Will Republicans Help to Impeach Bush?

[danarhea]

We were...

From the article:

Impeachment proponents in Congress have been bolstered by a memorandum by the Congressional Research Service on Jan. 6. CRS, which is the research arm of Congress, asserted in a report by national security specialist Alfred Cumming that the amended 1947 law requires the president to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of a domestic surveillance effort. It was the second CRS report in less than a month that questioned the administration's domestic surveillance program.

 

[Stinger]

From the article:

Impeachment proponents in Congress have been bolstered by a memorandum by the Congressional Research Service on Jan. 6. CRS, which is the research arm of Congress, asserted in a report by national security specialist Alfred Cumming that the amended 1947 law requires the president to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of a domestic surveillance effort. It was the second CRS report in less than a month that questioned the administration's domestic surveillance program.

[/size][/font]

That's your thin thread? That EVERY member of congress was not given this highly secretive intelligence information? That's it???

Not even that he couldn't do it, but that he stupidly didn't tell EVERY member of congress this very sensitive information even though he did follow the FISA required which is subsequent to this law from 1947 as to the reporting the President is now required to do. That's it? And I like a cite for the specific law that is being discussed in the article, Cumming's statement is not very convincing. yeah I need a lot more than that

 

[Binary_Digit]

IF, and thats a big freaking if, they impeach Bush
are they going to take action against the Senators he informed, on numerous occasions, about the program as well, for it would seem they were complicit in it as well

I sure as heck hope so. This isn't about Rep vs. Dem (shouldn't be, anyway) it's about the government possibly breaking the law. If that's determined to be the case, every last government official who was involved should be held accountable for their part in it, whether their title is (R) (D) or (I).

That's your thin thread? That EVERY member of congress was not given this highly secretive intelligence information? That's it???

If I'm not mistaken, Dan's point was to illustrate that the issue is about domestic surveillance, not foreign.

 

[KCConservative]

If I'm not mistaken, Dan's point was to illustrate that the issue is about domestic surveillance, not foreign.

True. And in case you or Dana haven't heard, there are al-Quida cells in the United States. I'm glad to know Bush and my government are on their tails.

 

[Stinger]

If I'm not mistaken, Dan's point was to illustrate that the issue is about domestic surveillance, not foreign.

It changed to that but then he referrence a law from 1947 without saying exactly what law it was, how it applied and whether it was still in force. And if one reads about the specific "surveilence" he was talking about it wasn't anything that was secret, they watched public demonstrations, and it is authorized under superceeding law. So it was an attmept to confuse the issue and it didn't work. The NSA controversy is NOT about domestice wiretaps, although the left is misrepresenting it as so, the surveilence of anti-government protest at military bases or buildings is a totally other issue.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The NSA controversy is NOT about domestice wiretaps, although the left is misrepresenting it as so

Are you sure about that?

"JIM LEHRER: Speaking of civil liberties, do you have any sympathy at all for the critics who have raised the civil liberties issue and say, hey, wait a minute, the president, no matter what you cite legally, should not have the right to go in without going through a court to do any kind of domestic surveillance? Do you have any -- not the legal part but just the uneasiness that this causes some people?

ALBERTO GONZALES: I'm always concerned about protection of civil liberties. I think it is one of the primary responsibilities of the Department of Justice, is to ensure that people's civil liberties are protected. Again this is a very carefully limited program. Gen. Hayden talked today about all of the safeguards in place in connection with the operation of this program. Gen. Hayden used to be head of the NSA."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/gonzales_1-23.html

True. And in case you or Dana haven't heard, there are al-Quida cells in the United States. I'm glad to know Bush and my government are on their tails.

Me too, as long as he follows the law.

 

[danarhea]

Are you sure about that?

"JIM LEHRER: Speaking of civil liberties, do you have any sympathy at all for the critics who have raised the civil liberties issue and say, hey, wait a minute, the president, no matter what you cite legally, should not have the right to go in without going through a court to do any kind of domestic surveillance? Do you have any -- not the legal part but just the uneasiness that this causes some people?

ALBERTO GONZALES: I'm always concerned about protection of civil liberties. I think it is one of the primary responsibilities of the Department of Justice, is to ensure that people's civil liberties are protected. Again this is a very carefully limited program. Gen. Hayden talked today about all of the safeguards in place in connection with the operation of this program. Gen. Hayden used to be head of the NSA."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/gonzales_1-23.html


Me too, as long as he follows the law.

Exactly, the key word here is DOMESTEIC, which is what the uproar is about, what my link is about, and what the Bushneviks here are attempting to obfuscate.

 

[Binary_Digit]

"Domestic" and "warrantless" are the 2 key words that keep getting left out.

 

[Stinger]

Are you sure about that?

"JIM LEHRER: domestic ?

ALBERTO GONZALES:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/gonzales_1-23.html


Me too, as long as he follows the law.

Lehrer not Gonzales called it domestic survielence. It is foriegn signals intelliegnce not domestic.

 

[Stinger]

Exactly, the key word here is DOMESTEIC, which is what the uproar is about, what my link is about, and what the Bushneviks here are attempting to obfuscate.

Used by Lehrer not Gonzles. And as long as one end of the signal is foriegn it is not domestic.

 

[KCConservative]

Bushneviks

............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
.............................................. :roll: .......................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................

 

[danarhea]

Used by Lehrer not Gonzles. And as long as one end of the signal is foriegn it is not domestic.

Of course, not used by Gonzales, because he is part of the move that is attempting to obfuscate the issue.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Lehrer not Gonzales called it domestic survielence. It is foriegn signals intelliegnce not domestic.

Right. That's why Gonzales was so quick to correct him...not.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by KCConservative
True. And in case you or Dana haven't heard, there are al-Quida cells in the United States. I'm glad to know Bush and my government are on their tails.

You ought to know about turning tails.

 

[KCConservative]

You ought to know about turning tails.

I know I'm old, but I don't even get this.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Used by Lehrer not Gonzles. And as long as one end of the signal is foriegn it is not domestic.

Of course, not used by Gonzales, because he is part of the move that is attempting to obfuscate the issue.

There is no obfuscations, they are out everywhere dicussing the issue and answering question about it, your claim is totally baseless. That being said the crys of DOMESTIC are coming for the left and the uniformed. These calls originate outside the country and the government has the authority to listen in on them. If you don't want someone to do it then elect someone who promises not to listen in on Alqaeda phone calls.

 

[Stinger]

Right. That's why Gonzales was so quick to correct him...not.

It's not for him to do so, especially everytime some leftist or journalist misrepresents the issue. He stated his case and did so quite clearly, listen to him not Lehrer. And if you go to the PBS cite or read the AP news story today you see it is NOT the administration that is saying this is DOMESTIC it is the media and their propaganda campaign in cahoots with the Democrats.

The administration will tell what they think, if you let someone else do so you will be misinformed.

 

[Binary_Digit]

It's not for him to do so, especially everytime some leftist or journalist misrepresents the issue. He stated his case and did so quite clearly, listen to him not Lehrer. And if you go to the PBS cite or read the AP news story today you see it is NOT the administration that is saying this is DOMESTIC it is the media and their propaganda campaign in cahoots with the Democrats.

The administration will tell what they think, if you let someone else do so you will be misinformed.

You want me to believe that Gonzales was asked a leading question, one that would settle this whole debate if he had cleared it up, but he instead answered it as if the question was fair and accurate? That's a sneaky defense, but I'm not buying it until an administration official makes the same argument. Which they probably won't, in part because of this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek/

 

[easyt65]

Impeachment?

There have only been 3 Presidential Impeachments in U.S. history - ALL of them Democrats!

The LAST Impeachment was that of Slick Willey, who committed Felonious Perjury while testifying under oath in front of a Grand Jury.

- One of the amazing things about that Impeachment was that the Democrats rallied around the DNC and voted along party lines, voting against Impeachment of a president already found 'guilty' of committing a Felony, thereby setting the bar so high for the next president who is brought up for Impeachment that this next president would basically have to commit murder in order to be Impeached. I mean, if being found guilty of a felony is not an Impeachable offense, as the Democrats declared, then WHAT IS?

- Years after Clinton left office, we are STILL having to suffer through his Scandals, as Sandy Burgaler was caught stuffing classified documents, pertaining to Able Danger and what Clinton did/did not know/do in the war on terror, in his pants. Many more were found in his home, as he had been destroying these Govt. Documents. Amazingly enough, this was brushed under the carpet, Berger faced no jail time - only a fine, and his security clearance wasn't even revoked. If you or I had done that, we would be making little rocks out of big rocks for a long time!

- The hypocritical Democrats are now demanding Impeachment hearings for procedures that several Presidents have used in the past, notably Nixon and Slick Willey.
--- Clinton, the hypocritical Dems refuse to mention these days, not only engaged in the SAME wire tappings they are screaming are illegal today but also authorized/ordered Entry/Search/Seizure-of-property of private homes/businesses without a warrant of any type. Not only THIS, but should we bring up all the FBI files on all of the GOP Senators, congressmen, and opponents/threats to Clinton that were uncovered that Clinton had in his White House office, used for private 'use'...which by the way is ILLEGAL?! Of course he said he new nothing about it, but that was as believeable as Hillary saying she had no knowledge of the box of billing records/files that disappeared only to turn up in the White House Living Quarters with her finger prints all over them. It was interesting how this was quickly quieted as well -- Cant't have a 1st Lady and The President BOTH charged with Felonious Perjury, now can we?

- The U.S. Attorney general has already come forward and announced that he has not only reviewed the wire tappings and discerned that there was nothing illegal about it, he has also said that his department and the NSA have continued to monitor the program for any such inappropriate behavior, which there has been none. So, the Attorney General has asked the Democrats who are calling for this investigation - WHY? The investigation has already been done, and the only outcomes of the new DNC-driven investigation is spin, face-time, mud-slinging at the GOP, and wasted tax payer dollars.

- Finally, it amazes me, though it shouldn't, that the DNC is SO rabid about 1)getting even for the Clinton Impeachment, 2) losing in 2000, 3) losing in 2004, and 5) their desire to gain back personal wealth and power that they are trying to 'take down' a President in the Middle of a War!
--- BTW, where is the outrage and demands from the DNC to hold investigations into how the secret wire tapping, being used in the war against our enemies, was leaked out, thereby aiding and abetting the enemy, eliminating one of the tools with which we had to fight the enemy? They were foaming at the mouth calling for investigations about the CIA Desk Analyst Valerie Plame being 'outed' and sought to bring down anyone connected to and/or Bush on that one. Turns out Plame was never 'covert' thus no law was ever broken, not to mention that everyone in Washington already knew she worked for the CIA to begin with. Aside from her posing for the cover of magazines and giving interviews, her husband wrote several books mentioning her job and introduced her to everyone in Washington at functions as his 'CIA Wife'. Never mind, also, John F*ing Kerry exposing a REAL CIA undercover agent during the Bolton hearings/nomination which sent the CIA scrambling to bring their agent in, costing millions in time and effort as well as eliminating one of our real Intel sources! NOW when a REAL Classified leak exposes a legal and useful tool against terrorism, the DNC can only demand impeachment hearings against the President....no concern for leaks that are weakening our war against terrorism and putting lives in jeopardy! More Dem Spin and BS!

When the DNC's message was rejected in 2004, the Democratic party responded by calling all the states/voters who voted for Bush "ignorant, in-bred, bible-thumping rednecks'. (Great way to win back those voters, by the way!) Since then, Democrats like Dick Durbin and Kerry have committed treason (as per the legal definition of aiding and abetting the enemy by eroding our nation's reolve and lowering troops in combat's morale while lifting the spirits of our enemy, giving them hope of waiting us out). Durbin called our troops the equivalent of Nazis and genocidal Pol Pot regemists. Kerry called our own soldiers 'terrorists' engaged in terrorizing women and children in Iraq. Dean, among the many stupid things he said and did, endorsed a 'Socialist Party Member' for the Senate! And the Obstructionist party Dems have taken every cheap, BS trick in the book to smear the president, undermine this nation's resolve during a time of war, lowered troop morale in a time of war, and now seek to 'take down' the only President in the last 14-15 years who has taken action to protect Americans from our enemies.
--- Kobar Towers - troops die - Clinton Does nothing.
--- USS Cole - Al Qaeda attacks again, Americans die - Clinton did nothing.
--- 2 US Embassies in Africa hit by Al Qaeda - Clinton does Nothing.
--- Able Danger warned Clinton of Al Qaeda/Bin Laden - Clinton does nothing!
- Any response might have prevented 9-11, but Clinton was too busy getting a <hummer> and committing a felony!
- After 9-11/election, the DNC actually stated in a public address that the GOP were/"Bush was just 'lucky' to be a sitting President after 9-11 because a President at War gets the votes!" They actually looked at 9-11 as a missed opportunity for the DNC rather than a horrible attack by the terrorists Clinton continually ignored for years!
- NOW the Dems want to Impeach the sitting president durig a time of war, fighting the enemies and the problems Clinton failed to address when HE was president!

How disgraceful! The American people - THE "IGNORANT, IN-BRED, BIBLE-THUMPING REDNECKS - will remember it all, and hopefully it will be a cold day in h@ll before the current Party-1st-Americans-2nd Democrats ever see one of ther ranks sitting in the President's chair in the White House again!

 

[aps]

Re: Impeachment?

- The U.S. Attorney general has already come forward and announced that he has not only reviewed the wire tappings and discerned that there was nothing illegal about it, he has also said that his department and the NSA have continued to monitor the program for any such inappropriate behavior, which there has been none. So, the Attorney General has asked the Democrats who are calling for this investigation - WHY? The investigation has already been done, and the only outcomes of the new DNC-driven investigation is spin, face-time, mud-slinging at the GOP, and wasted tax payer dollars.

Oh, and because the U.S. Attorney General says this, you automatically believe it? Do you genuinely believe that he's going to come out and say, "Ladies and Gentlemen, we have overstepped the President's Authority, and we are terribly sorry." LOL

easy, it's fine if you want to believe that there was no violation of FISA or the Constitution because the "AG" said so; however, share with us upon what evidence you base your opinion.

Are you aware that our government is based on checks and balances, and that each of the branches of the government shall conduct checks and balances on the other branches? Who's doing the checking on the Executive branch? Oh, you say an Executive agency like the Dept. of Justice? Somehow, that doesn't pass muster, as it would be the Executive branch investigating itself. That sounds really valid (sarcasm). Regardless, share with me upon what evidence, outside of what the AG states, that you are basing your opinion that what the president did was a-okay.

--- BTW, where is the outrage and demands from the DNC to hold investigations into how the secret wire tapping, being used in the war against our enemies, was leaked out, thereby aiding and abetting the enemy, eliminating one of the tools with which we had to fight the enemy? They were foaming at the mouth calling for investigations about the CIA Desk Analyst Valerie Plame being 'outed' and sought to bring down anyone connected to and/or Bush on that one. Turns out Plame was never 'covert' thus no law was ever broken, not to mention that everyone in Washington already knew she worked for the CIA to begin with. Aside from her posing for the cover of magazines and giving interviews, her husband wrote several books mentioning her job and introduced her to everyone in Washington at functions as his 'CIA Wife'.

Well, the president has already ordered an investigation regarding that leak. I think the shock of discovering that the President had overstepped his authority and appeared to have violated both FISA and the Constitution completely shocked the democrats. I know I was shocked. And when something seemingly "criminal" is leaked, it's hard to have outrage over the people who leaked the information.

I love how the repubs give the same arguments regarding Plame, i.e., Republican talking points: she had her picture taken on a magazine (of course no one pays attention that it was AFTER she had been outted), her husband introduced her around as a CIA agent, blah blah blah.

Now, you allege that he wrote several books mentioning her and her status at CIA. Please provide me with the title of the book. If it was published AFTER July 2003, don't even bother providing me with the book.

Can you provide objective evidence everyone in Washington knew she worked for CIA? As I recall, Patrick Fitzgerald said this at his press conference:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Hmmm, whose opinion am I going to give more credibility to? easy, who posts the Republican talking points? Or the prosecutor who has been investigating this case for over two years and has interviewed the President, Vice President, and others in the White House, and has had testimony from multiple reporters? I'm not sure.......

 

[Binary_Digit]

Don't forget this classic: "Nobody's been indicted for outing her!!!11"

Oh, and this one: "Plame wasn't covert!!11!11"

Or how about: "Clinton did it too!!1!111!!1"

And who could forget: "Wild, baseless, hate-filled propoganda!1!111!!1!1"

 

[easyt65]

You try your best to dismiss my entire post as Republican talkig oints, focussing on the wire taps and Plame while wisely dodging all the other well-documented points.

Well, lets address the 2 you hit upon:

1. Plame. Youdo not deny that the investigation into Plame ruled she was never a 'Covert' operative by definition, so there was never any law broken. the whole 'scandal' was poltical BS. You may call the fact that she posed for magazines and gave interviews in which she talked about working for the CIA, but you don't deny it - and just because you call them talking points doesn't mean it isn't true, which you do not try to say, either. as far as Joe Wilson's books and your demand that I do your homework for you - why is it that every Dem demands that I spoonfeed them in a debate. Do your own research - it can't be that hard because Jow Wilson has onlyput out somethig like 2 books, the books I am referring to. Do your own research! As far as other proof, if you kept up with the investigation and reporting while they were on-going, you would have heard numerous reporters sayin interviews how they all knew Wilson's wife was known among Washington circles to work for the CIA! Several Seanators, including Lieberman, said that he and many congressmen knew as they had been introduced to Plame by Wilson at functions, at which time Wilson introduced Plame as his 'CIA wife'!

After years of investigations and millions of taz payer dollars to determine plame was never covert thus no crime was ever committed, the only result has been to indict libby for not remembering the exact details of his actions and whereabouts on 1 day inquestion several years ago! i guess he should have used the ol' "It depends on what the definition of 'IS' is" defense that got Clinton off (so to speak :rofl )!

You can claim 'talking points', but they are also FACTS!

Inregards to Bush's wire taps:
1) Do you have anyidea what the role/job of the Attorney general, who has stated that he has already investigated and found the Dem's claim of illegality to be bogus, is? Do you have any idea what the NSA's agency that has been reviewing this is? You mention checks and balances - yes, and they are being done! The U.S. justice Department, whose job it is to determine this, has decided there is nothing to the Dem's claims.

While you try to lecture me on checks and balances and say just because I, the NSA, the AG, and the Justice Department say there is nothing illegal about the wire taps, the truth is that they ARE illegal becaue YOU, Kerry, and Dean say so! (Nice dodge, BTW, not mentioning Clinton's FBI Files, wiretaps, AND illegal search and seisures without warrants!)

Your only defense of that entire post outlining the illegal, immoral, hypocritical, and unethical behavior (FACTS) of the Democrats is to label the facts as 'GOP Talking points! :spin: :rofl

 

[KCConservative]

Re: Impeachment?

There have only been 3 Presidential Impeachments in U.S. history - ALL of them Democrats!

The LAST Impeachment was that of Slick Willey, who committed Felonious Perjury while testifying under oath in front of a Grand Jury.

- One of the amazing things about that Impeachment was that the Democrats rallied around the DNC and voted along party lines, voting against Impeachment of a president already found 'guilty' of committing a Felony, thereby setting the bar so high for the next president who is brought up for Impeachment that this next president would basically have to commit murder in order to be Impeached. I mean, if being found guilty of a felony is not an Impeachable offense, as the Democrats declared, then WHAT IS?

- Years after Clinton left office, we are STILL having to suffer through his Scandals, as Sandy Burgaler was caught stuffing classified documents, pertaining to Able Danger and what Clinton did/did not know/do in the war on terror, in his pants. Many more were found in his home, as he had been destroying these Govt. Documents. Amazingly enough, this was brushed under the carpet, Berger faced no jail time - only a fine, and his security clearance wasn't even revoked. If you or I had done that, we would be making little rocks out of big rocks for a long time!

- The hypocritical Democrats are now demanding Impeachment hearings for procedures that several Presidents have used in the past, notably Nixon and Slick Willey.
--- Clinton, the hypocritical Dems refuse to mention these days, not only engaged in the SAME wire tappings they are screaming are illegal today but also authorized/ordered Entry/Search/Seizure-of-property of private homes/businesses without a warrant of any type. Not only THIS, but should we bring up all the FBI files on all of the GOP Senators, congressmen, and opponents/threats to Clinton that were uncovered that Clinton had in his White House office, used for private 'use'...which by the way is ILLEGAL?! Of course he said he new nothing about it, but that was as believeable as Hillary saying she had no knowledge of the box of billing records/files that disappeared only to turn up in the White House Living Quarters with her finger prints all over them. It was interesting how this was quickly quieted as well -- Cant't have a 1st Lady and The President BOTH charged with Felonious Perjury, now can we?

- The U.S. Attorney general has already come forward and announced that he has not only reviewed the wire tappings and discerned that there was nothing illegal about it, he has also said that his department and the NSA have continued to monitor the program for any such inappropriate behavior, which there has been none. So, the Attorney General has asked the Democrats who are calling for this investigation - WHY? The investigation has already been done, and the only outcomes of the new DNC-driven investigation is spin, face-time, mud-slinging at the GOP, and wasted tax payer dollars.

- Finally, it amazes me, though it shouldn't, that the DNC is SO rabid about 1)getting even for the Clinton Impeachment, 2) losing in 2000, 3) losing in 2004, and 5) their desire to gain back personal wealth and power that they are trying to 'take down' a President in the Middle of a War!
--- BTW, where is the outrage and demands from the DNC to hold investigations into how the secret wire tapping, being used in the war against our enemies, was leaked out, thereby aiding and abetting the enemy, eliminating one of the tools with which we had to fight the enemy? They were foaming at the mouth calling for investigations about the CIA Desk Analyst Valerie Plame being 'outed' and sought to bring down anyone connected to and/or Bush on that one. Turns out Plame was never 'covert' thus no law was ever broken, not to mention that everyone in Washington already knew she worked for the CIA to begin with. Aside from her posing for the cover of magazines and giving interviews, her husband wrote several books mentioning her job and introduced her to everyone in Washington at functions as his 'CIA Wife'. Never mind, also, John F*ing Kerry exposing a REAL CIA undercover agent during the Bolton hearings/nomination which sent the CIA scrambling to bring their agent in, costing millions in time and effort as well as eliminating one of our real Intel sources! NOW when a REAL Classified leak exposes a legal and useful tool against terrorism, the DNC can only demand impeachment hearings against the President....no concern for leaks that are weakening our war against terrorism and putting lives in jeopardy! More Dem Spin and BS!

When the DNC's message was rejected in 2004, the Democratic party responded by calling all the states/voters who voted for Bush "ignorant, in-bred, bible-thumping rednecks'. (Great way to win back those voters, by the way!) Since then, Democrats like Dick Durbin and Kerry have committed treason (as per the legal definition of aiding and abetting the enemy by eroding our nation's reolve and lowering troops in combat's morale while lifting the spirits of our enemy, giving them hope of waiting us out). Durbin called our troops the equivalent of Nazis and genocidal Pol Pot regemists. Kerry called our own soldiers 'terrorists' engaged in terrorizing women and children in Iraq. Dean, among the many stupid things he said and did, endorsed a 'Socialist Party Member' for the Senate! And the Obstructionist party Dems have taken every cheap, BS trick in the book to smear the president, undermine this nation's resolve during a time of war, lowered troop morale in a time of war, and now seek to 'take down' the only President in the last 14-15 years who has taken action to protect Americans from our enemies.
--- Kobar Towers - troops die - Clinton Does nothing.
--- USS Cole - Al Qaeda attacks again, Americans die - Clinton did nothing.
--- 2 US Embassies in Africa hit by Al Qaeda - Clinton does Nothing.
--- Able Danger warned Clinton of Al Qaeda/Bin Laden - Clinton does nothing!
- Any response might have prevented 9-11, but Clinton was too busy getting a <hummer> and committing a felony!
- After 9-11/election, the DNC actually stated in a public address that the GOP were/"Bush was just 'lucky' to be a sitting President after 9-11 because a President at War gets the votes!" They actually looked at 9-11 as a missed opportunity for the DNC rather than a horrible attack by the terrorists Clinton continually ignored for years!
- NOW the Dems want to Impeach the sitting president durig a time of war, fighting the enemies and the problems Clinton failed to address when HE was president!

How disgraceful! The American people - THE "IGNORANT, IN-BRED, BIBLE-THUMPING REDNECKS - will remember it all, and hopefully it will be a cold day in h@ll before the current Party-1st-Americans-2nd Democrats ever see one of ther ranks sitting in the President's chair in the White House again!

Outstanding post, easy. Excellent work.

 

[aquapub]

As soon as Bush breaks an actual law, Republicans will consider it. And when liberals finally get him on jaywalking or whatever other inane partisan charge they can trump up, I doubt Republicans will even need to do anything, because, as career-felon Bill Clinton demonstrated, as long as the people are with you, you are invincible in Washington. And Middle America is demonstrably, solidly behind the president on most of his national security measures, as is the Constitution.



EASYT65, you rock! Great counterpoints.

 

[KCConservative]

As soon as Bush breaks an actual law, Republicans will consider it. And when liberals finally get him on jaywalking or whatever other inane partisan charge they can trump up, I doubt Republicans will even need to do anything, because, as career-felon Bill Clinton demonstrated, as long as the people are with you, you are invincible in Washington. And Middle America is demonstrably, solidly behind the president on most of his national security measures, as is the Constitution.

Amen. :monkey