[Dork.]

I have a lot of real-life friends who are stark-raving-Howard-Dean-Screaming liberals. They send me a lot of links sometimes, and I just smile and nod through my E-mail. But one sent me a link to this blog on The Nation, and it struck me as something with the potential to be interesting.

Here's the executive summary: There's a manual that Thomas Jefferson wrote to serve as an addendum to House rules, that manual is still in use today. Section 603 (scroll down a bit) of that manual indicates that impeachment proceeding will be initiated by the House if a State Legislature passes a resolution containing charges. So now there are efforts afoot in various State Legislatures across the country, including Vermont, Illinois, and California, to being about impeachment charges against the President. (I expect one of our resident Constitutional Lawyers to shortly tell us whether they're on to something, or whether they're full of it)

I can't find all that much on these individual state efforts -- at least, not much that's not left-wing salivating and wishful thinking. The Rutland Herald talks about general pro-impeachment sentiment in the state, but mentions action by the legislature almost as a side note to various other resolutions that individual towns are passing. The Chicago Sun-Times has an article about the effort in Illinois, but no mention of what the prospects for passage are. It's also pretty clear about what happens if it does pass: the House passes the impeachment charges to the Judiciary Committee, which does not have to act on it and it can sit on it for as long as it wants.

Maybe that's the reason why this isn't making it into the mainstream press just yet -- it's not much of a story unless a resolution passes in some state, and even when it does, it probably won't make a difference. At best, the resolution will be politely ignored. At worst, the house will shortly change the rules to prevent something like this from mattering. But it is an interesting concept, having individual state legislatures call for impeachment of the head of the Federal executive branch. Our Federal Government is based on a system of checks and balances among the three branches. In this case, the States would be essentially be providing a check on the entire Federal Government at once....

Personally, I'm against the notion of impeachment, based on what we know now through the Media of what the President has or hasn't done (which probably bears little resemblance to what Congress knows.). But I still think this is interesting from a State's Rights perspective. Hypothetically, if multiple state legislatures pass this, would there be a tipping point at which the House would have to act, or risk being seen as ignoring the will of the people?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I have a lot of real-life friends who are stark-raving-Howard-Dean-Screaming liberals. They send me a lot of links sometimes, and I just smile and nod through my E-mail. But one sent me a link to this blog on The Nation, and it struck me as something with the potential to be interesting.

Here's the executive summary: There's a manual that Thomas Jefferson wrote to serve as an addendum to House rules, that manual is still in use today. Section 603 (scroll down a bit) of that manual indicates that impeachment proceeding will be initiated by the House if a State Legislature passes a resolution containing charges. So now there are efforts afoot in various State Legislatures across the country, including Vermont, Illinois, and California, to being about impeachment charges against the President. (I expect one of our resident Constitutional Lawyers to shortly tell us whether they're on to something, or whether they're full of it)

I can't find all that much on these individual state efforts -- at least, not much that's not left-wing salivating and wishful thinking. The Rutland Herald talks about general pro-impeachment sentiment in the state, but mentions action by the legislature almost as a side note to various other resolutions that individual towns are passing. The Chicago Sun-Times has an article about the effort in Illinois, but no mention of what the prospects for passage are. It's also pretty clear about what happens if it does pass: the House passes the impeachment charges to the Judiciary Committee, which does not have to act on it and it can sit on it for as long as it wants.

Maybe that's the reason why this isn't making it into the mainstream press just yet -- it's not much of a story unless a resolution passes in some state, and even when it does, it probably won't make a difference. At best, the resolution will be politely ignored. At worst, the house will shortly change the rules to prevent something like this from mattering. But it is an interesting concept, having individual state legislatures call for impeachment of the head of the Federal executive branch. Our Federal Government is based on a system of checks and balances among the three branches. In this case, the States would be essentially be providing a check on the entire Federal Government at once....

Personally, I'm against the notion of impeachment, based on what we know now through the Media of what the President has or hasn't done (which probably bears little resemblance to what Congress knows.). But I still think this is interesting from a State's Rights perspective. Hypothetically, if multiple state legislatures pass this, would there be a tipping point at which the House would have to act, or risk being seen as ignoring the will of the people?

It would be a very sad day for America AND ESPECIALLY for liberals if this ever became a reality.

But, if it ever DID get to that point I think when ALL the information was given an airing the President would look even better than I think he already looks.

You guys will be ASHAMED of yourselves when you realize what GWB did for America and the world.

Just mark my words.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I have a lot of real-life friends who are stark-raving-Howard-Dean-Screaming liberals. They send me a lot of links sometimes, and I just smile and nod through my E-mail. But one sent me a link to this blog on The Nation, and it struck me as something with the potential to be interesting.

Here's the executive summary: There's a manual that Thomas Jefferson wrote to serve as an addendum to House rules, that manual is still in use today. Section 603 (scroll down a bit) of that manual indicates that impeachment proceeding will be initiated by the House if a State Legislature passes a resolution containing charges. So now there are efforts afoot in various State Legislatures across the country, including Vermont, Illinois, and California, to being about impeachment charges against the President. (I expect one of our resident Constitutional Lawyers to shortly tell us whether they're on to something, or whether they're full of it)

I can't find all that much on these individual state efforts -- at least, not much that's not left-wing salivating and wishful thinking. The Rutland Herald talks about general pro-impeachment sentiment in the state, but mentions action by the legislature almost as a side note to various other resolutions that individual towns are passing. The Chicago Sun-Times has an article about the effort in Illinois, but no mention of what the prospects for passage are. It's also pretty clear about what happens if it does pass: the House passes the impeachment charges to the Judiciary Committee, which does not have to act on it and it can sit on it for as long as it wants.

Maybe that's the reason why this isn't making it into the mainstream press just yet -- it's not much of a story unless a resolution passes in some state, and even when it does, it probably won't make a difference. At best, the resolution will be politely ignored. At worst, the house will shortly change the rules to prevent something like this from mattering. But it is an interesting concept, having individual state legislatures call for impeachment of the head of the Federal executive branch. Our Federal Government is based on a system of checks and balances among the three branches. In this case, the States would be essentially be providing a check on the entire Federal Government at once....

Personally, I'm against the notion of impeachment, based on what we know now through the Media of what the President has or hasn't done (which probably bears little resemblance to what Congress knows.). But I still think this is interesting from a State's Rights perspective. Hypothetically, if multiple state legislatures pass this, would there be a tipping point at which the House would have to act, or risk being seen as ignoring the will of the people?

Impeachment is a House of Representatives procedure. The states have no constitutional role, other than the fact that Representatives are directly elected by the voters of the states.

It really doesn't matter that 69 members of the Vermont House voted for this idea. It's as relevant as Vermont voting itself a nuclear free zone or something. The fact is, Vermont only has one congressman. Bernie Sanders gets one vote in Congress. That is one out of 435, the majority of whom are Republican.

You would need a majority of the House of Representatives to vote for impeachment. That means an awful lot of Republicans would have to declare themselves to be of the same mind as the ever-kooky Bernie Sanders and John Conyers (hint: it's not gonna happen).

But let's assume that the Democrats gain the House in November, and then decide to drag the country through yet another political hack job of an impeachment (the same idiotic mistake made by Newt Gingrich). Then, the show would move to the Senate, which would have to vote by a 2/3 vote for conviction. It is not easy to get 2/3 of the senate to vote for something, as we found out during the Clinton trial.

But suppose they get the votes? Then President Dick Cheney is sworn in.

Oh, didn't Bernie mention that part?


No, I am afraid that the Democrats will just have to do it the old fashioned way -- by winning elections.

[Dr Reducto]

What exactly can they impeach Bush for?

(And don't say "breaking international law")

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Impeachment is a House of Representatives procedure. The states have no constitutional role, other than the fact that Representatives are directly elected by the voters of the states.

Like I said in the OP, the argument is that the House rules regarding impeachment say that the impeachment process can be started in many ways, including via a state legislature. I didn't make that up, they are citing this Section 603 of the House Manual. The relevant passage was in the link I provided:

In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in
motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member
or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535,
536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a
committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI,
543); by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to
a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a
message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges
transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory
(III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed
and reported

I was hoping someone like you would shed some light on these rules and tell me whether or not what these state legislatures are doing stand a chance in hell of mattering....

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

What exactly can they impeach Bush for?

(And don't say "breaking international law")

One of those annoying Liberal wank-fest sites has the text of the proposed Illinois resolution. It contains five charges.

1 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION


2 WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of
3 the United States House of Representatives allows federal
4 impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of
5 a state legislature; and

6 WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering
7 the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978
8 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically
9 authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without
10 warrant; and

11 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized
12 violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions,
13 a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States
14 Constitution; and

15 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American
16 citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war
17 without charge or trial; and

18 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration
19 has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a
20 war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the
21 deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the
22 United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and
23 billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and

24 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified
25 national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an
26 unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential
27 harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to
28 investigate the matter; and

29 WHEREAS, The Republican-controlled Congress has declined

1 to fully investigate these charges to date; therefore, be it

2 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
3 NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
4 SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the
5 State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S.
6 House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President
7 of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office
8 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
9 States; and be it further

10 RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the
11 charges contained herein, should be removed from office and
12 disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Like I said in the OP, the argument is that the House rules regarding impeachment say that the impeachment process can be started in many ways, including via a state legislature. I didn't make that up, they are citing this Section 603 of the House Manual. The relevant passage was in the link I provided:



I was hoping someone like you would shed some light on these rules and tell me whether or not what these state legislatures are doing stand a chance in hell of mattering....

It really makes no difference who prepares the articles of impeachment. You have to get the votes of the members of the House of Representatives to actually impeach. It's just not going to happen. Conyors already tried bringing articles of impeachment. 32 Democrats and one Independent, all from the far left, voted for it. Unless the far left suddenly becomes the majority, you aren't going to get a majority for this.

There have been two impeachments in US history. Both times it was because you had a majority in the House who really disliked the sitting president for overtly political reasons. Both times the matter died in the Senate.

Your problem isn't constututional. It's that this lunacy isn't shared by the sane.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It really makes no difference who prepares the articles of impeachment. You have to get the votes of the members of the House of Representatives to actually impeach. It's just not going to happen. Conyors already tried bringing articles of impeachment. 32 Democrats and one Independent, all from the far left, voted for it. Unless the far left suddenly becomes the majority, you aren't going to get a majority for this.

I guess I can buy that. Even if there are multiple state legislatures who invoke this "clause", all they're really doing is introducing articles, similar to what Conyors did. Since the House gets to decide on the matter, if they do not act on any instance there's nothing the states can do but scream louder next time. The only thing that's accomplished by the states' actions, then, is to cast the Congress in a bad light, claiming that Congress is not doing the will of the people in their state, and put political pressure on them to reconsider. And I suppose in order for pressure from the states to be large enough to force some Republican congressmen to change their thinking, there would likely have to be a huge movement that includes more than just a handful of liberal states.

I still find the whole concept interesting....

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Impeachment is a House of Representatives procedure. The states have no constitutional role, other than the fact that Representatives are directly elected by the voters of the states.

It really doesn't matter that 69 members of the Vermont House voted for this idea. It's as relevant as Vermont voting itself a nuclear free zone or something. The fact is, Vermont only has one congressman. Bernie Sanders gets one vote in Congress. That is one out of 435, the majority of whom are Republican.

You would need a majority of the House of Representatives to vote for impeachment. That means an awful lot of Republicans would have to declare themselves to be of the same mind as the ever-kooky Bernie Sanders and John Conyers (hint: it's not gonna happen).

But let's assume that the Democrats gain the House in November, and then decide to drag the country through yet another political hack job of an impeachment (the same idiotic mistake made by Newt Gingrich). Then, the show would move to the Senate, which would have to vote by a 2/3 vote for conviction. It is not easy to get 2/3 of the senate to vote for something, as we found out during the Clinton trial.

But suppose they get the votes? Then President Dick Cheney is sworn in.

Oh, didn't Bernie mention that part?


No, I am afraid that the Democrats will just have to do it the old fashioned way -- by winning elections.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It really makes no difference who prepares the articles of impeachment. You have to get the votes of the members of the House of Representatives to actually impeach. It's just not going to happen. Conyors already tried bringing articles of impeachment. 32 Democrats and one Independent, all from the far left, voted for it. Unless the far left suddenly becomes the majority, you aren't going to get a majority for this.

There have been two impeachments in US history. Both times it was because you had a majority in the House who really disliked the sitting president for overtly political reasons. Both times the matter died in the Senate.

Your problem isn't constututional. It's that this lunacy isn't shared by the sane.

With these two informative, but snotty, posts from Simey, I think you got an answer you were looking for: namely that no matter what a state legislature does regarding impeachment, if nothing gets done in the House of Representatives then there can be no impeachment.

Although, as to your hypothetical regarding what would happen if numerous states passed articles of impeachment in their legislature, I think it would still be up to the House of Representatives to act on any motion to impeach. And if a majority of state legislatures did pass motions of impeachment against a sitting President, my guess is the same general sentiment would also be present in the House. It is an interesting hypothetical though. With a Federal government seeking to devolve so much power to the states--like the current Administration--what if the states tried to appropriate federal powers not specifically delegated to it by the federal government? What if there were a power grab of sorts? Would the actions of 535 federal representative in Congress have precedence over (up to) 50 state legislatures. Could the state legislatures demand more powers be devoled to them?

This post has suggested some interesting hypothetical situations to consider. I don't see any of them ever happening but it is an interesting idea to debate. Good find.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Could the state legislatures demand more powers be devoled to them?

Only by amending the US Constitution. Theoretically, 2/3 of state legislatures can bring a constitutional convention and bypass Congress to amend the constitution. However, this has never been done. All constitutional amendments have started out in Congress.

Also, if the states ever figure out how to do this successfully, I guarantee that the first thing added to the Constitution would be an anti-gay federal marriage amendment, followed by an amendment banning abortion. The left might want to think for a moment about whether this is really where they want to go.

[cpt kangarooski]

Simey--
Now, now. You know that the agenda is to impeach both Bush and Cheney. And since it wouldn't happen anyway without a Democratic majority in the House, the Democratic Speaker, whoever he would be, would get sworn in for the rest of the term (and have a decent shot in '08).

Dunno if it'll happen, but it's certainly nice to imagine.

However, this has never been done.

Well, the states did get together to amend the Articles of Confederation and ended up trashing that government and replacing it with the current one under the Constitution. If the states went this route in order to bypass Congressional involvement with the impeachment process, there is a decent chance that the entire federal government would get replaced in the process. That might be interesting to see, but things haven't gotten that bad.

Abe--

You guys will be ASHAMED of yourselves when you realize what GWB did for America and the world.

Oh, Bush already makes me ashamed to be an American, and I've realized exactly what he's done for, or more accurately, to, America. He's made us all look like first-class jerks. Once we throw out him, his cronies, and his policies, by whatever means, I'll feel a whole lot better. And once we start doing great things, and can justifiably retake our place as a beacon of liberty and justice, I'll even be proud.

And he'll be 60 this year, let's say he manages to live for another 20-30. That means I ought to have a great chance of not only dancing on his grave someday, but having a full-blown musical with evening performances and a matinee on the weekend.

[abe]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Abe--

Oh, Bush already makes me ashamed to be an American, and I've realized exactly what he's done for, or more accurately, to, America. He's made us all look like first-class jerks. Once we throw out him, his cronies, and his policies, by whatever means, I'll feel a whole lot better. And once we start doing great things, and can justifiably retake our place as a beacon of liberty and justice, I'll even be proud.

And he'll be 60 this year, let's say he manages to live for another 20-30. That means I ought to have a great chance of not only dancing on his grave someday, but having a full-blown musical with evening performances and a matinee on the weekend.

You tempt fate. Remember vengeance is not YOURS.

[cpt kangarooski]

Who wants vengeance? Not I.

I think he's a ********, I think he hasn't done even one good thing for the country, I think we'll be far better off once he's no longer in power, and I'm happy to take pleasure at his expense as a result. But none of that is vengance.

[abe]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Who wants vengeance? Not I.

I think he's a ********, I think he hasn't done even one good thing for the country, I think we'll be far better off once he's no longer in power, and I'm happy to take pleasure at his expense as a result. But none of that is vengance.

Hatred has consumed many people's souls. Maybe you will be the exception. Perhaps yours is made of asbestos.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

he hasn't done even one good thing for the country

And President Clinton certainly did a lot of good for the country by ignoring the threat posed by bin Laden and radical Islam. bin Laden executed unambiguous acts of war against America, and if the president had been on his toes after the Cole, perhaps 9/11 would have been thwarted. Instead, his FBI was more preoccupied with writing about white supremacists and their delusional belief in a millennial race war. I am not applying the statement you made about President Bush to President Clinton - I believe both presidents have their merits and demerits.

Yet, in response to the greatest national tragedy in American history, Bush stepped up and did something. He removed the Taliban and got democracy rolling in Afghanistan. He deposed Hussein (which is what we should have done the first trip there) and brought all the terrorists out to focus on Iraq so we could more easily dispatch them. (And I definitely prefer we flush as many of them out in Iraq as possible rather than sit back and wait for them to strike out at us somewhere else at a later time.) He got Libya to disclose its WMD program. He showed that American foreign policy is not without teeth; if necessary the country will step up and do what must be done to protect its interests even if the rest of the world is unwilling to go along for the ride. Sure, progress in Iraq has not been smooth, but at least Bush had the fortitude to go the unpleasant, unpopular war route because he saw it as necessary - the fact that he risked his presidency on it shows his intentions were to protect America rather than his own legacy. That's called true leadership.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And President Clinton certainly did a lot of good for the country by ignoring the threat posed by bin Laden and radical Islam. bin Laden executed unambiguous acts of war against America, and if the president had been on his toes after the Cole, perhaps 9/11 would have been thwarted. Instead, his FBI was more preoccupied with writing about white supremacists and their delusional belief in a millennial race war. I am not applying the statement you made about President Bush to President Clinton - I believe both presidents have their merits and demerits.

Yet, in response to the greatest national tragedy in American history, Bush stepped up and did something. He removed the Taliban and got democracy rolling in Afghanistan. He deposed Hussein (which is what we should have done the first trip there) and brought all the terrorists out to focus on Iraq so we could more easily dispatch them. (And I definitely prefer we flush as many of them out in Iraq as possible rather than sit back and wait for them to strike out at us somewhere else at a later time.) He got Libya to disclose its WMD program. He showed that American foreign policy is not without teeth; if necessary the country will step up and do what must be done to protect its interests even if the rest of the world is unwilling to go along for the ride. Sure, progress in Iraq has not been smooth, but at least Bush had the fortitude to go the unpleasant, unpopular war route because he saw it as necessary - the fact that he risked his presidency on it shows his intentions were to protect America rather than his own legacy. That's called true leadership.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Simey--
Now, now. You know that the agenda is to impeach both Bush and Cheney.

Didn't you hear, it's time for Cheney to retire!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Simey--
Now, now. You know that the agenda is to impeach both Bush and Cheney. And since it wouldn't happen anyway without a Democratic majority in the House, the Democratic Speaker, whoever he would be, would get sworn in for the rest of the term (and have a decent shot in '08).

Well, it would take a democratic majority in the house, and a democratic supermajority in the senate. The odds are kind of low that this particular coup d'etat to happen. Maybe you should have won a more attractive and moderate candidate in 2004 and just won the election instead of trying to undo the results. And speaking of attractive and moderate candidates President Nancy Pelosi? Now there is a scary thought -- even for most Democrats.

What I meant by there never having been a constitutional convention is obviously that since the adoption of the current constitution, the mechanism provided for in the Constitution for calling for a constitutional convention has never successfully been invoked. All amendments have originated in Congress. And to the extent that these affected state-federal relations, they have worked a one way ratchet toward more federal power, not less.

Scanning this thread, there is an interesting theme. Liberals and leftists suddenly becoming interested in federalism. I don't think it is unrelated to the overall frustration of liberals and leftists with their lack of ability to win national elections.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And President Clinton certainly did a lot of good for the country by ignoring the threat posed by bin Laden and radical Islam.

I see: Bush is bad, Clinton is worse, so Bush is OK.

funny logic.

[Kevin]

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And President Clinton certainly did a lot of good for the country by ignoring the threat posed by bin Laden and radical Islam. bin Laden executed unambiguous acts of war against America, and if the president had been on his toes after the Cole, perhaps 9/11 would have been thwarted. Instead, his FBI was more preoccupied with writing about white supremacists and their delusional belief in a millennial race war. I am not applying the statement you made about President Bush to President Clinton - I believe both presidents have their merits and demerits.

Yet, in response to the greatest national tragedy in American history, Bush stepped up and did something. He removed the Taliban and got democracy rolling in Afghanistan. He deposed Hussein (which is what we should have done the first trip there) and brought all the terrorists out to focus on Iraq so we could more easily dispatch them. (And I definitely prefer we flush as many of them out in Iraq as possible rather than sit back and wait for them to strike out at us somewhere else at a later time.) He got Libya to disclose its WMD program. He showed that American foreign policy is not without teeth; if necessary the country will step up and do what must be done to protect its interests even if the rest of the world is unwilling to go along for the ride. Sure, progress in Iraq has not been smooth, but at least Bush had the fortitude to go the unpleasant, unpopular war route because he saw it as necessary - the fact that he risked his presidency on it shows his intentions were to protect America rather than his own legacy. That's called true leadership.

You think the attacks of September 11th are the "greatest national tragedy in American history"? You don't seem to have a strong sense of historical perspective. But frequently, when someone bandies about the superlatives like you have done it only serves to reveal their own historical biases. Here is a list of some items from our nation's past that might be truly worthy of the title "greatest national tragedy in American history".

• 1812 - British marching on Washington--forcing the President to flee--and burning the White House
• 1861-1865 - Civil War: 100,000s dead, almost results in dissolution of the United States
• 1865-1954 - Continued overt, government-approved, segregation of black US citizens
• 1929 - Stock market crash and beginning of Great Depression
• 1942 - Interment of US citizens in prison camps due to irrational fears in time of war
• 1962 - Cuban missile crisis; US almost commits itself to nuclear war with Soviet Union
• 1963 - Assassination of President Kennedy

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

He deposed Hussein (which is what we should have done the first trip there) and brought all the terrorists out to focus on Iraq so we could more easily dispatch them. (And I definitely prefer we flush as many of them out in Iraq as possible rather than sit back and wait for them to strike out at us somewhere else at a later time.)

Yup, much better to let some Arabs and Kurds suffer than good ol' white Americans.......

He got Libya to disclose its WMD program.

You still believe this myth? Read up on it.

He showed that American foreign policy is not without teeth; if necessary the country will step up and do what must be done to protect its interests even if the rest of the world is unwilling to go along for the ride.

Indeed. He showed that the US has become the last in the long list of bloodthirsty "empires". Fortunately that "empire" will fall as all other before it.

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

You think the attacks of September 11th are the "greatest national tragedy in American history"? You don't seem to have a strong sense of historical perspective. But frequently, when someone bandies about the superlatives like you have done it only serves to reveal their own historical biases. Here is a list of some items from our nation's past that might be truly worthy of the title "greatest national tragedy in American history".

• 1812 - British marching on Washington--forcing the President to flee--and burning the White House
• 1861-1865 - Civil War: 100,000s dead, almost results in dissolution of the United States
• 1865-1954 - Continued overt, government-approved, segregation of black US citizens
• 1929 - Stock market crash and beginning of Great Depression
• 1942 - Interment of US citizens in prison camps due to irrational fears in time of war
• 1962 - Cuban missile crisis; US almost commits itself to nuclear war with Soviet Union
• 1963 - Assassination of President Kennedy

FLAME BAIT and you know it.

9/11 saw two of our greatest national icons attacked. One of them was destroyed. Another seriously damaged. A third was saved by the heroic actions of the passengers on fourth airliner before it could be crashed into the White House.

9/11 represented a greater loss of life than in any other single attack on America.

9/11 was undeniable proof that the mental paradigm we were all using to determine threat, attack, danger, safety and etc. was no longer valid.

Never before had any of these events occurred and if that wasn't bad enough for you, it sounded a wake up alarm that we could no longer afford to pretend everything was ok. It told us there was a force the likes of nothing we'd ever seen that had and has us in it's cross hairs.

US and the rest of the free world.

And NOTHING was readily apparent which could prevent our being attacked again and again and fighting these attackers, as a matter of course, in America's skies. On America's streets.

It forced the President to go on the offensive, to make the enemy have to worry about IT'S ability to wage war against the West.

And so, yes, it can arguably be called the greatest national tragedy in American history.

Words Of Wisdom

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

 
Ronald Reagan

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

FLAME BAIT and you know it.

9/11 saw two of our greatest national icons attacked. One of them was destroyed. Another seriously damaged. A third was saved by the heroic actions of the passengers on fourth airliner before it could be crashed into the White House.

9/11 represented a greater loss of life than in any other single attack on America.

9/11 was undeniable proof that the mental paradigm we were all using to determine threat, attack, danger, safety and etc. was no longer valid.

Never before had any of these events occurred and if that wasn't bad enough for you, it sounded a wake up alarm that we could no longer afford to pretend everything was ok. It told us there was a force the likes of nothing we'd ever seen that had and has us in it's cross hairs.

US and the rest of the free world.

And NOTHING was readily apparent which could prevent our being attacked again and again and fighting these attackers, as a matter of course, in America's skies. On America's streets.

It forced the President to go on the offensive, to make the enemy have to worry about IT'S ability to wage war against the West.

And so, yes, it can arguably be called the greatest national tragedy in American history.

Claiming "flame bait" on a reserved, logical response to an assertion of outlandish hyperbole? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

OMG, that's great. I needed a laugh like that this morning. Thanks!

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Claiming "flame bait" on a reserved, logical response to an assertion of outlandish hyperbole? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

OMG, that's great. I needed a laugh like that this morning. Thanks!

You are a doctoral candidate who lives in DC and you casually brush off the 9/11 attacks as some minor footnote in history? And the history you relate makes little sense except as a recitation of numbers and dates; and you do this without seeming to comprehend the significance behind those numbers and dates.

I get the impression you have experienced a life event which has dramatically altered your way of thinking AND feeling, dude.

I'm questioning the respect I once expressed for you. Recall the time when you saw me in trouble and urged me to take care of myself and get back on the meds?

I'll return the favor here.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

You are a doctoral candidate who lives in DC and you casually brush off the 9/11 attacks as some minor footnote in history? And the history you relate makes little sense except as a recitation of numbers and dates; and you do this without seeming to comprehend the significance behind those numbers and dates.

I get the impression you have experienced a life event which has dramatically altered your way of thinking AND feeling, dude.

I'm questioning the respect I once expressed for you. Recall the time when you saw me in trouble and urged me to take care of myself and get back on the meds?

I'll return the favor here.

Master's candidate. Nobody does a part-time doctorate; It's all or nothing.

As it turns out, I am quite aware of the cultural/political/sociological/historical effects of the items in my list. In fact, that's exactly why I listed those items and not others, because I AM aware of their significance. As for the attacks of September 11th, they should be added to the list of major events in the history of the United States--I have not argued against that--but I will continue to insist it is not the "greatest national tragedy in American history".

Oh, and don't worry about whether your respect for me is changing. That is not of concern to me--whether or not you have any repsect for me is irrelevant to me--so don't make it a concern of yours.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

You are a doctoral candidate who lives in DC and you casually brush off the 9/11 attacks as some minor footnote in history? And the history you relate makes little sense except as a recitation of numbers and dates; and you do this without seeming to comprehend the significance behind those numbers and dates.

He never said that 9/11 was a "minor footnote in history", and you know it. I wish this place would let you moderate posts, I would give you a "-1, Disingenuous" for that one.

[Dakar]

God help us all if we had a reputation system.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

He never said that 9/11 was a "minor footnote in history", and you know it. I wish this place would let you moderate posts, I would give you a "-1, Disingenuous" for that one.

So noted.

[Monique]

First Dork good work you should send it to a young Democratic congressman that is not afraid to do something bold.

And the 2nd world war is where?

The difference with 9/11 and the other events is that first the civil war happened over a century ago so people remembers only historical facts not the feelings behind it.

And 9/11 shattered your sense of security. In all proportions the death toll of that day and the days following it in Iraq does not approach the death toll of other wars. It is so present in everyone's mind that it seems bigger. Not to say that the lives lost are not precious.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You still believe this myth? Read up on it.

You've convinced us...

Indeed. He showed that the US has become the last in the long list of bloodthirsty "empires". Fortunately that "empire" will fall as all other before it.

Another pipe dream of yours I see.

[BRussell]

I'd pay for someone to impeach me from below.

But I've got to say, if we Democrats want Bush's approval ratings to go back to where they were on Sept. 12, 2001, we should have a big ol' impeachmentathon. If we want him to stay in the low 30s for the next 2 years, we should just let him simmer. Putting Fox News officially on the payroll and bombing Iran isn't going to help him.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'd pay for someone to impeach me from below.

But I've got to say, if we Democrats want Bush's approval ratings to go back to where they were on Sept. 12, 2001, we should have a big ol' impeachmentathon. If we want him to stay in the low 30s for the next 2 years, we should just let him simmer. Putting Fox News officially on the payroll and bombing Iran isn't going to help him.

Exactly.

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'd pay for someone to impeach me from below.

But I've got to say, if we Democrats want Bush's approval ratings to go back to where they were on Sept. 12, 2001, we should have a big ol' impeachmentathon. If we want him to stay in the low 30s for the next 2 years, we should just let him simmer. Putting Fox News officially on the payroll and bombing Iran isn't going to help him.

A really bright person, a really responsible person a true American might be thinking not of how to make the President simmer but how to work within the system to get what he wants done these next two years and afterwards.

Here, I'll give you something to think about that might change your perspective.

IF war, I mean all out war were declared because of attacks on the USA the Administration might be able to suspend elections for the duration.

And it would be ALL BUSH, ALL THE TIME!

Then maybe you'd get on board and row with the rest of us.

Friggin whiny fuzzy babies.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Exactly.

BTW, welcome to MacNN's P/L, Dr. Reducto!

You do realize the War on Terror couldn't be won by staying here at home, right?

You do remember that the jihadists came HERE to attack us on 9/11, right?

And you do recognize that preventing Iran from using a nuclear weapon isn't like Clinton's Wagging the Dog, right?

[Dakar]

You and your leading questions...

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

You and your leading questions...

I try to change things up every now and then. I think it adds a nice Springtime Freshness to the place, don't you?

[Dakar]

Err... How is that a change?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Monique

First Dork good work you should send it to a young Democratic congressman that is not afraid to do something bold.

I don't want to see Bush impeached. Even though I believe that Bush most likely broke the law (with respect to the wiretapping fiasco at the very least, and maybe the torture thing as well), since he did it in the context of new executive powers granted because of the terrorist attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are reasonable people who say that his offenses are not as clear-cut as Clinton's perjury. Plus, any impeachment proceeding in today's political climate will just be an extension of CNN's Crossfire show -- people yelling at each otheracross the aisle, with nothing substantive being said or done. Finally, I say "most likely broke the law" because none of us know for sure, and the ones who do won't reply in this thread.

I do support investigations into both the wiretap thing and the torture/prisons thing (real investigations, not commmittee rubber-stamp investigations), and if those investigations yield information that proves that the administration played "fuzzy" with the law, I support Senator Feingold's Censure proposal. It's interesting to me how much Senate Democrats backed away from that proposal. At its' committee hearing, I think one other Democrat besides Feingold bothered to show up (and with unkind words for the proposal), with every single Republican showing up for the exspress purpose of tearing Feingold a new one.

The Democrats probably realize what BRussell realizes: the most politically expedient way to go would be to let this twist in the wind until after the Fall elections. Any resolution (even if it is censure instead of impeachment) means the country moves on, and the Democrats don't seem to want that.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Err... How is that a change?

When have you seen me do that leading questions thing before this thread?

[Dakar]

I wouldn't know off the top of my head.

Maybe I'm imagining things.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I don't want to see Bush impeached. Even though I believe that Bush most likely broke the law (with respect to the wiretapping fiasco at the very least,

To be quite serious here, the fuzzy thing in THIS instance, would be levied against your failure to do your reading. It's like sometimes you guys will get a 'pet' notion. An idea or proposition or set of circumstances that you really like. One that you really, really wish were actually true.

And when it's proven that it ISN'T true there's something inside of you that just ignores that new knowledge.

You find your self a certain version of reality that appeals to you and you won't easily let go of it, especially when the truth is less attractive.

If you read some news accounts of the Wiretapping situation you'd have seen that it WASN'T illegal and why. And maybe you DID read about it! It was certainly brought up in the posts here in the P/L but maybe you just prefer straddling that fence where you THINK it should be illegal and that way you never have to let go of your pet notion, your more attractive alternate reality.

Bush did not most likely break the law. Just give it up.

Here's a partial transcription from last night's Charlie Rose Show with guest, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Game. Set. Match.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: FISA doesn't cover ALL electronic surveillance...must ask yourself several questions:

Who is the target? (Is the target an American citizen?)
Where is the target? (Is the target in the United States?)
Where is the acquisition occurring?
What are you trying to acquire? (Is it radio communication or is it wire communication?)

FISA lays out a framework to obtain electronic surveillance. To do that the AG must submit an application to a special court, the FISA court, and the application must include a wide variety of things.

After 9/11 the POTUS challenged everyone in the administration to think about ways we could better protect American citizens from a similar kind of attack. And we quickly realized we had holes in our surveillance because of the procedures in FISA.

If we had information about a particular person that we believe was communicating with (al qaeda) we were not able to initiate surveillance as quickly as we thought would be necessary in order to get valuable information.

And so the President asked, 'do we have the capability and do we have the need to get this information?' Yes, we do have the capability, we do have the need in certain cases to get this information more quickly.

And the question the POTUS must ask is, 'do I have the legal authority to authorize this kind of activity?'

And we believe the President does have the legal authority...

Charlie Rose: VP Cheney said two criteria needed to be met, it had to be al qaeda related and it had to be a call to or from outside of the United States.

Quote:
AGAG: One end of the communication had to be outside the US and where we have reasonable grounds to believe that one party to that communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist group.

Now, that determination is not made by some political hack somewhere. This is made by an intelligence professional out at NSA.

These are people who know about it, who know al Qaeda tactics, al Qaeda communications, al Qaeda aims, as Gen. Hayden has said, the Deputy Director of national intelligence for this country, these people are the best at what they do, they are very good at this. They know about al Qaeda and they would be in the best position to make an evaluation as to whether or not someone isn't in some way a member or affiliated with al Qaeda.

The POTUS drew the line that this secret surveillance program would not be used to listen to two parties (two al Qaeda members communicating with each other) within the US. Other tools, however would be used and that includes the provisions of FISA.

There is an emergency authorization provision within FISA which allows the AG to give his verbal authorization for surveillance to be initiated immediately and the court order is issued after the fact (within 72 hours) but before AG Gonzales gives that ok he must know that ALL the FISA requirements are met.

This isn't like a 72 hour "Hall Pass" to engage in "free electronic surveillance."

When he gives the authorization he's required by law to make sure all the FISA requirements are met. Then with 72 hours they must submit "a very thick application a formal legal brief, almost," to the FISA court, for their consideration and hopefully, their approval.

Article 2 of the Constitution and the Forces Resolution are not the only possible mechanisms which may authorize legal search.

All searches DO NOT require a warrant.

There is within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence a special needs exception to the normal warrant requirement recognized for many many years by the Supreme Court.

If you're talking about activities outside of normal law enforcement, in the national security area, where speed and agility is critically important, that special needs do provide an exception for the normal warrant requirements. So they believe the activities directed by the POTUS is fully consistent with long standing presidential practice and fully consistent with the special needs jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

And because it is limited in terms of authorization in time, every 45 days it is renewed, it is based on the continuing threat posed by al qaeda, it is reviewed periodically by the NSA Inspector General, there is oversight by the General Counsel's office, because we have provided periodic briefings to leaders in Congress, we believe the combination of all those factors make these searches reasonable under the Supreme Court jurisprudence...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3ACharlie_Rose

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by abe

A really bright person, a really responsible person a true American might be thinking not of how to make the President simmer but how to work within the system to get what he wants done these next two years and afterwards.

A really bright patriotic American would realize that Bush is a terrible, terrible president who is damaging this country and the world, and would oppose him in any way possible.

To support a president no matter what is the most treasonous act an American could commit. To oppose a president who is damaging this country is the height of patriotism.

Why do you hate America, abe?

Originally Posted by abe

Here, I'll give you something to think about that might change your perspective.

IF war, I mean all out war were declared because of attacks on the USA the Administration might be able to suspend elections for the duration.

And it would be ALL BUSH, ALL THE TIME!

Then maybe you'd get on board and row with the rest of us.

Friggin whiny fuzzy babies.

Haha, abe's wet dream - Bush declares himself Emperor for life! I would support impeachment if he tried to do such a thing, and I bet it would pass the Senate 100-0.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

To be quite serious here, the fuzzy thing in THIS instance, would be levied against your failure to do your reading. It's like sometimes you guys will get a 'pet' notion. An idea or proposition or set of circumstances that you really like. One that you really, really wish were actually true.

I'll grant that I don't really know what's going on in the Administration. I admitted as much in my post. I say I believe he's breaking the law. You say that, based on the evidence you see, you don't believe that. We both have the right to believe these things, and both our beliefs amount to diddly squat.

In any case, I'd feel better about the whole thing if we get an examination of the facts from someone outside the administration. When some from this administration, including the Attorney General says "We believe the President has the legal authority" to do these things, my first reaction is to think he's lying. I'll admit that colors my interpretation of the "evidence" you cite. But if it's OK for you, who am I to argue?

(BTW, I was really confused by that transcript until I realized that the AG's initials were, in fact, AG, and the acoustic-coupled modem I use to get to my Compuserve account wasn't stuck on the wrong duplex! )

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by BRussell

A really bright patriotic American would realize that Bush is a terrible, terrible president who is damaging this country and the world, and would oppose him in any way possible.

It's very telling when people who get weak-knee'd with admiration for Bush, also condemn or name-call those who criticize him. That alone tells you it's not rationality speaking but a fervor for something that's fundamentally un-American. So-to-speak.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by abe

It forced the President to go on the offensive, to make the enemy have to worry about IT'S ability to wage war against the West.

So we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia; and instead of dedicating our resources to actually capturing the man responsible, we attack someone else.

This enemy you talk about isn't a single entity. "It's" ability to wage war is irrelavant. They're called terrorists because of what they do, and they're doing it well. Attacking Iraq doesn't resolve anything regarding terrorists, especially when it's the completely wrong country.

I'm certain another terrorist attack will happen. Then we'll have another President with an excuse to invade some other country that has valuable resources. Oh, and terrorists, too.

Meanwhile, 99% of the people who want to hurt America will always be somewhere other than where we attack. Often, inside the U.S. itself. It's called a terrorist network precisely becuase there isn't a single enemy for us to wage war on.

[abe]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

So we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia; and instead of dedicating our resources to actually capturing the man responsible, we attack someone else.

This enemy you talk about isn't a single entity. "It's" ability to wage war is irrelavant. They're called terrorists because of what they do, and they're doing it well. Attacking Iraq doesn't resolve anything regarding terrorists, especially when it's the completely wrong country.

I'm certain another terrorist attack will happen. Then we'll have another President with an excuse to invade some other country that has valuable resources. Oh, and terrorists, too.

Meanwhile, 99% of the people who want to hurt America will always be somewhere other than where we attack. Often, inside the U.S. itself. It's called a terrorist network precisely becuase there isn't a single enemy for us to wage war on.

If they are so widespread and so good at what they do why don't we just throw in the towel right now, turn it into a prayer rug and save everyone the grief. Is that what you want?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by abe

A really bright person, a really responsible person a true American might be thinking not of how to make the President simmer but how to work within the system to get what he wants done these next two years and afterwards.

Certain people would rather see Bush fail, than Bush look good, and America prosper.

Political zealots are scary.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by abe

If they are so widespread and so good at what they do why don't we just throw in the towel right now, turn it into a prayer rug and save everyone the grief. Is that what you want?

Hey, that's a great idea!

You can start by not assuming that every terrorist is a Muslim. The second thing you can do is realize that terrorists don't hate us because we represent Freedom. Sorry, Mr. President, that's not the reason.

Yes, the reasons are more complicated, but you can start by evaluating our foreign policy starting from the 18th century. I'd recommend you pay special attention to why the CIA was created and what we use it for. The CIA is perhaps one of the (if not the) reasons there is a lot of hostile reactions towards the U.S. from foreign nations.

Perhaps instead of alienating the international community and playing cowboy like we're the only country doing anything about terrorism, we could use that same money and resources to help push an international effort against terrorism. The U.S. does have a lot of power and influence in the U.N., so use it to push anti-terrorism agendas that do not include invading countries and starting wars.

The occupation of Iraq has only fuled any animosity towards the U.S. from people who wish to do us harm; and it probably invited more people who weren't certain.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Hey, that's a great idea!

You can start by not assuming that every terrorist is a Muslim. The second thing you can do is realize that terrorists don't hate us because we represent Freedom. Sorry, Mr. President, that's not the reason.

Yes, the reasons are more complicated, but you can start by evaluating our foreign policy starting from the 18th century. I'd recommend you pay special attention to why the CIA was created and what we use it for. The CIA is perhaps one of the (if not the) reasons there is a lot of hostile reactions towards the U.S. from foreign nations.

Perhaps instead of alienating the international community and playing cowboy like we're the only country doing anything about terrorism, we could use that same money and resources to help push an international effort against terrorism. The U.S. does have a lot of power and influence in the U.N., so use it to push anti-terrorism agendas that do not include invading countries and starting wars.

The occupation of Iraq has only fuled any animosity towards the U.S. from people who wish to do us harm; and it probably invited more people who weren't certain.

Good to know that there are still people on "the other side" that get it.



:goes back to being a radical Muslim Jihadist: