress’ audacity. In the case of Clinton they were very audacious. But it’s a risky game as impeachment may become a common partisan political tool if the bar is lowered sufficiently, as many claim it was in Clintons case (I guess the more stern congressmen thought Clinton was Exceeding The Fun Limit, tho they seem to have lost some of their sternness in the intervening years).

    Frivolous use of impeachment (only constrained by a sort of Gentlemens Agreement, apparently) leads to the sort of political instability we used to laugh at in less sophisticated countries. But since we seem to be embracing the kind of intrusive police snooping that we Viewed With Shock And Derision in Communist countries maybe it’s only logical. Are we the New Soviets?

    As it happens, I watched the classic “Z” last night (a gorgeous new print thru Netflix) which includes a very interesting conversation between Costa-Gavras and Vassilikos (the author) in which C-G mentions that when he spoke at US Universities the students were seemingly puzzled that something like “Z” could happen since they seem to be protected by US law against such vile machinations. Ironic, since the oppressive military government of Greece in that era was CIA promoted and enabled. Ironic, too, that Greece was the birthplace of both democracy and The Republic, yet we treated it so cavalierly. Oh well, those were the heady old days of anti-communism when everything was permitted. Good thing that things are different now. They are different, aren’t they?

  • joe

    neocon protocol? Dude, you need to get laid once in a while.

  • joe

    totalitarian strangleholdtotalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold totalitarian stranglehold blah blah blah…

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Bliffle, I respectfully disagree with this statement: “In the case of Clinton they were very audacious.” Clinton did SO much ridiculous, destructive stuff. In particular, he was clearly and unequivocally LYING UNDER OATH in front of a grand jury- and witness tampering besides. Bitch absolutely had it coming.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    That was lying about his personal life wasn’t it? If so, seems like a different and much lesser action…

  • troll

    c’mon joe – that would be the Protocol of the Elders of Chicago

  • Bliffle

    Dave: “That’s Andrew JOHNSON who was impeached, not Jackson and 25 years later. ”

    Freudian slip? Perhaps he’s still pissed about Jacksons fight with Sec. Coffee over the national bank issue, I know I am. Isn’t everyone?

  • Luke

    What I don’t get, and probably will never get, is, why was Clinton investigated, and why was he put under oath, FOR FUCKING, who gets investigated and questioned under oath, for getting a fucking blowjob, and his lie was soooo god damn terrible, ooooooh such an evil liar, Clintons lies (and he should never have been questioned in the first place) didn’t get anyone killed, and yet, nothing even remotely impeachable for the honest god fearing ‘never do anything wrong’ Mr Bush, when his tiny little white lie only cost america a few hundred billion dollars, hundreds of american lives, and thousands of iraqi lives, your priorities are all fucked up when a guy lying about a blowjob is so god damn disproportionately important that he has to be investigated and questioned and impeached, but this other guys, who has done all this heinous shit, nothin, at least make a god damn token effort, investigate the bastard, ask him some god damn questions under oath, or at the very least, just send some nice detectives over to his office for a friendly chat over some tea for fucks sake.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    Good stuff, Al. Brilliant analysis as always.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The decision to invade Iraq is NOT above reproach. But to throw hissy fits that lead to an almost orgasmic desire for Bush’s impeachment is above (or below?) and beyond what I consider mature dissent.

    Impeachment is the country’s way of punishing a president for misdeeds. That does not automatically lead to one’s removal. Nixon was impeached – he resigned. Clinton was impeached – he served the rest of his second term. If Bush does, wrongly or rightly get impeached, chances are he’ll still be in the Oval Office until 2008.

    I guess considering the Left got Scooter Libby as opposed to Karl Rove, the carrot-on-the-stick for them now is Mr. Bush’s impeachment. (This, of course, doesn’t explain cries for the same in 2002, well before Iraq even happened. Oh yeah, they wanted to impeach him for Afghanistan and not turning a blind eye to 9/11 … silly me!)

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    Biffle: “Didn’t we (or various presidents presuming to speak for us all) declare war on Poverty, Drugs, Illiteracy, etc., at various times?”

    Very true, Biffle, and no, we haven’t strictly won any of them. Drugs? The War on Drugs has only gotten more expensive and anti-libertarian and less fruitful. The War on Poverty simply expanded the welfare state. The War on Illiteracy has only given us a current high-school graduation rate of 69.8 percent, down from over 70 percent in 1990 …

    However, with regard to terror, I agree wholeheartedly with Dave Nalle when he writes, “Since we have a war on terror – undeclared or not – it may require the kind of quick and decisive response you need in a time of war and which can only be made through an executive decision.” Amen to that.

    I’m not certain that Bush was even talking about going to war with every rogue nation out there. To win a war on terror, he advocated that we protect ourselves against it through punitive measures (hence, the Patriot Act and wiretapping of suspect groups), and trying to get international co-operation on anti-terrorism measures. Iraq may have been a questionable detour in anti-terrorism efforts, but reform the country at the heart of the Middle East and watch the dominoes fall …

    Terror is a concept that threatens us all. Bush takes this seriously. Do you?

  • gonzo marx

    Mark sez…
    *Terror is a concept that threatens us all. Bush takes this seriously. Do you?*

    of course..and to imply otherwise is insulting to the extreme

    that being said, it is NOT a concern for the lawful actions taken in the Name of our nation’s Defense…but the possible abuses and violations of the Constitution that have possibly occured ni said pursuit

    you mention foreign co-operation in combating international terrorism…might i point out that some of the Bush policies have REDUCED this co-operation rather than enhancing it?

    also the whole FISA bit (check out Temple’s Post and what troll has found and brought to our attention)

    there is some very scary shit going on …

    also i would suggest pondering some of what has been put out by gypsyman in his talking about “scapegoating”…

    adding all of this up, a very disturbing pattern becomes quite clear

    i fervently Hope that it is a flawed assumption, i truly want to think our Government is trying to do it’s best under the Rule of Law in the People’s Interest

    however, the information available points to the distinct possibility of such not being the case…or at the very least, Federal Laws and even the Constitution being violated for mere expediency’s sake

    and THAT fucking scares the shit out of yours truly

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    nothing even remotely impeachable for the honest god fearing ‘never do anything wrong’ Mr Bush, when his tiny little white lie only cost america a few hundred billion dollars, hundreds of american lives, and thousands of iraqi lives

    This might be because there’s no evidence that Bush actually lied, and even if he had it wouldn’t have been under oath. And in fact, the most conclusive examination of the facts suggests that Bush definitively did NOT lie. I can’t find the link right now, but there was an excellent series of articles in the NYT examining each claim made about how the administration got into the war and laying out the facts in opposition to all the spin. It’s worth reading – wish I had bookmarked it.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    well Mr Nalle..Question for ya..was the article you are citing written by Judith Miller(i should say copied by her from a memo via Scooter?)

    i’m half teasing here

    part of the problem associated with the Miller/Plame/Libby/Cheney thing revolves around the now undisputed Fact that Scooter gave stuff to Miller who printed it in the NYT and was then referenced by Cheney and other Administration spokespersons in press conferences and the sunday news chatshows

    devious, subtle and Ethically corrupt seeding of propaganda , IMO…

    (thanks to whomever fixxed those links in my above Commentary)

    speaking of which..anyone else follow what troll and i are talking about?

    anyone else freaked out about it?

    anyone else got the stones to discuss it?

    Enquiring minds wanna know…

    IMO, this is one of THE most important Issues facing us today..one way or the other

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • witheld

    (ĭk-sĕlsē-ər) – 1 definition – American Heritage Dictionary

    excelsior (n.) Slender, curved wood shavings used especially for packing.

    ???

  • gonzo marx

    dig deeper…

    the word is not “american” except in that context

    try Stan Lee and his soapbox

    if that’s too obscure, think of it as a word in another language

    and strive “always upward”

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • troll
  • Bliffle

    Al: “Clinton did SO much ridiculous, destructive stuff.”

    They ALL do riciculous stuff. So do the rest of us. Being ridiculous is just the price of being human. Destructive? It’s all so long ago. I don’t remember. Couldn’t have been too destructive.

    “… In particular, he was clearly and unequivocally LYING UNDER OATH in front of a grand jury- and witness tampering besides. Bitch absolutely had it coming.”

    I agree: he was lying about Monica! Faithless bastard! He should be locked in stocks in the village square so the women (and other interested parties) can pelt him with rotten tomatoes. There! Now THAT would be appropriate punishment for his infidelity.

    Good thing I’ve never lied to my wife. Good thing I’ve never cheated! Good thing The Gods aren’t correcting my claims.

    Who’s that guy who’s entitled to throw the first stone?

  • Bliffle

    “Terror is a concept that threatens us all. Bush takes this seriously. Do you?”

    My god, I’m being threatened by A Concept!

    Wasn’t the “Concept” a GM car a few years ago?

    If I were threatened by every malevolent concept that came down the road I’d have to go live in a cork-lined room and start gibbering senselessly to myself. Oops! Maybe I am already!

  • waveonshore

    It is ashame that we have allowed the position of President in the United States to degrade to the point that an individual of limited intellect and shifting ideals can sit two terms! It will be great for the country to move on, hopefully finding someone for this office who exhibits fiscal responsibility, real compassion and solid moral character. So long George!

  • Luke

    #97
    Dave Nalle
    URL
    December 31, 2005

    This might be because there’s no evidence that Bush actually lied, and even if he had it wouldn’t have been under oath. And in fact, the most conclusive examination of the facts suggests that Bush definitively did NOT lie. I can’t find the link right now, but there was an excellent series of articles in the NYT examining each claim made about how the administration got into the war and laying out the facts in opposition to all the spin. It’s worth reading – wish I had bookmarked it.

    Dave

    ———————————————-

    At this point it feals like some things ended up being true by mere coincidence, it’s just a really poor excuse for a weapons stockpile, the things that I’ve read about.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    well Mr Nalle..Question for ya..was the article you are citing written by Judith Miller(i should say copied by her from a memo via Scooter?)

    No, it was written by a series of different writers over a 9 week period ending the week before Christmas. I can’t figure out why I can’t find it. There was a great summary of all the findings at the end of it all, but I can’t find it anymore. Very frustrating.

    devious, subtle and Ethically corrupt seeding of propaganda , IMO…

    Or quite reasonably it could be careless, cavalier and ignorant revelation of marginally sensitive information.

    anyone else freaked out about it?

    Most of us aren’t living in crazy conspiracyland with you guys.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    when speaking of the absolute Fact of the WH having it’s talking points printed in an American newspaper via devious means and then referencing them in other news media, Mr Nalle sez…
    *Or quite reasonably it could be careless, cavalier and ignorant revelation of marginally sensitive information.*

    and you wonder why there are times i think you are deliberately behaving as an Apologist?

    and when i ask “is anybody else freaked out by this”
    Mr Nalle sez…
    *Most of us aren’t living in crazy conspiracyland with you guys.*

    and you wonder why i say it is the tactic of this Administration and it’s fellow travellers to “distract,distort,deny and destroy”

    when statements like that make you appear to be the Poster child for the tactic

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I just have a more realistic attitude towards this stuff, gonzo. I don’t see every action the administration makes as some sort of evil plot as you seem to do. Try putting yourself in their shoes for once. What would you do differently? How would you deal with the issues they have to deal with? When you do that I think that their actions make a certain amount of sense.

    As for this business of quoting sources which are repeating statements which they themselves originated, I’d characterize tha as clever and devious and entirely within their rights if they think they can get away with it.

    Dave

  • troll

    change your ‘realistic’ to ‘nihilistic’ above and I think you’re on to something – not surprising considering your childhood affiliation with the ubermenchen

    (what does ‘evil plot’ have to do with any of this…that’s just distracting bullshit)

    …the Pres had his crew do what he thought was necessary…ok – fine – now face the music without evasion

    congressional and judicial review

    troll

  • gonzo marx

    oh Mr. Nalle…it bloggles my little Mind that you can even type this…

    Nalle sez…
    *I just have a more realistic attitude towards this stuff, gonzo.*

    and then…
    *I’d characterize tha as clever and devious and entirely within their rights if they think they can get away with it.*

    so it is OK for our elected Leaders and their Staff to violate Ethics, and even the Law and Constitution if they “think they can get away with it”

    might i suggest that Position is Ethically bankrupt as well as morally corrupt in the extreme, and i expect MUCH better from the Leadership of our Nation, especilly when they campaigned on being the ones to “bring back morals and values to the White House on day one”…fucking Hypocrits

    Nalle sez…
    *What would you do differently? *

    howabout follow the fucking Law, uphold and defend the Constitution as you fucking Swore to do when you took the Oath of Office….twice?

    how’s that for a start?

    you keep trying to paint me as someone who “sees an evil plot”…and i put it to you that what i do is try and observe the Objective Facts and point out what i think is relevant as well as voice my Concerns and give the Reasons why

    the ONLY times i have ever attempted to ascribe any kind of motivation is when i talk about the clear and published Agenda of the PNAC, their signatory members, and those who have been in the Administration and shaped it’s Policies…

    have i been Factually inaccurate in any of these circumstances?

    Excelsior!

  • Bennett

    The fans of truth and reality cheer Gonzo and Troll, Dave gets a round of catcalls.

    Gentlemen, keep up the good work!

  • gonzo marx

    HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!

    and thanks for the kind Thoughts, Bennet

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    so it is OK for our elected Leaders and their Staff to violate Ethics, and even the Law and Constitution if they “think they can get away with it”

    Did I ever say ANYTHING even vaguely like this? No. Nice attempt with the straw man.

    might i suggest that Position is Ethically bankrupt as well as morally corrupt in the extreme

    Well, if that WERE my position I’d certainly be chastened.

    , and i expect MUCH better from the Leadership of our Nation, especilly when they campaigned on being the ones to “bring back morals and values to the White House on day one”…fucking Hypocrits

    Hypocrites they may well be. They’re FUCKING POLITICIANS, gonzo. Did you not GET that memo?

    My comment was specifically in response to your bit about feeding info to the media and then quoting it back as legit after it got printed. That’s not illegal, it’s at worst marginally sneaky, and it IS kind of clever. As political moves go, it’s admirably slick.

    Nalle sez…
    *What would you do differently? *

    howabout follow the fucking Law, uphold and defend the Constitution as you fucking Swore to do when you took the Oath of Office….twice?

    how’s that for a start?

    For a start it’s not an answer to the question and it’s certainly not a policy or a solution to the nations problems. We can all agree that following the law and constitution is a must, but at the same time there has to BE a law and constitution to uphold, and that means preserving and protecting the nation.

    So I’ll ask more specifically. If you had knowledge of a specific, immediate threat to the nation – a hypothetical second 9/11 – and knew that the FISA procedures would cost too much delay to respond to the situation, what would you do?

    you keep trying to paint me as someone who “sees an evil plot”…and i put it to you that what i do is try and observe the Objective Facts and point out what i think is relevant as well as voice my Concerns and give the Reasons why

    You left out the part about ALWAYS putting the most negative possible interpretation on the facts you encounter. That’s what takes it beyond reason into the realm of conspiracy fantasy.

    the ONLY times i have ever attempted to ascribe any kind of motivation is when i talk about the clear and published Agenda of the PNAC, their signatory members, and those who have been in the Administration and shaped it’s Policies…

    Have you forgotten that the PNAC has condemned the administration and its policies and made an effort to distance themselves? Plus, if you’re read the PNAC agenda then you KNOW that the war in Iraq doesn’t follow their protocols in any meaningful way. It’s clearly NOT an empire building war no matter how you look at it. The facts just don’t support the PNAC conspiracy. They’re yet another group that’s been coopted and used to political advantage by the administration.

    have i been Factually inaccurate in any of these circumstances?

    It’s not the facts, it’s the conclusions you draw from them.

    Dave

  • troll

    Dave – glad your back…I must apologize for the ubermenchen comment – it was somewhat out of line

    troll

  • Dave Nalle

    That’s ok, troll, I had no idea who you were referring to – and my nihilistic streak was instilled in me by my college philosophy profs.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    well Nalle, we’ve gone round and round on most of this, so i’ll just stick to the direct Question…

    Nalle sez…
    *So I’ll ask more specifically. If you had knowledge of a specific, immediate threat to the nation – a hypothetical second 9/11 – and knew that the FISA procedures would cost too much delay to respond to the situation, what would you do?*

    ok..first i disAgree with your hypothetical’s premise that it is an either/or situation…note that even you don’t assert that such Circumstances have come about in Reality…so this is another purely speculative excercise…

    it is my Opinion that FISA allows plenty of room for such Circumstance, as i have stated above…one can EASILY Respond to whatever and THEN spend the 72 hours to state your case…hell, properly managed you could Resolve any such Situation and THEN take your case to the Court, well within the spirit and letter of the Law

    that being said…i would do what was needed to Defend the Nation, and if i was required to violate ANY Law in doing so, proceed to take full Responsibility for ALL of it…NOT my subordinates, NOT make any excuses…if it was my thinking that i had Violated my Oath of Office i would then Resign and release full documentation to Congress and the Supreme Court and willnigly Accept any Consequences

    how’s that?

    oh yes…i got the Memo about them being Politicians…as i have stated earlier, THEY set the “standard” to a high level…i hold them Responsible for their Words and Actions

    as for the whole PNAC thing…can you actually be that naive?

    now personally…a Happy New years to you and yours

    Excelsior!

    however, for the sake of your Hypothetical Question…my personal Response

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    ok..first i disAgree with your hypothetical’s premise that it is an either/or situation…note that even you don’t assert that such Circumstances have come about in Reality…so this is another purely speculative excercise…

    it is my Opinion that FISA allows plenty of room for such Circumstance, as i have stated above…one can EASILY Respond to whatever and THEN spend the 72 hours to state your case…hell, properly managed you could Resolve any such Situation and THEN take your case to the Court, well within the spirit and letter of the Law

    Ok, makes sense so far. Let’s go the next logical step. What if the overall investigation will take more than 72 hours, and you suspect there are people on the FISA court who are unreliable or likely to leak information about the investigation to the general public or your political opposition. What do you do then?

    that being said…i would do what was needed to Defend the Nation, and if i was required to violate ANY Law in doing so, proceed to take full Responsibility for ALL of it…NOT my subordinates, NOT make any excuses…if it was my thinking that i had Violated my Oath of Office i would then Resign and release full documentation to Congress and the Supreme Court and willnigly Accept any Consequences

    That sounds perfectly reasonable, except it raises the quesiton of who the president is most answerable to, the constitution or the people of the united states? And what if different parts of the constitution conflict with each other? Like for example the part about the duties of the commander in chief and the 4th amendment? For that matter, isn’t the ENTIRE idea of FISA a violation of the 4th amendment – kind of unequivocally? If we accept FISA in the first place we’re already way into a gray area.

    Ok, next question then. How about if the white house turns in the paperwork on those 30 wiretaps now? Sure, they missed the 72 hour deadline, but how are they any more in violation of the constitution now than they would have been within the 72 hour limit?

    Hey, let’s throw this whole thing infront of the Supreme Court – bye bye FISA, Bush gets a slap on the wrist, some terrorists get to file civil suits. What fun!

    oh yes…i got the Memo about them being Politicians…as i have stated earlier, THEY set the “standard” to a high level…i hold them Responsible for their Words and Actions

    And you call ME naive?

    as for the whole PNAC thing…can you actually be that naive?

    It’s easy – just compare what PNAC says with what the administration has done. There’s little or no correlation.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    the bullshit Hypotheticals are way tiresome, so forgive me if i skip it and just go with the one Point here…

    Nalle sez…
    *
    That sounds perfectly reasonable, except it raises the quesiton of who the president is most answerable to, the constitution or the people of the united states?*

    the Answer is… the Constitution

    the President takes his Oath of Office to uphold and defend what?

    nuff said

    Excelsior!

  • Bliffle

    The WMD advance seeding thing was well documented. The principles didn’t even deny it, in fact I think they were proud of it. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s an actual conspiracy. Remember Dick Tuck? He was the democrat who played tricks on the repubs to embarrass them in the press with ridicule.

  • Dave Nalle

    I thought a Dick Tuck was something transvestites did while wearing clingy dresses.

    Tell me more about this ‘WMD advance seeding’ – are you talking about the WMD data from Iraq that goes back into the 1980s? That’s one hell of an advance seeding – did they seed the WMDs in Iraq too? Give me a break.

    Dave

  • Luke

    Maybe a police state won’t be so bad, throw away the constitution and start a new one.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Do you really think that our current political leaders could write a decent constitution? Imagine something like the EU constitution, but maybe even worse.

    Dave

  • troll

    ‘the people of the US’ is constituted as such by the Constitution so the answer to the question of which is owed primary allegiance is clear

    the answer to all the other what ifs proposed is that the end (‘protecting the US’ however you define this concept) cannot be allowed to justify unconstitutional means

    I don’t see where there are any brakes in the system of extra-legal judgment the Dave proposes…how do you stop a slide into totalitarianism when those damned socialists (dems) regain power

    take your logic games off my bridge

    troll

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Now there’s a scary thought, troll. Democrats empowered by Bush’s actions.

    And that would be a major concern. We can trust the GOP not to allow any of these emergency measures to get out of hand. Once they become precedents for a Democrat administration all bets would be off.

    Dave

  • o

    bush sucks

  • gonzo marx

    Nalle sez…
    *We can trust the GOP not to allow any of these emergency measures to get out of hand.*

    and there you have it folks…clear declaration that Nalle trusts the big government of the GOP to handle the fine line between this side of the Law, and stepping over it for whatever Reasons are cited

    dreckandfehandfuckingHell

    i don’t Trust ANY of the bastards, neither did the Founders..hence why we have our Constitution set up as we do, to ensure “checks and balances” like the “separation of Powers”…so we, as Citizens don’t HAVE to “trust” politicians…instead we hold to the Rule of Law

    it will be a very interestesting year ahead, indeed

    Spector looking into the “surveilance” stuff…the whole Plame bit still under Investigation, DeLay’s indictment, Libby’s Indictments on 5 counts, the SEC investigating Frist, the Texas redistricting going before SCOTUS…

    on and on

    and the real big one that has quite a few elected Representatives as well as Rove and senior staffers ALL over the Hill sweating…

    uber-lobbyist Abramhoff cutting a deal with prosecutors and the possible testimony/indictments coming from that corruption scandal

    we will see who winds up twisting in the wind come November

    Excelsior!

  • troll

    no o – Monica sucks

    troll grows dreamy…imagine what things would be like now if Congress had done its job and run the som’bitch outa town – tarred and feathered his sorry ‘child molesting’ ass

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    Bennett: “The fans of truth and reality cheer Gonzo and Troll”

    Gonzo and troll, the fans of truth and reality? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAA!

    Heh heh … that hurt … heh heh.

  • troll

    Mark – you have a beautiful laugh

    troll

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    and there you have it folks…clear declaration that Nalle trusts the big government of the GOP to handle the fine line between this side of the Law, and stepping over it for whatever Reasons are cited

    Not quite right, gonzo. I trust the responsible elements in the GOP to check the excesses of the overly ambitious elements in the GOP. That’s the value of the big tent that the GOP represents, there’s always someone there with a different agenda who’s willing to say ‘hey, wait a sec’ when someone goes over the line. That diversity doesn’t exist to the same extent in the opposition party with the possible exception of Barney Frank. Everyone there is too loyal to the party to question what their more extreme compatriots are willing to do.

    In the GOP you get people rebelling agaisnt Bush. In the opposition you get utter silence when John Conyers starts making wacky accusations.

    i don’t Trust ANY of the bastards, neither did the Founders..hence why we have our Constitution set up as we do, to ensure “checks and balances” like the “separation of Powers”…so we, as Citizens don’t HAVE to “trust” politicians…instead we hold to the Rule of Law

    You don’t have to trust the politicians, but you CAN trust the process, and that process of competing ambitions WORKS in the GOP and does not work in the opposition.

    Spector looking into the “surveilance” stuff

    And right there you yourself prove my point. Is Spector a democrat? No, he’s raising the questions and he’s in the GOP. It’s a party with a conscience – more than one conscience in fact.

    uber-lobbyist Abramhoff cutting a deal with prosecutors and the possible testimony/indictments coming from that corruption scandal

    I’m looking forward to this investigation so I can call it our second war of genocide against the Native Americans.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    now here we have the crux of major discrepencies in our views of political Realities

    me..i remember the lockstep allegiance of the GOP to the Will of the WH/DeLay/Leadership…and it reeks of cover yer ass politics that now as we approach a mid-term election, SOME of the GOP are beginning to stand up to said “leadership”

    not that i am saying the Dems are ANY better,or any worse…but it HAS been the GOP that has run the show for the last 5 years…and the rank and file have NOT impressed me with their “independance”…rather it has been the exact opposite…it is only now as those elections approach and the Pres’ numbers have dropped like a rock that smoe members of the GOP are beginning to try and distance themselves from where they have been in the last few years

    example: does anyone else remember the whole Schiavo mess? just how “independant” were those members there?

    i fairly certain that any Objective viewing of the record since 2000 will show the Reality here

    Nalle sez…
    *And right there you yourself prove my point. Is Spector a democrat? No, he’s raising the questions and he’s in the GOP. It’s a party with a conscience – more than one conscience in fact.*

    see above…do you honestly believe that this woudl happen were it not an election year and the Pres’ numbers had tanked?

    as for Abramhoff…we shall see…i’ll bet a dollar that it will be MUCH fun for me, but a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth for the GOP

    time will tell

    Excelsior!

  • Bennett

    MEM – You really should write comments like that for the B5 post, you’ll fit right in.

    Also, please reread my comment…

    Did I call gonzo and Troll “the fans of truth and reality”?

    No, I was referring to ME, and everyone else that appreciates how Troll and gonzo take on Nalle’s apologist obfuscation. btw, no cheers for you or your posts.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    gonzo – you’re being a little dishonest here…if you’re gonna call this an election year, as in, “…do you honestly believe that this woudl happen were it not an election year and the Pres’ numbers had tanked?”…then you gotta call EVERY year an election year. And the latest info I read says the presidents numbers are coming back up…so come on…admit that there might actually be one or two relatively honest politicians.

    You bitch about checks and balances and all that and when someone in the offending party does the right thing, as in Spector, you say he’s only investigating his own party for political gain? That’s a little out there as conspiracies go…don’tcha think???

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The whole election year argument is bogus when it comes to Spector anyway. The man will be lucky to live to the next election much less run in it. He’s in poor health and old as hell. He’s also a man of conviction, and while there may be fewer men of conviction in the GOP than there once were, at least their convictions are good for the country, rather than the popular convictions to globalism, defeatism and socialism which you find among the opposition.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    not really Andy…and i will gladly admit that there are good and bad folks on BOTH sides of the Aisle…

    fair enough?

    as for the poll numbers, i don’t count them as much as it might appear…i was merely using it as an example…yer right in that the Iraqi election bumped him up from abotu 37% to about 40% or so..plus or minus, depending on whose Poll and what is being asked

    Congressional numbers are even worse

    now, can you admit that there is some Truth to what i was saying that quite a few of the politicians on the GOP side may be breakign ranks, not from any kind of altruistic motivations, but more to cover their asses in the upcoming elections?

    example would be some of Santorum’s changes in policy in the last few motnhs

    this as opposed to let’s say, McCain…who has remained relatively consistent in his positions

    when i am “bitching” about “checks and balances” it’s due to the Fact that a single Party controls House, Senate and White House…

    it is my Opinion that this has caused SOME folks to be a bit bold in their pecadillos, since they know they will not need to fear being Investigated and subpeona’d by a Senate or Congressional comittee

    it also poses Questions, at least as far as appearance is concerned if not in actual transgressions, about possible negligence in Oversight due to Party loyalty

    hence my advocacy and desire for, a divided Government…so their own political ambitions keep each Party in “check”, and the possibility of an investigation by the Opposition provides “balance”

    i do hope that helps clear things up a bit

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    If you want a ‘divided government’ that would really keep things in check, then you need to join me in pushing for the complete collapse of the current party system to be replaced by about 5 parties instead. We should take a lesson from Iraq and realize that in politics diversity is strength and the need to compromise keeps people honest.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    To follow up that last, I just had a hideous thought. Maybe what we need is a constitutional amendment to limit the number of seats any one party can hold in the house of representatives to 2/5 of the membership. If only two parties elect members under this system, then the 20% of the seats which neither party could claim would be evenly divided between the parties and filled with members voted on from their ranks by the congress as a whole who would then not be allowed to hold any committee chairmanships.

    Still a work in progress…

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Gonzo – I was clear…I was raising the flag is all…as my german friends would say…I MUST! raise the flag when I smell the odor! They like that verb “must” over there. And I used the word “bitching” in a loving sense only gonzo…

    I would also agree there are good and bad on both sides and in my opinion,,,more bad than good on both!

    As far as breaking ranks…it seems to me that people on both sides of the aisle are breaking ranks left and right! You have guys like you mentioned…McCain and Spector…I listen and read the news and I can’t figure out where the dems stand on any issue…half of them are behind Murtha…half of them are shying away from Murtha…and the other half…yeah I know…that’s three halfs…but that’s how freaking confusing the whole thing is! don’t know what they wanna do.

    I really am tired of this shit though…all these politicians pretending like they weren’t behind this war in the beginning…pretending like they didn’t read the same intelligence that the WH did…ok…maybe that’s not so far fetched…trying to believe that a politician actually read something and wasn’t briefed by an aide…

    you talk about checks and balances…and yeah, we all know that’s how it’s supposed to work…but why does the center point of the balance always have to be shifted around…how the hell is anyone supposed to get a square lid with this scale??? And on that note…smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em!

    Happy New Year!

  • gonzo marx

    Nalle sez…
    *If you want a ‘divided government’ that would really keep things in check, then you need to join me in pushing for the complete collapse of the current party system to be replaced by about 5 parties instead.*

    i could get behind that, and i will take you a bit more seriously on it when you are not a card carrying member of the GOP any longer

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, I’m a member of the Liberty Caucus of the GOP. It’s like a party within a party. When the time comes it will either take over or be forced to split off, but that time hasn’t come yet.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Oh, and the Liberty Caucus is the only republican organization I belong to. The party doesn’t issue membership cards.

    Dave

  • Bliffle

    Dave: “I thought a Dick Tuck was something transvestites did while wearing clingy dresses.”

    Touche!

    I’m momentarily unmanned (as it were) and must retreat to my Fortress Of Ineptitude to seek a reposte.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Coalition government is where it’s at, way better than 2 party systems.

    Anyone want to post a list of the other main political parties in the USA?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    And coalition government is NOT incompatible with our Constitution. There’s nothing at all in there about parties, and all the recognition of parties in the practices of the House and Senate is just the result of rules they set up over the years, which could easily be adapted to handle more parties.

    Since you asked, here are the main alternative political parties in the US in approximate order of size:

    Libertarian Party
    Green Party
    Constitution Party (religious conservative)
    Socialist Workers Party
    Communist Party USA
    Natural Law Party (TM practicers)
    Peoples Party
    American Party (Know Nothings)

    The last three may have modified their names as they do from time to time. The top two probably have a couple of million adherents each. The next four have a million or two between them. The last two have a handful of crazy guys in a minivan covered with stickers. Of the parties the Libertarians are the only ones capable of fielding candidates in every major national election and qualifying for the ballot in every state. The greens are a bit behind that but trying hard. Both libertarians and greens hold scattered state and local offices around the country.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Oh, I forgot. The libertarians effectively have one seat in congress in the form of Ron Paul who is essentially a libertarian even if he’s nominally a Republican. The socialists have one congressman as well in the form of Bernie Sanders who claims he’s an independent and cleaves to the democrats but is officially a socialist.

    Dave

  • Bliffle

    I favor coalitions and a weak(er) president and I think The Founders did, too, tho one could argue that as presidents they themselves were often autocratic, but I maintain that it was awareness of their own capacities for excess that drove them to institutionalize restrictions on presidential power.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Does the current US electoral system tend to work against these smaller parties?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Oh Chris, do NOT get me started on the very many ways in which our electoral system is stacked sideways forwards and backwards against any kind of independents. Start with the couple of million dollars it would take to get a presidential candidate on most state ballots- and it would be nearly impossible to get on every ballot even with unlimited resources.

  • gonzo marx

    this is a bit of a digression from the main Topic, but what the hell

    yes, Money is a BIG stumbling block to many third Party attempts…but it has been shown that it can be done…here in Maine we have had a few Independant Governors…there was Jesse Ventura in Minnesota…probably more that i have forgotten

    but the largest problem i see has always been over-ambition…the Libertarians spending cash for an obvious failure of a presidential race, when they don’t really even hold a seat in Congress or the Senate…poor Strategy, IMO

    if any third Party wants to get serious, they have to start at the beginning…School Boards, City Councils..Mayoral Races…seats in State offices, governors…congress and the Senate…THEN you can try for the big One

    but, instead of being patient and building from the grass roots…they over reach and waste resources in places where they have NO fucking chance

    and that’s always been taken advantage of by the established Parties

    just my one sixth billionths of the world’s Opinion

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Good points, Gonzo. In my experience with the LP their biggest failing is not taking the money they have – and they do have some money – and using it to establish a campaign fund for lower-level offices. They sink the money into national advertising and sending their presidential candidate all over the place, when that same money spent locally could gain them a seat in a state house or some judgeships or more seats on city councils. I don’t see how coming in third in a presidential campaign is worth more than actually winning even a handful of lower level positions.

    When I ran as a libertarian a couple of years ago – and I’m sure Al Barger will bear this out – there was virtually zero support from the national party except in the form of a video on how to campaign, which I hardly needed. They wanted me on the ballot, but not with any serious intention to win. They just wanted to maintain visibility. So I ended up paying a couple of thousand of my own dollars mainly for the experience and for a chance to publicly debate the cute little bundle of evil who was my opponent and expose some of her corruption publicly.

    It was certainly a learning experience – both in terms of learning more about running a campaign – and in terms of a final lesson in how basically worthless the LP is as a political party organization.

    Dave

  • troll

    re the discussion of party politics here’s this tidbit bemoaning a system of multiple weak parties – interesting POV

    troll

  • gonzo marx

    dayum troll…

    you come up with the kewlest linkages

    it IS a very interesting take on it, and shows the possible dangers of the Party system swing too far in the opposite direction from our own 2 Party system

    but i’m not entirely convinced that the Author of the Article has it entirely right…there may indeed be gridlock on quite a bit, with most concerns being local…but those fleeting “coalitions” DO seem to promote a “national agenda” in some sense

    in the sense that all that appears to get done is the “dumbed down” bits of compromise that a voting Majority can agree on

    to my way of thinking, that’s what it all should be about

    but what the fuck do i know

    Excelsior!

  • troll

    *but those fleeting “coalitions” DO seem to promote a “national agenda” in some sense*

    agreed – the author is doing the strawman dance to a degree

    I’d like to see more anarchy (read applied chaos theory) in the US party system

    troll

  • gonzo marx

    Anarchists Unite!!

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • Dave Nalle

    Did you guys note that the link was to the Manila Times? Not exactly a country anyone would pick as an example of political normality. Certainly not comparable to the US or the UK or any country with a history of democratic government.

    Dave

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I see that this nonsense has gotten down to a three way shoot-out beteen Dave Nalle, Troll and Gonzo Marx. You guys should set up your own magazine!

    Troll’s link from the Manilla Times could have just as easily been picked up from the semi-official Haaretz, or the Jerusalem Post. It is as very accurate description of coalition government. Even where you have parties with a long history of existence, like in Israel, and a democracy that has been functioning for a century and a half, like Canada, the mechanics of coalition government are such that the coalition always has one foot in the grave and other on a banana peel. Keep your eyes on Chancellor Merkl of the German Federal Republic.

    Troll’s link also has particular relevance because the Phillipines alleges to have a system of government modelled on yours.

    But back to the original topic at hand. Emperor George Bush has brought your economy to the brink of collapse by his spending policies. The war in Iraq is part of it, but it is not the issue. Your country is so far in the hole that you can’t see up to the sunshine anymore. When your economy collapses, so will the government.

    In this instance, when (notice I didn’t say “if”) your economy does collapse, it will have been due to state action – to the action of the sitting administration. If that isn’t a “high crime” or “misdemeanour”, I do not know what is.

    If your economy and government collapse, all the high minded goals of the constitution of 1789, one of the best secular constitutions for governance the world has ever seen, will cease to be.

    In the end, when you consider “high crimes and misdemeanours”, you need to consider whether the sitting president has undermined the achievement of the basis goals of the constitution of 1789 by his actions. If he has, he deserves to be removed.

    However, the impeachbush website is just a partisan rant by a bunch of fools.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    “You guys should set up your own magazine!”

    Yep, turn the page and read all the same arguments again under a different headline … yippeee.

    Coaltion governments have very fundamental weaknesses, and though the see saw effect of D and R administrations keeps a lot from getting anywhere, there’s an underlying compelling force that allows progress.

    It’s money not choices that’s the problem; though the lack of choices certainly exacerbates the pollution effect of money in politics.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Actually, all forms of government have their own unique weaknesses, I just prefer a weak government to a strong one.

    It can lead to periods of frustration and lack of progress but that seems like a small price to pay for the limitation on power and the eventual creation of an atmosphere of co-operation and compromise rather than swinging back-and-forth every election or two.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Troll’s link from the Manilla Times could have just as easily been picked up from the semi-official Haaretz, or the Jerusalem Post. It is as very accurate description of coalition government. Even where you have parties with a long history of existence, like in Israel, and a democracy that has been functioning for a century and a half, like Canada, the mechanics of coalition government are such that the coalition always has one foot in the grave and other on a banana peel. Keep your eyes on Chancellor Merkl of the German Federal Republic.

    I think weak government isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but if coalitions are so inherently weak, how do you explain the long and very successful tenures of people like Margaret Thatcher?

    But back to the original topic at hand. Emperor George Bush has brought your economy to the brink of collapse by his spending policies. The war in Iraq is part of it, but it is not the issue. Your country is so far in the hole that you can’t see up to the sunshine anymore. When your economy collapses, so will the government.

    Apparently large numbers frighten you, but when taken in context the amount Bush has spent is not that enormous, nor has he put us significantly farther in debt than previous presidents. If our economy didn’t collapse because of the far more out of control spending of Reagan or Bush I or Johnson, why should it collapse because of the current situation? In America the government is not the economy and it’s not the primary employer. Government spending is a tiny fraction of our overall economy and not large enough to bring the whole system crashing down.

    In this instance, when (notice I didn’t say “if”) your economy does collapse, it will have been due to state action – to the action of the sitting administration. If that isn’t a “high crime” or “misdemeanour”, I do not know what is.

    You’re also overlooking the fact that the current administration has created a surprisingly strong economy out of a disaster left by the previous economy. Many experts suggest that we’re just at the beginning of a prolonged period of growth, and the fact is that the deficit could easily be erased by just a little fiscal responsibility or just by staying the current course and giving it some time.

    In the end, when you consider “high crimes and misdemeanours”, you need to consider whether the sitting president has undermined the achievement of the basis goals of the constitution of 1789 by his actions. If he has, he deserves to be removed.

    Presidents have plunged us into real economic disaster and never been impeached for it, because people understand that it is factors in the private sector, not government policy which control whether the economy rises or falls.

    Dave

  • troll

    * if coalitions are so inherently weak, how do you explain the long and very successful tenures of people like Margaret Thatcher?*

    good question

    control of a good PR machine?

    troll

  • gonzo marx

    ko….this is an interesting sidetrack, so let me go with it a sec

    the big difference i see between a US version of a multi(more than 2) Party coalition style government and that of , let’s say the UK, Israel or Canada is simplicity itself…

    the difference between a Prime Minister elected by said government from a coalition and a directly elected President

    subtle, but important distinction

    and it leads to to think that such a multi Party style government was intended by the Founders due to the structure of the Federal system

    to wit: Congressmen look out for hte Interests of their Districts
    Senators for the Interests of their State
    and the Executive tries to ride herd on it all, and look out for the Interest of the Nation as a whole

    now, is that System unwieldy and cumbersome?

    bet yer ass it is…and on purpose too…so that it takes a really good Idea that a sizable Majority are behind to get it form the Legislature as a Bill, past the “saucer in which the tea of national debate cools” Senate, and then signed by the Pres

    just my Thoughts…and Bog knows i need more coffee

    Excelsior!

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    I’m confused. We seem to be discussing Thatcher’s coalition government? When did that happen???

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Dave,

    You are quoting me, so I guess I’ll have to answer…

    As for Meg Thatcher, to my memory (I could be wrong, someone living in Britain more knowledgable than me can correct me with the specific party totals in the House), she always had a majority of Tories in the House of Commons.

    There is also the matter of personality. It is not always that party leaders are “eminences grises” or such worms that it doesn’t pay to follow them. For many years David ben Gurion was able to dominate politics here even though his party, the MAPA”I, never had more than 45 seats in the Knesset (61 is a majority). From what I remember, Meg Thatcher had more cojones than the male members of her cabinet.

    Moving on… Large numbers do not frighten me at all. My background is public administration. I keep thinking back to Kathy Gill’s article on the merry road to financial disaster and how a small number stuck out in my mind – 100%. That number represented the percentage of unfunded liabilities the US government had racked up as against the net worth of all of you Yanks. It meant that your country is effectively busted.

    The reason for all this is that your government has gone on a spending spree. It has been spending money like a spendaholic with a charge card in a shopping mall. There are billions in “flood and mud” – for FEMA, billions more to prosecute a war in Iraq, not to mention (because I know someone else will surely raise it) the few billions the government of Israel has spent in the States that was “given” it in foreign aid.

    No matter how much you dance and sing about theories of this or that kind about deficit spending and how debt is “good” for you, eventually, the chickens of debt always come home to roost – at just the wrong time, too!

    So, when the chickens do come home to roost, you’ll learn what it is to have $20,000 in cash in your pocket – knowing that all it can buy you is a day’s groceries. I have about 800 shekels in “old” money, the money used before the ‘new’ shekel was introduced here a decade or so ago. The new shekel was accomplished by shaving 3 zeros off the old. So the 800 old shekels I have are worth 80 grush – .80 new shekels or 17 cents – and that buys absolutely nothing. If that weren’t enough to make the point, I have a Reichsbanknote with 100,000 reichsmark printed on it. I don’t know exactly how much this bill was worth in 1923 or 1924. But it couldn’t have been more than a dollar or two THEN, or $10 now. I’m sure you are familiar with the value of Soviet rubles.

    Eventually, that is what comes of overspending. It won’t help to toss economists’ numbers at me. It is not the numbers that impress me, it is the approach. Someone other than Americans are holding your economy’s nuts in a jar – so you guys are in BIG trouble.

    That is why I say that it is your government that is plunging your economy into a disaster – one you don’t even see coming – and therefore why ITS actions will have to be considered as a high crime and misdemeanour.

  • gonzo marx

    LOL, Christopher…a natural progression/digression which grew organically as the conversation mutated…or dare i say it, evolved

    soOOOooOOOooOOoooo…i’ll drag things back to the Original Post…

    in the very first Paragraph, big Al quotes the Articles of Impeachment…fair enough and a fine “place to begin under hsi chosen topic

    might i point out that “Bribery” is one of those specifically mentioned, then toss in the looming Abramhoff scandal and toss out good old Jack’s ties to DeLay(whom he worked for and prayed with in office), not to mention good old Jack’s close ties with Rove?

    this mess is gonna make fine fodder for everybody in the months to come

    where i got off Al’s “bus” here is when he referred to Scooter Libby’s indictments as *minor foolishness*

    and to that, i gotta Ask big Al, if being Indicted on 5 counts (perjury and obstruction of Justice) is “minor” then what counts as “major”?

    careful with the Answer…the last Impeachment, for which folks like Al are so fond/proud of, was over “perjury” for which the Individual was NEVER even Indicted in court

    both of these Cases/Investigations/prosecutions will be quite the shitstorm for the Administration to try and ride herd on

    “curioser and curioser”

    how is that fer dragging It back on track, Christopher?

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    gonzo – didn’t wild bill get disbarred for that perjury he was never charged with???

  • gonzo marx

    yep Andy..Slick Willie was indeed disbarred…which can be done by mere “appearance of impropriety” and which he did not even contest

    yer point?

    and WTF does that have to do with the topic under discussion?

    seriously..folks bring that shit up every chance they get to distract from the facts at hand…it’s over…done with, if you want to reference it as background..ok, i know i have done so to show how low the Bar of Impeachment has been set

    but i will NOT be distracted by such bullshit in the current context…

    as a matter of fact, Newsweek has a decent, apparently non-biased, report out on their online Edition today right here

    scope it out and let me know how ya feel about that

    Excelsior!

  • troll

    had Clinton been fired Bush (and future Presidents) might not be so inclined to overreach

    troll

  • troll

    from the poll on Gonzo’s link to Time:

    Should the White House continue ordering selected wiretaps without warrants? * 20933 responses
    Yes
    12%
    No
    87%
    I don’t know
    1%

    troll

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Moving on… Large numbers do not frighten me at all. My background is public administration. I keep thinking back to Kathy Gill’s article on the merry road to financial disaster and how a small number stuck out in my mind – 100%. That number represented the percentage of unfunded liabilities the US government had racked up as against the net worth of all of you Yanks. It meant that your country is effectively busted.

    Afraid that just doesn’t compute, Ruvy. Our total national debt is about $7.8 trillion. The combined total net worth of the country is about $11 trillion, so that’s not 100%. In addition, only about half of the debt is net debt held publicly. The rest is in government trust funds and loans to itself, which really don’t count as public liability.

    No matter how much you dance and sing about theories of this or that kind about deficit spending and how debt is “good” for you, eventually, the chickens of debt always come home to roost – at just the wrong time, too!

    There’s no need to talk about theories here, we can just look at the hard reality of the debt to realize that it’s not the problem you portray it as.

    Eventually, that is what comes of overspending. It won’t help to toss economists’ numbers at me. It is not the numbers that impress me, it is the approach. Someone other than Americans are holding your economy’s nuts in a jar – so you guys are in BIG trouble.

    Actually, less than a quarter of our total debt is held internationally (1.9 trillion), and that is all in the form of structured securities, including treasury bills, notes and bonds, all of which have specific terms and interest and cannot be ‘called in’ for immediate payment. What’s more, the amount of foreign debt has been steadily declining throughout 2005, and at the current rate of reduction it ought to be back to the level it was at the start of the Bush administration by 2008.

    Dave

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I’ll have to gt back to you tomorrow on this, Dave. I’ve already learned not to reason when tired,

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    gonzo – I read the article…really, the only thing I got out of it was that congress was being let in on the secret, how much might be in question, but I know I’d never believe what daschle might say about any republican, good or bad! The article says daschle says the briefs were nothing like what we’re hearing about now…imagine that! Could it be that we don’t have the whole story??? Freaking A! It also sounds like there were checks and balances and even the guy most liberals hate almost as much as rove wouldn’t go against his number two guy at the JD. The more I read, the more it sounds like bullshit to me! Computers mulling over millions of words…you know what! websites do that shit to us every day…supermarkets collect up that shit every day…with there saver card programs…BFD! Columbia House used to send me 8-tracks based on the data they collected on me. And the WH web site sets cookies….wholly fuck! Just cause they’re not after me doesn’t mean I ain’t paranoid!

    I only bought up the disbarrment thing because you seem to think that lying under oath isn’t a bad thing because slick willie wasn’t indicted! Disbarred but not indicted. So, a bunch of crooked lawyers and judges got together and disbarred slick willie, ’cause they just don’t like him! Fine. I can live with that. As you say, your mileage may vary.

    I will say that if I was caught in the same situation..i.e. my dick in a 20somethings mouth while I smoked cigars in the oval office, I’d deny deny deny! Or even worse, where some of those cigars might have been before I smoked them…again…I’d deny deny deny!

    I’da respected the guy a lot more if he had looked me in the eye that day, wagged his finger at me and said, “hell yeah I let that little girl suck my dick! So What! Mars bitches!!!”

    It just seems to me that even though you keep saying you’ll wait till all the data is in you’ve already got these guys convicted and that’s just wrong.

  • gonzo marx

    well Andy, you misconstrue my take on a lot of this

    last time i’ll touch on Slick Willie…i am glad he was disbarred…he damn well should have been for the obvious lying under Oath…a point i make clearly talking about Al’s calling Scooter’s being Indicted for the same thing(plus Obstruction) a “minor foolishness”

    i cited it as an Example for comparison only, never have i EVER defended Slick Willie’s behavior in lying to both the American people OR the Court

    now, i also woudl have MUCH rather he had said, when asked “My fellow Americans…yeah..i banged her like a chinese gong”

    since he didn’t..he deserved what he got

    fair enough?

    now..all i am stating is that we have as complete an Investigation into all this as we did in THAT silly thing(remember, it started over a very old $100,000 land deal…THIS is more important, don’t you think?)

    and once that Investigation is complete, the proper measures are taken according to the Law…whatever they may be

    fair enough?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Still just sounds like you’re out for revenge, gonzo. One bad investigation deserves another? Two wrongs make a right now?

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    fuckingchristonacrutch Nalle…

    why don’t you actually read what i type and respond to it, rather than attempt to assign motivations without factual data to back up your bullshit claim?

    i’m clearly fucking stating that the GOP set the bar , and now have to live with the Consequences…i’m stating that Willie SHOULD have been Prosecuted for any perjury and that i am glad he was disbarred, i’m stating that i would like to see a non-partisan Investigation into all this crap we are discussing and that the Law is followed as the Consequences and possible Prosecutions

    simple enough?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, the GOP set the bar AT THE WRONG LEVEL. How is this unclear to you. The fact that the GOP did the wrong thing with Clinton does not mean that we should continue doing the same wrong thing over and over and over again.

    I have factual data. You keep saying that the Clinton investigation set the standard. Well, it set the WRONG standard. Are we not allowed to learn from our mistakes?

    Dave

  • MCH

    “I’da respected the guy a lot more if he had looked me in the eye that day, wagged his finger at me and said, “hell yeah I let that little girl suck my dick! So What! Mars bitches!!!””

    And I’da respected GW a lot more had he been honest and admitted, “Yeah, I got away with desertion when I skipped out on my last two years of guard meetings. So my daddy was a rich, powerful politician, what the fuck’s it to ya?!?”

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I don’t think he deserted..the way I read it…he put in his hours…I did a little reserve time…I know how many hours they gotta put in…I was also active duty on a reserve ship for 4 years…so I really know how much time they gotta put in to fullfill their duties…so that’s a bullshit argument! I also know some of the losers they let in the reserves…granted, there were some good ones, but for the most part you had to retrain them every month…like I said, if I had sons and I don’t, I have daughters, but if it came down to it, I’d get them in the reserves and in a reserve unit that wouldn’t get them killed! and I really don’t give a damn what anyone thinks about it!

    He flew fighter jets, not exactly the safest reserve duty on the planet…think about it…a reserve pilot flying a reserve jet maintained by reserve mechanics…sounds kinda dangerous to me…but hey…wtf do I know? And from what I read, he was honorably discharged. Deserters get big chicken dinners…not honorable discharges!

    Mars bitches!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    and gonzo…fair enough!

  • gonzo marx

    well Andy…y bitch about W’s reserve time is that he DIDN’T fly his jet…he got trained, then disobeyed a Lawful Order to show up for his medical exam and thus was disqualified to be a pilot…yet was NEVER charged under the UCMJ for said behavior

    and we both know how fucked up that is, eh? if you or i did such a thing, we woudl still be in the brig

    Nalle sez…
    *Gonzo, the GOP set the bar AT THE WRONG LEVEL*

    well, i can say “good….gander” and that would be politics

    but i do tend to Agree with the position

    now, can we agree that if the Pres did indeed knowingly violate the Law and the Constitution, he should be Investigated and Prosecuted under said Law as specified by Law?

    Excelsior!

  • http://screenrant.com Screen Rant

    Emperor George Bush has brought your economy to the brink of collapse by his spending policies.

    The “brink of collapse”???? The economy is doing so well that the neither Dems or the media are even bothering to talk about it.

    If that’s not a sign that the economy is strong, then nothing is.

    The only thing that newspapers and the 6 o’clock news could come up with was that the DOW finished down less than 1% for the year. Pretty much every other index (except for the NASDAQ) was up 5% or more for the year, but of course that didn’t get any play. I don’t hear any talk about the awful unemployment rate anymore, either.

    Vic

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    gonzo – like I said, I spent 4 years as active duty on a reserve FF in Long Beach, CA. I’ve seen reservist do the dumbest things and get away with them…at all levels! I can’t speak for today, but back in the day, I don’t think reservists were held to the same level as active duty…and they really couldn’t be…anyway, it is a 30 year old story and one that didn’t seem to matter when the last guy was president, so..like you said to nalle…goose…gander!

    If the dumb SOB had signed his SF-180 before the election, we probably have a different president right now…but we’re way off topic with this dead horse topic anyway!

    Mars bitches!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    well, i can say “good….gander” and that would be politics

    Now that’s exactly what I accused you of doing before, and even if you aren’t truly guilty, there are plenty who are – they see this as an opportunity for revenge, just as GOP hardliners saw the Clinton impeachment as revenge for Nixon.

    but i do tend to Agree with the position

    Vision!

    now, can we agree that if the Pres did indeed knowingly violate the Law and the Constitution, he should be Investigated and Prosecuted under said Law as specified by Law?

    Well, he’s made clear that he does not believe he violated the law or constitution, so I guess we can’t say anything wrong was done knowingly. In fact, he went to some lengths to make sure he was on safe legal ground before acting. So if there’s an investigation let’s admit that it’s a fishing expedition and be honest about it.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “I don’t think he deserted..the way I read it…he put in his hours…”

    If Bush did not attend Guard meetings for those last two years, in contradiction to modern-time statements he’s made, that would be a LIE, affecting his honesty, integrity, credibility and character.

    On May 24, 1972, Bush was granted a transfer from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama National Guard in order to work on a political campaign. His application for inactive duty was denied, and he was ordered to report to the active Reserve unit at Dannelly ANG in Montgomery.

    He DID NOT get permission to “leave” the military, but received a TEMPORARY TRANSFER to Alabama.

    From May 1972 to April 1974, there is no evidence that GW fulfilled his duties. No paystubs, no flight logs. No DD214, no NGB 22. His discharge papers show no service after May 15, 1972…two years prior to the end of his 6-year obligation.

    In the February 13, 2004 issue of the Memphis Flyer, two pilots who were stationed at Dannelly in 1972-73 were “expecting and on the lookout for Lt. Bush” say he NEVER showed up. Bob Mintz, an Eastern Airlines and FedEx pilot, and Paul Bishop, a Kalitta pilot in Gulf War I, both attest that they never saw GW.

    Lt. Colonel William Turnispeed, whom GW was supposed to report at Dannelly, told the Boston Globe on May 23, 2000, “To my knowledge, he never showed up. Had he reported in, I would have some recall, and I do not. If we had a first liuetenant from Texas, I would remember.”
    In August, 1972, GW missed his annual physical, resulting in his suspension from flying.

    After the election was over in November, 1972, Bush was ordered to report back to the Texas Guard to complete his commitment. Again, he never showed.

    On May 22, 1973, two of Bush’s superior officers at Ellingson AFB in Houston (Lt. Colonel William Harris and Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian) signed a report that they could not complete his annual evaluation because “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report.”

    Now, the reason any of this stuff that happened 30 years ago means anything at all, is because it contradicts what the GW Bush people are saying now. In his 1999 autobiography, when Bush told about his Guard service, he wrote that after completing flight school in 1970, “I continued flying with my unit for several years.” (Actually he flew for 22 months, there is room for debate whether less than 2 years equals several years.)

    While campaigning in 2000, Bush said, “I was at Dannelly on temporary assignment, and fufilled my weekends at one period of time. I made up some missed weekends. I can’t remember what I did, but I wasn’t flying because they didn’t have the same airplanes.” (The truth is, besides the fact that no one ever saw him there, the reason he was no longer flying was because he was suspended for missing the physical in August.)

    Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett said that GW “recalled going back to Houston and doing Guard duty, though he does not recall if it was on a consistent basis.” (Again, his two superiors at Ellingson reported that he was not observed there at the time.)

    Concerning the question of how he could get away with going AWOL and/or Desertion, I think the answer lies within 2 other questions: 1) How could GW Bush, a senior at Harvard and the son of a powerful politician, jump ahead of a waiting list of 500 individuals and be accepted into the Texas National Guard – only 2 weeks before graduation and his student deferment expiration? and 2) Why was GW promoted to 2nd Lieutenant right after basic training, thereby skipping regular military protocol and not having to attend several rigorous months of Officer Candidate School?

    One thing – just as an aside – that I find amusing, is why can’t some of these guys admit that they didn’t want to go to Vietnam? I served 4 years in the Navy during the Vietnam era; I didn’t see combat and I admit that I didn’t want to. But in his book, GW said that he tried to volunteer for Vietnam, and yet on his Guard application form he checked the box for “Do not want to volunteer for overseas duty.”

    The point is – has GW Bush told the truth about his service? Is he being honest? The answer, in my opinion, formed through the preponderance of evidence, is no. He’s lying. He’s a LIAR.

    You referred to this situation as “a dead horse.” The fact is, GW is telling lies NOW. It doesn’t matter if he’s lying about something that happened 30 years ago, or something that took place 300 years ago…a lie, is a lie, is a lie.

    And if he”s going to lie about that, what else has he lied to us about?

  • gonzo marx

    well Nalle..all i can say to that is that it IS what he is saying

    now..is it the actual Truth…i don’t know

    and i will make it quite clear, that i don’t Trust what comes out of W’s mouth as far as i can throw a humvee

    so, we will see if/when there is a decent Investigation

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Don’t feed the troll, Andy.

    Dave

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    I read comment 183 the first time.

  • Bennett

    Regardless.

    Refute the facts or STFU!

    Politely, of course.

    Ya see, I didn’t catch the comment that your link doesn’t take me to, but I’m damn glad that MCH dropped tht data in again on this post, at this time.

    Fuck, what a clear history of the matter at hand!

    So…

    What is false here?

    Matthew?

    Dude, the ball’s in your court.

  • Dave Nalle

    I’m damned glad too. It killed this interesting thread dead as a doornail. Thanks, MCH. You’ve done it again!

    DAve

  • Dave Nalle

    Oh, and as for refuting MCH – he didn’t even get Bush’s alma mater right, so how reliable is any of the rest of the post?

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    nice try Nalle…

    let’s go with just ONE bit of it then

    do you even try to deny that W failed to follow a Direct Order to show up for his medical exam and thus was disqualified to be a military pilot?

    and do you know the Penalty under the UCMJ for that one thing alone?

    Excelsior!

  • Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, I really, really don’t give a rat’s ass. It was 34 years ago, he was avoiding going to Vietnam like any sensible person – like Bill Clinton, in fact – and he was a feckless drunken bastard. Plus there was an unconstitutional draft in place. Every single fact in there has been disputed or answered with a different interpretation more times than I can count. I say again, who cares?

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    “distort”

    no..the Fact i mentioned has been Proven, time and again…it’s a matter of military and public Record

    and while i have a problem with Clinton’s avoidance i have an even BIGGER problem with someone who takes their Oath when joining the military…and then breaks it by disobeying a Lawful Order, willingly and knowingly

    it speaks to the Character of an Individual

    if someone will violate an Oath then…why should i ever trust them now?

    “distract”
    Nalle sez…
    *Every single fact in there has been disputed or answered with a different interpretation more times than I can count.*

    i don’t think so..and where MCH put his stuff up there, you show NOTHING to refute the ONE point which i have stated quite clearly

    “deny”
    Nalle sez…
    *I say again, who cares?*

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • Dave Nalle

    I’m not denying, I’m ignoring. I have better things to do than waste my time doing research on a topic which is of little or no interest to me.

    People change in 30 years and I don’t care.

    Dave

  • Dave Nalle

    Oh hell, MCH is like an itchy scab that has to be picked. I’m going to respond to his main points, do it once and not discuss this topic again. I’m not saying he’s wrong or right overall or trying to suggest that Bush was a good soldier, I’m just going to demonstrate that he’s not presenting a complete or accurate picture.

    From May 1972 to April 1974, there is no evidence that GW fulfilled his duties. No paystubs, no flight logs. No DD214, no NGB 22. His discharge papers show no service after May 15, 1972…two years prior to the end of his 6-year obligation.

    You must have written this a while ago. In 2004 the Pentagon found the missing pay records for that period which showed that Bush showed up for service on the following days:

    October 28-29 1972
    November 11-12 1972
    November 13-14 1972
    April 7-8 1973
    May 1-3 1973
    May 8-11 1973
    May 19-20 1973
    May 22-24 1973
    May 29-31 1973

    Since he was officially released early from his obligations in October of 1973 he didn’t have to serve at all in 1974. The evidence for all of these is in an AP article from September of 2004.

    In the February 13, 2004 issue of the Memphis Flyer, two pilots who were stationed at Dannelly in 1972-73 were “expecting and on the lookout for Lt. Bush” say he NEVER showed up. Bob Mintz, an Eastern Airlines and FedEx pilot, and Paul Bishop, a Kalitta pilot in Gulf War I, both attest that they never saw GW.

    Lt. Colonel William Turnispeed, whom GW was supposed to report at Dannelly, told the Boston Globe on May 23, 2000, “To my knowledge, he never showed up. Had he reported in, I would have some recall, and I do not. If we had a first liuetenant from Texas, I would remember.”

    John Calhoun who was one of Bush’s superiors at Dannelly claimed to have seen Bush 8-10 times on base in the fall of 1972 and other officers serving there have less specific recollections of him but agree that he was on base. In addition, Bush was paid for service at Dannelly on October 7-8, November 4-5, January 4-6 and 8-10 of 1973 and showed up for a documented dental exam on January 6th. These facts are documented in an article in the Birmingham News. I’ll take the written records over the 30 year old recollections of a few old men anytime. And BTW, Turnispeed’s actual statement was not that Bush did not report, but that he did not remember whether Bush had reported or not.

    After the election was over in November, 1972, Bush was ordered to report back to the Texas Guard to complete his commitment. Again, he never showed.

    Again, incorrect. He was paid for service in Houston on the weekend of April 7-8 and for every weekend in May (including Fridays) of 1973 as well as 5 days in June and 19 in July – clearly cramming in days to meet his yearly service requirements. So rather than ‘never showing’, he was actually on base for 28 days immediately prior to his discharge.

    On May 22, 1973, two of Bush’s superior officers at Ellingson AFB in Houston (Lt. Colonel William Harris and Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian) signed a report that they could not complete his annual evaluation because “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report.”

    What you leave out here is that the report only covered the period through the end of April, and that Killian wrote in the report that Bush was excused from the base and they knew that he was performing “equivalent duty” in a non-flying unit in Alabama with permission at the time.

    And let me conclude with a quote from his commanding officer Lt. Col. Jerry Killian:

    “(Lt. Bush is) a dynamic outstanding young officer…a top notch fighter interceptor pilot. Lt. Bush’s skills far exceed his contemporaries, he is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing.”

    And, of course, Bush was given an honorable discharge at the end of his term of service.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    more distort and distract…

    notice, gentle Readers…nowhere does he address the absolute Fact of W’s disobedience of a Lawful Order concerning reporting for his medical exam to stay qualified as a pilot

    but that’s enough on that bit from the likes of me

    anyone know when Spector is holding those hearings?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, you just lost all credibility. I totally ripped apart MCH’s tissue of lies and you come back with your bullshit D, D and D response? Ever consider acknowledging how utterly false I proved his main accusations to be?

    As for the failure to obey a lawful order, that’s easy enough to resolve. This was the fucking Texas national guard. They hardly cared if he showed up at all. They’re a bunch of oilmen and ranchers playing soldier on the weekend. No one was held accountable for anything. It was like a frat party with airplanes. It was in their rules that he could skip his service weekends and then make them up later at his convenience, and he got permission to go to Alabama for a year and do paperwork instead of logging flight hours. My last line sums it all up. They didn’t care. They reviewed his records, let him out early and gave him an honorable discharge. No one cared if he missed a medical exam and he knew it.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    Nalle sez…
    *No one cared if he missed a medical exam and he knew it.*

    pure speculation..and again..still a Violation of both the UCMJ and the Oath he took as an Officer

    as i clearly stated..i left you and MCH to dance on all of that crap

    the ONE thing the definitively goes to the heart of the matter, and which is a Fact that has NEVER even been denied is the one i have pointed out

    and it IS a big deal..because it disqualified him for being a pilot…thus negating the time and money spent in training him, as well as claims to being such

    on and on

    as for your opinion of my credibility

    i could give a shit…but i don’t

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    It doesn’t matter if he was disqualified as a pilot because he was just doing paperwork in Alabama and then later in Texas he was lecturing new recruits.

    As for violating the UCMJ, I doubt they even owned a copy at any of the bases he was working at. He based his actions on the lax practices of his superiors and fellow officers and he made the right bet and played the game by the rules he saw were in place.

    Plus, what was the punishment for violating that order in the Texas National Guard? It was to be sent to Vietnam. By the time he’d have been deployed the war would have been over.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    comment #198 shows you have no understanding of the Military, and thus further attempt at discourse on the topic is futile

    Excelsior!

  • MCH

    He really is amusing though, isn’t he Gonz? I mean, to think that he actually believes himself.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    A few things that haven’t been corrected and have been bugging me:

    -SpectEr

    -Margaret Thatcher ruled from 1979 to 1990 as a Conservative with NO coalition with the Social Democratic Party, the Monster Raving Loony Party (an actual name, an actual filing throug the decades though played as joke), Liberal Democrats (a party name), Labour or the Scottish National Party.

    Not even the Welsh National Party.

    Re :176 and the surrounding comments. :: I wouldn’t have respected Clinton if he’d done that. I wouldn’t respect Bush if he did that.

  • Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, my comment #198 is an accurate, factual description of the ‘military’ environment of the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s. It may not be an accurate description of the military as a whole, but I’ve read statements from Bush’s compatriots and have talked to others who served at that time and things were far from regulation there. It was a unit of wealthy playboys with no accountability, and Bush fit right in.

    You might want to think about what it means that you’re getting an endorsement here from MCH who promulgated the pack of lies that is comment #183.

    More and more it’s becoming clear that your facade of principle merely hides rabid partisanship and some sort of twisted personal resentment. I had some hope for you, but you’ve really gone beyond the limits of reasonable discourse recently and shown your true colors and intractable bias.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    for comment #202

    note that i did not get into any of the bits from MCH…i do not have adequate knowledge of the facts on most of those matters

    but i do stand by what i stated, which has yet to be factually refuted by anyone, including the WH, it is a matter of military record

    excuse, apologise, spin all you like…it IS a fact

    as for myself..i require no one’s approval nor “hope” and let what i type stand by itself

    as for the actual Reality of the military, might i suggest asking some person whom you have trust in…Ski would be perfect… and they might give you soem clue as to the severity of what i have previously discussed

    meanwhile i will stick to my stance of belonging to neither political “gang”, holding no partisan bias…but rather dealing with individual Issues as i see fit

    and i am truly amused by a rabid partisan attempting to “destroy” my words by accusing me of such behavior

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    gonzo – I know you probably don’t give a shit what I think, but, I’ll tell ya anyway.

    I believe what you say about not being a member of neither political “gang” as you say…but I’ll also say, that I believe you’re a little left of me…not to far…and that ain’t a bad thing. I respect your opinions, probably because you’re always civil with me when you’re trying to get shit through my thick half guinnea skull! I know you’re prior service and I hear where you’re coming from with the lawful order thing…I’m not sure how many years you did or where you were stationed, but I will say this…in 20 years I saw a lot of guys get away with a lot of shit…myself included, but I never saw anyone go to mast for missing a doctors appointment and in 4 years on a reserve ship as active duty I never saw a reservist go to mast for anything other than failing a urinalysis…sorry, but that’s a fact! Guys were always showing up on off weekends to get their drills out of the way, it wasn’t an every weekend thing, but it did happen alot. I also drilled for about 9 months back in the late 70’s…out on the hook…we never did anything but barbeque! Then again, that was a different time…I can’t imagine what any reserve or guard duty was like when it was nothing but rich kids…can you???

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I can’t believe that gonzo with his military background isn’t aware of what both you and I know about reserve service, Andy. True I didn’t serve, but I have a close friend who was a reservist during and immediately after Vietnam and the situation he describes in both the reserves and the national guard very closely matches the laxness you describe. From what I’ve heard they’ve tightened things up since then, but the military was kind of in disarray at the end of Vietnam and immediately thereafter.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    Andy..no worries homey…

    but let me hit you with this…the Requirements for shipboard and for a pilot are vastly different

    can we agree there?

    next…there is a vast difference between the Responsibilities of an officer and an elnisted person…even in the Reserves

    agreed?

    in the Air Force/Guard ALL pilots are officers…

    agreed?

    now…let us remember, that W was specifically ORDERED by a superior officer to report for his MANDATORY pilot’s physical, without which he woudl be disqualified as a military pilot

    still with me?

    now…Andy sez…
    *I never saw a reservist go to mast for anything other than failing a urinalysis*

    which is part of the MANDATORY physical for ALL military pilots, and has been since urinalysis wa adopted by the military

    so again…i ask you…am i factually Incorrect about ANY of this, or did an officer of the military deliberately disobey a lawful order and failed to report as ordered?

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    gonzo – 2 things I have contention with…first is I can’t say for sure what w deliberately did or didn’t do and second, the responsiblities of jo’s and enlisted folks…jo’s and junior enlisted yeah…jo’s and senior enlisted…hell no! other than that…oh yeah…they didn’t start drug testing until 1980 or 81…after those guys died on the Nimitz and they all popped pos for thc.

    other than that…no, I don’t believe your facts are in error.

    I sure hope no one ever holds what I did when I was in my 20’s against me…’cause lemme tell ya…I’m so screwed! Guess that’s why I don’t run for public office…that and the fact that I’ve spent what felt like a couple of years at a couple of city council meetings!

  • MCH

    “I sure hope no one ever holds what I did when I was in my 20’s against me…”

    Well, one minor difference there is, you’re a retired Navy Chief, while GW Bush is the Commander In Chief, a self-proclaimed champion of integrity and character, and the leader of the Free World.

    **But be that as it may…did you ever lie about your service?

    GW BUSH’S LIE: “I was at Dannelly on temporary assignment, and fufilled my weekends at one period of time. I made up some missed weekends. I can’t remember what I did, but I wasn’t flying because they didn’t have the same airplanes.”

    THE TRUTH: Besides the fact that no one ever saw him there (Texans For Truth offered a $50,000 reward for anyone who witnessed GW at Dannelly…there were 650 guardsmen serving at Dannelly at that time…no one collected), the reason he was no longer flying was because he had already been grounded for missing the mandatory physical.

    **And did you ever wear a medal you didn’t earn?
    See http://www.awolbush.com

  • Justin Berry

    50 grand? no shit? I think I remember seeing him there at he PX I think maybe the E-club cant really be sure. where can i pick up my check?

  • Dave Nalle

    Wow, MCH. One thing in your post was true. Good job.

    As for Gonzo’s facts. They may indeed be correct. But they are balanced out by the fact that Bush was not disciplined, his missing the physical was clearly not considered significant – likely because he was on a desk job at the time – and he got an honorable discharge.

    Things in this world are not as black and white as you’d like them to be, Gonzo.

    Dave

  • Bliffle

    Al Barger is right. We Fascists believe that returning to The Glory That Was Rome 2000 years ago requires impeachment of Bush!

    I’m sure you’ll all support me in this.

    I have my laurel crown at the ready.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Bliffle, that’s what I’ve been trying to say. I have a new leader all lined up.

  • gonzo marx

    Andy sez…
    *they didn’t start drug testing until 1980 or 81*

    actually, long before Cheney as SecDef ordered it for the entire military in 81, it was still used to gather date and screen …first for EVERY person that passed through AFEES and was done again in your beginning and ending Boot Camp physical…in these instances, up until 80 it was purelu for data collection

    however

    ALL pilots had it as part of their screening since the acceptance of usage by the military, the results could be used for denial of flight status…Command level diciplinary action(Captain’s Mast…etc..) but NOT for Court Martial..until that was changed by the SecDef

    as for what is “black and white”

    again, i state the facts clearly , and leave each Reader to draw their own conclusions…

    but in the case under discussion…there WAS a “police action” going on (you know, the “war” in Viet Nam”)…the bar for Officers has ALWAYS been higher than that for enlisted when it comes to adherance to the UCMJ…and yes…under the UCMJ MOST things are indded quite black and white

    the military is a MUCH different world in these matters than what is enjoyed by civilians

    example: up until 1992, you could be prosecuted under the UCMJ for a tattoo under “destruction of government property”

    just a Thought, and the last i’ll touch on it is to say that this topic, as well as much of what has been touched upon in this Thread…demonstrates a certain pattern of behavior which has little or no regard for rules or the Law

    i make NO conclusions and offer NO “theories” on the facts and data…merely present them as food for individual Thought

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    For the record, drug testing of pilots started in 1972, partway through Bush’s term of service. The medical exam he failed to show up for was the first one he would have taken where drug testing would be featured.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Actually, I just heard that the CG changed their rules concerning tattoos. CG personnel are not allowed to get new tattoos that show outside of clothing! I only know this because I work closely with the CG these days. I do remember the destruction of govt proprty thing though…never stopped me…I got 4! And gonzo is also correct in saying that officers are held to a higher standard as far as the UCMJ goes. Most things are black and white in the UCMJ, but there is that article 86 thing gonzo…you remember…the catchall article…

    gonzo – you may not offer any theories…but I sure can tell how you feel about this prez!!! and I still luv ya man!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I used to love gonzo too, but his recent display of his ugly underbelly of unreasoning partisanship has made me rather dismayed and disillusioned.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    fair enuff Andy..and points taken

    i hope the Holly-Daze found you and yours well and happy

    as for my Thoughts ( notice i didn’t say “feelings”) about W…i don’t know the man personally, and i have never offered Judgements on him as a person

    i have often given my Opinion about policies, actions, and behaviors…which Andy is correct in assssing that i do not approve of

    that is not to say i believe W has been worng in ALL instances( his response to the Tsunami was decent, IMO…just for an example)

    but anyone who has read my mad peckings at the keyboard can easily tell what i disAgree with

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    so…I should have said “what you think of this prez”?

  • MCH

    Dave Nalle:
    “John Calhoun who was one of Bush’s superiors at Dannelly claimed to have seen Bush 8-10 times on base in the fall of 1972 and other officers serving there have less specific recollections of him but agree that he was on base. In addition, Bush was paid for service at Dannelly on October 7-8, November 4-5, January 4-6 and 8-10 of 1973 and showed up for a documented dental exam on January 6th. These facts are documented in an article in the Birmingham News. I’ll take the written records over the 30 year old recollections of a few old men anytime. And BTW, Turnispeed’s actual statement was not that Bush did not report, but that he did not remember whether Bush had reported or not.”

    Eric Boehlert:
    “In the more than three decades since Bush supposedly served in Alabama, John “Bill” Calhoun is the only member of Bush’s unit to come forward to say he remembers performing drills with the future president of the United States.

    Large rewards (including $50,000 by the Texans For Truth organization) have been offered to any former Guardsman who can prove that Bush showed up in Alabama to serve, yet nobody has yet claimed the cash prize. And Calhoun won’t win the money, either.

    When Calhoun first emerged in February, he announced he’d seen Bush “eight or 10 times” on the base performing drills between May and October of 1972. But within 24 hours of his statement, the White House released Bush’s military pay records — which aides touted as definitive proof of Bush’s service — definitively proving that Bush was not credited for any training in Alabama for the months of May, June, July, August and September 1972, and that Bush showed up only in late October. So how could Calhoun have seen Bush several times in one summer if Bush’s own records indicate he was never there?

    Calhoun’s story is even less believable in light of the fact that Bush in 1972 originally tried to transfer from his Texas Air National Guard unit in Houston to a National Guard unit at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. That request was eventually denied, so Bush ended up at the Montgomery unit where Calhoun served. But again, according to Bush’s records, he didn’t even apply for the transfer to Montgomery until September and didn’t show up until late October. How did Calhoun see Bush performing drills throughout the summer of 1972 when Bush didn’t even request an assignment there until the fall?

    The brief answer is that Calhoun’s story is likely untrue, and has been known to be doubtful for six months.

    Incredibly, even though Calhoun had been exposed as telling a yarn in February, and despite the recent Boston Globe and CBS reports, he was once again treated as a credible source by several major news outlets that either didn’t know the basic facts surrounding the National Guard story or are incapable of doing a simple Google search. Or perhaps didn’t care that Calhoun’s story was bogus.

    Earlier in the week, the Associated Press, in an otherwise strong piece about Bush’s service, noted, “One member of the unit, retired Lt. Col. John Calhoun, has said he remembers Bush showing up for training with the 187th.” Again, the story did not mention that Calhoun recalled seeing the phantom Bush on dates that not even the president’s aides have suggested he served.”

  • Nancy

    Is there anybody online here who is or has had USAF/piloting experience? I’d sure like to hear their take on this whole thing.

  • troll

    Here’s what the Green Party thinks about peachy mints.

    troll

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    It scares me that you even visit that site troll!

  • troll

    the places one has to go trolling for info…hip boots required for this dirty job

    troll

  • MCH

    “Is there anybody online here who is or has had USAF/piloting experience? I’d sure like to hear their take on this whole thing.”

    My four lackluster years in the Navy won’t qualify Nancy, but here’s how one former U.S. Air Force pilot feels about GW Bush as Commander in Chief…

    – by General Merril (Tony) McPeak (retired):

    “I’m an anybody-but-Bush-guy. I’d vote for Grandma Moses and she’s been dead for two decades…We are in a very deep hole in Iraq. The first rule holds: When you are in one, stop digging. The man does not know that we’re in a hole over there. The worst mistake a statesman can make is not to be in touch with the real world because that sin is paid for by our sons and our money. We simply have to get rid of this guy.

    Before the combat started in Iraq II, I was writing op-ed pieces and giving speeches against going into Iraq…I said there were no weapons of mass destruction. I said there was no connection between Saddam and the attack of 9/11.

    I said the occupation was going to be very, very tough unless we went in with a U.N. mandate and a big alliance. It’s not that I’m a left-wing, raving lunatic liberal Democrat. I am not. I’m just a conservative guy who doesn’t like to see somebody waste our sons and daughters or our money, and our allies, by the way.”

    General McPeak’s service record:
    **four-star general
    **led the air war during Desert Storm
    **served four years on the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    **flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam as a fighter pilot, 1968-70
    **in 1967-68 was a solo pilot for the Thunderbirds
    **served 37 years in the Air Force

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    MCH, Calhoun was off on his recollections by a month after 30 years and THAT is the best you can do for a refutation? Good grief. Plus as you yourself point out, the pay records show him doing his service in Alabama AND meeting his point quota for that fiscal year as well, even if it required some makeup days.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “He based his actions on the lax practices of his superiors and fellow officers and he made the right bet and played the game by the rules he saw were in place.”
    – by Dave Nalle

    Tell that to the family of the soldier (unable to buy his way out of serving) who died face down in the mud in his place over there.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    yeah…and your boy got outta there as soon as he could…by blowing up a barrel of rice and getting a medic to pull a couple of rice pellets out of his ass! Who gives a fuck! Get the fuck over it already MCH! and your other buddy clinton…how’d he get outta the war??? Oh yeah..it didn’t fucking matter when clinton was pres…what a bunch of bullshit…you sure you ain’t mac diva???

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    No, Mac Diva was way less tedious than MCH.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    just as fucking annoying!

  • MCH

    Andy;

    I understand your anger. If “my boy” had checked the “no overseas duty” box on his dream sheet, and then lied in his autobiography 30 years later that he had “tried to volunteer for Vietnam,” I’d be upset too. And if my boy was permanently grounded from flying for skipping a mandatory physical (thereby wasting $1 million spent on his training), and then 30 years later in his book lies again with, “I wasn’t flying at Dannelly because they didn’t have the same airplanes,” I’d be irate also.

    But “my boy,” John McCain, has never had to lie about his military service. You remember McCain…the same guy whose patriotism was slimed by draft-dodger Karl Rove and GW “the Texas Soufle” Bush in the 2000 GOP Primary.

    John McCain’s record:
    **served 22 years as a U.S. Naval aviator
    **as a Navy Lt. commander in Vietnam, McCain was shot down over Hanoi, and after breaking his arm and both legs during his parachute landing, was severely beaten by his captors
    **spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in Vietnam, much of the time in solitary confinement
    **refused early freedom because they wouldn’t release the other men who’d been held captive longer than he
    **Silver Star
    **Bronze Star
    **Legion of Merit award
    **Purple Heart
    **Distinguished Flying Cross

  • Dave Nalle

    Just as annoying, Andy, but she had more different ways to annoy, rather than harping on the same idiocy again and again. That variety at least set her a bit above MCH.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I know who John McCain is. I’ve lived in AZ and actually voted for the guy. Have you? I find it very hard to believe that you would EVER vote for a republican, no matter who he is!

  • MCH

    Wrong, Andy. I’d vote for John McCain and/or Colin Powell, if I ever got a chance. McCain was my choice in ’00, until the draft-dodgers took him down.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Ah, but did you vote for Kerry who disgraced his uniform by throwing his medals away and calling his fellow soldiers murderers?

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    and meeting with the viet cong…in of all places…Paris!

  • MCH

    “No, Mac Diva was way less tedious than MCH…Just as annoying, Andy, but she had more different ways to annoy, rather than harping on the same idiocy again and again. That variety at least set her a bit above MCH.

    – Dave Nalle

    Did you try to pull another John Calhoun here Nalle, since Mac Diva was banned 2-3 months before you arrived on BC?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Has it been that long???