Impeach Bush

[lookingforitallthetime]

Whether 9/11 hijackers came through Canada or not, the fact remains our politically correct society is a haven for terrorists.

 

[Mcluhan]

You mean like the FLQ

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Exactly!

We can blame our "Just Society" for that too.

 

[Gyaos]

Like I said Gyaos, you want to put money on Bush being impeached and convicted,

Not putting money on being "impeached and convicted". What will happen is there will be a hearing in the House and a simple majority will rule in favour. The Senate then has to hear the case with John Roberts. Who says a coward like George W. Bush Jr., Dick Cheney and others who are killing our troops on lies and war profiteering will face it. They will resign first.

The Constitution grants to the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States".

Put money on just the impeachment simple majority in the House. I put up $.25.

Gyaos Baltar.

 

[Asterix]

Not putting money on being "impeached and convicted". What will happen is there will be a hearing in the House and a simple majority will rule in favour. The Senate then has to hear the case with John Roberts. Who says a coward like George W. Bush Jr., Dick Cheney and others who are killing our troops on lies and war profiteering will face it. They will resign first.

The Constitution grants to the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States".

Put money on just the impeachment simple majority in the House. I put up $.25.

Gyaos Baltar.

Big spender, eh? Exactly why would George resign if there is no chance of being convicted in the Senate? If there is no chance of being convicted in the Senate, why go through the whole process of impeaching him in the House? You don't understand how resistant the US populace is to going through this whole mess again with no result. Unless more damaging information comes out about the Bush administration, and by that I mean alot more, this simply is not going to happen. Cheney is a different matter. It wouldn't shock me if he decided to resign out of the blue, once this election is over, claiming "medical issues". I don't think this will happen unless George has someone locked in willing to take the job that he is confident will be confirmed by Congress. A short list indeed. Vice President Rice perhaps? Unlikely, but it would make things interesting.

 

[Mcluhan]

And how was the FLQ dealt with? Were you here? on the planet at the time?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

And how was the FLQ dealt with? Were you here? on the planet at the time?

I was. What planet are you on today?

 

[Mcluhan]

I was. What planet are you on today?

Third from the sun. My question was related to whether you experienced the War Measures Act or not? i.e. reading and experiencing are two different things. I for one approve of how it was handled. I notice you are quick to capitalize on the discussion converting it into a Liberal slam, so just wondering.

Why is it that conservatives ( like yourself apparently) are so quick to escalate to that type of thing? Is it, fear? Loathing? Disgust? Pomposity? Enlighten me.

 

[frasier]

I, for one, would sure like to see some proof of this; legitimate, confirmed proof.

It's long since been established that none of the 9/11 hijackers came across the border from Canada.

I never implied or said that the 9-11 guys came from Canada.
How about that guy they caught out west? Sorry I forgot his name.

I have a very good friend from Iran. A professor that had to leave his homeland, because he didn't play along with the religous wackos in his country.
He said " A lot of us come over here because they are being prosecuted at home. But not all of us come here with the best of intentions"..I leave it at that...

 

[frasier]

.
You can rest assured they have a contingency plan for the Great White Northern Sheep as well...in the event our Arctic perimeter OR our natural resources become a National Security risk.

You think you have it bad now?
Wait until Hillary gets in power....no more free trade for you. (Not that there ever was free trade to begin with)

Party of Protectionism
Out with Republicans, out with free trade?

By Jonathan Martin


Next month’s election could prove decisive on something that has nothing to do with Iraq, control of Congress, or the House page program. At stake? The free-trade consensus in the Senate that has ensured easy passage of every measure liberalizing trade put forth by the past two administrations.

Democrats only need six seats to gain a majority in the Senate, but the election of five new Democrats and one independent in particular would have even greater ramifications. Should seats currently held by free-traders in Ohio, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Missouri go to “fair traders” — and should the sour environment for Republicans prevent them from gaining any seats from Democrats — the bipartisan commitment to free trade in the Senate would almost certainly end, torpedoing the prospects for any significant legislation in President Bush’s final two years and perhaps longer while fundamentally altering the character of the upper chamber.

Since NAFTA, the House has been the true battleground on trade votes. Because they represent regional populations with less varied industry, members of the House, regardless of party, are more responsive to the unique dictates of their district’s economy. So while a representative from, say, a textile-heavy district may oppose a free trade agreement, a senator from that same state may, seeing the broader benefits for his constituency, support such a measure.

Indeed, every major piece of trade legislation pushed by the Clinton and Bush administrations has sailed through the Senate, regardless of which party was in power, while facing a tougher road in the House. In 1993, NAFTA passed the Democratic-held Senate by a 21-vote margin, but with only 34 votes to spare in the 435-member House, also controlled by Democrats. “Fast-Track” trade authority was similar. President Clinton sought but never got this tool — granting the president authority to negotiate agreements that Congress can then only consider in an up-or-down vote — and a GOP-held House passed it by only three votes in a nail biting, late-night session in 2002. The margin a week later in the Democratic-controlled Senate? Thirty votes.

The pattern is waning, though. Whether it was a more robust lobbying effort by organized labor, a changing Senate, an unpopular Republican president, legitimate policy concerns or a reflection of the increased partisanship on Capitol Hill, CAFTA passed by just 10 votes, 55-45, in the GOP-held Senate last July.

Just like current control of the Senate, a six-vote change would make all the difference.

And six of the leading Democratic challengers this cycle have either been anti-free-trade leaders, placed economic populism front-and-center in their campaigns or would likely be predictable “no” votes on any major trade deal.

Rep. Sherrod Brown (D.) of Ohio is one of the top free-trade opponents in the House. Representing an Akron-area district hit hard by the closure of steel, tire, and auto plants, Brown led the opposition to CAFTA last year and was equally vocal in his resistance to NAFTA and fast-track. He has repeatedly touted his opposition to these measures in his tight battle with incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine, who has backed every important trade bill since his election to the Senate in 1994.

A self-proclaimed Socialist, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I.) has been a thorn in the side of corporate America during his 16 years as Vermont’s lone representative in the House. He’s seeking to replace retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords (I.). While Jeffords caucuses with the Democrats, he has been a fairly reliable free-trade supporter. Meanwhile, Sanders — the heavy favorite — would stand aside Brown at the vanguard of “Fair Trade” caucus in the Senate.

Joining them would be Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey. Like his late father and namesake, a former Keystone State governor, Casey is an old-fashioned Democrat. Culturally conservative (pro-life, pro-gun) like many of the traditional Democrats who populate central and western Pennsylvania, Casey leans left on economics. He is now airing an ad statewide promising to “oppose any trade law that sends American jobs overseas.” Labor is going all-out for Casey in his high-profile campaign against conservative Sen. Rick Santorum (R.). Expect Casey to return the favor on any trade bill that comes before the Senate in the likely case he knocks off Santorum.

Though best known from his portrayal in the national media as a Vietnam war hero and lapsed Republican, Virginia Senate candidate James Webb’s passions are not just limited to his opposition to the war in Iraq. Running as a Democrat, Webb sought to prove his partisan credentials to party faithful by attacking his primary opponent for supporting free trade. Since then he has framed his campaign against Allen as part of a Jacksonian quest to return power from the “corporate aristocracy” — which he says the incumbent represents — to the forgotten middle and lower class, going so far as to use a chamber of commerce debate in front of northern Virginia business executives to highlight the importance of collective bargaining. Such populism has never played well in Virginia, but Allen’s bumbling campaign and Virginia’s changing demographics put this free-trade seat in jeopardy.

Neither Sheldon Whitehouse, who’s taking on incumbent Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, nor Claire McCaskill, who’s challenging Republican Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri, have focused on trade issues, but both have made clear they’ll be a reliable Democratic vote on such matters should they win their very competitive races. Moreover, both come from states where unions have considerable political sway.

Regardless of what happens with the Senate, a Democratic-controlled House would be unlikely to bring up trade legislation likely to raise the ire of organized labor. Democrats, though, aren’t likely to hold the House by much if they do take the majority, and Republicans would have good odds in retaking control by running against Pelosi and her liberal allies in 2008; a task made even easier if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is atop the ticket.

A change in the Senate, however, would be unlikely. In 2008, 21 Republicans are up for reelection compared to just 12 Democrats. Of these 12 Democrats, many represent safe seats. So for at least four years, should these six Democrats be elected, the Senate is likely to be run by current Minority Leader Harry Reid — an opponent of NAFTA, fast-track, CAFTA and every other major piece of trade legislation that he’s seen in his 20 years in the Senate.

This resurgent populism does not appear to be limited to only the congressional wing of the new (small “n”) Democratic party. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democratic “it boy” of the moment, summed up his party’s post-Clintonian view on trade in a glowing profile in the New York Times magazine earlier this month.

“I was a critic of Nafta, I was a critic of Cafta and I’ll be a critic of Shafta.”

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Third from the sun. My question was related to whether you experienced the War Measures Act or not? i.e. reading and experiencing are two different things. I for one approve of how it was handled. I notice you are quick to capitalize on the discussion converting it into a Liberal slam, so just wondering.

I was around during the War Measures Act, but was very young To be honest, I couldn't figure out what your point was. I stated that our politically correct society is a haven for and fosters terrorism. You asked me if that included the FLQ and I said yes???????? I'm missing your point

Why is it that conservatives ( like yourself apparently) are so quick to escalate to that type of thing? Is it, fear? Loathing? Disgust? Pomposity? Enlighten me.

Your little communist buddy woolf is equally quick to ecalate things with conservative labels. Since the two of you are becoming so close, get him to enlighten you.

 

[Mcluhan]

I was around during the War Measures Act, but was very young To be honest, I couldn't figure out what your point was. I stated that our politically correct society is a haven for and fosters terrorism. You asked me if that included the FLQ and I said yes????????

The point was, PET handled the situtation extremely well in the face of criticism from all quarters, including his own cabinet and especially the press, they went berserk. He turned the army loose in Montreal and flushed out the FLQ quickly. Crushed them, to be more exact, those that didn't flee to Cuba. People were very upset with the army being given the control it had, but it was very effective. It was a defining moment for his leadership and for Canada. (then) So I thought that example was a good counter point to your stance. How things are today, is a different matter.

 

[LancsLad]

The point was, PET handled the situtation extremely well in the face of criticism from all quarters, including his own cabinet and especially the press, they went berserk. He turned the army loose in Montreal and flushed out the FLQ quickly. Crushed them, to be more exact, those that didn't flee to Cuba. People were very upset with the army being given the control it had, but it was very effective. It was a defining moment for his leadership and for Canada. (then) So I thought that example was a good counter point to your stance. How things are today, is a different matter.

It will make you feel good to know that I was in the Army then, read it again Army not fuggin Land Element. Do you feel better now knowing that people like me were "turned loose". I get all warm and fuzzy just thinking about our fixed bayonet and concertina wire crowd control.

 

[Mcluhan]

It will make you feel good to know that I was in the Army then, read it again Army not fuggin Land Element. Do you feel better now knowing that people like me were "turned loose". I get all warm and fuzzy just thinking about our fixed bayonet and concertina wire crowd control.

You don't have to take that as an insult on behalf of our forces, it wasn't intended as such. I grew up in an army/airforce community, and I have great respect for our troops, and the members of my own family that have served and died in service. Now you, that's a different matter..

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

The point was, PET handled the situtation extremely well in the face of criticism from all quarters, including his own cabinet and especially the press, they went berserk. He turned the army loose in Montreal and flushed out the FLQ quickly. Crushed them, to be more exact, those that didn't flee to Cuba. People were very upset with the army being given the control it had, but it was very effective. It was a defining moment for his leadership and for Canada. (then) So I thought that example was a good counter point to your stance. How things are today, is a different matter.

I see now.

I agree that Trudeau handled the FLQ situation well regarding the War Measures Act. However, it's important not to forget the significance these actions had considering his ideals of a just society.

My point was the idealogy and policies of that just society foster terrorism.....including the FLQ

 

[Mcluhan]

It will make you feel good to know that I was in the Army then, read it again Army not fuggin Land Element. Do you feel better now knowing that people like me were "turned loose". I get all warm and fuzzy just thinking about our fixed bayonet and concertina wire crowd control.

It's a bit late, but i just wanted to add a note. Lancs, clearly you are a psychopath. The more we discuss, the closer i will get to understanding the nature of your pathology. So keep talking. Eventually you will hang from the bayonet of that truth.

 

[papasmerf]

You guys kill me


so many posts from operatives so little time to the election

 

[Mcluhan]

You guys kill me


so many posts from operatives so little time to the election

I agree. Hey Pappy, i see u finally dug out down there. What happened? your roof cave in? Gotta watch those sagging trusses now that the Arctic is melting you know.

 

[Gyaos]

Big spender, eh? Exactly why would George resign if there is no chance of being convicted in the Senate? If there is no chance of being convicted in the Senate, why go through the whole process of impeaching him in the House?

Well, your questions have answers in history. Why did The Republicans impeach Bill Clinton when there was NO CHANCE of being convicted in The Senate? The Republicans went through the whole process impeaching Clinton in the Senate with a simple majority in the House approving it....and for what? Cum on a dress or perjury under oath based on a point of view of the law?

But Richard Nixon resigned before we knew whether he would be convicted in the Senate. He had the choice to resign or face impeachment. Study Nixon, then Bush Jr. and see that Bush Jr. has overstepped his bounds even worse than Nixon by literally breaking the law and killing American troops under lies and war profiteering. I think, you should include Dick Cheney will also be impeached and like the cowards they are, they will resign.

If you think someone like Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney will stand up to an impeachment process, as the "leaker-in-chief", I really don't think it's going to happen. They will resign as a cut-and-run POTUS and VP. These two couldn't fight a war right, couldn't capture Osama, and don't even know where the US/Mexico border is....so they are smart enough to face a congressional impeachment because of FISA '78, War Profiteering, treason for leaking a CIA OP and doctoring up intellegence to mislead congress and The United Nations, wire-tapping, voter fraud, covering up instant-messaging child molesters? Nope

Gyaos.

 

[Mcluhan]

The basis To Impeach Bush and War Party

I've been doing a lot of reading on the subject. The Internet is a marvelous thing. I must be working on my own private masters thesis here, as to what this war in Iraq actualy "means". What is the meaning of Iraq?

I can see that now the vein of this idea is going to on for weeks to come. It's much like mining hard rock for gold. You look up at the hill, you see the quartz. You know there is gold somewhere nearby. The Gold here is the Truth. 24 Karat Truth. The pure truth hasn't come out yet. We are nowhere close to digging it out. And yet there are quartz deposits strewn everywhere.

Screw the pundits, to hell with them! They are not mining for gold.

The first big quartz deposit:

Bob Woodward: Plan of Attack

"Powell felt Cheney and his allies – his chief aide, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's 'Gestapo' office – had established what amounted to a separate government."


Notes:

In response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, United States President George W. Bush created a War Cabinet. They met at Camp David on the weekend of September 15 to shape what became the War on Terrorism.

The Cabinet comprised Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Hugh Shelton, John Ashcroft, Paul O'Neill, Karen Hughes, Ari Fleischer, Robert Mueller, Paul Wolfowitz, and Andy Card. Some of their spouses were also on this retreat.