How about a violation of the IV Amendment of the Constitution-Protection from unreasonable search and seizure? Wiretappings WITHOUT warrents! Or how about a violation of the V Amendment-provisions concerning prosecution and due process of law? People being imprisoned WITHOUT being charged! How about a violation of the VIII Amendment-cruel and unusual punishment? Can you say "Torture"? And (in my book, the most important one) a violation of the First Amendment-free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and freedom to protition the Government for grievances all have been suppressed! Those are only the few that I can come up with in a short time. I'm sure there are many, many more. And if those violations of the Constitution does not spell out "high crimes and misdemeanors", I don't know what does. He raised his hand and swore that he would defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. To me, he is one of the Constitution's biggest enemy and he needs to be behind bars! And to me, this spells out TREASON!!




Cat



Wow.

Other people have said what I was going to say far better than I could, so I'll just leave it at wow.

How about a violation of the IV Amendment of the Constitution-Protection from unreasonable search and seizure? Wiretappings WITHOUT warrents!



I believe Mushroom can provide evidence that this is legal for prevention purposes, just not valid as evidence in court.


Or how about a violation of the V Amendment-provisions concerning prosecution and due process of law? People being imprisoned WITHOUT being charged!

I believe there is a legal exception when it comes to war criminals.  That is why they are tried via military tribunals as opposed to regular courts.  Bush did not invent this exception.


Can you say "Torture"?



That was done by a few military personnel who were most likely not feeling much sympathy for the people who had just tried to kill them.  Blaming that on Bush is like saying when a few school kids act up, fire the principal.


And (in my book, the most important one) a violation of the First Amendment-free speech

Free speech is alive and well in my neck of the woods.  Haven't seen anyone being told what to say or not say.


freedom of the press

Again, alive and well.  I hear criticisms of Bush every single day on the radio.


freedom to assemble



This is way too alive and well... on our busy streets.  They can't even stay on the sidewalk so people who pay for the streets can use them to get to work.  Haven't seen anyone try to stop them as long as they're not violent.

No president will every satisfy everybody... that's why we have elections.  And in my opinion, impeaching the president without MAJOR cause demeans the whole idea of elections.  Remember, Bush was very adamant in his campaign that we were going to see this through, he was not going to back out, etc..  And he still was elected.  For the record, I was against the Clinton impeachment also.

I believe Mushroom can provide evidence that this is legal for prevention purposes, just not valid as evidence in court.

I believe there is a legal exception when it comes to war criminals.  That is why they are tried via military tribunals as opposed to regular courts.  Bush did not invent this exception.

That was done by a few military personnel who were most likely not feeling much sympathy for the people who had just tried to kill them.  Blaming that on Bush is like saying when a few school kids act up, fire the principal.

Free speech is alive and well in my neck of the woods.  Haven't seen anyone being told what to say or not say.

Again, alive and well.  I hear criticisms of Bush every single day on the radio.

This is way too alive and well... on our busy streets.  They can't even stay on the sidewalk so people who pay for the streets can use them to get to work.  Haven't seen anyone try to stop them as long as they're not violent.

No president will every satisfy everybody... that's why we have elections.  And in my opinion, impeaching the president without MAJOR cause demeans the whole idea of elections.  Remember, Bush was very adamant in his campaign that we were going to see this through, he was not going to back out, etc..  And he still was elected.  For the record, I was against the Clinton impeachment also.







There you go, making sense.  Don't you know that will just confuse people?  Gosh.  ::)

I believe Mushroom can provide evidence that this is legal for prevention purposes, just not valid as evidence in court.


*popping in to provide clarification*

Constitutional Protections against search and seizure mean exacty that, search ans seizure.  And the protections against wiretapping are just that, protections against wiretapping.

In this instance, there was nothing searched, and nothins seized.  And there was never any wiretapping.

period.

Remember, the NSA collected information from radio intercepts.  And the Supreme Court many many many times have stated that there is no protection against this.  None.  Ever.  The NSA (or local police) can use your cell phone to trace your location.  They can listen into any cell phone conversation they want to.  And there is not a single thing that you or anybody else can do about it.

Do not confuse cellular phone monitoring with wiretapping.  One requires a warrant, and the other does not.  In fact, anybody can monitor the phone calls from anybody.  It is 100% legal.  With a few hundred dollars of equipment, you can even monitor the calls that are sent to and from satellites.  Nobody can stop you, and the equipment used is 100% legal to own.  And the monitoring of such things is part of the NSA charter.

In this case, the NSA was told to gather specific phone calls, from specific individuals.  Every one of them was uncovered from other intelligence.  But they were simply doing what they have always done: monitored communications.

And one last time: do not confuse what is "illegal" with "what is admissable in court".  It is not illegal to question a suspect without reading him his rights.  However, anything that is uncovered through this interrogation is not admissible in court.  However, that information gathered may help save lives, or prevent another crime.  This is why police often question suspects without reading them their rights, so they can gather information they would not give up once they have been mirandized.

As for the "detainees", they are not protected by law.  That's right.  They are not eligable to the protections of the Geneva Convention.  In fact, under the Geneva Convention, they can be executed on the spot, without any form of trial.  As Odyssey mentioned, they are war criminals.

Torture?  *laughs*    I guess if making somebody wear womens underware on their head is torture, then there are thousands of guys would pay for such torture.  Remember, we are talking about people who have tortured people to death.  They have kidnapped people under their own sworn protection, beat them, then videotaped their beheading.  And you are worried about making them wear underware on their head and such trivialities?

Tell me how that compares to what Nick Berg, Kim Sun-il, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, Ihab el-Sherif, Jasem Mohammad Husein Mahdi, William Bradley, Ronald Schulz, Tom Fox, and the list goes on and on and on.  If you think any indignities they have undergone even comes close to "torture", tell that to the widow of Nick Berg.

*steps back away from the partaisan bickering*

And yes, I would have given the exact same reasoning no matter who was President.  To me, this is a National Security matter that makes sense.  I would not care if it was Bush, Clinton, or even President Kerry.  National Security is a subject with me that transcends "political affiliation".

Torture is torture. Trying to argue that because our form of torture is not as severe as the enemy's that somehow justifies it is crazy.

So what if listening in to cell-phone conversations is legal, 'legal' does not make it right all the time. Hey, my PACT team and housing staff use cell phones all the time to call me, and some of the stuff we talk about, no one else has a right to know, why do you think HIPAA was enacted? Now I wanna know who the h*ll listens in whenever we chat or text-message using a cellular phone!

And yes, George W. Bush tries to put the kibosh on the freedom of speech/expression of those who don't bow down to him..Cindy Sheehan is one of those he tried to silence.

And torture is wrong, period...no matter which side does it. In that respect, Bush and Private Lynndie England are no better than the Arabs who commit torture...

And torture is wrong, period...no matter which side does it. In that respect, Bush and Private Lynndie England are no better than the Arabs who commit torture...


I am honestly amazed, and this is why I normally stay out of these partaisan attack topics.

How can anybody even remotely compare making somebody put womens underware on their head with terrorizing somebody and then cutting off his head.  If somebody can honestly make a statement like that, there are some serious issues there.

This is why people like me look at the Liberals, and thnk they all are a bunch of nutcases.  When things that are done every day as jokes are compared to beheading, then there is no logic.

And HIPAA was enacted to restrict what information could be presented in court.  Anything gathered outside of it is inadmissable.  That does not make it illegal.

Hearsay is legal.  You can report it in any way you want, even publish it.  However, it also is inadmissable in court.  Statements from somebody who was not Mirandized is inadmissable in court, but it is not illegal to get them.

Torture is torture. Trying to argue that because our form of torture is not as severe as the enemy's that somehow justifies it is crazy.


I don't think Mushroom was attempting to justify anything.  I took his post as a question to those who express one-sided outrage about a two-sided situation.  If you find torture on both sides reprehensible, why is the outrage directed at America, instead of at both America and the insurgency??

I am honestly amazed, and this is why I normally stay out of these partaisan attack topics.

How can anybody even remotely compare making somebody put womens underware on their head with terrorizing somebody and then cutting off his head.  If somebody can honestly make a statement like that, there are some serious issues there.

This is why people like me look at the Liberals, and thnk they all are a bunch of nutcases.  When things that are done every day as jokes are compared to beheading, then there is no logic.

And HIPAA was enacted to restrict what information could be presented in court.  Anything gathered outside of it is inadmissable.  That does not make it illegal.

Hearsay is legal.  You can report it in any way you want, even publish it.  However, it also is inadmissable in court.  Statements from somebody who was not Mirandized is inadmissable in court, but it is not illegal to get them.

the woman's underwear thing is one of those cute bits people bring up when they want to justify the worst of what goes on at guantanamo and abu ghraib. that stuff with stress positions and waterboarding, the false executions, is right up there with the worst the vietcong ever did. but one time, someone at guantanamo, in the process of messing with people's heads until they soiled themselves and making like they were going to send electricity through their genitals until they cooked to death, at one point somebody put panties on somebody's head... and now the whole pro-mock execution crowd is going, look, we were just playing around with ladies' underwear!

it's very clever, but there are pictures of a similar bunch doing thumbs up over a bloodied, tortured corpse.

http://www.bush2004.com/images/abu_ghraib.jpg

must feel nice defending siht like this, yo. someone throw a pair of panties in there! maybe it'll be funny then!

y'all are ruining the country with this, man. straight up. trashing america.

the woman's underwear thing is one of those cute bits people bring up when they want to justify the worst of what goes on at guantanamo and abu ghraib. that stuff with stress positions and waterboarding, the false executions, is right up there with the worst the vietcong ever did. but one time, someone at guantanamo, in the process of messing with people's heads until they soiled themselves and making like they were going to send electricity through their genitals until they cooked to death, at one point somebody put panties on somebody's head... and now the whole pro-mock execution crowd is going, look, we were just playing around with ladies' underwear!

it's very clever, but there are pictures of a similar bunch doing thumbs up over a bloodied, tortured corpse.

http://www.bush2004.com/images/abu_ghraib.jpg

must feel nice defending siht like this, yo. someone throw a pair of panties in there! maybe it'll be funny then!

y'all are ruining the country with this, man. straight up. trashing america.



I don't know anyone who is defending what those soldiers did.  I'm a democrat, but even if I was a republican, I wouldn't defend it.  However, those soldiers do not represent the whole military anymore than the terrorists represent all of of Islam.  I think what happened at Abu Ghraib was reprehensible and I hope the solidiers responsible rot in jail for a good long time, but blaming Bush for it is far-reaching.  He didn't tell them to do it and I don't think he authorized it.  They did that of their own accord and they're nutjobs for doing it. 

I don't know anyone who is defending what those soldiers did.  I'm a democrat, but even if I was a republican, I wouldn't defend it.  However, those soldiers do not represent the whole military anymore than the terrorists represent all of of Islam.  I think what happened at Abu Ghraib was reprehensible and I hope the solidiers responsible rot in jail for a good long time, but blaming Bush for it is far-reaching.  He didn't tell them to do it and I don't think he authorized it.  They did that of their own accord and they're nutjobs for doing it. 
i dont think it represents the military but it obviously represents the administration. they washed their hands of the geneva conventions, and this is what they got.

it's prespammersite to think that don rumsfeld and the rest of them washed their hands of basically every international treaty regarding human rights -- and the record is clear on this, abu ghraib and guantanamo existed basically outside of every internationally recognized convention regarding the treatment of prisoners, the red cross were barely permitted to visit there! -- and yet we're supposed to believe these fckued up dudes got it in their minds to do it all on their own.

seriously, man. if you're pro-iraq invasion, welcome to your war. the picture i linked to is what it looks like. and we're all going to get more, and more, and more, without end.

i dont think it represents the military but it obviously represents the administration. they washed their hands of the geneva conventions, and this is what they got.

it's prespammersite to think that don rumsfeld and the rest of them washed their hands of basically every international treaty regarding human rights -- and the record is clear on this, abu ghraib and guantanamo existed basically outside of every internationally recognized convention regarding the treatment of prisoners, the red cross were barely permitted to visit there! -- and yet we're supposed to believe these fckued up dudes got it in their minds to do it all on their own.

seriously, man. if you're pro-iraq invasion, welcome to your war. the picture i linked to is what it looks like. and we're all going to get more, and more, and more, without end.



I don't believe that represents the administration.  For it to do so, you must believe that the administration told these soldiers to do what they did, and I just don't think that's the case.  I think this administration f*cked up this war and should be held accountable for it failing as bad as it did, but I don't think these atrocities were defended or endorsed by the presidency.

Now, I don't think that picture is an accurate representation of the war.  I know people who've served and I've asked them what it was like over there and I can assure that picture looks nothing like what they described.  That picture represents the worst of our military, not the common everyday solidier over there fighting for their country.  That picture represents the few who feel that because their Americans, they can treat the Iraqis and Afghanis however they please, and I don't think that every single military person over there feels that way. 

I'm not for this war in any way, and I was against it from the very start, but even I know when people take the anti-war movement too far.

I don't believe that represents the administration.  For it to do so, you must believe that the administration told these soldiers to do what they did, and I just don't think that's the case.  I think this administration f*cked up this war and should be held accountable for it failing as bad as it did, but I don't think these atrocities were defended or endorsed by the presidency.

Now, I don't think that picture is an accurate representation of the war.  I know people who've served and I've asked them what it was like over there and I can assure that picture looks nothing like what they described.  That picture represents the worst of our military, not the common everyday solidier over there fighting for their country.  That picture represents the few who feel that because their Americans, they can treat the Iraqis and Afghanis however they please, and I don't think that every single military person over there feels that way. 

I'm not for this war in any way, and I was against it from the very start, but even I know when people take the anti-war movement too far.
oh, c'mon, god lova ya but this war represents far far worse than what's in that picture. it's all about blowing the limbs off of grandfathers and little kids and then calling it "a regrettable loss of innocent life," and stacking people in mass graves and burning the homes of families to the ground. that's what war has always meant, and that's what it will always represent.

the questions is really what it got started for and what ideals it's being fought for. i personally think that in this instance it's being fought for an idealized view of war that's more or less starting to lose its luster in america. this country has been about fighting wars for the supposedly righteous reason of spreading democracy since vietnam at least, but when you peel the layers off the facade it always turns out to be the moneyed interests pulling the strings behind the scenes. it's not a coincidence that this president is basically a product of big oil and we're fighting a war in a big oil region of the world. and it's not a coincidence that the people in bush's administration are big in the weapons industry, and suddenly here we are in a war where there's no conceivable end and we're just pouring billions and billions into weapons contracts.

honestly, if you think these dudes care in the least about human rights, you got another think coming. they're gonna get as much war as they can get, for as long as they can get it, because that's what their system thrives on.

oh, c'mon, god lova ya but this war represents far far worse than what's in that picture. it's all about blowing the limbs off of grandfathers and little kids and then calling it "a regrettable loss of innocent life," and stacking people in mass graves and burning the homes of families to the ground. that's what war has always meant, and that's what it will always represent.



I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.
that's what they're counting on.

oh, c'mon, god lova ya but this war represents far far worse than what's in that picture. it's all about blowing the limbs off of grandfathers and little kids and then calling it "a regrettable loss of innocent life," and stacking people in mass graves and burning the homes of families to the ground. that's what war has always meant, and that's what it will always represent.

the questions is really what it got started for and what ideals it's being fought for.

If your main issue about Bush is the war, then you've got a beef with Kerry and all the other members of congress who voted for it.   Even thinking of impeaching the president for doing something that congress voted for is absolutely absurd.  If you don't like the system of congressional approval to prevent the president from having the sole responsibility and power over our country, then that's a whole different issue... because that is a big part of the concept of democracy.

If your main issue about Bush is the war, then you've got a beef with Kerry and all the other members of congress who voted for it.  Even thinking of impeaching the president for doing something that congress voted for is absolutely absurd.  If you don't like the system of congressional approval to prevent the president from having the sole responsibility and power over our country, then that's a whole different issue... because that is a big part of the concept of democracy.
i definitely agree with you that the "system" is a big part of the problem. but the system in question ain't democracy, not by a long shot.

So what if listening in to cell-phone conversations is legal, 'legal' does not make it right all the time. Hey, my PACT team and housing staff use cell phones all the time to call me, and some of the stuff we talk about, no one else has a right to know, why do you think HIPAA was enacted? Now I wanna know who the h*ll listens in whenever we chat or text-message using a cellular phone!


Well, with just a bit of readily available equipment, I can not only listen to your cell phone conversations, but I can also watch the feed from surveillance cams inside the house. Private investigators do it all the time, as well as businesses. The government listening in should be the least of your worries.

oh, c'mon, god lova ya but this war represents far far worse than what's in that picture. it's all about blowing the limbs off of grandfathers and little kids and then calling it "a regrettable loss of innocent life," and stacking people in mass graves and burning the homes of families to the ground. that's what war has always meant, and that's what it will always represent.


Oh boy, it is always nice for a Veteran like myself to see what the civilians who we protect really think of us.

So is that all we are?  A bunch of thugs, no better then the Crips who terrorize Los Angeles?  You think we get enjoyment out of combat, out of the idea of killing another human being?  Do you think we go out of our way to shoot and kill innocent people just for kicks?

Apparently you do.  This is why I say that civilians do not understand the military.  And those on the extreme fringe of politics understand us the least.  The abhor us, and consider us little more then thugs with guns and uniforms.  We are simply the mindless automatons, who perform the terrorist tactics of the evil administration in power at the time.  Oh, that is unless they support the current administration.  In those instances, they want us remade into a kinder and more gentle social engineering project.  Somebody with IQ scores to low to tie his own shoes?  Put him in the military.  They have no brains anyways.

I talked to my Uncle a few weeks ago, and he says that the current situation is reminding him more and more of his experiences comming home from Vietnam.

But of course, I am a mindless thug, so of course everything looks the same to me.  Excuse me while I go out and plan my next baby-killing expedition.

Oh boy, it is always nice for a Veteran like myself to see what the civilians who we protect really think of us.

So is that all we are?  A bunch of thugs, no better then the Crips who terrorize Los Angeles?  You think we get enjoyment out of combat, out of the idea of killing another human being?  Do you think we go out of our way to shoot and kill innocent people just for kicks?

Apparently you do.  This is why I say that civilians do not understand the military.  And those on the extreme fringe of politics understand us the least.  The abhor us, and consider us little more then thugs with guns and uniforms.  We are simply the mindless automatons, who perform the terrorist tactics of the evil administration in power at the time.  Oh, that is unless they support the current administration.  In those instances, they want us remade into a kinder and more gentle social engineering project.  Somebody with IQ scores to low to tie his own shoes?  Put him in the military.  They have no brains anyways.

I talked to my Uncle a few weeks ago, and he says that the current situation is reminding him more and more of his experiences comming home from Vietnam.

But of course, I am a mindless thug, so of course everything looks the same to me.  Excuse me while I go out and plan my next baby-killing expedition.



Mucho karma for you, Mushroom.  Mucho karma. 


And thank you for serving our country.  You're a good man.  :)

And thank you for serving our country.  You're a good man.   :)


Thanks, but I did it because it was what I wanted to do.  Since I was 10 I wanted to be in the military.  And hopefully, I will be again soon.

I guess what often frustrates me is the "wars are bad unless" types of arguements.  Heck, you do not have to tell me that war is bad.  It is one of the most horrible things on Earth.  And nobody wants to avoid fighting like somebody in the military.  But sometimes, it is nessicary.

What gets to me is the polarity in reguards to the use of the military.  When President Clinton sends them into Somalia or Yugoslavia, it is good.  When President Clinton sends a bunch of cruise missles into Afganistan or Iraq, it is good.  But when President Bush Sr. sends them into Kuwait, it is bad.  Or when President Bush Jr. sends them into Afganistan or Iraq it is bad.

It amazes me even more when some of the same Congressmen that 4 years ago were screaming for blood are now saying that they were lied to.  Are we honestly supposed to believe that they are such innocent morons?  Or is it all political bluster?  I vote the latter.

And then when somebody who has no concept of what the military is or does tries to say we are all a bunch of mindless killers who revel in bloodshed and torture, it just turns my stomach.  Quite often they tend to be pampered children in adult bodies, who want to spend their lives in a fantasy world where mommie kisses all of their boo-boos better.  They can't concieve of the fact that there are people out there who want to kill them, and the military is one of the major things that keeps them away.

I believe Mushroom can provide evidence that this is legal for prevention purposes, just not valid as evidence in court.

I believe there is a legal exception when it comes to war criminals.  That is why they are tried via military tribunals as opposed to regular courts.  Bush did not invent this exception.

That was done by a few military personnel who were most likely not feeling much sympathy for the people who had just tried to kill them.  Blaming that on Bush is like saying when a few school kids act up, fire the principal.

Free speech is alive and well in my neck of the woods.  Haven't seen anyone being told what to say or not say.

Again, alive and well.  I hear criticisms of Bush every single day on the radio.

This is way too alive and well... on our busy streets.  They can't even stay on the sidewalk so people who pay for the streets can use them to get to work.  Haven't seen anyone try to stop them as long as they're not violent.

No president will every satisfy everybody... that's why we have elections.  And in my opinion, impeaching the president without MAJOR cause demeans the whole idea of elections.  Remember, Bush was very adamant in his campaign that we were going to see this through, he was not going to back out, etc..  And he still was elected.  For the record, I was against the Clinton impeachment also.





OK, point by point.

Lying to the public might be hard to prove but it is clear, as Paul Krugman pointed out in a June 24, 2003 op/ed piece called "Denial and Deception" that most of Bush's statements linking Saddam and Al Quida were designed to convey the wrong impression - to mislead the public and congress - while providing "plausible deniability" to the president.  If that doesn't amount to willingly and knowing lying, what does?

The Bush authorized NSA program is a clear violation of the FISA act, which is A LAW requiring WARRENTS issued by the FISA court within 72 hours of a wire tap.  Mushroom has argued that wire tapping is so easy anybody can do it.  Not relevant.  THE LAW prevents THE GOVERNMENT from doing it without a warrent.  You can look at your husband's or kids' e-mails and hard drives without a warrent without breaking any law doing so.  It might not be nice or ethical, but is is not illegal FOR YOU.  It would be illegal for an agent of the state to do so without a warrent, issued by a judge based on probable cause.

Detaining foreigners without charges as enemy combatants might be boarderline legal IF YOU CATCH THEM combatting, but to mearly have someone picked up off the street is both illegal and a clear violation of human rights - its what Pinochet and his secret police (the DINA) did.  The rights of non citizens are now being concidered by the Supreme Court, but at least one US CITIZEN was so detained in clear violation of his Constitution rights.  I refer of course to Jose Padilla against who all terrorist charges have been dropped.

The Bush policy on torture was authored by Alberto Gonzales our ATTORNY GENERAL which basically said that the Geneva Conventions, which we not only signed, but in fact helped author after WWII, and which therefore carry the force of law, are crap.  Bush also claims the right to violate the McCain/Finegold anti-torture resolution passed by Congress, which he himself signed.  And the torture was not only confined to Abu Gahrib (?).  Torturous interigation techniques have also been used at Guantanamo.  The fish stinks from the head down.

First amendment violations include survailance of, and maintaining records on protesters.  Our Sen. Senator, Pat Lahey, discovered that here in Vermont a group of Quakers were infiltrated by gov't. agents and included in a Pentagon data base as potential terrorists.  Numerous courts, including I think the Supremes, have held that this kind of survailance has a CHILLING EFFECT   on free speech, assembly, and the press, and is therefore illegal.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the duties of the president is to "See that the laws are faithfully executed".  Warrentless wiretapping is prohibited to government officials, detaining people without due process is prohibited whether or not they are citizens, torture is illegal both under US statutes and international treaties/conventions, monitoring and classifying citizens based on their excersise of their first amendment rights has been found to be illegal. 

Bush has caused all of this to be done, and therefore has violated both the law and his responsibility to enforce the law.  If all this doesnt rise to the level of "high crimes and misdomeanors" than nothing does. 

OK, point by point.

Lying to the public might be hard to prove but it is clear, as Paul Krugman pointed out in a June 24, 2003 op/ed piece called "Denial and Deception" that most of Bush's statements linking Saddam and Al Quida were designed to convey the wrong impression - to mislead the public and congress - while providing "plausible deniability" to the president.  If that doesn't amount to willingly and knowing lying, what does?



I'm sure tons of people have written pieces/articles and given interviews that claimed Bush was lying.  IF there weren't weapons transported to Syria during the time that Saddam refused inspections, prior to suddenly deciding it was ok for the inspectors to come in, I still don't see any compelling evidence that he was lying as opposed to having received bad intelligence.  I don't think Bush's statements alone would have convinced ANYONE to vote for war.  I am sure that each and every congressperson who voted looked at intelligence themselves, and made their own judgments based on it.  Tony Blair admitted to providing some of this intelligence, so we do have some evidence that Bush was given intelligence that led him to believe Saddam had WMD.  I don't see evidence that Bush never believed there were weapons.  Was there actual evidence of his not having WMD intelligence in this piece that you speak of, or was it just an opinion??

Oh boy, it is always nice for a Veteran like myself to see what the civilians who we protect really think of us.



Save it, dude.  Just save it. My uncle is a veteran of the military(ex-airborne ranger and D.I.) who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, and he isn't blinded to what the military does.  He has told me before himself, that if you want to explain it the job of the military on the most practical level, its "to kill peole and tear **** up"(his words, not mine).  Don't try to use your status as a Veteran to deflect criticism of the military, that is really phony and IMO THAT is true disrespect of the military. >:( >:(

Save it, dude.  Just save it. My uncle is a veteran of the military(ex-airborne ranger and D.I.) who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, and he isn't blinded to what the military does.  He has told me before himself, that if you want to explain it the job of the military on the most practical level, its "to kill peole and tear **** up"(his words, not mine).  Don't try to use your status as a Veteran to deflect criticism of the military, that is really phony and IMO THAT is true disrespect of the military. >:( >:(


I don't think Mushroom ever denied that the purpose of the military is to destroy our enemies.

It shouldn't happen, but innocents are always killed in war.  Operation Pheonix, anyone? Thats what I was getting at.  I got the impression Mushroom is saying the U.S. doesn't kill civilians.

Save it, dude.  Just save it. My uncle is a veteran of the military(ex-airborne ranger and D.I.) who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, and he isn't blinded to what the military does.  He has told me before himself, that if you want to explain it the job of the military on the most practical level, its "to kill peole and tear **** up"(his words, not mine).  Don't try to use your status as a Veteran to deflect criticism of the military, that is really phony and IMO THAT is true disrespect of the military. >:( >:(


Has it ever occured to you..

That Your Uncle has his opinions on things, same way I do and you do  ???

It's just possible.. that sometimes.. he say's things he thinks.. as opposed to the 100% guarenteed bang to rights fact?

Has it ever occured to you..

That Your Uncle has his opinions on things, same way I do and you do  ???

It's just possible.. that sometimes.. he say's things he thinks.. as opposed to the 100% guarenteed bang to rights fact?


You and I don't have a 156 IQ.  Or do you? lol ;)

You and I don't have a 156 IQ.  Or do you? lol ;)



Are you saying his opinion is more valued because he has a near-genius IQ?

It shouldn't happen, but innocents are always killed in war.  Operation Pheonix, anyone? Thats what I was getting at.  I got the impression Mushroom is saying the U.S. doesn't kill civilians.


Mushroom definitely said that war is terrible.  I'm sure he understands that civilian casualties are unavoidable.

By the way, it's "censure".  I think you shouldn't censor Bush because what comes out of his mouth most of the time makes me laugh :D

I've gotta admit, I'll kinda miss Commander Coo Coo Bananahead when hes out of office.  He's funny to have around, in a way.

Less then three years left of fart jokes, bloopers, and boners! :D

You and I don't have a 156 IQ.  Or do you? lol ;)


Pay's to do your research eh'.

I'm gonna look for my file with all my diplomas and such in it, that has a certificate in there with it.
I had one of the highest IQ's in my High School (funny how it didn't transfer to great grades)  ;D

I'm sure tons of people have written pieces/articles and given interviews that claimed Bush was lying.  IF there weren't weapons transported to Syria during the time that Saddam refused inspections, prior to suddenly deciding it was ok for the inspectors to come in, I still don't see any compelling evidence that he was lying as opposed to having received bad intelligence.  I don't think Bush's statements alone would have convinced ANYONE to vote for war.  I am sure that each and every congressperson who voted looked at intelligence themselves, and made their own judgments based on it.  Tony Blair admitted to providing some of this intelligence, so we do have some evidence that Bush was given intelligence that led him to believe Saddam had WMD.  I don't see evidence that Bush never believed there were weapons.  Was there actual evidence of his not having WMD intelligence in this piece that you speak of, or was it just an opinion??


Krugman's piece was an analysis of a speech posted on Bush's web site.  There is also the issue of lying re the cost of the perscription drug plan, the true cost of which was intentionally withheld from congress.

But ok, skip the lying.  the rest is certainly grounds for impeachment.

Krugman's piece was an analysis of a speech posted on Bush's web site.  There is also the issue of lying re the cost of the perscription drug plan, the true cost of which was intentionally withheld from congress.

But ok, skip the lying.  the rest is certainly grounds for impeachment.
Bush is just as evil as Nixon was. Both could not tell the truth if their lives depended on it...and IMO Medicare Part D is really not the answer as a prescription drug plan, it has a lot of people, including some people I know, really up s*it's creek sans a paddle..because of all the different Part D plans out there! And some don't even pay for certain medicines that are 'OTC' even if it comes in a prescription strength that a doctor prescribes!

Oh boy, it is always nice for a Veteran like myself to see what the civilians who we protect really think of us.

So is that all we are?  A bunch of thugs, no better then the Crips who terrorize Los Angeles?  You think we get enjoyment out of combat, out of the idea of killing another human being?  Do you think we go out of our way to shoot and kill innocent people just for kicks?

Apparently you do.  This is why I say that civilians do not understand the military.  And those on the extreme fringe of politics understand us the least.  The abhor us, and consider us little more then thugs with guns and uniforms.  We are simply the mindless automatons, who perform the terrorist tactics of the evil administration in power at the time.  Oh, that is unless they support the current administration.  In those instances, they want us remade into a kinder and more gentle social engineering project.  Somebody with IQ scores to low to tie his own shoes?  Put him in the military.  They have no brains anyways.

I talked to my Uncle a few weeks ago, and he says that the current situation is reminding him more and more of his experiences comming home from Vietnam.

But of course, I am a mindless thug, so of course everything looks the same to me.  Excuse me while I go out and plan my next baby-killing expedition.
so as usual you for some reason attached something i said to this, even though this had nothing to do with what i said? exactly where did i say anything about "mindless thugs"? when did i say anything about mindless automatons? social engineering? vietnam?

i'm befuddled. if you're going to quote me you should have your reply have something to do with what you quoted. you always do that, quote me and then launch off on replying to some other unrelated thing that i have no idea where it came from.

anyway, what i said is that war is about killing innocent people, and i stand by it. it's war's most salient characteristic. it is now, it was before, and it probably always will be. that's why it should be engaged in as a last resort, not on an idle whim as the current administration seems to have done.

so as usual you for some reason attached something i said to this, even though this had nothing to do with what i said? exactly where did i say anything about "mindless thugs"? when did i say anything about mindless automatons? social engineering? vietnam?



oh, c'mon, god lova ya but this war represents far far worse than what's in that picture. it's all about blowing the limbs off of grandfathers and little kids and then calling it "a regrettable loss of innocent life," and stacking people in mass graves and burning the homes of families to the ground. that's what war has always meant, and that's what it will always represent.


OK, then who are doing all these atrocities that you are talking about?  Is Bush-Cheny-Rice-Rumsfeld going over there and doing all of it?

If there are atrocities going on, them obviously it is being done by the members of the military.  You said it yourself, " it's all about blowing the limbs off of grandfathers and little kids and then calling it "a regrettable loss of innocent life."

OK, then who are doing all these atrocities that you are talking about?  Is Bush-Cheny-Rice-Rumsfeld going over there and doing all of it?

If there are atrocities going on, them obviously it is being done by the members of the military.  You said it yourself, " it's all about blowing the limbs off of grandfathers and little kids and then calling it "a regrettable loss of innocent life."


And do you doubt they would?  Operation Pheonix, Operation Rolling Thunder.. do those sound familiar?

OK, then who are doing all these atrocities that you are talking about?  Is Bush-Cheny-Rice-Rumsfeld going over there and doing all of it?

If there are atrocities going on, them obviously it is being done by the members of the military.  You said it yourself, " it's all about blowing the limbs off of grandfathers and little kids and then calling it "a regrettable loss of innocent life."
30,000 innocent dead in iraq. that number isn't contested, and it's probably very conservative. that's what that is -- thirty thousand grandfathers and little kids with arms and legs blown off, corpses stacked like cordwood. if you contest these statistics, i'd love to hear it, but aside from that you can attribute the guilt for this "atrocity" -- you used the word first, i think, but yeah, it's perfectly apt -- wherever you like. i mean, that's part of the problem, yes? confronted with something like this, 30,000 innocent dead, the first thing you think is not, "well, jesus, that's awful, how do we make it stop," but rather, "hey, it's not MY fault." you know what i mean? there's a willingness to turn away from the cost of this war, or to shrug off all the civilian deaths, among war supporters that's always made me rather uncomfortable.

in point of fact, it's a cliche that people in the military are usually the last to want to go to war because they're aware of this cost more than the civilian leadership. i think that's not true in every case, but it's plainly true in a lot. everything i've read about the advice of the generals was, don't get involved with this thing unless you're willing to use the amount of force needed to get it over with quickly and avoid unnecessary loss of life. somewhere in the civilian leadership this advice got ignored and now this war is just an ongoing bloodletting.

I don't think George W. Bush would join any of our armed forces and fight in ANY wars, even if he could go sign up.....That's why he sees no problem sending our soldiers to fight and die in Iraq, it's not his a$$ that could get shot or killed! "Send the commoners over, I'm a Bush, therefore I'm better than everyone else! Let the little guy do it!"

I say impeach him!  >:(

Bush is just as evil as Nixon was. Both could not tell the truth if their lives depended on it...and IMO Medicare Part D is really not the answer as a prescription drug plan, it has a lot of people, including some people I know, really up s*it's creek sans a paddle..because of all the different Part D plans out there! And some don't even pay for certain medicines that are 'OTC' even if it comes in a prescription strength that a doctor prescribes!


Yes,  Part D is a boondoggle for insurance companies and nothing else.

I don't think George W. Bush would join any of our armed forces and fight in ANY wars, even if he could go sign up.....That's why he sees no problem sending our soldiers to fight and die in Iraq, it's not his a$$ that could get shot or killed! "Send the commoners over, I'm a Bush, therefore I'm better than everyone else! Let the little guy do it!"

I say impeach him!  >:(



Of course he wouldn't fight a war, we know his daddy got him out of nam and he didn't even complete the guard he signed up for, he was too busy getting DUIs.

Pay's to do your research eh'.

I'm gonna look for my file with all my diplomas and such in it, that has a certificate in there with it.
I had one of the highest IQ's in my High School (funny how it didn't transfer to great grades)  ;D

How many times do I have to say it? YOUR IQ SCORE IS NOT THE SUM TOTAL OF YOUR TRUE INTELLIGENCE AND CAPABILITIES AS A HUMAN BEING! The IQ test is only one of a battery of psychological tests given by a psychometrist to determine a person's overall mental health and intellectual aptitude. When societies use the IQ score alone to pigeonhole people they end up with all sorts of bogus prejudice and eugenicist tendancies.  You cannot administer the IQ test en mass like it was the SAT and conclude Bill is smarter than Jane because his IQ is 135 and her IQ is 125. That's silly.
::)

get this.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8385103

get this.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8385103

Yes, this is where we've ended up after 27 years of right-wing acculturation.
::)

I said 'no' because many presidents do a lot of crap that they regret.

James Madison-He declared War against a powerful nation, the U.K. without a good army. (At that time, many Revolutionaries were dead or too old to fight.)

Whig Presidents-The 9th, 10th, 12th, and 13th Presidents all had conflicts and problems. The only president at that time which was worth something was James Knox Plok.

Peirce and Buchanan-They both didn't resolve anything and the Southern States seperated from America.

Andrew Johnson-First President to be on trial for Impeachment.

Ulysses Grant-They only voted for him because he was a General.

Grover Cleveland-Was President during a Depression.

Woodrow Wilson-Never resolved World War I, that's why we were in World War II.

Warren Harding-His men were part of the Teapot Dome Scandal which was the worst scandal at its time.

Herbert Hoover-I give him some credit since he didn't cause the Depression, but because of him that's why we have the Approval Rating.

LBJ-He really didn't care about people, He's a Democratic Dubya.

Richard Nixon-He's the reason why the Republican Party is in ruins. Watergate, opening up trade in China, ending bonds, the list goes on.

Jimmy Carter-He didn't resolve the Iranian conflict nor the Middle-East Peace Talks.

Ronald Reagan-During his reign, we had recessions and the Iran-Contra.

Bill Clinton-He signed the NAFTA bill....And Hellary is denying it?!

GWB-If I lived on the coast rather than the Midwest or in a Liberal state, I wouldn't say "Impeach Bush", I would say "CRUCIFY BUSH"! http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crucified.gif "CRUCIFY CHENEY"!  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crucified.gif "CRUCIFY HIS FAMILY"!  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crucified.gif "CRUCIFY RICE"!  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crucified.gif AND "CRUCIFY HIS CRONIES"!  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crucified.gif

And did you know you have two 'I dont care's up there?

  I don't believe in evil, but I do believe that stupid is as stupid does.  When it comes to representative democracies that take foolish risks with their liberties, "stupid is as stupid does" applies equally from top to bottom.  If stupidity in leadership, that is strategic and Constitutional incompetence, can reach a point of criminality, so can the stupidity of an "educated" and "free" public.  If the two stupidities coincide, it's a very bad turn of luck...

Evil?  Bush does not give a tinker's cuss about me, my family, my friends, my neighbors, my town, my state, my country, the other countries in the world; he just cares about making the disgustingly rich obscenely rich.  Doesn't matter if you call it evil or not, it is what it is! 

OK, they love him in Africa and Sir Bob Geldoff says Dubya's a wonderful guy for that, so let Dubya go be president of Liberia (the Bush family are African dictator types after all) with Sir Bob as his fawning undersecretary of delusional has-beens!
:D

Evil?  Bush does not give a tinker's cuss about me, my family, my friends, my neighbors, my town, my state, my country, the other countries in the world; he just cares about making the disgustingly rich obscenely rich.  Doesn't matter if you call it evil or not, it is what it is! 

OK, they love him in Africa and Sir Bob Geldoff says Dubya's a wonderful guy for that, so let Dubya go be president of Liberia (the Bush family are African dictator types after all) with Sir Bob as his fawning undersecretary of delusional has-beens!
:D


   Actually they love him in Japan, too.  He and David Hasselhoff are touring there next year...

   Actually they love him in Japan, too.  He and David Hasselhoff are touring there next year...


Bush will possibly be touring around the world next year. And he'll he touring with his father and Clinton a lot as well.