87% want Bush impeached - MSNBC poll

[26 X World Champs]

Silly me....I had to go ahead and Type "Bush Crime Family" into Google:

The Bush Crime Family Tree

Wow! What a post, thanks! When I wrote "Bush Crime Family" I was in reality using the term as a metaphor but it's oh so interesting to read all the different "crime family" type of things that the Bushies have been involved in.

I'm not certain that everything is 100% accurate, but some of it is indisputable and I guess I was more right than I realized when I used the term "Bush Crime Family"

Thanks for the interesting post!

 

[Stace]

I agree but the question doesn't end there. Why are the Democrats and the left discussing this during a time of war and when the President has been clear that he has been advised by his legal council it is legal and every President before him has done the same thing.

Technically, we are NOT in a time of war, since Congress never declared war. Iraq and all that are known as "extended military conflicts".

Doesn't matter what the Presidents before him did, if they weren't caught. They're not the ones in the hot seat right now, and Bush is. Let's try to focus on the topic at hand.

 

[alphieb]

Are Senators Hagel & Specter (among others from "that" party) Democrats?

Isn't Harriet Meiers Bush's legal counsel?

Since when does the President's counsel decide what is legal or not?

If other President broke the law too (IF Bush did break the law) does that make it OK because they weren't caught?

Why is Bush getting away with murder (literally)? I truly believe now that he should get impeached. Dick Nixon got "kicked around". Someone needs to kick Bush out of house.

 

[aps]

I agree but the question doesn't end there. Why are the Democrats and the left discussing this during a time of war and when the President has been clear that he has been advised by his legal council it is legal and every President before him has done the same thing.

Hi Stinger. I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence that other presidents had done the same thing. Can you provide the evidence?

I stated above (or in a different thread) that if Bush truly had the ability under the Constitution to conduct warrantless searches/surveillances, Congress would never have created the FISA court, nor would we have had to pass legislation for the Patriot Act.

 

[Stace]

Why is Bush getting away with murder (literally)? I truly believe now that he should get impeached. Dick Nixon got "kicked around". Someone needs to kick Bush out of house.

Want some information on the shaddy activities the Bush administration has been engaged in, I will provide a democratic link for credibilty http://www:democrats.org/

You might want to fix the link....should be http://www.democrats.org :mrgreen:

 

[Stinger]

Since when does the President's counsel decide what is legal or not?

What is the job of the Presidents legal counsel?

If other President broke the law too (IF Bush did break the law) does that make it OK because they weren't caught?

It certainly sets the precedent and supports the contention the White House is making that it was and still is legal when every President before and their legal counsel and the Justice Departments and courts have said so.

The left and the Democrats in particular are trying to make the case that

1. Bush broke the law
2. He knowingly did so.

As far as the first they haven't presented anything to show he did and there are ample statements cited by me and others here showing he did not. And every President has done what he did and did so based on the findings of their legal consels and the Justice Department.

Here from the Deputy Attorney General

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes............and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General." "It is important to understand...........that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."


As far as the secound, if you believe he did breake the alw do you believe he knowingly did or he did what his legal consels told him was within the law and constitutional and THAT is the point of contention.

 

[26 X World Champs]

What is the job of the Presidents legal counsel?

TO ADVISE the President not to DECIDE what is legal. Are you suggesting that lawyers never make mistakes or give bad advice?

It certainly sets the precedent and supports the contention the White House is making that it was and still is legal when every President before and their legal counsel and the Justice Departments and courts have said so.

I think you're missing the point? Precedent cannot be set without going through the courts. The President cannot simply change a law on his own. Whatever other President may or may not have done if it wasn't tested in court there are no precedents. Perhaps Bush believes that he is doing what others have done, fine, but that still does not automatically make it legal.

I've already written that I believe after a proper investigation Bush will be exonerated but the key here is "proper investigation."

Are you telling me that if it were a Democrat sitting in the White House and the exact same scenario played out that you would think exactly the way you are now? Do you think that if it were a Democrat more Republicans would be in favor of an investigation? Does the fact that some of the most influential Republicans, i.e. Spector & Hagel are for an investigation make them political hacks as your posts suggest the Democrats are?

Here from the Deputy Attorney General

Do you think a Republican appointee is going to be authorized to release a statement to the contrary? Do you think it's most likely that the Executive Branch ordered the AG office to release the statement you cited?

Plus, or fortunately, it is the JUDICIAL branch that ultimately gets to decide, not the AG or the Executive branch. That is the way our system is set up. Are you OK with this methodology?

As far as the secound, if you believe he did breake the alw do you believe he knowingly did or he did what his legal consels told him was within the law and constitutional and THAT is the point of contention.

I do not know enough yet to answer your question. However, regardless if he was following advice or plotting evil he is still responsible for his actions, as are all of us if we were in a similar situation.

 

[alphieb]

You might want to fix the link....should be http://www.democrats.org :mrgreen:

Thank you Stace.

 

[alphieb]

Technically, we are NOT in a time of war, since Congress never declared war. Iraq and all that are known as "extended military conflicts".

Doesn't matter what the Presidents before him did, if they weren't caught. They're not the ones in the hot seat right now, and Bush is. Let's try to focus on the topic at hand.

Good point..................

 

[aps]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd
Somebody's wrong...Hardball or the Washington Post......

Since the law was passed in 1978 after intelligence scandals, the court has rejected just five of 18,748 requests for wiretaps and search warrants, according to the government.

Bush and Gonzales maintained that the program is not unchecked because select congressional leaders have been briefed on it more than a dozen times. But several of those who received classified briefings objected yesterday that it hardly constituted oversight. In fact, those lawmakers said they were sworn to secrecy, barred from disclosing the program even to their colleagues and staff, and therefore unable to block the president's actions....

Rockefeller, ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, released his 2003 letter to Cheney to make the point that he had "profound" concerns at the time but could not act on them. He said he kept a copy in a sealed envelope ever since to preserve a record of his views. Complaining about seeing Bush and his aides "repeatedly misrepresent the facts," he demanded "a full investigation" by his panel.

(cnredd note - HA!...Too spineless to "whistleblow" if they thought that the President was wrong...Nice "leaders" you got there...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn..._2.html?sub=AR

Originally Posted by aps
The transcript from last night's Hardball isn't up on the website yet--normally it comes out in the afternoon on the following day. Once it does, I'll post the specific part from where I got my facts. They acknowledged that the facts were different than what had been previously thought.

As promised. The transcript is out, but what I did was find the article upon which Hardball based its facts, which is here:

WASHINGTON -- Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html

I'm thinking someone didn't likey wikey that they were being questioned on the surveillance and so they decided to take matters into their own hands.

Here's the transcript from yesterday's Hardball: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10626737/

 

[alphieb]

I agree but the question doesn't end there. Why are the Democrats and the left discussing this during a time of war and when the President has been clear that he has been advised by his legal council it is legal and every President before him has done the same thing.

Oh really, Which one? Names please and a link would be nice.

 

[alphieb]

If anyone wants some important political information, I will provide a democratic site for you to ensure extra credibility.:lol:

http://www.democrats.org

 

[Caine]

If anyone wants some important political information, I will provide a democratic site for you to ensure extra credibility.:lol:

http://www.democrats.org

NO! ITS LIBERAL BIASED MEDIA!

BUSH IS WITHIN HIS LEGAL RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH A BI-PARTISAN GROUP OF THE SENATE DEEM IT WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION. WHY? BECAUSE IM A POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDENT WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE LAW THEN JUDGES AND LAWYERS DO. IM ALWAYS RIGHT!

rofl....

 

[cnredd]

I understand how YOU would interpret what I wrote as hypocritical and I accept your interpretation if you see it that way Cnredd. However, I was making a completely different point.

My point is that Bush and his cabal are like a CRIME FAMILY. They seem to act above the law, they have been known to misinterpret the law to suit their purposes, they seem to run the country like a CRIME FAMILY. It was a METAPHOR. For the sake of clarity the definition of a metaphor is:

This is entirely and totally different than repeatedly writing that President Clinton is a CONVICTED RAPIST.

I was using a metaphor which you apparently misunderstood. Sorry you misunderstood it. There's no metaphor in calling President Clinton a CONVICTED RAPIST.

In future posts that are in reply to your posts I will keep it simple to avoid further confusion. It was never my intention to write a post that you would not understand. I apologize to you Cnredd for not being explicitly clear. I will endeavor to do better next time.

I don't know who the hell YOU are, but you obviously have locked the real Champs in the Basement and stole his login...

And stop capitalizing my name!....

 

[26 X World Champs]

I don't know who the hell YOU are, but you obviously have locked the real Champs in the Basement and stole his login...

And stop capitalizing my name!....

Actually I've been kidnapped by Pat Robertson and I've been forced to watch the 700 Club 24/7. I'm finally getting it and in short order I should be reborn (or is it born again), a Republican, and of course, a Red Sox fan!

Or....maybe it's the prozac?

Or....maybe I've turned a new leaf, look at it as an early example of my New Year's resolution for 2006?

Or....(fill in the blank)....

You know, it might be less fun for you if I start agreeing with you, you think?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

NO! ITS LIBERAL BIASED MEDIA!

BUSH IS WITHIN HIS LEGAL RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH A BI-PARTISAN GROUP OF THE SENATE DEEM IT WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION. WHY? BECAUSE IM A POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDENT WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE LAW THEN JUDGES AND LAWYERS DO. IM ALWAYS RIGHT!

rofl....

LMFAO bi-partisan my ass, perhaps by bi-partisan you mean 44 Democrats and 1 Republican, Sen. Specter who is a Republican in name only. And I'm not right because I'm a political science major or because I know more about the law than judges and lawyers I'm right because I know more about the law than you![/B]

 

[Caine]

LMFAO bi-partisan my ass, perhaps by bi-partisan you mean 44 Democrats and 1 Republican,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051220...XJcYpOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
how about Hagel and Olympia Snow?

Sen. Specter who is a Republican in name only.

Like Trajan who is Libertarian in Name Only? Why else would you get so defensive about someone who is an elected Senator of the Republican Party?

And I'm not right because I'm a political science major or because I know more about the law than judges and lawyers I'm right because I know more about the law than you![/B]

Yep.. that must mean you know more about the law then Lawyers and Judges huh?

 

[cnredd]

Actually I've been kidnapped by Pat Robertson and I've been forced to watch the 700 Club 24/7. I'm finally getting it and in short order I should be reborn (or is it born again), a Republican, and of course, a Red Sox fan!

Or....maybe it's the prozac?

Or....maybe I've turned a new leaf, look at it as an early example of my New Year's resolution for 2006?

Or....(fill in the blank)....

You know, it might be less fun for you if I start agreeing with you, you think?

Even if I did agree, I'd have to publicly deny it to keep my rep....:shock:

Anyway, Pat Robertson's a bum...

If you were trying to be a Republican, going the "radical fringe" movement won't help...

Just like if I were trying to be a Democrat...I wouldn't do what the exteme factions do...

Besides...I like taking showers(rimshot!)...

 

[LeftyHenry]

Besides...I like taking showers(rimshot!)...

Whats thatn supposed to mean?