Impeacheable? Bush?

It is a distinction with a difference. A very large difference. One would think that someone who claims to practice law would understand the signifigance of such a major nuance.

twin_peaks nikki has driven me to begin a task I never would have thought I would do.

I am sending my copy of "Bush at War"back to the publisher--Simon and Schuster-and demading a refund because they printed lies. The actually printed the delusion of Bob Woodford( I never really trusted him) that quote---"On October 10th and 11th the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq"

To exacerbate the situation further, there is actually a listing in the index which states:

Congress--
Bush granted war authority by--351

However, since tin peaks nikki insisted that this never occurred, I scoured the REVIEWS of the book, some made by professional historians.

Do you know that twin peaks nikki scooped them all?

Not one of them caught the egregious lie that Congress gave the president full authority to attack Iraq.

What would we do without scholars like Nikki????

Maybe you want to send the book back anyway, but don't do it because of Chrissee's response to your quote. Her response:



... was a simple parroting of her earlier posts. She did not intend to convey real meaning, and certainly didn't mean to refute the quote you cited. Matter of fact, it appears she fully agrees with that quote.

Spell it out for us then. Show us the distinction you intend to convey. Of what importance do you make of this nuanced difference, Mr. Anderson?

Maybe she was confused. She might have been thinking of the pre-emptive strike( without Congressional Approval, of course) Clinton made on December 18th when he ordered missles to be fired at Baghdad. That strike on the 18th of December 1998 JUST COINCIDENTALLY HAPPENED THE DAY BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROVED OF TWO OF THE ARTICLES PRESENTED TO THEM AND IMPEACHED CLINTON.

Could Nikki have been confused about Presidents?

Nikki speaks of a "major nuance"

Since nuance is "subtlety of expression" then a major nuance is a MAJOR SUBTLETY OF EXPRESSION.

hMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!

It sounds like she wants to have it both ways. But that was the safe way to put it, but it completely neutered the meaning, as far as I am concerned.

Maybe she was confused. She might have been thinking of the pre-emptive strike( without Congressional Approval, of course) Clinton made on December 18th when he ordered missles to be fired at Baghdad. That strike on the 18th of December 1998 JUST COINCIDENTALLY HAPPENED THE DAY BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROVED OF TWO OF THE ARTICLES PRESENTED TO THEM AND IMPEACHED CLINTON.

Could Nikki have been confused about Presidents?

There is a theory that the reason some people are conservative is that their brains are unable to discern nuance. If one cannot discern the difference between Congress granting authority to do something and specifically voting to do it, I doubt whether any explanation could make them understand the distinction.

Congress and the American people trusted the President to do the right thing. The overwhelming majority of Americans now realize it was a mistake to trust the president.

So in your little theory Congress gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, but bears no "culpability" (to attach your spin to the act) for the actual invasion, because they didn't think Bush would actually do it?

If there is any legislator (besides Kerry, of course ) willing to admit to being so incompetent that they voted to give Bush that authority, not thinking he would exercise it?

Don't try to twist my words. I never said that the Congress didn't expect the president to use the authority. The people and the Congress assumed the President would use the authority wisely. Again, you fail to discern nuance. We assumed we could trust our president. How stupid of us to have trusted our president.

Fool me once, ain't gonna be fooled agin.

Anyway, I got a big, fun day and evening ahead of me, working in The Tenderloin sector today. Never a dull moment down there.

So I will probably check in tomorrow am...

Nikki, broad grants of war authority are the modern modus operandi of Congress with respect to their war power. Congress cannot claim now--with the benefit of hindsight--that specific grants of power are necessary or standard for the president to engage the U.S. military. That hasn't been the case since at least Vietnam.

However, I think other distinctions could be made between the President and Congress. It's notable, for instance, that Congress was not privy to the same information or resources available to the administration before the war. Congress has almost nothing in the way of independent investigatory resources (contrasting the executive branch), and so the legislature cannot be blamed for our intelligence failures, nor can they be blamed for failing to act on facts known by the administration but not Congress. Even if nothing was intentionally "hidden" from Congress or the public, I think responsibility for this decision rests primarily with the executive branch, as we all relied upon that branch to collect and compile the information that was ultimately reported to Congress and the public.

Nikki, broad grants of war authority are the modern modus operandi of Congress with respect to their war power. Congress cannot claim now--with the benefit of hindsight--that specific grants of power are necessary or standard for the president to engage the U.S. military. That hasn't been the case since at least Vietnam.

However, I think other distinctions could be made between the President and Congress. It's notable, for instance, that Congress was not privy to the same information or resources available to the administration before the war. Congress has almost nothing in the way of independent investigatory resources (contrasting the executive branch), and so the legislature cannot be blamed for our intelligence failures, nor can they be blamed for failing to act on facts known by the administration but not Congress. Even if nothing was intentionally "hidden" from Congress or the public, I think responsibility for this decision rests primarily with the executive branch, as we all relied upon that branch to collect and compile the information that was ultimately reported to Congress and the public

It is difficult to take someone seriously who has an avator that states I STILL HATE YOU....but let's press on.

What were the 20 reason Congress gave that compelled them to authorize the President to wage war with Iraq??

The answer is here....

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=61141&start=80

Tell us which of the 20 you have a problem with, with respect to the national security of the US.

Muhammad Ali gives Bush the crazy sign

Thursday Funnies

Atrios: Bush, who appeared almost playful, fastened the heavy medal around Muhammad Ali's neck and whispered something in the heavyweight champion's ear. Then, as if to say "bring it on," the president put up his dukes in a mock challenge. Ali, 63, who has Parkinson's disease and moves slowly, looked the president in the eye -- and, finger to head, did the "crazy" twirl for a couple of seconds. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/10.html#a5800

Even addle brained Ali knows Bush is a nut case!

Since we are off the topic, at the moment, of impeaching Bush, thought I'd send this thought provoking article along. Ignoring Geneva Conventions, for starters, ought to be grounds for impeachment......I'd think......

Some Kind of Manly
Bush administration, dead to morality, says torture is the American way

by Molly Ivins

Austin, Texas -- I can't get over this feeling of unreality, that I am actually sitting here writing about our country having a gulag of secret prisons in which it tortures people. I have loved America all my life, even though I have often disagreed with the government. But this seems to me so preposterous, so monstrous. My mind is a little bent and my heart is a little broken this morning.

Maybe I should try to get a grip -- after all, it's just this one administration that I had more cause than most to realize was full of inadequate people going in. And even at that, it seems to be mostly Vice President Cheney. And after all, we were badly frightened by 9-11, which was a horrible event. "Only" nine senators voted against the prohibition of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under custody or control the United States." Nine out of 100. Should we be proud? Should we cry?

"We do not torture," said our pitifully inarticulate president, straining through emphasis and repetition to erase the obvious.

A string of prisons in Eastern Europe in which suspects are held and tortured indefinitely, without trial, without lawyers, without the right to confront their accusers, without knowing the evidence or the charges against them, if any. Forever. It's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich." Another secret prison in the midst of a military camp on an island run by an infamous dictator. Prisoner without a name, cell without a number.

Who are we? What have we become? The shining city on a hill, the beacon and bastion of refuge and freedom, a country born amidst the most magnificent ideals of freedom and justice, the greatest political heritage ever given to any people anywhere.

I am baffled by these "arguments": But we're talking about really awful people, cries the harassed press secretary. People like X and Y and Z (after a time, one forgets all the names of the No. 2's after bin Laden we have captured). The SS and the Gestapo and the KVD weren't all that nice, either.

Then I hear the familiar tinniness of the fake machismo I know so well from George W. Bush and all the other frat boys who never went to Vietnam and never got over the guilt.

"Sometimes you gotta play rough," said Dick Cheney. No ****, Dick? Now why don't you tell that to John McCain?

I have known George W. Bush since we were both in high school -- we have dozens of mutual friends. I have written two books about him and so have interviewed many dozens more who know him well in one way or another. Spare me the tough talk. He didn't play football -- he was a cheerleader. "He is really competitive," said one friend. "You wouldn't believe how tough he is on a tennis court!" Just cut the macho crap -- I don't want to hear it.

If you are dead to all sense of morality (please let me not go off on the stinking sanctimony of this crowd), let us still reason together on the famous American common ground of practicality. Torture. Does. Not. Work.

Torture does not work. Ask the United States military. Ask the Israelis.

There seems to be some fantastic scenario floating around -- if Osama bin Laden had an atomic bomb hidden in a locker at Grand Central Station, and it was due to go off in 12 hours, and we had him in prison ... I seem to have missed some important television program on this theme. I am told it was fiction, but it must have been really scary -- it certainly seems to have unbalanced the minds of some of our fellow citizens.

Torture does not work. It is not productive. It does not yield important, timely information. That is in the movies. This is reality.

I grew up with all this pathetic Texas tough: Everybody here knows you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs; and this ain't beanbag; and I'll knock your jaw so far back, you'll scratch your throat with your front teeth; and I'm gonna cloud up and rain all over you; and I'm gonna open me a can of whup-ass ...

And that'll show 'em, won't it? Take some miserable human being alone and helpless in a cell, completely under your control, and torture him. Boy, that is some kind of manly, ain't it?

"The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have 'disappeared,' like the victims of some dictatorships." -- The Washington Post.

Why did we bother to beat the Soviet Union if we were just going to become it? Shame. Shame. Shame. Read more in the Molly Ivins archive.

What gave you the impression I wish to be taken seriously but while we are on the subject, it is rather hard to take seriously someone who claims to be native american who rails against equal rights for gays.

Hey, you two, ceasefire! twinpeaks, I'd like your opinion on the article I posted above.

I agree with your statement concerning Congress not declaring war. They didn't. They appropriated funds for it, which is not the same thing as saying "yeah, let's go in and blast em" now, is it? That Bush unilaterally, with his minions help, did a preemptive strike doesn't mean Congress approved. No Congressmen seem to have the cojones to actually take a stand. I think they've all been castrated? :wink: They didn't want to wait for the weapons inspectors to say there were no WMD's because they KNEW there weren't. It's all a convoluted mess.

America is allowing torture to exist. They speak with forked tongue. How can they possibly even have the cojones to say democracy and freedom exists in America? What a laugh! Orwellian 1984 and Brave New World. Hope you guys are ready. What will happen when the idiots begin the draft? And they will, because no one, unless they are poor/desperate/stupid want to join up in this pathetic blood for oil 'war'. AWOL's are at over 5,000 and climbing. Then you'll see martial law declared, guaranteed! Hmmm....maybe that's what the idiots in Adm. want eh?

Molly, wow, one of the best ever, it grabbed me emotionally, actual tears welling up in my eyes.

What has happened to our country?

Yet we see people who post here daily defending these traitors. This is a very sad time for our country. For the first time in my life, I wonder how long our form of government can survive. This is not the America I grew up in and was once so proud of.

Yup, the admin is itching for an excuse to declare martial war. These are dangerous people.