President Bush

[MidtownCoog]

In brief:

Chavez thinks the US is out to kill him. Says we staged a 2002 coup.

He's taking over all the business, and running forcing foreign companies out. With these state run businesses, he funnels money to the poor.

It's a really freako sceanrio, and he is no friend of the USA. He's using this system to keep himself in power and "elected".

He has restricted movement of the press. His governtment is very tight with Cuba, Iran, Syria and other countries .

Robertson is a kook, no doubt. But Chavez is one step left of a dictator.

[kjb434]

Chavez is going deep into Communism passing up Socialism.

It's all to common for Communism, once in power, to abolish all other politcal parties and thought. Then, they can never be ousted. Except for a revolution.

Venuzuala has a chance to be a premier country, but taking this country to the extreme political left where it enters communism will only make it turn downhill. The oil also give him some leverage in power on the World Stage, but his power is little diminshed as he is part of OPEC. Which means he has to follow there decisions unless he pulls out from them. This could be good for us. He will then have to sell his Oil on the free market and could underprice OPEC like Russia often does.

We need to start producing more of our own oil since we have tons of reserves that haven't been tapped. This will aleviate some of our dependance on other oil producers.

[kjb434]

Also,

The Venezuelan Oil Company owns all the Citgos in America (a lot) and some refining and transport facilities. This company has now been taken over by Chavez. He runs it. I don't know what will happen with this.

[HeightsGuy]

Wow, there's a mad mullah on the loose calling for a fatwah on a foreign leader. This time, he happens to be Christian. Thank God the Bible doesn't condone violence like the Koran does. Or does it? Hm, I'm so confused.

[johncoby]

Bush was crying for help.

He has admitted invading Iraq based upon false intelligence.

He has admitted spying on Americans in clear violation of the Constitution.

He is begging Congress to impeach him!

[editor]

Admitting it is a start. Certainly better than the previous occupant of the White House who did everything from lie to Congress to allegedly murder people to cover up his wrongdoings.

Of course, for there to be an impeachment you'd have to have some impeachable offenses. It has yet to be determined if the NSA's activities are a clear Constitutional violation for a number of reasons, among them the fact that Congress knew about it.

"Screwing up," as you put it, is not an impeachable offense.

If you've got phone calls between suspects in Afghanistan and the United States and the Afghan side of the conversation is, "What targets are you going to attack next?" And the law prohibits you from listening to the answer, I can't say I would have done anything differently. It may be wrong, and maybe I would be impeached, too. But when the nation is under attack, as it was when the first of the executive orders were issued, you do what you have to in order to protect the people.

Do too much, and you risk the wrath of Congress. Do too little and you risk the wrath of Congress and the deaths of thousands. It's a fairly simple choice.

Now.. Let the flames begin!

[DJ V Lawrence]

Admitting it is a start. Certainly better than the previous occupant of the White House who did everything from lie to Congress to allegedly murder people to cover up his wrongdoings.

Of course, for there to be an impeachment you'd have to have some impeachable offenses. It has yet to be determined if the NSA's activities are a clear Constitutional violation for a number of reasons, among them the fact that Congress knew about it.

"Screwing up," as you put it, is not an impeachable offense.

If you've got phone calls between suspects in Afghanistan and the United States and the Afghan side of the conversation is, "What targets are you going to attack next?" And the law prohibits you from listening to the answer, I can't say I would have done anything differently. It may be wrong, and maybe I would be impeached, too. But when the nation is under attack, as it was when the first of the executive orders were issued, you do what you have to in order to protect the people.

Do too much, and you risk the wrath of Congress. Do too little and you risk the wrath of Congress and the deaths of thousands. It's a fairly simple choice.

Now.. Let the flames begin!

I don't know if Bush's actions were impeachable, because he definately was reacting off of the information given to him, but consider what happened to the president before him...

Does anyone here remember the fact that the Republican party pursued to impeach Bill Clinton because he lied about his sex life? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" turns out to be a lie, and because of that, he almost lost his job as president.

Now look at today. Bush based the Iraqi war on the thought that Sadaam Hussein owning Weapons of Mass Destruction (I'm Independant, calling it down the middle. Not Republican, not democratic. Just telling it like it is. Screw being politically correct.) Turns out we end up overturning Sadaam and his regime, and we free the people of Iraq, but at the same time, when Sadaam was saying that he was not producing weapons of mass destruction (which was the reason why we supposedly went there), Saddam was actually telling the truth. And it wasn't like there was anything Sadaam could have done to prove he was innocent. And our media was hating on France nd Germany because they weren't convinced that Sadaam was lying. We actually BOYCOTTED France at one point. So what now? Do we let Sadaam back in power and say "oops, we made a mistake, you were telling the truth about the WMD, but at the same time you were torturing your own people"? Doesn't make sense, and no, there's no chance at Saddam getting a fair trial. He's guilty already.

Like I said, I'm not saying Bush has to be impeached, but what is more damaging: Getting your Tootsie Pop licked in the Oval Office, or taking a country to war that results in the loss of over 10,000 brave Americans and ousting a leader without vital evidence or proof that they had WMDS?

(I didn't think the Lewinski Scandal resulted in the loss of anyone's life. Hell, I think Monica hosted a tv show on Fox after that.)

[RedScare]

"It has yet to be determined if the NSA's activities are a clear Constitutional violation for a number of reasons, among them the fact that Congress knew about it."

I'm not sure why telling someone you are robbing a bank absolves you of liability for robbing the bank. The 1978 domestic spying law requires a warrant from a secret court to wiretap Americans. Bush clearly said they did not do that. As for impeachable offenses, I'll wait (hopefully) for the Congressional investigation.

As for protecting the civil liberties of Americans, I've given up all hope that this administration will ever respect them. And as long as Americans continue to fall for that "it's a different kind of war" crap that Condi Rice is feeding us, we deserve no better. Other, supposedly "less democratic" countries are able to fight terrorism without violating the rights of their citizens. Here, the war on terror has become an excuse to impose soviet style rule on the citizenry.

[west20th]

....to allegedly murder people to cover up his wrongdoings.

That is a ridiculous comment. Is there a shread of evidence to back this up?

[TJones]

I don't know why you Libs aren't dancing in the streets. They released Doctor Germ from an Iraqi prison today, aren't you guys happy that you got some justice from this corrupt war on terror ?

[west20th]

I don't know why you Libs aren't dancing in the streets. They released Doctor Germ from an Iraqi prison today, aren't you guys happy that you got some justice from this corrupt war on terror ?

Don't know why you would think anyone would be happy about that. By the way who released them? It wasn't the "Libs".

[TJones]

Don't know why you would think anyone would be happy about that. By the way who released them? It wasn't the "Libs".

Exactly, but you didn't want to see anything done to all these bad men, remember, all these reasons to go to war stuff is all made up, Right ?

unny thing about that speech this morning west20, it was like he has been reading this website, he talked about how in a speech before the war started he talked about the iraqi peoples freedom, did you hear that part ?

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[editor]

That is a ridiculous comment. Is there a shread of evidence to back this up?

How quickly we forget July 20, 1993 and the name Vince Foster.

Does anyone here remember the fact that the Republican party pursued to impeach Bill Clinton because he lied about his sex life? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" turns out to be a lie, and because of that, he almost lost his job as president.

This is part of American history that many people can't wrap their brains around. Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about having sex with an intern. He was impeached for perjury. He lied under oath. The oaths taken in legal proceedings are the very foundation of the American criminal justice system. If there is no prosecution or punishment for perjury then the entire system falls apart. Everyone and anyone is free to make up whatever lies they want in court without penalty, whether it's Johnny Thug who just witnessed the murder of your mom, a president of the United States who can't keep his pants zipped, or one who makes crap up in order to invade another country. The beauty of the American criminal justice system is that, unlike many other countries, a sitting president can be held accountable just the same as Johnny Thug.

The problem here is that even if you believe Bush lied about the reasons for going to war, he wasn't under oath. He wasn't testifying in a deposition, in a court, or before congress. Because of that it's not impeachable. He may be impeachable for other reasons (I'm still mostly undecided about it), but lying isn't one of them.

[west20th]

How quickly we forget July 20, 1993 and the name Vince Foster.

Didn't forget anything. Like I asked was there a shread of evidence? Don't you think the right-wing witch hunt would have pursued murder charges if there was a shread of evidence. And allusions to a murder "plot" by right wing radio hosts is not evidence.

And what, if anything, does Clinton's impeachment have to do with Bush's current problems? Is trying to justify Bush's actions so hard that you have to resort to the "well look what Billy did" argument.

Edited December 19, 2005 by west20th

[DJ V Lawrence]

How quickly we forget July 20, 1993 and the name Vince Foster.

This is part of American history that many people can't wrap their brains around. Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about having sex with an intern. He was impeached for perjury. He lied under oath. The oaths taken in legal proceedings are the very foundation of the American criminal justice system. If there is no prosecution or punishment for perjury then the entire system falls apart. Everyone and anyone is free to make up whatever lies they want in court without penalty, whether it's Johnny Thug who just witnessed the murder of your mom, a president of the United States who can't keep his pants zipped, or one who makes crap up in order to invade another country. The beauty of the American criminal justice system is that, unlike many other countries, a sitting president can be held accountable just the same as Johnny Thug.

The problem here is that even if you believe Bush lied about the reasons for going to war, he wasn't under oath. He wasn't testifying in a deposition, in a court, or before congress. Because of that it's not impeachable. He may be impeachable for other reasons (I'm still mostly undecided about it), but lying isn't one of them.

Okay Editor, I'm with you on your position on Bush. But Clinton? He was impeached for perjury, BECAUSE he lied under oath... about what? We almost sent Bill Clinton packing because he lied under oath about his sex life during the WhiteWater scandal. Not really sure why it was that big a deal compared to calling someone guilty before proving it.

My question is though how was Clinton's actions were more destructive than Bush? They both (as all presidents probably have) made mistakes in office at some point or another. But I can't forget how the same people who are in office now saying THEY made mistakes, are the same ones who in the 1999 elections were shunning Clinton for his immoral behavior. JFK did far crazier acts with women than Clinton did, but I don't remember Nixon trying to impeach him for sleeping with Monroe and telling the public that he was a true husband to Jackie.

Just sounds like a political game to me.

Edited December 20, 2005 by DJ V Lawrence

[west20th]

Exactly, but you didn't want to see anything done to all these bad men, remember, all these reasons to go to war stuff is all made up, Right ?

unny thing about that speech this morning west20, it was like he has been reading this website, he talked about how in a speech before the war started he talked about the iraqi peoples freedom, did you hear that part ?

Believing we shouldn't have gone to war does not mean Dr. "Germ" or those like her should be released. We went. That mistake was made and there is no re-do. The important question is who called for and who authorized her release. And blindly blaming everything on the "libs" makes no sense. The "libs" are not in power. Whatever happened to the right-wing mantra of "taking responsibility for your own actions".

And I still do not believe for a minute we went to war for Iraq's freedom.

Edited December 19, 2005 by west20th

[westguy]

Saddam's on trial for killing over 5,000 innocent people and throwing others into torture prisons.

Bush now admits responsibilty for over 30,000 innocent deaths, although he won't admit to the torture prisons in countries with poor human rights records where he sends detainees.

Shouldn't there be justice for both?

[UrbaNerd]

Don't forget that the constitution gives the president SPECIAL POWERS in times of war.

[HeightsGuy]

"Screwing up," as you put it, is not an impeachable offense.

Editor, that sums it up perfectly. While I will take the liberal viewpoint on the war itself, at no point have I ever made calls to get rid of Bush in any other way than to vote him and the rest of the neocons out. While I don't agree with his policies, nothing he did is impeachable. The only arguement you can possibly make is that they "knew" the intel was bad but chose to use it in their justification. There is no way you could ever prove something like that, so don't even bother to go down that road.

[TJones]

Believing we shouldn't have gone to war does not mean Dr. "Germ" or those like her should be released. We went. That mistake was made and there is no re-do. The important question is who called for and who authorized her release. And blindly blaming everything on the "libs" makes no sense. The "libs" are not in power. Whatever happened to the right-wing mantra of "taking responsibility for your own actions".

And I still do not believe for a minute we went to war for Iraq's freedom.

I did not blame the libs for anything, but do you think we would have ever had her in the first place if we had not gone to war ? Now you don't want to let her go, I bet you don't want to let go of Saddam either.

....and if you don't believe that Iraq's freedom was not part of the bargain, then what was it in your opinion, and I'll take it as your opinion unless you can show me facts otherwise. Even though you may not want to believe it, it was what was stated and laid out, as part of the plans to go to war against Iraq.

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[J.A.S.O.N.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the whole "Iraqi Freedom" campaign begin after no weapons were found by the U.N. weapons inspector and then our own U.S. inspectors?

Edited December 19, 2005 by J.A.S.O.N.

[TJones]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the whole "Iraqi Freedom" campaign begin after no weapons were found by the U.N. weapons inspector and then our own U.S. inspectors?

No Sir, Iraqi freedom was outlined as one of the reasons to go to war if neccessary. It was not an afterthought. I have a link in another thread around here somewhere. Bush also reittirated the fact in his speech this morning, just in case some people ( mainstream press) had forgotten it.

[DJ V Lawrence]

No Sir, Iraqi freedom was outlined as one of the reasons to go to war if neccessary. It was not an afterthought. I have a link in another thread around here somewhere. Bush also reittirated the fact in his speech this morning, just in case some people ( mainstream press) had forgotten it.

Did we go to Iraq because Sadaam was evil, or because we thought he was a threat to the world because he owned weapons of mass destruction? I though we went to war because Bush had solid evidence that Sadaam's regime carried these weapons and had intentions to use them. Is that the same evidence that Bush said was false? Please forgive, I didn't see his speech. I'm out of country (Korea)

Edited December 19, 2005 by DJ V Lawrence

[TJones]

Did we go to Iraq because Sadaam was evil, or because we thought he was a threat to the world because he owned weapons of mass destruction? I though we went to war because Bush had solid evidence that Sadaam's regime carried these weapons and had intentions to use them. Is that the same evidence that Bush said was false? Please forgive, I didn't see his speech. I'm out of country (Korea)

You are correct, WMD, was a major reason for going, after the intelligence we had gathered, not just from our own agencies, but from allied agencies as well.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html

here is the link again. This is some good reading DJ.

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[RedScare]

I hate to ruin everyone's debate about the Iraqi invasion, but this thread is about Bush's spying on Americans. The DOD has admitted spying on peace protesters, and now Bush has admitted authorizing wiretaps without going through the drudgery of following the law. He claims the law allows it. If it does, we need to change the law.

This is not a political argument. This does not involve your opinions of past presidents. This is about whether we, as Americans, care so little about our personal liberties that we will allow the government to spy on us, investigate us, arrest us, without probable cause or even suspicion. At one time, Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians ALL thought that this country was special...that we did not allow our government to run secret investigations for the fun of it. Now, I am not so sure. Far too many of us seem to be of the opinion that the ends justify the means. That as long as they say it is for your protection, the government can do what it wants, Constitution be damned.

Throughout the 20th century, we fought regimes that spied on their citizens, including the war we are currently in. Have we lost our collective souls to the point that we don't even care that we are now victims of it ourselves? If so, may someone have mercy on us, for we are doomed.

[west20th]

I did not blame the libs for anything, but do you think we would have ever had her in the first place if we had not gone to war ? Now you don't want to let her go, I bet you don't want to let go of Saddam either.

....and if you don't believe that Iraq's freedom was not part of the bargain, then what was it in your opinion, and I'll take it as your opinion unless you can show me facts otherwise. Even though you may not want to believe it, it was what was stated and laid out, as part of the plans to go to war against Iraq.

No I don't want to let her or Sadaam go. So what. The war was still wrong even though there are some good results.

Why did we go in my opinion, I have no idea.

[TJones]

Red, you are partly right, johncoby's first statement outlined what Bush was talking about this morning, at least what johncoby thought to be what Bush was saying. "Spying on Americans" was only 1/3 of the statement. So we can debate the reasons for Iraq. Condoleeza says the President, was within the letter of the law, as well as others, You and I know that a special sub-committe will be commissioned to investigate. Bush wasn't picking out "Americans" like you and me at random, the government is looking for suspected persons of terrorist activity, he wasn't authorizing wiretaps of Joe the milkman. The government is looking into Abdullah, the guy who finished flight school 5 years ago, and never applied for a pilot's license and never took the course on "landing an airplane." THAT"S who is being wiretapped, NOT the lawyer who posts realy good commentary on HAIF. and lives in Midtown Houston.

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[RedScare]

TJ, you do not KNOW who is being listened to. The DOD was spying on peace protesters in Florida, claiming them to be a threat. Not one of them was of Middle Eastern descent. Besides, these are Americans that everyone is concerned about, not foreigners. Different rules apply to foreigners. Again, do you want the USA that was founded by our forefathers and defended by our parents, or do you want a quasi-Soviet government that allows capitalism?

BTW, For those who choose sides based on which political party is pissed, BOTH parties are in an uproar over this.

(Not you, TJ )

Agreed that one third of the post is Iraq, though.

Edited December 19, 2005 by RedScare

[editor]

Is trying to justify Bush's actions so hard that you have to resort to the "well look what Billy did" argument.

I didn't do that at all. Re-read the thread.

I hate to ruin everyone's debate about the Iraqi invasion, but this thread is about Bush's spying on Americans.

Excellent point. Someone should feel free to start an Iraq Invasion thread as well so we can keep on topic.

[nmainguy]

...the previous occupant of the White House who did everything from lie to Congress to allegedly murder people to cover up his wrongdoings.

I agree with the editor. I firmly stand with all other reckless accusers of blaming absolutly EVERYTHING that goes wrong on at least one Clinton. You know, even though he has been out of office for over 5 years and the Republicans control the entire government, that Clinton woman is still lurking about.

I suggest we wiretap her...and that Chelsea kid while we're at it!

I'd much rather have a president who assumes a free reign in chipping away at the Constitution instead of Bill Clinton! His problem is he was just too gutless to defy the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Law smaw! That's what I say...

PS-Don't forget those Quakers in Florida-I understand they are poised to attack...

Edited December 19, 2005 by nmainguy