Sunday, February 12, 2006

Insight, A Conservative Magazine, Says Bush Administration "Bracing" For Impeachment Hearings

"The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress," reports Insight, a sister publication of the conservative Washington Times. "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source told the magazine.

Why? Because of growing concern that the administration circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which says that the National Security Agency must obtain a warrant before conducting surveillance.

As reported by JABBS, the list of Republicans who are questioning warrantless surveillance is growing. If enough Republicans side with the Democrats, impeachment becomes a reality.

Administration sources told Insight that the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as President Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant. This included the monitoring of overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.

"Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president," a source told the magazine. "If we work hard, there could be a tie."

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

43 Comments:

Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress," reports Insight, a sister publication of the conservative Washington Times."


Hi, David. I don't much care what Insight Magazine's political bent might be, but I read that article, and although it's just one person's opinion, I find this whole impeachment issue bordering on lunacy.

"THE SOURCE" said...
"Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president," the source said. "If we work hard, there could be a tie."


If they "work hard"? lol Obviously, judging from the above quote, there are those who are hell bent on the idea, so I guess it will all just have to play out.

David R. Mark said...
"Sources said the probe to determine whether the president violated the law will include Republicans, but that they may not be aware they could be helping to lay the groundwork for a Democratic impeachment campaign against Mr. Bush.


Well, duh! Don't they think perhaps that those Republicans might become aware of that fact, once they read this Insight Magazine article? ;)

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

That may well be, but I think there will be a lot of weight given to the disgraceful fact that in the past, several Senators have proven to be completely untrustworthy when it comes to keeping national security secrets. The idea that this administration would be compelled by law to entrust such leakers with sensitive intelligence is beyond ludicrous. In addition, it's not correct to refer to it as a "domestic surveillance effort". That is misleading.

Mr. Specter and other senior members of the committee have been told by legal constitutional experts that Mr. Bush did not have the authority to authorize unlimited secret electronic surveillance.

Well, FIRST of all, it was never "unlimited" secret electronic surveillance. And secondly, it's obvious that not all constitutional lawyers agree on this authority issue, so what of THOSE legal constitutional experts who believe otherwise? What are they, chopped liver? :)

9:26 PM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

Trinity, you may disagree with the idea of IMPEACHMENT. And you may disagree with the idea that BUSH BROKE THE LAW.

But as JABBS has written, more and more REPUBLICANS feel the Bush Administration did something WRONG. And Alberto Gonzales, it seems, did NOTHING to change that.

11:16 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Angelina's Evil Twin said...
"But as JABBS has written, more and more REPUBLICANS feel the Bush Administration did something WRONG. And Alberto Gonzales, it seems, did NOTHING to change that."


Angelina's Evil Twin, I'll grant you that there are some Republicans here and there who do have questions about the matter, but I've yet to see a significant number of them who believe the worst of the President, despite the 24/7 overwhelmingly anti-Bush spin that's been put on the NSA Surveillance Program story ever since it broke.

I'm confident that the program is exactly what the President said it is. It is not being misused to gather embarrassing facts about the personal lives of Bush's political enemies for heaven's sake. It's simply not in the man's character to act like that. The Dems must have him confused with somebody else.

11:33 PM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

It is not being misused to gather embarrassing facts about the personal lives of Bush's political enemies for heaven's sake.>>

That's not the point, Trinity.

The POINT is that a LAW was broken by the PRESIDENT. Given a chance to DEFEND THEMSELVES, the Bush Administration has provided SPIN. The Gonzales hearing was a JOKE.

And it's not a Republican here and a Republican there. ARLEN SPECTER heads the Judiciary Committee. LINDSEY GRAHAM is hardly a lightweight. And JOHN MCCAIN isn't going to roll over, either.

Whether you agree or not that Bush broke the law, you should give more credence to the idea that he is in trouble.

11:47 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Trinity, regarding your comment that "it's just one person's opinion," I question whether the magazine would publish the piece if it didn't think it was true. Furthermore, the piece attributes itself, albeit to anonymous sources.

It's a pretty big admission for Insight, don't you think? I would have expected such an article to try to demonize Democrats. But if anything, it centers its attention on Arlen Specter.

On a broader point, this "one person" is not the only conservative writer to say something's amiss. George Will and William Safire have also come out against warrantless surveillance.

11:53 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Angelina's Evil Twin said...
"The POINT is that a LAW was broken by the PRESIDENT."


But Angelina, it is not that cut and dry. Constitutional experts vehemently disagree on this point.

If Congress passes a law, and that law is later determined to have wrongly curtailed the authority granted to the President in the Constitution, that law is not valid. The U.S. Constitution trumps any law that Congress could write.

Given a chance to DEFEND THEMSELVES, the Bush Administration has provided SPIN. The Gonzales hearing was a JOKE.

Again, you have to understand, that's the opinion of yourself, and others who feel the same way you do about this president. Those who do not share your low opinion of the man, and anyone associated with him, saw something entirely different.

For non-Bush-haters like myself, the (bad) joke was watching a bunch of over-the-hill angry partisan buffoons grilling Bush's Attorney General and casting aspersions upon his integrity.

it's not a Republican here and a Republican there. ARLEN SPECTER heads the Judiciary Committee.

Arlen Specter is not exactly a Republican. The proper term for him is "RINO". I should know, he's one of my Senators. If I'd like to punish President Bush for anything, it would be for campaigning for Specter's re-election, and denying a true conservative like Pat Toomey a seat on the U.S. Senate. Sadly, the President now has to reap what he has sewn by supporting Arlen "Magic Bullet" "Scottish Law" Specter.

Lindsey Graham is only a "part-time" Republican and conservative. This isn't his first mistake, and it probably won't be his last.

And John McCain is.....well....John McCain. I respect his service to our country, and I'm sorry for what he suffered as a POW, but I would add that for the most part, he's been a royal pain in the @$$ to the Republican Party, and he bends over backwards to make MSM love him, which of course, they do, since he's almost as good as a Democrat.

Whether you agree or not that Bush broke the law, you should give more credence to the idea that he is in trouble.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see whether he is or isn't. I just have a hard time believing that will be the case. My gut says otherwise, based upon the decency of the man and the innate fairness of the majority of the American people.

I know that if the President gets impeached for his sincere efforts to protect this country, I will be bombarding Congress non-stop with letters, phone calls and e-mails in protest, and I know I will NOT be alone. I would also attend the march on Washington that will undoubtedly be organized in his support.

12:28 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"Trinity, regarding your comment that "it's just one person's opinion," I question whether the magazine would publish the piece if it didn't think it was true. Furthermore, the piece attributes itself, albeit to anonymous sources."


Cutiepie, I'm sorry. I guess I have to own up to poor sentence structure. The "one person's opinion" I was referring to was my own.

"....but I read that article, and although it's just one person's opinion, I find this whole impeachment issue bordering on lunacy."

My fault, not yours. :)

12:35 AM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Fair enough.

12:56 AM  
Anonymous OTTMANN said...

“a source told the magazine.”

LOL! “A source”? You gotta do alot better than that!

1947 ????

You libs are really reaching, and showing your desperation.

8:53 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Ottmann, learn how to read.

The magazine was quoting “a source.” The magazine was referencing 1947. The magazine is not a liberal publication, but a conservative publication.

Now, how about turning off your blinders and commenting on what this conservative publication is saying?

8:53 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"Bush wouldn't spy on political enemies. It just isn't in his character."
Oh well, that explains it!
Trinity, I don't believe you ever answered my question below (I cannot find a response anyway) if so, please answer again here, because this is critical to gauge the true plausibility of your support for Bush's warrantless spying program.
You again express such confidence that Bush would never ever stretch the boundaries of his own self-imposed NSA spying program, without any of the protections of civil liberties and privacy put in place under law and the U.S. Constitution.
Are you willing to extend that same confidence to all future presidents and governments in which the Bush Administration would set a precedent?
In other words, would you entrust all future presidents to dodge the requirements to obtain a FISA warrant to properly notify Congress and still limit government spying only to terrorism?
I'm sure nothing could shatter your belief that Bush should not be investigated for any act of incompetence or impropriety even despite the latest relevations:
Bush Administration incompetence in overseeing Katrina, resulting in hundreds of unnecessary deaths,
the top CIA official for Iraq collaborating already overwhelming evidence that Bush mislead the U.S. into war, the Bush Administration instructed Scooter Libby to disclose classified info to the media in a bid to win support for Iraq, a district court judge objectively finding the Bush Administration's EPA irresponsible and wrong for telling people the air in downtown Manhattan was safe immediately following 9-11, etc.
I hope you don't look at these claims with a blank stare and say, huh? I hope you have been following these stories which even gotten MSM coverage since most conservatives only hear what they want to hear about Bush.

10:33 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity says, Bush makes a "sincere effort" to protect our country from terrorism.
This is the reason why we should rally behind him.
I believe this is the weakest of arguments.
Sincerity does not account for gross incompetence or impropriety.
Even the most sincere person on earth can be fatally flawed.

10:55 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Trinity, I don't believe you ever answered my question below.....Are you willing to extend that same confidence to all future presidents and governments in which the Bush Administration would set a precedent?


Actually, twot, I did respond on the thread where you originally asked the question. Here's the URL.

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/02/another-key-conservative-comes-out.html#comments

I'll check back there to see if you cared to respond. I'd still like to respond to the point you made over there regarding the 4th Amendment.

4:49 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Even the most sincere person on earth can be fatally flawed."


That's true, twot, the operative words, of course, being "can be". It just happens not to be the case with this president. President Bush is not challenged when it comes to his character/integrity.

4:55 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I did read your below response. I apologize I was unable to find it earlier.
Anyway I'm responding here.
You are mistaken if you think "the impeachment movement" over spying is merely a move by the Dems to "avenge Clinton."
Such an argument is completely false, baseless, unwarranted, dishonest and unnecessary divisive as well as empty-headed Limbaugh-style conservative spin.
You are simply wrong to tag this label on Democrats in general. It is a sad day when any one continues to regurgitate such total garbage without referencing or even bothering to seek out the viewpoint of the individual making the argument.
Since you conservatives like to do it anyway, I will bring up the point of this post that conservatives as well as Republicans are questioning Bush on the spying issue.
On the matter of warrantless spying, the Democrats care that constitutional laws protecting citizens' rights to privacy and freedom of speech, which underpin our Democratic government, are not tampered with or broken by the president or anyone else. Period.
Once again, I ask you address the issue instead of scraping for some nefarious hidden agenda that hardly exists.
The next time you make a hidden agenda claim, please also include the readily documented side of the argument on the issue from the Democrat(s) with the alleged agenda.
Yes, you're right past presidents Democratic and Republican have wrongfully spied on innocent citizens. That is precisely why FISA laws have been put in place by Congress in 1978 to more than guarantee such activities would never occur ever again. It also appears based on the historical record that, besides Bush, all of the wrongful spying you've discussed took place before passage of the 1978 FISA law.
Your other argument makes even less sense. You argue Bush and future presidents are empowered by the U.S. Constitution to disregard FISA and NSA laws, and the Fourth Amendment (which I have earlier argued on its face is above Bush's executive powers on the spying issue) BECAUSE we indeed still have a system of checks and balances in place in that Congress can impeach presidents if they abuse spying.
Now why don't you explain how Congress could impeach the president for spying if Congress has no legal authority to do so, as a result of it already having been determined that ONLY THE PRESIDENT has the sole legal justification to determine whether or not his own spying is illegal.
That's exactly the precedent Bush would establish.
Besides laws are designed to stop a practice before they happen, not after the damage has already been done.
You have the whole thing ass backwards.

7:23 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"You are mistaken if you think "the impeachment movement" over spying is merely a move by the Dems to "avenge Clinton."
Such an argument is completely false, baseless, unwarranted, dishonest and unnecessary divisive as well as empty-headed Limbaugh-style conservative spin."


Call it what you like, twot. It's most definitely a part of the equation. What I said was that...

"The reality is, twot, that although the Dems would definitely love to avenge Clinton (as well as the 2000 Election) by impeaching this president,...."

And before you get all huffy, I would like to repeat what I said before, somewhere else on this blog. When I make statements like that one, I do not necessarily include each and every average, run-of-the-mill Democrat. I'm referring more to those very angry, duplicitous, pompous, scheming and unprincipled members of your party's leadership. The Reids, the Kennedys, the Leahys, the Deans, the Schumers, the Clintons, the Durbans, etc.

Don't even try to tell me they're sincerely concerned about anything other than getting back their power, because their disgraceful conduct betrays them.

They are no longer what used to be called the "loyal opposition". Their antics have been outrageous, and I have nothing but disdain for these people.

"Now why don't you explain how Congress could impeach the president for spying if Congress has no legal authority to do so

I specifically said that Congress does have the power to impeach him if they truly believe that what he is doing is illegal and wrong. I just don't think they'd have a snowball's chance in hell of convicting him, because serious Democrats understand that the NSA intercepts are vital for the protection of this nation.

Democrats Tom Daschle and Jane Harman on "Meet the Press" last Sunday both agreed that the NSA surveillance program must be continued.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11272634/

2:24 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"...and the Fourth Amendment (which I have earlier argued on its face is above Bush's executive powers on the spying issue)..."


Yes. The 4th Amendment. I keep forgetting to address what you said about the 4th Amendment. Here is part of your quote from that other post....

"Courts have upheld that protections of privacy and against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment encompass government surveillance activities as well.

And here is what the 4th Amendment actually says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable (emphasis mine) 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."

As you can see, you left out one very significant word. Considering the enormity and the severity of the national security threat we are dealing with here, there is no way on earth that intercepting phone calls, e-mails and any other form of modern day communication, having suspected terrorists on one end of it, could be considered unreasonable. It's just plain old common sense, the essense of "reasonable", the opposite of "unreasonable".

9:01 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

In addition to the President's inherent powers under the Constitution, I don't understand how anyone can misconstrue the extremely clear language of the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed on Sept. 18, 2001.

That resolution's intent was to authorize the President to, as it simply and eloquently states: "...take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States." That is followed by giving the President the authorization to "...use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations..."

So tell me, where does the confusion on your side come from, if not from their sheer desire to ignore the fact that they agreed to these security measures?

If that's not enough to convince someone, I would just say that it is positively ludicrous to suggest that shooting and killing these dangerous, radical Islamo-Nazis is perfectly acceptable, but intercepting their communications for the purpose of thwarting future attacks upon the United States is not acceptable. Do you, or do you not, understand how idiotic that sounds to the average person?

9:18 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I read your Meet the Post link and your impeachment argument.
You've again played the old conservative hand to obfuscate the issue: taking the argument out of context.
Again no Democrat Dasche or Harmon, or Republican on the panel, or anywhere else, is suggesting the NSA surveillance program must be stopped.
The panel debated the legality of the president's operation of the NSA program under NSA, FISA and the U.S. Constitution. The debate concerns whether the president's spying should be continued in a legal manner that protect people's privacy and freedoms guaranteed under law.
You're the one who've made impeachment over spying an issue. I implied the spying debate has not gone that far when I put impeachment movement in parenthesis. I did in a single side note provide examples of Bush incompetences in other areas to suggest he should be considered for impeachment.
As for the argument over Bush's power to use any force necessary to fight terrorists etc, I responded to that one repeatedly already when I said the overriding Fourth Admendment is a necessary check on that power.
It is not left up to the president alone to make the decisions on the force required or the identity of the target, or we enter into even MORE DANGEROUS territory as proven by history. I do not see a need to repeat that entire argument here.
I'm ending my discussion at this point to spare any JABBS readers who notice my lengthy posts and because you refuse to stick to the overarching issue or provide a full answer to my overarching question.
You instead resort to taking info out of context, resorting to the fear and baseless Bush is always trusted arguments, making unfair attacks against the Dems or their leadership, etc. etc.

9:45 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:52 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Sorry, one last response to Trinity's fourth amendment argument, after deleting my above to correct a grammatical error.
This is what I meant to say.
Trinity, you place emphasis on the "unreasonable searches" claim BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INCLUSIVE NEXT PART ABOUT WARRANTS.

"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."

You have again taken info out of context. By posting the amendment in its full context for all to see, you've defeated your entire argument.
No spying or unreasonable searches can occur without a warrant.
Period.

10:04 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"You have again taken info out of context. By posting the amendment in its full context for all to see, you've defeated your entire argument.
No spying or unreasonable searches can occur without a warrant.
Period."


Ah, but I haven't defeated my entire argument, twot, because anybody who actually bothers to delve into how terribly cumbersome and near impossible it would be to comply with the warrant requirement for these "intercepts", knows that it cannot possibly work. THAT is the problem. You are making a very simplistic argument there.

All I keep hearing from people who, I'm sorry, but who seem to be sadly ill-informed on the issue, is "Get a warrant!" They insist that these intercepts can be done even without a warrant, so long as the government then goes back and gets one after the fact. What they seem incapable of understanding is that it simply cannot be done, as a matter of fact. It can't be done in an expedient manner. It can't be done in a efficient manner. It can't be done in a practical manner. It can't be done, PERIOD!

Why don't you inform yourself about what the individuals who actually have been involved in seeking these warrants have to say? I've heard former NSA people interviewed on talk radio, and listening to them, you get a better understanding of what a dauntless task it is to try to comply with FISA when it comes to this particular intercept program. Read up on it!

12:12 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

twot, I'm not attempting to obfuscate anything. I've said from the beginning that this is basically a separation of powers issue.

FISA was first passed because of the civil liberty abuses of past presdents, agreed? But remember, the three branches of government are completely co-equal. There has been a constant attempt to keep the right balance between them, and because of this terrorism threat we are dealing with, it was time for the President to reassert/regain some of that balance.

One result of all of the advancements that have been made in the area of communications is that FISA now puts unreasonable and impossible restraints upon the President's Constitutional authority to protect this country via the NSA surveillance program, which as I said, is rendered useless if a warrant has to be obtained for every single intercept. There came a point where the President had to make a decision to either authorize the secret program, or relinquish our ability to utilize it. After running it through the Justice Dept. first to make sure it was legal, he went ahead with it.

I came across a relevant article written by John R. Schmidt, (a Chicago attorney, served from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton.) You might remember, I mentioned his name before as an example of a Democrat who "gets it". Here's his piece, and I'd be interested in hearing what you and others here think of it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0602120419feb12,0,6895976.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Also, since I am not all that computer savvy, perhaps someone would inform me how to 1) delete a post. And 2) post a link. Thanks.

12:37 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Going around in circles over the warrant issue. If the present law isn't adequate or obstructs getting terrorists, WORK TO CHANGE THE LAW, and in the meantime don't make lying statements to the public like Bush did last year representing that the FISA law is being followed to a tee.
You still completely avoid my overarching question whether you would extend the same abilities on NSA spying to future administrations.
That's it. I'm done here.

1:29 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"That's it. I'm done here."


Good! Since you obviously have a severe reading comprehension problem! How many times to I have to answer the same damn question?

1:50 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I just couldn't god------ resist.
"specifically said that Congress does have the power to impeach him if they truly believe that what he is doing is illegal and wrong. I just don't think they'd have a snowball's chance in hell of convicting him, because serious Democrats understand that the NSA intercepts are vital for the protection of this nation"
"Also, I do not accept your premise that there are no checks and balances in place. As I tried to explain to Anonymous once, if Congress truly believed that what President Bush is doing is wrong and illegal, they not only have the power to put a stop to it, they have a duty to do so. They can 1) immediately vote to cut off funding for the NSA program, and 2) they can move to impeach him. What would you call those options, if not checks and balances?"

You still totally ignored my question about future administrations!
Remember on those old All in The Family shows when the son-in-law would leave the room screaming after putting up with ignorant musings of Archie Bunker. I feel like the son character right now. Ahhhh!

10:50 PM  
Anonymous wakeme2008 said...

spare me not BUSH but "Bush administration" is bracing


IMHO Bubble Boy has not even hear of it.

5:37 PM  
Anonymous tenshi816 said...

Bubble Boy probably has no idea he isn't loved by one and all, what with only ever coming into contact with hand-picked audiences of faithful acolytes and that whole not paying attention to the polls thing. If things ever advance as far as impeachment (which I doubt), I could see him ignoring it and simply carrying on as usual. He's managed to get away with everything else he's done in his life without considering the wishes of anyone else and I can't see that changing. I'm sure he wouldn't let impeachment trouble his "beautiful mind".

5:37 PM  
Anonymous HereSince1628 said...

I was honestly surprised when Sensennbrenner sent his 51 questions over to the White House. Jimmy is a pretty damned partisan Republican.

5:37 PM  
Anonymous babylonsister said...

The "I" word, gotta love it from whatever source! And I hope they're shaking in the muddy, blood-drenched booties.

5:38 PM  
Anonymous amber dog democrat said...

"Its the end of the beginnning "
As Churchill once said. If the GOP loses control of the House, all kinds of things will start to occur. I so look forward to seeing this happen.

5:38 PM  
Anonymous amber dog democrat said...

Outside of being corrupt, warmongering crooks they are incompetant. The Bush Admin could screw up a bake sale. We need to start hammering at them and not let up.

5:39 PM  
Anonymous neoblues said...

We can hope... If the world was a just place it would happen and it would succeed!

But let's go farther--much farther! Impeachment would then properly be followed by criminal prosecution and a change in the law to allow Presidents/Vice-Presidents AND Cabinet members AND Staff to be subject to civil suits for wrongdoing, harm etc... Truth be told, the laws would temporarily be amended to allow such suits to lay claim on family assets (particularly where it can be shown that those assets empowered the defendants to take the office they abused) so that punitive damages would be awarded to all veterans, their families and reparations be paid to victims of foreign offenses as well--and so would end the "Bush Dynasty" (and the Cheney one, and the Condolezza one, and the Rummy one and so on down the line). Remove the from office in disgrace, toss them in prison for their crimes against The Nation, The People and Humanity, and take away their fortunes!

Indeed, we should see if we can get the law changed so that all citizens of the United States (and perhaps even foreign citizens) can SUE our President/Vice-President/Cabinet/Staff AND also all members of Congress (perhaps even the Justices of the Supreme Court) for the grievance of mis-representation or abuse of office or powers. Thus Congressmen who passed egregious tax cuts that placed our nation in debt can be sued by the people, on behalf of the people and even future generations (who will have to pay OUR DEBTS). Every time Congress fails to do the will of the people, the people can take a vote--if the Congress doesn't amend it's ways to honestly represent and do the will of the people, they should be held accountable. Impeachment would be the logical first step--requiring yet another amendment to the Constitution, but... to make these people pay--financially--for their misdeeds, lies and corruption as well as for the harm they cause their constituents... that would be justice.

Presidential Administrations and Congress (and maybe the Courts): do your duty or face the consequences as mandated by the citizens you govern!

5:39 PM  
Anonymous Raster said...

This is the issue that should be the litmus test for everyone in Congress in 2006: is your loyalty to the party or the Republic. I just have to believe that there are some republicans of character in Congress. Not to say the dems are above reproach, they are not.

5:39 PM  
Anonymous renate said...

Democratic candidates should sing that from the rooftops

"Is your loyalty to the party or to the country?"

(Sorry... "Republic" struck me as a little too old-timey for a modern election. JMHO.)

I love love love your suggestion and I hope advisors to the Democratic candidates think the way you do. Our side always gets all bogged down in facts and logic and truth when what the general population wants is a patriotic-sounding sound bite. (In this case, it wouldn't be an empty patriotic-sounding sound bite, so we'd still be one up on the Republicans.)

5:40 PM  
Anonymous Raster said...

Country or Republic, doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that we force each and every person up for reelection or initial election to publicly state for the record where their allegiances lie. We must be fully prepared to deal with any DINOs or turncoats.

5:40 PM  
Anonymous I Have A Dream said...

Even if we get control in 2006, I don't think that the Dems will do anything. I think that they'll say that they need to be focusing on 2008. (They'll be afraid that they'll be burned and it will affect their chances of winning the Presidency in 2008.) I just don't have any confidence that they'll quit quaking in their boots enough to take this action

5:40 PM  
Anonymous DemEtienne said...

If either party wants any credibility they HAVE to impeach the pRez in my opinion.I mean his approval ratings have been at 39% for a long time...There is scandal after scandal and pretty soon the country is going to start thinking the entire Government is in cohoots with the pRez if they don't DO something about him.
I think a lot of people DO think the entire Government is corrupt anyway.But if they actually did something to stop this bastard from ruining our nation and making a mockery out of our Costitution that would go along way to restore some credibility to the Party-EITHER party!

5:41 PM  
Anonymous librechik said...

if the Whoredom starts to think Bush is an election liability he will be under the bus as far as Tenet is.

5:41 PM  
Anonymous salin said...

When the messenger is 'Insight' (off shoot of Moonie Times), I tend to think the motive is 'scare and rejuvinate the base to circle the wagons against "threat", more than a sign of jumping ship.

5:42 PM  
Anonymous yellowdogmi said...

All I can say is About freaking time. Bring it on.

5:42 PM  
Anonymous Disturbed said...

Cheney will be Impeached first.

When the current shit about Darth's hinting accident dies down his actions regarding V. Plame will become front and center. Impeachment is required for Darth.

5:42 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

WOW! I see that the clueless and delusional moonbats are out in full force. Full moon or what? ;)

thewaronterrible said...
"You still totally ignored my question about future administrations!"


(sigh) But, twot, I've already responded to it. You even acknowledged and apologized for missing my response, when I provided you a link to the appropriate thread.

But, no biggie. I'll answer it again, right here. What was the question again? Just kidding. ;)

Okay, you want to know whether I would "extend the same abilities on NSA spying to future administrations".

Well, did I, or did I not reply to that question when I said the ALL administrations, past, present and future, had, have, and will have the same inherent authority as this president, as bestowed upon the Commander-in-Chief by the U.S. Constitution, to do whatever they deem necessary to protect this nation from threats to our national security?

The type of intercepts that are being debated are NOT the types of wiretaps that are covered by FISA. For those that are covered, getting a warrant is not a problem whatsoever. For the others, it's virtually impossible to keep up with the warrant requirements, even retroactively.

These international intercepts (not domestic) are different, but they're vital in a post 9-ll world. And until the whole NSA program was unlawfully leaked to the NYT, they were also secret. Now they're being debated for all the world to see. Real smart.

So again, since this presidential authority is there for a good reason, I would have no problem with future administrations, whether Dem. or Rep., using it appropriately.

If a president abuses this power, for instance, to gather information which he would then use against his political enemies, then I would support Congress' efforts to impeach that president.

As far as Congress passing legislation that would in itself permit the President to authorize NSA to conduct this surveillance program? I don't have a problem with that if they feel the need, but just as the Clinton Administration maintained, Congress should not interpret that to suggest that such new legislation would somehow take away or replace any of the president's own inherent authority.

In other words, if it makes Congress feel better about the whole thing, or if they think it would reassure those Americans who are concerned about questions of civil liberties, then go ahead and write the legislation to support the NSA program, although technically, and Constitutionally, it's rather superfluous.

Have I answered the question to your satisfaction yet, twot?

1:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares