Doesn't matter.

McKinney is on her way out, and largely a fuking nutrod.

Also, Pelosi has gone on record stating she would not take part in any measures to sanction Bush.

I hope the nutrod gets her way.

I do too.

Sadly, this will not happen.

REALLY? You want Bush to be impeached? Why? Revenge? Impeachment doesn't remove him from office. At all. You accomplish nothing, except to incite a bunch of pomp and furor. Impeachment should be reserved for situations where we can actually follow through with removing the politician. Impeaching Clinton was a dumb pursuit, because we had no chance to actually remove him. Same with Bush.

And Clinton actually committed perjury, a crime that any non-demagogue would have gone to jail. Bush? He got us into an unpopular war -- nothing that Kennedy didn't attempt.

shut your piehole maggot

Bush is not innocent. The manufacture of intelligence to get into war is bad much worse than trying to cover up an extra-marital affair. Kennedy got his legacy from LBJ, he didn't want to and more importantly succeed in getting us into a stupid war.
Torture Gonzales got his go ahead from bush. Secret Energy taskforce [what industry just cleaned up because of the war?]. The repeal of Habeas Corpus, due process, rampant spying, arbitrary imprisonment, repeal of the bill of rights, bluring the seperation of church and state...the list goes on and you would be particularly ignorant to dismiss the reality that stoping this administration has fueled a congressional power shift and his low approval ratings demonstrate his gig is up.

fuck bush

pelosi is a wuss

Unfortunately, Bush hasn't committed a crime, which is what you would need. Lying isn't a crime, and approving all the other stuff, done through legal channels, isn't a crime.

Be that as it may, his trampling and/or disregarding the Constitution is still fuking repugnant.

Several lawsuits are pending.

Bush policy of rendition and warentless wiretaps both found to be unconstitutional in court of law. Appeals are pending.

What kind of proof do you require? Bush is criminal.

Nifty.
Trade up Igor(Bush) for Dracula(Cheney)

'Be that as it may, his trampling and/or disregarding the Constitution is still fuking repugnant.'

No more repugnant than FDR, JFK or even Clinton's doing the same. Please. The constitution is a legal document. All legal documents are up for debate -- thats why we have lawyers. He didn't outlaw your right to bear arms, free speech, or tell you that you have to be a Fundie.

Regardless, doing something that is against the constitution isn't a crime. It is YOUR job to take the government to task when your rights are infringed -- the SCOTUS has the power to decide what is and is not constitutional, and reverse those actions that are not kosher.

The warrantless wiretaps are a direct violation of the fourth amendment.

IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil:
'Bush is not innocent. The manufacture of intelligence to get into war .....'

Didn't happen.

IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil:
' Kennedy got his legacy from LBJ, he didn't want to and more importantly succeed in getting us into a stupid war.'

Oh? Really? That's what happened?

Did LBJ get shot in the head while wheeling around, top down, in Texas?

IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil:
'Torture Gonzales got his go ahead from bush.'

Didn't happen.

[I just love to piss off IMBO-Phil. Pressure point: Facts.] :D

IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil:
'Secret Energy taskforce [what industry just cleaned up because of the war?].'

LOLsome!

IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil:
'The repeal of Habeas Corpus, due process, rampant spying, arbitrary imprisonment, repeal of the bill of rights, bluring the seperation of church and state...'

Nothing you complain about when your favored statists do it...

[I just love to piss off IMBO-Phil. Pressure point: Intellectually ingenuous, coherent, self-consistent, and logical thought.] :D

mofo:
'Unfortunately, Bush hasn't committed a crime, which is what you would need.'

Finally! THAT is what really is the crux of the biscuit--by virtue of certain bipartisanly (overwhelmimgly bipartisan, mind you) supported technicalities--Bush hasn't committed a crime.

mofo:
'Lying isn't a crime, and approving all the other stuff, done through legal channels, isn't a crime.'

Lying to a Grand jury is a crime, but otherwise you're right.

I'm still waiting for the blue state cavalry to dismiss this notion of 'War On Terror' and repeal the PATRIOT Act. They won't though. They'll keep the government's broadly expanded powers, and they'll keep their heel firmly planted on the neck of our liberties with promise that they will be more responsible with those expanded powers than the other statists were, and the great gifts they'll provide you with will far out-value those liberties you lost.

Clavis_Apocalypticae:
'Be that as it may, his trampling and/or disregarding the Constitution is still fuking repugnant.'

But not repugnant enough to keep the statists from putting constitution tramplers and disregarders in prime position to trample and/or disregard the constitution.

jwalker:
'Several lawsuits are pending.

Bush policy of rendition and warentless wiretaps both found to be unconstitutional in court of law. Appeals are pending.

What kind of proof do you require? Bush is criminal.'

First, a conviction. (Which ain't happening)

Secondly, and much more importantly, the act that will prove that those who bring this conviction that Bush's action have been criminal will be dismissal of this notion of 'War On Terror' and the repeal the PATRIOT Act. (Which ain't happening)

uart and mofo: read this.

Thanks, cockroach.
At least that bloggy gizmo is feasible scenario and predictions.
I expect he's actually done his research.

David Swanson:
'They [those who were for the war when they voted for it, but aren't now] supported it because Bush said that Saddam had nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and was behind the attacks of 9-11.'

Bush didn't say this. As much as you wish he had, he didn't. Saddam said he had nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons--or at least failed to demonstrate he didn't, as required of him by the UN. Bush believed him, and so did all those other fuckers--ALL OF THEM ( or at leastthey said so ).

It is wishful Monday Morning Quarterbacking revisionism to claim Bush had some special secret intel, that NO ONE IN THE WHOLE FUKING WORLD had, that stated Saddam was in substantial compliance with his WMD obligations.

And as far as 9-11 is concerned, I've yet to see any statment by Bush linking Saddam to 9-11 that goes beyond the assertion that as far as the US is concerned, Saddam and those who executed the 9-11 plan have the same end-game in mind. Hardly the firm link-up asserted.

David Swanson:
'It is illegal to spy in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, something Bush has confessed to doing.'

I would hope fuking so, but it apparently is not--and it is not because the the nifty technicalities that DEMOCRATS (as well as Republicans) voted into place.

David Swanson:
'It is illegal to detain without charge and to torture, practices that have been well documented, drafted as official White House policy, lobbied for by the Vice President, and possibly retroactively pardoned by the Military Commissions Act (another technicality that is irrelevant to a case for impeachment and, anyway, may soon be reversed).'

So take the Frat-house away if naked pyramids is what you're talking about--or if you are talking about the real gruesome serious kind of torture, and not just humiliation, first establish that it had happened, and then be absolutely sure that your kids lives (or everyone else's) were not at stake, and be sure that if your kids lives were at stake, you'd still have sand in your cunt about it.

This is not me condoning torture, mind you, but it's realizing that if a thousand school children were killed by a terrorist action, and that action could have been prevented from the information gained by applying direct and painful injury, and such direct and painful injury was not applied, every BUSHSUX bot out there would be screaming BUSHSUX BECAUSE HE'S TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY FOR TORTURE. I'm realizing that that putting one's political stroke power first is NOT a sin unique to Bush or republicans at all. If you are not as willing to go after your own as you are willing to go after Bush, I have little time for your point of view, because you're just a turd pointing at other turds while holding your nose.

David Swanson:
'It is illegal to take funds from other projects to begin a war before it has been authorized.'

I'd like to see how this accusation is established. I'm not saying it is false, but I am saying I suspect that some painfully long, partisan, and tenuous logic string is likely to be the foundation of this accusation.

David Swanson:
'It is illegal to target civilians and hospitals and journalists, and to use white phosphorous and napalm as weapons.'

Same as above--and is it illegal for civilians and journalist (especially) to be standing around right where they might get shot? Particularly in the case of journalists, would making such a law be a violation of the 1st amendment? If a law can't be made to protect journalist from their dumb, and no law can make journalists un-dumb, why should there be a law against shooting journalists who step into cross-fire? Journalists or anyone for that matter? And why should should shooting such dumb be consisered 'targeting' and if they are dumb, and targeted for being dumb, why not issue medals for killing the dumbs?

I see the joy in the excercise now. :D

David Swanson:
'It is a fundamental violation of the U.S. Constitution to alter laws with signing statements.'

I know the signing statements are being made, and you might assert that the Bush's prodigious use of them is an attempt to alter the laws he sighns, but you'll have a difficult time demonstrating that a law is actually altered by them.

David Swanson:
'In addition to the crimes hoped for mentioned above, Bush has failed to perform his duties as president as required of him by the Constitution. His negligence prior to and after 9-11, prior to and after Katrina, and during the ongoing global warming crisis: these are failures of the highest order.'

Oh yeah, BUSHSUX!

David Swanson:
'We're seeking to impeach over extreme abuses of power.'

Yeah, but those you support gave him those powers so they can have it for themselves--you assert the problem is Bush, I assert the problem is the powers.

David Swanson:
'Bush's specific legal violations are our fault, but we can make up plausible accusations after the fact, inspired by every law written throughout history, and ascribe every sin of humanity to Bush, and he'll not be able to avoid being tarred too many to list and can begin, again, with the violations of FISA to which Bush has confessed.'

Man. I hope this works, but I doubt it will as it would upset the culture of privilege and power Bush's political opponents take for granted and are all too addicted to. Going after Bush (or any other politician regardless of party) for breaking the law is nothing at all like going after, say, LOki for saying 'cunty.'

David Swanson:
'If we go into 2009 without having held Bush and Cheney accountable, the next president will be a dictator with absolute power outside the bounds of any laws.'

HAHA! TOO FUKING LATE!

This has NOTHING to do with Bush though, but everything to do with the notion that the supremacy of the state can be ideal.

Loki, do you have a hot, like-minded sister that I could bang?

David Swanson:
'If we go into 2009 without having held Bush and Cheney accountable, the next president will be a dictator with absolute power outside the bounds of any laws.'

Loki:
HAHA! TOO FUKING LATE!

Why is it too late? Surely if the current crop of pseudo(wanna-be)-dictators get themselves impeached and may-be booted out of the Whitehouse, the next crop will get the message that they need to behave themselves and stick a little closer to the law and the Constitution?

[quote][quote]jwalker:
'Several lawsuits are pending.

Bush policy of rendition and warentless wiretaps both found to be unconstitutional in court of law. Appeals are pending.
What kind of proof do you require? Bush is criminal.'[/quote]
First, a conviction. (Which ain't happening)
[/quote]

You require a conviction as proof of guilt. I say you're putting the cart before the horse, ie proof of guilt should be the basis of a conviction. You're right about it not happening - no one is going to sue Bush, as an individual.

But forget all that, I would want Bush impeached if for no reason other than that I personally cannot stand the mutherfuker.

'Unfortunately, Bush hasn't committed a crime, which is what you would need.'

Oh, MOFO, how wrong you are.

Don't you remember history? How we executed all those German and Japanese politicians and military commanders for waging Wars of Agression, Pre-Emptive Warfare, and Crimes Against Peace/Crimes Against Humanity?

Each of those charges apply here, my friend. In spades.

oh loki!
Pressure point...

haha and more haha

Thanks LOki, It feels good to know that I am not the only swarmer with short term memory loss.

Jeezus! Who really cares. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And, a bureaucracy will do anything to preserve it's own existence. Feed it a few virgin pages once in a while and go back to your more satisfying and selfish existence. Or, adopt a Chinese baby or something, Ms. Jolie.

long as I get my tax cut...

jwalker:

'It You require a conviction as proof of guilt. I say you're putting the cart before the horse, ie proof of guilt should be the basis of a conviction.

Whatever happened to 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'?

jwalker:

But forget all that, I would want Bush impeached if for no reason other than that I personally cannot stand the mutherfuker.

OHHHHH, I understand now. Innocent until proven guilty only applies to those who are in jwalker's good graces. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

The 'I hate Bush, and have no clue what the hell I'm talking about' argument. A classic.

Classic indeed.

I wish the message got out that there is, in fact, no doubt that they hate Bush. They seem to think that no-one believes them, and that if people would just believe, then they'd understand that they are right--as if everyone believing they are right is what makes them right.

Hallelujah to the faithful!

Whut??

Look, all I was saying is that in order to be found guilty of something, there first has to be proof. Whereas LOki was saying that since Bush has not personally been convicted of anything, that means there is no proof to convict him on. That is a ludicrous and contraditctory argument, designed to let Bush off the hook. I don't buy it, and neither should you. If you don't believe me, go review the Bush Crime File for loads of proof. And the last part was a joke. get it?

I repeat: proof of guilt should be the basis for conviction - NOT the other way around. And in Bush's case there's no lack of proof.

Follow-up: I think there's enough doubt about the actions and intentions of the Bush administration, that investigations should be held by the newly elected congress. That this is not going to happen is a crime in itself.

jwalker:
'Look, all I was saying is that in order to be found guilty of something, there first has to be proof. Whereas LOki was saying that since Bush has not personally been convicted of anything, that means there is no proof to convict him on.'

I didn't say this. Ever. Of course, it is conceivably possible I might say this on that very day that I'm a juror, in the courtroom where such conviction is the issue at hand...but I still don't think you can claim I was saying criminal guilt comes before establishing evidence in proof of such guilt--which was the posiion you were rather explicit about holding yourself, yes?

jwalker:
'I think there's enough doubt about the actions and intentions of the Bush administration, that investigations should be held by the newly elected congress. That this is not going to happen is a crime in itself.'Nonsense. He's completely guilty. A trial that investigates the evidence will only cast doubt on the validity of the conviction you have already established. It will serve only to undermine the great truth that BUSHSUX, and such undermining is heresy.

There is no crime in blocking heresy--but leting heretics live cannot be tolerated. Are you going willingly to the pyre, or are we going to have to force you there? :D

jwalker: What kind of proof do you require? Bush is criminal.'
LOki: First, a conviction. (Which ain't happening)

But, if that is not what you meant, then nevermind.

However, I have to take issue with you're attempt to equate Bush-haters with some kind of weird cult or religion. We may have some truths on our side, but to use that as reason to not dislike Bush is like asking me to feel guilty because there's a god. You're fighting for the very thing you are against. Cut it out.

Jwalkie: 'Whatever happened to 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'?'

Therein lies the irony.

Guantanamo comes to mind.

Some people need to pull the wool from their eyes.

jwalker: Just in case you're misconstrueing my commentary as meaning there's no reason to impeach Bush, just let me ad now:

IMPEACH BUSH! DO IT NOW!!!

But while it's not happening, let me remind you of why i think it's not happening.

I think it's not happening because doing so would cut off from those doing the impeaching, the very powers they gave Bush, so that when Bush is finally gone, they will have those powers.

You guys will see I'm right about this when Bush gets elected again in 2008. :D

Loki has a kook-head theory:
I think it's not happening because doing so would cut off from those doing the impeaching, the very powers they gave Bush, so that when Bush is finally gone, they will have those powers.

And I fear he may be right for once.

They did just roll over and say 'anything you want to fight them terroris, heck we won't even read the bill, just sign it up and away we go, yee haw!'

The political party with the rich guys [sorry to bring money into this, lowkey] and the other party with the richer guys both want state control of you the sheeple for further exploitation. I think bush is more than a figurehead though and an echo of mr. 41 who apparently has most of his cabinet [sans Quayley] in the bush jr. setup.

The monied interests that make coin from political decisions [key up: Haliburton, Carlyle group, and other military/gov't contractors] want to maintain THEIR welfare state.

That's right, we bitch about the wetbacks or hillbillies getting some cash payout, but what about that Billion here and Billion there that such and such got to build a latrine in the middle of nowhere? Really, I think someone is being taken advantage of. And those ex-CEOs making up the whitehouse cabinet want certain payouts continuing to certain parties, Daddy's included.

And yes, loki, it's not proof at all that they are corrupt. The standard of proof for these public officials is much more stringent than the day laborer skping on 5k$ of tax revenue. Heck that could go towards a screw on a B2 Bomber! I mean we need more military infrastructure [PNAC, Rumsfeld et. al] and our military friends need the money.

Talk about welfare.

You guys need to give the man a break. All he has done is manufacture evidence which resulted in a bogus war which killed thousands of American soldiers, and created constitutionally illegal legislation that violates our rights.

You are acting like he came on the dress of a consenting female adult or something!

Take a deep breath and let it go..

ok. I admit I was over reacting, and we need tougher anti-cigar legislation pronto!

All lib-RUH-tarian ideas are kook-head theories.

It says so in the manual.