PeterDavid.net

1Hey, wow, I get to be first this time!!!
I doubt very much impeachment will get Bush's attention. If anything I think he will go further into his denel about what's going on around himself. I site former Secretary of Treasure Paul O'Nell's book, State Of Denel, in which he warms Bush repeatedly about the short comings of his ecomic policies and how they will have serious long term concquenseces for America. I doubt he understands fully what's going on, just what his friends tell him and they tell him what he wants to hear.
But for those of you who are terrifed of President Cheney, let me point out something John Dean wrote in Worse than Watergate: Cheney has had 3 heartattacks and the wall around his heart is all but gone.
I doubt he could handel the long-term rigors of the oval office and it is far more likely that he will resign if faced with a similar impeachment into wither or not he personally profited from the war. Cheney still has millions tied up in Haliburton and KDR stock in his blind trust plus he is, as far as I know, still reciving a severnce package from Haliburton.
Impeach the President, save the world, may not be far off. If we do this, we will not look weak in the eyes of the world. We will show people that our hearts are with them and that our system still works.

Aw damn, I thought *I* was gonna be first. :~(

Anyway, great line about the blow job and the screw job. And yeah, something has to be done, somebody's gotta stand up to this asshole and tell him that he cannot just do whatever the hell he wants with no consequences.

He does seem to believe that. Take the NSA wiretapping. The program started in 2002. It was uncovered years later. And in all of that time, Bush never once went before a FISA court to ask for authorization beforehand or retroactively. He had plenty of time. He had YEARS. Why didn't he ask for authorization? For a warrant?

I believe the answer to that is that he simply didn't want to. He decided that he didn't need anybody's permission, that he could just ignore the law and do whatever he wanted to. To me, that is the most disturbing part of it, that the most powerful man in the world thinks he is above the law.

An impeachment would show him that no, he is absolutely NOT above the law, and that if he misbehaves there WILL be consequences. At least, I think it would. If Josh is right and even that failed to get his attention, then there's no hope at all.

Talk about a pot stirrer. I’m avoiding this one suffice to say you gave me a great belly laugh to start off the day - ‘Impeach the president, save the world.’

Catchy.

Well, Cynthia McKinney in one of the only bright spots of her public career has filed articles of impeachment against Bush. It is predicted to go nowhere at this time. Too bad. I'm disheartened by incoming Speaker Pelosi's statements that impeachment is off the table. On the one hand you don't want the threat of impeachment to become a casual thing. On the other hand this war and related actions are not casual misdeeds.

Also, I'm not worried about President Cheney. For one thing we've effectively had him for five years already. For another thing I imagine the stuff that would come out in an impeachment hearing for Bush would inspire Cheney to "spend more time with his family." Hey, he's got a grandchild on the way!

More intriguing is the question of who Bush would select as his Gerald Ford. Could McCain be counted on for a full pardon?

Now that I think about it, Cheney's drive to invade Iraq demonstrated after 9-11 was probably ignited by the desire to distance himself from the Arab terrorists he took $73 million from during the 1990s as head of Halliburton.

Answering for that would look good on him during a Bush impeachment.

Doutfull. Nancy Peolosi may not be the sharpest politician but even she must've seen how badly impeachment worked out for Newt Gingridge.

Even trying to impeach Bush is the one thing that will almost certainly increase his popularity and fire up his base.

Those who don't remember the lessons of history...

Even trying to impeach Bush is the one thing that will almost certainly increase his popularity and fire up his base.

Americans weren't interested that Clinton was covering up a blowjob. That doesn't mean they disapprove of presidential impeachments. Again, Bill Mulligan, you're weighing a penny of democratic lapses the same as a thousand dollars of republican corruption. The dead mouse in your hand is showing.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign promise to "open the books" proved effective against Gray Davis in the California recall-election. There's no reason to believe a similar campaign wouldn't prove effective in building support for a Bush-impeachment.

My two thoughts.
One, the congress should not set out to imppeach but rather aggressively investigate what this President has done. (Something the Republican led Congress refused to do.) If or when these investigations show that the President has made impeachable acts, then let the fact lead to impeachment. The American people in polls show support for impeachment if Bush broke the law.
Two. I am amazed by the hypocrasy of the Republicans who impeached Clinton. Many, such as Lindsay Graham of N.C., shouted that it was not about politcs but the law. Yet they willfully turn a blind eye to everything this President has done. So much so, that they changed the law after he broke it to cover his illegal acts.

Unfortunately, because the only two impeachments in history have not resulted in removal, I tend to doubt Bush will take such a thing seriously. Rather, from everything we've seen from this gang from the 2000 GOP primaries onward says to me they will react like cornered rabid raccoons, clawing and tearing and bringing down the entire house around them rather than backing down.

I have to agree with the people who think that impeachment would fail to get Bush on track. He would just ignore it. His only hope for leaving any kind of positive legacy is to stay the course and so he will.

Mike, your neediness in wanting me to respond to you is telling. And sad. I pretty much said everything I needed to say to you in earlier threads. Nothing you have done in your previous troll attacks on the poor folks at livejournal or in you actions here have given me any hope that you will ever be worth wasting time on.

Nice to see you're switched from lame Of Mice and Men analogies to lame Flowers for Algernon ones. At this rate you'll have zipped through the average 11th grade reading list by 2012.

The reason Speaker Pelosi has "taken impeachment off the table" (a startlingly overreaching statement--one of the duties of the house is to keep the possibility of impeachment open. It's part of the checks and balances.) is because she knows it would be the only thing they would accomplish and she probably has quite a few things she'd like to get done ahead of a (probably doomed) attempt to impeach him.

But we will see. If there really is a big groundswell of public support for impeachment I have no doubt that a number of congressmen will suddenly be all for it. I'd rate that liklihood as a bit higher than the draft coming back. Which is to say, higher than zero.

Bush wouldn't take impeachment as a wake-up call, he'd take it as a personal attack. It would have the same effect as poking an angry dog with a stick.

Probably a silly question, but I'm not up on the US legal/political system, so...

What exactly could Bush be impeached FOR?

Didn't Bill Clinton commit perjury and that was the reason for his impeachment?

I'm sure plenty of Presidents have gotten blow jobs.

I not a Bush fan, but I wouldn't hold President Clinton up as a great president or leader by any stretch of the imagination.

"Bush wouldn't take impeachment as a wake-up call, he'd take it as a personal attack. It would have the same effect as poking an angry dog with a stick."

No, it would be like poking a dry-drunk, emotionally stunted, intellectually-challenged, narrow-minded, delusional spoiled fratboy with a dose of reality, and what do you think someone like that will do?

As we saw in his reaction to the latest report on the war in Iraq, he goes deeper into denial and delusion. Bush is the most classic case of a dry-drunk personality disorder I've ever seen. Unfortunately, this textbook case happens to be president of the most powerful country in the world.

How can so many Americans still support this administration, how can so many Americans not be terrified watching this man -- who truly has mental and emotional problems and should be in treatment -- sink deeper into his own little world?

I guess too many of us come from families where we play along and cover up the addict's behavior, and deny there is a problem. It's like we're a 350-million member dysfunctional family, with some in the family realizing how bad things have gotten. The few who realized the truth about Bush from the beginning, even when he was governor of Texas, like Molly Ivins, were (for the first few years of this administration) like the family member who first tries to alert the rest that something is wrong, that daddy is a drunk, and something has to be done. The family becomes outraged, how dare you say that about daddy; the first protestors became ostracized, labeled trouble-makers. They are accused of being disloyal to the family, traitors, for trying to make everyone see the reality of the situation.

But by now, as more family members begin to see how bad things are getting, they no longer are so willing to participate in the denials and cover-ups and rationalizations, and lies.

Consider the Impeachment process as a much-needed INTERVENTION, by the family America, to get Bush the help he needs, and save the country. Of course, the leadership of the Democratic Party is still playing the role of "mommy" -- the co-dependent and enabling wife who still can't quite get the courage up to face the facts and start the process of the Intervention because "she's" too far into the denial herself, and is afraid to upset too many apple-carts.

McKinney is a hero -- she's trying to get the co-dependent and enabling Congress to wake the hell up.

While, in theory, I agree with your statements I'm not sure what it would accomplish. All it would do is get the GOP all worked up and pretty much kill the already slim chance that maybe, just maybe we could actually get the two sides to be civil towards one another.

Attempting, or succeeding, in impeaching Bush would be the political equivalent of the invasion of Baghdad. Yes, Bush is a terrible person and probably deserves it, but all the end result would lead to is instability and chaos.

Mike, your neediness in wanting me to respond to you is telling. And sad. I pretty much said everything I needed to say to you in earlier threads.

Well then why don't you simply not respond when I correct you? That would make things easier on both of us, wouldn't it?

Nothing you have done in your previous troll attacks on the poor folks at livejournal or in you actions here have given me any hope that you will ever be worth wasting time on.

Considering it was your troll-flood that prompted Peter to shut down a thread, you simply are in no position to condemn me for a troll. For the shut-down thread, I was down to posting 3 times in 3 days, responding to posts directed at me. I hadn't even posted for almost 24 hours when that thread was closed.

As for livejournal, the only livejournalers I post to are 2 anonymous ones who I correspond with outside of comments. There is one typepad weblog that might fit what you're describing, but she linked to my site for as long as I updated it. Her husband certainly had no problem linking to me.

However Peter feels about my presence here, nothing I've done has been close to prompting a writer who raises money for the CBLDF to shut down a comments thread. You are obviously of a severe caliber among trolls. Any criticism of trolling against me goes at least double for you.

Nice to see you're switched from lame Of Mice and Men analogies to lame Flowers for Algernon ones. At this rate you'll have zipped through the average 11th grade reading list by 2012.

Is the book not titled Of Mice and Men?

Dude, my paperback copy is 107 pages long. Don't hold me to the 11th grade reading list when you haven't even finished it yourself.

What exactly could Bush be impeached FOR?

Bush was authorized to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

The only evidence Iraq was a threat to the US was speculation not supported by evidence from the intelligence agency of any government, and Saddam Hussein had consented to inspections of his non-existent weapons program prior to the US invasion.

Bill Mulligan, worry not about the slings and arrows of those with bitter personal agendas. This is the first blog in which I've EVER been willing to discuss politics, and that's in large part thanks to you. You and I disagree on quite a few issues, but I can't help but want to engage you in discussion because you are intelligent, well-informed, and polite.

I'll be back later with an impeachment-related post. But I felt compelled to stick up for my good friend, Mr. Bill "Squirrel Commander" Mulligan. :)

Oh, and one other thing: trolls are only as pernicious as we allow them to be. I've learned through bitter experience that there is only ONE way to respond to them: not at all. Don't even acknowledge 'em, unless it is the only way to correct an egregious factual error. Even then, just correct the error without acknowledging the troll, and move on. :)

Peter David: certainly a president can be impeached over giving a screw job to 250 million people.
Luigi Novi: Aren’t we like, 300 million now? (Just asking.)

Y'know, on the one hand, I can't see how anything Clinton did constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" more than anything W. has. And yet, I wonder if having a Democrat and Republican President impeached back-to-back will start a slippery slope down which impeachment will become a regular occurence by every President's opponent party. Not something I'd like to contemplate, but when you consider that Clinton's impeachment was an act of total partisan bullshit, I can't help but wonder, even if impeaching Bush would be totally legit.

Josh Pritchett: Cheney has had 3 heartattacks...
Luigi Novi: Four.

Bill Mulligan: Even trying to impeach Bush is the one thing that will almost certainly increase his popularity and fire up his base.
Luigi Novi: I doubt that. Are you implying that impeachment in and of itself has this effect? Did that happen to Johnson? I think it happened with Clinton is because the American people liked Clinton’s job performance, liked how things were going well for the country during his tenure, and saw the impeachment for the partisan witch hunt that it was, not because impeachment necessarily imbues any ol’ President with popularity. I think central to this is whether the public thinks the President in question deserves it. The public didn’t think Clinton did. I don’t think they’ll have the same reaction with Bush, his hardcore apologists notwithstanding.

brian h: Didn't Bill Clinton commit perjury and that was the reason for his impeachment?
Luigi Novi: Depends on who you listen to. According to former L.A. prosecutor Vince Bugliosi, perjury, in addition to being the most underprosecuted crime, requires that the lie be on a matter relevant to the proceedings. It is for this reason, for example, that he opined that Mark Fuhrman was not guilty of perjury for testifying that he had not used the "N-word" in the ten years prior to his testimony. Bugliosi pointed out that neither the Paula Jones nor Monica Lewinsky matters were relevant to the Whitewater matter, which was the matter Kenneth Star was assigned to investigate at Independent Counsel. Bugliosi also pointed out that the Independent Counsel law was only for actions the President allegedly committed during his presidency, and that since the Whitewater deal (in which Clinton committed no crime, but was himself a victim of James McDougal's scheme, incidentally) occurred years before Clinton became President, even that was not an appropriate matter for an IC.

Rivka: It's like we're a 350-million member dysfunctional family…
Luigi Novi: 350?

Oh, and one other thing: trolls are only as pernicious as we allow them to be. I've learned through bitter experience that there is only ONE way to respond to them: not at all. Don't even acknowledge 'em, unless it is the only way to correct an egregious factual error. Even then, just correct the error without acknowledging the troll, and move on. :)

You've admitted to the troll-flood I referred to. You are also in no position to cry troll on anyone.

Pitiful.

I don't think doing so would do anything positive. It wouldn't cause Bush to change. And I think the best thing the Dems can do is spend that time showing all the mistakes made and the corruption that was turned into a way of life by this administration.

That would do more good than wasting the time on impeachment.

Oh, one other thing... to the poster that thinks that impeachment would make Bush more popular and fire up his base, you are missing out on a few things. Clinton was popular before impeachment and nobody cared about what he was impeached for. Everybody saw it clearly as what it was.... a political attack that abused our system. And the more they attacked and failed to get a solid hit, the more the people loved him. And still do.

Impeaching in this case would do little, and it would be akin to shooting a dead dog.

Goddammit, Luigi, your first remark about impeachment was the very point I was going to make! And you said it better than I would have!

I take back everything nice I've ever said about you.

Oiy, I try to stay out of politics around here cuz it can get messy, but what they hey; coffee hasn't sunk in enough to knock sense into me.

On the one hand, I tend to agree that impeachment wouldn't do the attention catching necessary (and would probably take longer than he has left in office). But on the other, he actually said earlier this week that people - including himself - didn't read the reports going through the White House! He admitted to not reading the documents he was given to read on Iraq, and ananda knows what else! This is a major failing as a president. I mean, no, I doubt you have to read everything, but there's got to be some system of "someone'll tell you about it, you read the cliff notes prepared from someone, this one should be read..."

*shakes head*
I honestly don't know what will get the attention of this administration - and frankly, I'm not certain getting its attention would be a good idea.

um...I thought Clinton was impeached for lying under oath?...not for having a blow job.
He lied so that the prosecution could not establish a pattern of behavior...

What is sad is that most of the time whatever democrats accuse of Bush of doing, they have already done or are still doing.
Conservatives and liberals use the same words, but might as well be speaking completely different languages.
One man's barbarian is the other man's scholar. They call it "A woman's right to choose", I call it "killing a baby behind closed doors with no one to stand and fight for the unseen and unheard child."
God help us.

"Probably a silly question, but I'm not up on the US legal/political system, so...

What exactly could Bush be impeached FOR?"

Yes, I'd like an answer to this question too.

Impeaching in this case would do little, and it would be akin to shooting a dead dog.

It would go a long way to confirming the illegality of torture and the requirement of habeas corpus, where this administration continues to shelter torture and the suspension of habeas corpus. How do you feel about the government reserving the privilege to lock you up as a terrorist on their word alone?

What exactly could Bush be impeached FOR?

Yes, I'd like an answer to this question too.

He authorized an invasion he wasn't legally authorized to start.

It depends on what you definition of "threat" is.

He decided that he didn't need anybody's permission, that he could just ignore the law and do whatever he wanted to

He has all along & still does. Just look at his 750 & counting "signing statements" where he declares that the law he's signing into effect doesn't apply to him. Even when the law specifically states "The President shall ..."

-----

Nancy Peolosi may not be the sharpest politician but even she must've seen how badly impeachment worked out for Newt Gingridge.

Not the same thing. Clinton had a high approval rating before the impeachment bullshit, his bj didn't hurt anyone or cost the taxpayers anything. Also, virtually noone supported the impeachment.

With Bush, he has lied about nearly everything since taking office, he has caused thousand of U.S. lives in Iraq & Afghanistan, & cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Also, the call for impeaching both bush & cheney has been steadily growing for months.

I recall reading that JFK seriously believed he would have been impeached if he had not quickly and decisively handled the Cuban Missile Crisis. In other words, that's how high the stakes are. The Commander-in-Chief is like the captain of a ship. If you make decisions that are life-threatening, then Congress must take the appropriate steps.

When Clinton was impeached,the refrain from the Right was that if he had been an average joe, he'd have been flat-out fired without all the dramatics. True or not, it's even more the case with Bush -- would you really think the CEO of publically owned company -- one that's beholden to its stock holders -- would be allowed to keep making misstep after misstep if it were costing the shareholders a fortune?

There just seems to be no real accountability for the mistakes Bush has made -- there was no legitimate reason to go to Iraq and even if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually thought there were WMDs there, again I go to the CEO analogy: If the CEO really thought there was oil in some swampland and bankrupted the company searching for it, he would still be canned.

Instead, Bush gets two full terms and a few bruises that don't even effect him. If we can't get some real changes in Iraq, then I don't give a damn about raising the minimum wage. That's a nice to have but ending this disaster is a must have.

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The U.S. Constitution is remarkably silent on just what the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comprises. As I understand it, this was deliberate. Impeachment was meant to be a political process, and thus one that could be influenced by public opinion.

So, really, we could impeach President Bush for all sorts of things. Just because we CAN do something, however, doesn't mean we SHOULD.

I believed, and continue to believe, that the evidence suggesting Iraq's WMD program was thriving and that Saddam Hussein was engaged with Al Qaeda was too thin to act upon. It is grossly inaccurate, however, to state that there was no evidence that Iraq was a threat. The evidence was thin, and existed alongside evidence that suggested Iraq may not have been a threat. Neither side was able to make a conclusive case.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush chose to focus on the evidence that supported his views and ignore that which undercut them. Was he guilty of outright lying, or of allowing his thinking to be clouded by a sincere but overzealous agenda? I don't know.

I do know this: while I agree that President Bush may have committed the greatest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history by invading Iraq, I don't believe we should impeach him for it. To do so would, I believe, leave future presidents open to impeachment over any unpopular decision. I'd hate to see us cripple the ability of future presidents to lead in our zeal to nail the current one.

Bush showed, and continues to show, stubbornness, arrogance, and outright incompetence on issues of foreign policy. The U.S. has already held him accountable for this, however, by giving Congress back to the Democrats. If Bush continues on his stubborn course, the voters will likely give the presidency back to the Dems as well. I believe that's the best method for holding our government accountable: by voting. Impeachment should be reserved for remarkable circumstances. Nixon's involvement in Watergate qualified.

Posted by: Chris at December 10, 2006 01:00 PM

um...I thought Clinton was impeached for lying under oath?...not for having a blow job.

Technically, yes, that is true. The impeachment stemmed from a civil suit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones, who alleged that Clinton sexually harrassed her. Clinton was asked about an affair with Monica Lewinsky during depositions for that case.

The problem? Well, for one thing, the suit was of dubious legal merits. It was funded by ultra-conservative hatchet-people like Ann Coulter, who were more interested in getting Clinton than in Paula Jones or the merits of her case. Second, the judge in the Paula Jones suit decided that questions about an affair with Lewinsky were not relevant to that suit. After Clinton was impeached, she did find him in contempt of court. But one has to ask oneself: should we have embroiled the nation in costly and distracting impeachment hearings to punish Clinton for lying during a deposition, even though the matter about which he lied was deemed immaterial to the case, and even though the case itself was clearly politically motivated? Personally, I believe we should not. It was an abuse of the impeachment process.

Impeachment is like a pair of sharp scissors. You can do a lot of things with those scissors. Some of them are perfectly logical and productive. Others are stupid and harmful. My thought? Even though you can do a lot of things with scissors, you probably SHOULDN't do ALL of them.

Posted by: Chris at December 10, 2006 01:00 PM

What is sad is that most of the time whatever democrats accuse of Bush of doing, they have already done or are still doing.
Conservatives and liberals use the same words, but might as well be speaking completely different languages.
One man's barbarian is the other man's scholar. They call it "A woman's right to choose", I call it "killing a baby behind closed doors with no one to stand and fight for the unseen and unheard child."
God help us.

Chris, I appreciate your passion, but you are greatly oversimplifying things by portraying this as a battle between the Good Conservatives and the Evil Liberals. In life, things are rarely so clear-cut. I have been a staunch liberal all of my life, but as I become older I am able to integrate conservative beliefs into my life -- without compromising certain liberal principles. Bill Mulligan is a conservative -- his street creds in that area are unimpeachable -- yet he holds certain view that could be called "liberal."

Also, what constitutes "conservatism" or "liberalism"? Those are big tents, Chris. Not all conservatives agree about everything. Nor do all liberals.

And I believe you are doing your beliefs about abortion a disservice by injecting them into a discussion where, really, they are not relevant. This is a discussion about Bush, his foreign policy decisions, and whether he should be impeached for any of those decisions.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 10, 2006 01:30 PM

Also, virtually noone supported the impeachment.

Untrue. Many Democrats in Congress were angry at the President, and quite a few were prepared to support impeachment. But then the GOP overplayed its hand, and ironically helped the Democratic leadership circle the wagons in defense of Clinton.

Bill Myers wrote:
"Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The U.S. Constitution is remarkably silent on just what the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comprises. As I understand it, this was deliberate. Impeachment was meant to be a political process, and thus one that could be influenced by public opinion."

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But it seems to me that the section quotes says that a president should be impeached for commiting certain crimes, not all crimes, but two very specific crimes -- bribery and treason -- and other 'high' crimes. The vague language here seems to me to suggest that the congress here has discretion whether a crime is high enough to merit impeachment, and when not.
So the question is, did Bush commit a high crime or misdemeanor?

It also seems to me illadviced to use impeachment if no crime was committed. Your system does not have an option of a toppling an elected president with a vote on no confidence. This seems to create stability. Would you really want to change it to a system in which a president can be impeached, not for commiting a crime, but for making bad decisions? This would be a major change in your system.

However, aside from waiting for elections, there are other democratic methods to pressure the government. If there were massive demonstrations and campaigns calling to the president to resign, or at least pay attention to the Iraq report, that would be quite significant. Obviously, in your system, Bush can ignore it, but it would be very difficult for him and even more so for the members of his party who are hoping to be elected in the future. Such a campaign could also maybe serve as the necessary wake up call bush needs without the constitutional problems (unless of course a crime was committed).

The Presidential Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

During his tenure in office, George W. Bush has participated in passing, and then strongly defended, several pieces of legislation (most notably certain sections of the "Patriot" Act) that clearly violated sections of the US Constitution, particularly Amendments IV-VI.

For those not up on the relevant sections:
IV. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," violated here in Seattle, resulting the the closing-down of a neighborhood market that happened to be in the same building as a wire-transfer service that was suspected of possibly laundering funds for certain unnamed terrorist groups);
V. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger..." (Jose Padilla was not in actual service, nor has he ever been indicted anywhere by anything even vaguely resembling a grand jury - a star chamber, maybe);
VI. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." (And the Bush Administration actually went to court to try to claim their "right" to completely and utterly ignore this entire amendment if the President alone thinks someone might be hiding something.)

Enough "High Crimes and Misdemeanours" for ya?

Untrue. Many Democrats in Congress were angry at the President, and quite a few were prepared to support impeachment. But then the GOP overplayed its hand, and ironically helped the Democratic leadership circle the wagons in defense of Clinton.

Actually, I was referring to the public, not Congress.

-----

um...I thought Clinton was impeached for lying under oath?...not for having a blow job.

Originally, it was for lying. The words "under oath" were almost never used, if ever, until bush starting lying his ass off about everything. When people started asking why shouldn't bush be impeached for lying when Clinton was, bush supporters started adding the "under oath" part.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 10, 2006 02:52 PM

Enough "High Crimes and Misdemeanours" for ya?

Not really. Bush wouldn't be the first President to assert that certain constitutional protections can be suspended during wartime.

Bush is clearly acting in accordance with what he believes to be his powers as a wartime president. If one believes he is wrong -- as I most certainly do -- the appropriate remedy is to challenge his decisions in court. To use impeachment as a remedy would not only be an abuse of that process, but would invite further abuses.

It's bad enough that Congressional Republicans abused the impeachment process in their zeal to unseat President Clinton. Going after Bush with another bogus impeachment would begin an ugly trend with dangerous implications for future presidents' ability to govern.

I think edhopper had it right. The Congress has until now done a piss-poor job of providing oversight. Let the Congress investigate anything that warrants investigation. If -- and only if -- they turn up something worth pursuing should we consider impeachment.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 10, 2006 03:02 PM

Actually, I was referring to the public, not Congress.

I stand corrected.

FYI, here is a pro-impeachemnt group's take on impeachable offenses.

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/points_general.html

Yes it's partison, but it does show there is cause for impeachemnt is Congress so decides.

While I agree that Bush should never have been voted into the Oval Office to begin with, it is a major undertaking from wanting the guy removed from office to actually accomplishing it.
For what it's worth, take comfort in the fact that he is a lame duck who cannot run again, unless his cronies in Congress manage to rewrite the Constitution before the Presidential Primaries.
For another take on this subject, has anybody seen today's (December 10th) installment of Doonesbury? ;)

The President has only one Constitutionally mandated public statement. The State of the Union. He doesn't have to speak before Congress, but he does have to deliver it to them. It's hard not to accept that he knowingly lied in the 2002 SOTU when he talked about Saddam and the WMD, especially the Niger uranium.
If Clinton could be impeached for lying in a civil suit, Bush could easily be impeached for violating his Constitional duty and lying in the SOTU.

For another take on this subject, has anybody seen today's (December 10th) installment of Doonesbury? ;)

Yes. It was brutal. ;)

Sorry in advance for the long post folks but its a deep topic.

edhopper stated: "the congress should not set out to impeach but rather aggressively investigate what this President has done... If or when these investigations show that the President has made impeachable acts, then let the fact lead to impeachment. "

I concur with Mr Hopper on this one. I think Pelosi's goal is to get a legistative agenda off the ground while simultaneously providing agressive oversight of the administration. If this oversight yields a SPECIFIC (dates and times) impeachable offense the so be it. But top priority for the new Congress is to GOVERN.

Jonathan (the other one) wrote "Enough "High Crimes and Misdemeanours" for ya?" and Bill Myers responded "Not really. Bush wouldn't be the first President to assert that certain constitutional protections can be suspended during wartime."

I concur with Bill. Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus during the Civil War. That makes wiretapping look like a walk in the park.

Ben W stated: "Attempting, or succeeding, in impeaching Bush would be the political equivalent of the invasion of Baghdad. Yes, Bush is a terrible person and probably deserves it, but all the end result would lead to is instability and chaos."

Much as I'd love to disagree with Ben and agree with Peter David I can not. Worse than the offenses that Bush has done is the mess he has left for this Congress and future Presidents. An impeachment in the middle of that mess is the textbook definition of chaos. We need to start that clean up now not absorb all of Congress' energy on impeachment proceedings. If in sweeping up we find an impeachable offense then it becomes part of the clean up schedule--but it should not be first and formost.

Bill Myers stated: "I'll be back later with an impeachment-related post. But I felt compelled to stick up for my good friend, Mr. Bill "Squirrel Commander" Mulligan"

What the hell is all this "Squirrel Commander" jazz nd how do I get in on the action??

---Captain Naraht

Here's some more on impeachable offences

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/24/17048/677

----------

As for what would happen if bush was impeached, I think it might be the end of the government as we know it. Think about this:

The president has the power to determine who is an enemy combatant, has the power to have that person "detained" without charges, trial or a lawyer, and now also has the power to activate the military & national guard in the U.S. in any national emergency or crises.

Remember also:
* You don't change presidents during wartime
* Critisism of the president hurts the troops
* Not supporting the president, questioning his actions, etc, helps the enemy

So, when Congress moves to impeach, bush declares Congress (most, if not all) to be enemy combatants & orders them arrested. When large demonstrations are held against this, bush declares a national crisis & mobilizes the troops.

Naturally, there would be a split in the country that could very well become a civil war.

I know that this is an extreme, and hopefully unlikely, happening, but everything is in place for this chain of events to occur.

I am ashamed to admit that the squirrel thing was something I used to mock a troll in another thread. I portrayed him as being afraid of squirrels, and convinced that they were after him.

Unfortunately, I went berserk with the whole "poke the troll with a stick shtick" and lost any moral authority I may have had. Peter had to shut down the thread. Was it all my fault? No. But the fact that I was even partially to blame is mortifying.

So -- I did a little "jiu jitsu" with the squirrel thing and turned the joke on myself! I've been carrying it from thread to thread and it's now just harmless fun.

GODDAM CHITTERING ROTTEN-ASS MILITANT NEO-NAZI AL QAEDA SQUIRRELS!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T FOOL ME, I KNOW YOU ARE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

While, in theory, I agree with your statements I'm not sure what it would accomplish. All it would do is get the GOP all worked up and pretty much kill the already slim chance that maybe, just maybe we could actually get the two sides to be civil towards one another.

Yep. You got it. Luckily, I think most of the people in congress agree with you, Ben.

Mike- Well then why don't you simply not respond when I correct you? That would make things easier on both of us, wouldn't it?

Because I don't respect you. Most of what passes for your "corrections" are just faulty logic and/or childish attacks. Responding to them accomplishes what?

Considering it was your troll-flood that prompted Peter to shut down a thread, you simply are in no position to condemn me for a troll.

Nevertheless, I think you are a troll. As you've seen, I've had no trouble ignoring you and after this post I will go right back to doing it, despite your neediness.

Peter is free to speak for himself and can doubtlessly do so with more wit and coherence than you are capable of.

Any criticism of trolling against me goes at least double for you.

Yes, yes, you're rubber and I'm glue. Well said, good sir, well said!

Is the book not titled Of Mice and Men?

Sorry, gave you credit not deserved. For the record though, Flowers for Algernon is brilliant. Might want to give it a try.

Bill Mulligan, worry not about the slings and arrows of those with bitter personal agendas.

Worry? Pish posh! At the end of the day I am me and you are we and he is he, Paul is the Walrus and Mike Leung is Mike Leung. So...do I even need to say it?

Don't even acknowledge 'em, unless it is the only way to correct an egregious factual error. Even then, just correct the error without acknowledging the troll, and move on. :)

You are wise, oh Bill. Obviously wiser than I! But after this I really will do just that.

Are you implying that impeachment in and of itself has this effect?

Hey, good to see you again, Luigi!

No, but if Bush is being impeached for the reason given--a wakeup call--it's going to be seen, quite correctly, as simple partisan politics.

If anyone thinks he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, then it doesn't matter what his reaction to it is.

Nancy Pelosi may not be the sharpest politician but even she must've seen how badly impeachment worked out for Newt Gingridge.

Not the same thing.

Well, ok, then why do YOU think she has "taken it off the table"?

Chris- this isn't the place for an abortion argument. Wait for a thread on the subject or for it to show up. Frankly, it's pretty unlikely that any argument anyone makes on that particular subject will change many minds and trying to force it into the discussion will most likely turn off the very people you may be trying to sway.

Bill Mulligan is a conservative -- his street creds in that area are unimpeachable -- yet he holds certain view that could be called "liberal."

You'd think but I just took one of those dopey internet "tests" that's supposed to show what your political party is.
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=6916
Distressingly, here's how I did:
Anarchism-100%
Democrat- 50%
Republican- 42%
Socialist- 42%
Communist, Green, fascism- 25%
nazi- 0%

Wtf? I mean, WTF??? What am I supposed to do with this info? Join the Anarchy party? Dress up like Jack Abramoff and carry a spy vs spy type bomb that looks like a bowling ball with a lit fuse? The Anarchy party, yeah, THERE’S a bunch of movers and shakers! Christ…

Bill, do me a favor and take that test and tell me how you did. I smell bullshit here.

Jonathon--if the patriot act has not been declared unconstitutional it will be hard to make that argument stick. Furthermore, I'm not certain you can claim that a president can be impeached for signing a law that has been passed by congress, even if that law is later overturned. Hasn’t every president had some laws later declared unconstitutional? If that's all it took to make them criminals we would not have any need for term limits. (We'd also have a lot more vetoes).

I seriously suggest that some of the folks talking impeachment are setting themselves up for what will be a political disaster. However I doubt the Democrats will be foolish enough to go along with it.

We're taking this up at the next meeting of the anarchy party.

(One final note—instead of impeaching Bush over the Patriot Act why aren’t they trying to, you know, rescind the Act??? As far as I know it’s still the law of the land. Isn’t this kind of bass ackward?)

Originally, it was for lying. The words "under oath" were almost never used, if ever, until bush starting lying his ass off about everything. When people started asking why shouldn't bush be impeached for lying when Clinton was, bush supporters started adding the "under oath" part.

I'm not sure that's true. The impeachment was on grounds of "perjury to a grand jury". Isn't that by definition under oath?

I have 3 sqirrels and two pecan trees. The sqirrels have managed to steal every single nut, storing them supposedly for "the winter".

Folks, DO THE MATH! If you've ever had a pecan tree you know that the amount of nuts produced is measured by the hefty bag full. These furry bastards have each been storing a decades worth of nuts every year for the 5 years I've lived here. They have enough food to survive the nuclear winter of an asteroid strike by now. WHAT DO THEY KNOW?

Wake up and smell the coffee, people.

Really late to the party, but I've been busy.

I think that impeachment of Bush is a bad idea right now. All that impeachment will get done is the R's that sat the last election out will come back in force in the next one, the moderates will sit the next one out or vote R and the D's will be left scratching their heads and wondering how they got voted out of power so fast. I don't believe that any one other then the far left are really all hot and heavy over the idea of Bush getting impeached. Most people would rather not have the country dragged through that again, and likely on a grander scale then when Clinton was impeached, and most would drop whatever support they might have given the left.

People keep talking about the last election as though it were a huge mandate on Iraq or impeachment and a huge blow to Bush. Well, I have to throw the B.S. flag on the Left just as I did two years ago and six years ago on the right. The victory was won by the skin of the Left's teeth just as it was by the Right in '04 and '06. It is no more a real mandate for the left the the right's last victories were for their actions.

The Left can play the next few years smart or they can do dumb crap and flush away their chances. Impeachment would be dumb. What happens if he is impeached but not removed? Bush would likely just put his head further up his own butt and maybe act out of spite towards the D's until he leaves office rather then allowing himself to be leveraged into making a few better moves and choices. Remove him and you get Cheney. I think, heart issues or no, that he would do everything he could to hang on to that office until '08. That could be much worse then Bush.

Plus, the D's risk their support be doing that rather then working to fix problems. Yeah, I know that several of you will say that this IS fixing the problem. Again, I think that only the far left really feels that way. Those in the center may see impeachment as the D's living down to much of the mud thrown against them over this issue and others this last year. If they do, the D's can kiss their chances in the next election good-bye.

They would be better served doing whatever else they can and by being seen as working towards fixing problems and not damaging the nation or dragging it through that kind of thing again. Will this maybe extend the time that we are in Iraq? Yeah. Will it take longer to fix other problems? Yeah. But you may find that going the slower route, as hellish as that may seem for so many reasons, may allow for more and greater fixes down the road. After all, you can't do anything if you've been voted back out of office after wasting an entire year on the dog and pony show of impeachment.

Well, ok, then why do YOU think she has "taken it off the table"?

I wish I knew. In my opinion, it's either the usual Democratic lack of balls to stand up to the Republicans, or because she knows if she supports impeachment the Republicans will turn it around & make it about her. As in she's doing it so she can become president without being elected.

IIRC, she said it's off the table "for now". She may be waiting for enough other representatives to make an issue of it before she supports it.

Or she may just be another politician who doesn't want to upset the status quo.

Mike, your neediness in wanting me to respond to you is telling. And sad. I pretty much said everything I needed to say to you in earlier threads.

Well then why don't you simply not respond when I correct you? That would make things easier on both of us, wouldn't it?

Because I don't respect you. Most of what passes for your "corrections" are just faulty logic and/or childish attacks. Responding to them accomplishes what?

You're the one responding to my posts. You tell me.

Nevertheless, I think you are a troll. As you've seen, I've had no trouble ignoring you and after this post I will go right back to doing it, despite your neediness.

No, Bill won't be responding to my posts anymore. And this time he really means it.

Peter is free to speak for himself and can doubtlessly do so with more wit and coherence than you are capable of.

I'm not a bestselling author underneath this phantom's mask? Nurse Ratched, please don't tell my mother.

...nothing I've done has been close to prompting a writer who raises money for the CBLDF to shut down a comments thread. You are obviously of a severe caliber among trolls. Any criticism of trolling against me goes at least double for you.

Yes, yes, you're rubber and I'm glue. Well said, good sir, well said!

Thank you for admitting your credentials as a troll exceed my own.

I wish I knew. In my opinion, it's either the usual Democratic lack of balls to stand up to the Republicans, or because she knows if she supports impeachment the Republicans will turn it around & make it about her.

There's also the fact that for a Democrat to win the presidency in 2008 they will likely have to move toward the center. While impeaching (or trying to impeach) Bush will thrill the base I think it will not help the eventual candidate (ie Hillary, I still believe).

In fact, if there IS an attempt to get impeachment going I expect the various Democratic senators who are planning to run to try to put the kibosh on it--it would make them look like they were putting the country ahead of politics. Hell, that may even be their true feelings.

It was just pointed out to me that my on-the-fly proof reading sucks. The above post's line was meant to be...

"The victory was won by the skin of the Left's teeth just as it was by the Right in '00 and '04."

Most of you likely got that anyway, but just to make sure...

When it's proven that Bush did something as bad as, oh let's see, lying under oath... then impeachment is a viable concept. Until then, I say let him continue to protect us from terrorism.

DW

Bill, my instict tells me that you are right. But experience tells us that the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton and won the presidency in 2000.

In any case, Bush shouldn't be immpeached if there is no good legal basis for impeachment. I don't know the law well enough to decide. But I agree with Bill Myers that misuse of immpeachment as a political tool to punish a president for a policy you dislike will probably have negative long term effects.

In Ancient Athens there was a law against trying to legislate illegal (unconstitutional) laws. It was called Graphe Paranomon.

It would seem that outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney (you know, the one who socked a cop because he actually had the nerve to ask to see her identification) agrees with PAD.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/08/D8LT24S80.html

DW

"IIRC, she said it's off the table "for now". She may be waiting for enough other representatives to make an issue of it before she supports it.

Or she may just be another politician who doesn't want to upset the status quo."

Another option is that, at this point and time, she and the others see impeachment as a threat as a better tool to leverage Bush and work him then actual impeachment itself would be. Look at it like this. Lots of people will work their butts off at their jobs when they're afraid that they're going to be fired/downsized/let go. They do it because there is still a chance that they won't get the boot if they give a good showing. Walk up to a guy and tell him that he's getting a pink slip in four weeks, no ifs ands or buts about it, and you can end up getting four weeks of half@$$ed work and maybe some form of him getting even with you on his way out the door.

Bush seems to me to be the type who would bull up and try and get even. Plus, the idea of the chance of impeachment in Bush's brain has less of a chance of badly backfiring on the D's, in more ways then one, then does a botched impeachment attempt.

Give it some time and see how it plays out and where it goes. Hell, the election was just a month ago. There's been little time for anything to really have been done or changed. Maybe by waiting a bit and not jumping the gun we'll still end up with results we like. But do something foolish just because we want something done right now and we could end up in a worse boat then the one we're in now.

When it's proven that Bush did something as bad as, oh let's see, lying under oath... then impeachment is a viable concept.

Ok, you bring the torches and pitchforks, I'll bring the cabbages, eggs, and tomatoes.

Until then, I say let him continue to protect us from terrorism.

Like he did on 9-11?

Bill, my instict tells me that you are right. But experience tells us that the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton and won the presidency in 2000.

Very good point. I would suggest that in a way--an odd way--Bush benefited from this by being a governor, not a Washington insider. He wasn't tainted with the impeachment. Al Gore, on the other hand--and unfairly--reminded people of the whole mess.

Now if the Democrats go ahead with impeachment and it turns out to be an unpopular mess this could end up helping a Democrat who is from outside Washington--Richardson, for example.

Another thing one should keep in mind here, in addition to what PAD said about impeached presidencies NOT going to the vice-president is this: Hypothetically, if Bush leaves office and Cheney does not assume the presidency... it will go to Pelosi.

DW

Jerry C stated: "Give it some time and see how it plays out and where it goes. Hell, the election was just a month ago. There's been little time for anything to really have been done or changed. Maybe by waiting a bit and not jumping the gun we'll still end up with results we like. But do something foolish just because we want something done right now and we could end up in a worse boat then the one we're in now."

Now this is about the best way to explain the Democrats motivation for their "wait and see" strategy that I've heard on this thread.

I envision Congress trying to engage the world diplomaticly or repealing the wire tap thing. Then if Bush refuses or it was proven that The Dick Cheney Energy meetings in 2001 were to supply the Zorgon Space fleet with US tax dollars for fuel for their starships...well then you've gotcher self your basic impeachment proceeding.

Bill Mulligan stated: "Folks, DO THE MATH! If you've ever had a pecan tree you know that the amount of nuts produced is measured by the hefty bag full. These furry bastards have each been storing a decades worth of nuts every year for the 5 years I've lived here. They have enough food to survive the nuclear winter of an asteroid strike by now. WHAT DO THEY KNOW?"

True Story: My wife and I had squirrels in the storage area an old apartment of ours. We got a humane trap from our land lord and baited it with peanut butter. The first time we tried it, it worked great. Instant squirrel.

The second time, however, I was awoken at 2:30am to a commotion in the storage area. I took a light with me and sure enough there were THREE squirrels in the storage area. One squirrel was just emerging from the trap because his other two squirrel buddies were overturning the damn trap and SUCCESSFULLY freeing their friend. WTF??

Do NOT turn your backs on the forces of the Squirrelly Empire! They are organized and THEY SKITTLE AMONG US!

--Captain Naraht

Oh great, they've figured out our technology!

Around here there are a variety of "squirrel proof" bird feeders. Wotta joke. I've never seen one that actually works and some of the more elaborate ones probably end up killing birds, which sort of defeats the purpose.

The only defense we have are our only true animal friends; dogs and cats. Dogs because they are so loveably dopey that they think that we are also dogs, dogs that have mastered the art of walking on two legs and using can openers, and cats because they want to finish us off themselves and see the squirrels as interlopers. Luckily they have very short attention spans (cats that is) and can never get a decent plan together before being distracted by shiny objects. I could walk through a whole army of cats with a laser pointer and never get a scratch.

Chris: um...I thought Clinton was impeached for lying under oath?...not for having a blow job.
Luigi Novi: That was the ostensible reason given. The real reason is that the Republicans had been going after him ever since he decided to enter national politics.

Chris: What is sad is that most of the time whatever democrats accuse of Bush of doing, they have already done or are still doing.
Luigi Novi: Such as?

(While there was a passage after this quote about the different viewpoints on abortion, I’m not sure if that was intended as a fulfillment of this first sentence, since it doesn’t illustrate the things that “democrats accuse Bush of doing but are doing themselves.”)

Chris: One man's barbarian is the other man's scholar. They call it "A woman's right to choose", I call it "killing a baby behind closed doors with no one to stand and fight for the unseen and unheard child."
Luigi Novi: And I, for one, do not consider a clump of cells to be a “baby” or a “child”. And unlike pro-lifers, this goes for both embryos that have attached themselves to the uterine wall as well as those embryos that disintegrate, fail to attach or are flushed out of the woman on their own without any human intervention.

May the gods of consistency help us.

Bill Myers: Goddammit, Luigi, your first remark about impeachment was the very point I was going to make! And you said it better than I would have! I take back everything nice I've ever said about you.
Luigi Novi: Sorry. It’s been so long since I made a post of any length or substance here that I snuck into your house last night and attached my Insight-o-syphoner to your forehead as you slept and stole that point. :-)

Bill Myers: The problem? Well, for one thing, the suit was of dubious legal merits. It was funded by ultra-conservative hatchet-people like Ann Coulter…
Luigi Novi: While Coulter did work on the case (she was the one responsible for the contribution of the supposed bend in Clinton’s penis to the public discourse, according to Susan Estrich in her book, Soulless), I don’t think she “funded” it, since I believe that was her first high-profile foray into national politics. While she comes from a well-to-do family, I don’t think she was very independently wealthy at that point.

Bill Myers: Not really. Bush wouldn't be the first President to assert that certain constitutional protections can be suspended during wartime.
Luigi Novi: True. But after Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, the Supreme Court later ruled it unconstitutional. I’d like to see the Supreme Court rule like that on some of the things Bush has done. Instead, Bush largely has the Court to thank for his Presidency.

Bill Mulligan: Hey, good to see you again, Luigi!
Luigi Novi: Bill, I never left. :-)

Bill Mulligan: You'd think but I just took one of those dopey internet "tests" that's supposed to show what your political party is.
Luigi Novi: This is what I got:

Anarchism 50%
Fascism 33%
Socialist 25%
Communism 25%
Democrat 25%
Green 17%
Nazi 0%
Republican 0%

I’m not sure how in the world that test decided that my tendency towards communism and socialism somehow equaled my tendency toward democracy, but what’s interesting is that out of the 24 questions, I put “No” down the line to two thirds of them. The eight to which I did not were the one about the people controlling the government, about violence being a way to gain power, the Big Brother one, voluntary cooperation of free individuals, the Karl Marx quote, the classless society, the environmentalist one, and the gun control one.

Bill Mulligan stated: "You'd think but I just took one of those dopey internet "tests" that's supposed to show what your political party is.
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=6916
Distressingly, here's how I did:
Anarchism-100%
Democrat- 50%
Republican- 42%
Socialist- 42%
Communist, Green, fascism- 25%
nazi- 0%

Wtf? I mean, WTF??? Bill, do me a favor and take that test and tell me how you did. I smell bullshit here."

Captain Naraht's results:

Anarchism 83%
Democrat 75%
Communism 50%
Socialist 50%
Green 42%
Republican 17%
Fascism 17%
Nazi 0%

Just so you know: Captain Naraht is Ray from NH. I have NEVER voted Republican. I favor expanding Medicaid or Medicare to anyone willing to voluntarily pay the user fee premiums. I am against further gun control, favor gay marriage, and thought we SHOULD have dropped the bomb on Japan because it saved JAPANESE lives let alone the lives of US troops. I vote left of center liberal. Supported Dean in the 2004 primaries, Gore over Bradley in 2000, and Clinton in the 1992 primaries.

Here's a wild friggin thought to my conservative friend Bill Mulligan: Anarchists wrote the test. Sensors on board the USS Martin Luther King indicate that the Anarchist Bullshit Meter is off the scale.

--Captain Naraht

To those who think that:

Impeachment Proceedings started by the Democrats = Big Democratic Loss in 2008, I'd remind you of not just the Clinton Impeachment (and how it didn't cost bush the election) but more relevently, the proceedings begun against Nixon. He wasn't impeached as in tried, but the proceedings to were under way.

Bush has a popularity rating about as low as Nixon did, and his own party was deserting him on the war, just like now. How did the election Turn out? Carter won; I think it's likely that Nixon's actions (and, true, Ford's seeming bumbling all of the time) were what led to his election. Believe what you want about Carter's presidency, but going after Nixon didn't hurt the democrats.

I'd also like to second the suuggestion to read the talking points listed above at : http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/points_general.html

I'd forgotten how right they were. There is flat out evidence that Bush lied (Downing street memo, etc. listed on the site) approved illegal torture, and Deliberately deceived Congress and the nation about National Defense. I don't see how this man isn't impeachable.

I hate to make this personal but I have to ask the people who voted for bush and visit PAD's blog hit this site and try to explain how they can live with the results of their actions. Bill Mulligan, I'm sorry, but I'm specifically looking at you. I'd like to see you visit a site such as the one I listed above and others such as: http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#7

and explain how you can justify voting this administration into power. (And yes, I know that it refers to 2006 actions/memos at first, but then goes on to explain how bush, gonzales, and the rest set this whole thing up much earlier. This is flat out murder, and I don't see how a Kerry Presidency can be considered equivalent.

Well, one of the big Republican virtues is supposedly small government, right? You don't get much smaller than non-existent, do you? ;)

Can't take the "test" yet. It doesn't seem to make it bast the filters at work. Can't wait to see what it makes of me...

-Rex Hondo-

"What exactly could Bush be impeached FOR?"

Violation of his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. In particular, the Fourth Amendment.

I withold judgement on Iraq. To be honest, at the time many people believed Saddam had WMD, and Saddam was doing his best to convince the world he had them. A dumb bluff, but still...

However, the Constitutional violations inherent in the NSA wiretaps are an impeachable offense.

Impeach Bush? Is that the Democratic answer to voters' call for change? More of the same? More gridlock? More years passing with nothing significant accomplished?

All an impeachment process would do is totally tie up and distract Congress for who knows how long, while both sides circled the wagons. The result? Not one frickin' useful thing would be accomplished. It was a circus when Clinton was under the gun, and it will probably be even worse with Bush.

I can't help feeling that such a vindictive, spiteful move would strip away all the gains the Democrats made this election because the independent voters, who are the swing voters who really decide which party is in power these days, are fed up with such time-wasting, partisan crap by both parties.

Geez, if we impeached everyone in Congress for saying, voting for, or doing stupid stuff, there's be only a handful of people left on either side of the aisle.

Where's a viable third party when you need one?

That man has been a nightmare not only to this country, but to the entire world.

He needs to go.

Luigi Novi: LIAR! If you had attached an Insight-o-syphoner to my head and posted the results as your own, this is what you would have written: "Bleh blah dah dahr nahnahnah globba glogga doo."

Jokes aside, better you got here first with your point about impeachment. You said it better than I could've. :)

Thank you for the correction about Coulter's role in the Paula Jones case. IIRC, though, it was bankrolled at least in part by some ultra-conservative group, was it not?

And while the Supreme Court did put Bush in office, the courts have also ruled against Bush on matters such as denying Geneva Convention protections to prisoners at Guantanamo. That's why I continue to believe challenging Bush's excesses in court is still the most appropriate path.

That test was obviously created by anarchists. I'm not surprised by the results people are getting, considering nearly every question is about broad political ideologies (freedom versus totalitarianism and so forth) rather than specific issues that, you know, would actually tell us something about ourselves. That's the worst "political test" I've ever seen.

[b]Posted by R. Maheras at December 11, 2006 02:26 AM

Geez, if we impeached everyone in Congress for saying, voting for, or doing stupid stuff, there's be only a handful of people left on either side of the aisle. [/b]

The smart and honest ones? Sorry, not actually seeing a downside here folks!

The theory surely says that the system has checks and balances whereby those who lead us are accountable to us? Whereby actions have consequences for those who perform them?

If that's the case, then if there is evidence that a leader has misbehaved that leader must be impeached - whether it is expedient or not for any and all parties involved - and the system should then either exhonerate or convict them.

Reality, one might suggest, falls short of theory at this point.

Politicians lie to us, they follow hidden and/or personal agendas, they wheel and deal and shaft us time and time again, and we are no longer even mildly surprised, let alone outraged to the point of getting off our rumps and doing something about it!

Feh! No wonder voter turn out figures are dropping...

Cheers.

Bill Mulligan, I took the test and here's what I got:

Democrat

Socialist

Anarchism

Green

Fascism

Republican

Nazi

Communism

Well, I'm a Democrat, so they got that part right. But I am neither a socialist nor an anarchist, so I would have to agree that this dopey test is rigged.

Here's a wild friggin thought to my conservative friend Bill Mulligan: Anarchists wrote the test.

Sneaky little bastards. Just trying to get a bunch of us to go to their meetings which always quickly break down to a bunch a drunks watching two monkeys having a knife fight. So we'd never even get the chance to compare notes and figure out we all had nothing in common. Sneaky little bastards.

Is there anywhere an actual decent test of political persuasion?

back to something PAD said at the beginning of this thread--is Bush's reportedly "tepid" response to the Iraq Commission's report really grounds for even contemplating impeachment? I haven't read the entire report myself but I've already heard elements that I have issues with. The Washigton Post--not exactly Fox News--is less than thrilled with it as well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/09/AR2006120900581.html

I'm not saying that the report is not worth supporting but it seems to me that one can have issues with large parts of it without being necessarily out of touch.

"So, when Congress moves to impeach, bush declares Congress (most, if not all) to be enemy combatants & orders them arrested. When large demonstrations are held against this, bush declares a national crisis & mobilizes the troops.

Naturally, there would be a split in the country that could very well become a civil war."

That's not a bad idea for a book, actually.

PAD

That's not a bad idea for a book, actually.

Pretty much anything this administration has said about anything approaching religious matters has been a teensy bit too Handmaid's Tale for comfort already...

-Rex Hondo-

My feelings on impeachment now are the same as they were after the Downing Street memo was revealed: A call for impeachment, directly, is unfair and premature, but a call for investigation is absolutely necessary and should go where the facts lead it, with the knowledge that impeachment might be one of those courses of action.

What little evidence we do have seems to suggest a possibility that instead of being misled, Bush and his government deliberately shaped the evidence of WMD in order to provoke a war with Iraq for their own purposes and not the legitimate furtherance of the United States' security and safety. That would be, if true, a clear and direct abuse of power, which has been cited on numerous occasions as an impeachable offense.

Note that I don't suggest it is true--merely that it may be. In fact, I feel that the President should be demanding an investigation; if the charges are untrue and remain uninvestigated, his presidency and legacy will be tainted with scandal. If they are true, then regardless of his party affiliation, he should be impeached and removed from office; I have little truck with a President who lies to the American people to embroil them in a war.

Was scrolling up and saw this:

"For another take on this subject, has anybody seen today's (December 10th) installment of Doonesbury? ;)

Yes. It was brutal. ;)"

So I looked and....BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

See it for yourselves:

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061210

Bush taking action against Iraq...not what I'd term impeachable. After 9/11, Congress handed him the reigns and authority to do whatever he felt needed doing to protect the country. Congress just totally abdicatd it's authority in one of the biggest matters...declaring war, and allowing full use of military power...to the Executive. According to the Constitution, Congress tells the President who we're to engage, and then lets the President go about the business of engaging. With the post 9/11 grant of power, Congress placed the decision as to where to apply that power with the Executive. For that, it's not the President that should be removed, it's Congress.

Which the American people effectively did about a month ago. 3 years too late, really, but I guess better late than never.

Why is impeachment off the table for now? Because I think Congress has a duty to fully and impartially investigate this Executive before taking action. Being rash and moving on bad information gets you "stuck in Iraq." There's no need for this new Congress...which hasn't even officially taken office yet...to commit to an action that the facts might not bear out. Mind, personally I think Bush's actions regarding the unauthorized spying on American citizens is enough reason to impeach him. Then again, he's been operating with nearly carte blanche powers his whole administration. If Congress were to pass laws making it crystal clear to Bush that he's to engage the procedures of the FISA court in his work to protect us, and he fails to abide, by all means impeach him. But make the effort to reign him in, first. Because like it or not, he won those elections. When he talks about acting with the mandate of the People, you can't really argue against him. But now that the People have expressed their displeasure, it's only if he fails to respond to this new mandate that I think he should be removed.

Bill Mulligan wrote: "Sneaky little bastards. Just trying to get a bunch of us to go to their meetings which always quickly break down to a bunch a drunks watching two monkeys having a knife fight. So we'd never even get the chance to compare notes and figure out we all had nothing in common. Sneaky little bastards."

Sneaky hmn...a bunch a drunks watching two monkeys having a knife fight....hmn? The evidence is clear. This test was written by Anarchist SQUIRRELLS!! Only they could have come up with so diobolical and confusing a test!

--Captain Naraht

Umm, off track, but I'm looking at the cover of Wonderman #1 coming out this week, written by PAD, and I'm very very scared. Now I've always liked Wonderman a whole bunch, I find him to be a proto-McDreamy. But the art on the cover has me second guessing. I think it's a total mismatch for the established fandom of Simon Williams. The dude on this cover looks like a knock-off (a bad one) of Namor. Fraking Namor? Really? Yup.
I'll get it, however if the rest of the art in the book is like the cover and detracts from the story, I'm out of there.

R. Maheras -
Impeach Bush? Is that the Democratic answer to voters' call for change?

Let's take a look at the most recent impeachments on the national level:

Clinton, President, Democrat
Davis, Governor of California, Democrat

Quite a track record for the supposed "Democratic answer".

More years passing with nothing significant accomplished?

Which is why Bush is already rejecting the latest report on Iraq...

Bill Mulligan
The Washigton Post--not exactly Fox News--

You mean, the Washington Post didn't call it Operation Surrender too? I'm disappointed. ;)

If the Democrats would do what they should be doing, then it's likely very little would get accomplished in the next two years, because it would take that two years to get to the bottom of all the shit Bush has done since he got into office.

Rendition, wire tapping, Iraq, signing statements. Any one of these are worthy of impeachment, but all of them need to be investigated in full. When you get down to it, we've called others war criminals for less, yet Bush just keeps on doing what he's doing.

Opus was pretty funny, too.

http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 11, 2006 10:47 AM

Let's take a look at the most recent impeachments on the national level:

Clinton, President, Democrat
Davis, Governor of California, Democrat

It may seem like a fine distinction to you, but Davis wasn't impeached. He lost the governorship in a recall election.

It's funny, but if the whole Clinton bj horror hadn't happened then, well, Bush probably wouldn't be President, but that's another matter entirely.

The whole fiasco surrounding the Clinton impeachment caused so much frustration in the public, let alone the power brokers on the Hill, that it's highly unlikely that we'll see anything else like it for another generation, or so. Even though most sane people agree that one person's moral indiscretions are miniscule when compared to the malfeasance of the present administration, the public isn't going to tolerate the kind of politial infighting that would be the result of any impeachment hearings. It's a little known fact (at least, I didn't know it till my Constitutional Law professor pointed it out this term) that the law allowing the appointment of independent counsel was allowed to lapse and Congress doesn't seem terribly concerned with making a new one which is a direct effect of the whole Lewinski rigamarole of the late '90s.

That combined with the growing aggravation with Congress's inability to accomplish anything productive for the nation in the past 2 years and it would be political suicide for any Democrat to breathe a word of impeachment. Pelosi's already said that she's not going to bring the action but instead is going to focus on other priorities. It seems that the greatest thing that the last Congress did for Bush was to provide him a type of political carte blanche over the impeachement issue.

There are so many reasons why I am fed up with politics in America, and this is certainly one of them. My only hope is that Congress will finally begin acting as the check on the power of the Executive that it was meant to be. If they do then even if Bush isn't impeached we may see him stripped of nearly all effective power to decide the course of national policy. Hey, a girl can dream.

It may seem like a fine distinction to you, but Davis wasn't impeached. He lost the governorship in a recall election.

Hmm, yeah, I typed that out without really thinking it through. Still, recall runs along the same lines as an impeachment: he was forceably removed from office before the end of his term.

You know, I take a lot of things off the table...books, groceries..my dog...becasuse I don't need them there at the time...funny thing, though...when the time is right, I can always put them back on the table.

I know this is picking nits since the meaning of Craig's words are clear but for the record (just because I'm so tired of even the professionals getting it wrong)but impeachement is not the same as removal. Neither is recall, actually.

"Geez, if we impeached everyone in Congress for saying, voting for, or doing stupid stuff, there's be only a handful of people left on either side of the aisle."

Do you have a problem with quality over quantity?

Furthermore, I think Bush's actions--from illegal wiretaps to repeated and willful violations of the bill of rights and the Geneva convention--is a bit more serious than "stupid stuff."

The GOP has no one to blame for itself but this: They lowered the bar for the standard of impeachment. To claim that the Democrats are now somehow lessened or off-base if they choose to pursue the same course for actions of far greater scope is hypocrisy of the highest order.

PAD

Opus was pretty funny, too.

http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/

Nice to see that Steve Dallas won a major award.

That's not a bad idea for a book, actually.

Cut me in for a small but reasonable share of the royalties and it's yours. E-mail me.

:)

-------
To claim that the Democrats are now somehow lessened or off-base if they choose to pursue the same course for actions of far greater scope is hypocrisy of the highest order.

So what else is new?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan

I know this is picking nits since the meaning of Craig's words are clear but for the record (just because I'm so tired of even the professionals getting it wrong)but impeachement is not the same as removal. Neither is recall, actually.

That's one they keep getting wrong; another that twinged a particular twitch of mine every itime i heard it - and Brit media people were as bad as USAian ones about this - was "Princess Diana".

NO.

"Diana, Princess of Wales".

The only way that marrying a prince allows you to put the "Princess" before your given name is if he's a regnant prince - hence, "Princess Grace of Monaco" is perfectly correct.

Charles got to be "Prince Charles" because his mommy was Queen. However, in his own right, he was also "Charles [and the rest of his names], Prince of Wales".

And that was the prince that Diana married...

{pant pant, gasp...}

{wipe froth from beard...}

Bobb Alfred said:

"Bush taking action against Iraq...not what I'd term impeachable. After 9/11, Congress handed him the reigns and authority to do whatever he felt needed doing to protect the country. Congress just totally abdicatd it's authority in one of the biggest matters...declaring war, and allowing full use of military power...to the Executive. According to the Constitution, Congress tells the President who we're to engage, and then lets the President go about the business of engaging. With the post 9/11 grant of power, Congress placed the decision as to where to apply that power with the Executive. For that, it's not the President that should be removed, it's Congress."

This is factually incorrect; Bush did, in fact, have to seek authority from Congress to use military force against Iraq, separate from any authorization he gained post-9/11. Yes, Congress did pretty much function as a rubber stamp, but at that point, Bush was insisting that the United States was in imminent danger from a madman who was near to possessing nuclear weapons, and Congress simply didn't have the information to counter his assertions.

This would be why I think impeachment would be a reasonable step _if_ his concealment of that information was, in fact, deliberate--he would have deliberately denied Congress the information they needed to make their decision and created an atmosphere of panic, simply because he personally wanted to prosecute war against Iraq.

My opinion?

Investigate the administration, have reports released around this time in 2008 and, if the evidence warrants, begin criminal proceedings on January 21, 2009.

"Posted by Sasha at December 11, 2006 09:57 PM

Investigate the administration, have reports released around this time in 2008 and, if the evidence warrants, begin criminal proceedings on January 21, 2009."

Do you have an estimate of fatalities and further foul-ups to take place over that period?

It can't be about when it's convenient/expedient to impeach the guy. If there's evidence of crime you press charges.

Quite apart from "a cold dash of water" for Bush, it would send a clear message to the rest of the world that if things do get screwed up at home you are willing to fix them. (We in the UK should follow suit on this one too... I love the idea of Tony Bliar sharing a cell with Saddam. Sigh.. wishful thinking!)

BTW, Megan said "miniscule". (This is actually a corruption of the original Nordic for 'many squirrels')

Cheers.

Mike Weber

On the Princess Diana, thing, can I say you are half right. When she and Charles where married she was indeed Princess Diana, because she was married to the heir to the throne and could be expected to become Queen consort one day. When Andrew and Edward married as the "lesser" princes their wives weren't made princesses because they wouldn't become a royal consort one day. After Charles and Diana divorced, she lost the right to call herself Princess Diana but was allowed to call herself Princess of Wales, as she was mother to the heir to the title Princes of Wales.

Bill Mulligan asked:
Is there anywhere an actual decent test of political persuasion?

Have you tried http://www.politicalcompass.org?

On behalf of Britain, thanks for introducing the grey squirrel to our shores, by the way. :)

A clarification: I meant whoever brought the greys over from North America, not Bill personally.

Fortunately we have the European Squirrel initiative to save us from the grey tide - see http://www.europeansquirrelinitiative.org/introduction.html

Squirrels to be given contraceptives

...Libby Anderson, from the animal welfare group Advocates for Animals, said she approved of contraception, if it could be proved to work, because that was much better than killing grey squirrels.

She said: "It has not been successful so far, but hopefully it can provide an alternative to lethal control. We are in favour of any control that does not impact on the welfare of animals."

The squirrels themselves have been cooperative with contraception efforts, as condoms give them a new way to hide their nuts.

Bill Myers: Thank you for the correction about Coulter's role in the Paula Jones case. IIRC, though, it was bankrolled at least in part by some ultra-conservative group, was it not?
Luigi Novi: I’m currently reading The Hunting of the President, but I haven’t yet gotten to the part about the Paula Jones matters, as I’m still at the part about Troopergate. Though yeah, there was a cabal of different people and organizations bankrolling the entire decade-long witchhunt against him, including Peter Smith, Richard Melon Scaife, etc.

Megan: It's funny, but if the whole Clinton bj horror hadn't happened then, well, Bush probably wouldn't be President, but that's another matter entirely.
Luigi Novi: I think Bush’s win was more a matter of Gore not putting on a strong enough campaign, not being charismatic enough, and possibly distancing himself too much from Clinton.

Craig J. Ries: Still, recall runs along the same lines as an impeachment: he was forceably removed from office before the end of his term.
Luigi Novi: Impeachment is not the removal from office. Impeachment is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. It tends to serve as the first of two stages in removal of office, but Davis was never accused of a crime.

Bobb Alfred: Bush taking action against Iraq...not what I'd term impeachable. After 9/11, Congress handed him the reigns and authority to do whatever he felt needed doing to protect the country.
Luigi Novi: Based on poor information, possibly knowingly so on the administration’s part.

Okay, before I get blamed for sending another thread off the rails:

Posted by: Peter David at December 11, 2006 03:13 PM

The GOP has no one to blame for itself but this: They lowered the bar for the standard of impeachment. To claim that the Democrats are now somehow lessened or off-base if they choose to pursue the same course for actions of far greater scope is hypocrisy of the highest order.

I'm a registered Democrat. I vote mostly for Democratic candidates. I believe the impeachment of Clinton was wrong. I believe impeaching Bush would be wrong as well. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. What we're talking about here is an issue of principle.

Impeachment is the first step toward removing a president from office. The very idea of undoing an election should not be taken lightly. Ours is not a parliamentary system, where the executive faces the ever-present possibility of a vote of no confidence. As Micha pointed out, that gives our government a level of much-needed stability.

Richard M. Nixon was nearly impeached because he attempted to cover up an attempt by his political operatives to subvert the democratic process on his behalf. It was a crime that struck at the very heart of our republic. Impeachment proceedings were justified. Had Nixon not resigned, he most certainly would have been impeached, and quite possibly removed from office.

Clinton's crime was minor: lying under oath in response to a question that shouldn't have been asked during depositions for a lawsuit that was of dubious legal merit. He should never have been impeached.

Peter, you are correct that George W. Bush's actions are of far greater scope. Many of those actions were sanctioned by the Patriot Act, however, which was passed by Congress. The invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress as well. I find it hard to come up with a justification for impeaching a president under those circumstances.

If certain portions of the Patriot Act were struck down by the Supreme Court, and Bush were to ignore that ruling, then I think we'd have grounds for impeachment. If we learned that Bush had not merely been myopic in the way that he weighed evidence of Iraq's potential threat, but had outright falsified evidence supporting his thesis or suppressed or destroyed evidence contradicting it, that too would be impeachable.

As it stands, however, I don't think we have grounds to impeach Bush. Would it be more justifiable than the impeachment of Clinton? Perhaps. But I think we'd be well served not to use that farce as a yardstick for anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Posted by: UKMikey at December 12, 2006 01:15 PM

A clarification: I meant whoever brought the greys over from North America, not Bill personally.

How do you know it wasn't Bill Mulligan? He is the Squirrel Commander, you know.

Well, Bill, where were you when the grey squirrel was introduced to the shores of Britain, hmmm?

Don't leave town, Bill.

>On behalf of Britain, thanks for introducing the grey squirrel to our shores, by the way. :)

And on behalf of my part of Canada, thanks to Britain for sending us 'English' [a.k.a. 'House'] sparrows. (Hey, I like the little fuzzballs.)

As for the impeachment thing ...

I agree with mr. Myers that impeachment proceedings are very serious and should only be used in very dire circumstances. Question being, does what Shrub has done so far qualify? I'd be tempted to say "yes". Then again, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. (And that's a good thing.)

On behalf of Britain, thanks for introducing the grey squirrel to our shores, by the way. :)

It was revenge for the introduction of European Starlings, which were brought here by some kooks who wanted America to have all the birds mentioned by Shakespeare.

My motives, conversely, were purely malicious.

Impeachment is the first step toward removing a president from office. The very idea of undoing an election should not be taken lightly.

What are you nimrods talking about? To impeach a president is to charge him with a crime.

As commander in chief of the US armed forces, Bush is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There are military laws against fraud, waste, and abuse. If Bush isn't subject to answer for arbitrarily invading another country, at the expense of $½ trillion, then no one is subject to that law. There's even a "general article" against disorder, just in case people simply don't like you.

"He broke the law" was the mantra for impeaching Clinton. Don't fucking tell me the president is above being charged for breaking the law.

CLINTON NEWS NETWORK

By THE QUESTION
--------------------------------------------------

I think we all should stop buying ANYTHING with the Marvel or DC/Vertigo name on it until those companies stop supporting people as insulting as Peter David.

IMPEACH JOE QUESADA! HE HAS LOST CONTROL OVER THE ONCE GREAT MARVEL UNIVERSE!

And no, there is no way to possibly insult people more than Peter David has. Calling fifty million people stupid because they disagree with you politically is beyond mean, it's sociopathic. Constantly nitpicking every little thing this administration does, yet never complaining about the TERRORISTS is just bizarre behavior.

And Clinton was not impeached for getting blowjobs. Do some research people. There was an investigation. All of you politically correct liberals get upset everytime they show a girls ass cheek in the comics, yet you make all kinds of excuses for Clinton and demonize the women who brought the sexual harassment charges against him.

The general public, at least was not aware at the time how uncooperative he was with the investigation and how far he went to protect his own name. Obviously, in hindsight, impeachment was not a good idea. Once the facts came out, they should have stopped. It wound up hurting the Republicans. Clinton was reprimanded by the court though, for not being truthful though, IIRC.

The difference between Clinton and Bush, is that the reasons people didn't like Clinton were PERSONAL. Because of what he actually DID (or didn't do). People like the "intelligent" Mr David were calling a Bush a moronic retard from day one. They blame him for dividing the country when he won the election with a fitty/fifty split when he won the election against the vice president of the previous administration. The country was already divided people when Bush took office. Not many outside of Texas knew much about Bush until the elections.

Meanwhile, the esteemed Mr Gore is out there calling Global Warming a bigger threat than terrorism, and yet people can't stand it when the Clinton administration gets any criticism about how it dealt with Al Queda.

---------------------------------------------------------

BUT THE RIGHT WING MEDIA DIGRESSES

Global Warming causing hurricanes...Bush botching New Orleans because he hates black people...PETA comparing every kid eating a burger to the Nazis exterminating the Jews...invading Iraq and Afghanistan for Oil...Florida being a banana republic and throwing the election even when every recount was in Bush's favor and it was the Democrats who wanted to throw out most of the votes in the state including absentee votes...All conservatives hate gays even though the Democrats and Republicans mostly have the same positions on same sex marriage and civil unions including Clinton, Bush and Kerry...and never portraying Arab terrorists as bad guys in Hollywood movies...the Dan Rather incident...Disney financing Fahrenheit 9/11...Green Day...Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing...Republicans hating Black people, Hispanic people, Arabs, and Little People...the evils of playing unpleasant music videos to torture non combatant prisoners...yet Mr David claims the conservative media is out to brainwash us all!

Peter David, author of Disney's The Little Mermaid comics adaptation and the Fantastic Four novelization.

Very brave Pete. A lone liberal voice in an unending sea of corporate conservative stooges.

Yet, I am sure those checks from Disney and Fox are helping to pay for the kids college tuition's, huh?

Peter David, consumer advocate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL WAR II: THE BEYONDER THUNDERDOME

The majority of Democrats won't get near impeachment because it would just make them look bad. You don't impeach because you disagree with someone. Comic book writers can accuse Bush of anything they want. I can accuse Mr David of molesting his daughter, but that doesn't mean he should be sent to jail without strong evidence and a trial and conviction.

Jesus Christ, none of this has anything to do with whether or not you agree with the Iraq War or any aspects of the war on terror. Mad props to the Liberals here who actually have the nerve to point that out. Again, Mr David is far left of most of the Democratic Party even.

Peter David cannot possibly be this naive to believe half the stuff he says on this blog. He just wants to brainwash all of you little twenty year olds out there who don't understand that politics are cyclical and that sometimes people are actually going to disagree with you and vote a different way than you. Clinton had eight years in office, yet you can't stand it now that someone else is in there. Don't be so spoiled.

And pointing out simple facts and trying to create grand conspiracies around them is not clever. It's not even creative.

David constantly insults Bush's "ego," yet look at this guy and what he says.

COMIC BOOK WRITERS ARE NOT IMPORTANT PEOPLE. Get over it!

Doctors, Police Officers, Scientists, Teachers, Soldiers and yes, Politicians are important people. Everyone needs to get over these "artists" and their personality cults...which is exactly what they are. Making up cool super hero stories, then stepping up on your soap box and telling us how to solve all the world's problems and telling us how to vote is just way, way too cute. And he's not even offering any solutions, as most celebrities don't.

AND YOU ALL NEED TO GET OVER TREATING POLITICS AS A CULT. Having cult like devotion to any political ideology never works out for anyone! History has constantly shown this to us. This goes for right wing, left wing and all others! And yes, you people who defend half this tripe Mr David is preaching are political cultists.

It's not just politics. Online geeks approach everything with cult like devotion. If you don't agree with the "group" then they constantly harass you. They nitpick every little aspect of a writer or artist, or movie or director they don't like then hold up all the things they do like as being near perfect and go on and on about them. If people are naive of any little detail concerning any of these things they rail on them like there is no tomorrow.

But I don't need to explain how it works to anyone here. We all know how it works and we've all been on the receiving end of this kind of terrible, malicious behavior. Having this type of attitude towards comics or movies is bad enough, but applying them to politics, especially in a time of war is just horrific.

Yes, people can disagree, and they should discuss things in a constructive way. If you think the majority of things Mr David rants about here are constructive then you have serious, serious problems.

And, cult is indeed the right word to use. Just because there are no altars or chants doesn't make it any less of a cult than anything with religious connotations.

Yeah, the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton and it was wrong. But that was before 9/11 and all those horrible deaths that occurred on that day. If you're trying to pay back the Republicans for that, then that's just sick. If you're just interested in beating the other political faction in this country...then THAT'S ALL YOU'RE GOING TO DO.

Obviously Mr David is so driven by hatred of the opposition that he puts beating them at any cost above actually accomplishing anything! And yes, if you resort to this type of malicious name calling and self imposed one sided naivety then you put beating the other side, and the personal satisfaction that gives you above anything else.

And no, this is not about, me, I do not expect to win any kind of argument here, not anywhere on the Internet where liberals always far outnumber people of other political ideologies. I am not brave for standing up to Mr David, as he is not brave for saying the things he does. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are brave. Yet everyone is so, so quick to admonish what they are doing...today, and since before this war ever started!

I am sure that Mr David does care about all of these issues deep down, but he is far more interested in beating the Republican party and the Bush Administration and all those who agree with him. He puts his own ego far above the lives of those who have died at the hands of the terrorists and because of this war. And this goes for anyone who defends the things he says, but it goes double for Mr David since he is using the goodwill of all of the people who have bought his non political books for years and put him in this position.

There are many ways Mr David, or any other celebrity can go about expressing themselves online. No elaborate disguises are needed. He can simply not use his name. Or if he must, then at least create an OFF TOPIC FORUM on his site so these things can be discussed with more privacy and not dumped on all his fans who do not care to hear his insulting rants.

But ofcourse, I will be portrayed as a book burning Nazi, as everyone is who disagrees with these types of bizarre celebrity statements. And Peter David would make Moby and Linda Ronstadt proud, indeed. Yet, it is Mr David and those who defend him who are bullying everyone into submission. But most liberals look the other way, since he is on their side, never considering that he could be hurting their ideology.

The sad thing is that I am sure I agree with many David's opinions and those of his fans when it comes to comics and actual on topic subjects. Civil Wars are a bitch. Ask Iron Man.

THE QUESTION WILL NOT RETURN

The Question, may I suggest editing your posts before hitting the submit button? Yours was rambling, incoherent, and like hell to read. It's not your ideology that was problematic, but your writing skills.

I'm not sure what blog you've been reading, but it can't have b