Impeachment??????????

[BushRocks]

Okay Barbara Boxer and the other ultra liberal senator from California, are threatening impeachment proceedings, this is absolutely insane. IMPEACHMENT FOR PROTECTING THEIR FAMILY AND THIER CONSTITIUENTS??? SCREW THEM


What say you?

[Guns R Cool]

Won't happen. Everything the libs throw at us gets, as Fred Durst says, "Knocked the F**k out!"

[Bumblebee]

Barbara Boxer said somewhere along the line that Bush has even admitted it, so he should be impeached for his "crime." Democrats have wanted Bush impeached since the war started. I think their still furious over Clinton's impeachment.

[Mr. Glass]

Is it ok to lie to Congress? Under what circumstance?

The Constitution says it's not.

Why didn't Bush comply with the FISA provision giving him 72 hours to inform a judge?


There are a lot of questions to be answered here. The dems heard out the Republicans when they wanted to bring chargess against Clinton, I feel the Republicans have a duty and a debt to give this matter serious consideration.

To blindly let a President break laws that he feels are inconvient is an insult to American justice.

I have to conceed however that perhaps no laws were broken, but when Senators and ex-legal council start talking like this, I think it's time we all pay attention - Those guys on Capitol Hill, like them or not, liberal or conservative - they know a HECK of a lot more about what's going on than any of us do, and if the Impeachment word is being bandied about by a SENATOR that some seriouss business there, it's not grandstanding. Even for Barbra Soapboxer, this is real.



Oh, and Bumblebee, Boxer didn't say bush Admited anything, Nixons former legal advisor, an expert on abuse of power (not meant as an insult, he's a well respected scholor on the matter in fact) is quoted as saying something along the lines of "Bush admited he broke the law and it is an impeachable offense" or something like that.

You can find the video at:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Boxer-on-Spying.wmv for the WMV
or
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Boxer-.mov for a quiktime format

of her appearcne on MSNBCs countdown show.



Still Lurking,

-Doug

[toddy rotton]

i'm sure barb's happy to have someone, anyone listen to her, even, maybe especially someone from taxas.. pshhhh to take a lesson from dad, i don't think i'd get those moments back thanks anyhow oh and what about haliburton? no disrespect.

[Bumblebee]

Well hello there Mr. Glass, long time no see, where have you been hiding?

Barbara Boxer most certainly said those things, She was all over the TV saying it, I saw it with my own eyes. So there!

Oh I just remembered, you're the one who told me to get rid of my TV. I think you might need one so you can see stuff like this with your own eyes too.

[Dagummit]

Is it ok to lie to Congress? Under what circumstance?
Oh great, you again. I thought you finally went over to democraticunderground.com for good, but I guess we weren't that lucky.
But please show me where he lied to congress.


Those guys on Capitol Hill, like them or not, liberal or conservative - they know a HECK of a lot more about what's going on than any of us do, and if the Impeachment word is being bandied about by a SENATOR that some seriouss business there, it's not grandstanding. Even for Barbra Soapboxer, this is real.

You know, people like you are the reason these traitorous senators get away with the shit they get away with. Some of the senators that you so admirably feel awl for don't know their head from their ass.

The shit Boxer, et al. vomited is key evidence why senators need term limits. They think they can get this power that they conjure up to "impeach" a sitting President for doing something that he is LEGALLY entitled to. By their doing this, they make our country a laughing stock.

STOP SUPPORTING AL QUEDA AND START SUPPORTING OUR RIGHT TO LIVE WITHOUT TERRORIST THUGS RUNNING AMUCK !!!!

[jackhabit]

Why didn't Bush comply with the FISA provision giving him 72 hours to inform a judge?

not to stir up a whole big thing here, but that IS a good point. i watched the prez's speech the other day (it was ok, but it's still painful to watch him all befuddled and struggling with answers) and when asked about this he kept returning to his line of "our enemies move fast/are always on the move/it's my job to protect the american people..." spiel. he was basically saying there was no time to follow the proper channels. really? so there was NO ONE available to inform a judge? not an assistant, a right hand man, an intern (that last one was a joke.) that's hard to believe. what bush SHOULD have done in order to save face at the time when this story would break, was go through the proper legal channels so as to give his detractors NO real ammo to fire at him. the case for impeachment is weak, but that does little to dispell the fact he was less than concerned about following proper procedure. it's not as if they'd have to stop an operation regarding national security dead in it's tracks while waiting on a warrant.

[Dagummit]

not to stir up a whole big thing here, but that IS a good point. i watched the prez's speech the other day (it was ok, but it's still painful to watch him all befuddled and struggling with answers) and when asked about this he kept returning to his line of "our enemies move fast/are always on the move/it's my job to protect the american people..." spiel. he was basically saying there was no time to follow the proper channels. really? so there was NO ONE available to inform a judge? not an assistant, a right hand man, an intern (that last one was a joke.) that's hard to believe. what bush SHOULD have done in order to save face at the time when this story would break, was go through the proper legal channels so as to give his detractors NO real ammo to fire at him. the case for impeachment is weak, but that does little to dispell the fact he was less than concerned about following proper procedure. it's not as if they'd have to stop an operation regarding national security dead in it's tracks while waiting on a warrant.


Maybe you guys are ignorant to the fact that there are not one, BUT TWO executive orders giving the President power through the Attorney General to order wiretappings, etc. without court orders!!! And those two EO's were signed in by democrat presidents!!!

[BushRocks]

Dag that's exactly right. In fact, President Clinton ordered wiretappings as well, but you sure didn't see Chuck Shumer and Boxer talkin about it then. Oh and Carter did it too. Talking about impeachment here is absolutely insane. Trying to impeach our President for protecting us? These liberals need to get a life, and realize that the President's poll numbers are up, nearly to 50%, and will continue to rise in a trend as troops come home and so on and so on. Liberals lose when they try to attack this man.

[IHL]

I'd love to see Cheney as our next president. It won't happen because I'm pretty sure he'd never run but I'd certainly vote for him. I've always liked him and his 'take no shit' attitude. And, I think the libs would hate him even more than Bush which proves that he is a good guy.

[Dagummit]

Wadi...what's 1? (reason stated for edit on post #7)

[Wadi66]

Is it ok to lie to Congress? Under what circumstance?

The Constitution says it's not.Since I don't have my copy in front of me, could you provide the location??

[jackhabit]

And, I think the libs would hate him even more than Bush which proves that he is a good guy.

hmmmmm.... sounds A LOT like kerry's lameass "vote for me 'cause i'm not bush" strategy in the 2004 election. conservatives hate clinton, but that doesn't make him a "good guy" as you put it.

[Wadi66]

Wadi...what's 1? (reason stated for edit on post #7)I did say in another thread about flaming that I would edit posts up to a point. Then I will start deleting them which goes against my grain. HOWEVER, we absolutely must call a hault to name calling and flaming. Come on Dag, you're smart enough to get your point across.

[Mr. Glass]

Maybe you guys are ignorant to the fact that there are not one, BUT TWO executive orders giving the President power through the Attorney General to order wiretappings, etc. without court orders!!! And those two EO's were signed in by democrat presidents!!!


An Executive Order is a "rule"made by the President.

I'm sorry, but he can't make a rule that allows him to break constitutional law.

If he issued an EO that said it was ok to forceably shut down ALL internet politics sites, round up the users, and hold them in camps pending some new tribunal court.... would you go with that?

If Bush signed an EO saying it was ok to force abortions on women, that would be ok?

I don't mean he would actually do any of those thing.... but it's important for you to understand that an EO cannot be given that allows the president to break the laws.

THE PLAYERS CAN'T MAKE UP RULES AS THEY GO ALONG. That's not how our country works. If you like that type of government go live in Asia or eastern Europe.

and you're right.... TV is evil, that's why I use the Internet to find valid and poignent video.

[Wadi66]

I'm sorry, but he can't make a rule that allows him to break constitutional law.LOL Mr. Glass, Presidents have been doing it for over 100 years. I'm 100% against EO's, but come on, lets get real here. Why is it such a big deal now when it never has been before. Stop the practice yes, but IMPEACH? Can we strip away all the glory and fringe benefits that past Presidents have because they too violated the Constitution? Or can we just call this what it is.... a witch hunt.

[jackhabit]

Dag that's exactly right. In fact, President Clinton ordered wiretappings as well, but you sure didn't see Chuck Shumer and Boxer talkin about it then.

WHY would they? they're clinton cronies and i'd expect nothing less than them turning a blind eye to each and every illegal act that horse's ass is/was guilty of. it's almost 2006 and clinton has been out of office for quite some time now (thank god almighty!) enough already with this "yeah, but the democrats did it too way back when" spiel, it's giving me a monster headache and bad flashbacks of kindergarten. grow the f#@k up people and tackle the issues at hand (as in "the present.")

[Dagummit]

Glass...President Bush didn't go against the Constitution...show me where he did?

Wadi...EO's aren't stupid, they are actually very nice measures to control certain things that congress doesn't have the balls to do...such as ban federal monies going to abortionists???

[HOKIEHUNTER]

you know what kills me here? when we talk about legalizing gay marriage possibly leading to legalizing sex with minors or beastiality, the libs go nuts and say we're ridiculous. that one WILL not lead to the other and that they are totally ridiculous. yet now when the gov't is monitoring akmed in florida's convo with hashush in iran that's gonna lead to mass abuse and big brother listening in on our convo's with our significant others. monitoring possible terrorists and telling billy's parents what big brother heard billy telling sally are 2 totally different things.

anybody got a pair of sandals laying around or are they just for liberals now?

[Mr. Glass]

apples and oranges Hookiehunter.

As for my PROOF that he violated law, I don't have any and never claimed to, but I also find it desturbing that given that the issue has been raised how quickly thr republican mainstay is working to sweep it under thr rug.

Clinton got in trouble because the opposition pressed him. Show me one example of a mainstream party turning on its own president to call for impeachment. I wouldn't expect a republican to go digging for dirt on Bush, but I would expect Congress as a whole to seriously consider issues such as this without partisan hackery.

I can't hyonestly say I am 100% certain Bush broke the law, but I am very from from being 100% convinced he did not.

I'm smart enough to know that I am neither qualified nor authorized to determine guilt or innocence. I have only my opinion based on media and government reports on the matter. I've come to the conclusion that things don't look good, and I would really like the Congress to fully investigate this matter. I've read the relevent parts of the FISA law, and I'm still of my opinion. I also know there's a lot of factors I'm unaware of, and I'm not afraid to admit I don't have all the answers - but I'd like the people who do have them to tell the American people what's going on.

I'm also with Wadi, I think the whole Executive Order idea looks good on paper, but it's expolited and abused by all sitting presidents - I would be in favor or retroactive impeachments of all past presidents who could be shown to have broken laws.

I don't have any sentimental respect for the Office of the President, he's not a monach, he's not even a representative of the American People, he's the figurehead of a government I don't think we even need in the first place. I'm againt the hero worship that goes with the office, and anything we can do to check the asses of the feds is a positive in my eyes.

And, when a well known conservative hawk says the president broke the law, the a dem says it too, that's not something you ignore or take lightly.... at least I don't....


I'm not going to be first in line to Hang bush without a fair trial, but I think we need one, I think there's a lot going on here that needs resolution, if this results in new laws and a slap on the wrist and a "don't do it again" from the congress I'll respect that call, if they let him off scott free, I'll be suspect, but no more than usual. If he does manage to be impeached, then good riddance, but I won't be cheering, an impeachment sends a very somber message to the rest of the world, and it's not something I'd LIKE to see.... but I'd like less to see our nation ignore it's own laws and procedures as that says even worse things.

I'm done now... I need to go back to lurking....

-Doug

[Dagummit]

As for my PROOF that he violated law, I don't have any and never claimed to,

...

I can't hyonestly say I am 100% certain Bush broke the law, but I am very from from being 100% convinced he did not.
Wow...I hope you never sit on a jury when an innocent person's life depends on a sensible jurorist.

But since you have NO proof that he broke the law, why don't you keep your libel's to yourself.

[BushRocks]

Well, as I say, liberals are scared of losing ground in '06 so they will drum up anything they can, but what they don't seem to realize is, when they attack this President, he THRIVES. Why? Because he's awesome, and because Americans connect with his humor and his personality. Liberals are just threatened. Republican's Pickin' Up More Seats In '06!

[BushRocks]

I'm smart enough to know that I am neither qualified nor authorized to determine guilt or innocence. I have only my opinion based on media and government reports on the matter. I've come to the conclusion that things don't look good



Well Doug wouldn't you say that the Attorney General of United States of America has the qualifications and the authorization to determine guilt or innocence? I'd say that he does have that authority and the qualifications. Any sane person would. A.G. Gonzalez has said that the President has broken no constitutional laws. Hmm, and I bet he has very intellegent and qualified constitutional lawyers to advise him on this issue. And you also say that you have your opinion based on the media and government reports. Well since the media is 75% controlled by liberals with their liberal agendas(NY Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC just to name a few here) maybe you should look towards people like the Attorney General to give you your information, someone who has authority and a brilliant mind on law. I dont know if I'd want my info from a Senator like Barbara Boxer or Chuck Shumer who are just trying to kick up votes for the next election. You didnt see them when President Clinton was involved in non-warrant wiretappings did you? Nahh of course not. I ask one thing of Barbara and Chuck and Harry Reid, realize that Republican's and the President are not always against you, and maybe realize that the President is protecting the constituents who voted to put you in office.

[jackhabit]

A.G. Gonzalez has said that the President has broken no constitutional laws.

the attorney general? you mean the same office of attorney general that is appointed by the president? gimme a break BR! all talk of illegality aside (and i don't have enough info on this subject at present to make up my mind one way or the other as to whether or not the law was broekn,) do you seriously think the gov't can effectively and impartially investigate ITSELF?